David Brooks, "The Lincoln Caucus": Is the Kasich Candidacy As Dumb As It Seems?

Tweet

Dissatisfied with the Trump and Cruz presidential candidacies and anticipating a brokered Republican convention, David Brooks calls for a "caucus made up of delegates who are not happy with the choices currently before them" in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Lincoln Caucus." Brooks writes:

"First, the Lincoln Caucus would work with the rules committee to get rid of any party bylaws that inhibit delegate flexibility at the convention. Second, it would tell the Trump and Cruz campaigns this: After the second ballot, we will entertain offers for our support. You may offer us policy pledges, personnel positions or anything you think will win our favor."

Policy pledges, personnel positions or anything to win over these delegates? Heck, Trump and Cruz can promise them anything, but unless either of these gentlemen (in the case of Trump, I use the word loosely) is elected, these promises will be worthless.

More to the point, if Trump is the candidate, he is going to be "schlonged."

Remarkably, the only Republican candidate who currently emerges victorious over both Clinton and Sanders in recent polls is John Kasich.

Maybe the hapless John Kasich candidacy - he has only won his home state primary - is not as dumb as it seems.

Paul Krugman, "Sanders Over the Edge": Krugman Sinks into a Chasm of Hypocrisy

Tweet

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Sanders Over the Edge," Paul Krugman criticizes Bernie Sanders's hostility to big banks. Krugman writes:

"The easy slogan here is 'Break up the big banks.' It’s obvious why this slogan is appealing from a political point of view: Wall Street supplies an excellent cast of villains. But were big banks really at the heart of the financial crisis, and would breaking them up protect us from future crises?

Many analysts concluded years ago that the answers to both questions were no. Predatory lending was largely carried out by smaller, non-Wall Street institutions like Countrywide Financial; the crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on 'shadow banks' like Lehman Brothers that weren’t necessarily that big."

Wrong. As observed by Ron Hera in a May 11, 2010 Business Insider article entitled "Forget About Housing, The The Real Cause Of The Crisis Was OTC Derivatives" (my emphasis in red):

"The global financial crisis that began in 2008 has been attributed to sub-prime mortgage lending and mortgage backed securities (MBSs), such as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), which were revealed as toxic assets. While the root cause of the financial crisis is assumed to have been the residential real estate asset price bubble, the underlying systemic risk, and the primary reason for the 'too big to fail' doctrine whereby governments were compelled to save financial institutions at any cost, lies in over the counter (OTC) derivatives. The suspension of the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) mark-to-market rule in 2009 preserved the value of bank balance sheets, i.e., of their mortgage portfolios, but what was of far greater importance was that it prevented triggering the conditions of thousands of OTC derivatives contracts, such as credit default swaps (CDS), that would have wiped out virtually all of the largest banking institutions in the world.

. . . .

In August 2007, central banks took emergency action to head off a global credit crisis, but their efforts were in vein. By June 2008, the notional value of OTC derivatives was more than $683 trillion, after more than doubling in the preceding two years. The event that Warren Buffett anticipated in 2002 occurred on Sunday, September 14th, 2008, when Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, the largest corporate bankruptcy in US history. The failure of Lehman Brothers set off a derivatives chain reaction affecting Lehman’s counterparties and directly caused the credit crisis. Since it is impossible for market actors to know what risks or how much leverage their counterparties have, OTC derivatives render credit ratings meaningless. The flow of credit and lending activity halted on a worldwide basis, causing sharp contractions in economic activity and deflation."

The 2008 crisis was not centered on big banks? Apparently Krugman has forgotten what happened to Citigroup and Wachovia as a consequence of this disaster.

Krugman goes on to say in his opinion piece:

"It’s one thing for the Sanders campaign to point to Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street connections, which are real, although the question should be whether they have distorted her positions, a case the campaign has never even tried to make."

Well, if Clinton were to disclose the transcripts of her speeches to some of the world's largest financial institutions, maybe we would be better able to understand her positions, which, owing to her lack of transparency, remain unknown.

