Paul Krugman, "The Crazies and the Con Man": Paul Ryan Is a "Con Man"?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Crazies and the Con Man," Paul Krugman again takes aim at Paul Ryan, who is being considered as a possible replacement for John Boehner as speaker of the House:

"What makes Mr. Ryan so special? The answer, basically, is that he’s the best con man they’ve got. His success in hoodwinking the news media and self-proclaimed centrists in general is the basis of his stature within his party. Unfortunately, at least from his point of view, it would be hard to sustain the con game from the speaker’s chair.

To understand Mr. Ryan’s role in our political-media ecosystem, you need to know two things. First, the modern Republican Party is a post-policy enterprise, which doesn’t do real solutions to real problems. Second, pundits and the news media really, really don’t want to face up to that awkward reality."

"Real solutions to real problems"? Consider the following suggestion from Krugman in his October 6, 2011 New York Times op-ed entitled "Confronting the Malefactors":

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

And then there was Krugman's 2013 proposal that the federal government should mint a $1 trillion platinum coin to eliminate Republican meddling with Obama's spending spree:

"Here’s how it would work: The Treasury would mint a platinum coin with a face value of $1 trillion (or many coins with smaller values; it doesn’t really matter). This coin would immediately be deposited at the Federal Reserve, which would credit the sum to the government’s account. And the government could then write checks against that account, continuing normal operations without issuing new debt.

. . . .

[I]t’s the president’s duty to do whatever it takes, no matter how offbeat or silly it may sound, to defuse this hostage situation. Mint that coin!"

Krugman, "The Conscience of a Liberal," is calling Ryan a "con man"? Spare me!

Maureen Dowd, "The Speaker, the Pope and the Exorcism": The Devil Wears Pantsuits

Tweet

In a New York Post article entitled "Secret Service agents: Hillary is a nightmare to work with" by Deroy Murdock, we learn that Hillary Clinton is being accused of conduct which would put Miranda Priestly from "The Devil Wears Prada" to shame. As reported by Murdock:

"“‘Good morning, ma’am,” a member of the uniformed Secret Service once greeted Hillary Clinton.

“F— off,” she replied.

That exchange is one among many that active and retired Secret Service agents shared with Ronald Kessler, author of “First Family Detail,” a compelling look at the intrepid personnel who shield America’s presidents and their families — and those whom they guard.

. . . .

“We spent years with her,” yet another Secret Service agent notes. “She never said thank you.”

• Within the White House, Hillary had a “standing rule that no one spoke to her when she was going from one location to another,” says former FBI agent Coy Copeland. “In fact, anyone who would see her coming would just step into the first available office.”

One former Secret Service agent states, “If Hillary was walking down a hall, you were supposed to hide behind drapes used as partitions.”"

Charming.

Meanwhile, in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Speaker, the Pope and the Exorcism," Maureen Dowd provides us with a "hillarious" imaginary conversation between departing Speaker of the House John Boehner and his boneheaded presumptive successor, Kevin McCarthy. Dowd writes:

"“Kevin, did you make another mess I gotta clean up?” the Speaker growls. “Stop blubbering. That’s my department. Obviously, you really stepped in it with that Benghazi crack on ‘Hannity.’ You told Sean that I get a B-minus as speaker? I give you a D for Dumbo."

Might McCarthy's blunder save Hillary's candidacy? Has Christmas arrived three months early for the Clintons? I don't think so. You see, rather than help douse the flames of Hillary's email scandal, The International Association of Fire Fighters has decided not to endorse her, and instead, has opted to await Joe Biden's entry into the fray.

Care to imagine Hillary's response to this latest setback? My guess is that it didn't bear semblance to Tiny Tim's "God bless us, everyone."

Jonathan Tobin, "Must Netanyahu Give That Speech?": The Answer, Absolutely!

