Gail Collins, "The Republicans’ Sin of Endorsement": Salivating Over a Romney Nomination

Tweet

In yet another vacuous New York Times op-ed entitled "The Republicans’ Sin of Endorsement," Gail Collins concludes by suggesting the possibility that Mitt Romney could walk away with the Republican nomination in a brokered convention:

"None of these new converts to the Cruz camp seem to have any actual arguments about Cruz being a good potential president. Bush, in his announcement, complained that 'Washington is broken' but made no attempt whatsoever to explain how things would be improved by the nomination of a senator whose sole achievement in office was an effort to shut down the government. Maybe they think if Cruz is the spoiler at the convention, it’ll be easier to shove him away to make room for a brand new superhero? (Looking at you, Mitt.)"

Can you imagine, Collins might again be able to pad her columns with her lame dog-on-the-roof "running joke." She must be salivating over the possibility.

Elsewhere in the news, probably unbeknownst to Gail, Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari announced that Tehran is planning to send warships to the Atlantic "to help improve international peace and security."

"International peace and security"? Iranian warships that can fire missiles at Manhattan and shake the foundations of Gail's Candy Crush Saga world? Oh my goodness!

More developments involving Iran? As reported by Reuters in an exclusive article entitled "U.S. to charge Iran in cyber attacks against banks, New York dam" by Dustin Volz, Nate Raymond and Jim Finkle:

"The Obama administration is expected to blame Iranian hackers as soon as Thursday for a coordinated campaign of cyber attacks in 2012 and 2013 on several U.S. banks and a New York dam, sources familiar with the matter have told Reuters.

The Justice Department has prepared an indictment against about a half-dozen Iranians, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter. It is one of the highest-profile U.S. indictments against a foreign nation on hacking charges."

This is the same Iran whose banks are being reconnected with the SWIFT network. And this is the same Iran which, a few days ago, was commended by Obama in his annual Nowruz address:

"Over the years, you've heard me say that the United States was prepared to engage with Iran in a spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect. Well, that's exactly what we did. In the last few years, our diplomats and nuclear scientists sat down together and negotiated face to face, and last summer, along with our international partners, we reached the historic deal on Iran's nuclear program.

. . . .

I firmly believe that we can continue to expand the connections between the American and Iranian people."

I don't know if Obama also plays Candy Crush Saga, but he is obviously also living in a fantasy world.

Gail Collins, "Kasich, the Boulder Between the G.O.P. and Trump": Boulder or Pebble in Trump's Shoe?

Tweet

Agree with Gail Collins? Me? Never! At least not until this loathsome morning . . .

In a terse New York Times op-ed entitled "Kasich, the Boulder Between the G.O.P. and Trump," Collins writes of the Republican debates and Ohio Governor John Kasich:

"At times it was like a bunch of gladiators smashing into one another at the coliseum while one chipper combatant wandered around shaking his head and urging everybody to get along."

Gladiators? You're being too kind, Ms. Collins. How about professional wrestlers? You will recall how Trump pinned Vince McMahon at the WrestleMania Battle of the Billionaires and then shaved McMahon's head, demonstrating to the world that he has what it takes to be the next American commander in chief.

Labeling Kasich "the only non-appalling option the Republicans have," Collins holds out a laser-thin ray of hope:

"Can Kasich go all the way? Doesn’t seem likely. But then Ohio does like to call itself the Mother of Presidents. Eight came from Ohio in one way or another. True, that included Warren Harding and William Henry Harrison, who lasted for only a month. But on the plus side there’s … William McKinley."

Also worth noting that in recent polls, Kasich destroys Hillary. Gail also ignores another possible outcome: A brokered Republican convention resulting in Mitt Romney as the Republican candidate. Wow! Gail could again bore us with her running dog-on-the-roof "joke."

Kasich the Republican nominee? From your lips to God's ears, Gail. Now if only the FBI recommends indicting Hillary, and Biden throws his hat in the ring, wrestling or otherwise. But don't be expecting too many miracles: God is also getting tired of America's electoral shenanigans.

Paul Krugman, "When Fallacies Collide": What Is the Cost of Slave Labor?

Tweet

"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."

- Paul Krugman, "Confronting the Malefactors," October 6, 2011

"The good news is that there was a real policy debate going on within the G.O.P. last week. The bad news is that it was junk economics on both sides."

- Paul Krugman, "When Fallacies Collide," March 7, 2016

Accusing Mitt Romney and Donald Trump of "junk economics" in a New York Times op-ed entitled "When Fallacies Collide," Paul Krugman says of trade protectionism involving China and other countries:

"Protectionism can do real harm, making economies less efficient and reducing long-run growth. But it doesn’t cause recessions."

