Maureen Dowd, "Hillary Is Not Sorry": Shedding Crocodile Tears Over Hillary's Sputtering Campaign

Tweet

Beginning her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hillary Is Not Sorry" by observing "It’s hard not to feel sorry for Hillary Clinton," Dowd goes on to say:

"She has shown an unwillingness to be introspective and learn from her mistakes. From health care to Iraq to the email server, she only apologizes at the point of a gun. And even then, she leaves the impression that she is merely sorry to be facing criticism, not that she miscalculated in the first place."

Maureen feels sorry for Hillary? Yeah, right.

Concerning the debate in Brooklyn, Dowd tells us that "Clinton sowed suspicion again, refusing to cough up her Wall Street speech transcripts." More to the point, now that Sanders has made public his 2014 tax return (he and his wife made less in all of 2014 than what Hillary received for a single hour-long speech) and given that he will presumably release his 2015 return in the coming days, it becomes increasingly difficult for Hillary not to provide us with the transcripts.

As Seth Abramson observes in an insightful Huffington Post "The Blog" item entitled "Release of Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches Could End Her Candidacy for President":

"Release of the transcripts would therefore, it appears, have three immediate — and possibly fatal — consequences for Clinton’s presidential campaign:

1. It would reveal that Clinton lied about the content of the speeches at a time when she suspected she would never have to release them, nor that their content would ever be known to voters.
2. It would reveal that the massive campaign and super-PAC contributions Clinton has received from Wall Street did indeed, as Sanders has alleged, influence her ability to get tough on Wall Street malfeasance either in Congress or behind closed doors.
3. It would reveal that Clinton’s policy positions on — for instance — breaking up 'too-big-to-fail' banks are almost certainly insincere, as they have been trotted out merely for the purposes of a presidential campaign.

. . . .

Coupled with the many states remaining that Senator Sanders is expected to win, this could leave Clinton in a situation in which she loses 22 of the final 25 states — enough of a collapse for unpledged super-delegates to abandon her in large numbers at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia."

Joe, where are you when we need you?

Dowd also declares in her opinion piece:

"But [Sanders] was gutsy, in a New York primary, to say he’d be more evenhanded with Israel and the Palestinians."

Yup, the US needs to be more evenhanded, particularly as the Palestinians continue to fire rockets at Israeli towns and cities; continue to stab Israeli civilians, particularly women; continue to engage in "honor killings" against their sisters and daughters; and overwhelmingly believe (89 percent) that homosexuality is "morally wrong." "Gutsy"? How about "obscene"?

Sanders's claim that the Israeli response to the more than 4,000 Hamas missiles fired at Israeli towns and cities in 2014 was "disproportionate"? Perhaps Bernie would care to explain how many missiles the US should fire back at Iran, if a single Iranian ballistic missile hits New York. After all, he wouldn't want the US response to be "disproportionate."

President Obama's Huffington Post Interview With Sam Stein: Obama Doesn't Want "a Chaotic Situation in the Region"

In a powder puff interview with the Huffington Post, Sam Stein asked President Obama, among other things, about last week's Israeli elections:

HUFFPOST: Switching to foreign affairs. Given Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent comments on a two-state solution in the close of his campaign, can the U.S. continue to oppose Palestinian efforts to gain statehood at the United Nations?

OBAMA: Well, I had a chance to speak to Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday, congratulated his party on his victory. I did indicate to him that we continue to believe that a two-state solution is the only way for the long-term security of Israel, if it wants to stay both a Jewish state and democratic. And I indicated to him that given his statements prior to the election, it is going to be hard to find a path where people are seriously believing that negotiations are possible.

. . . .

But we are going to continue to insist that, from our point of view, the status quo is unsustainable. And that while taking into complete account Israel's security, we can't just in perpetuity maintain the status quo, expand settlements. That's not a recipe for stability in the region.

HUFFPOST: Is there any reason at this point to believe that he's serious about a Palestinian state?

OBAMA: Well, we take him at his word when he said that it wouldn't happen during his prime ministership, and so that's why we've got to evaluate what other options are available to make sure that we don't see a chaotic situation in the region.

"Not a recipe for stability in the region"? Fascinating. Syria, Iraq and Yemen are in flames. Egypt and Lebanon teeter on the brink. Tunisia is being rocked by terrorism. Libya has become home to al-Qaeda. Or stated otherwise, something far worse than a "chaotic" situation exists throughout the region, and much of it is of Obama's own making, e.g., "leading from behind" in Libya, failing to enforce his "red line" involving Assad's use of chemical weapons against civilians in Syria, and tacitly acquiescing to Iran's military involvement in Iraq.

Nevertheless, Obama would point a finger at the West Bank, the one place where there is quiet. After all, the status quo cannot be maintained "in perpetuity."

Obama, however, ignores the fact that it is Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas who is interested in maintaining the status quo. Abbas declared to Jackson Diehl in 2009:

"'I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements,' he said. 'Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.'"

This statement was made after Abbas refused Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's 2008 peace offer, providing the Palestinians with an independent state along the 1967 lines together with agreed upon land swaps and Palestinian control of east Jerusalem. One year later, after Netanyahu declared a 10-month settlement freeze "to restart peace talks" at the request of Obama, Abbas delayed entering negotiations until the last moment and then walked away from the discussions.

Moreover, Abbas will never see better terms than those offered by Olmert.

So will there be two-state solution while Netanyahu is prime minister? Probably not, because Abbas, who is deathly afraid of Hamas (which rejects any negotiated peace with Israel), doesn't want it.

Yes, Obama, who is more responsible than anyone for the chaos that prevails in the region, continues to wear his naivete on his sleeve.

Roger Cohen, "Start With Gaza": The Master of Moral Equivalence

Roger Cohen's journalistic ethics? Perhaps you recall how Cohen, in 2009, was busy visiting Tehran and seeking to convince us that Iran is "not totalitarian." You might also recall how Cohen paid $150 a day for a translator, who was reporting back to the Iranian authorities (http://www.jta.org/2009/03/16/news-opinion/united-states/roger-cohen-spars-with-iranian-jewish-expats). I don't recall that he ever mentioned these payments to his New York Times readers.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Start With Gaza" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/opinion/roger-cohen-start-with-gaza.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0), Cohen again begins by telling us:

"In Gaza, an open-air prison for 1.8 million people, more than 300 children are dead, killed in the almost month-long Israeli bombardment. Each of those children has a name, a family. Several were killed in the recent shelling of a United Nations school, an act that the United States called 'disgraceful.' The many civilian casualties in Gaza cannot be waved away as the 'human shields' of Hamas. They were not human shields; they were human beings. When the guns die down, Israel will begin a difficult accounting."

