New York Times Editorial, "Emails Again, This Time With Anthony Weiner": When Two Scoundrels Ran for President

Tweet

Apparently, Hillary and friends failed to smash or bleach all of the computers and communication devices housing her emails, and now a new treasure trove of emails has turned up in a computer shared by Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner. It appears that the FBI discovered these new emails as part of an investigation of allegations concerning the use of the computer by Weiner for purportedly exchanging explicit messages with a minor.

In an editorial entitled "Emails Again, This Time With Anthony Weiner," The New York Times concludes:

"Mr. Comey’s failure to provide any specifics about a new, potentially important development, less than two weeks before Election Day, is confounding. As Mr. Comey put it in July, 'The American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest.' They deserve details even more urgently today."

Comey's failure to provide "specifics" is "confounding"? Not at all. He is not the brightest light, as revealed by his responses on July 7, 2016 to Representative Trey Gowdy during the House Oversight Committee's hearing into the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails. He is also exceedingly cautious.

What's in this latest treasure trove of emails? The messages obviously include classified US government communications, otherwise Comey would not have informed Congress that they are "pertinent." If there was any way that Comey could have avoided this disclosure, I'm certain he would have done so.

Where does it all go from here? A pity that Americans cannot be granted a mulligan and be provided the opportunity to choose different presidential candidates.

It just can't get worse.

Maureen Dowd, "Who Do You Trust?": Obama and Kerry's Rendition of "Laurel and Hardy"

"To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question."

- President Barack Obama, Address on Syria, September 10, 2013

Over the past two weeks, we've watched Barack Obama and John Kerry turn US foreign policy into a Laurel and Hardy routine. Fortunately for America, the West Wing had the good sense to keep Obama's "bumbling" (I'm being kind) Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, away from center stage in order to prevent this farce from becoming a Three Stooges episode. Joe Biden, who fancies himself a presidential candidate in 2016, was smart enough to keep his mouth shut so that this would not become a Marx Brothers revival.

Yesterday, Obama bombed, and the critics are unanimous in labeling Obama's speech regarding Assad's use of sarin gas against civilians a flop. But heck, Obama is only a community organizer trying to play the role of Commander in Chief. Cut the man some slack!

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Who Do You Trust?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/opinion/dowd-who-do-you-trust.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd doesn't cut Obama any slack at all.  Dowd writes:

"Just as Obama and Kerry — with assists from Hillary and some senators — were huffing and puffing that it was their military threat that led to the breakthrough, Putin moved to neuter them, saying they’d have to drop their military threat before any deal could proceed. The administration’s saber-rattling felt more like knees rattling. Oh, for the good old days when Obama was leading from behind. Now these guys are leading by slip-of-the-tongue.

Amateur hour started when Obama dithered on Syria and failed to explain the stakes there. It escalated last August with a slip by the methodical wordsmith about 'a red line for us' — which the president and Kerry later tried to blur as the world’s red line, except the world was averting its eyes.

. . . .

The bumbling approach climaxed with two off-the-cuff remarks by Kerry, hitting a rough patch in the role of a lifetime, during a London press conference Monday; he offered to forgo an attack if Assad turned over 'every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community' and promised, if they did strike, that it would be an 'unbelievably small' effort.

. . . .

Even as Democrats tiptoed away from the red line, eager to kick the can of Sarin down the road, their own harsh rhetoric haunted them. Kerry compared Assad to Hitler last week, and Harry Reid evoked 'Nazi death camps' on the Senate floor Monday."

But you should never base your theater going choices on the opinion of only one reviewer. Let's have a look at what the Washington Post's middle-of-the-road Dana Milbank had to say in an opinion piece entitled "Obama’s Syria muddle" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-kerrys-not-so-clear-sailing-on-syria/2013/09/10/142fe5da-1a52-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html?hpid=z3):

"At 9 p.m. Tuesday, President Obama, in his address to the nation, said that he had 'asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force.'

This contradicted what his secretary of state, John Kerry, had said in testimony to Congress just 11 hours earlier. 'We’re not asking Congress not to vote,' Kerry told the House Armed Services Committee. 'I’m not asking [for] delay,' he added later.

Kerry can be forgiven for being at odds with the president. The president, in the space of his 16-minute address, was often at odds with himself. He spent the first 12 minutes arguing for the merits of striking Syria — and then delivered the news that he was putting military action on hold."

All of which is not to say that the performance by Obama and Kerry did not elicit laughter. As reported by CBS (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/09/10/syrian-foreign-minister-accepting-russias-proposal-pulls-the-rug-from-under-the-feet-of-american-aggression/):

"'Yesterday we held a round of very fruitful negotiations with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and he put forward an initiative regarding chemical weapons. Already in the evening we accepted Russia’s initiative,' Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said, according to Russia Today, adding that this move is to 'pull the rug from under the feet of American aggression.'"

Actually, Walid al-Muallem botched his line. He was meant to say that this move is intended to "pull the wool over the eyes of Washington," but accidents in the theater of the absurd do happen.

