Michelle Malkin wrote today–
On Nov. 4, after Barack Obama clinched the White House, the market closed at 9,625.28.
In mid-morning trading today, the day President Obama signs his massive Generational Theft Act into law and a day before he unveils a massive new mortgage entitlement, the Dow dropped to to 7,606.53.
Now, imagine if President Bush had presided over a 2,000-point stock market tumble in the same time period — during the first few months of his presidency.
Great start, O.
Kim here at Wizbang added–
How many trillions of dollars have been lost since Barack Obama won the election? Why isn’t the mainstream media discussing this? Would they be if it had been a Republican who was presiding over such a staggering loss? I think we all know that answer to that.
Maybe it is because Obama didn’t take office till January 20th? On January 20th the DJ stood 7949.09. Michelle quotes 7,606.53. a 342 pt. loss since inaugeration day. Who was the President from Nov. 5th till January 20th at 12 noon? Repulican George W Bush.
Here are the charts. First before inauguration day.
And now after after January 20th
Let me add a 3rd graph. The stock market for the 8 years Bush was President.
That’s a drop of about 2710 points or over 25%.
Dr. Taylor at Poliblog writes–
Without getting into anything else, I would note that Bush was still President from November 4, 2008 until noon on January 20, 2009. That comes out to 106 days between election day and today. Of that time, Bush was president roughly 78 days, 73.6% of the time in question while Obama has been president 28 days, or 26.4% of the time in question. So even accepting the notion that whomever is in the White House is directly responsible for the Dow (a dubious proposition, shall we say), Malkin can’t tag Obama with a 2,000 point slide.
I have serious doubts and questions about the stimulus bill, but this kind of stuff is just plain silly.
I will also note that political and economic “analysis” along the lines of whatever happens on a given day is the fault of whomever is in the White House on that day is radically simplistic, if not patently ludicrous. Someone needs to tell Malkin that if that is way we are scoring things, then 9/11 is solely George W. Bush’s fault and Clinton gets all the credit for those budget surpluses back in the 1990s.
Michelle has lost a credibility over the last three years, from telling William F Buckley to shut up, to her outrage Texas Ranger uniforms to Rachael Ray and her scarf.
Maybe Michelle should remember what she wrote here–
Okay, it’s one thing to take your campaign website, transfer it to a dot-gov domain, and invent an “Office of the President-Elect” out of whole cloth. But now we’ve got Sen. Obama standing in front of a podium, in front of the world, for his first transitional press conference with an official-looking sign that reads “Office of the President-Elect.” Is that the official seal of the U.S. on the sign? Do they have authority to use it? What other make-believe offices are they going to invent between now and Inauguration Day? I can’t ever recall in my lifetime any mention of such an office. Can you?
John Cole at Balloon Juice writes–
Now, apparently, Malkin suddenly believes that the Office of President Elect holds real power, much more so than the actual Presidency, because she wants to credit the market decline from November 4th until now to… Barack Obama.
He hasn’t authority, he has authority. Isn’t she being a tad contradictory?
It is getting harder and harder to take Michelle seriously or anyone who buys into the stock market’s woes of the last three months being all the fault of Barack Obama. Are we forgetting all the overspending of the Bush years? How many trillion of dollars were lost from the time the market hit 14,000 when Bush was President. He held office for eight years, where’s the outrage. Seems like selective memory to me.
Try again, there’s better ways of voicing opposition to Obama.
Kim adds: Bill, I qualified in my post why I believe it was Obama’s stock market between Nov. 4th and Jan. 20th. It was Obama who was perceived as being in charge of domestic policy i.e. the economy after Nov. 4th because he was the only one out front discussing it every day while Bush was totally absent. America hardly ever heard or saw anything from him regarding the economy. And since the market is an indication of what it thinks about the future, how could the market be a reflection of GWB and his policies when he was not only leaving office but he was also no where to be found while Obama was just coming in and he was everywhere discussing the economy? The stock market at that time was reacting to what Obama was saying he was going to do. It was a purely psychological response, but what in the stock market isn’t? Feel free to disagree with me all you want, Bill, but on this one, I’m right.