Maureen Dowd, "The Great Man’s Wife": Narcissism Running Amok

An op-ed about Newt Gingrich? Why waste the ink? Nevertheless, Maureen Dowd, apparently bereft of ideas, has written another opinion piece about him. In her latest New York Times op-ed, "The Great Man’s Wife" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/dowd-the-great-mans-wife.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Dowd writes of Newt and his third wife Callista:

"While a trophy wife is admired by her man, the admiring eyes of a Transformational Wife are there to propel her man to the next level. And when a woman who wants to be a Transformational Wife merges with a man who calls himself a Transformational Figure, you can expect a narcissistic blastoff."

Fortunately for Newt, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, due out in 2013, has eliminated five of the 10 personality disorders that are listed in the current edition, and narcissistic personality disorder is among the five (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/health/views/30mind.html).

But isn't Maureen being a bit hard on the man. Consider --

Gingrich: "Because I am much like Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, I'm such an unconventional political figure that you really need to design a unique campaign that fits the way I operate and what I'm trying to do." (see: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/15/politics/acosta-gingrich-surges/index.html)

Obama: "I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president -- with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR and Lincoln." (see: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2011/12/does-barack-obama-believe-hes-the-4th-best-modern-president.html)

. . . .

Gingrich: "By the end of my second term we will have the first permanent base on the moon." (see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46208543/ns/local_news-clarksburg_wv/t/experts-say-gingrich-moon-base-dreams-not-lunacy/)

Obama: "As President, I will establish a robust and balanced civilian space program" that "not only will inspire the world with both human and robotic space exploration but also will again lead in confronting the challenges we face here on Earth, including global climate change, energy independence, and aeronautics research." (see: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=8

Pick your poison. If it were only possible, I would vote for W.C. Fields, who played "The Great Man" in "Never Give a Sucker an Even Break," over either of these two gentlemen --

Truman: "The buck stops here."

Fields: "There comes a time in the affairs of man when he must take the bull by the tail and face the situation."

Perhaps it is indeed time to face the situation and acknowledge that narcissism is running amok in the US presidential race.

Charles Blow, "Lunar Colonies, Lunacy and Losses": Aren't You Forgetting Something?

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Lunar Colonies, Lunacy and Losses" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/28/opinion/blow-lunar-colonies-lunacy-and-losses.html?ref=opinion#comments), Charles Blow sarcastically observes:

"To that point, Gingrich told a crowd on Florida’s so-called Space Coast on Wednesday that 'by the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the Moon. And it will be American.'”

I am no fan of Newt; however, observe what Obama glibly promised in 2008 (see: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=8):

“As President, I will establish a robust and balanced civilian space program” that “not only will inspire the world with both human and robotic space exploration but also will again lead in confronting the challenges we face here on Earth, including global climate change, energy independence, and aeronautics research.”

Would someone care to explain the difference?

In case you were wondering, Obama's advisors informed the president in November 2009 :

"Especially in light of our new fiscal context, it is not possible to achieve the inspiring space program goals discussed during the campaign."

Like "Hope" and "Change," Obama's space program never got off the ground.

Maureen Dowd, "She Made Me Run!": Sorry, Maureen, But Mitt Is No Flip-Flopper in Bed

I am not enamored of the lackluster crop of Republican presidential candidates. I would have been happier if Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan and Chris Christie had all thrown their hats in the ring. And in my humble opinion, there are those past and present candidates, including Donald Trump, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich, who have embarrassed themselves by suggesting that they are fit to serve as chief executive of the United States. However, Maureen Dowd stepped over the line by casting aspersions on the commitment of Ann Romney, Mitt's wife, who suffers from MS, to her husband's candidacy.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "She Made Me Run!" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/opinion/sunday/dowd-she-made-me-run.html?_r=1), Maureen Dowd writes of Mrs. Romney:

"At Iowa campaign stops, the elegant Ann introduces her husband by describing how steadfast he has been as she fought her disease. In the post-Elizabeth Edwards age, candidates can’t risk looking as if they are placing their ambition ahead of a spouse’s health. So it’s a calculation for Romney’s image that Ann be seen as a driving force rather than a victim."

