Charles Krauthammer, "The case against reelection": Powerful, but Will November Be Decided by the Larger Advertising Budget?

As well known to Axelrod and friends, Obama cannot run on his record, and therefore the November 2012 campaign is being waged by the Democrats by seeking to sully Romney's name. Ergo, Gail Collins's incessant, albeit tame, dog-on-the-roof columns, which more recently have morphed into an advertisement linking Romney to the death of a steelworker’s wife from cancer some seven years after Romney ceased to effectively manage Bain in 1999 (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/08/romney-responsible-for-death-of.html).

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The case against reelection" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-case-against-reelection/2012/08/09/c64ce76c-e250-11e1-98e7-89d659f9c106_story.html?hpid=z2), Charles Krauthammer observes that Romney can't win if he pits his personality and mien against Obama, who is "more likable and immeasurably cooler." Instead, Romney should refuse to play Axelrod's game and instead run against Obama's record:

"First, the $831 billion stimulus that was going to 'reinvest' in America and bring unemployment below 6 percent. We know about the unemployment. And the investment? Obama loves to cite great federal projects such as the Hoover Dam and the interstate highway system. Fine. Name one thing of any note created by Obama’s Niagara of borrowed money. A modernized electric grid? Ports dredged to receive the larger ships soon to traverse a widened Panama Canal? Nothing of the sort. Solyndra, anyone?

Second, radical reform of health care that would reduce its ruinously accelerating cost: 'Put simply,' he said, 'our health-care problem is our deficit problem' — a financial hemorrhage drowning us in debt.

Except that Obamacare adds to spending. The Congressional Budget Office reports that Obamacare will incur $1.68 trillion of new expenditures in its first decade. To say nothing of the price of the uncertainty introduced by an impossibly complex remaking of one-sixth of the economy — discouraging hiring and expansion as trillions of investable private-sector dollars remain sidelined.

The third part of Obama’s promised transformation was energy. His cap-and-trade federal takeover was rejected by his own Democratic Senate. So the war on fossil fuels has been conducted unilaterally by bureaucratic fiat. Regulations that will kill coal. A no-brainer pipeline (Keystone) rejected lest Canadian oil sands be burned. (China will burn them instead.) A drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico that a federal judge severely criticized as illegal."

The case against Obama cannot be spelled out any clearer, and Krauthammer doesn't even reference Obama's disastrous foreign policy.

So why do the polls have Obama leading Romney with so many Americans on the unemployment lines? Probably because Romney is so uncomfortable under his own skin. Then, too, if hundreds of millions of dollars are raised by George Clooney, Sarah Jessica Parker and friends for character assassination advertisements, ultimately this propaganda will have its effect.

November 2012 will be determined by the size of the candidates' advertising budgets. Sad but true, which is why the Democrats are also seeking to trash the names of Romney's donors, e.g., Sheldon Adelson (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/08/08/jewish-dems-had-no-religious-duty-to-smear-adelson-njdc-prostitution/).

David Brooks, "Why Our Elites Stink": The Stench of Money

"We have met the enemy and he is us."
Pogo, 1971

In his latest New York Times op-ed, "Why Our Elites Stink" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/opinion/brooks-why-our-elites-stink.html), David Brooks suggests that today's "brainy elite" might not be doing a better job of leading the US than yesteryear's "old boys’ network." The reason for this failure, according to Brooks, is anchored in an absence of a "leadership code":

"Today’s elite is more talented and open but lacks a self-conscious leadership code. The language of meritocracy (how to succeed) has eclipsed the language of morality (how to be virtuous)."

Leadership code? Long before 2012, leadership was replaced by narcissism.

As reported by ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/obamas-air-force-one-call-to-donors-reveals-money-worries/):

"President Obama has spent more time raising money than any of his predecessors in recent history, crisscrossing the country on Air Force One to 175 re-election fundraisers so far in his first term.

His campaign, the Democratic National Committee and their joint accounts reported more than $173 million cash on hand at the end of May, $61 million more than rival Mitt Romney and Republicans.

And after smashing fundraising records in 2008, tapping $746 million from a historic donor roll of 3 million names, Team Obama has appeared on pace to do it again.