It is rare that I disagree with Jonathan Tobin. However, I am not in accord with Jonathan's Commentary opinion piece entitled "Must Netanyahu Give That Speech?," in which he takes the position that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu should not address Congress at the invitation of House Speaker John Boehner. Jonathan writes:

"It’s time for Netanyahu to come to grips with the question of what his real goal is here. If it’s to help the Republicans and Democrats who are working hard to pass this bill, he should know it’s time for him to find an excuse to back down and not give the speech. His is a powerful and eloquent voice, but what Congress needs to hear now is the sound of Democrats like Menendez and his colleagues making the case for sanctions, not a foreign leader, albeit from a country that most members of the House and the Senate regard with affection. It is only when he removes himself as a distraction from this debate that sanctions advocates will have a chance to get the focus back on Obama’s indefensible policies rather than Netanyahu’s supposed chutzpah."

As many of those who read this blog already know, I am not a member of the Likud, and by Israeli standards my views are centrist. However, I am of the belief that Netanyahu must give that speech.

Yes, I know: It would be preferable not to do anything that might undermine the chances of the bill sponsored by Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Robert Menendez, which would impose additional sanctions on Iran if agreement is not reached with the P5+1. But Obama's opposition to this bill is intense, and those same Democrats, whose support of the bill hangs in the balance, will face sledgehammer pressure from the White House regardless of whether or not Netanyahu speaks before Congress. As Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes's declared last year about reaching an agreement with Tehran:

"This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is healthcare for us, just to put it in context."

The stark reality is that Israel at some time in the future will be facing a war with Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Assad's forces in Syria - a situation much akin to that faced by Israel in 1967. Israel's survival is at issue, and Iran's repeated calls for Israel's destruction must not be ignored. Yesterday, even as Iranian President Rouhani, a so-called moderate, addressed crowds in Tehran celebrating the 36th anniversary of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution and called for a "constructive interaction" with the world, the crowd chanted "Death to Israel" in response.

Given the controversy surrounding his address and the enormous worldwide attention it will now attract, Netanyahu should travel to Congress and explain in detail how Obama's insistence upon reaching a conciliatory agreement with Iran threatens Israel's existence. Netanyahu should spell out how Obama's willingness to allow 6,500 Iranian centrifuges to continue to spin enriched uranium will permit Khamenei to build his first atomic bomb within months. Netanyahu should shed light upon Tehran's refusal to allow IAEA inspectors to visit Iran's Parchin weapons development complex. If there are Democrats who refuse to listen and are willing to standby and watch as Obama tries to do to Israel in 2015 what Neville Chamberlain did to Czechoslovakia in 1938, so be it.

Czechoslovakia could not oppose Hitler alone. Israel will be forced to fight and win. Never again!

Richard Cohen, "Netanyahu’s contempt for President Obama": Suppose the Year Was 1938 and Ben Gurion Was Invited to Address Parliament

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Netanyahu’s contempt for President Obama," Richard Cohen vehemently condemns Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for accepting US Speaker of the House Boehner's invitation to address Congress in March concerning the Iranian nuclear threat. Cohen writes:

"I stand with the president on this sanctions matter. Additional sanctions may drive the Iranians from the table. The Europeans may go with them. Let’s give the talks some more time."

But Cohen is mistaken: Additional sanctions will go into effect only if a deal is not reached. If the threat of additional sanctions in the event of failure to reach an agreement will drive the Iranians and Europeans from the negotiating table, neither the Iranians nor the Europeans are serious about a deal. (In fact, they're not.)

Cohen continues:

"I stand with Netanyahu in worrying about a president who has been awfully twitchy in his foreign policy. His faux threat to take Syria to task if it used chemical weapons in its civil war — the famous 'red line' — turned out to be a red-faced embarrassment. It has cost Obama much more than it cost Bashar al-Assad."

"Awfully twitchy"? Everyone, including Tehran, knows that there has never been any substance to Obama's threats, including his declaration regarding the Iranian nuclear program that "I will take no options off the table." Obama is hell-bent to sign an agreement with Iran, no matter what the consequences to Israel. As acknowledged by deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, such a deal in Obama's second term is the equivalent of health care for the president.