No mention by Krugman of the cost to humanity when imported electronics goods and clothing are manufactured by slave and child labor. True, President Obama signed a bill in February prohibiting goods produced by forced labor from entering the US, but enforcement of the law could prove tricky.

Also, how many consumers want to spend more for their smartphones? After all, this could make the economy less efficient.

Mitt Romney, "Obama must wage war on the Islamic State, not merely harass it": Is He Running?

Tweet

In a short guest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama must wage war on the Islamic State, not merely harass it," Mitt Romney hammers Obama for failing to wage war on the Islamic State. Observing how Obama told the American people just hours before the attack on Paris that "we have contained" the Islamic State, Romney goes on to say:

"After Paris, it’s clear: Doing the minimum won’t make us safe. It’s time the president stopped hedging and took meaningful steps to defend us and our allies.

The president was right when he called the Islamic State a 'cancer,' but it is a cancer that metastasized on his watch. Paris is proof. So are Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and North Africa. What we saw Friday we will see here if we continue on the present course. It’s time to change that course, secure the safety of our homeland and preserve our democratic values. Now is the time, not merely to contain the Islamic State, but to eradicate it once and for all."

Note how Romney calls for the "eradication" of the Islamic State, where as Hillary and the other would-be Democratic presidential contenders are unwilling to use the term "radical Islam."

And so, with Trump, notwithstanding his Iowa meltdown, still leading the Republican pack (Are Republicans truly dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot?), is Mitt giving second thoughts to tossing his hat in the ring? Stay tuned.

New York Times Editorial, "Candidate Clinton and the Foundation": A Sugar-Coated Slap on the Wrist

Yesterday, DNC Chairman Howard Dean responded to questions concerning the Uranium One Scandal by accusing The New York Times of "sloppy" reporting. What does The New York Times have to say about this? In an editorial entitled "Candidate Clinton and the Foundation," The New York Times blithely informs us, "Nothing illegal has been alleged about the foundation, the global philanthropic initiative founded by former President Bill Clinton."

"Nothing illegal has been alleged about the foundation"? Oh really? As stated by Mitt Romney on the Hugh Hewitt Show:

"I’ve got to tell you, I was stunned by it. I mean, it looks like bribery. I mean, there's every appearance that Hillary Clinton was bribed to grease the sale of what - twenty percent of Amercia's uranium production to Russia, and then it was covered up by lying about a meeting at her home with the principals and by erasing emails. I presume we might know for sure whether there was or was not bribery if she hadn't wiped out thousands of emails. But this is a very, very serious series of facts, and it looks like bribery."

Does it indeed look like bribery? Have another look at the Times article entitled "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company" by Jo Becker and Mike McIntire:

"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."

Question: Prior to the deal, had Uranium One's chairman ever donated funds to the Clinton Foundation?

But why should we believe anything that Mitt Romney tells us? After all, he put the family dog on the roof of his car when driving to Canada on vacation . . .

Thomas Friedman, "Putin and the Laws of Gravity": Or, Russia is a Regional Power Acting Out of Weakness II

Yesterday, at a summit on nuclear security in the Hague, Obama declared, in response to a question by ABC's Jonathan Karl, that Russia is a "regional power" acting "out of weakness" (see: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/03/obama-says-russia-is-regional-power-not-americas-top-geopolitical-foe/). Asked by Karl if he has changed his mind and now agrees with Romney’s contention that Russia is America’s top geopolitical foe, Obama replied:

"Russia’s actions are a problem. They don’t pose the number one national security to the United States. I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan."

Query: Just who in the world is capable of destroying Manhattan with a nuclear weapon? Somehow, Obama saw fit to ignore the recent assertion of a Russian news commentator that "Russia is the only country in the world realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash" (see: http://news.yahoo.com/state-tv-says-russia-could-turn-us-radioactive-212003397.html).

Well, if it gives Obama any comfort, Russia might soon not be the only entity capable of hitting Manhattan with a nuclear weapon. Given Obama's dependence upon Putin's wavering support of purported negotiations to dismantle Khamenei's nuclear weapons development problem, Iran could also soon possess the capability to hit Times Square with an atomic bomb delivered by a ballistic missile.

Yes, I know: Iran is also just a "regional power."

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Putin and the Laws of Gravity" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/26/opinion/friedman-putin-and-the-laws-of-gravity.html?_r=0), Obama apologist Thomas Friedman, whose neck is succumbing to the laws of gravity, parrots the president and would also have us believe that Russia is acting out of weakness. Friedman writes:

"The morning after a big event is when fools rush in and declare that someone’s victory or defeat in a single battle has 'changed everything forever.' The morning after the morning after, the laws of gravity start to apply themselves; things often don’t look as good or as bad as you thought. And that brings me to Vladimir Putin’s annexation of Crimea.

