New York Times Editorial, "Donald Trump and Chris Christie Start a Bully Bromance": The Age of Insults

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "Donald Trump and Chris Christie Start a Bully Bromance," The New York Times says of Christie's despicable endorsement of the Republican poster boy for narcissistic personality disorders:

"After his performance on Friday, Mr. Christie had better hope that Mr. Trump, wherever he winds up, can find a little something for his new apprentice to do. If Mr. Trump should win the presidency, he might want to consider Mr. Christie for transportation secretary, since he already knows so much about traffic patterns on commuter bridges."

Sic [New Jersey] transit gloria mundi.

Maureen Dowd, "Christie Puts the Gloves On": Christie Almost As Viable As Sebelius

“Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different.”

- President Obama, March 2011

You will recall that "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it" was rated the "Lie of the Year" for 2013 by PolitiFact (see: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/). Given his past declaration that "Some nations may be be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries" and his current passivity in response to genocide being perpetrated by Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Obama should now also be retroactively awarded the "Lie of the Year" for 2011.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Christie Puts the Gloves On" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/opinion/sunday/dowd-christie-puts-the-gloves-on.html?ref=maureendowd&_r=0), Maureen Dowd is back again with another tirade aimed at New Jersey's governor. Dowd's conclusion:

"The governor was a beneficiary of America’s desperate hunger for genuine leadership. You can blame Obama for the Christie tulip craze. The president has been so wan, he confused people into thinking that bluster was clarity. In a climate with no leadership, the bully looks like a man. If you’ve only been drinking water, Red Bull tastes like whiskey.

Obama’s ethereal insipidity made Christie’s meaty pugilism attractive; Obama’s insistence on the cerebral made voters long for the visceral, even the gracelessly visceral.

George W. Bush was the Decider who engaged in thoughtless action. So America veered toward Obama, who engaged in thoughtful inaction. Then they careered toward Christie, another practitioner of thoughtless action.

When all you have is leading from behind, there’s a place in your heart for in-your-face."

Dowd is correct. After five years of ineptitude and procrastination from the first invertebrate ever to inhabit the Oval Office, America seems ready for leadership, but from where is this leadership to come?

Chris Christie for president in 2016? Sorry, but in the aftermath of Bridgegate, Christie would be almost as viable as Kathleen Sebelius in a national election.

Dowd desperately needs to find a new victim.

Maureen Dowd, "High School Maniacal": Narcissism and the Undoing of a Republican Presidential Candidate

Do we ever forget our high school years? Recently, I was stunned to learn that my first love had passed away more than a decade ago. How could this be? I still remembered her red hair and smile, and notwithstanding the passing of the years and my own graying hair, in my mind, she had never grown old.

Today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "High School Maniacal" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/opinion/dowd-high-school-maniacal.html?ref=opinion), Maureen Dowd examines how New Jersey Governor Christ Christie continues to live out his high school years in an ongoing squabble with "old schoolmate and handpicked point man at the Port Authority, David Wildstein" over Bridgegate. Dowd writes:

"It’s risible but sort of alarming that, decades later, Christie is boasting that he was more of a big shot than Wildstein in high school, putting down the guy he created a job for, and going out of his way to say they were not even friends back when they were both connected to the Livingston Lancers — Christie as an ebullient, trim catcher; Wildstein as a quiet, bespectacled statistician.

. . . .

Bristling with narcissism and punitive aggression, he drove his point home: 'We didn’t travel in the same circles in high school. You know, I was the class president and athlete. I don’t know what David was doing during that period of time.'"

Yikes! This was the front runner for the Republican nomination for president in 2016? If Christie had any good sense, he would acknowledge his ultimate responsibility for this fiasco and retire from public office.

Meanwhile, in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "In Christie saga, keep calm and gossip on" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-keep-calm-and-gossip-on/2014/02/04/3ba39658-8ddd-11e3-95dd-36ff657a4dae_story.html?hpid=z2), Kathleen Parker entertains the very real possibility that Christie didn't know of Wildstein's behavior:

"As the Christie scandal machine grinds on, his polling numbers un-shockingly are plummeting. Once in the lead in a fantasy presidential race, he now trails Hillary Clinton 39 percent to 55 percent. In the race for the GOP nomination, he trails Mike Huckabee and Rand Paul, tying with Jeb Bush.

But the night is young. It remains entirely possible that Christie is telling the truth. And evidence may or may not exist. Which means a new narrative must fill the void. It goes like this: Even if he’s telling the truth, Christie created the culture in which his people felt free to abuse power."

A "new" narrative? For me, this has been and always will be the "only" narrative. Presidents, secretaries of state, secretaries of health and governors must take responsibility for all that happens under their watch.

But Christie has no more good sense than Hillary, who, notwithstanding her ultimate responsibility for the Benghazi debacle, should also call it quits, or Kathleen Sebelius, who should have resigned long ago over the Obamacare rollout debacle.

The West is being devastated by a plague of narcissism, characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance and the need for constant attention, and there are those who believe that owing to its prevalence, it should no longer be deemed a personality disorder.

Ultimately, it is this me-first culture - not Putin or Khamenei - that will bring the temple down on our heads.

May the Lord have mercy on us!

Gail Collins, "Christie Plays Defense": John Bolton for President?

