Maureen Dowd, "Sarah Palin Saves Feminism": Sorry, Sarah Pales in Comparison With Hillary

Tweet

In the grim aftermath of Sarah Palin's endorsement of Donald Trump on Tuesday, Maureen Dowd informs us in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Sarah Palin Saves Feminism":

"But Sarahcuda shows that we are truly the equals of men, capable of narcissistic explosions, brazen hypocrisy and unapologetic greed."

And all this while I thought that Hillary was the first to break that barrier. Narcissistic explosions? Consider the following from Edward Klein's October 10, 2015 New York Post article entitled "Clinton’s camp says she ‘could have a serious meltdown’":

"Hillary is furious — and while Clinton advisers think that may save her, it’s making the lives of those who work for her hell.

'Hillary’s been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work,' says a campaign aide. 'She thought the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been getting to her and she’s become shrill and, at times, even violent.'"

Brazen hypocrisy and unapologetic greed?  Honestly, can you think of a better example than Hillary allowing her foundation to accept millions of dollars from Muslim countries guilty of abominations against women and from banks guilty of conspiring to undertake currency manipulation?

Specifically with respect to Hillary, Maureen declares in her opinion piece:

"Women should support her because if she founders, it will be bad for women."

Sorry, Maureen, but I beg to differ. If Hillary is indicted for receiving top-secret emails via her home server, it will be good for everyone, inasmuch as failure to indict Hillary would amount to an indictment of the American criminal justice system.

Gail Collins, "Palin, Trump, Cruz and Corn": The Blame Game

Tweet

Noting Sarah Palin's endorsement on Tuesday of Donald Trump in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Palin, Trump, Cruz and Corn," Gail Collins further observes:

"The next day, Palin spoke at another Trump rally, where she appeared to blame Barack Obama’s veterans policy for her son’s domestic violence arrest this week. Republicans seem currently O.K. with blaming the president for anything, including sunspots."

An endorsement from Sarah Palin? It almost sounds like an oxymoron. (No, Sarah, I'm not calling you a nasty name.)

But more to the point, how does Collins make mention of Palin blaming Obama for her son's arrest without noting how the Hillary Clinton campaign is blaming everyone under the sun for the top-secret material recently discovered in her home server? Hillary's campaign spokesperson Brian Fallon said of this latest revelation:

"This is the same interagency dispute that has been playing out for months, and it does not change the fact that these emails were not classified at the time they were sent or received. It is alarming that the intelligence community IG, working with Republicans in Congress, continues to selectively leak materials in order to resurface the same allegations and try to hurt Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign."

Yup, it's just one big conspiracy. Now if only Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III was a Republican . . .

Hey, Joe, it's time to reconsider tossing your hat in the ring.

Obama, Mom Jeans and Narcissism Gone Wild

"I told folks I'm just supposed to be eye candy here for you guys."

- President Obama, "The View," September 2012

Of course, everyone remembers Obama's 2012 appearance on the American talk show "The View," during which he described himself to his female hosts as "eye candy."

Well, this narcissistic remark seemed to have been forgotten until Friday, when the president phoned in to "On Air with Ryan Seacrest" and declared in response to Sarah Palin's taunt that he wears "mom jeans":

"I’ve been unfairly maligned about my jeans. The truth is, generally I look very sharp in jeans."

Obama was serious.

At a time when tensions are flaring in the Ukraine and Obamacare is unraveling, this is what preoccupies the president?

Perhaps he should have spent a few more days (months?) at the golf course of the Ocean Reef Club in Key Largo (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/03/fareed-zakaria-why-this-time-obama-must.html) and allowed Biden to run the show in his absence.

Maureen Dowd, "Little R-S-P-E-C-T": Does Obama Wear Mom Jeans? Does Putin Inject Botox? Does Dowd Inject Botox?

Okay, America's president seems to have difficulty spelling without a teleprompter, but does Obama wear mom jeans? Does Putin inject Botox into his forehead? Does Dowd inject Botox into her forehead? These and other momentous questions are raised by Maureen Dowd's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Little R-S-P-E-C-T" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/opinion/sunday/dowd-little-r-s-p-e-c-t.html?ref=maureendowd&_r=0) and the picture accompanying her column. Concerning Obama's feeble response to Putin's invasion of the Ukraine and the mom jeans issue, Dowd writes:

"Sarah Palin, who seems ever more viperish, deployed her Yoda syntax with Sean Hannity: 'People are looking at Putin as one who wrestles bears and drills for oil. They look at our president as one who wears mom jeans and equivocates and bloviates.'

