Maureen Dowd, "Donald Trump or Paul Ryan: Who’s King of the Hill?": The End

Tweet

"This is the end, beautiful friend
This is the end, my only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I'll never look into your eyes, again"

- "The End," The Doors (1967)

Yes, America's press corps has been duped by Obama. Again. This time involving his unsigned nuclear deal with Iran.

But it should come as no surprise ...

Back in 2009, Obama advisor Anita (Mao is one of "my favorite political philosophers") Dunn explained Obama’s media tactics during the 2008 election:

"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe [Obama’s chief campaign manager] videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters. We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it. . . . very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control."

Ah yes, nothing better than absolute control ...

This weekend we are learning of the shenanigans of top Obama advisor Ben Rhodes, who is quoted by David Samuels in a New York Time Magazine article entitled "The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru" as saying:

"All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus. Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing."

Got it: American reporters are for the most part a bunch of simpletons. Rhodes got that right.

Samuels continues:

"In this environment, Rhodes has become adept at ventriloquizing many people at once. Ned Price, Rhodes’s assistant, gave me a primer on how it’s done. The easiest way for the White House to shape the news, he explained, is from the briefing podiums, each of which has its own dedicated press corps. 'But then there are sort of these force multipliers,' he said, adding, 'We have our compadres, I will reach out to a couple people, and you know I wouldn’t want to name them — '"

"Compadres"? What Price really meant were the ventriloquist's dummies.

More specifically, regarding the Iran nuclear deal, Samuels writes:

"In the narrative that Rhodes shaped, the 'story' of the Iran deal began in 2013, when a 'moderate' faction inside the Iranian regime led by Hassan Rouhani beat regime “hard-liners” in an election and then began to pursue a policy of 'openness,' which included a newfound willingness to negotiate the dismantling of its illicit nuclear-weapons program. The president set out the timeline himself in his speech announcing the nuclear deal on July 14, 2015: 'Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not.' While the president’s statement was technically accurate — there had in fact been two years of formal negotiations leading up to the signing of the J.C.P.O.A. — it was also actively misleading, because the most meaningful part of the negotiations with Iran had begun in mid-2012, many months before Rouhani and the 'moderate' camp were chosen in an election among candidates handpicked by Iran’s supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Obama administration. By obtaining broad public currency for the thought that there was a significant split in the regime, and that the administration was reaching out to moderate-minded Iranians who wanted peaceful relations with their neighbors and with America, Obama was able to evade what might have otherwise been a divisive but clarifying debate over the actual policy choices that his administration was making. By eliminating the fuss about Iran’s nuclear program, the administration hoped to eliminate a source of structural tension between the two countries, which would create the space for America to disentangle itself from its established system of alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel and Turkey. With one bold move, the administration would effectively begin the process of a large-scale disengagement from the Middle East."

Or stated otherwise, Obama's ends justify Obama's means. Ugh.

And then there was Samuel's revelation concerning Obama's actual readiness to stop Iran from manufacturing its first atomic bomb:

"'As secretary of defense, [Leon Panetta] tells me, one of his most important jobs was keeping Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his defense minister, Ehud Barak, from launching a pre-emptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. 'They were both interested in the answer to the question, ‘Is the president serious?’ ' Panetta recalls. 'And you know my view, talking with the president, was: If brought to the point where we had evidence that they’re developing an atomic weapon, I think the president is serious that he is not going to allow that to happen.'

Panetta stops.

'But would you make that same assessment now?' I ask him.

'Would I make that same assessment now?' he asks. 'Probably not.'"

Yes, Israel was also deceived by the Obama administration. Obama has "Israel's back"? I don't think so. In fact, Obama was actually hoping to have Netanyahu by the short and curlies.

All of which brings me to Maureen Dowd's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Donald Trump or Paul Ryan: Who’s King of the Hill?," in which she sardonically writes of an imaginary meeting between the two men.

Trump? Who gives a damn? The man will probably set a record for the most four-Pinocchio falsehoods in Washington Post history by election day and will be roadkill on November 8. The joke is on us.

Darling Barack Obama on the other hand? We can now add "Reformist Rouhani/Khard-Line Khamenei" to "It was the video" and "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." Maybe Trump has surpassed Obama in quantity, but the "quality" of Obama's fabrications leaves the Donald in the dust.

Hillary's skill at lying? Bosnia, Benghazi, her home server, and "we came out of the White House dead broke." The woman's a legend!

A third party candidate? Please, God! Maybe William Kristol, bless his soul, would care to touch base with Leon Panetta.