There are many people who read this blog, even throughout the Muslim Middle East, but I seldom get feedback, except from the occasional troll. Yesterday, I had a very touching comment, which, in case you missed it, reads:

"I'm no fan of Obama, but I must say Jeff, you are depressing me. The U.S. always bounces back, and so she will again, even if I can't tell you just how it will happen. Perhaps it's time for you to start believing in God. Seriously. Believing makes a difference. I can testify. By the way, I do enjoy your commentary, most of the time. Peace to you."

My response:

"I pray to God, I believe in American exceptionalism, and I am convinced that America will bounce back if it will have leadership that will allow it to bounce back. Do you recall in the Bible how Joseph prophesied seven lean years? I am expecting eight."

Often I am tempted to forsake this blog, which also depresses me. I wish I could write more about my work assisting companies in the life sciences, which is an inspiration and a joy, but most of the time I am prevented from doing so, owing to the requirements of corporate secrecy.

Concerning politics and international affairs, the more you know, the more depressed you become. There is much truth to the adage, "What you don't know can't hurt you."

My focus on New York Times op-eds? Sadly, The New York Times is the only newspaper that Obama reads, and it is well known that he spends much time poring over their columnists' sycophantic opinion pieces. There is another adage: "Garbage in, garbage out," to which those who programmed the Obamacare website should also have paid more attention.

All of which amounts to a somewhat meandering segue to Gail Collins's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Christie Plays Defense" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/opinion/collins-christie-plays-defense.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), in which Collins again obsesses over "Bridgegate." Collins writes:

"I am getting a little worried about the metropolitan region.

Also, now that I think of it, this was the week in which Donald Trump announced that he would run for governor of New York on the Republican line, as long as they give him the nomination without making him run in a primary or go to the convention.

But the good news is that we’re ignoring Trump entirely. As well as non-New York reports on Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s defense of Justin Bieber and Bristol Palin’s critique on the parenting skills of Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis.

Christie, however, is national news. And the scandal we’re talking about involves two of the favorite topics of conversation in modern America, bullying and traffic."

Yet why belabor Christie? As I've noted several times, he's finished on the national scene, i.e. roadkill. He is no longer a viable candidate for president. I think he should resign as governor of New Jersey.

Christie is now every bit as viable as a presidential candidate as Donald Trump might be as a candidate for governor of New York.

Me? I'm far more concerned that Obama told outright lies to the American people during his State of the Union address concerning his "diplomatic achievements," which perhaps cost the lives of tens of thousands of people, and which may yet cost the lives of hundreds of thousands more (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/01/david-brooks-opportunity-coalition-like.html?showComment=1391234525500#c8032909048847853668).

But this obfuscation of the truth obviously didn't trouble Collins, who is content to continue obsessing over Christie.

So when will these lean years end? Perhaps not until there is a reemergence of leadership on the US national scene. Leadership? It's not going to come from Hillary "What Difference Does It Make" Clinton.

John Bolton for president?

Gail Collins, "The State of the Speeches": Beating a Dead Dog?

"Beating a dead dog"? Isn't the expression, "beating a dead horse"? Well, anyone familiar with Collins's running Seamus joke during the 2016 presidential election knows that "beating a dead dog" is correct in Collins's case.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The State of the Speeches" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/opinion/collins-the-state-of-the-speeches.html?ref=gailcollins&_r=0), Gail Collins begins:

"Let’s discuss state of the state speeches.

No wait! Don’t go away! We can start with Chris Christie.

This week, Christie gave his annual address, and everybody was wondering what he’d say about the traffic-jam scandal. It is possible the crowd of cameras set some kind of state of the state record.

'Mistakes were clearly made,' Christie told the New Jersey Legislature. It’s been more than a week, and he still hasn’t managed to get himself out of the passive voice.

Then the governor quickly switched gears, and announced that “the state of our state is good.” He dropped the George Washington Bridge brouhaha and began calling for more spending on education and economic development, coupled with lower taxes. Most of the cameras quickly switched off."

Once again, Collins, who is the founder of the Bonbon School of Journalism, which is best practiced from a cushy sofa while simultaneously playing Candy Crush, is again bringing Christie's Fort Lee fiasco to the fore. Don't get me wrong: I have already taken the position that Christie should resign over this scandal, but doesn't Collins have anything else to write? Apparently not.

Moreover, if you are going to hold Christie accountable, isn't it also time to hold Hillary responsible for Benghazi? As reported by her own newspaper (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/world/middleeast/senate-report-finds-benghazi-attack-was-preventable.html?hp), the Senate has determined that "the attack 16 months ago that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, could have been prevented, singling out the State Department for criticism for its failure to bolster security in response to intelligence warnings about a growing security crisis around the city."

Given these findings, should Hillary be ruled out as the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016? I would think so, but perhaps the hyper-partisan Bonbon School of Journalism doesn't brook such foolish questions.

Maureen Dowd, "Thunder Road": Or "Working on the Highway"?

Do you like New Jersey-born Bruce Springsteen? I do. Notwithstanding my aversion to crowds, I even went to see him in Amsterdam a few years ago, and over the course of a three-hour, sweat drenched, nonstop performance, he gave me my money's worth. I wish the same could be said for politicians.

