Maureen Dowd, "Serving Up Schlock": No, She's Not Referring to Jay Carney

Television? I'll let you in on a deep, dark secret: I like "Game of Thrones," but that's the extent of my vice. I also liked "The Sopranos" and "The Wire," but in both of of these instances, I think I can now safely plead the statute of limitations.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Serving Up Schlock" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/opinion/dowd-serving-up-schlock.html), Maureen Dowd ridicules network television fare:

"It turns out that Washington isn’t the only place where ideas come to die.

TV honchos cling to outmoded programming traditions even as many younger Americans, gorging on a movable feast of platforms, are losing the habit of turning on the TV, and even as top talent peels off to enjoy the freedom of cable and imaginative hubs like Amazon, Hulu, YouTube and Netflix . . ."

Dowd is right! Who needs network programming, when it will be so much more entertaining to watch Lois Lerner plead the Fifth concerning her involvement in the IRS scandal. (She still hasn't been fired?) Recall that the editorial board of The New York Times has gone on record as stating that the IRS "acted inappropriately because employees couldn’t understand inadequate guidelines" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/new-york-times-editorial-scandal.html). Just one big misunderstanding, yet here we have Lerner about to take the Fifth?

More comedy? Listen to Jay Carney try to avoid answering and then explain away why White House chief lawyer Kathryn Ruemmler purportedly chose not to inform the president that the IRS was targeting conservatives ("Let's not tell Daddy"?).

The prior day, Carney had said (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/20/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-5202013):

"In these situations the counsel made the decision that this is not the kind of thing that you notify the president of, of an investigation that’s not complete, because it wouldn’t be appropriate to do so."

But as Dan Balz of The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-more-clarity-white-house-adds-to-confusion-on-irs/2013/05/21/a40c54f2-c24d-11e2-8c3b-0b5e9247e8ca_story.html?hpid=z2) asks today:

"Why would it be inappropriate for the president to know what his chief of staff, his counsel and others on his senior staff knew and were talking about with others in the government? Would telling him require him to do something inappropriate? Would he be open to criticism if he knew and stood idly by? Perhaps, but if his top advisers knew weren’t inclined to act inappropriately, why would the president?"

But that's just half of it. Do you honestly believe that Kathryn Ruemmler, all of 42 years old, took it entirely upon herself not to inform the president? What's that? You believe it? Okay, there's a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell you.

And then there was also the scintillating repartee between former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs and Maureen Dowd herself. On "Morning Joe," Gibbs let loose a broadside at Dowd, who has plainly fallen out of love with Obama.

As reported by Politico (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/robert-gibbs-maureen-dowd-91608.html), Dowd was quick to fire back:

"'I don’t normally listen to Robert,' she wrote in an e-mail to POLITICO. 'I don’t largely because it’s sort of largely the same tired defense of President Obama for the last, like, six years.'"

You go, girl!

Heck, with this abundance of alternative entertainment, you might need medical marijuana to treat depression, but there is certainly no need for network sitcoms.

Robert Gibbs Leaving the White House: The Privilege Was All Yours

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is the latest Obama apointee to announce his departure. Are the rats leaving a sinking ship? Or is this yet a further acknowledgment by the Obama administration that prepackaged messages provided during the campaign, immune to inquiry, have antagonized the press corps and isolated the president? Or both?

As reported by CNN:

"Gibbs said he will leave the podium after the upcoming State of the Union address -- but will remain in the Washington area as a pundit, supporting White House positions on cable television and in speeches.

'It's a remarkable privilege. It is in may ways the opportunity of a lifetime,' he told reporters at the daily White House briefing. But he added, 'We've been going at this pace for four years.'

No decision has been made about his replacement, he said.

In a written statement, Obama hailed Gibbs as 'a close friend, one of my closest advisers and an effective advocate from the podium.' But he said it was 'natural' for his longtime aide 'to want to step back, reflect and retool.'"

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/05/gibbs.leaving/index.html?hpt=T2

It was "natural" for Gibbs to step away from the "opportunity of a lifetime"? "Natural" my eye!

Even Maureen Dowd in a New York Times op-ed entitled "No Love From the Lefties" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/opinion/15dowd.html?hp), had declared in August that "Robert Gibbs should be yanked as White House press secretary," and concluded by stating:

"Let someone who shows less disdain for the press work with the press, and be the more engaging face of the White House."

Dowd contended that Gibbs had created a "moat" between the press and the presidency, but failed to comprehend that Gibbs was no more than the messenger, chosen to stymie discourse.

Listen to Anita Dunn, Obama's former Communications Director ("yanked" when she declared that mass murderer Mao Tse-Tung is one of her favorite political philosophers) explain how during the presidential campaign "very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlGNhAnwp_Y)

With the 2012 election fast approaching, the Obama West Wing understands that whereas "absolute control" may have worked during the campaign when voters were flush with idealism, faith and hope, it no longer works two years later in an atmosphere of disillusionment, doubt, debt and despair.

Who will be next after Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gibbs? When will Hillary make her move?

Maureen Dowd's "No Love From the Lefties": Shoot the Messenger!

In an op-ed in today's New York Times entitled "No Love From the Lefties" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/opinion/15dowd.html?hp), addressing the White House press secretary's temper tantrum directed at the "professional left" which no longer bows before the president, Maureen Dowd begins by observing,

"Robert Gibbs should be yanked as White House press secretary,"

and concludes by stating,

"Let someone who shows less disdain for the press work with the press, and be the more engaging face of the White House."

Dowd contends that Gibbs has created a "moat" between the press and the presidency, but fails to comprehend that Gibbs is no more than the messenger, chosen to stymie discourse with news correspondents.

Listen to Anita Dunn, Obama's former Communications Director ("yanked" when she declared that mass murderer Mao Tse-Tung is one of her favorite political philosophers) explain how during the presidential campaign "very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlGNhAnwp_Y)

The Obama West Wing has yet to grasp that whereas "absolute control" may have worked during the campaign when voters were flush with idealism, faith and hope, it no longer works two years later in an atmosphere of disillusionment, doubt and despair.

It has yet to occur to Axelrod & Co. that Obama needs to hold more frequent news conferences and agree to unscripted Q&A without teleprompters. The concern, of course, is that many more might discover "the king has no clothes."

[Those "professional lefties" at The New York Times refused to post an abbreviated version of this blog item that I submitted as an online comment in response to Dowd's op-ed. It would appear that they also don't enjoy having the opinions of their distinguished columnists being questioned by the hoi poloi.]