By the way, a pity Krugman does not relate in his opinion piece to the testimony two days ago of Gene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General of the United States, before the US Senate's Committee on the Budget:

"Over the long term, at the federal level, the imbalance between spending and revenue that is built into current law and policy is projected to lead to continued growth of debt held by the public as a share of GDP. This situation—in which debt grows faster than GDP—means the current federal fiscal path is unsustainable. Today, debt held by the public as a share of GDP remains well above the post-war historical average of 43 percent since 1946. At the end of fiscal year 2015, it reached about 74 percent of GDP—the second highest (after fiscal year 2014, when it was slightly higher) since 1950."

Needless to say, I have never been awarded a Nobel Prize in economics, but unless I am entirely mistaken, it seems that the Comptroller General is hinting that the US is headed for insolvency. But why should that worry Paul, who would only have the federal government continue its deficit spending spree.

Fred Hiatt, "Obama destroyed Syrians’ ‘glimmer of hope’ that America would intervene": A President's Cat in the Hat Diplomacy

Tweet

"'Look at me! Look at me! Look at me NOW! it is fun to have fun but you have to know how."

- "The Cat in the Hat," Dr. Seuss

Responding to Obama's assertion that he is "very proud" of his Syrian policy, Fred Hiatt responds in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama destroyed Syrians’ ‘glimmer of hope’ that America would intervene":

"[N]o one knows for sure how many of Syria’s prewar population of 22 million have died. The United Nations and other groups kept tabs for a while, reaching 250,000, and then stopped counting — so for more than two years, we’ve been writing 'more than 250,000.' Certainly the number is far greater.

Meanwhile, at least half of all Syrians have been forced from their homes. More than 4 million have become refugees; thousands more are trapped at the Turkish border, unable to leave. Hundreds of thousands have fled to Europe. Together, those refugees and the terrorist attacks spawned by the Islamic State, which took root in the chaos of Syria’s civil war, have fueled a xenophobic politics in Europe unlike anything the continent has seen since World War II.

Given these consequences, you have to wonder whether Obama really takes pride in his policy, or is trying to convince himself."

Yup, the narcissism of a lame duck president gone wild. However, as the Cat in the Hat went on to say: "But that is not all. Oh no. That is not all."

By way of a series of ballistic missile tests, Iran is outrageously flouting its unsigned nuclear agreement with Obama, while at the same time demanding access to America's financial system. Obama's reaction? The Washington Post today observes in an editorial entitled "Iran should pay a price for its ballistic missile tests":

"Tehran’s behavior comes as no surprise to the many observers who predicted the deal would not alter its hostility to the West or its defiance of international norms. Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s response has also been much as critics predicted: It has done its best to play down Iran’s violations and avoid any conflict out of fear that the regime might walk away from a centerpiece of President Obama’s legacy.

. . . .

Another area of potential accommodation concerns dollar transactions linked to Iran. U.S. sanctions tied to terrorism and human rights still prohibit Iranian access to the U.S. financial system. Iranian officials are complaining that they have been unable to draw on newly unfrozen assets elsewhere in the world, or make trade deals, because international banks are afraid to conduct any transactions in U.S. dollars. The administration is considering issuing a clarification to foreign banks that they can conduct dollar exchanges linked to Iran’s assets or future trade deals under certain conditions."

Obama and friends plan to explain to foreign banks how to avoid American prohibitions on dealing with Iran? Maybe the IRS should explain to Americans how they can seize upon loopholes to avoid paying taxes.

Obama's refusal to intervene in Syria has cost at least a half million lives, and refugees from that war have effectively destabilized Europe. How many people will ultimately die as a consequence of Obama's accommodation of Iran's crazy mullahs? Again from "The Cat in the Hat":

"He came down with a bump
From up there on the ball.
And Sally and I,
We saw ALL the things fall!"

May the Lord have mercy on us.

Thomas Friedman, "Impossible Missions": Yes, Wisconsin (Not Virginia), There Is a Santa Claus

Tweet

Yes, Virginia Wisconsin, there is a Santa Claus. Could it be that Donald and Hillary, i.e. Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhees, will not be battling it out in November? Thank you, badgers! It had been pretty bleak until last night.