As I already noted in several earlier blog entries, Chris Christie (also a Springsteen fan who dances at his concerts) is Republican roadkill, given Americans' love of the open highway. He will never walk through the door of the Oval Office, and he is too obese to climb up a ladder and squeeze through one of its windows in the dead of night. Regardless of what he knew about his underlings' "Working on the Highway" in Fort Lee, Christie should take responsibility and resign.

But he won't.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Thunder Road" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/opinion/sunday/dowd-thunder-road.html?ref=maureendowd&_r=0), Maureen Dowd aptly concludes with regard to America's latest scandal:

"A cascade of subsequent outraged denials about transgressive behavior delivered with bravado and finger wagging, from Gary Hart to Bill Clinton to John Edwards to Anthony Weiner, has persuaded me that politicians — who are narcissists and, in essence, actors stuck in the same role — can persuasively tell the big lie if they believe their futures are on the line.

The Christie saga is still unraveling. Maybe he was a dupe in the dark. Maybe the man in the fleece jacket is fleecing us. Let’s just say, I’m not yet permitting him in my circle of trust."

A "dupe in the dark" or "Dancing in the Dark"? Regardless, Dowd is correct: It's all about narcissism, the plague of the 21st Century. In fact, it has become so prevalent that there are those who would no longer list it as a personality disorder (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/health/views/30mind.html).

But whereas Dowd points her finger at Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, John Edwards and Anthony Weiner, where is the reference to Narcissist-in Chief, Barack Obama? By now, perhaps you've forgotten how Obama proclaimed to anyone prepared to listen (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/12/obama-ill-put-my-record-up-against-any-president/1):

"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 -- just in terms of what we've gotten done in modern history."

Well, Obamacare has proven a disaster, and even Washington Post Obama cheerleader David Ignatius yesterday wondered whether the president's "broken" foreign policy could be "put back together" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/01/david-ignatius-only-obama-can-fix-his.html).

Dowd would have us know that Christie threw his chief of staff "off the bridge;" however, Obama paved the way for Christie by throwing both his grandmother and his pastor "under the bus."

Christie would have us believe that he didn't know about this orchestrated gridlock. Obama similarly didn't know about the IRS scandal, which, like the rest of us, he read about in a newspaper.

America was once in search of a messiah, and Obama got away with it. Christie won't. The fat woman - not Springsteen - is singing.

[For more on narcissism, see: http://www.voicelessness.com/ (absolutely no relationship whatsoever between that smiling psychologist with the same last name whom I vaguely resemble and me)]

Gail Collins, "Imagining President Christie": Kicking a Dead Hippopotamus

"Whenever I get the urge to exercise, I lie down until the feeling passes away."

- Mark Twain (also attributed to Robert Maynard Hutchins, past president of the University of Chicago, and others)

As I have already observed (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/01/david-brooks-movement-on-right.html ), given Americans' love of the open highway, Chris Christie is Republican roadkill. He will never walk through the door of the Oval Office, and he is too obese to climb up a ladder and squeeze through one of its windows in the dead of night.

But heck, Gail Collins, founder of the Bonbon School of Journalism, has again happened upon fresh meat, upon which she can gorge without having to budge from her living room sofa. After taking a huge bite of Christie on Thursday (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/01/gail-collins-bridge-over-troubled.html), she is again back for a second helping in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Imagining President Christie" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/11/opinion/imagining-president-christie.html?_r=0).

Early on in her opinion piece, Collins pokes fun at Christie for employing a personal trainer:

"I must admit that I had a mixed reaction to the revelation about the trainer. Good for him on the healthy life front. But there really was something seductive about the idea of a chief executive without a physical fitness regimen."

Something "seductive" about a president without a physical fitness regimen? Kind of reminds me of the dialogue from the 1969 comedy "Putney Swope," in which a woman tells Putney that he is her biggest fantasy, whereupon Putney replies, "Just don't send me the laundry bill."

Regarding Christie's two-hour press conference intended to explain away personal responsibility for the Fort Lee traffic snarl, Collins concludes:

"The most fascinating part of the governor’s talkathon was his explanation of what he did when he discovered — just as he was toweling down from a workout — that his deputy chief of staff had been involved in creating the bridge crisis.

Christie claimed he swiftly axed said aide, wasting no time in attempting to find out why she had done it, who she had conspired with, or why she imagined he would think it was a good idea.

'I’m telling you that when I ask for an answer from a member of my staff and they lie ... they’re gone. So I never had to get to the conduct, the underlying conduct,' he said.

What do you think about that, people? Andrew Jackson-like decisiveness? Seems more like a really eerie lack of curiosity.

But then we have had presidents who were less inquisitive than a sidewalk. Look at George W. Bush. And he got elected twice."

Ah, yes, presidents who are "less inquisitive than a sidewalk." I imagine that includes a certain president who "checked in with his military team early on during the [Benghazi] attack, then checked out for the rest of the night" (see: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/11/now-know-president-obama-was-mia-on-benghazi/), or who learned like the rest of us via the newspapers about the IRS and NSA scandals.

And yes, Obama also got elected twice.

David Brooks, "Movement on the Right": Christie's Friends Cause Movement to Stop Dead

Definition of "Coulrophobia":
"extreme or irrational fear of clowns"

- Oxford Dictionaries (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/coulrophobia)

Me afraid of clowns? No way! Rather, I leave my home and shudder at the prospect of encountering a politician.