Bottom line: It's hard to imagine that this inept comedy routine is going to run for another three and a half years until a new comedian replaces Obama in the Oval Office.

This just in: Anthony Weiner has announced that he will be seeking the Democratic nomination for president in 2016! President Weiner? That should keep them rolling in the aisles of Congress . . .

Maureen Dowd, "Who’s That Candidate in the Teal Toenail Polish?": Does It Help Christine Quinn Hide in Cabbage Patches?

Q: Why do elephants paint their toenails red?
A: So they can hide in cherry trees.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Who’s That Candidate in the Teal Toenail Polish?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/opinion/sunday/dowd-whos-that-candidate-in-the-teal-toenail-polish.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), Maureen Dowd tells us a bit about New York mayoral candidate Christine Quinn. Dowd significantly concludes:

"I tell her she was the first candidate I’d ever seen on the trail wearing teal toenail polish.

'It matches my campaign literature, that’s the point of it!' she said excitedly, pulling two bottles out of her bag. 'It’s the color of the blue on my posters so I’m trying to wear it all summer long.'"

I wonder if it also helps her hide in cabbage patches.

Yup, this is the same Christine Quinn who donned a a hoodie and declared that George Zimmerman was a criminal, prior to the jury verdict that acquitted him (see: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/blinded-hoodie-article-1.1399158).

As noted in a March New York Times article entitled "Offstage, Quinn Isn’t Afraid to Let Fury Fly" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/nyregion/in-private-quinn-displays-a-volatile-side.html?pagewanted=all) by Michael M. Grynbaum and David W. Chen:

"As she pursues a high-profile bid for mayor, Ms. Quinn, a Democrat, has proudly promoted her boisterous personality, hoping that voters will embrace her blend of brashness and personal charm.

But in private, friends and colleagues say, another Ms. Quinn can emerge: controlling, temperamental and surprisingly volatile, with a habit of hair-trigger eruptions of unchecked, face-to-face wrath."

Friends have gone on record as saying that she experiences "hair-trigger eruptions of unchecked, face-to-face wrath? Christine must have some remarkable chums.

Be it Christine Quinn or Anthony Weiner, New York is going to get just what it deserves.

Frank Bruni, "The Freak Show as Fable": Freak Show or the Political Norm?

In a compelling New York Times op-ed entitled "The Freak Show as Fable" (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/opinion/sunday/bruni-the-freak-show-as-fable.html), Frank Bruni writes:

"It’s the story of superficiality trumping substance, of fame rather than accomplishment being the aim of too many people in politics these days. As The Times’s David Halbfinger and David Chen documented in an examination of Weiner’s 12-year Congressional career, he would predicate his advocacy for issues on a guarantee of prominent placement at the microphone, and he was a leading sponsor of just one piece of legislation that was signed into law.

But he was well known! On TV all the time! Weiner is the poster boy for a subspecies of lawmakers who are really noisemakers, maestros of the cable-ready kerfuffle, their sights set on MSNBC or Fox News or Politico, their need for notice constant. He’s a fun house mirror of narcissism in politics, and his demand that total strangers ogle his anatomy in cyberspace was in some sense a sick-joke version of other politicians’ thrill at the sounds of their voices and their addiction to applause. He contains multitudes: John Edwards, Newt Gingrich, Eliot Spitzer and, yes, Bill Clinton."

"A fun house mirror of narcissism in politics"? And here I always thought that politics attracted narcissists like moths to a flame.

Weiners needs to abandon the mayoral race, but did he do anything worse than Bill Clinton, John Edwards or Eliot Spitzer?

Moreover, is Weiner's behavior characteristic of a "freak show" or representative of the political norm in 2013?

Weiner has dropped to fourth place in the Democratic race for New York City mayor, and more than half of Democratic primary voters say he should quit, according to a recent Quinnipiac Poll (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-29/weiner-drops-to-fourth-among-new-york-mayoral-hopefuls-in-poll.html). But he's still only 11 percentage points behind Christine Quinn, who leads the field with 27% support among likely Democratic voters.

And then Weiner might also ask himself, is the glass half-empty or is it half-full? Remarkably, only 53% of Democratic primary voters think he should quit.

Yes, I'd rather be in Philadelphia.

Susan Jacoby, "Weiner’s Women": Welcome to Our Brave New Narcissistic World

In a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "Weiner’s Women" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/opinion/weiners-women.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1375261720-HN38mVWZdCEtqYLKF1H5Mw), Susan Jacoby, a renowned best selling author who tells us that she is a feminist, writes:

"The morality of virtual sex, as long as no one is cheating on a real partner, is not what bothers me. What’s truly troubling about the whole business is that it resembles the substitution of texting for extended, face-to-face time with friends. Virtual sex is to sex as virtual food is to food: you can’t taste, touch or smell it, and you don’t have to do any preparation or work. Sex with strangers online amounts to a diminution, close to an absolute negation, of the context that gives human interaction genuine content. Erotic play without context becomes just a form of one-on-one pornography."