Dowd then pokes fun at Callista Gingrich, whose "stubbornness" is purportedly keeping Newt in the race, and mocks Donald Trump's current wife, Melania, who seems to be claiming that America hungers for Donald as president, before concluding:

"You don’t become president without clawing your way into the Oval Office, but voters prefer pols like J.F.K., Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama who wear their ambition lightly.

The key to ambition is the ability to cloak it. Better yet, attribute it to your wife."

Personally, I find the juxtaposition of Mitt Romney's mariage with the turbulent matrimonial relationships of Newt Gingrich, Donald Trump and John Edwards to be inapt to say the least. Although Mitt has been accused of being a flip-flopper, no one has questioned his commitment to his wife.

Moreover, given the debilitating effects of MS, there is no doubt in my mind that Ann Romney is indeed devoted to her husband's candidacy. Should she become First Lady, her physical suffering will be placed front and center before the nation, and her fortitude and dedication are only to be commended.

In her prior op-ed, Dowd highlighted the courage of her brother, Kevin, a cancer survivor. Today, however, she would make light of the hardship of those suffering from MS. Sorry, Maureen, but this is an instance where Ann and Mitt Romney deserve our admiration.

Maureen Dowd, "Separation of Newt and State": Akin to Professional Wrestling

Some 40 years ago I was working in Manhattan, and one of my bosses, who had bought a ticket to see professional wrestling at Madison Square Garden, suddenly had family obligations that evening, and he offered me the ticket instead. I had never before gone to a professional wrestling match, but suddenly I was in the midst of thousands of screaming fans watching grown men with names such as Bruno Sammartino, Ivan "the Russian Bear" Koloff, and Ivan "the Polish Hammer" Putsky get sweaty in their jockey shorts and outrageous leotards, locking arms and doing somersaults across the ring.

But that was only half the fun . . .

The real entertainment came from the fans seated around me, who frothed at the mouth, screaming, "Hair, ref! Hair!", when Gorilla Monsoon pulled his opponent to the mat in unsportsmanlike fashion. And there was the woman ready to swoon, when phony blood spurted from the face of one of her heroes. And how the crowd went bananas when one of the arch-villains removed a small packet of powder from his crotch and tossed the noxious substance in the face of his unsuspecting opponent.

In "Separation of Newt and State" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/opinion/dowd-separation-of-newt-and-state.html?_r=1&ref=opinion), Maureen Dowd again regales us with the antics of Newt Gingrich. Let's be honest: Gingrich doesn't stand a chance of winning the Republican nomination and never did, but this doesn't stop Maureen from entertaining the "fans" with her blow by blow description, as Newt at first seems on the verge of winning the championship belt, only to succumb suddenly to a pin.

Unlike professional wrestling the Republican primaries are presumably not "fixed," yet by this point we all know the outcome in advance. It's hard to create drama where none exists.

The Republican primaries and professional wrestling: You might want to visit once for the anthropological experience, but beyond that? Yawn.

Maureen Dowd, "Fire and Ice": Fueling the Need for Clothespins

Who would ever imagine that Obama and Newt might cause a spike in the sale of clothespins in 2012?

In her Sunday op-ed entitled "Fire and Ice" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/opinion/sunday/dowd-fire-and-ice.html?ref=opinion), Maureen Dowd contemplates the possibility that Newt Gingrich will run against Obama in 2012:

"A match between Gingrich and Obama would be fascinating: two men who grew up without their hot-tempered, hard-drinking fathers, vying to be the nation’s patriarch.

The Drama Queen versus No Drama Obama. The apocalyptic prophet versus the ambiguous president."

A "Fascinating" match? It seems more like the plot of a stinker horror film, which shafts the entire audience.

Would someone please convince Chris Christie that there's still time for him to change his mind?

Clothespins? The next growth industry. Barring a miracle, most Americans will need to place them over their noses as they enter voting booths in 2012.

