The Brooks Paradox

David Brooks really outsmarts himself in his column today, "The Bush Paradox", in the New York Times. Here is the letter I sent to the Times.

David Brooks praises President Bush for advocating the surge. He concludes his column by stating:
"Life is complicated. The reason we have democracy is that no one side is right all the time. The only people who are dangerous are those who can’t admit, even to themselves, that obvious fact."
Using this definition, isn't George W. Bush the most dangerous man alive, since he never admits to a mistake.
So now we have "The Brooks Paradox."

Divided They Stand

This is the title of a column by last-ditch Hillary supporter Paul Krugman in today's NY Times. He starts out with

It is, in a way, almost appropriate that the final days of the struggle for the Democratic nomination have been marked by yet another fake Clinton scandal — the latest in a long line that goes all the way back to Whitewater.
This one, in case you missed it, involved an interview Hillary Clinton gave the editorial board of South Dakota’s Argus Leader, in which she tried to make a case for her continuing campaign by pointing out that nomination fights have often gone on into the summer. As one of her illustrations, she mentioned that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June.

Here is the letter I sent to the Times.

In his column today, Paul Krugman, while discussing the reaction to Hillary Clinton's "Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June" remark, states that "Obama and his supporters ... should realize that the continuing demonization of Mrs. Clinton serves nobody except Mr. McCain."
Now, Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY), a Clinton supporter, told Bloomberg News that she said "the dumbest thing you could have possibly said." What advice does Krugman have for him?
With his latest column, Paul Krugman has clearly gone "through the looking glass" to Billaryland. For the sake of the economy, I hope we can get him back.

I should add that a lot of the Kennedys, except RFK Jr., were also upset.

All this reminds me of a dark joke I used to tell my students. One of their favorite refrains was "If x, y, or z happens, do we have to take the exam?" So, whenever I had an exam scheduled to occur after I returned from a trip, I would say "Don't worry, if my plane crashes you don't have to take the test."

As for the nominating process: Don't worry Hillary, if something happens to Obama after you drop out, they will still be able to name you as his replacement.

Frank Rich, the Music Man

Frank Rich has a column, "Party Like It's 2008," in today's New York Times. Here is the comment I posted.

Why is it that many of your columns resemble a lawyer's closing arguments? Are you trying to inform or entertain? Most nuances get trampled by the "Rich-talk" express. I expect more than cheerleading from you. One specific point. "Mr. Obama’s white support in a matchup against Mr. McCain is still no worse than John Kerry’s against President Bush in 2004." Isn't this a bit of a thin reed?
I really wish you would "get serious". For example, you could focus your attention on whether the dittoheads out there are in fact affecting the primary election results, and whether they may in fact realize Limbaugh's "dream" of a riotous Democratic Convention. I think you underestimate the power of the die-hards on the right. I agree, this is not '68, but I think this presidential election is too serious and fraught with peril for your column to start resembling "76 trombones".
Well, it's really not my place to tell you how to write your column, and I remain one of your many fans, Music Man!
Greg Bachelis
PS. Is it possible that Bill Clinton is suffering from "pump head", a common side effect of heart bypass surgery?

Hitchens the Glib

Christopher Hitchens, has a column in yesterday's Slate Magazine, titled

WORDS MATTER.

Cliché, not plagiarism, is the problem with today's pallid political discourse.

Here is the last paragraph.

How well I remember Sidney Blumenthal waking me up all those years ago to read me the speech by Sen. Biden, which, by borrowing the biography as well as the words of another candidate's campaign, put an end to Biden's own. The same glee didn't work this time when he (it must have been he) came up with "Change You Can Xerox" as a riposte to Sen. Obama's hand-me-down words from Gov. Deval Patrick. All that Obama had lifted from Patrick was the old-fashioned idea that "words matter," and all that one can say, reviewing the present empty landscape of slogan and cliché, is that one only wishes that this could once again be true.

Here is the comment I posted.

As usual, Hitchens does a great job of putting down nearly every politician in sight. What he chooses to ignore about Obama is that there is substance to him, in his team of advisers, at his website, and, yes, even in some of his speeches - those which are devoted to policy issues. And anyway, what is the matter with political slogans, as long as they are backed up by substance? I would love it if Hitchens chose to run for office (ignoring the fact that he is a Brit). To borrow from Al Franken, an appropriate slogan would be "Vote for me because I'm smarter than you, I'm wittier than you, and (no) God, hardly anybody likes me."

