Thomas Friedman, "Compromise: Not a 4-Letter Word": Ignoring Olympia Snowe

And yet still more blather from Thomas Friedman . . .

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Compromise: Not a 4-Letter Word" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/opinion/sunday/compromise-not-a-4-letter-word.html), Friedman blames Republicans for failing to reach compromise solutions with President Obama. Friedman concludes:

"These hybrid solutions are not how to split the difference. They’re how to make a difference. But they only get forged if Republican leaders take on the Tea Party — which transformed the G.O.P. into a far-right party, uninterested in governing — and remake the G.O.P. into a center-right party again. If that happened, I’m certain that a second-term Obama, who is much more center-left than the ridiculous G.O.P. caricatures, would meet them in the middle. Absent that, we’re going to drift, unable to address effectively any of our biggest challenges or opportunities."

Sure, it's all the Tea Party's fault and has nothing to do with Obama.

But of course Friedman ignores the insights of moderate Republican Olympia Snowe, who retired from the Senate yesterday, and who was one of only three Republicans in the US Congress who voted for Obama's economic stimulus plan in 2009. Everyone - except Friedman - remembers how she told Jonathan Karl in 2012 that she had not had a face-to-face meeting with Obama in two years, and when asked if she had to grade Obama on his willingness to work with Republicans, she replied that he would be "close to failing on that point" (see: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/frustrated-senator-olympia-snowe-gives-obama-f-101657433.html).

The reality is that Obama during his years in government never learned to compromise, and we are witnessing the consequences.

Maureen Dowd, "Twisted Sister, and Brothers": Did You Prefer "Dynasty" or "M*A*S*H"?

Describing the North American antics of the Cheney, Ford and Bush families in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Twisted Sister, and Brothers" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/opinion/dowd-twisted-sister-and-brothers.html?hpw&rref=opinion&_r=0), Maureen ultimately focuses her wrath on Dick and Liz Cheney. Dowd writes:

"The Cheney feud is the most stomach-turning, with Liz Cheney grubbing for a Senate seat as a carpetbagger against an incumbent Republican. What on earth makes her qualified to be a senator? And why didn’t she simply run in her real home state of Virginia?"

Dowd's conclusion:

"The Cheneys have caused enough damage to this country. They should exit, stage right."

I agree, and they should take with them the Clintons. (Yes, I know: Hillary and Bill are not siblings and perhaps do not belong in this opinion piece, yet, on the other hand, it is not clear what they are.) It was not enough that Bill autographed Monica's dress. Now Hillary, without an achievement under the belt of her pants suit as secretary of state, believes she should be president.

The problem, however, is not Hillary. A recent NBC News poll found that 66 percent of Democrats in the survey said they would back her in the 2016 presidential primaries (see: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/23/top-quotes-from-hillary-clintons-benghazi-hearings). For what reason? Because she is a woman? There are many more women, both Democrats and Republicans, who are better qualified to lead the US than Hillary. I know that she is leaving politics, but what a pity Olympia Snowe's name never arises in this regard.

Are Americans, who revolted from England, now so enamored with dynasties? I suppose it's no surprise that American soap opera "Dynasty" ran for nine seasons and 220 episodes (I was fortunate to miss them all).

I did, on the other hand, occasionally watch the television comedy show "M*A*S*H," premised upon the 1970 hit movie by the same name. You will recall that "Suicide Is Painless" was the theme song for both the movie and the later television series.

Did you prefer "Dynasty" or "M*A*S*H"? What difference at this point does it make? Well, America's fascination with enfeebling political dynasties could prove suicidal, but hardly painless.

Maureen Dowd, "Takes One to Tango": Our Narcissist-in-Chief

"Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism."

- Mayo Clinic staff (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652)

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Takes One to Tango" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/opinion/dowd-takes-one-to-tango.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd reflects on the pessimism pervading Washington as Obama enters his second term:

"Washington’s mood is as gray as the weather, full of burning Republicans and yearning Democrats.

We’re facing default. Again.

We’re mired in partisan trash-talking. Still.

And despite the tragedy of the children riddled with bullets in Newtown, Conn., no one is expecting any consequential fixes to our absurdly lax gun laws."

Dowd bemoans Obama's inability to communicate and socialize, which, throughout his first term, hampered his ability to address the myriad problems dragging America into the pit:

"But Obama still resists the idea that personal relationships can be pivotal, noting that his 'suspicion' is that the issues will be resolved only if Americans 'push hard,' vote recalcitrant lawmakers out and 'reward folks who are trying to find common ground.'