"Diminution, close to an absolute negation, of the context that gives human interaction genuine content"? Query: Is it only about "sexting," or does this diminution of human contact also occur when we engage in compulsive texting? Or does it also involve manic fixations with Facebook, which has turned "friendship" into a numbers game?

I am reminded of the picture of Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin working at their dining room table, each talking on a cell phone, with his and her computers (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/magazine/anthony-weiner-and-huma-abedins-post-scandal-playbook.html?pagewanted=all). This is marriage in the 21st century?

Is their all-consuming quest for power, symbiotic at best, any different from that of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have redefined marriage?

And was there any more "human" substance to Eliot Spitzer's liaisons with prostitutes?

Yes, as we become more involved with ourselves, it becomes increasingly cold out there.

Winter is indeed coming.

Maureen Dowd, "Quit Is the Way to Roll": Can You Catch a Virus from Sexting?

Definition of VOYEUR
. . . .
2: a prying observer who is usually seeking the sordid or the scandalous

- Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/voyeur)

And so, Maureen Dowd has now shifted her attention from the Whitey Bulger racketeering and murder  trial in Boston to the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal in New York. Discussion by Maureen of the George Zimmerman verdict? Too hot to handle. Leave it to Charles Blow.

"Weiner . . . has turned shamelessness into performance art," Dowd quips in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Quit Is the Way to Roll" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/opinion/dowd-quit-is-the-way-to-roll.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1375244043-nRHIm8MpinbcUqHZQLJTNg). Questioning "whether cyber-sex is more or less forgivable than illicit sex the old-fashioned way," Dowd writes:

"Aside from being a gift to clowns, hacks, punsters, rivals and the writers of “The Good Wife,” Carlos Danger is also a gift to political-scandal survivors. His behavior is so outlandish and contemptible — the sort of thing that used to require a trench coat and park — that it allows Eliot Spitzer and Bill Clinton to act huffy."

Hmm, didn't she really mean to say, "Aside from being a gift to clowns, hacks, punsters, rivals, the writers of 'The Good Wife' and . . . Maureen Dowd"?

Maureen continues:

"Some people say Spitzer’s transgressions are more understandable because they were time-immemorial victimless transactions with well-paid humans in the flesh, while Weiner’s digital compulsions with women he didn’t know were peephole exhibitionism and insanely 'reckless,' as the new [New York City mayoral] front-runner Christine Quinn charged."

Yup, Weiner's behavior was just as stupid as Quinn's decision to put on a hoodie and declare that George Zimmerman was a criminal, prior to the jury verdict that acquitted him (see: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/blinded-hoodie-article-1.1399158).

Who will be the next mayor of New York, Weiner or Quinn? I wish I could care.

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing in the race Thomas Friedman, who recently wrote "I Want to Be a Mayor" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/opinion/sunday/friedman-i-want-to-be-a-mayor.html), if it would mean an end to his vapid Times opinion pieces.

What does this all come down to now? Could Anthony and Huma's ties to the Clintons reawaken the Monica Lewinsky scandal and cast a pall over Hillary's 2016 presidential aspirations? Will Hillary again need to declare:

"What difference, at this point, does it make?"

Stay tuned.

Maureen Dowd, "Time to Hard-Delete Carlos Danger": Don't Promise Not to Do It Again

Is marriage a dying institution? Or is it morphing into a vehicle for the realization of blind political and economic ambition by both husband and wife?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Time to Hard-Delete Carlos Danger" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/opinion/sunday/dowd-time-to-hard-delete-carlos-danger.html), Maureen compares Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Dowd writes:

"Bill and Hillary Clinton transformed the way we look at sex scandals. They plowed through the ridicule, refused to slink away in shame like Gary Hart, said it was old news, and argued that if Hillary didn’t object, why should voters?

. . . .

Americans keep moving the marker of acceptable behavior, partly as a reflection of the coarsening of society and partly as a public acknowledgment that many pols with complicated personal lives have been good public servants.

Now, defining deviancy downward, Señor and Señora Danger are using the Clinton playbook.

The difference is, there’s nothing in Weiner’s public life that is redeeming. In 12 years in Congress, he managed to get only one minor bill passed, on behalf of a donor, and he doesn’t work well with people. He knows how to be loud on cable and wave his Zorro sword in our faces."

Make no mistake about it: Weiner is an embarrassment and needs to call it quits.

However, Maureen appears to posit that if you're said to be "the greatest political and policy mind of a generation," you can soil Monica's dress, tell the American public "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," and continue on your merry way. After all, this seminal act at close quarters was little more than . . . "roguish."

We all await Hillary's announcement that she will be running for president, but do you believe that Bill had no additional relationships while Hillary was flying around the globe as Secretary of State?

If Hillary is asked during a debate with Chris Christie in 2016 about the true nature of her relationship with Bill, will the American public again be content with . . . "At this point, what difference does it make?"

And if Hillary is elected, will Congress appropriate funds to renovate the White House and build a semi-detached bachelor pad for Bill?

