David Brooks, "The Case for Low Ideals": In Praise of "Low Idealism"

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Case for Low Ideals," David Brooks tells us that he is not about to make the case for "high idealism," as exemplified by Obama's 2008 election campaign, "based in the idea of a heroic savior (remember those 'Hope' posters)." Rather, Brooks is "here to make the case for low idealism." David writes:

"The low idealist is more romantic about the past than about the future. Though governing is hard, there are some miracles of human creation that have been handed down to us. These include, first and foremost, the American Constitution, but also the institutions that function pretty well, like the Congressional Budget Office and the Federal Reserve. Her first job is to work with existing materials, magnify what’s best and incrementally reform what is worst."

Ah yes, the American Constitution and lest we forget, the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights (as opposed to today's Bill of Clinton). Who would believe that the United States is well on its way to abandoning the principle that "all men are created equal," and in its stead, new "royal" families are fast emerging, e.g., the House of Bush and the House of Clinton. Yes, the United States has gone full circle.

"Magnify what’s best and incrementally reform what is worst"? A noble aspiration, and certainly preferable to messianism. But abandon the high ideals that were responsible for the Constitution? Never. Without high ideals, as opposed to the messianism and personality worship fostered by the likes of Anita Dunn and David Axelrod, life would not be worth living.

Glorify "low ideals"? Sorry, but I'm not in the market. Liberty to dream of and live by high ideals or death!

Maureen Dowd, "The ‘I’ of the Storm": Has Obama Learned from Benghazi?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The ‘I’ of the Storm" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/31/opinion/dowd-the-i-of-the-storm.html), Maureen Dowd notes the compliments Obama has received from New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for his disaster relief support involving Hurricane Sandy:

"On ABC, CBS and NBC, Christie hailed Obama as 'outstanding.' On MSNBC, he said the president 'has been all over this,' and on CNN, he called Obama 'incredibly supportive.' The big guy even tweeted his thanks to the slender one."

Indeed, kudos to Obama for behaving presidentially in this instance.

However, a month and a half ago, when, without advance warning, Obama was presented with the Benghazi crisis, four Americans were allowed to die, and the president continued on his campaign trail.

Has Obama learned a lesson from the deaths of these four brave men, or does his hurricane response represent cynical, self-serving conduct in keeping with the best electioneering advice of Plouffe, Dunn and Axelrod?

You decide.

Maureen Dowd, "Cruel Conservatives Throw a Masquerade Ball": Citing David Axelrod, the Grandmaster of Smoke and Mirrors

Basking in bile, Maureen Dowd, in her latest New York Times op-ed "Cruel Conservatives Throw a Masquerade Ball" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/opinion/sunday/dowd-cruel-conservatives-throw-a-masquerade-ball.html?pagewanted=all), indiscriminately flings pejoratives and invective:

• the Republican convention was a "colossal hoax;"
• "my heart swells to think of the herculean effort the G.O.P. put into pretending its heart bleeds;"
• Paul Ryan is "a prodigy of prestidigitation" and "a beckoning pool of big, juicy lies;"
• "The speakers ranted about an America in decline, but the audience reflected a party in decline;"
• "Ryan’s lies and Romney’s shape-shifting are so easy to refute that they must have decided a Hail Mary pass of artifice was better than their authentic ruthless worldview."

Ironically, Dowd concludes by quoting David ("Hope" and "Change") Axelrod, the grandmaster of smoke and mirrors, who helped provide her with the title of her opinion piece:

"'A masquerade party,' scoffed David Axelrod, the president’s strategist, 'to cover up the final takeover of the Republican Party by the right. It was like Barry Goldwater in ’64.'"

A "masquerade party"? Yes, that's what political conventions are and always will be.

Horrifying reality, however, can be found in the millions of Americans who are now out of work. You can deride the fluidity of Clint Eastwood's unscripted speech or contest the exact number of unemployed persons cited by this remarkable screen star and director, but Mr. Eastwood hit it right on the nail: Obama made promises that went unfulfilled.

As Obama stated exactly one year ago (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/21/us-usa-obama-economy-idUSTRE77K14Z20110821):

"I expect to be judged a year from now on whether or not things have continued to get better."

Ignore the conventions. This election is about jobs, and Obama should be granted his wish.

[Yes, Mr. Eastwood, I'd give my eye teeth to be an extra in one of your films . . .]

Maureen Dowd, "The Ungrateful President": Does Obama Suffer From a Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Ungrateful President" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/opinion/dowd-the-ungrateful-president.html), Maureen Dowd irreverently needles Obama and his supporters. Dowd begins by describing a Barack Obama fund raiser at the estate of film producer Harvey Weinstein "in a softly lit room shimmering with . . . black American Express cards," at which Weinstein said of Obama, "You can make the case that he’s the Paul Newman of American presidents.” Dowd, however, concludes her opinion piece by observing in typical snarky fashion that in contrast to Obama's indifference to those who help him, "Paul Newman sent thank-you notes."