As reported by USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/09/fort-lee-traffic-jam-caused-human-debacle/4397381/)

"E-mails indicate several Christie supporters including Bridget Anne Kelly, his now fired deputy chief of staff, and David Wildstein, a Christie appointee at the Port Authority of New York, schemed to close the lanes to punish Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich. The result: stopped cars snaked through the small borough, slowing emergency service units, delaying school buses and making even blocks-long errand runs a source of prolonged frustration."

Sounds almost a bit like Kramer adopting a highway in "Seinfeld," but without the humor.

Of course, Christie has apologized for the inconvenience. Well, Christie can do the "Hokey Pokey" and turn himself around, but the 2016 Republican presidential nomination has just become inaccessible.

On the subject of "movement" or the lack thereof, David Brooks, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Movement on the Right" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/opinion/brooks-movement-on-the-right.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), concludes:

"Today’s emerging conservatives embrace that constitutional mind-set, embodied both by Madison and Hamilton. Moreover, the National Affairs authors understand that most policy programs, like most businesses, fail. Conservative programs like urban enterprise zones failed to produce measurable results. Liberal programs like Head Start scarcely produce identifiable long-term gains. Therefore, it is best to approach government in a mood of skeptical reformism: Engage in a constant process of gradual concrete reform even as you are aware that most of your efforts will not pan out."

Ah, yes, Madison, Hamilton and "skeptical reformism." I'm a big fan. Hey, stop laughing at me!

How about just finding some Republican sufficiently ethical to stand a chance against Hillary in 2016. Hillary, another paragon of political virtue, is now featured in former Defense Secretary Robert Gates's book, “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War”:

"Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary. . . . The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying."

Yup, just keep the politicians away from me, and I just might be able to keep my PTSD in check for the next 24 hours without medication.

Gail Collins, "Bridge Over Troubled Politics": Christie's Substantial Goose Is Cooked

I don't know if it's my age or my PTSD, but I don't handle traffic jams very well, whether they are the handiwork of Republicans or Democrats. Those unfortunately present in a traffic-impacted vehicle driven by me have often wondered whether I also suffer from Tourette syndrome.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Bridge Over Troubled Politics" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/opinion/collins-bridge-over-troubled-politics.html?_r=0), Gail Collins begins:

"We have been through a lot of political scandals. But never before has the nation been roiled by a conspiracy to create a traffic jam.

There’s barely been time to get used to the idea Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey as a potential presidential contender. Now we’re going to have to wonder if he’s a presidential contender who would deliberately create a monster four-day-long backup on the George Washington Bridge to punish a Democratic mayor for not endorsing his re-election."

Yes, Christie's substantial goose is cooked. Time for the Republicans to search for a new candidate to face Hillary Clinton, whose goose is not much less substantial (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/01/08/hillary-is-back-and-so-are-nonstop-scandals/),  in 2016.

Gail Collins, "Candy Crush and Mr. Christie": Is Internet Gambling Worse Than the Stock Market?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Candy Crush and Mr. Christie" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/opinion/collins-candy-crush-and-mr-christie.html?_r=0), Gail Collins, founder of the Bonbon School of op-ed writing, acknowledges an addiction to "Candy Crush Saga." (Why am I not surprised?) Collins then segues to a denunciation of Chris Christie's legalization of Internet gambling in New Jersey. Collins writes:

"The whole idea of Internet gambling is enough to make you question the potential of Chris Christie for national office. There is no possible way the country could be improved by giving people a greatly expanded freedom to gamble for money in their pajamas. Some day in the near future, you may look back nostalgically on the time when your grandfather did not have a slot machine connection in his bedroom."

Christie's position regarding Internet gambling "is enough to make you question the potential of Chris Christie for national office"? Or is it the fact that Christie is a Republican enough to make Collins question his potential for national office?

In any event, I am not familiar with "Candy Crush Saga" and fortunately have no interest in gambling, Internet or otherwise, which is indeed a destructive addiction.

On the other hand, we have witnessed the legalization of hedge fund manipulation of the stock market, in large part owing to the 2007 cancellation of the Uptick Rule (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/08/maureen-dowd-summers-of-our-discontent.html).

You are going to lose money by engaging in Internet gambling in your pajamas? With time, this is almost a statistical certainty.

Are you also going to lose money by "investing" in the stock market while wearing pajamas? Perhaps the odds are not quite as bad as Internet gambling, but share prices are being manipulated by hedge funds at the expense of small investors, and persons "investing" in the stock market can easily be crushed by such hedge fund activity.

In the case of Internet gambling, the money lost by gamblers bolsters tax revenues. In the case of the stock market, the money lost by small investors lines the pockets of hedge funds.

Which is worse? You decide.

Gail Collins, "Presidential! Season! Soonish!": Collins Aims Her Snotgun at Christie

Given Gail Collins's girth, you might think that she would be a bit more sympathetic to Chris Christie, but this is not the case. With nothing to write about as is often the case, Collins, in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Presidential! Season! Soonish!" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/07/opinion/collins-presidential-season-soonish.html?_r=0), is training her snotgun (it doesn't require a license) on the Republican governor from New Jersey. Collins writes:

"Could Christie survive a presidential race when he couldn’t even get past the Mitt Romney vice presidential vetting process? There’s all that stuff about exploding expense accounts and his prior career as a lobbyist for the securities industry. True, the people of New Jersey have looked into his past and come away satisfied. But, really, in New Jersey you’re just happy to know a candidate is not currently under indictment."