Still, Obama and Democrats are sounding the alarm for what would seem to be unthinkable: that they are poised to be outraised and outspent by Romney, the GOP and allied outside groups.

'We see where we stand, and right now on a month-to-month basis, we’ve fallen behind,' Obama told a group of high-dollar donors Friday on an 18-minute conference call from Air Force One, according to The Daily Beast, which obtained audio of the call from a participant."

Excuse me, but at a time when Iran is threatening to sink US aircraft carriers and to destroy 35 US military bases, Obama is sleepless because Romney is raising more money? Goodness gracious, after four years of failure, Obama is deathly afraid that those nefarious Republicans will be able to beam more 30-second addle-brained television advertisements into the homes of tens of millions of Americans and turn the tide of the 2012 election. In fact, Obama has good reason to be wary, given that "Change" did not happen, and "Give Me a Second Chance" is not a viable battle cry.

Who is raising the money for this pap? No, it's not just coming from Wall Street tycoons. There are also the chic and glamorous from Hollywood and New York, who would also impose their imprimatur upon November. As I observed in my prior blog entry (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/paul-krugman-whos-very-important-class.html), consider the recent $80,000 a plate fundraiser at Jessica Parker's Manhattan penthouse, arranged with the able assistance of Vogue magazine editor Anna Wintour.

Vogue? Surely you recall Vogue's enchanting 2011 profile of Syrian first lady Asma al-Assad, entitled “A Rose in the Desert,” now scrubbed from the web, which was published at a time when the Assads had already begun slaughtering Syria's citizenry. As stated by this sycophantic article, "The household is run on wildly democratic principles. 'We all vote on what we want, and where,' [Asma] says."

Then, too, there was the May shindig for Obama arranged by George Clooney at his California home, which raised some $15 million. Almost everyone in attendance paid $40,000 for dinner with a few exceptions. As observed by The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304543904577397330920533806.html):

"But the Obama campaign raised millions more online by raffling off two free tickets to the dinner. The winners were Beth Topinka, a New Jersey science teacher, and Karen Blutcher, a Florida utility company employee. Both women came with their husbands. The two couples sat toward the rear of the tent."

Why do Jessica Parker, Anna Wintour and George Clooney think that they know better than we do? What does movie and fashion talent have to do with economics and statecraft? How has it come to be that someone like George Clooney - I like many of his movies - think that he knows best how the US should be governed?

More to the point, how has it come to be that money swings elections? Answer: Because we allow it to happen.

I wouldn't spend a nickel to participate in a raffle that might "win" me the opportunity to dine with Clooney and friends. And even if invited, I wouldn't go.

Excuse me now as I go harvest my tomatoes.

Paul Krugman, "Who’s Very Important?": Class Warfare Without Solutions

The 2012 presidential election is becoming an ugly mud slinging match between two candidates bereft of ideas intended to free the US from the economic muck in which it is mired.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Who’s Very Important?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/opinion/krugman-whos-very-important.html), Paul Krugman would have us believe that the Romney candidacy is all about the "superrich" seeking to establish control over America. Krugman begins his opinion piece by observing:

"'Is there a V.I.P. entrance? We are V.I.P.' That remark, by a donor waiting to get in to one of Mitt Romney’s recent fund-raisers in the Hamptons, pretty much sums up the attitude of America’s wealthy elite. Mr. Romney’s base — never mind the top 1 percent, we’re talking about the top 0.01 percent or higher — is composed of very self-important people."

Oh, those snotty Republican rich people! And I might even buy into this fantasy were it not for the recent $80,000 a plate fundraiser at Jessica Parker's Manhattan penthouse, arranged with the able assistance of Vogue magazine editor Anna Wintour. Vogue? Surely you recall Vogue's enchanting 2011 profile of Syrian first lady Asma al-Assad, entitled “A Rose in the Desert,” which was published at a time when the Assads had already begun slaughtering Syria's citizenry. As stated by this sycophantic article, "The household is run on wildly democratic principles. 'We all vote on what we want, and where,' [Asma] says."