Complimenting the president, Dowd observes that "Obama smashed through all the barriers and dysfunction in his life to become a self-made, self-narrating president."

Self-narrating president? In fact, Obama and his presidency have been characterized by his omnipresent teleprompters and the carefully selected words placed in his mouth by David Axelrod, David Plouffe (now said to have received $100,000 from an affiliate of a firm doing business with Iran, see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-associate-got-100000-fee-from-affiliate-of-firm-doing-business-with-iran/2012/08/05/5e6888a2-dda2-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html),
and Anita (Mao is one of "my favorite political philosophers", see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2009/10/what-if-anita-dunn-had-said-two-of-my.html) Dunn.

However, Dowd then provides evidence of Obama's iciness, which has alienated many of his most fervent supporters:

"Stories abound of big donors who stopped giving as much or working as hard because Obama never reached out, either with a Clinton-esque warm bath of attention or Romney-esque weekend love fests and Israeli-style jaunts; of celebrities who gave concerts for his campaigns and never received thank-you notes or even his full attention during the performance; of public servants upset because they knocked themselves out at the president’s request and never got a pat on the back."

Should we be drawing similarities between Obama and "Cool Hand Luke," or is there something else at play?

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

"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."

Enough said. Now go figure it out for yourselves.

By the way, what happens to "self-narrating" Obama without a teleprompter? It's not pretty.

Maureen Dowd, "A Perfect Doll": Sorry, But Obama Is No Saul Alinsky

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "A Perfect Doll" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/dowd-a-perfect-doll.html?_r=1&hp), Maureen Dowd writes:

"With many worried that America is in decline, a prospective race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is being caricatured here as 'Saul Alinsky versus Gordon Gekko,' as Don Baer, a former senior Clinton White House adviser, put it."

Millionaire Barack Obama, who profited handsomely from a shady real estate deal with Tony Rezko after spending a mere three years as a community organizer, hardly deserves comparison with the legendary Alinsky, a University of Chicago graduate who worked his way through school and spent a lifetime assisting poor communities throughout the US. However, I suppose this is how Axelrod will be seeking to portray the election as we draw nearer to November.

All one big mirage . . .

Obama: Libya Is a "Recipe for Success"

Three years into Obama's presidency, it would probably be deemed charitable for an objective outside observer to describe his foreign policy as "disastrous." Starved for anything to show for his overseas efforts and with the 2012 elections looming, Obama is busy showcasing US involvement in Libya, for which the president is now famous for "leading from behind." Appearing two weeks ago on the Tonight Show with host Jay Leno (http://www.npr.org/2011/10/26/141710706/obama-to-leno-libya-a-recipe-for-success), Obama would have us believe that US involvement in Libya has proven a memorable template for future American activity:

"Not a single U.S. troop was on the ground. Not a single U.S. troop was killed or injured, and that, I think, is a recipe for success in the future."

But what doesn't Obama tell us?:

• Qaddafi's stockpiles of anti-aircraft missiles have flooded into the hands of militants in Gaza, and Israel's El Al Airlines is being forced to hurriedly equip its fleet of civilian aircraft with advanced anti-missile systems (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-israel-to-equip-airliners-with-anti-missile-system-as-libyan-arms-reach-gaza-1.395057).

• The flag of al-Qaeda is now proudly flying in Benghazi (http://www.vice.com/read/al-qaeda-plants-its-flag-in-libya).

• Deadly tribal fighting in Libya continues until today (http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=245318).

A "recipe for success"? Yeah, right. However, it's certainly a beguiling attempt at "spin" by Axelrod & Co.

Charles Blow, "Obama in the Valley": The Robot President

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Obama in the Valley" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/opinion/blow-obama-in-the-valley.html?_r=1&hp), Charles Blow, an Obama loyalist from the Times op-ed page, also appears ready to defect. Observing the robotic quality of the current leading Republican contenders for the presidency (Bachmann, Perry and Romney), Blow tells us that he never expected to sense this eerie mechanical feeling from the president:

"But one person I never thought would fall into this valley was Barack Obama, the charismatic candidate who electrified the electorate in 2008 and whom many saw as the fulfillment of the dream of the even-more-electrifying Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Yet here Obama is, down in the valley, struggling to connect with the American people and failing, increasingly coming across as dispassionate to some and outright revolting to others."

Blow calls upon the president to rise to the economic and foreign affairs crisis, and concludes:

"A robotic Sustainer-in-Chief with an eerie inhumanity will not satisfy."