As observed by Dowd in the penultimate paragraph of her opinion piece:

"As often as Bill apologized, he didn’t promise he would 'never, ever' do it again, as Weiner did."

Bill never promised not to do it again? How reassuring!

What to call Bill if Hillary is elected? The First Lady won't do. The First Gentleman? Amost equally risible. How about . . . the First Philanderer?

Gail Collins, "Windsors Versus Weiner": Breaking Wind Over Weiner

"I am beginning to think a royal family might come in handy," Gail Collins candidly writes at the beginning of her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Windsors Versus Weiner" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/opinion/collins-windsors-versus-weiner.html?_r=0). Heck, she can no longer write about Romney's dog. Sex and crime have been monopolized by Maureen. So what's left? Eureka! Windsors and Weiner! They both begin with "W"!

And so, a new New York Times op-ed is born! Substance be damned!

Collins writes:

"Also, it appears that Weiner’s long speeches in Congress about the single-payer plan might also have been a kind of mating call. 'Your health care rants were a huge turn-on,' wrote the woman who reputedly talked dirty with him online."

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. But as long we're on the topic of long speeches and breaking wind, didn't the president give a speech of more than an hour yesterday concerning America's flailing economy? Yes, he did, but nobody cared . . . except for his much diminished cheerleading squad, consisting these days of little more than the editorial board of Gail's newspaper.

In an editorial entitled "The Middle Class at Center Stage" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/25/opinion/the-middle-class-at-center-stage.html), The New York Times would have us believe:

"Washington is a city of sideshows, full of people who consider it their job to create distractions from the nation’s most serious problems. Politicians would rather argue about nonexistent scandals or plot to undermine each other’s programs than come up with ways to create jobs or elevate the hopes of the next generation.

President Obama needs to change the subject to have a successful final term, and he announced on Wednesday, in forceful terms, that he intends to do just that. In a speech in Galesburg, Ill., he said his highest priority for the next 1,276 days would be rebuilding a middle class that has been battered by globalization, technological change, and the concentration of wealth at the highest levels.

'Washington has taken its eye off the ball,' he said, 'and I am here to say this needs to stop.'"

Now which ball would that be? A golf ball?

But let's get serious for a moment.

Yesterday, before Obama's Galesburg speech, you had Jay Carney telling "Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough (see: http://freebeacon.com/joe-scarborough-unleashes-on-jay-carney/):

"The president will go back to Galesburg, Illinois today to deliver a speech about where we need to move the economy, what we should be focusing on here in Washington. And it shouldn't be on the skirmishes that cause gridlock. It shouldn't be on the phony scandals that have consumed so much attention here, all to come to naught. It should be focused on what we can do to strengthen and grow the middle class."

And then finally there was the Galesburg speech itself, during which Obama declared:

"With an endless parade of distractions and political posturing and phony scandals, Washington’s taken its eye off the ball."

Hmm, "phony scandals" from Carney and Obama, "nonexistent scandals" from the Times. Do you smell a sound bite as opposed to economic repositioning?

I do. Unfortunately, the stench is also coming from The New York Times, which was once supposed to be a serious independent newspaper and not a "progressive" political mouthpiece.

IRS targeting of Obama's political opponents, the Benghazi cover-up and NSA overreaching? No "scandal" involving any of these little horrors. Let's roll up our sleeves, forget they ever happened, and get back to business.

Hope, Change and Forward! Four legs good, two legs bad!

Sickening.

New York Times Editorial, "Mr. Weiner and the Elusive Truth": As Elusive As Weiner's Wang

Back in April, The New York Times appeared ready to assist in Anthony Weiner's rehabilitation campaign as he prepared to enter New York City's mayor's race. The New York Times Magazine devoted a lengthy article to Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin, replete with heartwarming pictures of the loving couple holding hands, working together, and playing with their infant son (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/magazine/anthony-weiner-and-huma-abedins-post-scandal-playbook.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&). As reported in the article:

"By agreeing to be interviewed, Weiner and Abedin would seem to be trying to give voters what they want — and gauge public reaction. But it’s clear that the idea of talking about the scandal and its aftermath appeals to them on a personal level too. 'We have been in a defensive crouch for so long,' Weiner said. 'We are ready to clear the decks on this thing.' Their lives have become too small, too circumscribed, too claustrophobic for a couple accustomed to public life. They haven’t been to a major event together — no White House Correspondents Dinner, no red-carpet events — in nearly two years."

Can you imagine? No White House Correspondents Dinner! My goodness, how did they ever manage to get through this rough patch?

And sure enough, Weiner announced his candidacy in May.

But following Tuesday's acknowledgement by Weiner that his lewd Internet conduct continued after his resignation from the US House of Representatives, The New York Times appears to have abandoned its stance of "forgive and forget." In an editorial entitled "Mr. Weiner and the Elusive Truth" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/24/opinion/mr-weiner-and-the-elusive-truth.html?_r=0), the Times concludes:

"It’s difficult not to feel for Ms. Abedin. The couple deserved privacy as they worked through their problems — and they had it, until they re-emerged in public life and Mr. Weiner decided he was a good fit to run New York City. Mr. Weiner and Ms. Abedin have been saying that his sexual behavior is not the public’s business. Well, it isn’t, until they make it our business by plunging into a political campaign.