Hmm, Christie was a lobbyist for the securities industry? How awful! But what about Hillary's highly successful commodities gambit? As reported by The Washington Post in 1994 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm):

"Hillary Rodham Clinton was allowed to order 10 cattle futures contracts, normally a $12,000 investment, in her first commodity trade in 1978 although she had only $1,000 in her account at the time, according to trade records the White House released yesterday.

The computerized records of her trades, which the White House obtained from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, show for the first time how she was able to turn her initial investment into $6,300 overnight. In about 10 months of trading, she made nearly $100,000, relying heavily on advice from her friend James B. Blair, an experienced futures trader.

The new records also raise the possibility that some of her profits -- as much as $40,000 – came from larger trades ordered by someone else and then shifted to her account, Leo Melamed, a former chairman of the Merc who reviewed the records for the White House, said in an interview. He said the discrepancies in Clinton's records also could have been caused by human error."

Permitted to make a $12,000 investment with only $1,000 in her account?

Trades shifted to her account?

Profits of $100,000 in 10 months of trading? Yeah, I know, beginner's luck in a market heavily weighted against those who dare dabble in this very risky field.

And Collins is upset that Christie was a lobbyist for the securities industry? Spare me.

Maureen Dowd, "Lost Art of Loyalty": Biden Could Yet Have the Last Laugh

"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."

- Mark Twain

There are almost three and a half years left to Obama's disastrous second term, and Americans are still discovering that there are consequences to electing a community organizer with no managerial experience as president. On Saturday, however, this did not prevent New York's Chuck Schumer from endorsing Hillary, a woman with absolutely no achievements - other than frequent flyer miles - as Obama's successor: "Run, Hillary, Run. If you run, you’ll win, and we’ll all win" (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/11/02/chuck-schumer-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president-if-you-run-youll-win/?hpid=z3).

Me? I can't wait to be a winner, but "Run, Hillary, run"? How about "Waddle, Hillary, waddle"?

Benghazi? What does it matter? Does anyone, other than the family members of the four American victims, still remember this fiasco? But I suppose we need to take into account the larger picture - America has experienced its first African American president, and now it's time for its first woman commander-in-chief. Get with the agenda! You see, in our Brave New World, it's skin color and gender that matter, not competence - or loyalty. And if speculation that Hillary is also a lesbian were to prove correct (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/hillary-clinton-lesbian-president-_n_3957349.html), we could kill two birds with one stone! What a wonderful world this would be! A regular love fest!

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Lost Art of Loyalty" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/dowd-lost-art-of-loyalty.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), Maureen Dowd notes the unswerving loyalty demonstrated by Vice Presdient Joe Biden to his boss and the indifference with which it has been received by Obama and his confidants. Dowd writes:

"In a capital known for hogging credit and stealing turf, Joe Biden has provided his boss with a rare loyalty over the last five years. Even behind closed doors, the vice president tries to elevate the president. His friends stress that Biden is not a golden retriever, but a sled dog, pulling his weight, chipping in, doing whatever he can."

And what has Biden gained from this fidelity? Dowd continues:

"It’s fair to say that Joe Biden has not been given the respect he deserves in the White House. It’s the story of the ultimate team player who has not been treated that way himself.

The West Wing young bucks never fully appreciated the fact that if you have a president who turns up his nose at working with Congress, it’s nice to have a vice president who enjoys being a pol, who can pick up the phone and persuade Arlen Specter, at the cost of his political career, to help pass Obama’s stimulus.

Biden has bent over backward to put the president in a good light, even as the president and Obamaworld have bent over backward to treat Hillary like the rightful successor to Obama.

They say loyalty is its own reward, and, in the case of Biden, it will have to be."

Or stated otherwise, Biden has earned the contempt of the fast-talking snake oil salesmen with whom Obama has surrounded himself. Biden in 2016? Again, it's not part of the agenda.

But wait! As observed by Joe Bruni yesterday regarding Hillary's numbers (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/opinion/bruni-hillary-in-2016-not-so-fast.html?_r=0):

"A poll released last week by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal charted the decline. It found that the percentage of Americans who view her favorably had dropped to 46 from 56. The percentage with unfavorable views had risen, less strikingly, to 33 from 29.

Here we go. The beginning of the end of her inevitability."

Oh, Hillary will get the Democratic nomination. In this age of entitlement, it's her turn.

But what happens afterwards when she is forced to wage an epic heavyweight battle against New Jersey's Big Gulp? It is still a long way down a bumpy road, rife with potholes and unexpected twists and turns.

Loyalty is its own reward? Although not destined to succeed Obama, Biden could yet have the last laugh.

Maureen Dowd, "Less Bully, More Pulpit": Christie? Obama Has Just Hit Rock Bottom!