The morning after, he was the hero of Russia. Some moronic commentators here even expressed the wish that we had such a 'decisive' leader. Well, let’s see what Putin looks like the morning after the morning after, say, in six months. I make no predictions, but I will point out this. Putin is challenging three of the most powerful forces on the planet all at once: human nature, Mother Nature and Moore’s Law. Good luck with that."

In a nutshell, Friedman explains that "70 percent of Russia’s exports are oil and gas" and that the world's energy requirements will soon be met by solar and wind power. How reassuring . . . not. As acknowledged earlier this month by Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/10/poland-germany-ukraine-idUSL6N0M71JA20140310):

"We will not be able to efficiently fend off potential aggressive steps by Russia in the future, if so many European countries are dependent on Russian gas deliveries or wade into such dependence."

Or stated otherwise, Europe will remain dependent upon Russian gas for many years to come.

And meanwhile, the first invertebrate to occupy the Oval Office must continue to contend with a rambunctious "regional power" whose state television anchors do not hesitate to threaten the United States with annihilation.

Indeed, Mitt Romney had it right during the October 2012 presidential debate.

Maureen Dowd, "Peeling Away the Plastic": How About First Scrubbing Away the Blood?

Reflecting on a new Netflix documentary providing an intimate perspective of Mitt Romney's campaigns for the the presidency, Maureen Dowd, in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Peeling Away the Plastic" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/dowd-peeling-away-the-plastic.html?ref=maureendowd&_r=0), concludes:

"The fact that Romney allowed his strategists to keep a fence around him and his faith, which is so central to his life, the fact that he basically had nothing to say about where he wanted to lead the country, the fact that the private equity leecher spoke so dismissively about the 47 percent of people he regarded as moochers, the fact that this supposedly top-notch businessman did not seem to realize his campaign was using 20th-century technology — all of this spoke to a certain tentativeness, obtuseness and callousness.

But there’s always 2016."

Hmm, "tentativeness, obtuseness and callousness" on the part of Romney.

However, Maureen fails to mention the other event that recently stirred much media attention in the US, i.e. publication of Robert Gates's book "Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War." Regarding Gates's book, Charles Krauthammer last week wrote a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "How in good conscience?" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-how-in-good-conscience/2014/01/16/138901d4-7ee3-11e3-9556-4a4bf7bcbd84_story.html?hpid=z2), in which he observed re Obama's escalation of American involvement in Afghanistan:

"One question remains, however. If he wasn’t committed to the mission, if he didn’t care about winning, why did Obama throw these soldiers into battle in the first place?

Because for years the Democrats had used Afghanistan as a talking point to rail against the Iraq War — while avoiding the politically suicidal appearance of McGovernite pacifism. As consultant Bob Shrum later admitted, “I was part of the 2004 Kerry campaign, which elevated the idea of Afghanistan as ‘the right war’ to conventional Democratic wisdom. This was accurate as criticism of the Bush Administration, but it was also reflexive and perhaps by now even misleading as policy.”

Translation: They were never really serious about Afghanistan. (Nor apparently about Iraq either. Gates recounts with some shock that Hillary Clinton admitted she opposed the Iraq surge for political reasons, and Obama conceded that much of the opposition had indeed been political.) The Democratic mantra — Iraq War, bad; Afghan War, good — was simply a partisan device to ride anti-Bush, anti-Iraq War feeling without appearing squishy."

Or in a nutshell, after months of procrastination, America's Narcissist-in-Chief finally decided to shed the blood of American service women and men in an inane war for the sake of his own image and political gain.

Dowd sees "tentativeness, obtuseness and callousness" in Romney's campaigns? Perhaps. But I suggest that she first consider what Obama ordered in Afghanistan, which has proven horrifyingly worse by any standard of morality.

Paul Krugman, "Mitt’s Gray Areas": What's Good for the Goose Is Good for the Gander

How did the "community organizer," now sitting in the Oval Office, become a multi-millionaire (net worth in 2012 of $11.8 million) before the age of forty-five? More about that in a minute.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Mitt’s Gray Areas" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/opinion/krugman-mitts-gray-areas.html), Paul Krugman, who has become as predictable and original as fellow Republican-bashing Times columnist Gail Collins, begins by observing:

"Right now there’s a lot of buzz about an investigative report in the magazine Vanity Fair highlighting the 'gray areas' in the younger Romney’s finances. More about that in a minute."

Krugman then goes on to smeer Romney for his work at Bain Capital:

"Mr. Romney didn’t get rich by producing things people wanted to buy; he made his fortune through financial engineering that seems in many cases to have left workers worse off, and in some cases driven companies into bankruptcy."