Mr. Weiner says he is staying in the mayoral race. To those who know his arrogance and have grown tired of the tawdry saga he has dragged the city into, this is not surprising."

The "elusive truth"? We're talking about blind ambition. It was there for all to see, but then I suppose that even The New York Times, which was ready to participate in the game for the benefit of the cause, is now waking up to the egg on its face.

Gail Collins, "New York Sizzles": Time to Estivate

Definition of ESTIVATE
. . .
2. to pass the summer in a state of torpor — compare hibernate

- Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/estivate)

Yes indeed, another morning without a cloud in the sky. Darn! Having spent too much of my life in the desert, I hate the heat. If only I could sleep until mid-September.

Meanwhile, Gail Collins, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "New York Sizzles" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/11/opinion/collins-new-york-sizzles.html), is busy adding to my misery by reminding me that Anthony and Eliot are seeking to return to elected office:

"Disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner is, as you know, running for mayor in the Democratic primary this September. We had just sort of gotten used to that when Eliot Spitzer jumped into the city comptroller race this week.

Spitzer resigned as governor in 2008 after the world discovered our law-and-order chief executive was a patron of high-priced prostitution services. When he left, he vowed to try 'outside of politics, to serve the common good.'"

"To serve the common good"? Yeah, right. Almost akin to "I'm from the IRS, and I'm here to help you."

Collins provides a list of the "positive aspects of New York City’s Weiner-Spitzer summer." Collins, however, fails to mention that if either of these jokers can be elected, politics plainly beckons for America's 12 million unemployed persons.

Every cloud has its silver lining? Unfortunately, as mentioned earlier, it's another cloudless July morning.

Maureen Dowd, "Taxing Times for Obama": The Coming Catfight With Hillary

She may be outraged by Obama, but she hates Hillary.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Taxing Times for Obama" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/opinion/sunday/dowd-irs-investigation-means-more-taxing-times-for-obama.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd begins by writing about Obama's scandal-ridden second term:

"The onetime messiah seems like a sad sack, trying to bounce back from a blistering array of sins that are not even his fault.

. . . .

It turns out that Treasury officials knew during the 2012 campaign that an investigation into the targeting was going on. But, enhancing his image as a stranger in a strange land, the president said he learned about it from news reports on May 10. Then he waited three days to descend from the mountain and express outrage.

Democrats are not worried that the rumpuses will hurt Obama’s personal appeal or reputation for integrity."

Sorry, Maureen, but it is his fault. We are talking about his incompetent appointees in the IRS, Justice Department, State Department and West Wing. Loyalty for Obama took precedence over experience, and we're seeing the results. I don't care where you work: Ultimately you must take responsibility for the performance of those under you, and the White House is no exception. As stated by Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323582904578487460479247792.html):

"The president, as usual, acts as if all of this is totally unconnected to him. He's shocked, it's unacceptable, he'll get to the bottom of it. He read about it in the papers, just like you.

But he is not unconnected, he is not a bystander. This is his administration. Those are his executive agencies. He runs the IRS and the Justice Department.

A president sets a mood, a tone. He establishes an atmosphere. If he is arrogant, arrogance spreads. If he is too partisan, too disrespecting of political adversaries, that spreads too. Presidents always undo themselves and then blame it on the third guy in the last row in the sleepy agency across town."

The president is not America's "chief campaigner," but rather America's "chief executive." Obama never had any executive experience and was never cut out for the job. Perhaps in that sense, it really isn't "his fault," but the fault of those who elected him.

Will this "hurt Obama’s personal appeal or reputation for integrity"? Again, it's not a matter of personal appeal or reputation for integrity. It's a matter of fundamental incompetence.

But none of this has anything to do with the real message of Dowd's op-ed. When people tell you two things, it's always the second thing that is more important to them, and in keeping with this axiom, Dowd continues:

"Obama would never pull what Hillary pulled with her longtime aide Huma Abedin. Abedin was allowed, after the birth of her and Anthony Weiner’s son, to work part time as a top adviser in the State Department for $135,000 while also working as a consultant for private clients, some of whom had to be interested in her influence in the government — and she did not disclose it on her financial report.

As Politico reported, the arrangement was similar to the way many of Hillary’s aides were paid while she was a senator: 'They were compensated partly through work on her government staff, and partly through her political action committee.' And others would later land lucrative gigs at Clinton-friendly organizations.

Hillary has a blind spot on ethics, not minding if things look terrible if they’re technically legit. And she has a tight grip on money, so she didn’t choose to simply shift Huma to her personal payroll.

But Americans have already priced in the imperfections of the Clintons.

Who knows? If Washington keeps imploding, Hillary may run in 2016 on restoring honor to the White House."