Cohen then says that Hamas is "criminal." Or in other words, Israel is bad and so is Hamas.

Gaza is an "open-air prison for 1.8 million people"? Cohen again (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/08/roger-cohen-why-americans-see-israel.html) fails to mention that Gaza's current population of 1.8 million was some 300,000 in 1967 after Israel occupied Gaza during the Six Day War (Israel unilaterally evacuated Gaza in 2005). Needless to say, the main reason Gaza is so crowded is that Gazans have been very busy having children. Then, too, life expectancy in Gaza of 74.64 years, according to the CIA World Factbook, is considerably higher than life expectancy in Turkey amounting to 73.29 years.

Cohen doesn't tell us about Gaza's eight universities and colleges, or its gourmet restaurants (e.g., "Roots"), or its 5-star hotel ("The al-Mashtal"). And then there was also the "Crazy Water Park," which was burned down by Hamas, because Hamas didn't want men and women intermingling.

Cohen also fails to note that the border between Israel and Gaza was not always closed. It was shut down after suicide bombers, sent into Israel from Gaza and the West Bank, killed more than 1,000 Israeli civilians. By the same token, Cohen ignores the more than 10,000 rockets and mortar rounds that were fired from Gaza at Israeli towns and cities prior to the current war.

Have a look at a video filmed a few days ago by an Indian television news crew from NDTV of this horrifying "open-air prison":



Does the residential area surrounding the rocket launching site look like an "open-air prison" to you? But why should that bother Cohen? The facts only get in the way of his fanciful story.

The recent shelling near (not "of") a United Nations school was deemed by the United States "disgraceful"? Cohen doesn't mention that three Islamic Jihad operatives were killed in the attack. He also doesn't tell us anything about civilian casualties resulting from US drone attacks. As observed in a May 2014 Huffington Post article entitled "The Toll Of 5 Years Of Drone Strikes: 2,400 Dead" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program-anniversary_n_4654825.html) by Matt Sledge:

"Obama recently told The New Yorker that he 'wrestle[s]' with civilian casualties. But, he said, he has 'a solemn duty and responsibility to keep the American people safe. That’s my most important obligation as President and Commander-in-Chief. And there are individuals and groups out there that are intent on killing Americans -- killing American civilians, killing American children, blowing up American planes.'

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued a pair of reports in October fiercely criticizing the secrecy that shrouds the administration's drone program, and calling for investigations into the deaths of drone victims with no apparent connection to terrorism. In Pakistan alone, TBIJ estimates, between 416 and 951 civilians, including 168 to 200 children, have been killed."

Am I to understand that the Israeli government does not have a "solemn duty and responsibility" to keep the Israeli people safe?

Yes, Cohen is revolting.

Mark Landler, "U.S. Diplomacy on Gaza Has Little Sway on Israel": In fact, Obama Has "Little Sway" Anywhere

The impotence of Barack Obama, the first invertebrate ever to occupy the Oval office, is the topic of a telling New York Times article entitled "U.S. Diplomacy on Gaza Has Little Sway on Israel" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/05/world/middleeast/gaza-is-straining-us-ties-to-israel.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0) by Mark Landler. Landler begins by observing:

"When the State Department condemned Israel’s strike on a United Nations school in Gaza on Sunday, saying it was 'appalled' by this 'disgraceful' act, it gave full vent to what has been weeks of mounting American anger toward the Israeli government.

The blunt, unsparing language — among the toughest diplomats recall ever being aimed at Israel — lays bare a frustrating reality for the Obama administration: the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has largely dismissed diplomatic efforts by the United States to end the violence in Gaza, leaving American officials to seethe on the sidelines about what they regard as disrespectful treatment."

"Appalling"? "Disgraceful"? It is "appalling" that US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki never spent a week in the southern Israeli town of Sderot and learned what it means to take cover from incoming rockets within 15 seconds. It is "disgraceful" that Psaki failed to take into account that during the current conflict, Hamas has been firing rockets, stored in UN facilities, from schools, hospitals and mosques.

Psaki's outburst was indeed the product of frustration within the Obama administration. Just over a week ago, Obama demanded that Israel agree to an immediate unilateral ceasefire, coupled with mediation from Qatar and Turkey, Hamas's principal backers. Obama told Netanyahu that the Israeli prime minister had no choice in choosing meditators. Netanyahu ignored Obama, and Landler goes on to tell us why Obama was not able to have his way:

"And yet, with public opinion in both Israel and the United States solidly behind the Israeli military’s campaign against Hamas, no outcry from Israel’s Arab neighbors, and unstinting support for Israel on Capitol Hill, President Obama has had few obvious levers to force Mr. Netanyahu to stop pounding targets in Gaza until he was ready to do it."

However, Landler fails to explain why public opinion in Israel has so staunchly supported the Israel Defense Forces campaign, or why there has been "no outcry from Israel’s Arab neighbors."

In fact, the Israeli public is painfully aware of the threat presented by Hamas. Hamas has sought to wage asymmetric war against Israel, but owing to the effectiveness of Iron Dome, rockets fired from Gaza have caused relatively little damage. On the other hand, the rockets did succeed in causing the US FAA to ban flights to Israel, thus effectively undermining Israeli commerce. Of greater significance, Hamas tunnels leading into Israel could have led to a spate of kidnappings and ensuing blackmail. Israel could not live with this threat, which had been ignored by the Israeli military establishment, and which inevitably will be the subject of future commissions of inquiry.

"No outcry from Israel's neighbors"? Egypt's Sisi and Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah view Hamas as part and parcel of a radical Sunni threat to their regimes emanating from ISIL, and were incensed when Kerry sought to freeze them out of the negotiating process. Sisi and Abdullah would be delighted to see Hamas eradicated. Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, also took umbrage when he was not invited to attend the peace conference in Paris convened by Kerry. Nice work, John.