And it’s true that Republicans have snubbed the president. John Boehner blew off Obama’s invites for six state dinners and Mitch McConnell skipped all but one.

Unlike Chris Christie, Republicans here want to make sure that the president dances alone."

Say it's not so, Maureen! Consider Obama's uplifting 2004 keynote speech to the Democratic National Convention:

"There's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there is the United States of America. There's not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America; there is the United States of America."

Those contemplating Obama's latest cabinet choices might also want to consider whether there's not a male America and a female America.

In addition, listen again to Obama's January 2009 inauguration speech, in which he stated:

"On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics."

Oops . . .

A failure by Obama to reach any kind of agreement with Republicans? You don't say! Maine's Olympia Snowe, one of three Republicans in the US Congress who voted for Obama's economic stimulus plan in 2009, told Jonathan Karl that she had not had a face-to-face meeting with Obama in two years, and asked if she had to grade Obama on his willingness to work with Republicans, she replied that he would be "close to failing on that point" (see: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/frustrated-senator-olympia-snowe-gives-obama-f-101657433.html).

It is worth observing that Obama's inability to communicate is not limited to his relationships with Republicans at home. During his first term, Obama  also fostered dysfunctional relationships with many of America's traditional allies, including the UK, Japan, Israel, the Czech Republic and Poland.

Why does Obama fail in his interpersonal relationships, thus affecting his ability to achieve policy goals? America's president, who was abandoned by his father and then his mother, most likely suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder. Fortunately for Obama (and many, many others in Washington on both sides of the aisle), 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 them.

As we all know, there are no narcissists out there, needing constant attention and admiration, reacting with rage to criticism, disregarding the feelings of others, exaggerating their achievements, and obsessing over their power, beauty and intelligence (see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001930/)? Yeah, right.

On the other hand, maybe the DSM is correct. Given the prevalence of this problem in our society, perhaps it has indeed become the norm.

Thomas Friedman, "What the Locusts Ate": More Sensible Advice from the Master

You can always count on Thomas Friedman for "sensible" advice.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "What the Locusts Ate" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/opinion/friedman-what-the-locusts-ate.html), Tom outlines the travails of Europe, America, China and the Arab world in a mere nine paragraphs and concludes:

"If I were President Obama, I’d focus my entire campaign now on an effort to reforge a 'grand bargain' with Republicans based on a near-term infrastructure stimulus tied with a Simpson-Bowles long-term fiscal rebalancing. At a minimum, it would show that Obama has a sensible plan to fix the economy — which is what people want most from the president — and many in business would surely support it. We cannot wait until January to do serious policy making again. We, and the world, need America to be a rock of stability — now."

Ah, yes! Obama should devise and implement a "grand bargain" with Republicans with the US economy spiraling down the drain and with elections five months away in order to finally demonstrate that he's "sensible." I'm afraid it's a little late for that.

In order to engage in any sort of bargaining, one needs open channels of communication to the opposing side. In this vein, consider what Olympia Snowe, one of the most moderate Republicans in Washington, had to say when explaining her retirement from the US Senate (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/29/snowe-explains-decision-to-leave-defends-tough-criticism-of-senate/):

"People are just stunned by the debilitating partisanship, polarization and the overall dysfunction of the institution and political paralysis as we come, you know, to the point of extreme when it comes to resolving the problems facing our country."

And what did Snowe, one of three Republicans in the US Congress who voted for Obama's economic stimulus plan in 2009, have to say about the president? Snowe told Jonathan Karl that she has not had a face-to-face meeting with Obama in two years, and asked if she had to grade Obama on his willingness to work with Republicans, she replied that he would be "close to failing on that point" (see: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/frustrated-senator-olympia-snowe-gives-obama-f-101657433.html).

This is the time to reach out to Republicans and proffer a "grand bargain" in order to demonstrate your "sensibility"? Thanks, Tom, but people have been committed to the funny farm for more sensible advice than this.

David Brooks, "That Other Obama": "Politically Cute" or Has the President "Lost It"?

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "That Other Obama" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/opinion/books-that-other-obama.html), David Brooks tells us that the president shouldn't be "sniping" at the budget proposal of Congressman Paul Ryan. According to Brooks:

"President Obama is an intelligent, judicious man who can see all sides of an issue. But every once in a while he tries to get politically cute, and he puts on his Keith Olbermann mask.

I suppose it’s to his credit that he’s most inept when he tries to take the low road. He resorts to hoary, brain-dead clichés. He wanders so far from his true nature that he makes Mitt Romney look like Mr. Authenticity."