Paul Krugman, "Send in the Clueless": And What Will Happen Then?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Send in the Clueless" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/opinion/send-in-the-clueless.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Paul Krugman observes that given the "dire economic situation, 2012 should be a year of Republican triumph." However, claiming that Romney is "totally cynical" and that Gingrich is "totally clueless," Krugman thinks that the Republicans "may nonetheless snatch defeat from the jaws of victory." He concludes:

"The same metaphor, it seems to me, might apply to the G.O.P. pursuit of the White House next year. If the dog actually catches the car — the actual job of running the U.S. government — it will have no idea what to do, because the realities of government in the 21st century bear no resemblance to the mythology all ambitious Republican politicians must pretend to believe. And what will happen then?"

Indeed, what will happen then? In fact, perhaps we already have an answer.

Obama is certainly not clueless, but he is cynical. He was perfectly willing to lie about his 20-year relationship with the racist Reverend Wright in order to be elected. And given the "dire economic situation" of 2008, Americans and the liberal American media were willing to ignore his relationship with Tony Rezko, who helped Obama purchase his Chicago home by way of a sweetheart real estate deal, and who was sentenced last month to 10 1/2 years in prison for corruption and extortion.

Of course, Rezko's sentencing escaped the attention of Krugman and his columnist friends at The Times. Regarding Rezko's conviction, Obama stated, "This isn't the Tony Rezko I knew." Yeah, right.

Deemed the most "liberal" of American senators, Obama needed to lie about his relationship with Wright and disguise his thoughts, e.g., hostility to Israel, in order to be nominated and elected. Moreover, the exigencies of office, at least during his first term, have demonstrated that Obama is anything but honest. As observed in a previous blog entry, consider how Obama has reversed himself over the past three years:

• He promised to close Guantanamo.
• Although he has been a primary beneficiary of donations from financial institutions over the years, he now understands the underpinnings of OWS.
• Although he condemned Bush administration "extra-legal" behavior, he has actively engaged in targeted killings using drones and has come out in favor of "prolonged detention."
• He deviated from his timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
• No one would have ever imagined that he would escalate US ground involvement in Afghanistan.
• He promised to recognize the Armenian genocide, but now avoids the topic in order to pacify Turkey.
• With the economy in a tailspin, he has not kept his promise to create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
• Although he signed an executive order restricting former lobbyists from working in his administration for at least two years, William Lynn, a former Raytheon lobbyist, was appointed Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Freed from the constraints of re-election, no one knows how far left Obama could veer if given a second term as president.

My response to the question posed by Krugman at the end of his opinion piece, "And what will happen then?": First, all politicians are cynical, i.e. lie. Moreover, if a cynical politician, who needs to disguise his centrist, as opposed to rightist, positions in order to obtain the Republican nomination, is elected president in 2012, it will certainly be no worse than what America experienced under Obama, who needed to disguise his leftist, as opposed to centrist, positions. My concern is "what will happen" if Obama no longer needs to hide his radicalism during a possible second term.

Maureen Dowd, "Out of Africa and Into Iowa": An Ejaculation Problem

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Out of Africa and Into Iowa" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/opinion/sunday/dowd-out-of-africa-and-into-iowa.html), Maureen Dowd again savages would-be Republican presidential nominee Newt Gingrich:

"Newt Gingrich's mind is in love with itself.

It has persuaded itself that it is brilliant when it is merely promiscuous. This is not a serious mind. Gingrich is not, to put it mildly, a systematic thinker.

His mind is a jumble, an amateurish mess lacking impulse control. He plays air guitar with ideas, producing air ideas. He ejaculates concepts, notions and theories that are as inconsistent as his behavior."

Gingrich "ejaculates" inconsistent notions and theories? I agree, Maureen, that Gingrich is not -- like Herman Cain before him -- presidential timber, but the choice of words? Why the need for the salty language?

The op-ed page of The New York Times is becoming a bit like tag team wrestling. On Sunday's, Maureen Dowd stomps on Newt, while on Thursdays and most Saturday's, Gail Collins predictably slams Mitt.