Cohen's conclusion:

"Netanyahu will come and speak to Congress and make his case — the one he has made time and time again — for additional sanctions on Iran. But if, in the end, action needs to be taken against Iran, Israel will need the support of all Americans. He has, with his impetuousness and contempt, made that harder to get."

But what if the year was 1938, and David Ben Gurion was invited to address Britain's parliament and state his opposition to the signing of the Munich Agreement by Neville Chamberlain with Nazi Germany. Sure, this might have offended Chamberlain and many members of his Conservative Party, but what does this matter in the face of an existential threat?

Sorry, Richard, I don't buy it.

Fabius, Hammond, Steinmeier and Mogherini, "Why we extended negotiations with Iran on the nuclear issue": Obama's Propaganda War

As was noted last January by Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes regarding a possible nuclear deal with Iran:

"This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is healthcare for us, just to put it in context."

Well, a deal with Iran continues to be high on Obama's agenda, and the president is obviously concerned that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, at the invitation of House Speaker John Boehner, will be addressing a joint session of Congress concerning the Iranian nuclear threat. This is not sitting well with Obama, and White House press secretary Josh Earnest was quick to denounce Boehner's invitation as a "departure from protocol."

Now, "just by coincidence," Laurent Fabius, France’s minister of foreign affairs and international development, Philip Hammond, Britain’s foreign secretary, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Germany’s federal minister for foreign affairs, and Federica Mogherini, high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security policy, have written a guest Washington Post op-ed entitled "Why we extended negotiations with Iran on the nuclear issue." These four horsemen of the apocalypse distinguished diplomats write:

"Whereas previous inspections only occurred once every few weeks, the International Atomic Energy Agency is now able to conduct daily inspections of the Natanz and Fordow facilities, and the Arak reactor is now subject to monthly inspections."

Of course there is no mention by Fabius, Hammond, Steinmeier and Mogherini of Iran's refusal to permit IAEA access to the Parchin weapons development facility. Or stated otherwise, the IAEA is being given access to the sites where there is no nuclear weapons development, but access continues to be denied where such development is almost surely continuing unabated.

How gratifying . . .

Maureen Dowd, "The Speaker’s Sand Trap": Making Dog Poop on the Roof Seem Funny

Do you recall Gail Collins's lame running joke concerning Seamus's attack of diarrhea atop Romney's station wagon? Well, if you thought that was hilarious, you're sure to love Maureen Dowd's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Speaker’s Sand Trap" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/opinion/dowd-the-speakers-sand-trap.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), which is filled with golf jokes relating to the Republican Speaker of the House. Dowd's conclusion:

"Boehner putts and misses his 20-footer for par.

'Did you notice that broke way too much to the right?' he sighs. 'That’s our problem.'"

Hahahahaha.

Of more interest for me, however, is Dowd's reference to "to the kooks on Benghazi." I was once a registered Democrat, I am pro-choice, I support gay marriage, I opposed the Second Gulf War and American ground involvement in Afghanistan, but my horror at how an ambassador and three other Americans were left to die without even so much as a flyover brands me as a kook.

Midway through her opinion piece, Dowd would have Boehner's voice drop "into a confidential growl" as he tees off:

"'Well, he’s gonna be black and blue after we grill him and his team on what he was really doing in the White House that night during the attacks on the compound.

'If he was watching SportsCenter instead of sitting in the Command Center, that’s not gonna look good. If he was buttering up Bibi to help him with the Jewish vote, that’s not gonna look good. If he was catching some zzz’s during Benghazzzi, that’s bad. Of course, he already seems asleep at the switch most of the time.'"

Sorry, Maureen, but I wouldn't mind knowing what Obama and Hillary were doing while those Americans were being butchered in Benghazi. Maybe it's a habit acquired after many years in the military, but I don't believe in leaving others to die without assistance or hope over the course (no pun intended) of eight hours.