Needless to say, Krugman doesn't mention Bill Clinton's recent commentary (see: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/former-president-clinton-says-romney-had-sterling-business-career-but-argues-obama-proposals-superior/) on Romney's work at Bain:

"And I think he had a good business career. There is a lot of controversy about that. But if you go in and you try to save a failing company, and you and I have friends here who invest in companies, you can invest in a company, run up the debt, loot it, sell all the assets, and force all the people to lose their retirement and fire them.

Or you can go into a company, have cutbacks, try to make it more productive with the purpose of saving it. And when you try, like anything else you try, you don't always succeed.

. . . .

So I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say this is bad work. This is good work."

"Good work"? That's not the way that Krugman would have us see it.

Paul proceeds to complain that Romney has only released one year’s tax return and that some of his investments "seem very mysterious." Paul concludes:

"Elections are, after all, in part about the perceived character of the candidates — and what a man does with his money is surely a major clue to his character."

Well as long as we're on the topic of presidential wealth, are we to conclude that all of Obama's wealth came from writing fictional accounts of himself? The problem is that there is also that stinky Chicago real estate deal with Tony Rezko that has been forgotten by the likes of Krugman.

On the same day in 2005 Obama purchased his Chicago mansion, the wife of convicted felon Tony Rezko bought the adjacent empty lot from the same seller, who wanted to sell both properties together. However, as reported by ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483&page=1):

"While Rezko's wife paid the full asking price for the land, Obama paid $300,000 under the asking price for the house. The house sold for $1,650,000 and the price Rezko's wife paid for the land was $625,000.

Obama denies there was anything unusual about the price disparity. He says the price on the house was dropped because it had been on the market for some time but that the price for the adjacent land remained high because there was another offer."

Do you buy Obama's explanation concerning this sweetheart real estate deal? Sorry, I don't. Meanwhile, however, a hypocritical Paul Krugman would only have us examine Republican avarice. The reality is that the stench of greed permeates both sides of the aisle.

Paul Krugman, "Off and Out With Mitt Romney": Farewell to Objectivity

"And I think he had a good business career. There is a lot of controversy about that. But if you go in and you try to save a failing company, and you and I have friends here who invest in companies, you can invest in a company, run up the debt, loot it, sell all the assets, and force all the people to lose their retirement and fire them.

Or you can go into a company, have cutbacks, try to make it more productive with the purpose of saving it. And when you try, like anything else you try, you don't always succeed.

. . . .

So I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say this is bad work. This is good work.

. . . .

There's no question that in terms of getting up and going to the office and, you know, basically performing the essential functions of the office, the man who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold."

Bill Clinton speaking about Mitt Romney, May 31, 2012

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Off and Out With Mitt Romney" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/opinion/off-and-out-with-mitt-romney.html), Paul Krugman says of Mitt Romney:

"His case for becoming president relies, instead, on his claim that, having been a successful businessman, he knows how to create jobs.

This, in turn, means that however much the Romney campaign may wish otherwise, the nature of that business career is fair game. How did Mr. Romney make all that money? Was it in ways suggesting that what was good for Bain Capital, the private equity firm that made him rich, would also be good for America?

And the answer is no.

The truth is that even if Mr. Romney had been a classic captain of industry, a present-day Andrew Carnegie, his career wouldn’t have prepared him to manage the economy."

Strange. That's not what Bill Clinton is telling us. And who knows better about what it takes to occupy the Oval Office, Clinton or Krugman? The answer is obviously Clinton, unless you ask the question of Paul.

By the way, what were Obama's qualifications for high office? Writing fictional autobiographies?

The reality is that Obama is attacking Bain Capital, i.e. running a negative campaign, because his management of the US economy is a shambles. And whereas Romney proved himself adept at making money, Obama has demonstrated that he is talented at running up deficits to the tune of over a trillion dollars per year with little to show for it.

Am I pleased with the Romney campaign? No way. We're not being given answers. Romney claims that he is displeased with the way in which Obama has been managing the economy, but in concrete terms, what is he going to do differently? Romney says that he opposes Obamacare, but what is he going to do instead to remedy a dysfunctional health care system?

With America mired in crisis, both candidates appear content to coast their way toward November with no groundbreaking proposals to address the country's troubles.

By the way, what have the candidate been saying about Afghanistan? In fact, neither one dares to say a word.

Shameless, contemptible and degrading, as is Krugman's total lack of objectivity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Krugman, "Wasting Our Minds": Wasting Our Time

Read Paul Krugman's latest New York Times op-ed, "Wasting Our Minds" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/opinion/krugman-wasting-our-minds.html). Now read this opinion piece, which posits that there is an economic "war on the young" (in addition to "the war on women, which is real enough"), a second time. Although Obama has been president for almost three and a half years and by now should "own" the economy, notwithstanding the travails he inherited from the Bush administration, Obama's name only appears once, tangentially, in Krugman's op-ed:

"After denouncing President Obama’s 'divisiveness,' [Romney] told his audience, 'Take a shot, go for it, take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business.'"