Yesterday, I visited one of my hi-tech customers in the Israeli city of Hertzliya, just north of Tel Aviv, and I observed to my wife, who accompanied me on this trip, how calm everyone seemed at the restaurant where we ate lunch after the business meeting: "You would never think that a US Cruise missile attack on Syria is approaching later this week and that the threat of a Syrian chemical warfare reprisal against Israel, although unlikely, looms in the back of everyone's mind." My wife, who was born on an Israeli kibbutz in the north of Israel, which was pounded almost every day by Syrian shelling during her childhood, shrugged and continued to eat her bream (not shellfish).

Yes, I'm talking about that "little" rebellion that has cost more than 100,000 Syrian lives and yesterday resulted in the shutdown over the course of several hours of The New York Times website (see: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Syrian-hacker-group-shuts-down-the-New-York-Times-website-324490).

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Less Bully, More Pulpit" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/opinion/dowd-less-bully-more-pulpit.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd ignores the Syrian nerve gas attack on a Damascus suburb held by the rebels, which killed more than a thousand civilians, and instead focuses on Chris Christie's 2016 presidential aspirations. Referring to a radio program on Monday morning, during which Chris Christie slammed reporter Manish Mehta for questioning the decision of coach Rex Ryan to play Mark Sanchez in a Jets preseason game, Dowd writes:

"But Christie’s latest flash of a mean streak served as a reminder after a long period of glowing post-Sandy publicity for 'The Boss,' as the New Jersey governor was hailed on the cover of Time, giving him the ultimate compliment of sharing a nickname with his idol.

. . . .

He clearly has not taken a lesson from his pal Obama that you can be an obsessive sports fan and still maintain class.

. . . .

'He’s got a big personality, it’s a combative personality,' [Washington Post political reporter Dan Balz] replied. 'That’s one of the reasons people were drawn to him last time around, a guy who would take on Obama in a way Romney seemingly wasn’t doing.

'There are times when it has worked terrifically for him, and there are moments when it threatens to go over the top. It’s an open question: If you’re running for president, can you do that very often and hope to be successful?'"

Yup, Christie should take a lesson from Barack "Milk-Toast" Obama, the first invertebrate ever to occupy the Oval Office, on how to make - or break - less wind. Recall how a touchy-feely Obama, who is guided by the proverb "Speak softly and carry a tiny twig," passed assurances, in an open microphone gaffe, to Russian strongman Vladimir Putin that he would be more "flexible" after the 2012 election.

Well that gambit surely paid off. Today, Putin continues to provide Assad with advanced weaponry and opposes any effort to bring the Syrian tyrant under control.

A US strike against Assad? Obama has already tipped off Assad that it will be coming later this week (Thursday, lasting three days?), but not to worry: The US president has made it known in advance that he is not seeking regime change (see: http://freebeacon.com/carney-u-s-response-in-syria-not-about-regime-change/), and after this ineffective face-saving gesture, Assad and his Hezbollah friends can go back to murdering civilians.

Hmm. It's just like Obama's "surge" in Afghanistan, when he concurrently informed the Taliban that he would be withdrawing US troops by the end of 2014. Talk about telegraphing your punches . . .

In fact, the upcoming US strike on Syria is not about regime change; rather, it's about Obama's ego. By declaring a year ago that Assad's use of chemical weapons would constitute a "red line," he painted himself into a corner. He managed to ignore Assad's prior use of chemicals on civilians several months ago, but now, following the deaths of at least a thousand more civilians from nerve gas, most likely sarin, he must attempt to extricate himself from this nastly mess.

Obama never learned that when you ignore little problems, they have a way of turning into big problems. Obama also suffers from an IFF (identification friend or foe) problem.

Only blame Obama? No way. Hillary, who referred to Assad as a "reformer," must also share in the blame:

Sorry, but it is Obama who could take a lesson from Chris Christie's combativeness.


[At the bottom of Dowd's op-ed we are informed: "Thomas L. Friedman is off today." What a wonderful time for a would-be Middle East expert to take a holiday from his column . . .]

Gail Collins, "Loud Is a Losing Proposition": Christie Against Hillary? Neck-to-Neck or Cheek-to-Cheek?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Loud Is a Losing Proposition" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/opinion/collins-loud-is-a-losing-proposition.html?_r=0), a vacuous Gail Collins, already worried about Democratic chances in the 2016 US presidential election, has kicked off her campaign against Republican front runner Chris Christie. Collins tells us that women don't like screamers:

"If [Christie] winds up running, it could be a fantastic test of my theory that women won’t vote for men who yell.

We don’t need to have a discussion about whether or not Christie is a yeller, right?"

Labeling Christie the "Yelling Guy," Collins concludes:

"Maybe quiet and sane trumps loud and crazy, even in Republican primary politics.

Could be the start of something soft-spoken."

Well, on the subject of yelling, I wonder how Collins relates to a "soft-spoken" Hillary Clinton.

Query for Gail: Are women free to scream, but men can't?

And as long as we're on the subject of volume, consider how an unctuously quiet Barack Obama is making out on the international scene. Recall his would-be off-the-record comments to then Russian President Medvedev, including a promise of "flexibility" in his second term.

Given that Obama has now been forced to cancel his summit meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday, we can again see the benefits of the US president's quiet diplomacy.

But I don't think 2016 is going to be about "yelling." Rather, I think it's going to be about "fat," as US voters compare the supersized bottoms of Chris Christie and Hillary Clinton.