Maureen Dowd, "Ain’t Nothin’ Like a Dame": Imagine

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

- John Lennon, "Imagine," 1971

Now, if I could only imagine a politician who actually gives a damn about people other than himself/herself. And if I could only imagine an electorate that could vote for someone because he/she is a decent caring human being, and not because of his/her religion, skin color or genital organs.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Ain’t Nothin’ Like a Dame" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/11/opinion/dowd-aint-nothin-like-a-dame.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd fantasizes about John Boehner dining with Senators Richard Burr and Saxby Chambliss and Congressman Tom Latham at Trattoria Alberto. (When I fantasize, it is not in this direction.) Analogizing this foursome to Sinatra's Rat Pack (Frank, Dean, Peter and Sammy would turn over in their graves), Dowd observes the Republicans' need to win over women in future elections. Dowd's concludes by having Boehner remark:

“And altar boy Paul Ryan and these 18-karat idiots trying to curb birth control? Birth control makes the world go round, baby. We don’t want to be leading a party that’s against sex. That’s a sure way to go home alone. Sex is popular. We can get away with saying no to a lot of things. No means no. But saying no to sex leads to bombsville.

“The way we run things, we should have been tossed out long ago, since most of the country thinks we’re living in the past. And it’s not a cool, crazy, swingin’ past. It’s a square, uptight, Mother Superior past.

“Speaking of Mother Superior, we’ve got to get the broads back in line before Hillary runs. That’s real woman trouble there.

“Any questions? Good. Let’s do it my way.”

Hillary? Is she a woman or just another self-serving politician? Remarkable how is she is avoiding taking any position on the Affordable Care Act or Obama's recent agreement with Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei as she is professionally preened for 2016.

Republicans? Democrats? In fact, there is very little difference. Narcissists to a man/woman.

As the Bee Gees sang in "Staying Alive," 1977:

Well, you can tell by the way I use my walk,
I'm a woman's man, no time to talk.
Music loud and women warm.
I've been kicked around since I was born.
And now it's all right, it's O.K.
And you may look the other way.
We can try to understand
The New York Times' effect on man.
Whether you're a brother
Or whether you're a mother,
You're stayin' alive, stayin' alive.

The New York Times' effect on man or woman? Little if any, these days. The Grey Lady, which long ago forgot the meaning of journalistic ethics and serves at the beck and call of the president, has one foot in the grave. Meanwhile, I, too, am just stayin' alive . . .

Thomas Friedman, "U.S. Fringe Festival": No Room for Compromise?

Have you followed the Obama administration's efforts over the past five years to restart negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians? The Obama administration has persistently demanded that the Israelis toss the Palestinians some sort of bone, e.g., a halt in settlement construction, in order to get talks moving. A pity Obama cannot adhere to this same strategy when attempting to end the shutdown in the US and avoid a debt default.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "U.S. Fringe Festival" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/opinion/friedman-us-fringe-festival.html), Thomas Friedman compliments President Obama on his intransigence involving negotiations with the Republicans. Friedman writes:

"President Obama is leading. He is protecting the very rules that are the foundation of any healthy democracy. He is leading by not giving into this blackmail, because if he did he would undermine the principle of majority rule that is the bedrock of our democracy.

. . . .

The president has said that he would give the G.O.P. an agenda for negotiations that could start when the government is funded and the debt ceiling lifted. He’s ready to consider trading the medical-device tax in Obamacare for another equivalent source of revenue or having a talk about closing tax loopholes and reforming entitlements — to both lower the deficit and raise revenue to invest in infrastructure or early childhood education. What Obama will not do, and must not do, is pay an entry fee to that negotiation — say giving up the medical-device tax — just to help Boehner down from the tree. Cruz & Co. would claim victory."

No "entry fee" to negotiation? Tell that to the Israelis.