Mr. Landler concludes his article by observing the Obama administration's fury at Israel for calling into question Kerry's motives:

"'I cannot for the life of me understand why the Israelis would do this to Kerry,' said a senior administration official, who was not authorized to comment publicly on the matter and spoke on condition of anonymity. 'If it was designed to pressure us, I don’t know to what end.'"

I have news for that anonymous "senior administration official": It was Kerry who put the gun to Israel's head by demanding that Israel agree to a cessation of hostilities without allowing Israel to destroy the tunnels and with the appointment of Qatar and Turkey as mediators.

But more to the point, no one is taking Obama seriously these days. In a Huffington Post article entitled "Stung By Criticism, Obama Preps Sweeping Defense Of His Foreign Policy Approach" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/24/obama-foreign-policy_n_5386471.html), Steve Holland noted:

"The president has come under withering fire in recent months for what his critics say is a passive approach to foreign policy, one that has allowed Russian President Vladimir Putin to flex his muscle in Ukraine, and left the Syrian civil war to fester and China to threaten its neighbors in the South China Sea."

And so it happened that Obama, who could not stand up to tyrants and bullies and whose red lines have been drawn with washable crayons, sought to vent his frustrations against a long-standing friend in the Middle East.

Sickening.

New York Times Editorial, "Israel’s War in Gaza": The Blind Leading the Blind

In an editorial entitled "Israel’s War in Gaza" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/opinion/Israels-War-in-Gaza.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0), The New York Times relies on three would-be authorities: President Obama, the UN and Nathan Thrall. Regarding President Obama, the editorial tells us:

"There was no way Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was going to tolerate the Hamas bombardments, which are indiscriminately lobbed at Israeli population centers. Nor should he. As President Obama said on Friday, 'No nation should accept rockets being fired into its borders, or terrorists tunneling into its territory.'

. . . .

Hamas leaders deserve condemnation for storing and launching rockets in heavily populated areas, cynically knowing they will draw Israeli fire to places where civilians live and play. Still, in a call with Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Obama was right to express concern about the 'risks of further escalation and the loss of more innocent life.'"

Of course, if President Obama says it, it must be right. No mention by the Times that the US, the UK and Afghan government forces have killed a total of some 6,500 innocent Afghan civilians in recent years (see: http://www.thenation.com/afghanistan-database).

Also no mention by the Times of US drone attacks in Pakistan. As reported in a 2014 Huffington Post article entitled "The Toll Of 5 Years Of Drone Strikes: 2,400 Dead" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/obama-drone-program-anniversary_n_4654825.html) by Matt Sledge:

"Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued a pair of reports in October fiercely criticizing the secrecy that shrouds the administration's drone program, and calling for investigations into the deaths of drone victims with no apparent connection to terrorism. In Pakistan alone, [the Bureau of Investigative Journalism] estimates, between 416 and 951 civilians, including 168 to 200 children, have been killed."

Apparently unbeknownst to Obama and the editorial board of The New York Times, the Israeli Defense Forces are also seeking to minimize civilian casualties:



Of course, this does not mean that civilians are not going to be killed in a war in which Hamas uses schools to store its missiles (see: http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-strongly-condemns-placement-rockets-school), but the IDF is making efforts to reduce civilian casualties, which include leaflets asking civilians to evacuate battle zones, phone calls to civilians warning of an imminent attack, and "knocking-on-the-roof" (a warning with a rocket that does not contain an explosive charge) prior to an air strike.

The Times editorial also quotes the United Nations:

"The United Nations says that of the more than 260 Palestinians killed, three-quarters were civilians, including more than 50 children."

However, the United Nations receives its casualty figures from the health ministry in Gaza, which is run by . . . Hamas. Hamas, needless to say, is actively interested in inflating the number of civilians killed for propaganda purposes.

Finally, the Times editorial refers its readers to a guest op-ed by someone named Nathan Thrall, which was published by the Times yesterday (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/07/nathan-thrall-how-west-chose-war-in.html). Thrall would have us believe that Israel, with the help of Egypt and the West, brought the current war with Hamas upon itself. However, Thrall's risible essay fails to mention:

• The Hamas charter, which calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis.

• Past suicide bombings in Israel perpetrated by Hamas operatives (425 terrorist attacks between September 2000 and March 2004, which killed 377 and wounded 2,076).

• The thousands of rockets fired into Israeli population centers from Gaza by Hamas and Islamic Jihad over the course of more than a decade.

Thrall does, of course, repeat Obama's declaration that the situation in Gaza is "unsustainable."

Truly an instance of the blind leading the blind.

Obama to Dance on "The Ellen Show" While America Burns?

As I stated in prior blog entries (for example: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/03/thomas-friedman-from-putin-blessing-in.html), Obama is caught in Putin's pincers, given Obama's dependence upon Russian goodwill involving the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal and Iran's nuclear weapons development program. Well, blatant evidence of Obama's self-imposed dilemma surfaced yesterday when, according to an AP article entitled "Russia warns West it may change its stance on Iran" (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/russia-warns-west-it-may-change-its-stance-iran), Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov declared according to the Interfax news agency:

"Russia didn't want to use the Iranian nuclear talks to 'raise the stakes,' but may have to do so in response to the actions by the United States and the European Union."

Or stated more succinctly, Putin has Obama by the short and curlies.

Of course, the Ukraine is not Obama's only problem. The number of Affordable Care Act enrollments is far short of Obama administration March 31 goals, and the absence of enthusiasm of healthy young people for this program could blow it all asunder.

And so, the Obama administration is in damage control mode, attempting to inflate enrollment figures by ignoring persons who have signed up but not paid their premiums. As reported by Kyle Cheney in a Politico article entitled "So how many have paid ACA premiums?" (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/obamacare-affordable-care-act-health-insurance-premiums-104602.html):

"The latest administration figures show that 4.2 million people have selected health plans in the new insurance markets. Insurance industry officials at four of the big national health plans tell POLITICO that about 15 to 20 percent people who have signed up have not yet paid their first monthly premium — the final step to get coverage.

And they’ve told the White House the same, insurance industry officials say."

Note the consistent refusal of Kathleen Sebelius and Jay Carney to address the number of persons not paying their premiums. Transparency? Even the Washington Post's Erik Wemple is today acknowledging the problem in an opinion piece entitled "HHS, playing selective with Obamacare enrollment numbers" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/03/19/hhs-playing-selective-with-obamacare-enrollment-numbers/?hpid=z3).