I wonder what a pleasantly plump Collins will have to say when Christie and Clinton have their first televised debate in another two and a half years. Neck-to-neck? No, it's more apt to be cheek-to-cheek.

As you can well imagine, I just can't wait.

Gail Collins, "Fitness for Office": What About Rosenthal and Friedman?

Does your girth in any manner impact upon your personal code of ethics or soundness of judgment? Sure, compulsive overeating or binge eating disorder can lead to obesity and type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart disease, and certain kinds of cancer, but do extra pounds or kilograms render someone unfit for government service? We're not talking about an Ironman Triathlon.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Fitness for Office" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/opinion/collins-fitness-for-office.html?_r=0), Gail Collins writes:

"But about Chris Christie. He’s also being talked about as a possible presidential candidate. Now there’s a physical challenge for you. Have you noticed what the job has done to Barack Obama? We aren’t thinking about the 2016 election yet, out of deference to national sanity. When we do, we will have to take the fitness matter seriously."

Indeed, government is what you make of it. The job has turned Obama into a physical wreck, or is it the cigarettes? As observed by Kathleen Parker in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Hillary Clinton and the ghosts of Benghazi" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-hillary-clinton-and-the-ghosts-of-benghazi/2013/02/08/423e3bc6-722c-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_story.html?hpid=z2), Obama didn't seem to take recent events in Benghazi too close to heart:

"Americans got a clearer picture of what transpired last Sept. 11 during testimony Thursday by retiring Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Panetta said he personally delivered the news to Obama that the consulate in Benghazi was under attack during a 30-minute briefing that also included Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The president said, 'Do whatever you need to do to be able to protect our people there,' and that was that. He and Panetta didn’t speak again that night — and neither Dempsey nor Panetta spoke to Clinton at all."

Were a gangly, cigarette-smoking Obama to be replaced by a hefty, donut-eating Christie, this would again mark another swing of the American political pendulum, but would we really need "to take the fitness matter seriously"?

Closer to home, Gail, who is also no featherweight, might want to take another gander at Andrew Rosenthal, editorial page editor of The New York Times, and at Thomas Friedman, whose chin has gone the way of the dodo bird, before indulging in another obsessive, Seamus-style series of attacks against Christie's corpulence.

Hurricane Sandy: What Went Unreported on Long Island

Yes, we will all remember President Obama's marvelous photo op in New Jersey with Governor Chris Christie immediately following the destruction wreaked by Hurricane Sandy. However, much of the suffering and chaos, including theft of generators and robbery, went unreported.

I received the following e-mail from my best friend, who lives on Long Island, concerning his efforts to keep his sickly 90-year-old mother alive:

"Finally got my power back yesterday [after 12 days without electricity]. Wasn't easy keeping my mother here at the house. Relied on a one burner butane stove to keep a bit of heat in her room. A friend gave me the stove and was an angel in getting cans of fuel.

At one point however,I was down to just a few cans, so went out to investigate shelters for the elderly with needs.

The Red Cross shelter at the local high school didn't know where they were, but they did exist, I was told. She made calls on my behalf, but only got recordings or unanswered phones.

I asked two cops sitting in a car. Their response: "We're not given that information. Call the precinct." Great advice if you happen to have a working phone - I did not. Cell service was virtually nonexistent as well.(I finally did get a call in. A recording to "call later'.)

I stopped at the Ambulance Rescue Squad. "We don't know about the shelters." Told them I would need them to transport, so they should know where to take her, but was told to call the police.

Finally got through to the town hotline. "Yes, we have four sanctuaries for the elderly." Where are they, I ask. "We don't have that information."

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.

Paul Krugman, "The Comeback Skid": Political Progressivism "Bleeds Through the Fabric of The Times"

Arthur Brisbane, the public editor of The New York Times, is departing, and this past weekend he published his final column (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/opinion/sunday/success-and-risk-as-the-times-transforms.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=public%20editor&st=Search) in which he stated:

"When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so. Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times."

"Political progressivism," i.e. bias, "bleeds through the fabric of The Times"? Who would have ever imagined?

Today, in his New York Times op-ed entitled "The Comeback Skid" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/opinion/krugman-the-comeback-skid.html), Paul Krugman again takes aim at Paul Ryan ("Mr. Ryan, as people finally seem to be realizing, is at heart a fiscal fraud"), but most of his rancor is reserved for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie:

"Also, while much of his [Christie's] program involves spending cuts, he has effectively raised taxes on low-income workers and homeowners by slashing tax credits. But he vetoed a temporary surcharge on millionaires while refusing to raise the state’s gasoline tax, which is the third-lowest in America and far below tax rates in neighboring states. Only some people, it seems, are expected to make sacrifices."

So Christie refused to raise New Jersey's gasoline tax. Are we to understand that the price of gasoline has no impact upon commerce in the Garden State and that only millionaires drive cars?

Krugman continues:

"Strikingly, New Jersey’s 9.8 percent unemployment rate is now significantly higher than the unemployment rate in long-suffering Michigan, which has had a true comeback thanks to the G.O.P.-opposed auto bailout."

Although Michigan's current unemployment rate of 9 percent is better than a year ago, Krugman doesn't tell you that in July 2012, Michigan's unemployment rate rose for the third consecutive month after nine months of improvement (see: http://www.mlive.com/jobs/index.ssf/2012/08/michigans_unemployment_rate_up_for_third.html).