On the subject of bleak (and dull-witted), Thomas Friedman, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Impossible Missions," discusses Professor Michael Mandelbaum's new book called “Mission Failure: America and the World in the Post-Cold War Era.” Warmly recommending the book, Friedman writes:

"In earlier historical epochs the world relied on imperial powers to come in and control zones of weak governance, as the Ottomans did for 500 years in the Middle East. Then it relied on colonial powers. Then it relied on homegrown kings, colonels and dictators to maintain order.

But what if we’re now in a post-imperial, post-colonial and post-authoritarian age? The kings, colonels and dictators of old did not have to deal with amplified citizens deeply connected to one another and the world with smartphones. The old autocrats also had vast oil resources or aid from superpowers in the Cold War to buy off their people. What if they now have bulging populations, dwindling oil revenues and can’t buy off their people or shut them up?

The only option is more consensual government and social contracts among equal citizens."

Ah yes, Arab Spring II and another Green Revolution in Iran! I can assure you that Morsi and Khamenei know of other options. Go back to sleep, Tom.

Meanwhile, on the subject of Iran, Congressman Ed Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, expresses concern in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The United States must not aid and abet Iranian money laundering," that the Obama administration intends to provide Iran with access to the American financial system in exchange for . . . nothing. Royce writes:

"Last summer, in testimony to Congress, Lew vowed, 'Iranian banks will not be able to clear U.S. dollars through New York, hold correspondent account relationships with U.S. financial institutions, or enter into financing arrangements with U.S. banks.' As the secretary made clear, 'Iran, in other words, will continue to be denied access to the world’s largest financial and commercial market.'

Yet when I questioned Lew just two weeks ago about whether he stood by this testimony, he refused to give a direct answer. And so this appears to be just the latest in a long pattern of concessions to protect the president’s 'legacy' deal. In recent months, the administration gutted a new law to strengthen the visa waiver program to please the Iranians and has imposed only minimal sanctions on Iran’s missile program — even as Iran launches missiles stamped with the words 'Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth.'"

You mean to say that the Obama administration, which promised Americans that if they liked their doctors and healthcare plans, they could keep them, in order to sell Obama's "legacy" Affordable Care Act, also lied to Congress to sell his "legacy" nuclear deal with Iran? Yes, I know: Obama's omniscient ends justify his unscrupulous means.

And so we had John Kerry telling us that Iran "absolutely" deserved access to US dollars, although none other than Obama recently acknowledged that Iran is not abiding by the "spirit" of the nuclear deal, and notwithstanding Iran's test launches of ballistic missiles.

The ballistic missiles? As reported by Adam Kredo in a Washington Free Beacon article entitled "Congress Investigating Obama Admin Deception on Iran Nuke Deal":

"[C]ongressional leaders are concerned that the administration no longer considers recent Iranian ballistic missile tests a 'violation' of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, which codifies the nuclear deal.

Top administration officials including Secretary of State John Kerry vowed to Congress that Iran would be legally prohibited from carrying out ballistic missile tests under the resolution.

Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., shifted course last week, refusing to call recent Iranian launches a 'violation' in a letter she signed criticizing those launches."

Repercussions in the Middle East owing to Obama's duplicity? Read what Yousef Al Otaiba, the ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to the US, has to say in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece entitled "One Year After the Iran Nuclear Deal" about Obama's promise that the nuclear deal with Iran would "make the world safer":

"Sadly, behind all the talk of change, the Iran we have long known—hostile, expansionist, violent—is alive and well, and as dangerous as ever. We wish it were otherwise. In the United Arab Emirates, we are seeking ways to coexist with Iran. Perhaps no country has more to gain from normalized relations with Tehran. Reducing tensions across the less than 100-mile-wide Arabian Gulf could help restore full trade ties, energy cooperation and cultural exchanges, and start a process to resolve a 45-year territorial dispute.

Since the nuclear deal, however, Iran has only doubled down on its posturing and provocations. In October, November and again in early March, Iran conducted ballistic-missile tests in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions.
In December, Iran fired rockets dangerously close to a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Strait of Hormuz, just weeks before it detained a group of American sailors. In February, Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan visited Moscow for talks to purchase more than $8 billion in Russian fighter jets, planes and helicopters.

