Maureen Dowd, "Isn’t It Rich?": "I’m Obsessed With Diarrhea"?

We've long known that Maureen Dowd can be a bit critical of Hillary Clinton, and in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Isn’t It Rich?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-isnt-it-rich.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), the Queen of Snark gently upbraids the 2016 Democratic candidate for president. Dowd writes:

"Hillary’s book — which feels like something she got at Ikea and had someone put together — is drooping because it was more about the estimated $13 million advance and the campaign ramp-up than the sort of intriguing self-examination and political excavations found in the memoirs of Timothy Geithner and Bob Gates. If she had had something to say, the book might have been shorter.

Hillary doesn’t see the disconnect between expressing grave concern about mounting student loan debt while scarfing six-figure sums from at least eight colleges, and counting. She says now that she’s passing the university money to the foundation but, never Ms. Transparency, has refused to provide documentation of that."

And if her criticism of Hillary is dainty, Dowd's observations concerning Chelsea are more delicate:

"Chelsea is making speeches that go into foundation coffers. She is commanding, as The Times’s Amy Chozick reported, up to $75,000 per appearance.

Chozick wrote: 'Ms. Clinton’s speeches focus on causes like eradicating waterborne diseases. (‘I’m obsessed with diarrhea’ is a favorite line.)'

There’s something unseemly about it, making one wonder: Why on earth is she worth that much money?

. . . .

There was disgust over Politico’s revelation that before she switched to a month-to-month contract, Chelsea was getting wildly overpaid at $600,000 annually — or over $25,000 per minute on air — for a nepotistic job as a soft-focus correspondent for NBC News."

Query: Is Chelsea being paid more by NBC than Maureen is making at the Times? Oh dear!

But let's ignore the upfront paid for Hillary's book and the fees and salary being paid to Chelsea. Of greater importance to me is how Hillary sided with Obama some three weeks ago, after America's president decided to condone the Fatah-Hamas Palestinian unity government. The former secretary of state declared:

"I think it's a holding position. And the reason it's a holding position is that the makeup of this joint [Fatah-Hamas] enterprise are largely technocrats. They're academics and they're business people. They don't represent sort of, what you might call hard-core Hamas leadership."

They don't represent "sort of" Hamas leadership? Whom do they represent? Another insightful foreign policy call by Hillary! I just can't wait to see her back in the White House!

Maureen Dowd, "Money, Money, Money, Money, MONEY!": Was There Ever a Democracy that Did Not Commit Suicide?

"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."

- John Adams, second president of the United States (1797–1801), letter, April 15, 1814

Maureen Dowd is not keen on the Clintons, and long before the final days of the inept, scandal-ridden, Obama administration play out, Dowd is already preparing to wage war against Hillary.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Money, Money, Money, Money, MONEY!" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/opinion/sunday/dowd-money-money-money-money-money.html), Dowd begins:

"Why is it that America’s roil family always seems better in abstract than in concrete? The closer it gets to running the world once more, the more you are reminded of all the things that bugged you the last time around.

The Clintons’ neediness, their sense of what they are owed in material terms for their public service, their assumption that they’re entitled to everyone’s money."

"America’s roil family"? Oddly enough, this play on words is not far afield from Frank Bruni's quip in his Times op-ed of today's date, "The Past’s Future Republican" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/08/frank-bruni-pasts-future-republican-was.html), in which he declares:

"Clinton versus Bush would be political royalty versus political royalty."

So, this is what results after a 240-year glorious experiment in democracy: Americans seek the return of "royalty," or at least something akin to a televised War of the Roses. Dowd, however, is far more "forthcoming" than Bruni when taking the measure of the House of Clinton:

"If Americans are worried about money in politics, there is no larger concern than the Clintons, who are cosseted in a world where rich people endlessly scratch the backs of rich people.

. . . .

We are supposed to believe that every dollar given to a Clinton is a dollar that improves the world. But is it? Clintonworld is a galaxy where personal enrichment and political advancement blend seamlessly, and where a cast of jarringly familiar characters pad their pockets every which way to Sunday.

. . . .

The Clintons want to do big worthy things, but they also want to squeeze money from rich people wherever they live on planet Earth, insatiably gobbling up cash for politics and charity and themselves from the same incestuous swirl."