In fact, economic recovery throughout the US has hit the skids, yet there is no reference in Krugman's opinion piece to Obama's responsibility for this disaster.

Recall how Obama stated exactly one year ago in August 2011 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/21/us-usa-obama-economy-idUSTRE77K14Z20110821):

"I expect to be judged a year from now on whether or not things have continued to get better."

Krugman, however, prefers to ignore the president's pledge, overlooks the absence of an Obama plan to remedy America's unsustainable fiscal deficits, and instead accuses Paul Ryan of "fiscal fraud." Sure, it is possible to intelligently challenge Ryan's proposals (see, for example, Peter Orszag's reasoned response, which is made without name-calling: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-paul-ryans-budget/2012/08/23/757b3718-eba0-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_story.html), but where is Obama's alternative solution?

Which takes us back to Arthur Brisbane's parting remarks. Indeed, "political progressivism," i.e. bias, sadly "bleeds through the fabric of The Times."

Paul Krugman, "Prisons, Privatization, Patronage": Hyper-Politicized Horsefeathers

"Four legs good, two legs bad!"

"Unions good, privatization bad!"

In yet another hyper-politicized New York Times opinion piece entitled "Prisons, Privatization, Patronage" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/opinion/krugman-prisons-privatization-patronage.html), Paul Krugman attacks privatization of traditional government functions. Specifically addressing privatization of prison services and alleged substandard functioning of such outsourcing in Chris Christie's New Jersey, Krugman writes:

"And, sure enough, despite many promises that prison privatization will lead to big cost savings, such savings — as a comprehensive study by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, part of the U.S. Department of Justice, concluded — 'have simply not materialized.' To the extent that private prison operators do manage to save money, they do so through 'reductions in staffing patterns, fringe benefits, and other labor-related costs.'

So let’s see: Privatized prisons save money by employing fewer guards and other workers, and by paying them badly. And then we get horror stories about how these prisons are run. What a surprise!"

Yet a few lines down, Krugman acknowledges:

"Now, someone will surely point out that nonprivatized government has its own problems of undue influence, that prison guards and teachers’ unions also have political clout, and this clout sometimes distorts public policy. Fair enough. But such influence tends to be relatively transparent. Everyone knows about those arguably excessive public pensions."

I'm sorry, Paul, but now you have me confused. Are you acknowledging that the political clout of unions can distort public policy, and that public employees are sometimes overpaid, i.e. not "paid badly"? Morevover, would you have us believe that excessive penison plans and crapulous political clout are okay because everyone knows about them? Yeah, right.

Like almost everything else in this world, there is no black and white. There is a need for privatization to rein in the excesses of public employee unions. Yes, competition can be a good thing.

However, there is also a need for oversight and vigilence to identify and prevent abuses resulting from the excesses of both public employee unions and privatized services.

C'est tout.

Paul Krugman, "Big Fiscal Phonies": Narrow-Minded Politicized Diatribe

Paul Krugman's latest New York Times op-ed, "Big Fiscal Phonies" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/28/opinion/krugman-fiscal-phonies.html), leaves me confused: If Republicans are all about "reverse Robin Hood policies," and if Republican Congressman Paul Ryan's budget proposals "are mainly about cutting taxes for the rich while slashing aid to the poor and unlucky," and if there are more middle class and poor people than rich people, how do Republicans stand a snowball's chance in hell of being elected? Beats me!

More specifically, Krugman uses this highly politicized op-ed to scold New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for an ill-tempered attack upon David Rosen, New Jersey's Legislative Budget and Finance Officer, who declared that the state faces a $1.3 billion budget shortfall. Krugman tells us how Christie labeled Rosen “the Dr. Kevorkian of the numbers,” but fails to observe what was also said by the governor:

"'This year, when [the Democrats] don’t want to cut your taxes under any circumstances, they have their handmaiden walk over across the street in front of the Assembly Budget Committee today and say...’I was wrong. I was $1.6 billion wrong for this year, but trust me for next year. You’re another $660 million short for next year.’ Why would anybody with a functioning brain believe this guy?'"

Less than civil language on the part of Christie? Sure, but who will be correct at yearend? It remains to be seen.

Krugman concludes his opinion piece by launching yet another blistering attack on Republicans:

"For the modern American right doesn’t care about deficits, and never did. All that talk about debt was just an excuse for attacking Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and food stamps. And as for Mr. Christie, well, he’s just another fiscal phony, distinguished only by his fondness for invective."

Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's all about stealing from the poor, and has nothing whatsoever to do with balancing budgets. Democrats good, Republicans bad.

But let's have a look at an ugly reality. State governments can tax the hell out of the wealthy, but guess what will happen: Those well-to-do individuals will ultimately pack their bags and leave for some other location where the tax rates are lower. Many of you who live in California have seen this happen, as your more affluent friends and neighbors have moved to Arizona. The effect on the economy? Property values and property tax revenue fall, and those of means, who have departed the state, are no longer purchasing from local business people and merchants.

Like it or not, the states must compete to attract the wealthy. Paul Krugman pretends not to understand this. Apparently, however, there are sufficient numbers of people from New Jersey's middle class who are capable of fathoming this dilemma and made Christie governor.