So what does Obama do as the flames swirl around him? Simple. As reported in a Huffington Post piece by Paige Lavender entitled "Obama To Appear On The Ellen Show To Talk Obamacare, Maybe Dance" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/19/obama-ellen_n_4993819.html?utm_hp_ref=politics), he has booked another date on Ellen DeGeneres's show, where he is sure to be lobbed softball questions while promoting Obamacare.

Can it possibly get any worse?

Gail Collins, "Knowing When to Worry": Did Gail's Op-ed Violate New York Times "Ethical Journalism" Guidelines?

Shut down the US government unless Obamacare is defunded? The attempt by the US House of Representatives to kill Obamacare is draconian and apt to do more damage than good. Of course, Obamacare is a disaster, and there is a reason why the Obama administration continues to delay its implementation (see: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100959960).

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Knowing When to Worry" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/opinion/collins-knowing-when-to-worry.html?_r=0), Gail Collins mocks the effort by the Republican-controlled House to quash the Affordable Health Care Act. Collins drolly writes:

"The bill the House sent to the Senate on Friday doesn’t even make much sense. The 'defund Obamacare' part looks as though it was written by squirrels. If it became law, Obamacare would actually continue to exist. At most, the administration would be crippled in their early efforts to get younger uninsured Americans to sign up for health coverage. (This would presumably give the opposition more time to run those ads that show a young woman being given a pelvic exam by a monster Uncle Sam doll.) And, meanwhile, the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program would be thrown into chaos, as well as payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients."

But are the Republicans as loony as Collins makes them out to be? Have a look at Kathleen Parker's most recent Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Waiting for Obamacare" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-waiting-for-obamacare/2013/09/20/1eae4f96-2232-11e3-966c-9c4293c47ebe_story.html?hpid=z2), in which Parker makes the case that Obamacare needs to be delayed (actually, what is being done by the Obama administration) and not defunded. Parker observes in no-nonsense fashion:

"[T]he Affordable Care Act (ACA) is becoming increasingly unpopular. Only 39 percent of Americans currently favor the health-care program, compared with 51 percent in January, according to a recent CNN/ORC International poll.

Some of the reasons:

●Many companies are cutting worker hours to below the threshold (30 hours) at which they're required to comply with Obamacare. (SeaWorld is cutting hours for thousands of workers.)

●Others are cutting workers completely to avoid compliance or to reduce costs associated with the expanded coverage. (The Cleveland Clinic cited Obamacare as one reason for offering early retirement to 3,000 workers and hinting at future layoffs.)

●Many young people, unemployed or earning little, will have trouble paying premiums once open enrollment for health insurance exchanges begins Oct. 1. Even discounts won’t be enough for some, who then will face fines or have to turn to parents who face their own insurance challenges. List-price premiums for a 40-year-old buying a mid-range plan will average close to $330 per month, according to a recent Avalere Health study. For someone who is 60, premiums will run about $615 a month. Forget retirement."

Parker's conclusion:

"If we can delay sending cruise missiles to Syria pending a better solution, perhaps there’s some sense to delaying a health-care overhaul that creates unacceptable collateral damage to citizens and that is not quite ready for public consumption."

As acknowledged even by the Obama administration, as evidenced by its delays in implementing the law, Parker is right.

But let's go back to Collins. Did Collins's op-ed violate the "Ethical Journalism" guidelines (http://nytco.com/pdf/NYT_Ethical_Journalism_0904.pdf) of The New York Times? Item 6 of the handbook of the Times provides:

"[N]o one may do anything that damages The Times’s reputation for strict neutrality in reporting on politics and government."

Michael Calderone, the Senior Media Reporter for The Huffington Post, tells us in an article entitled "New York Times Editors, Columnists Met With Obama During Syria Push" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/new-york-times-obama-syria_n_3949419.html?utm_hp_ref=media), that Obama consulted on August 29 with editorial and op-ed staffers from The New York Times regarding his meandering Syria policy. It would appear that as a result of this "off-the-record" meeting, Obama suddenly decided to seek congressional approval for his proposed "limited" strike against the Assad regime.

The meeting, in which Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal, not a particularly bright light (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/is-new-york-times-columnist-maureen.html), participated together with op-ed staffers, including Collins, and members of the editorial board, was not reported by the Times.

A simple question: Is it acceptable for the editorial and op-ed staff of the Times to meet with the president, offer their advice, and then opine - almost always favorably - on the president's actions? Can it be said that this advisory session deprived all of its participants of whatever was left of their impartiality?

What advice concerning Obamacare was given to the president during this shindig by New York Times staffers?

Care to answer, Gail?

Paul Krugman, "The Crazy Party": The Crazy Newspaper

So that there is no misunderstanding: I don't like Republicans. I don't like Democrats. I don't like politicians. But I especially hate when a newspaper manages a nation's foreign policy.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Crazy Party" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/opinion/krugman-the-crazy-party.html?_r=0), Paul Krugman again takes aim at Republicans and explains how the "crazy party" is preparing to shut down the US government. Krugman writes:

"Yet, at the moment, it seems highly likely that the Republican Party will refuse to fund the government, forcing a shutdown at the beginning of next month, unless President Obama dismantles the health reform that is the signature achievement of his presidency. Republican leaders realize that this is a bad idea, but, until recently, their notion of preaching moderation was to urge party radicals not to hold America hostage over the federal budget so they could wait a few weeks and hold it hostage over the debt ceiling instead. Now they’ve given up even on that delaying tactic. The latest news is that John Boehner, the speaker of the House, has abandoned his efforts to craft a face-saving climbdown on the budget, which means that we’re all set for shutdown, possibly followed by debt crisis."

Ah, yes, Obama's "signature legislation," of which Democratic Senator Max Baucus, who assisted in writing the Affordable Care Act, stated, "I just see a huge train wreck coming down." This is the same "signature legislation" whose problematic implementation was again delayed last month by the president (see: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100959960).