In Yemen, where peace talks now hold some real promise, Iran’s disruptive interference only grows worse. Last week, the French navy seized a large cache of weapons on its way from Iran to support the Houthis in their rebellion against the U.N.-backed legitimate Yemeni government. In late February, the Australian navy intercepted a ship off the coast of Oman with thousands of AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades. And last month, a senior Iranian military official said Tehran was ready to send military 'advisers' to assist the Houthis.

The interference doesn’t stop there. Since the beginning of the year, Tehran and its proxies have increased their efforts to provide armor-piercing explosive devices to Shiite cells in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. A former Iranian general and close adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called for Iran to annex all of Bahrain. And in Syria, Iran continues to deploy Hezbollah militias and its own Iranian Revolutionary Guard to prop up Syria’s Bashar Assad.

. . . .

If the carrots of engagement aren’t working, we must not be afraid to bring back the sticks. Recent half measures against Iran’s violations of the ballistic-missile ban are not enough. If the aggression continues, the U.S. and the global community should make clear that Iran will face the full range of sanctions and other steps still available under U.N. resolutions and in the nuclear deal itself."

"Bring back the sticks"? Reinstate the sanctions? Sorry, but not if it means that a narcissistic Obama must acknowledge that he was dead wrong.

Maureen Dowd, "Trump Does It His Way": Narcissism Gone Wild

Tweet

What a world! I am still astounded by Donald Trump's interview with The Washington Post's editorial board two weeks ago:

"Post publisher Fred Ryan asked Trump if he would consider using a tactical nuclear strike against the forces of the Islamic State, were he president. Trump responded that he didn't want to 'start the process of nuclear,' then reminding the editors that he was 'a counter-puncher.'

'Remember, one thing that everybody has said, I’m a counter-puncher,' Trump said. 'Rubio hit me. Bush hit me. When I said low energy, he’s a low-energy individual, he hit me first. He spent, by the way -- he spent 18 million dollars’ worth of negative ads on me. That’s putting...'

Ryan jumped in. 'This is about ISIS,' he reminded Trump. 'You would not use a tactical nuclear weapon against ISIS?'

'I’ll tell you one thing,' Trump replied. 'This is a very good looking group of people here. Could I just go around so I know who the hell I’m talking to?'

. . . . The editors introduced themselves, and the topic was dropped. (For good measure, on his way out of the meeting, Trump called digital editor Karen Attiah 'beautiful.')"

This is the man who could well be the Republican presidential candidate? Lord help us. But Trump's obsession with physical appearances should be the least of our concerns. In a fascinating New England Psychologist article entitled "Families of narcissists suffer most, psychologist says" by Catherine Robertson Souter, Dr. Richard Grossman (a distant relative?), who is a clinical psychologist who writes extensively on narcissistic personality disorders, informs us:

"In my experience, narcissists will rarely change in therapy because most are unable to accept or acknowledge that the problem is inside of them.

. . . .

[W]e have a presidential candidate, Donald Trump, who appears to be a textbook case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

. . . .

A person who has a finger over the button of a nuclear weapon as a narcissist is a huge danger. We see it in terms of the North Korean leader, who is clearly a Narcissistic Personality Disorder and who is threatening nuclear attacks.

Absolutely, people who have no empathy, no sense of other human beings’ worth, are a huge danger to the general population."

Today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Trump Does It His Way," Maureen Dowd tells us of her latest conversation with Trump. She asked the Donald if a woman with whom he had sexual relations ever had an abortion, but he refused to answer. God bless her soul, Dowd didn't let up:

"I pressed, how he could possibly win with 73 percent of women in this country turned off by him?

He chose another poll, murmuring, 'It was 68 percent, actually.'

Trump doesn’t have a plan to turn it around with women, except to use Ivanka as a character witness and to chant that 'nobody respects women more than I do.'

'I’m just going to be myself,' he said. 'That’s all I can do.'"

Indeed, that's all he can do - be his misogynist self. As observed by Dr. Grossman, narcissists are rarely capable of change. So who is to blame? The answer is obvious: Republicans who have foisted this national embarrassment upon a once great America.

Gail Collins, "Trump, Truth and Abortion": Golf Partners for Eternity

Tweet

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Trump, Truth and Abortion," Gail Collins tells us of Donald Trump's position on abortion:

"There’s no reason to imagine Trump ever gave a millisecond of thought to the details of abortion policy until he got trapped in that merciless interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC."