 

David Brooks, "The Case for Low Ideals": In Praise of "Low Idealism"

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Case for Low Ideals," David Brooks tells us that he is not about to make the case for "high idealism," as exemplified by Obama's 2008 election campaign, "based in the idea of a heroic savior (remember those 'Hope' posters)." Rather, Brooks is "here to make the case for low idealism." David writes:

"The low idealist is more romantic about the past than about the future. Though governing is hard, there are some miracles of human creation that have been handed down to us. These include, first and foremost, the American Constitution, but also the institutions that function pretty well, like the Congressional Budget Office and the Federal Reserve. Her first job is to work with existing materials, magnify what’s best and incrementally reform what is worst."

Ah yes, the American Constitution and lest we forget, the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights (as opposed to today's Bill of Clinton). Who would believe that the United States is well on its way to abandoning the principle that "all men are created equal," and in its stead, new "royal" families are fast emerging, e.g., the House of Bush and the House of Clinton. Yes, the United States has gone full circle.

"Magnify what’s best and incrementally reform what is worst"? A noble aspiration, and certainly preferable to messianism. But abandon the high ideals that were responsible for the Constitution? Never. Without high ideals, as opposed to the messianism and personality worship fostered by the likes of Anita Dunn and David Axelrod, life would not be worth living.

Glorify "low ideals"? Sorry, but I'm not in the market. Liberty to dream of and live by high ideals or death!

Frank Bruni, "Who Needs Reporters?": Ask Reporters Who Attended Eric Holder's Off-the-Record Discussion

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Who Needs Reporters?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/opinion/sunday/bruni-who-needs-reporters.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), Frank Bruni tells us that with regard to politicians, journalists "must be able to poke and meddle." Bruni writes:

"Lately we journalists have been agitated, justifiably, by the Obama administration’s prosecution of leakers and spying on the reporters and news organizations who set up or sop up those leaks. It’s an overzealous overreach and a serious threat to our ability to police government, which has shown time and again that it needs policing.

But our role and relevance are arguably even more imperiled by politicians’ ability, in this newly wired world of ours, to go around us and present themselves in packages that we can’t simultaneously unwrap. To get a message out, they don’t have to beseech a network’s indulgence. They don’t have to rely on a newspaper’s attention. The Bachmann, Weiner and Clinton videos are especially vivid examples of that, reflections and harbingers of an era in which YouTube is the public square, and the fourth estate is a borderline obsolescent one.

. . . .

If there’s a trend line at work, it’s of politicians’ being ever more orchestrated and anxious about the establishment of their own narratives (and they were plenty orchestrated from the get-go). President Obama rose to national prominence literally on the power of his own storytelling, with an electrifying convention speech and a best-selling memoir, and has since been emphatic about the polish of his public appearances and the distance at which reporters are kept. He prefers teleprompters and the soft focus of 'The View,' Letterman and 'Entertainment Tonight' to potentially messy interactions with political reporters."

Frank, are you really so surprised by this trend? There is a saying that "a fish rots from the head down." Listen to Obama adviser Anita Dunn at an event focusing on the president’s tactics, hosted by the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development, in which Dunn discusses how Obama controlled the media during the 2008 election (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlGNhAnwp_Y):

"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe [Obama’s chief campaign manager] videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters. We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it. . . . very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control."

More recently, consider how many news organizations were willing to attend Eric Holder's "off-the-record" meeting on Thursday, concerning the scandals involving AP and Fox News.

By the way, at least this once The New York Times got it right - they refused to participate in this discussion, intended to win back media sympathy, but not intended for public consumption (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-calderone/whos-attending-holders-off-the-record-meeting_b_3359562.html?utm_hp_ref=media).

Paul Krugman, "Ben Bernanke, Hippie": No Mention of the Bob Woodward Scandal

Read Paul Krugman's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Ben Bernanke, Hippie" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/opinion/krugman-ben-bernanke-hippie.html?_r=0), which he concludes by observing:

"And an end to deficit obsession can’t come a moment too soon. Right now Washington is focused on the idiocy of the sequester, but this is only the latest episode in an unprecedented run of declines in public employment and government purchases that have crippled our economy’s recovery. A misguided elite consensus has led us into an economic quagmire, and it’s time for us to get out."

Now close your eyes, and tell me how many times does our Nobel prize winner mention President Obama, the originator of the sequester, in his opinion piece. Twice? Three times? Five times?

Answer . . . a drum roll please: Not once.

Krugman does comment on the foolishness of the second Iraq war by observing that those who "pointed out that the risks and likely costs of war were huge . . . were dismissed as ignorant and irresponsible."