Dialogue? I'm all in favor. But consider what the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said a few days ago about America's financial future (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44521):

"Between 2009 and 2012, the federal government recorded the largest budget deficits relative to the size of the economy since 1946, causing federal debt to soar. Federal debt held by the public is now about 73 percent of the economy’s annual output, or gross domestic product (GDP). That percentage is higher than at any point in U.S. history except a brief period around World War II, and it is twice the percentage at the end of 2007. If current laws generally remained in place, federal debt held by the public would decline slightly relative to GDP over the next several years, CBO projects. After that, however, growing deficits would ultimately push debt back above its current high level. CBO projects that federal debt held by the public would reach 100 percent of GDP in 2038, 25 years from now, even without accounting for the harmful effects that growing debt would have on the economy (see the figure below). Moreover, debt would be on an upward path relative to the size of the economy, a trend that could not be sustained indefinitely."

Yes, the US is headed for a breakdown, and strong medicine, of the kind that a lame duck Obama administration is incapable of dispensing, is urgently needed.

But as I said earlier, I especially hate it when a dysfunctional Obama administration, in a fit of psychosis and despair, allows a newspaper to dictate its foreign policy. I kid you not.

Michael Calderone, the Senior Media Reporter for The Huffington Post, tells us in an article entitled "New York Times Editors, Columnists Met With Obama During Syria Push" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/new-york-times-obama-syria_n_3949419.html?utm_hp_ref=media), that Obama consulted on August 29 with editorial and op-ed staffers from The New York Times regarding his meandering Syria policy. It would appear that as a result of this "off-the-record" meeting, Obama suddenly decided to seek congressional approval for his proposed "limited" strike against the Assad regime.

The meeting, in which Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal, not a particularly bright light (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/is-new-york-times-columnist-maureen.html), participated together with op-ed staffers (e.g., Gail Collins, who knows absolutely nothing about the Middle East) and members of the editorial board, was not reported by the Times.

We also learned from Calderone's article that a former Obama adviser is claiming that Obama only reads the Times.

What is most frightening about all of the above? That Obama only reads the Times, a "psycho-phantic" newspaper which has grown infamous for its anti-Semitic and anti-Israel biases (see, for example: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/02/stench-of-anti-semitism-at-new-york.html and http://www.camera.org/images_user/pdf/NYT%20study%20exec%20summary_ind.pdf)?

Or perhaps that Obama saw fit to take advice on Syria from highly politicized Times op-ed writers, such as Gail Collins, who know absolutely nothing about the Middle East?

Or perhaps that Obama was swayed by the editorial board of the Times, whose recent editorials on the subject of Syria (see, for example: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/new-york-times-editorial-syrian-pact.html and http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/new-york-times-editorial-diplomatic.html) are most kindly characterized as delusional?

Or perhaps that his portrayal by the only newspaper that he reads is more important to the president than making decisions based upon something as straightforward as . . . morality?

And why does Obama only read the Times? Could it be that this narcissistic man cannot bear to confront criticism dished out by other newspapers?

Indeed, we live in deeply disturbing, depressing and demented Times.

Michael Calderone, "New York Times Editors, Columnists Met With Obama During Syria Push": Obama Only Reads the Anti-Semitic Times?

As I write this blog item, I am reaching for my airsickness bag.

Michael Calderone, the Senior Media Reporter for The Huffington Post, tells us in an article entitled "New York Times Editors, Columnists Met With Obama During Syria Push" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/new-york-times-obama-syria_n_3949419.html?utm_hp_ref=media), that Obama recently consulted with editorial and op-ed staffers from The New York Times regarding his meandering Syria policy. As reported by Calderone:

"On Aug. 29, the president again sat down for an off-the-record discussion with Rosenthal [editorial page editor of the Times] and some members of the editorial board, according to sources familiar with the meeting. Times opinion columnists David Brooks, Gail Collins and Ross Douthat also attended, but editors for the paper's news pages did not.

The meeting came amid the White House’s push for military intervention in Syria, one of the topics discussed that day.

. . . .

On the afternoon of Aug. 30, Secretary of State John Kerry made the case that Syria had used chemical weapons, signaling that U.S. retaliation for crossing a 'red line' drawn by Obama could be imminent. But the Times still seemed unconvinced that immediate action was the best course.

In an editorial posted online Aug. 30 and in the next day's paper, Times editors wrote that 'even in the best of circumstances, military action could go wrong in so many ways; the lack of strong domestic and international support will make it even more difficult.'

The Times also noted that Obama's 'approach on Syria now seems wholly at odds with the strong position' he took as a candidate in 2007.

. . . .

On the evening of Aug. 30, Obama reportedly decided to seek congressional approval for a strike during a talk with chief of staff Denis McDonough. He announced his decision publicly the following day.

Rosenthal did not respond to requests for comment about the Aug. 29 meeting and a Times spokeswoman declined to discuss the specifics of that gathering.

. . . .

[T]he Obama White House has long seemed particularly interested in getting its point of view across in the Times, and the president has said he reads all the paper's columnists. In April, a former adviser said the Times is the only paper Obama reads."

Okay, what is most frightening about all of the above? That Obama only reads the Times, a newspaper which has grown increasingly infamous for its anti-Semitic and anti-Israel biases (see, for example: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/02/stench-of-anti-semitism-at-new-york.html and http://www.camera.org/images_user/pdf/NYT%20study%20exec%20summary_ind.pdf)?

Or perhaps that Obama saw fit to consult with politicized Times op-ed writers, such as Gail Collins, who know absolutely nothing about the Middle East?

Or perhaps that Obama was swayed by the editorial board of The New York Times, whose recent editorials on the subject of Syria (see, for example: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/new-york-times-editorial-syrian-pact.html and http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/new-york-times-editorial-diplomatic.html) are most kindly characterized as delusional?

Or perhaps that it is more important to Obama how he is portrayed by the media than making decisions based upon . . . morality?

Bottom line, as I have stated in the past: The New York Times should now toss aside its ethical journalism handbook and proudly advertise itself as the semi-official mouthpiece of the Obama administration.

Charles Blow, "The Whole System Failed": "Extraordinary Inequality in the Presumption of Innocence"?

Do you remember the scene in the 1997 science fiction action film "Men in Black" in which James Darrell Edwards III (Will Smith), a New York City police officer, is tested for a position in a secret agency responsible for extraterrestrial visitors on earth?