Hillary ("What difference does it make") Clinton running in 2016 on restoring honor to the White House or even running? I don't think so. Notwithstanding the claims made by Times columnist Frank Bruni in a recent op-ed entitled  "America the Clueless" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/frank-bruni-america-clueless-not-as.html), Americans are not as stupid as Dowd and Bruni make them out to be.

Gail Collins, "The Luv Guv’s Last Stand": My House Is Hit by a Tsunami

What happened this morning? My daughter woke up early and turned on "E!". News of the Kardashian Family washed over the house like a tsunami and had me struggling against the giant wave, gasping for air, trying to avoid losing consciousness. Meanwhile, my youngest son had also risen, and instead of making sandwiches for school, he had turned on his computer and was back to online game playing.

I could feel my foot ensnared on the bottom and doubted whether I could make it back to the surface.

"Don't pay any attention to dad," my daughter said to my son, as she prepared me a cup of coffee, the only sedative occasionally known to work on this bedlamite. "He woke up on the wrong side of bed."

The wrong side of bed? Ordinarily we're talking about the wrong side of the floor.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Luv Guv’s Last Stand" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/opinion/collins-the-luv-guvs-last-stand.html?_r=0), Gail Collins decided to add to my anguish with a description of former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford’s campaign for Congress. Collins tells us that Sanford has run "a full-page ad comparing himself to the defenders of the Alamo" and quotes this buffoon as saying:

"I’m outnumbered right now but will fight to the end toward freedom and financial sanity in Washington so important to sustaining it."

The Alamo? Travers, Crockett, Bowie and the other defenders of the Alamo will remain heroes for me until the day I die. Sanford would have us believe that he is a modern day Davy Crockett? Don't go there, Governor.

The tsunami is dragging me down again, hurling me into sunken debris and detritus.

Why did Gail feel the need to add to my emotional distress this morning with this piece of fluff, replete with sexual innuendo? Is there nothing else important to address from the pulpit of the editorial page of The Times? Gail explains:

"Right now in New York, we need all the guidance we can get on this point, since we’re facing the distinct possibility of having to live through an Anthony Weiner for Mayor campaign."

Gail should take Anthony's weiner elsewhere. Me? I'm troubled by something else.

The Obama administration systematically lied to the American people in its effort to portray the deadly attack on the Benghazi consulate as the consequence of a "spontaneous" demonstration, and now we are being told that it's ancient history.

More recently, however, it was leaked to us that the Boston Marathon bombing was the "lone wolf" work of two deranged brothers. Ignore Tamerlan Tsarnaev's trip to Dagestan. Ignore the DNA of others on pieces of the bombs. Ignore the arrests of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's friends.

A "lone wolf" terror attack? Poppycock. You don't believe me? Even Arnold, my Anatolian Shepherd, knows better.

Why does the Obama administration again feel the need to avoid addressing the ugly reality of Islamic fanaticism underlying this latest horror?

You certainly won't find an answer in Gail's frivolous opinion piece.

However, according to a new Pew Research Center survey of Muslims around the globe (http://www.pewforum.org/Muslim/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-exec.aspx):

"Few U.S. Muslims voice support for suicide bombing or other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam; 81% say such acts are never justified, while fewer than one-in-ten say violence against civilians either is often justified (1%) or is sometimes justified (7%) to defend Islam. Around the world, most Muslims also reject suicide bombing and other attacks against civilians. However, substantial minorities in several countries say such acts of violence are at least sometimes justified, including 26% of Muslims in Bangladesh, 29% in Egypt, 39% in Afghanistan and 40% in the Palestinian territories."

Only 1% of US Muslims "say violence against civilians is often justified" and only 7% say that such violence "is sometimes justified"? How reassuring . . .

Gail Collins, "Yipes, It’s Congress on the Move": Anthony's Crotch, Kim Jong Un's Tiny Weiner

Do you speak Korean? No? Nor do I, but I'm willing to wager there are certain things coming out of Pyongyang that you are still capable of comprehending. More on this in a moment.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Yipes, It’s Congress on the Move" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/opinion/collins-yipes-its-congress-on-the-move.html), Gail Collins concludes:

"As if we didn’t have enough on our plates, this week’s Times Magazine has a story by Jonathan Van Meter announcing that former Representative Anthony Weiner is seriously thinking about running for mayor of New York City. This year!

That one I’m pretty confident we can handle. The citizens of New York just have to decide whether to forgive an elected official who tweeted pictures of his crotch to women he had never actually met. We’ve had bigger challenges. Maybe we can form a committee."

Indeed, Gail, we've had, and currently have, bigger challenges (although Anthony might not agree).

Go to the following recent video from the North Korean government website, Uriminzokkiri. Some two minutes and fifty seconds into this cinematic gem, you will witness an imaginary missile attack on the White House and the Capitol:



You may not speak Korean, but most people know when they're being threatened.