"Politically cute"? "Hoary, brain-dead clichés"? Actually, Obama has recently been engaging in whoppers. On Monday, after the conservative Supreme Court justices KO'd the administration’s solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, who had vainly sought to justify the constitutionality of Obamacare, the president responded:

"I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

As succinctly observed by Charles Krauthammer in The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-obama-v-scotus/2012/04/05/gIQAZ41txS_story.html?hpid=z2) in response to this balderdash:

"'Unprecedented'? Judicial review has been the centerpiece of the American constitutional system since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. 'Strong majority'? The House has 435 members. In March 2010, Democrats held a 75-seat majority. Obamacare passed by seven votes."

But let's return to the Ryan budget proposals. Acknowledging that the Ryan budget has "some disturbing weaknesses," Brooks observes that Obama has wildly distorted its content and concludes:

"But Ryan has at least taken a big step toward an eventual fiscal solution. He’s proposed necessary structural entitlement reforms, which the Democrats are unwilling to do. He’s proposed real tax reform, which the Democrats are also unwilling to do.

The first truth is that we will have to do these big things to avoid a fiscal calamity. The second truth is there is no one party solution; there has to be a merger of respectable ideas. The third truth is that gimmicky speeches obscure the president’s best character and make it seem as if he doesn’t understand the scope of the calamity looming in front of us."

Yes, Brooks is correct: There is a looming fiscal calamity, and there has been no meaningful attempt by the Obama administration to seek middle ground with Republicans that could save the US from disaster. Yes, I know, this is an election year, and the Republicans smell blood. However, as observed by moderate Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, if she had to grade Obama on his willingness during his first term to work with Republicans, he would be "close to failing on that point" (see: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/frustrated-senator-olympia-snowe-gives-obama-f-101657433.html).

What happened to the Obama who promised to put an end to partisan wrangling and reunite America (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/search/label/Olympia%20Snowe)? The dream has dissipated in dashed hope, and when Obama, a constitutional law professor, questions judicial review, I am forced to wonder whether he is being "politically cute" or instead has "lost it."

Thomas Friedman, "Elephants Down Under": Why Didn't Tom Talk With Olympia Snowe?

An itinerant Tom Friedman is now visiting New Zealand and Australia, from where he seeks to proffer "fresh" perspectives on US politics. In "Elephants Down Under" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/opinion/friedman-elephants-down-under.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss#), Friedman declares that in New Zealand and Australia "there is a place in the world where moderate Republicans still exist — unfortunately, you have to take a 13-hour flight from Los Angeles to get there." Tom continues:

"Looking at America from here, makes me feel as though we have the worst of all worlds right now. The days when there were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, who nudged the two parties together, appear over. We don’t have compulsory voting. Special interest money is out of control, and we lack any credible Third Party that could capture enough of the center to force both Democrats and Republicans to compete for votes there. So we’ve lost our ability to do big, hard things together. Yet everything we have to do — tax reform, fiscal reform, health care reform, energy policy — is big and hard and can only be done together."

Read his op-ed again from top to bottom. Now reread it again. What is missing? Answer: There is not even a single mention of President Obama, who was expected to put an end to partisan wrangling and reunite America. Contemplate Obama's uplifting 2004 keynote speech to the Democratic National Convention:

"There's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there is the United States of America. There's not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America; there is the United States of America."

Consider also Obama's January 2009 inauguration speech, in which he stated:

"On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics."

Did Obama fulfill his promise to reconcile America? Sorry, it didn't happen. Now tell me which other name is conspicuously absent from Friedman's opinion piece? Answer: Olympia Snowe.

Snowe, one of the most moderate Republicans in Washington, recently announced her departure from the US Senate. Snowe explained her retirement to CNN (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/29/snowe-explains-decision-to-leave-defends-tough-criticism-of-senate/):

"People are just stunned by the debilitating partisanship, polarization and the overall dysfunction of the institution and political paralysis as we come, you know, to the point of extreme when it comes to resolving the problems facing our country."

And what does Snowe, one of three Republicans in the US Congress who voted for Obama's economic stimulus plan in 2009, have to say about the president? Snowe told Jonathan Karl that she has not had a face-to-face meeting with Obama in two years, and asked if she had to grade Obama on his willingness to work with Republicans, she replied that he would be "close to failing on that point" (see: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/frustrated-senator-olympia-snowe-gives-obama-f-101657433.html).

Sorry, Tom, but there was no need to travel to New Zealand to understand why Washington is growing increasingly dysfunctional with every passing day. Olympia Snowe, a moderate Republican ignored by Obama, whose Senate offices are a short drive from your Maryland mansion, has all of the answers.