Let's get this straight: There's a war on the young, and there's a war on women, but Obama is not a participant, has no involvement, and has no responsibility? Sorry, Paul, but this is intellectually dishonest.

Krugman's prescription for assisting young people?:

"What should we do to help America’s young? Basically, the opposite of what Mr. Romney and his friends want. We should be expanding student aid, not slashing it. And we should reverse the de facto austerity policies that are holding back the U.S. economy — the unprecedented cutbacks at the state and local level, which have been hitting education especially hard."

Well, I'll all in favor of more and better teachers. Who isn't? However, state and local governments are mired in debt throughout the US.

But allow me to ask the forbidden question that goes unasked by Krugman: In today's new world, does a B.A., coupled with over $100,000 in debt to pay for that education, pave the path to success and happiness?

Bore you with data? Not this time. Rather, let's talk about my nephew. Enrolled in a liberal arts program at a prestigious college, he left to take a job in the restaurant business. Some four years later, after waiting tables and learning the business from the bottom up, he is now managing operations at a fancy midtown eatery, and if he were to leave this position, there are another ten restaurants that would be waiting to hire him.

My oldest son? After considerable coursework in acting and movie making, he determined that the unemployment lines would be waiting for him in another two years. Instead of continuing down this path, he applied for and received work with the department of correctional services. Yeah, he's going to work as a guard at a prison. Nothing prestigious about this, but he will be able to support himself, and continue to go to night school in order to nourish his soul.

Austerity programs "are holding back the U.S. economy"? What about what is now Obama's war in Afghanistan, which has lasted more than a decade and has consumed on the order of a half trillion dollars? Although Krugman claims there are wars on women and the young, what about this very real war in central Asia, which is bleeding America white with nothing to show for it?

And if you want to jump-start the American economy, reinstate the Uptick Rule (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/08/paul-krugman-hijacked-crisis-paul-heres.html). But by doing so, Obama would eliminate what has become a favorite cash cow for many predatory investment banking operations.

Could Christie Tilt the Scales in Favor of Romney?

According to conventional wisdom, the selection of a vice presidential candidate is not supposed to affect the outcome of a US presidential election . . . unless you're foolish enough to pick Sarah Palin. However, given that the 2012 presidential election is apt to be decided by a whisker - dog or otherwise (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2012/04/gail-collins-again-off-today-has-she.html) - Romney's decision regarding a running mate has assumed disproportionate weight.

According to Public Policy Polling's latest poll (see: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/04/obama-leads-romney-by-three-christie-would-make-it-a-tie.html), Romney's selection of Chris Christie would currently result in the Obama-Biden and Romney-Christie tickets each receiving 47% of the vote. Without a vice presidential candidate, Public Policy Polling found that Romney would receive 46% of the vote, compared with 49% for Obama.

Of particular interest was the fact that when Marco Rubio was paired with Romney, Public Policy Polling determined that Obama would lead by 49% to 43%, i.e. Rubio would not improve Romney's chances by garnering the Hispanic vote.

With Paul Ryan, Romney loses by 48%-43%.

Why does Christie tilt the scales in favor of Romney? Personally, I like his abrasively honest demeanor and would have preferred that he head the Republican ticket. And although some say that Christie's proportions preclude his candidacy, approximately a third of Americans over the age of 20 suffer from obesity and can empathize with his corpulence.

Christie sounds ready to accept the Republican nomination for vice president. According to Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/christie-listen-romney-asks-him-running-mate-173656944--abc-news-politics.html):

"'I love this job (governor) and I'm not looking to do it (vice president),' the governor said.

'But I also think it is extraordinarily arrogant for you to say you won't even listen to the nominee of your party - especially for me. It's someone who I've been supporting since last October vigorously around the country - that I wouldn't take a call from Mitt Romney,' Christie told reporters at a press conference here."

Moreover, in an apparent bid to improve his foreign polcy credentials, Christie earlier this month visited Israel on his first official overseas trip, and met with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu (see: http://news.yahoo.com/christie-israel-1st-official-overseas-trip-141220721.html).

Gail Collins Again "Off Today": Has She Fallen Victim to the Dogs of War?

Go to the online opinion page of The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html), and you will learn that Gail Collins is again "off today," after being "off today" also on Thursday, her prior time slot. What has happened to poor Gail? Has she fallen victim to the dogs of war?

You will recall that it all started when Donald Trump sent to Collins a copy of her column with "The Face of a Dog!" written over her picture (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/09/donald-trump-gail-collins-new-york-times_n_847015.html).