In a recent guest New York Times op-ed entitled "Stay Cool. Call North Korea’s Bluff." (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/opinion/stay-cool-call-north-koreas-bluff.html), Andrei Lankov, a professor of history at Kookmin University, wrote:

"Scores of foreign journalists have been dispatched to Seoul to report on the growing tensions between the two Koreas and the possibility of war. Upon arrival, though, it is difficult for them to find any South Koreans who are panic-stricken. In fact, most people in Seoul don’t care about the North’s belligerent statements: the farther one is from the Korean Peninsula, the more one will find people worried about the recent developments here."

Yes, South Koreans even remained remarkably "cool" when, in 2010, North Korea torpedoed a South Korean navy vessel, killing 46 South Korean sailors (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10129703).

Lankov continues:

"A closer look at North Korean history reveals what Pyongyang’s leaders really want their near-farcical belligerence to achieve — a reminder to the world that North Korea exists, and an impression abroad that its leaders are irrational and unpredictable. The scary impressions are important to North Korea because for the last two decades its policy has been, above all, a brilliant exercise in diplomatic blackmail. And blackmail usually works better when the practitioners are seen as irrational and unpredictable.

Put bluntly, North Korea’s government hopes to squeeze more aid from the outside world. Of late, it has become very dependent on Chinese aid, and it wants other sponsors as well."

Well, that's a helluva way to go seeking aid, unless you've come to the realization that America's president is as tough as a marshmallow.

And what does Chuck Hagel, Obama's new secretary of defense, have to say about North Korea's thinly veiled threat? As reported by CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/10/world/asia/koreas-tensions/index.html):

"North Korea is 'skating very close to a dangerous line' after weeks of saber-rattling, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warned Wednesday as northeast Asia watched for an expected missile test.

'Their actions and their words have not helped defuse a combustible situation,' Hagel told reporters at the Pentagon. He said the United States and its allies want to see North Korean rhetoric 'ratcheted down,' but if that doesn't happen, "our country is fully prepared to deal with any contingency."

'We have every capacity to deal with any action North Korea will take to protect this country and the interests of this country and our allies,' Hagel said."

You can just imagine the credibility that Kim Jong Un attaches to the remarks of Hagel, who agreed that America is the world's bully.

Declaring that North Korea is nearing a "dangerous line"? That's the same tactic the Obama administration has taken with Iran for the past four years, and there is no end in sight to Tehran's nuclear weapons development program.

Me? I believe that when somebody threatens to annihilate you, you take them seriously. But then, we also have Anthony Weiner's crotch to contend with.

Weprin Loses: Debbie Wasserman Schultz Blames Orthodox Jews

Bob Turner, an obscure, 70-year-old, retired cable television executive, running on the Republican ticket, has just defeated Democratic Assemblyman David Weprin in a race for the House seat vacated by Anthony Weiner. This marks the first time in 80 years that a Republican has been elected to represent New York's 9th district in an election widely considered as a referendum on Obama's policies.

According to The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/nyregion/ny-democrats-try-to-avoid-upset-in-special-election.html?hp), Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was quick to blame Orthodox Jewry for Weprin's defeat:

"But Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, said the district’s large concentration of Orthodox Jews made it unusual and meant the race had few national ramifications.

'In this district, there is a large number of people who went to the polls tonight who didn’t support the president to begin with and don’t support Democrats — and it’s nothing more than that,' she said in a telephone interview."

Yeah, right, Debbie, it had absolutely nothing to do with unemployment and the state of the economy. This is almost as believable as "Change we can believe in." But thanks anyway for blaming the Orthodox Jews in the district. I'm sure this will lead to greater tolerance and understanding throughout the US.

Why Is the House Ethics Committee Not Beginning an Inquiry Concerning Kucinich's Meeting With Assad?

Although the House Ethics Committee was swift to begin an inquiry concerning the revolting behavior of Congressman Anthony Weiner, I have yet to see any demand for an inquiry concerning the insidious journey by Congressman Dennis Kucinich, together with his wife, to Damascus in order to meet with President Assad. Apparently, Congress believes it is far more odious for a representative to Tweet a picture of his private parts than for one of its members to meet with a mass murdering dictator, thereby providing the monster with legitimacy.

Kucinich's website (http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=249063) has confirmed the visit:

"At the request of many of his constituents, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is currently on a fact-finding mission to Syria and Lebanon. He is accompanied by a small delegation which includes his wife, Elizabeth.

Congressman Kucinich, who represents a district that includes many Arab-Americans, was asked by his constituents to investigate conditions on the ground in Syria and to see if resolution of a situation where violence has been spiraling and events are spinning out of control is possible.

During this working trip, Kucinich will meet with democracy activists, non-governmental organizations, small business owners, civilians as well as government officials. In his trip he expects to meet the Presidents of both Syria and Lebanon.

'Peace is not just the absence of war,' said Kucinich of his trip. 'Peace is a conscious, active pursuit that requires work and communication. My work as a member of Congress requires that I learn first hand about events in order to better understand policy alternatives for America and other nations.'

Congressman Kucinich, a proponent of peace and nonviolence, is one of a few Members of Congress who have traveled in the region to gather information to better understand local conditions."