Well, I opposed that war, because I believed that it would destroy the power equilibrium between Iraq and Iran. I have also opposed America's prolonged ground involvement in Afghanistan, which was foolishly escalated by Obama and is costing the US $6 billion per month, but there is no mention by Krugman of that boondoggle.

The bulk of Krugman's opinion piece is devoted to his obsessive opposition to "austerity." However, there is no attempt by Krugman to distinguish between austerity and foolhardy federal spending.

As noted by Charles Krauthammer today in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Hail Armageddon" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-hail-armageddon/2013/02/28/ca8a32a6-81da-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html):

"A 2011 Government Accountability Office report gave a sampling of the vastness of what could be cut, consolidated and rationalized in Washington: 44 overlapping job training programs, 18 for nutrition assistance, 82 (!) on teacher quality, 56 dealing with financial literacy, more than 20 for homelessness, etc. Total annual cost: $100 billion-$200 billion, about two to five times the entire domestic sequester."

But Krauthammer is nefarious neocon, and there is nothing to be learned from him.

What else isn't being mentioned by Krugman? There's also the small matter of how the Imperial Second Term Obama Administration is seeking to silence Bob Woodward for daring to remind Americans that the sequester was Obama's dumb idea. As stated by Woodward during an interview by Sean Hannity (I know, another neocon whose show you should never be caught watching) on Thursday night (see: http://freebeacon.com/woodward-discusses-sequester-coverage-w-h-doesnt-want-to-be-crossed/):

Hannity: "Why should it matter if the president suggested the sequestration, and then the president denied that he requested the sequestration, and the president had a deal that he wasn't going to ask for tax increases, and then later does and says that's not true, and they attack you as, well, being willfully wrong? Why should this matter? I mean, don't we deserve our government to be honest with us?

Woodward: "Exactly. And I'm almost 70-years-old, I hate to acknowledge. I've done this for four decades. I will keep doing it in some form. But the White House saying you're doing these things when you've worked months on it and you have the documents, and Jay Carney actually acknowledges paternity for the sequester from the White House. The problem is there are all kinds of reporters who are much less experienced, who are younger, and if they are going to get roughed up in this way. And I am flooded with e-mails from people in the press saying this is exactly the way the White House works. They are trying to control, and they don't want to be challenged or crossed."

Well, Bob Woodward is not a neocon, and although his credibility and motivation are now being questioned by others in the media, doesn't he deserve a minute of our attention, particularly if he is warning that the Obama administration is trying to control America's news media?

Query: Is it even possible that Obama is trying to "control" the news media? Absolutely, and we have the answer from none other than former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn. Listen to Dunn lecture on Obama’s media tactics during the 2008 election (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlGNhAnwp_Y):

"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters. We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it. . . . very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control."

Obama is seeking "control" over the media? Actually, as acknowledged by Dunn, he has been seeking "absolute control."

Yes, it is frightening, and it's pitiful to see that Krugman, an economist and also a journalist, doesn't have the backbone to relate to the Woodward scandal.

Congress Denied Access to Hagel's Archive at University of Nebraska: What Happened to Obama's "Transparency" Claims?

Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

- Barack Obama
 

Obama? Transparency? Yeah, right.

It's old, but listen again to Anita Dunn lecturing on Obama’s media tactics during the 2008 election (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlGNhAnwp_Y):

"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe [Obama’s chief campaign manager] videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters. We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it. . . . very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control."

And then there is the video of Obama at a party honoring former PLO media spokesman and University of Chicago colleague Rashid Khalidi, which has been locked away by The Los Angeles Times.

More to the point, since becoming president, none other than msnbc (http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/22/obama-and-the-press-a-relationship-in-the-rough/) acknowledges that "if you count all public events at which the presidents took questions, President Obama trailed every president since Ronald Reagan."

Thus, it should come as no surprise that Chuck Hagel, Obama's obtuse anti-Semitic nominee for secretary of defense, is denying Congressional investigators access to speeches and remarks located in the archives of The University of Nebraska-Omaha (see: http://freebeacon.com/congress-denied-access-to-hagel-archive/).

But what the heck? The Senate will approve him anyway, to the delight of the "progressive" media, and he will join a cabinet of sycophantic white men, consisting of the worst and the dumbest.

Maureen Dowd, "The ‘I’ of the Storm": Has Obama Learned from Benghazi?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The ‘I’ of the Storm" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/31/opinion/dowd-the-i-of-the-storm.html), Maureen Dowd notes the compliments Obama has received from New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for his disaster relief support involving Hurricane Sandy:

"On ABC, CBS and NBC, Christie hailed Obama as 'outstanding.' On MSNBC, he said the president 'has been all over this,' and on CNN, he called Obama 'incredibly supportive.' The big guy even tweeted his thanks to the slender one."