"Sustainer-in-Chief"? I prefer Procrastinator-in-Chief, but be that as it may, I propose a simple solution to humanize Obama:

Unplug him from the Axelrod teleprompter.

This might reveal the president to be inexperienced and confused, as he no longer looks left, then right, for scripted text. On the other hand, when he stutters and stumbles, as he will, we'll know he's no longer an android of Axelrod's making.

By the way, if you're looking for something other than a robot, consider the combative, in-your-face Chris Christie. Like him or not, there can be no mistaking Christie for a robot.

Obama Inaugurates Negative Campaign

With an anemic economy showing few signs of recovery and almost no achievements under his belt, other than nabbing bin Laden, Obama is expected to wage a "negative" reelection campaign, focusing on the faults of his opponents. As such, the initial salvo fired by Obama's political strategist, David Axelrod, in response to the Republicans' debate on Thursday (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20091630-503544.html), came as no surprise:

"Axelrod, in an appearance on CBS' 'The Early Show,' blasted the candidates' performances in Thursday night's Republican debate, and took particular aim on the eight Republicans' unanimously expressed opposition to accepting tax increases as part of a deal to reduce the deficit.

. . . .

Axelrod also took aim at Texas Governor Rick Perry, who is expected to make clear his intention to run for president in a South Carolina speech on Saturday. Perry was not present at the Thursday debate - nor is he on the ballot for Saturday's straw poll - but he is likely to emerge as an immediate frontrunner if and when he does get into the race.

When asked to comment on Perry's criticism of President Obama's jobs record, Axelrod noted that 'he's also called for secession from the United States of America and all kinds of other things.'"

I have no affinity for any of the current Republican candidates, but it is sad to think that the Democrats' 2012 focus will be on mud slinging as opposed to 2008's "change we can believe in."

Maureen Dowd, "Withholder in Chief": More Disdain from Dowd

It would appear that with the passage of time, Maureen Dowd's estrangement from Obama grows, and this week is no exception. In her latest New York Times op-ed, "Withholder in Chief" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/10/opinion/withholder-in-chief.html?hp), Dowd excoriates the president and claims, "he turns out to be the odd case of a pragmatist who can’t learn from his mistakes and adapt." But Obama's ineptitude should come as no surprise.

Writing from Iowa, Dowd observes:

"Many of his Democratic supporters here, who once waited hours in line just to catch a glimpse of The One, are disillusioned.

'We just wish he’d be more of a fighter,' said one influential Democrat with a grimace. Another agreed: 'You can’t blame him for everything. I just wish he would come across more forceful at times, but that is not the dude’s style. Detached hurts you when things are sour. You need some of Clinton’s ‘I feel your pain’ compassion.'”

Why are those who voted for Obama disillusioned? Answer: David Axelrod, David Plouffe and Anita Dunn designed one of the slickest campaigns in American history for a young man with no executive experience and a penchant for voting "present," but possessing remarkable oratorical capabilities. Making certain that Obama answered no questions and that the media was spoon fed materials prepared by his staff, Obama's media advisers created a situation where Obama's supporters saw in the man what they wanted to see, and a distressed American electorate bought into the illusion.

Anita Dunn described this stratagem at an event focusing on Obama’s media tactics and hosted by the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development, in which Dunn discusses how Obama controlled the media during the 2008 election (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlGNhAnwp_Y):

"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters. We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it. . . . very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control."

Sweet. But afterwards, try as they might, Axelrod, Plouffe and Dunn could not help Obama govern, as opposed to campaign.

Describing Obama's procrastinative nature, Dowd observes:

"His inability to grab a microphone and spontaneously assuage Americans’ fears is strange. If the American servicemen had died on a Monday, he wouldn’t have waited until Wednesday to talk about it. He doesn’t like the bully pulpit, just the professor’s lectern.

After failing to interrupt his Camp David weekend to buck up the country on one of its worst days in history, he tacked on his condolences for the soldiers’ families to his economic pep talk, in what had to be the most inept oratorical segue of his presidency.

He long ago should have gone out into the country to talk to Americans in person and come up with a concrete plan that people could print out from the White House Web site and study. Hasn’t he learned how dangerous it is to delegate to Congress? His withholding and reactive nature has made him seem strangely irrelevant in Washington, trapped by his own temperament. He doesn’t lead, and he doesn’t understand why we don’t feel led."

Sorry, Maureen, but Obama's inability to grab a microphone and spontaneously assuage Americans’ fears is anything but "strange" and actually was to be expected. There has never been anything spontaneous about Obama. Moreover, this leopard is not going to lose his spots.

"Withholder in Chief" or "Procrastinator in Chief"?

Where is Hillary when we need her? She is not likeable, but she's certainly capable of making a timely decision.