Of course, the details concerning the tragic death of Trayvon Martin are anything but amusing. However, in this short scene from "Men in Black," we learn of the potential disastrous consequences of racial profiling - in the case of MIB, intergalactic profiling - of which most of us are guilty.

Now, consider what Geraldo Rivera had to say concerning Trayvon Martin's dress on the night of the incident in a Huffington Post article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/20/geraldo-rivera-trayvon-martin-thug-wear_n_1530811.html):

"Geraldo Rivera came down on Trayvon Martin's clothing again on Friday, arguing that the teenager's 'thug wear' led George Zimmerman to suspect that he was a criminal.

Bill O'Reilly hosted Rivera to discuss new developments in the case, including the discovery of low levels of marijuana in Martin's autopsy. Rivera argued that the marijuana is 'less powerful' than the convenience store surveillance tape, which showed what Martin was wearing.

'I think what's far more significant is what Trayvon Martin looked like on that night, Bill,' he said. 'Aside from the fact that he's dressed in that thug wear — look at the size of him, he’s not a little kid.'

'If this young man was a stranger to George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin looks just like the people who had been burglarizing and victimizing that neighborhood for the last six months,' Rivera continued.

When O'Reilly said that Rivera was 'profiling' Martin, Rivera claimed that the assumption was 'based on a reasonable comparison.'

Rivera made similar comments about Martin's clothing in March, when he insisted that the slain teenager's hoodie was partially responsible for his death."

Were Zimmerman's actions indeed "based on a reasonable comparison"? Did Martin's clothing provide Zimmerman with a reasonable basis to stop Martin? Was this an instance of racial profiling? But bear in mind that Zimmerman was not charged with "racial profiling."

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Whole System Failed" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/opinion/the-whole-system-failed.html?_r=0), Charles Blow writes:

"This case is not about an extraordinary death of an extraordinary person. Unfortunately, in America, people are lost to gun violence every day. Many of them look like Martin and have parents who presumably grieve for them. This case is about extraordinary inequality in the presumption of innocence and the application of justice: why was Martin deemed suspicious and why was his killer allowed to go home?

. . . .

The idea of universal suspicion without individual evidence is what Americans find abhorrent and what black men in America must constantly fight. It is pervasive in policing policies — like stop-and-frisk, and in this case neighborhood watch — regardless of the collateral damage done to the majority of innocents. It’s like burning down a house to rid it of mice.

As a parent, particularly a parent of black teenage boys, I am left with the question, 'Now, what do I tell my boys?'"

Do racism and racial profiling exist in America? Absolutely, and regrettably I don't have answers for Blow's sons. Martin's death was an unspeakable tragedy. On the other hand, was the jury's decision incorrect? As stated by CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-trial):

"The jury had three choices: to find Zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder; to find him guilty of a lesser charge of manslaughter; or to find him not guilty.

For second-degree murder, the jurors would have had to believe that Martin's unlawful killing was "done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent" and would be 'of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.'

To convict Zimmerman of manslaughter, the jurors would have had to believe he 'intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.'"

Remember that in the US there is a presumption of innocence, and that "beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard of evidence required for a criminal conviction. Zimmerman claims that he was pinned on his back. His nose was broken, and the back of his head was lacerated. Was he acting out of fear, or, was he capable of the "intention" needed for conviction? Was there reasonable doubt?

Again, there is racism in America, and perhaps Zimmerman should never have stopped Martin, but did an "imperfect" American jury system reach the wrong verdict, or did the prosecution fail to meet its immensely difficult burden of proof? Did the prosecution "overreach" when deciding which charges to bring against Zimmerman?

The agony of Martin's family is very real - I cannot begin to fathom the pain of losing a child.

But for Charles Blow to "trash" the American jury system for reaching this verdict? This system makes mistakes - I thought O.J. Simpson's 1995 acquittal was wrong - but where do you find a better system in an imperfect world? You don't.

Paul Krugman, "War On the Unemployed": What Isn't Krugman Telling You?

And yet another JG Caesarea Challenge Round!

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "War On the Unemployed" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/opinion/krugman-the-war-on-the-unemployed.html?_r=0), Paul Krugman blames hard-hearted Republicans for slashing North Carolina's unemployment benefits. Krugman writes:

"Consider, for example, the case of North Carolina. The state was hit hard by the Great Recession, and its unemployment rate, at 8.8 percent, is among the highest in the nation, higher than in long-suffering California or Michigan. As is the case everywhere, many of the jobless have been out of work for six months or more, thanks to a national environment in which there are three times as many people seeking work as there are job openings.

Nonetheless, the state’s government has just sharply cut aid to the unemployed. In fact, the Republicans controlling that government were so eager to cut off aid that they didn’t just reduce the duration of benefits; they also reduced the average weekly benefit, making the state ineligible for about $700 million in federal aid to the long-term unemployed."

Okay, so what isn't Krugman telling you?

As reported in a Huffington Post article entitled "North Carolina Dropped From Federal Unemployment Program" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/north-carolina-unemployment_n_3515448.html) by Emery P. Dalesio :

"With changes to its unemployment law taking effect this weekend, North Carolina not only is cutting benefits for those who file new claims, it will become the first state disqualified from a federal compensation program for the long-term jobless.

State officials adopted the package of benefit cuts and increased taxes for businesses in February, a plan designed to accelerate repayment of a $2.5 billion federal debt. Like many states, North Carolina had racked up the debt by borrowing from Washington after its unemployment fund was drained by jobless benefits during the Great Recession.

. . . .

Supporters of the new North Carolina law say the reduced benefits and increased business taxes are necessary to repay the federal debt – the third-largest in the country."

The third largest federal debt in the country? How would Krugman have North Carolina repay this debt? It can't print its own money like the federal government.

Also consider North Carolina's unfunded retiree health care benefits totaling some $34 billion (see: http://www.pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2012/Pew_Pensions_Update.pdf).

Everyone is in favor of more jobs and a safety-net for the poor; however, sometimes there is simply no more juice to squeeze out of the orange.

Paul Krugman, "The Chutzpah Caucus": Stimulating (Yawn . . .)