Given what's at stake here - an epic economic disaster - there is no room for games involving ego. Obama has almost no experience in negotiations, and it shows. When you want to reach a settlement, there comes a time to drop the rhetoric and make some sort of conciliatory gesture in order to initiate talks.

Friedman is afraid that any such gesture could strengthen the hand of Ted Cruz? So Obama should call for round-the-clock talks with John Boehner to settle this thing. Boehner would emerge as the hero, not Cruz, and Obama would also share in the glory.

But then such a move would demand leadership on the part of Obama, which is not part of his repertoire.

Friedman can rail against Republican gerrymandering of Congressional districts, but sooner or later (let's hope sooner), compromise will be necessary.

Frank Bruni, "Nazis, Lynching and Obamacare": Time for Obama to Cool the Rhetoric

Compliments to Frank Bruni on his balanced New York Times op-ed entitled "Nazis, Lynching and Obamacare" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/08/opinion/bruni-nazis-lynching-and-obamacare.html?_r=0). Bruni writes:

"The hyperbole and hysteria make any constructive debate impossible, and they insult the past, robbing important events of the specific meaning and individual detail they deserve.

. . . .

[W]e should watch our words. They have consequences. As irresponsible and detestable as the recent actions of the most conservative wing of House Republicans have been, we’d be better off without figurative talk of hostage taking and guns to heads, without headlines like one in The Huffington Post that said: 'Boehner Threatens to Shoot the Hostage.' That sort of language only turns up the heat."

Hmm, "guns to heads"? Who also made use of that figurative exaggeration? Now I remember. It was President Obama, who stated on Friday (see: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/04/20820333-obama-no-negotiations-with-a-gun-held-to-the-head-of-the-american-people?lite):

"I'm happy to have negotiations but we can't do it with a gun held to the head of the American people."

Indeed, it's also time for Obama to cool the rhetoric and talk with Boehner, in order to avoid a disaster of epic economic proportions.

Maureen Dowd, "That’s Not Amore": Actually, It's a Perverse Kind of Love Known As Narcissism

"Narcissistic Personality Disorder involves arrogant behavior, a lack of empathy for other people, and a need for admiration-all of which must be consistently evident at work and in relationships. People who are narcissistic are frequently described as cocky, self-centered, manipulative, and demanding. Narcissists may concentrate on unlikely personal outcomes (e.g., fame) and may be convinced that they deserve special treatment."

- Psychology Today (http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder)

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "That’s Not Amore" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/opinion/dowd-thats-not-amore.html), Maureen Dowd describes an imaginary morning experienced by the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, John Boehner. Dowd writes:

"'I’m so tired of Obama,' he keens to himself. 'The president says he wishes he had Kevin Spacey to deal with. Well, so do I. I’ve been here for 22 years and that cat acts like I don’t know what I’m doing. He wafted through Congress like a cool breeze, while I spent years sweating out big deals with Democrats.

. . . .

'Washington used to be an adult place where you could slug it out during the day and have a few slugs at night, making deals in rooms that I personally filled with smoke. Now Congress is a crap sandwich. We used to pretend to hate each other. Now we really do.

. . . .

In 2011, I kept these looney-tunes at bay. But maybe I don’t have any more tricks up my sleeve. Now the kooks have overpowered me, made me look like one of the weakest speakers ever. Not exactly the legacy I was shooting for.

'I knew this shutdown was trouble. I’ve gotta decide if this job is even worth it if I have to be Cruz’s sock puppet.'"

Regarding the government shutdown, there's enough blame to go around involving both sides of the aisle in Congress and also the White House. How did the government shutdown come about? At least part of it has to do with the fact that Washington probably has a higher concentration of narcissists than any other city in the United States.

"That's not amore"? Well, narcissism is in fact a perverse kind of love.

How to solve this mess? Simple. Bring in a skilled negotiator, who can talk these monkeys down from their trees (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/10/thomas-friedman-our-democracy-is-at.html). The alternative? A financial disaster, which a shaky American economy cannot afford.