Indeed, kudos to Obama for behaving presidentially in this instance.

However, a month and a half ago, when, without advance warning, Obama was presented with the Benghazi crisis, four Americans were allowed to die, and the president continued on his campaign trail.

Has Obama learned a lesson from the deaths of these four brave men, or does his hurricane response represent cynical, self-serving conduct in keeping with the best electioneering advice of Plouffe, Dunn and Axelrod?

You decide.

"Romnesia"? What Happened to "Hope" and "Change"?

Plumbing new depths yesterday at a Virginia rally, Obama accused Romney of "'Romnesia' for changing positions and trying to pivot to the political center" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/obama-fires-up-crowd-in-virginia-with-romnesia-speech/2012/10/19/ddde9560-1a13-11e2-aa6f-3b636fecb829_story.html?hpid=z2). My guess is that this latest effort at maligning Romney will meet with all of the success of Obama's Big Bird campaign stratagem.

But heck, as long as we're on the topic of amnesia, whatever happened to:

• "Hope"?
• "Change"?
• Bipartisanship?
• The pledge to distance lobbyists from the Oval Office?

In case you missed it, Anita (Mao is one of "my favorite political philosphers") Dunn, former senior Obama adviser, is once again walking beside Obama (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/10/20/Lobby.html) and actively assisting in his reelection effort. This renewed campaign activity is being provided, notwithstanding the fact that "She and her colleagues at SKDKnickerbocker, a communications firm, have built a growing list of blue-chip companies — food manufacturers, a military contractor, the New York Stock Exchange and the Canadian company developing the Keystone XL pipeline — willing to pay handsomely for help in winning over federal regulators or landing government contracts" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/us/politics/anita-dunn-both-insider-and-outsider-in-obama-camp.html?pagewanted=all).

Who's that in the picture also walking beside Obama? Why that's David Plouffe, who "accepted a $100,000 speaking fee in 2010 from an affiliate of a company doing business with Iran’s government" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-associate-got-100000-fee-from-affiliate-of-firm-doing-business-with-iran/2012/08/05/5e6888a2-dda2-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html).

Nauseating.

Thomas Friedman, "Can I Phone a Friend?": Actually, the Obama Presidency Has Never Been About Communication

So today it is Thomas Friedman's turn to ponder Obama's debate debacle. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Can I Phone a Friend?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sunday/friedman-can-i-phone-a-friend.html), Friedman writes:

"[Romney's] presentation crackled with a freshness and a sense of possibility that was completely missing in Obama’s monotone discussion of health care, deficits and government programs. And where Obama had a chance to talk about how his own green jobs initiative has actually spurred all kinds of innovations and start-ups, he whiffed. (As some have noted, it is too bad the debate rules didn’t allow him to phone a friend.)"

Yup, Tom, a reference by Obama to Solyndra would have done him a world of good.

Friedman continues:

"Obama needs to stress that he, from his side, aspires to restore bipartisanship and has a plan to overcome paralysis and pull the country together in a second term."

Apparently Tom has forgotten what Senator Olympia Snowe, one of three Republicans in the US Congress who voted for Obama's economic stimulus plan in 2009, had to say about the president. Snowe told Jonathan Karl that she has not had a face-to-face meeting with Obama in two years, and asked if she had to grade Obama on his willingness to work with Republicans, she replied that he would be "close to failing on that point" (see: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/frustrated-senator-olympia-snowe-gives-obama-f-101657433.html).

Friedman concludes:

"This new Romney sounded like a man applying to be the C.E.O. of a country that needs a turnaround. Obama sounded like a man who forgot — or resented — that he needed to reapply for his job at all."

But why should Obama feel the need to reapply for the job? You will recall how Obama declared (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhJNJgjpuWk):

"I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR and Lincoln."

What is Obama still smoking? Or does this obtuseness owe to the fact that he has surrounded himself with a gaggle of fawning advisers who dare not challenge the One?

I see the problem otherwise: Obama, with no knowledge of economics or foreign affairs, was never qualified for the job, but this was kept a secret. Concerning the 2008 campaign, former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn explained (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlGNhAnwp_Y):

"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe [Obama’s chief campaign manager] videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters. We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it. . . . very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control."

And this policy of avoiding communication has continued into Obama's presidency. As observed after the debate by Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank in an opinion piece entitled "Obama pays price for ducking the questions" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-president-obama-doesnt-meet-the-press/2012/10/04/ac688c8a-0e78-11e2-bb5e-492c0d30bff6_story.html?hpid=z2):

"For the past four years, he has worked assiduously to avoid being questioned, maintaining a regal detachment from the media and other sources of dissent and skeptical inquiry.