As observed by Paul Krugman in a December 2012 New York Times op-ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/opinion/krugman-that-terrible-trillion.html?_r=0), the ratio of debt to G.D.P. is "the best measure of our debt position." Well, US debt is currently more than $16.8 trillion, and gross US debt is some 107% of America's G.D.P. Those "fools" at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office have warned that "U.S. debt is on track to be nearly twice the size of the U.S. economy by 2037" (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/230901-cbo-warns-of-grim-long-term-debt-outlook). Sure, the American Taxpayer Relief Act and the sequester may have delayed "achievement" of that 200% debt to G.D.P. ratio by a few years; however, as acknowledged by the Peterson Foundation (http://www.pgpf.org/Issues/Fiscal-Outlook/2013/01/fiscal-cliff-atra-2012-long-term-analysis.aspx), we're still headed for that astronomical percentage by 2040.

Today, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Chutzpah Caucus" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/opinion/krugman-the-chutzpah-caucus.html?_r=0), Paul Krugman again attacks those who call for austerity (yawn . . .) and claims that governments engaged in stimulus can "change course in the future."

Stimulus? It's only a small part of the problem. As prophetically observed by the Social Security Advisory Board in September 2009 (http://www.ssab.gov/documents/TheUnsustainableCostofHealthCare_508.pdf):

"[W]e are acutely aware that over the next 20 years, the United States population will become significantly older as the baby boom generation leaves the workforce and enters retirement. However, an aging population is not the whole story. Health care costs are growing across the economy, and many of the same factors that are spurring overall health care growth, whether new technologies or inefficient delivery systems, are also driving up the cost of Medicare and Medicaid to unprecedented levels. The burden of health care costs on the country as a whole will continue to grow unless and until we alter the efficiency and efficacy of our health care systems.

For these reasons and more, we believe that it is essential that policymakers take action to restrain the rising cost of health care in ways that also lead to better quality of care. It is an issue that is at the very heart of the long-term economic security of the American public. It is urgent that action be taken and the time for action is now."

Will Obamacare prove a panacea vis-a-vis concerns over spiraling health care costs? I don't think so. As observed by a recent Huffington Post article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/obamacare-medical-claims-costs_n_2956986.html):

"Insurance companies will have to pay out an average of 32 percent more for medical claims on individual health policies under President Barack Obama's overhaul, the nation's leading group of financial risk analysts has estimated.

. . . .

While some states will see medical claims costs per person decline, the report concluded the overwhelming majority will see double-digit increases in their individual health insurance markets, where people purchase coverage directly from insurers.

The disparities are striking. By 2017, the estimated increase would be 62 percent for California, about 80 percent for Ohio, more than 20 percent for Florida and 67 percent for Maryland. Much of the reason for the higher claims costs is that sicker people are expected to join the pool, the report said."

Or, as the Democratic Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus more recently said of Obamacare (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/max-baucus-obamacare_n_3101801.html):

"I just see a huge train wreck coming down."

Does this sad story have a silver lining? Absolutely: President Obama is destined to make economic history. As observed by Krugman in today's opinion piece:

"The key measure you want to look at is the ratio of debt to G.D.P., which measures the government’s fiscal position better than a simple dollar number. And if you look at United States history since World War II, you find that of the 10 presidents who preceded Barack Obama, seven left office with a debt ratio lower than when they came in. Who were the three exceptions? Ronald Reagan and the two George Bushes. So debt increases that didn’t arise either from war or from extraordinary financial crisis are entirely associated with hard-line conservative governments."

And so, in another three and a half years, Barack Obama will become the first Democratic president since World War II to leave office with a debt ration higher than when he came in.

Congratulations to all . . .

Paul Krugman, "Insurance and Freedom": California's Next Earthquake

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Insurance and Freedom" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/opinion/krugman-insurance-and-freedom.html?_r=0), Paul Krugman writes regarding Obamacare:

"In fact, it’s hard to think of a proposition that has been more thoroughly refuted by history than the notion that social insurance undermines a free society. Almost 70 years have passed since Friedrich Hayek predicted (or at any rate was understood by his admirers to predict) that Britain’s welfare state would put the nation on the slippery slope to Stalinism; 45 years have passed since Medicare went into effect; as far as most of us can tell, freedom hasn’t died on either side of the Atlantic."

I agree with Krugman: Social insurance in and of itself does not undermine a free society. On the other hand, social insurance that bankrupts state governments and causes the federal deficit to spiral out of control can result in collapse.

As reported by The Huffington Post in a recent article entitled "Obamacare Will Cause Medical Claims Costs To Jump 32 Percent: Study" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/obamacare-medical-claims-costs_n_2956986.html):

"Insurance companies will have to pay out an average of 32 percent more for medical claims on individual health policies under President Barack Obama's overhaul, the nation's leading group of financial risk analysts has estimated.

. . . .

The report by the Society of Actuaries could turn into a big headache for the Obama administration at a time when many parts of the country remain skeptical about the Affordable Care Act.

While some states will see medical claims costs per person decline, the report concluded the overwhelming majority will see double-digit increases in their individual health insurance markets, where people purchase coverage directly from insurers.

The disparities are striking. By 2017, the estimated increase would be 62 percent for California, about 80 percent for Ohio, more than 20 percent for Florida and 67 percent for Maryland. Much of the reason for the higher claims costs is that sicker people are expected to join the pool, the report said."

A 62 percent increase for California? And only a week ago, Krugman was telling us that California was poised for a comeback (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/03/paul-krugman-lessons-from-comeback.html). Instead, it will be facing a different kind of earthquake, destined to put paid to any kind of would-be comeback.

Zakaria Suspended for Plagiarism by Time and CNN: Couldn't Have Happened to a Nicer Guy

As reported by The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/fareed-zakaria-plagiarism-new-yorker-time_n_1764954.html):

"Time editor-at-large and CNN host Fareed Zakaria was suspended from both places for a month on Friday after admitting to lifting parts of a story from the New Yorker.

. . . .

This is not the first time Zakaria has come under ethical fire. Columnist Jeffrey Goldberg accused him of lifting quotes without attribution in 2009."

Zakaria, of course, also writes a regular column for The Washington Post, whose editorial page editor announced, "Given his acknowledgment today, we intend to review his work with him" (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/fareed-zakaria-suspended-by-cnn-time-for-plagiarism/2012/08/10/f6315e96-e335-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_story.html).

Zakaria has regular discussions with Obama concerning national security and foreign policy (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/13/fareed-zakaria-admits-hes_n_861685.html).