Maureen Dowd, "The Surreal World: Capitol Hill": Less Than a Few Good Men (and Women)

"We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something."

- Jack Nicholson as Colonel Jessep, "A Few Good Men"

"A Few Good Men" is one of my favorite movies, which comes to a climax when the villain, Colonel Jessep, responds to Lieutenant Kaffee's demand for the "truth" in a military court of justice. What's special about this flick? Although Jessep's snide, insolent, arrogant and domineering character is indeed "grotesque," I can't help empathizing with his deep-seated belief in "honor," "code" and "loyalty." Those of us who have served in combat units, when granted a couple of hours of precious sleep while on the line, have needed to believe in the probity of those other exhausted grimy persons beside them when resting their heads in the sand or mud.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Surreal World: Capitol Hill" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/the-surreal-world-capitol-hill.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd draws our attention to John Boehner's awkwardness during the ceremonial swearing-in for House members, compared with the Joe Biden's bonhomie at the Senate's swearing-in observance. Dowd next observes how it was Biden's flippant ease that allowed the vice president "to save the day on the fiscal cliff":

"Obama radiates contempt at Congress for not being a bunch of high-minded, effective people, and for expecting him to clean up its mess. He thinks reasonable people should see things his way in a reasonable amount of time, and gets impatient when ideology, ego, identity politics and pork-project whining hold up progress.

Biden is a realist. He understands lawmakers' limitations, motivations and needs. He leans right in and speaks -- and speaks and speaks -- their language. That's who he is. And he believes, as creaky and unwieldy as the system is, that it still has integrity."

Does Washington still have integrity? Congress will soon be approving Senator John Kerry, who referred to Syrian dictator and mass murderer Bashar al-Assad as "my dear friend," as Obama's next secretary of state.

Most likely, Congress will also be narrowly approving former Senator Chuck Hagel as Obama's new secretary of defense. Hagel was one of 12 Senators who wouldn't ask the EU to declare Hezbollah, which was responsible for the 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing that killed 241 American soldiers, as a terrorist organization.

Kerry? Hagel? They leave me nauseous and cold inside.

The surreal world of Capitol Hill? Quite right. "Honor," "code" and "loyalty" have been replaced by "narcissism," "vanity" and "conceit."

"You can't handle the truth!" Indeed, and there's nothing I can do to change it.

David Brooks, "Strangers in the Night": Doo-Be-Doo-Be-Doo to You, Too

Groucho: "That's in every contract, that's what you call a sanity clause."
Chico: "You can't a fool a me there ain't no sanity clause"

- Groucho/Chico in "A Night at the Opera"

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Strangers in the Night" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/opinion/brooks-strangers-in-the-night.html), David Brooks offers sound advice to Republicans:

"Don’t get hung up on some incremental tax increase for the rich. Instead, make sure America doesn’t have another credit downgrade. Make sure the economy doesn’t fall into another debt-exploding recession. Prepare a comprehensive tax and entitlement reform strategy for 2013. Call Obama’s bluff on health care reform. In case Obamacare doesn’t bend the cost curve, get Obama to agree to some automatic triggers — plans that will kick in and bring down health care spending."

Makes sense? You bet. But on the eve of Christmas, sanity is increasingly hard to come by in Washington.

As long as we're on the topic of sanity, it should come as no surprise that The New York Times has yet to weigh in on Obama's looming nomination of former senator Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, when even The Washington Post opposes Hagel's candidacy (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chuck-hagel-is-not-right-for-defense-secretary/2012/12/18/07e03e20-493c-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html).

What's wrong with Hagel? For starters, in 2006 Hagel was one of 12 Senators who wouldn't ask the EU to declare Hezbollah, Iran's surrogate in Lebanon, a terrorist organization. Hezbollah was responsible for the 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing, which killed 241 American soldiers.

Brooks wants sanity from Republicans at a time when Obama wants to nominate Hagel as head of the Pentagon?

Dooby-be-doo-be-do to you, too, David.