Obama has set a modern record for refusal to be quizzed by the media, taking questions from reporters far less often than Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and even George W. Bush."

Or as I see it, the Obama presidency became an adventure in narcissism of Axelrod's making. In the beginning, everyone could see in Obama what they wanted to see. No longer. On Wednesday, there could be no hiding the warts and wrinkles.

Maureen Dowd, "The Ungrateful President": Does Obama Suffer From a Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Ungrateful President" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/opinion/dowd-the-ungrateful-president.html), Maureen Dowd irreverently needles Obama and his supporters. Dowd begins by describing a Barack Obama fund raiser at the estate of film producer Harvey Weinstein "in a softly lit room shimmering with . . . black American Express cards," at which Weinstein said of Obama, "You can make the case that he’s the Paul Newman of American presidents.” Dowd, however, concludes her opinion piece by observing in typical snarky fashion that in contrast to Obama's indifference to those who help him, "Paul Newman sent thank-you notes."

Complimenting the president, Dowd observes that "Obama smashed through all the barriers and dysfunction in his life to become a self-made, self-narrating president."

Self-narrating president? In fact, Obama and his presidency have been characterized by his omnipresent teleprompters and the carefully selected words placed in his mouth by David Axelrod, David Plouffe (now said to have received $100,000 from an affiliate of a firm doing business with Iran, see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-associate-got-100000-fee-from-affiliate-of-firm-doing-business-with-iran/2012/08/05/5e6888a2-dda2-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html),
and Anita (Mao is one of "my favorite political philosophers", see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2009/10/what-if-anita-dunn-had-said-two-of-my.html) Dunn.

However, Dowd then provides evidence of Obama's iciness, which has alienated many of his most fervent supporters:

"Stories abound of big donors who stopped giving as much or working as hard because Obama never reached out, either with a Clinton-esque warm bath of attention or Romney-esque weekend love fests and Israeli-style jaunts; of celebrities who gave concerts for his campaigns and never received thank-you notes or even his full attention during the performance; of public servants upset because they knocked themselves out at the president’s request and never got a pat on the back."

Should we be drawing similarities between Obama and "Cool Hand Luke," or is there something else at play?

According to the Mayo Clinic (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652/):

"Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism."

Enough said. Now go figure it out for yourselves.

By the way, what happens to "self-narrating" Obama without a teleprompter? It's not pretty.

David Brooks, "The Fighter Fallacy": Gaining the Trust of Voters

David Brooks latest New York Times op-ed, "The Fighter Fallacy" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/opinion/brooks-the-fighter-fallacy.html?_r=1&ref=opinion), is about falling trust in the federal government, which, under Obama, has reached a new nadir:

"Now, amid the economic slowdown, public trust has hit an all-time low. According to a CNN/ORC International poll, only 15 percent of Americans asked said that they trust the federal government to do the right thing most of the time."

Observing that Obama is now speciously seeking to present himself as a "fighter" as opposed to a "conciliator," Brooks concludes his opinion piece by writing:

"If you don’t trust voters to be serious, they won’t trust you."

But when did Obama ever trust voters? Not in 2008. As explained by one of his most senior advisers, Anita ("two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Tse-Tung and Mother Teresa") Dunn (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlGNhAnwp_Y):

"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe [Obama’s chief campaign manager] videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters. We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it. . . . very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control."

. . . .

"There is no such thing as off the record . . . . Obama himself learned that when he told a fund raising group in San Francisco . . . about people who owned guns in small communities that ended up of course costing us a lot of votes in rural Pennsylvania. . . . Anything you say you should expect to be on You Tube."

Obama and his advisers never trusted the electorate with his true views on anything. It was all about "control." It was all about being elected. It was all a shimmering mirage.

Obama now seeks to pose as a "fighter"? A little late in the game. The harsh realities of governing, which cannot be disguised, have presented him as a man who cogitates, deliberates, cerebrates and avoid decisions, e.g. the mistaken determination to escalate American involvement in Afghanistan which took many months to reach.

America's Procrastinator-in-Chief is no "fighter," and no one -- no matter how hard Axelrod and Plouffe may try in 2012 -- is going to buy it.

Maureen Dowd, "Withholder in Chief": More Disdain from Dowd

It would appear that with the passage of time, Maureen Dowd's estrangement from Obama grows, and this week is no exception. In her latest New York Times op-ed, "Withholder in Chief" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/10/opinion/withholder-in-chief.html?hp), Dowd excoriates the president and claims, "he turns out to be the odd case of a pragmatist who can’t learn from his mistakes and adapt." But Obama's ineptitude should come as no surprise.