Yup, I suppose I would call that less than friendly on the part of Dowd.

But thirst for power aside, is this latter day Lady Macbeth competent? Can Hillary claim even a single achievement during her time as secretary of state? On the other hand, after eight years of Obama, perhaps it no longer matters to the American electorate.

If she gets the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination and succeeds Obama, America will have gotten - richly and royally - what it deserves en route to the nightmare ending foreseen by John Adams.

Frank Bruni, "The Past’s Future Republican": Was There Ever a Democracy that Did Not Commit Suicide?

"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."

- John Adams, second president of the United States (1797–1801), letter, April 15, 1814

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Past’s Future Republican" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/opinion/sunday/bruni-the-pasts-future-republican.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), Frank Bruni also speculates about the 2016 presidential race. Bruni writes:

"[Jeb Bush is] better positioned for 2016 than he was for 2012, when the bitter disappointments of his older brother’s presidency were more keenly remembered and frequently invoked. Besides, if Hillary Clinton indeed rolls to the Democratic nomination, Republicans needn’t be so concerned about a nominee of their own with a dynastic aura. Clinton versus Bush would be political royalty versus political royalty."

So this is what results from the grand experiment in government after 240 glorious years: political royalty versus political royalty.

Meanwhile, I understand that we are expected to write off the remaining years of the inept, scandal-ridden, Obama administration.

Query: Against whom will Chelsea run for president in another 20 years?

With a little luck, I won't be around to see it.

[On the topic of Hillary in 2016, see also: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/08/maureen-dowd-money-money-money-money.html]

David Brooks, "Bold on Both Ends": "The North Korea of Fiscal Policy"

Has the US become "the North Korea of fiscal policy"?

This is what David Brooks claims in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Bold on Both Ends" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/opinion/brooks-bold-on-both-ends.html?_r=0). Brooks writes:

"We’re living in a country where 53 percent of children born to women under 30 are born out of wedlock, according to government data. Millions of people, especially men, are dropping out of the labor force. Nearly half the students who begin college are unable to graduate within six years. The social fabric for people without college degrees is in shambles.

Yet President Obama is not offering proposals commensurate with those problems. Under his budget, domestic discretionary spending would be lower as a share of G.D.P. than it was under Reagan, both Bushes and Nixon. When it comes to this category, Obama’s budget would take us back to Eisenhower levels.

The president is increasing total revenues to a historically high 20 percent of G.D.P. by 2023. Federal spending would remain at a way-above-average 22 percent of G.D.P. But Washington still can’t seem to devote enough money to address the challenges faced by the less-educated and ease the segmentation of America.

. . . .

Right now, we are the North Korea of fiscal policy."

Observing that "America faces two giant problems: social unraveling today and cataclysmic debt tomorrow," Brooks concludes:

"Party leaders could postpone the debate about tax revenues. They could accept higher deficits short term. Most important, they could embrace a deal-making framework that would direct attention toward urgent needs: discretionary programs for now, structural entitlement reforms that accumulate over time."

And now for a JG Caesarea challenge: Having read Brooks's opinion piece from start to finish, tell me how many times the word "discretionary," as in "discretionary spending," "discretionary programs" and "discretionary budget category," appears? No peeking!

Three . . . two . . . one (like counting down the time it takes for one of Kim Jong Un's ballistic missiles to crash into Tokyo or Seoul) . . . pencils down! Answer: Five.

Whereas Brooks calls for "a different trade-off — not a balance between taxing and spending, but a balance between greater discretionary spending in exchange for structural entitlement reform," who is going to be given control over all that discretionary stuff? Me? You? Michelle, who thought it appropriate to be accompanied by a cast of gold-braided military social aides when she appeared at the Oscars?

Don't get me wrong - Brooks is right: America's social fabric is unraveling, but where is the tailor or seamstress who knows how to patch the widening holes? I don't think you'll find that special person parked beside the water cooler at any federal agency or wandering around the West Wing.

Maybe we should wait for answers from Chelsea Clinton, who has now taken on a chief of staff and appears ready to embark upon a career in politics destined to return her to the White House (http://freebeacon.com/chelsea-ponders-political-future/), unless her plans are hijacked by Sasha or Malia, several decades hence.

It's not going to have a happy ending, and busy as I am digging holes in the garden, I have no time to watch.