As for Anna Wintour, who is said to be worth $35 million (see: http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/designers/anna-wintour-net-worth/), there is speculation that she will be named the next US ambassador to England, owing to the enormity of the funds she has raised for Obama. If so, she will replace Louis Susman, "a retired vice-president of Citigroup, whose fund-raising abilities during Obama’s 2008 campaign earned him the nickname 'the vacuum cleaner'" (see: http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2012/06/anna-wintour-angling-for-an-ambassador-post.html).

And let's not forget that May shindig for Obama arranged by George Clooney at his California home, which raised some $15 million. Almost everyone in attendance paid $40,000 each for dinner with a few exceptions. As observed by The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304543904577397330920533806.html):

"But the Obama campaign raised millions more online by raffling off two free tickets to the dinner. The winners were Beth Topinka, a New Jersey science teacher, and Karen Blutcher, a Florida utility company employee. Both women came with their husbands. The two couples sat toward the rear of the tent."

Sorry, Paul, but the stench of the moneyed attempting to influence November's outcome wafts from both sides of the aisle.

If only either candidate could proffer a viable program for achieving US energy independence over the next four years. Yes, it can be done and at the same time create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

If only either candidate would be willing to reinstate the Uptick Rule and reenact Glass-Steagall, providing the US economy with an instant burst of renewal.

However, this is not meant to be. Obama loyalists, such as Paul Krugman, would prefer to depict the election as a contest between rich and poor, which is a fable intended to paper over almost four years of failed economic policies.

Charles Blow, "Mean Boys;" Gail Collins, "The Anatomy of a Jokester": Beating Up on Romney

This has not been a happy week for the Obama administration.

Although America's president was feted at a Hollywood fund raiser at the home of George Clooney and was surrounded by a bevy of adoring millionaire movie stars, elsewhere, in the real world, things were not going according to plan.

In Afghanistan, local commanders are refusing to chase after insurgents (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/afghan-commanders-show-new-defiance-in-dealings-with-americans/2012/05/11/gIQAMdNTHU_story.html?hpid=z1), calling into question whether Afghan troops will actively engage the Taliban following an intended evacuation of US troops in 2014.

At home, JPMorgan Chase has just announced a $2 billion loss from trading activity, which highlights the fact that the Obama administration has done virtually nothing to curb abuses which threaten the financial welfare of the nation.

Still closer to home, Bill Clinton, according to a soon to be published book entitled "The Amateur," by Edward Klein, a former editor of Newsweek and The New York Times Magazine, is said to have
stated that Obama "doesn’t know how to be president" and is "incompetent" (see: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/bill_blockbuster_an_amateur_XJHYdaV5LT1vpr5I39IKrN). I doubt that Bill will be campaigning with Barack in the fall.

Worse yet, in a move uncoordinated with the West Wing, Vice President Biden came out in favor of gay marriage, forcing Obama to release a similar declaration, but not in accordance with the timetable set for the president's announcement (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/05/11/end-no-drama-obama-biden-gay-marriage/#more-793548). The ombudsman of The Washington Post (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/omblog/post/mitt-romney-bullying-story-holds-up-to-scrutiny/2012/05/11/gIQALLVnIU_blog.html?hpid=z2), believes that WAPO then took advantage of Obama's declaration to publish an article alleging bullying by Romney in high school of an unpopular classmate, who later turned out to be gay. According to WAPO's ombudsman:

"Do I think The Post took advantage of the timing? Yes.

. . . .

If I were an editor I might have sped [the article] up a little, too, to take advantage of the national discussion on gay marriage. Does that mean Post editors are timing stories with the White House? I hope not, and I doubt that is the case."

The ombudsman "hopes not"? That's very reassuring.

Meanwhile, over at "The New York Times," both Charles Blow ("Mean Boys," http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/12/opinion/blow-mean-boys.html) and Gail Collins ("The Anatomy of a Jokester," http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/12/opinion/collins-the-anatomy-of-a-jokester.html) have today written op-eds denouncing Romney's response to the incident, which occurred more than 40 years ago.

I'm younger than Romney, but not by much. I remember my public high school as a place where there was violence and racial intolerance, but issues involving homosexuality, prior to the evolution of gay rights, did not preoccupy teen consciousness in my town. My guess is that if Mitt Romney, a rich kid not good at sports, had attended my high school, he would have been on the receiving end of the bullying.