Actually, the jeans the president wore in the Oval Office, talking to Putin on the phone last weekend, looked good."

Well, let's have another look at the picture, released by the White House, depicting Obama in serious discussion with Putin after his West Wing staff finally opted to allow him to learn of Putin's infraction:

Okay, here we have Obama, in denim and matching button-down shirt, one arm akimbo, sleeves carefully rolled up almost to the elbows, discussing with Putin the Russian invasion of Crimea. I don't know the make of his watch. There is no pen in sight. There are no loose papers on his desk. Query: Does Obama actually ever work in the Oval Office?

But more to the point, does this picture project power? Or is the following picture of Pajama Boy more imposing?:

My guess is that Putin would be more afraid of Pajama Boy.

But enough about imagery (Maureen and the White House are responsible for raising the topic, not I). Instead, let's focus on America's foreign affairs. Dowd seems to think that Obama's swift non-response to the Ukraine crisis improved upon his awkward vacillation involving Assad's use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. Dowd tells us:

"And his Russia response is a positive contrast with Syria, where Obama came across as naval-gazing and feckless when he dithered and then drew a 'red line' against Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons. He was still explaining to the press why he had decided on military action while Republicans and Democrats in Congress and the Brits were yanking the rug out from under him."

But in fact, Obama's reaction to Putin and Assad were one and the same. In both instances, he and his friends, John Kerry and Susan Rice, employed variants of the same "tough" language:

"All options remain on the table!"

In fact, there have been no options on the table. No options have existed and no strategies or shelf plans have been devised to deal with malefactors in Obama's imaginary post-Cold War world renaissance, devoid of villains. And even if options and a strategy had been readied, the Procrastinator-in-Chief would seek to avoid any provocation during his second term in office, as he, assisted by his weak-minded friend Chuck Hagel, dismantles the American military to fund Obamacare.

Obama not tough? How can that be? Prime Minister Netanyahu was in Washington last week, and the president sternly warned his Israeli ally via Jeffrey Goldberg (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/03/new-york-times-editorial-israels-choice.html) that his opposition to a two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was dangerous. Regrettably, no one from the US State Department had informed Obama that Netanyahu favors a two state solution. For example, as reported by Arutz Sheva last April (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167201#.UxgQsZtWHcs):

"Speaking during a reception for foreign diplomats in honor of Israel’s Independence Day, Netanyahu said, 'We are committed to our aspiration for peace, a peace that will be based on the principle of two states for two peoples, a Jewish state alongside a demilitarized Palestinian state.

'But in order for the peace to last it must be anchored in security,' he added. 'The State of Israel must be able to defend itself by itself; its security will be a main component of any future peace agreement.'"

Well, at least Obama was able to deflect some of the criticism involving his feeble response to Putin by slapping at Netanyahu, a true friend of the United States.

Dowd's opinion piece also fails to mention recent developments in Turkey, which have offered Obama multiple opportunities to exhibit mettle and ethics.

Do you remember Obama's State of the Union address? Did you hear any mention by the president of his pre-election promise to recognize the Armenian Genocide by Turkey? No way! You see, autocratic Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan in the past was declared by Obama to be one of his best overseas friends (see: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/world/2013/05/16/Erdogan-and-Obama-Best-friends-no-more.html).

The radical Islamization of Turkey and the end of that country's civil liberties? As reported by the Committee to Protect Journalists at the end of 2013 (http://cpj.org/reports/2013/12/second-worst-year-on-record-for-jailed-journalists.php):

"For the second consecutive year, Turkey was the world’s leading jailer of journalists, followed closely by Iran and China."

Even a whimper of protest from Obama? No way!

Now, after the dissemination of a recording in which Erdogan purportedly tells his son to dispose of large sums of money following police raids connected to a burgeoning corruption scandal, Erdogan is threatening to shut down Facebook and YouTube in Turkey (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/07/us-turkey-erdogan-idUSBREA2609A20140307).

Again, not a word from Obama.

Why doesn't the world show a little more R-S-P-E-C-T for America's president? Apparently, even the president ultimately reaps what he sows.

James B. Stewart , "Why Russia Can't Afford Another Cold War": Sorry, Obama Already Lost

Do your remember your playground days? Do you you remember how, when the playground bully picked upon a weaker child, the weaker child inevitably responded, "Do that again and I'll . . ." Well, the Obama administration has devised its own variant upon that feeble playground warning, which is being repeatedly sounded by Obama, Kerry and Rice in response to multiple crises across the globe to no effect whatsoever. No matter where in the world there is trouble, we are told by Obama and friends:

"All options remain on the table!"