It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Gail Collins, "Small Is So Beautiful": Pacu, Testicle-Eating Fish, Found in Illinois Lake

In her latest superficial New York Times op-ed entitled "Small Is So Beautiful" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/opinion/collins-small-is-so-beautiful.html), Gail Collins sings paeans to Obama's proposal for a one-year cut for all Americans making less than $250,000 per year:

"All of this takes us to President Obama’s call for Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts for families with incomes below $250,000 a year. Most people, the president said, believe it is wrong to 'raise taxes on middle-class families.' It was certainly a triumphant moment for the administration’s economic policies. In 2008, who among us could have hoped that four years in the future, middle-class Americans would be making $250,000 a year?"

Sorry to throw cold water in your face, Gail, but regrettably the Obama proposal is not an endorsement of the Simpson-Bowles Commission recommendations, which provides a path out of America's economic thicket, but rather pre-election largess that leads nowhere.

And of course there was the usual airy reference by Collins to the Seamus story.

As long as Gail wishes to talk about cuts, far more relevant than Collins's tripe is an article appearing in the Huffington Post entitled "Pacu, Testicle-Eating Fish Species, Caught In Lake Lou Yaeger In Illinois" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/07/pacu-testicle-eating-fish-illinois-lake_n_1656015.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular). According to the article:

"Responding to a report that a fisherman had reeled in a piranha on June 7, lake superintendent Jim Caldwell brought the fish to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, where it was identified as a pacu. Some reports say another pacu was seen a couple of weeks later.

Caldwell said he is still swimming in the lake nearly every day. Pacus primarily eat nuts, aquatic vegetation and snails, he told KDSK, and pose no real threat to humans.

Residents of Papua New Guinea may beg to differ. There, according to British fisherman Jeremy Wade, the pacu is known as the 'ball cutter.' In 2011, Wade said locals informed him that two fisherman had died from blood loss after something in the water had bitten off their testicles, according to the Metro."

Pacus eat nuts, but don't pose a real threat to humans? Sorry, but I won't be swimming in Lake Lou Yaeger any time soon. Perhaps, however, the author of the Obama tax cut proposal would care to do us all a favor and test the waters.

Robert Reich: Unemployment Figures to Determine Obama's Fate

Robert Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, former Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, and one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century according to Time Magazine, says that the US presidential election will be determined by the unemployment situation after Labor Day. In a July 6 HuffPost blog item entitled "The Jobs Doldrums and Obama's Future" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-jobs-doldrums-and-oba_b_1654082.html), Reich writes:

"In Ohio yesterday, Obama reiterated that he had inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. That's true. But the excuse is wearing thin. It's his economy now, and most voters don't care what he inherited.

. . . .

Yet he has to show he understands the depth and breadth of this crisis, and is prepared to do large and bold things to turn the economy around in his second term if and when he does have the votes in Congress. So far, his proposals are policy miniatures relative to the size of the problem.

But the real political test comes after Labor Day. Before Labor Day, Americans aren't really focused on the upcoming election. After Labor Day, they focus like a laser. If the economy is moving in the right direction then -- if unemployment is dropping and jobs are increasing -- Obama has a good chance of being reelected. If the present doldrums continue -- or worse -- he won't be."

Obama now owns the economy? "Policy miniatures relative to the size of the problem"? I agree, but I don't see any "bold" proposals on the horizon.

However, there is an alternative scenario in which the election is not decided by the state of the economy.

Tensions continue to mount in the Persian Gulf as Iran threatens to sink US aircraft carriers, block the Strait of Hormuz, and destroy 35 neighboring US military bases. The US has responded to Tehran's saber rattling by quietly bolstering the level of its forces in the region (see: http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=276589).

Note also that a major US-Israeli anti-missile exercise, Austere Challenge 12, is scheduled for the fall (see: http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=275764).

My belief remains that Obama's handling of this crisis with Iran, when it comes to a head in the coming months, could well tip the results in November one way or another.

Krugman, "The Post-Truth Campaign": Paul Bends the Truth

In his latest New York Times op-ed, "The Post-Truth Campaign" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/opinion/krugman-the-post-truth-campaign.html?hp), Paul Krugman would have us believe that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is incessantly falsifying President Obama's record. Specifically, Krugman slams Romney for falsifying Obama's foreign policy:

"Then there’s Mr. Romney’s frequent suggestion that the president has gone around the world 'apologizing for America.' This is a popular theme on the right — but the so-called Obama apology tour is a complete fabrication, assembled by taking quotes out of context."

Before delving into the issue of whether Obama has been "apologetic," let's begin by examining whether Obama himself has been "honest" when publicly presenting the principles guiding his foreign policy. In a March 28, 2011 Huffington Post article entitled "Obama's Libya Speech Fact Checked: How The Claims Fit The Facts" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/29/obama-libya-speech-fact-check_n_841920.html), Calvin Woodward and Richard Lardner write:

"Here is a look at some of Obama's assertions in his address to the nation Monday, and how they compare with the facts:

. . . .

OBAMA: "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

THE FACTS: Mass violence against civilians has also been escalating elsewhere, without any U.S. military intervention anticipated.

More than 1 million people have fled the Ivory Coast, where the U.N. says forces loyal to the incumbent leader, Laurent Gbagbo, have used heavy weapons against the population and more than 460 killings have been confirmed of supporters of the internationally recognized president, Alassane Ouattara.

The Obama administration says Gbagbo and Gadhafi have both lost their legitimacy to rule. But only one is under attack from the U.S."

Subsequent to the Woodward and Lardner article, Obama also turned a blind eye to ongoing atrocities committed by Syrian President Assad, whom Obama had been courting since his inauguration (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/11/new-york-times-editorial-killing-in.html).

Consider also Obama's craven 2009 bow to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEUif1--r38), which this year has beheaded almost a hundred persons, some of them for "witchcraft." There was also Obama's bow to Japan's Emperor Akihito (see: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/obama-emperor-akihito-japan.html).

Yes, there is a difference between "goveling" and "apologizing," so let's have a look at Obama's 2009 Cairo University speech (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-cairo-university-6-04-09):

"The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

. . . .

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

. . . .

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.

. . . .

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit -- for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism."

Not apologetic? Have I taken quotes out of context? Decide for yourself.