"Many" of Kucinich's constituents asked that he travel with his wife to meet with Assad in Damascus? Please tell us how many.

Kucinich should also let us know all the "facts" that he learned by meeting with Assad. Assad, of course, has a reputation for telling the undivided truth.

Finally, Kucinich should provide us with a list of the Syrian "democracy activists" that he met, who risked, following their meetings, being chopped into pieces by Assad's security apparatus.

Sickening.

Ross Douthat's "The Online Looking Glass": The Plague of Narcissism

Although I generally don't see eye to eye with Ross Douthat, or for that matter with any of the op-ed writers of The New York Times, Douthat has written what I believe to be a fascinating interpretation of the conduct of Anthony Weiner in his column entitled "The Online Looking Glass" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/opinion/13douthat.html?hp):

"In the sad case of Representative Anthony Weiner’s virtual adultery, the Internet era’s defining vice has been thrown into sharp relief. It isn’t lust or smut or infidelity, though online life encourages all three. It’s a desperate, adolescent narcissism.

. . . .

His 'partners' existed less to titillate him than to hold up mirrors to his own vanity: whether the congressman was tweeting photos of his upper body or bragging about what lurked below, his focus was always squarely on himself.”

Bravo, Mr. Douthat. As I stated in a prior blog entry (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/06/maureen-dowd-your-tweetin-heart-who.html):

"Will Weiner voluntarily resign? No way. Weiner is consumed with self-interest and is yet another poster boy for narcissism, the plague of the 21st century."

But what about the causes of narcissism and the damage that it does to those living with persons afflicted with the disease? I strongly recommend reading Dr. Richard Grossman's essay "Voicelessness: Narcissism" (http://www.voicelessness.com/narcissism.html), which states in part:

"Many people spend a lifetime aggressively trying to protect an injured or vulnerable 'self.' Traditionally, psychologists have termed such people 'narcissists,' but this is a misnomer. To the outside world it appears that these people love themselves. Yet, at their core they don't love themselves--in fact their self barely exists, and what part does exist is deemed worthless. All energy is devoted to inflating the self, like a persistent child trying to blow up a balloon with a hole.

Because they need continuous proof of the significance of their voice, narcissists must find people, particularly important people, to hear and value them. If they are not heard, their childhood wound opens, and they quickly begin to melt away like the Wicked Witch of the West. This terrifies them. Narcissists use everyone around them to keep themselves inflated. Often they find flaws in others and criticize them fiercely, for this further distinguishes them from those who are defective."

In my opinion, Weiner's refusal to resign as a congressman is just one more manifestation of his ailment, which causes him to place "self" at the epicenter at the expense of all around him.

Maureen Dowd, "Your Tweetin’ Heart": Who Cares About Weiner's Motivation?

In her New York Times op-ed of today's date, "Your Tweetin’ Heart" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08dowd.html?hp), Maureen Dowd explores the motivation underlying Congressman Anthony Weiner's online relationships with women:

"Often powerful men crave more than love and admiration from The Good Wife. Sometimes they want risk, even danger. Sometimes they’re turned on by a power differential. They adore a fan reaction like the one from Lisa Weiss, the Vegas blackjack dealer, who flirted with Weiner on Facebook: 'you are sooo awesome when you yell at those fox news' pundits, and 'I bet you have so many chicks after you! you are our liberal stud.'"

Unlike Ms. Dowd, however, I am not interested in Weiner's motivation. Weiner should go for psychological counseling and attempt to save his marriage, if there is anything left of it. More important, he should resign from the House immediately, inasmuch as the U.S. Congress, seeking to avert an economic meltdown, need not be distracted by Weiner's antics.

Will Weiner voluntarily resign? No way. Weiner is consumed with self-interest, and is yet another poster boy for narcissism, the plague of the 21st century (see: http://www.voicelessness.com/narcissism.html). Surely Weiner must be asking himself, if Barney Frank managed to remain in Congress, why should he have to go? Good question.

Meanwhile House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is demanding a House ethics committee probe into whether official resources were mishandled by Weiner. This is the same Pelosi who labeled Syria's Bashar al-Assad a "model Arab leader." In my opinion, Weiner's miscreant conduct pales in comparison with Pelosi's indiscretion, but I don't imagine we'll be hearing a mea culpa from Nancy anytime soon.

Just another case of the pot calling the kettle black.

JG, Caesarea News Alert: Anthony Weiner Offered to Host News Discussion Program

Having acknowledged that he had inappropriate online relationships with women and indeed sent a lewd photo over Twitter, Anthony Weiner has stated that he will not resign from the U.S. House of Representatives.

This has prompted House Minority Leader Nancy "Assad is a model Arab leader" Pelosi (D-Calif.) to ask for a House ethics committee probe into whether official resources had been mishandled.

Meanwhile, I have it from a highly unreliable source that Weiner is considering an offer to follow in the footsteps of Eliot Spitzer and host a news discussion show to be entitled "The World in Briefs". Just imagine:

"You give us five minutes, and we'll give you the world . . . in briefs."