In fact, there are no options are on the table. No options exist and no strategies or shelf plans have been devised to deal with malefactors in this would-be post-Cold War world. And even if options and a strategy had been readied, the Procrastinator-in-Chief would seek to avoid any provocation during his second term in office, as he dismantles the American army to fund Obamacare.

In a new item entitled "Why Russia Can't Afford Another Cold War" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/business/why-russia-cant-afford-another-cold-war.html?_r=0) by James B. Stewart, in his "Common Sense" column, which is today prominently positioned on the home page of The New York Times, we are basically told that a renewal of the Cold War by Russian president Vladimir Putin doesn't make sense. Stewart explains:

"Russia is far more exposed to market fluctuations than many countries, since it owns a majority stake in a number of the country’s largest companies.

. . . .

Many Russian companies and banks are fully integrated into the global financial system.

. . . .

The old Soviet Union, in stark contrast, was all but impervious to foreign economic or business pressure, thanks in part to an ideological commitment to self-sufficiency."

But what Stewart does not consider is that Putin's Ukraine operation was the equivalent of a "blitzkrieg," undertaken overnight and again catching Obama with what Sarah Palin labels his "mom jeans" down. This battle is already over and lost.

The Russian stock market? Like other stock markets across the globe, it will now recover, until ex-KGB officer Putin's next adventure. Unbeknownst to Obama and friends, no one ever said that the Cold War must be replayed according to the same rules as the 1960's.

Stewart continues:

"By contrast, today 'Russia is too weak and vulnerable economically to go to war,' Mr. [Anders] Aslund said. 'The Kremlin’s fundamental mistake has been to ignore its economic weakness and dependence on Europe. Almost half of Russia’s exports go to Europe, and three-quarters of its total exports consist of oil and gas. The energy boom is over, and Europe can turn the tables on Russia after its prior gas supply cuts in 2006 and 2009. Europe can replace this gas with liquefied natural gas, gas from Norway and shale gas. If the European Union sanctioned Russia’s gas supply to Europe, Russia would lose $100 billion or one-fifth of its export revenues, and the Russian economy would be in rampant crisis.'"

Europe is not dependent upon Russian gas? Oh really? As reported in a November 2013 Center for Strategic & International Studies article entitled "The Russia-EU Gas Relationship: A partnership of necessity" by Edward C. Chow and Anne Hudson (https://csis.org/publication/russia-eu-gas-relationship-partnership-necessity):

"Russia, meanwhile, accounts for 34% of EU natural gas imports, making it the lead supplier of natural gas to the EU. While European demand growth will likely remain weak, import dependence is slated to increase due to the decline in European gas production, meaning that the EU will have to rely ever more heavily on exporters such as Russia. Additionally, the infrastructure needed both to integrate the European energy market and to develop European LNG import capacity is costly and has a long implementation timeline. In this context, the stated aim to achieve such integration by 2014 appears unlikely to be achieved. Even more to the point, the current long-term contracts between Russia and the EU are not set to expire until 2020, meaning supply is locked in for nearly another decade."

Given rampant unemployment and world economic weakness, don't expect European capitals to be sanctioning Russia anytime soon and disturbing their existing energy order.

Stewart goes on to say:

"During the Cold War, there were few, if any, Russian billionaires. Today, there are 111, according to Forbes magazine’s latest rankings, and Russia ranks third in the number of billionaires, behind the United States and China. The economist noted that the billionaire Russian elite — who are pretty much synonymous with Mr. Putin’s friends and allies — are the ones who would be severely affected by visa bans, which were imposed by President Obama on Thursday. Other penalties might include asset freezes."

Visa bans? These Russian oligarchs all have second passports. Asset freezes? A joke! We are currently witnessing how the Obama administration is busy dismantling existing economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for . . . coming to the table (with Putin's help) to negotiate a "framework" agreement, i.e. nothing.

And then all of this is capped off with Stewart's argument that Putin's interest is regional and not global:

"And while the Cold War was a global contest between Marxism and capitalism, there is today 'no real ideological component to the conflict except that Putin has become the personification of rejecting the West as a model,' Mr. [Strobe] Talbott said. 'He wants to promote a Eurasian community dominated by Moscow, but that’s not an ideology. Russia’s economy may be an example of crony capitalism, but it is capitalism. There’s not even a shadow of Marxism-Leninism now.'"

Only regional? How does Stewart explain Putin's heightening involvement in events in the Middle East, specifically in Iran and Syria, and his willingness to supply the murderous Assad regime with a steady flow of advanced weaponry?

Whereas President Obama might take much satisfaction from this "Common Sense" opinion piece, it makes little sense at all.

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).

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.