I'm not keen on Mitt Romney, but I would observe that back 40 years ago, high school could be a brutal place for anyone who dared not to conform. I think it's wonderful that the issue of bullying is finally receiving the attention it deserves, but frankly the alleged incident involving the vicious forced haircut is timid compared with incidents that I recall from my school days, which sent children to the hospital.

Obama? Let's indeed ignore his past use of drugs and his eating of dogs. Rather, let's focus on his much more recent associations with Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Rashid Khalidi. I would also draw special attention to Obama's ties to former White House Communications Director Anita ("Mao is one of my favorite political philosophers") Dunn; former Green Czar Van Jones; and current Special Assistant to the President Samantha Power, who advocated sending US troops to protect Palestinians from Israel.

The alleged bullying incident involving Romney more than 40 years ago as reported by The Washington Post was painful to read. Quite frankly, however, I am far more disturbed by the ongoing war in Afghanistan, America's economic malaise that shows no sign of abating, and the president's association with radical leftists, who could well shape a possible second term in office for Obama once he is freed from the constraints of facing reelection.

David Brooks, "The Cagey Phase": When Does Obama Show His True Colors?

As additional rockets and missiles were fired from Gaza at civilian targets in southern Israel at Iran's behest (see: http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=262064), I gazed with amusement at pictures of Obama's state dinner for British Prime Minister David Cameron (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/president-obama-and-first-lady-welcome-british-prime-minister-david-cameron-and-wife-for-state-dinner/2012/03/14/gIQATHgrCS_gallery.html?hpid=z7#photo=1). While the president told stale jokes concerning how the Redcoats burned down the White House during the War of 1812, a fashionably bewhiskered George Clooney, in tuxedo and black bow tie, chatted up Michelle Obama, who, bedecked in an azure evening gown with matching blue baubles, responded by fluttering her ersatz lashes. No, in case you're curious, I was not invited. Moreover, I can probably no longer fit into my tuxedo, which smells of mold, and, owing to my aversion to large social gatherings (post traumatic stress syndrome?), I wouldn't have lasted beyond the appetizer before clumsily excusing myself. Perhaps next time, Michelle.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Cagey Phase" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/opinion/brooks-the-cagey-phase.html?ref=opinion), David Brooks informs us that party animal Obama has morphed from an "audacious" phase of his presidency, during which he introduced health care reform, to a "cagey" phase. By way of example Brooks writes:

"In Afghanistan, President Obama increased troop levels, to please his generals, while simultaneously announcing a withdrawal date, to please his party. On deficit reduction, Obama has often said he agrees with the Simpson-Bowles approach, while simultaneously distancing himself from the specific proposals. On tax reform, Obama has frequently said he wants to simplify the code while simultaneously proposing loopholes that make it more complex.

President Obama has gotten tough on China while simultaneously getting friendly with China. He has ratcheted up the heat on Iran while simultaneously trying to restrain Israel. He has promoted new oil and gas exploration while simultaneously blocking the Keystone XL oil pipeline that would transport it."

Sorry, David, is this being "cagey," or does this represent indecision and procrastination, which have typified the Obama administration?

Specifically, with respect to foreign policy, Brooks writes:

"Obama’s hot-and-cold approaches to China, Russia and Iran have generally been excellent. In many ways, Obama’s multifaceted, maneuvering style makes him a natural foreign policy president."

Ah, yes, a "natural foreign policy president." Perhaps this is best exemplified by how he sent John Kerry to charm Syria's tyrant, Bashar al-Assad, and then did nothing as thousands of Sunni Muslims were gunned down in the streets of Homs and disfigured beyond recognition in Assad's torture chambers.

Or perhaps a more telling example is to be found in Obama's recent phone call to Vladimir Putin to congratulate the Russian on his fraudulent reelection as president. Even Cameron could not bring himself to engage in such hypocrisy.

Better still, consider how Egypt's army recently sought to lock away US democracy activists to the delight of the Muslim Brotherhood, but how the Obama administration is now arranging to resume $1.3 billion in annual military aid to Cairo.

As matters stand now, Obama is going to edge out a hapless Romney in November. If there is to be additional "change," i.e. a final transmogrification in 2013 and beyond, I am not looking forward to seeing this butterfly's true colors.