Writing from Iowa, Dowd observes:

"Many of his Democratic supporters here, who once waited hours in line just to catch a glimpse of The One, are disillusioned.

'We just wish he’d be more of a fighter,' said one influential Democrat with a grimace. Another agreed: 'You can’t blame him for everything. I just wish he would come across more forceful at times, but that is not the dude’s style. Detached hurts you when things are sour. You need some of Clinton’s ‘I feel your pain’ compassion.'”

Why are those who voted for Obama disillusioned? Answer: David Axelrod, David Plouffe and Anita Dunn designed one of the slickest campaigns in American history for a young man with no executive experience and a penchant for voting "present," but possessing remarkable oratorical capabilities. Making certain that Obama answered no questions and that the media was spoon fed materials prepared by his staff, Obama's media advisers created a situation where Obama's supporters saw in the man what they wanted to see, and a distressed American electorate bought into the illusion.

Anita Dunn described this stratagem at an event focusing on Obama’s media tactics and hosted by the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development, in which Dunn discusses how Obama controlled the media during the 2008 election (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlGNhAnwp_Y):

"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters. We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it. . . . very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control."

Sweet. But afterwards, try as they might, Axelrod, Plouffe and Dunn could not help Obama govern, as opposed to campaign.

Describing Obama's procrastinative nature, Dowd observes:

"His inability to grab a microphone and spontaneously assuage Americans’ fears is strange. If the American servicemen had died on a Monday, he wouldn’t have waited until Wednesday to talk about it. He doesn’t like the bully pulpit, just the professor’s lectern.

After failing to interrupt his Camp David weekend to buck up the country on one of its worst days in history, he tacked on his condolences for the soldiers’ families to his economic pep talk, in what had to be the most inept oratorical segue of his presidency.

He long ago should have gone out into the country to talk to Americans in person and come up with a concrete plan that people could print out from the White House Web site and study. Hasn’t he learned how dangerous it is to delegate to Congress? His withholding and reactive nature has made him seem strangely irrelevant in Washington, trapped by his own temperament. He doesn’t lead, and he doesn’t understand why we don’t feel led."

Sorry, Maureen, but Obama's inability to grab a microphone and spontaneously assuage Americans’ fears is anything but "strange" and actually was to be expected. There has never been anything spontaneous about Obama. Moreover, this leopard is not going to lose his spots.

"Withholder in Chief" or "Procrastinator in Chief"?

Where is Hillary when we need her? She is not likeable, but she's certainly capable of making a timely decision.

Maureen Dowd's "No Love From the Lefties": Shoot the Messenger!

In an op-ed in today's New York Times entitled "No Love From the Lefties" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/opinion/15dowd.html?hp), addressing the White House press secretary's temper tantrum directed at the "professional left" which no longer bows before the president, Maureen Dowd begins by observing,

"Robert Gibbs should be yanked as White House press secretary,"

and concludes by stating,

"Let someone who shows less disdain for the press work with the press, and be the more engaging face of the White House."

Dowd contends that Gibbs has created a "moat" between the press and the presidency, but fails to comprehend that Gibbs is no more than the messenger, chosen to stymie discourse with news correspondents.

Listen to Anita Dunn, Obama's former Communications Director ("yanked" when she declared that mass murderer Mao Tse-Tung is one of her favorite political philosophers) explain how during the presidential campaign "very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlGNhAnwp_Y)

The Obama West Wing has yet to grasp that whereas "absolute control" may have worked during the campaign when voters were flush with idealism, faith and hope, it no longer works two years later in an atmosphere of disillusionment, doubt and despair.

It has yet to occur to Axelrod & Co. that Obama needs to hold more frequent news conferences and agree to unscripted Q&A without teleprompters. The concern, of course, is that many more might discover "the king has no clothes."

[Those "professional lefties" at The New York Times refused to post an abbreviated version of this blog item that I submitted as an online comment in response to Dowd's op-ed. It would appear that they also don't enjoy having the opinions of their distinguished columnists being questioned by the hoi poloi.]

Anita Dunn on Kagan: Again with Her Foot in Her Mouth

Anita Dunn, former White House Communications Director, well remembered for declaring Mao to be one of her two favorite political philosophers (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/10/what-if-anita-dunn-had-said-two-of-my.html), again has her foot in her mouth. Still an intimate advisor to President Obama notwithstanding her resignation following the Mao flap, Dunn was asked by Obama to advise him regarding the appointment of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.