Collins retaliated by weaving Mitt Romney's 1983 Seamus story into most of her recent op-eds (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/gail-collins-mitt-romney-dog-seamus_n_1331625.html). This lame "running joke" - How will she ever integrate Seamus into her next column? - had her doltish readership in stitches.

But then came the news which was impossible for Collins to swallow: Obama ate dogs in Indonesia (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2012/04/has-gail-collins-resigned-from-new-york.html).

Given her absence from the op-ed page of the Times, it would appear that Collins is having difficulty digesting this information. Tough, very tough.

Maureen Dowd, "Come Back, Sarah Palin!": How to Get Your Jollies in 2012

I recently received an e-mail from a friend, informing me that her husband, Jim, a California computer wizard who is twice as smart as I am, is again unemployed and seeking funds for a start-up. The reality for persons such as Jim, who, like me, are over 50 years of age, is that if they're jobless, there is not much waiting for them work-wise. Times are grim, no matter what skills you bring to the table, and those out of work can certainly use some comic relief from their leaders in Washington. After all, they're not getting anything else from them.

In her New York Times op-ed "Come Back, Sarah Palin!" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/opinion/sunday/dowd-come-back-sarah-palin.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss#), Maureen Dowd laments the lack of comedy material apt to arise from this year's presidential election. Dowd quotes one of Saturday Night Live's writers to prove her point:

"'I don’t think it’s going to be as much fun as 2000 and 2008,' Jim Downey, the show’s inimitable satirist, told me. 'When you have an incumbent president, it’s not wholly new. And because of the long Republican primary debate stretch, I’m already tired of Romney. I wish there could be a crazy brokered convention with someone we’ve never heard of to keep it fresh. But you don’t get a gift like Sarah Palin very often, and I’m sure it’ll never happen again.'"

Well, I agree with Dowd: If Romney doesn't choose Christie as his running mate, there's not much fun to be poked at the likes of Paul Ryan. But who says there is nothing humorous about Obama? Even as unemployment in the US hovers at some eight percent and Obama makes a mess of foreign policy around the globe, Danish television found jocularity in the president's glib chatter. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erYpXzE9Pxs

Thomas Friedman, "I’m Not Mitt Romney": Tom Offers to Cut Off His Thumbs

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "I’m Not Mitt Romney" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/opinion/friedman-im-not-mitt-romney.html?smid=tw-NYTimesFriedman&seid=auto), a less than skinny Tom Friedman, seeking to attack Paul Ryan's proposed budget cuts, tries his hand at humor:

"If I cut off both my thumbs, I’d also lose weight. But I’d also have a hard time getting another job."

Well, anyone who has seen Tom's Maryland mansion knows that he can get by without another job, but I still hope he doesn't cut off his thumbs. Given his girth, it won't make a difference. If he wants to carry around less weight, I suggest he start by losing his mustache.

But enough silliness and let's get to the substance of Friedman's opinion piece, i.e. Ryan's budget is bad, Obama's budget is better, Friedman's budget is best. (No, I'm no longer joking.) Friedman again calls for - yawn - cuts in Medicare and Social Security and investment in "education, infrastructure, quality government institutions and government-funded research."

Ah, yes, as W.C. Fields might have intoned, "quality government institutions and government-funded research." Let me add this to my list of oxymorons.

But in case Friedman hasn't noticed, that other "quality" government program, Obamacare, over the next decade, as acknowledged by Chuck Blahous, public trustee for Medicare and Social Security (see: http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/The-Fiscal-Consequences-of-the-Affordable-Care-Act.pdf) will:

"add at least $340 billion and as much as $530 billion to federal deficits while increasing federal spending by more than $1.15 trillion over the same period and by increasing amounts thereafter."

Moreover, the federal government can continue printing money, but in case Tom didn't notice, it's going broke fast. But that didn't stop Tom from sliming Paul Ryan, as did his colleague, Paul Krugman, on Monday (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2012/04/paul-krugman-gullible-center-argumentum.html).

As observed last week by James B. Stewart in In a New York Times article entitled "For All the Furor Over Ryan’s Plan, It’s a Place to Start" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/07/business/lots-of-accolades-but-little-action-on-budget-plan-common-sense.html?pagewanted=all):

"It’s easy enough to tweak the Ryan tax rates to generate more tax revenue while still lowering rates and broadening the tax base, as Ronald Reagan did in 1986.

In return, Republicans would get lower rates and curbs on entitlement spending. Democrats would get more tax revenue and preserve the essential elements and long-term solvency of Medicare and Social Security. The nation would get a fairer tax code, long-term deficit reduction, a secure credit rating, stronger economic growth and a social safety net.

'The overwhelming majority of Congress would agree to this on a secret ballot,' [Tennessee Democratic Congressman Jim Cooper] told me.'"