Agreed. But more to the point, a self-absorbed Trump probably never gave a millisecond of thought to the details of any policy. Trumps suffers from a severe narcissistic personality disorder and is incapable of thinking about anything but himself.

Abortion? I am pro-choice, but I am more concerned with the danger Trump poses to all life on this planet. Can you imagine allowing him to press the launch buttons of America's nuclear arsenal with his little fingers? May the Lord have mercy on us.

Meanwhile, President Obama, another narcissist, yesterday criticized Donald's comments concerning the proliferation of atomic weapons. As reported by Stephanie Condon in a CBS News article entitled "Obama responds to Donald Trump's comments about nuclear weaponry":

"Speaking to reporters at the end of the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, President Obama on Friday gave a critical response to Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump's recent remarks about nuclear weaponry.

Without referring to Trump by name, Mr. Obama said, 'The person who made the statements doesn't know much about foreign policy, or nuclear policy, or the Korean Peninsula, or the world generally.'

Trump this week said that Japan and South Korea might have to acquire their own nuclear weapons. In a separate incident this week, he refused to rule out using nuclear weapons in Europe if elected president."

Excuse me, but the person who referred to ISIS as the "jayvee team" knows more than Trump about foreign policy? Yes, I know, he thinks he does.

Trump's nightmarish suggestions concerning the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons are off the wall. But was it a rational decision on Obama's part to enter into an unsigned nuclear deal with Iran's mullahs, extending Tehran's "breakout time" from three months to all of one year (if it abides by the agreement, which it won't), while removing sanctions and effectively permitting these psychopaths to engage in ballistic missile testing, i.e. delivery of these weapons of mass destruction?

My fantasy: That many years hence (may they both live to 120), Trump and Obama will be golf partners for eternity in a netherworld of fire and brimstone.

Paul Krugman, "Learning From Obama": Everything That Guy Just Said Is Bullshit

Tweet

"Everything that guy just said is bullshit."

- Vincent Gambini, opening statement, "My Cousin Vinny," 1992

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Learning From Obama," Paul Krugman would have us know that Trump could win the Republican nomination (yes, but his fate hinges on the Wisconsin primary where the polls place him far behind Ted Cruz), and that Sanders cannot win the Democratic nomination (no mention by Krugman of the FBI investigation of Hillary's email server, which hovers ominously over her campaign). Krugman then marvels at Obama's presidential achievements:

• The economy: "We’ve gained 10 million private-sector jobs since Mr. Obama took office, and unemployment is below 5 percent." Krugman fails to tell us that America's national debt now stands at an unsustainable $19.2 trillion, amounting to some $60,000 of debt per citizen or more than $160,000 per taxpayer. Yeah, a minor omission.
• Health reform: "reform has indeed delivered the big improvements in coverage it promised, and has done so at lower cost than expected." Excuse me, Paul, but I thought that 12 of Obamacare's 23 health cooperatives have failed, premiums are going much higher in 2016, and Obamacare coverage is effectively "useless," owing to high deductibles, as reported by The New York Times.
• Financial reform: "In fact, while the big banks haven’t been broken up, excessive leverage — the real threat to financial stability — has been greatly reduced." Oh really? Not a word from Krugman concerning high frequency trading, which effectively places a tax on anyone wishing to invest in shares, and the government's refusal to reinstate the Uptick Rule, which enables hedge funds to manipulate share prices in any direction they please.
• Environment: "the Obama administration has used executive authority to take steps on the environment that, if not canceled by a Republican president and upheld by future Supreme Courts, will amount to very significant action on climate change." Yet Obama himself has acknowledged that he has "the world's largest carbon footprint" owing to flights to such places as Cuba, where he watched a baseball game with Raul Castro, and Argentina, where he danced the tango.

Okay, Krugman would have us examine the economy, health reform, financial reform and the environment. But what about foreign affairs? ISIS, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Russia, Ukraine, China, North Korea? I suppose we're not supposed to look in that direction.

Indeed, as Vincent Gambini declared in "My Cousin Vinny," "Everything that guy just said is bullshit."