On Friday, in an article entitled "Is sexual identity our business, or are we a nation of busybodies?", Karen Tumulty of The Washington Post wrote:

"Administration officials asked Kagan directly about her sexual orientation when she was being vetted for her post as solicitor general, Dunn said in response to a question that she protested was inappropriate. But she insisted that it was not a relevant factor in determining who was named to that job or this one. 'When there's a gay nominee, there's a gay nominee, which will be a good thing, if they're qualified and should be on the court,' Dunn said."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/13/AR2010051305305.html?hpid=topnews

Sorry, Anita, but the question of whether or not the Obama administration asked Kagan about her sexual orientation as part of her vetting process is appropriate. That the Obama administration indeed inquired concerning Kagan's sexual orientation is disgraceful.

Perhaps it is time for Obama to appoint a self-acknowledged gay person to the Supreme Court and thereby put to rest any future questions about a candidate's sexuality. This would truly amount to the much vaunted "change" promised by presidential candidate Obama, yet ignominiously ignored by his administration.

Motivation to Fight: Present in Iraq, Absent in Afghanistan

In "Afghanistan's Army", The New York Times editorial board today observes:

"Afghan soldiers get about $100 a month, a third of what some local warlords pay fighters, a major reason for desertion.

. . . .

Afghans won’t dare to turn against the Taliban until they know that they can trust their government to protect them rather than abuse them."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/opinion/05sat1.html?hp

Indeed, this is a very cogent argument why Obama's "surge" is destined for failure. In essence, the editorial board is acknowledging that in Afghanistan, fealty at least temporarily can be purchased by the highest bidder, and Afghans have no motivation to fight. Simply ensure that Afghans receive their paychecks and all will be well? Surely The Times editorial board jests. Israeli soldiers are paid little more than the amount paid to Afghan government forces, but they don't desert.

A pity that The Times editorial board is not taking the time to read their lead online item: "Similarities to Iraq Surge Plan Mask Risks in Afghanistan", written by David E. Sanger. According to this article:

"The Iraq surge worked in large part because there was powerful support in Anbar Province from the so-called Awakening, the movement by local Sunni tribes who rose up against extremists who were killing people, forcibly marrying local women and cutting off the hands of men who smoked in public. In Iraq, American officials believed that most leaders of a vigorous opposition, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, were foreigners.

The United States remains hopeful that it can capitalize on Afghan militias that have taken up arms against the Taliban in local areas, but a series of intelligence reports supplied to Mr. Obama since September found no evidence in Afghanistan of anything on the scale of the Iraqi Awakening movement. What’s more, in Afghanistan the extremists, the Taliban, are natives.

'They are part of the furniture in Afghanistan; they have always been there,' one of Mr. Obama’s counterterrorism experts said, explaining why Mr. Obama’s goal is simply to degrade the Taliban’s power, not to defeat the group. In Iraq, the aim was to defeat the insurgents, a goal that has been largely achieved."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/world/05policy.html?hp

Come again? Am I actually reading in The Times that Bush succeeded in Iraq and that Obama, who opposed Bush's Iraqi surge while a U.S. senator, is mimicking the strategy?

But more to the point, the problem in Afghanistan boils down to motivation. Whereas Iraq's Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds reject outside oppression and interference, Afghans see little difference between the Taliban and the country's various warlords, all home grown. The only foreigners, i.e. infidels, in Afghanistan today are the U.S. and NATO forces.

Repackage Karzai's image in less than a year and a half? Absolutely. Send David Axelrod and Anita Dunn to Kabul with the message of "Change"; I am certain the Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras, Turkmen and Qizilbash - particularly the Qizilbash - will be extremely receptive.

What If Anita Dunn Had Said: "Two of My Favorite Political Philosophers, Hitler and Mother Teresa"?

As noted in my prior blog entry, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, one of Obama's top advisers, told June 2009 high school graduates:

". . . the third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Tse-Tung and Mother Teresa . . ."

Although Mao is thought to have murdered some 70 million people, more than even Adolph Hitler, this remark has been largely ignored by America's news media, except Fox.

Yesterday, after I posted my prior blog concerning Dunn's declaration of affinity for Chairman Mao, I had a lengthy conversation with a politically aware person with a doctorate, who was unfamiliar with Dunn's remark. This person, who voted for Obama, subscribes to the Boston Globe, reads The New York Times online, but does not watch Fox, was astounded:

"What if Dunn had said that Hitler was one of her favorite political philosophers?"