But, what can we do? Tom always knows best.

Frank Bruni, "And Now, the Veepstakes": The Republican VP Candidate Is of No Consequence?

Did you happen to see the word association game that Jay Leno played with Mitt Romney last week on The Tonight Show concerning potential Republican vice presidential candidates? Romney labeled Chris Christie "indomitable" and characterized Marco Rubio as "an American leader." Needless to say, Romney was circumspect enough not to categorize Christie "obese" or term Rubio as "someone capable of garnering the Hispanic vote."

Today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "And Now, the Veepstakes" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/opinion/bruni-and-now-the-veepstakes.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss), Frank Bruni opines that Romney's choice of a running mate will not impact upon the ultimate results in November:

"You show me a voter so taken with a vice presidential nominee that he or she swallows real reservations to vote for the ticket and I’ll show you a member of the veep-to-be’s extended family or someone else angling for an invitation to the inauguration."

In this particular instance, I disagree with Bruni. First, I think the US presidential election is going to be very close, barring a surprise upturn in the economy. Second, if Christie can deliver New Jersey, or if Rubio can deliver Florida to the Republicans, this could make all the difference. Third, I believe that if Rubio can make even a slight impact upon among Hispanic voters, who comprise over 16% of America's population (see: http://www.npr.org/2011/03/25/134844466/census-hispanics-are-16-percent-of-u-s-population), this could alter the results of the election.

Christie? A third of Americans are obese, and I don't think his girth will weigh against him. Quite the contrary: I believe his gruff personality could serve a valuable counterweight to Romney's pristine, not-a-hair-out-of-place, image.

Gail Collins, "Time to Elect the Worst Idea": Dog Poop on the Brain

Okay, I confess: I actually skimmed a bit of Gail ("Dog Poop on the Brain") Collins latest New York Times op-ed, "Time to Elect the Worst Idea" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/31/opinion/collins-time-to-elect-the-worst-idea.html?_r=1&hp). Needless to say, Collins, who never has anything better to say, didn't disappoint, and she again began this opinion piece with her lame running joke:

"Our topic today is picking the worst new trend of the political season.

Not including putting the dog on the car roof."

To her credit, Collins actually acknowledges that Obama has failed "to bring us all together in a postpartisan Washington."

But what is indeed the "worst new trend of the political season"? Actually, it involves Obama's ongoing attempts to appease enemies while beating up on America's longstanding allies, but given that November is approaching, doing it in surreptitious fashion. There is no mention whatsoever in the Collin's opinion piece of Obama's open microphone oversight while chatting with Russia's Medvedev, which this time, unlike his open mike faux pas involving Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, is not going to go away.

How times have changed. Forty years ago, Obama would have been impeached for this ignoble conduct, characterized by Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post as "enough to chill friends and allies, democrats and dissidents, all over the world" (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/the-flexibility-doctrine/2012/03/29/gIQA9ZMtjS_story.html).

David Brooks, "A Moderate Conservative Dilemma": Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "A Moderate Conservative Dilemma" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/opinion/brooks-a-moderate-conservative-dilemma.html?_r=1&hp), David Brooks tells the story of Nathan Fletcher, a veteran of the US Marines, who returned from Iraq and Somalia and entered California politics as a moderate Republican. Most recently, seeking the Republican nomination for mayor of San Diego, he was spurned by his party, which chose someone more conservative, and he is now running as an independent. Brooks concludes:

"Fletcher is the decided underdog in the June 5 voting. But he represents a nationally important test case. Can the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, who were trained to be ruthlessly pragmatic, find a home in either political party? Can center-right moderates find a home in the G.O.P., even in coastal California? As the two parties become more insular, is it possible to mount an independent alternative?"

Brooks tells us that Fletcher returned from his service in the Marines with survivor's guilt. In addition to his moderation and his ability to work effectively with people from both sides of the aisle, this strikes a chord with me.

But does Fletcher's story reflect the demise of tolerance and moderation in US politics? In an interesting aside, Brooks notes that Mitt Romney and his wife have contributed to Fletcher's campaign. This brings us to an interesting point: Whereas Obama is likely hiding an extreme leftist agenda, as evidenced by his open microphone gaffe with Russia's Medvedev, Romney is disguising a centrist agenda, as evidenced by his support of Fletcher.

Me? I sorely miss Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a conservative Democrat, and Jacob Javits, a liberal Republican. But in today's world, there is little space remaining for moderation, as evidenced by the imminent departure of Joe Lieberman and Olympia Snowe from the US Senate.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

New York Times Editorial, "The Never-Ending Cold War": The NYT Gets Cold Feet

The New York Times made a concerted effort to ignore Obama's open microphone gaffe while speaking with Russia's President Medvedev. Although Obama's declaration that he would have more "flexibility" involving European missile defense after his reelection was a lead online news item for The Washington Post, it was relegated to "The Lede Blog" by The New York Times. I suppose The Times is of the opinion that if a tree falls in a forest and no one sees it happen, it didn't happen.