I don't know about you, but I never found professional wrestling intellectually stimulating, or, for that matter, entertaining.

Charles Krauthammer, "Mitt vs. Newt": Will Republicans Opt for Hara-kiri?

Charles Krauthammer writes in a perspicacious Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Mitt vs. Newt" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-vs-newt/2011/12/01/gIQAtSfOIO_story.html?hpid=z3):

"My own view is that Republicans would have been better served by the candidacies of Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan or Chris Christie. Unfortunately, none is running. You play the hand you’re dealt. This is a weak Republican field with two significantly flawed front-runners contesting an immensely important election. If Obama wins, he will take the country to a place from which it will not be able to return (which is precisely his own objective for a second term)."

Play the hand you're dealt? Sorry, but if it's Newt, it's time to fold. According to Public Policy Polling's latest Florida poll (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/florida-shows-perils-of-gingrich-for-gop.html), if Romney is the Republican nominee, Obama currently leads Romney 45-44, whereas if Gingrich is the Republican nominee, Obama leads 50-44.

Or, in a nutshell, will the Republicans nominate Newt and opt for hara-kiri?

Maureen Dowd, "My Man Newt": Republicans Have Greater Talent for Hypocrisy Than Democrats

After a brief absence from the op-ed page of The New York Times, Maureen Dowd is back with "My Man Newt" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/opinion/my-man-newt.html?hp), in which she savages Romney and Gingrich:

"Mitt Romney is a phony with gobs of hair gel. Newt Gingrich is a phony with gobs of historical grandiosity.

. . . .

Romney is a mundane opportunist who reverses himself on core issues. Gingrich is a megalomaniacal opportunist who brazenly indulges in the same sins that he rails about to tear down political rivals.

Republicans have a far greater talent for hypocrisy than easily cowed Democrats do — and no doubt appreciate that in a leader."

Let's get this straight: I think the current field of Republican candidates for president is an embarrassment, and I cannot begin to fathom how Newt Gingrich has become a frontrunner for the nomination. On the other hand, the Republicans do not have a monopoly on hypocrisy.

Consider how Obama has reversed himself over the past three years:

• He promised to close Guantanamo.
• Although he has been a primary beneficiary of donations from financial institutions over the years, he now understands the underpinnings of OWS.
• Although he condemned Bush administration "extra-legal" behavior, he has actively engaged in targeted killings using drones and has come out in favor of "prolonged detention."
• He deviated from his timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
• No one would have ever imagined that he would escalate US ground involvement in Afghanistan.
• He promised to recognize the Armenian genocide, but now avoids the topic in order to pacify Turkey.
• With the economy in a tailspin, he has not kept his promise to create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
• Although he signed an executive order restricting former lobbyists from working in his administration for at least two years, William Lynn, a former Raytheon lobbyist, was appointed Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Hypocrisy or the exigencies of office, i.e. a slap in the face from reality? Whichever you choose, Obama has been anything but honest.

A more recent example of Obama's tartuffery? Observe what New Jersey Governor Chris Christie had to say about Obama's reluctance to become involved with the deliberations of the supercommittee encharged with debt reduction (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69280.html):

"I was angry this weekend, listening to the spin coming out of the administration, about the failure of the supercommittee, and that the president knew it was doomed for failure, so he didn’t get involved. Well then what the hell are we paying you for? It’s doomed for failure so I’m not getting involved? Well, what have you been doing, exactly?”

Now if only Christie were to become angry enough to backtrack and announce his candidacy for the Republican nomination . . .

Thomas Friedman, "Who's the Decider?": Not Obama

In his latest New York Times opinion piece from India, "Who's the Decider?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/opinion/whos-the-decider.html?_r=1&hp), Thomas Friedman has lost much of his exuberance concerning the subcontinent.

