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

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

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

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

. . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May the Lord have mercy on us!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Krugman continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Krugman, "Cannibalize the Future": Sliming Chris Christie

After sliming Republican Congressman Paul Ryan on Monday (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2012/04/paul-krugman-gullible-center-argumentum.html), Paul ("the Great and Powerful") Krugman today slimes Chris Christie.

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Cannibalize the Future" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/opinion/krugman-cannibalize-the-future.html?_r=1&smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto), Krugman excoriates Christie for his 2010 decision to cancel work on a new rail tunnel between New Jersey and New York. Referring to a recent Government Accountability Office critical of Christie's determination and alleging "mendacity" on Christie's part, Krugman writes:

"Much press coverage of the new report focuses, understandably, on the evidence that Mr. Christie made false statements about the tunnel’s financing and cost. The governor asserted that the projected costs were rising sharply; the report tells us that this simply wasn’t true. The governor claimed that New Jersey was being asked to pay for 70 percent of a project that would shower benefits on residents of New York; in fact, the bulk of the financing would have come either from the federal government or from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which collects revenue from residents of both states."

Just a moment, Paul. What's this about "the bulk of the financing" coming from the federal government "or from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey"? Would Krugman have us believe that New Jersey has no responsibity for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, because responsibility is shared between New Jersey and New York?

But more to the point, I have a two-word response to Krugman: "Big Dig." As reported in 2008 by Sean P. Murphy of the Globe (see: http://www.boston.com/news/traffic/bigdig/articles/2008/07/17/big_digs_red_ink_engulfs_state/), Boston's underground highway project entailed massive cost overruns that will cripple Massachussets for years to come:

"Now, three years after the official dedication of the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel, the state is reeling under a legacy of debt left by the massive project. In all, the project will cost an additional $7 billion in interest, bringing the total to a staggering $22 billion, according to a Globe review of hundreds of pages of state documents. It will not be paid off until 2038.

Contrary to the popular belief that this was a project heavily subsidized by the federal government, 73 percent of construction costs were paid by Massachusetts drivers and taxpayers. To meet that obligation, the state's annual payments will be nearly as much over the next several years, $600 million or more, as they were in the heaviest construction period.

Big Dig payments have already sucked maintenance and repair money away from deteriorating roads and bridges across the state, forcing the state to float more highway bonds and to go even deeper into the hole."

Bear in mind, the "Big Dig," which was scheduled to be finished in 1998 at a cost of $2.8 billion, was actually completed in December 2007. Even factoring inflation into the equation, there is an enormous difference between $2.8 billion and $22 billion.

Would Krugman have us believe that the new rail tunnel between New Jersey and New York would not have entailed cost overruns? Would he also have us believe that the less than solvent federal government would have foot the entire bill without any liability on the part of New Jersey? Yeah, right.

But Krugman always knows best. Christie's remarkable popularity among New Jersey residents in these tough times doesn't matter to him (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/04/12/chris-christie-high-approval-rating/#more-790915), nor does it impress Krugman that for the first time in 10 years, a majority of New Jersey voters feel that the state is "headed in the right direction" (see: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/poll_for_first_time_in_10_year.html).