Exactly. What if Dunn had referred to Hitler instead of Mao? Would this have been less politically correct? Is Mao a "more benign" mass murderer because he starved most of his victims to death instead of gassing them? Is Dunn's comment acceptable because there is no museum in Washington commemorating Mao's victims? Or is Dunn's remark being hushed because the United States cannot afford to offend Communist China with its "mao-tain" of dollars from slave labor?

Is the press, other than Fox, refusing to cover this story because it is being manipulated, or, is it simply cooperating? Note the carrot (an exclusive op-ed purportedly written by President Obama) given to The New York Times, whose editorial board sanctified Obama's foreign policy in the face of WaPo criticism and sanctioned a peculiar Nobel Prize, and the stick being administered to naughty Fox News (banishment from the press pool and derision).

Do a Google search using "New York Times Anita Dunn Mao". All I found was an item in "The Caucus, The Politics and Government Blog of The Times", which states:

"The video has sparked an uproar in the conservative blogosphere".

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/white-house-vs-fox-chairman-mao/#more-48237

Is that all The Times sees "fit to print"? Why are its editorial page pundits entirely ignoring this issue and the attempt to ostracize Fox? Adulation of mass murderers and freedom of the press are just "conservative" issues?

Moreover, this New York Times "blog" inaccurately states:

"On the left side, Media Matters, which tends to monitor all right-leaning sentiments, points to many Republicans, including Barry Goldwater, who have cited the Chairman Mao’s declarations as inspiration."

However, if you click on the Media Matters link, Barry Goldwater is not said to have cited Mao's declarations as "inspiration"; rather an aide is quoted as saying that he "followed the advice of Mao" while working for Goldwater and in his other campaign work: "Give me just two or three men in a village and I will take the village." Goldwater is quoted as suggesting "that we analyze and copy the strategy of the enemy; theirs has worked and ours has not.(Harper's Magazine, November 1964)"

(http://mediamatters.org/research/200910160001)

There would seem to be a small difference between Barry Goldwater suggesting that we "analyze and copy the strategy of the enemy [emphasis added]", and the avowal of Dunn that Mao is one of her "favorite [emphasis added] political philosphers." How can you call anyone who murdered 70 million people a "philosopher", a word, lest we forget, which derives from the Greek "philos", i.e. loving?

Again, listen to Anita Dunn at a January event focusing on Obama’s media tactics and hosted by the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development, in which Dunn discusses how Obama controlled the media during the 2008 election (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlGNhAnwp_Y):

"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe [Obama’s chief campaign manager] videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters. We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it. . . . very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control."

Listen as Dunn goes on to say:

"There is no such thing as off the record . . . . Obama himself learned that when he told a fund rasing group in San Francisco . . . about people who owned guns in small communities that ended up of course costing us a lot of votes in rural Pennsylvania. . . . Anything you say you should expect to be on You Tube."

When Dunn spoke with the high school graduates, she obviously forgot her own advice. But more important and frightening is her message: Let's control the media and avoid telling people what we really think.

Bottom line: Obama's threats against Fox, attempts to manipulate the media, and desire to control what voters need to know are not about "change". Rather, they are a former law professor's challenge to the First Amendment, and you don't need to be a conservative or a fan of Fox to take offense.

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn's Favorite Political Philosopher: Mao Tse-Tung

Unfortunately this is no joke. White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, one of Obama's top advisers, speaking at a June 2009 high school graduation, declared:

". . . the third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Tse-Tung and Mother Teresa, not often coupled with each other, but the two people that I turn to most . . ."

Although Dunn subsequently stated, "The use of the phrase 'favorite political philosophers' was intended as irony...," I sensed no irony in her statement or subsequent remarks. Decide for yourselves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiBDpL2dExY

Mao? His mass purges and political strategies, which, inter alia, caused the Great Chinese Famine, resulted in the deaths of up to 70 million people, making him one of the greatest mass murderers of all time.

Question: Why has Dunn not been fired? Why is the U.S. media, other than Fox that is under attack by Obama, not abuzz with this story? You don't have to a fan of Fox or a conservative to be outraged.

Meanwhile, in other related news, Obama has just appointed former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel as co-chair of the Intelligence Advisory Board, which oversees the intel community. Hagel's history:

In 2000 Hagel was one of four Senators who wouldn't sign a Senate letter supporting Israel.

In 2001 Hagel was one of 11 Senators who wouldn't sign a letter asking President Bush not to meet with Arafat until the PLO ended attacks against Israel.

In 2004 Hagel wouldn't sign a letter asking Bush to focus upon Iran's nuclear program at the G-8 summit.

In 2006 Hagel was one of 12 Senators who wouldn't ask the EU to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

Wake up America!