In a prior op-ed, "The Last Person" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/opinion/sunday/friedman-the-last-person.html?ref=opinion), Friedman enthused that a stripped-down, Internet-enabled, wireless tablet, which, with government subsidies, even the poorest Indian families could afford, might free India of its poverty and contribute to global innovation. Today, reality has settled in, and Friedman acknowledges the magnitude of India's corruption, environmental pollution, and absence of governmental direction.

Friedman also uses his latest op-ed as a platform to take a potshot at President Obama:

"Here we are in America again on the eve of a major budgetary decision by yet another bipartisan 'supercommittee,' and does anyone know what President Obama’s preferred outcome is? Exactly which taxes does he want raised, and which spending does he want cut? The president’s politics on this issue seems to be a bowl of poll-tested mush."

Friedman concludes:

"But at the end of the day — whether you are a president, senator, mayor or on the steering committee of your local Occupy Wall Street — someone needs to meld those ideas into a vision of how to move forward, sculpt them into policies that can make a difference in peoples’ lives and then build a majority to deliver on them. Those are called leaders. Leaders shape polls. They don’t just read polls. And, today, across the globe and across all political systems, leaders are in dangerously short supply."

Obama is not a leader? You don't say. In fact, America's Procrastinator-in-Chief is the antithesis of a leader, a man whose own friends say that he "leads from behind," a narcissist now consumed with reelection instead of leading the US out of its current morass.

Over the next 12 months leading up to the 2012 presidential election, expect more indecision from Obama as he takes to the airwaves, defending his dismal record, notwithstanding stubbornly high US unemployment. With each passing week, the financial viability of another EU member will be deemed suspect. Powered by slave labor, business in China will continue to boom. And undeterred in any meaningful way by Obama, Iran will soon threaten its neighbors with nuclear weapons.

At the Times, Friedman's fellow pundits will soon focus their barbs upon the absurd "anyone-but-Romney" candidacy of Newt Gingrich for the Republican nomination, given that Donald, Rick and Herman have already been milked to the limit and have grown passé.

Another day, and another "bowl of poll-tested mush"? Be careful about what you're impugning, Tom. Unlike politics and politicians, I take comfort in my oatmeal.

Maureen Dowd "Newt Loves Callista": The Joke Is on Us

The New York Times op-ed roster never had much slugging power, but with perennial Republican haters Frank Rich and Gail Collins on permanent and temporary leave, respectively, and no replacements coming up from the minors, their op-ed page has been sinking to the bottom of the standings. Today, Maureen Dowd came trotting out of the dugout to pinch-hit for these two absent pundits and took a mighty swing at would-be Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich in "Newt Loves Callista" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/opinion/12dowd.html?ref=opinion). Dowd writes:

"Funnily enough, none of his sexual transgressions — even when he was pushing Clinton’s impeachment while he himself was cheating with Callista, then a 20-something aide on the House Agriculture Committee — landed him in as much political trouble as being loyal to his wife.

He thought his devotion to Callista would bring him political redemption. Instead, it has brought him political reduction. His campaign now boils down to the two of them."

"Funnily enough"? There is nothing funny at all when the United States is beset with unemployment of over 9%, no relief is expected for the next decade, and the Republican Party is unable to field anyone better than the likes of Newt Gingrich, Donald Trump and Sarah Palin to run against an incumbent who has dismally failed to deliver. Yeah, sure there is Mitt Romney, who is "almost credible," but "almost credible" doesn't cut it in these times.

You want "funny"? I thought it was laughable that the outgoing U.S. Secretary of Defense needed to decry the failure of America's NATO allies to assist against Libyan tyrant Qadaffi, when earlier in the week President Obama hosted German Chancellor Angela Merkel at a gala Rose Garden dinner and presented her with the Presidential Medal of Freedom before more than 200 VIP guests. Germany, NATO’s biggest historic beneficiary, has refused to assist the U.S. in freeing Libya. Hillarious, isn't it?

At least the leading ladies of Washington were able to dust off their gowns and fancy shoes for a gaggle of waiting photographers.

So when does a reputable Republican step up to the plate and offer a viable alternative? Is he/she so hard to find? This time around, with the U.S. facing an economic abyss, the stakes are indeed high.