Well, unfortunately for The Times and Obama, Americans are not as stupid as they might think. Appearing with Jay Leno on "The Tonight Show" (see: http://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/video/mitt-romney-part-3-3-27-12/1393113), Romney received prolonged applause when he stated that Obama should never have promised Russia "a different agenda" after November, "once the American people aren't watching."

No longer able to brush aside Obama's gaffe, the editorial board of The New York Times today writes in "The Never-Ending Cold War" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/opinion/the-never-ending-cold-war.html?hp) that Obama's revelation to Medvedev was "an honest statement of fact." The editorial board continues:

"Saying he will have flexibility on missile defense doesn’t mean Mr. Obama will 'cave.'"

Oh really? The editorial acknowledges that "Russia is an unsavory player." If so, why reveal to this unsavory player all of your cards?

The editorial says that Russia has agreed to "limited" sanctions against Iran, which is America's "real" threat, and also admits that Putin's "support for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria is unconscionable." However, the editorial fails to observe that Russian support for Assad serves Iranian interests in the Middle East and enables Tehran to supply Hezbollah, its proxy in Lebanon.

The editorial board says of Romney:

"His comments display either a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics. Either way, they are reckless and unworthy of a major presidential contender."

Personally, I think that Obama's open microphone gaffe displayed an inordinate level of naiveté, unbefitting a US president. Moreover, this gaffe, together with talk that the Supreme Court stands to strike down Obamacare this summer, could well jeopardize Obama's chances of reelection.

Indeed, there is reason why the editorial board of The Times is developing a case of the jitters.

Paul Krugman, "Paranoia Strikes Deeper": Suffering from Gas

No, I don't suffer from paranoia, and I don't think that Obama is engaged in a conspiracy to drive the price of gas higher. On the other hand, I do believe that the Obama administration has done a poor job of controlling price speculation by oil traders.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Paranoia Strikes Deeper" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/opinion/krugman-paranoia-strikes-deeper.html?_r=1&hp#), Paul Krugman writes:

"Oil prices are set in a world market, and America, which accounts for only about a tenth of world production, can’t move those prices much. Indeed, the recent rise in gas prices has taken place despite rising U.S. oil production and falling imports."

America can't move those prices much? Oh really? America is blessed with enormous quantities of oil shale, which translate medium-term into energy independence, and this resource will ultimately make a difference. Meanwhile, if Obama wants to control oil speculation, he can release strategic oil reserves, as was belatedly discussed with UK Prime Minister David Cameron earlier this month (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/15/us-oil-reserves-idUSBRE82E0UM20120315). In addition, Obama could have also sent a message to the markets by agreeing to allow the Keystone XL pipeline to proceed, as advocated by New York Times columnist Joe Nocera (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/opinion/nocera-the-poisoned-politics-of-keystone-xl.html).

Krugman observes that Romney has conveniently bought into the claim that gas prices are higher owing to an Obama administration plot; however, he thinks that Romney will reject such conspiracy theories after winning the Republican nomination:

"If and when he wins the nomination, Mr. Romney will try, as a hapless adviser put it, to shake his Etch A Sketch — that is, to erase the record of his pandering to the crazy right and convince voters that he’s actually a moderate. And maybe he can pull it off.

But let’s hope that he can’t, because the kind of pandering he has engaged in during his quest for the nomination matters. Whatever Mr. Romney may personally believe, the fact is that by endorsing the right’s paranoid fantasies, he is helping to further a dangerous trend in America’s political life. And he should be held accountable for his actions."

My guess is that Romney, after being nominated, will indeed adapt his candidacy to middle-of-the-road America. But does this make him a dangerous demagogue, or is this all part of the game?

In this respect, perhaps Paul can tell us:

• What happened to Obama's past promise to acknowledge Armenian Genocide? Had Obama honored this commitment, I don't think he would now be able to count Turkey's loathsome Prime Minister Erdoğan as one of his best buddies.

• What happened to Obama's campaign promise to close the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay? Answer: Nothing.

• What happened to Obama's promise to bar lobbyists from working in the administration on issues related to their prior employers for two years? Answer: Conveniently ignored.

• What happened to Obama's promise to bring US troops home after becoming president? Obama declared in October 2007 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ9vKX73UZ0):

"I will promise you this – that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank."

Well, the troops came home from Iraq in 2011, but not on schedule, and Obama significantly escalated US involvement in Afghanistan.

Oh goodness gracious me, even Democrats are not to be trusted! Yawn . . .