Now Krugman Is Grasping at Straws

In his column in today's New York Times, "Deliverance or Diversion", Paul Krugman continues his "assault" on Barack Obama. Here is a letter I sent to the Times.

In his column today, Paul Krugman writes:"And some Illinois legislators apparently feel that even [in the Illinois state senate] Mr. Obama got a bit more glory than he deserved. 'No one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit,' one state senator complained to a local journalist."
The "some" appears to be "one", and he doesn't even say who that "one" is. Krugman is now truly grasping at straws in his ongoing effort to trivialize Barack Obama. In recent months, he has appeared to be having a "temper tantrum" because things aren't going the way that he deems they should in the Democratic primaries. I say he should "get over it". Either that or stick to economics, his area of expertise.
And speaking of economics, has Krugman ever written about Obama's formidable group of economic advisors, or isn't that relevant?

Don't hold your breath waiting for this to appear (How many times have I written this?) The Times doesn't mind sarcasm from some of its columnists, but apparently not from its readers. Krugman is one of Princeton's professors, so I guess we should add them to the list, which already includes former First Ladies and "cultural columnists", of those who feel "entitled" to have elections go the way they think they should.
As for Obama's advisers, economic and otherwise, here are two excerpts from The Opinionator, a blog at the "Times Online" hosted by Tobin Harshaw and Chris Suellentrop.

The New Republic’s Noam Scheiber analyzes Barack Obama’s policy shop. “Sociologically, the Obamanauts have a lot in common with the last gang of Democratic outsiders to make a credible run at the White House,” Scheiber writes. “Like Bill Clinton in 1992, Obama’s campaign boasts a cadre of credentialed achievers.” He continues:
Intellectually, however, the Obamanauts couldn’t be more different. Clinton delighted in surrounding himself with big-think public intellectuals — like economics commentator Robert Reich and political philosopher Bill Galston. You’d be hard-pressed to find a political philosopher in Obama’s inner wonk-dom. His is dominated by a group of first-rate economists, beginning with [the University of Chicago’s Austan] Goolsbee, one of the profession’s most respected tax experts.
The difference between Bill Clinton’s 1992 team and Obama’s is “the difference between science-fiction writers and engineers,” Scheiber says. “Reich and Galston are the kinds of people who’d sketch out the idea for time travel in a moment of inspiration. Goolsbee et al. could rig up the DeLorean that would actually get you back to 1955.”

and

Greg Mankiw, the Harvard economist who served as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Bush, likes Obama’s team of wonks a lot more than he likes the candidate. “Absolutely true,” Mankiw writes on his blog, responding to the idea that Obama’s policy shop is “surprisingly non-ideological.” But Mankiw adds, “But I doubt any of those excellent economists in the policy shop would be willing to defend the anti-NAFTA, anti-Walmart rhetoric of their candidate.”

I know, I know, Obama may not be able to deliver on his promises, or he may not follow his advisers' recommendations, as implied above. Nevertheless, I feel that he is enough of a heavyweight to make it worth a try. As for Hillary's recent television ad about who would you want answering the phone in the White House at 3:00 AM, the idea that as First Lady she obtained foreign policy experience is laughable. An example of her inexperience was her over-simplified reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, which I dealt with in an earlier post.

Well, enough of this already! Krugman may be "grasping", but I appear to be "harping."

Paul Krugman Loses It!

In his column in Monday's New York Times, "Hate Springs Eternal", Paul Krugman abandons any pretense of being logical in his attempt to promote Hillary Clinton over the bodies of Barack Obama and his supporters. Here are some excerpts, with my comments in italics and in brackets. {}

In 1956 Adlai Stevenson, running against Dwight Eisenhower, tried to make the political style of his opponent’s vice president, ...Richard Nixon, an issue. The nation, he warned, was in danger of becoming “a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland.”
The quote comes from “Nixonland,” a soon-to-be-published political history of the years from 1964 to 1972 written by Rick Perlstein. ... As Mr. Perlstein shows, Stevenson warned in vain: during those years America did indeed become the land of slander and scare, of the politics of hatred.
And it still is. In fact, these days even the Democratic Party seems to be turning into Nixonland.
The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. [yada, yada, yada]..,. . Both [Hillary and Obama] have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.
Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.
Why, then, is there so much venom out there? {From whom?}
I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here:{He's giving himself away here.} most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody.{Who said that?} I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again. {Where was the cult, outside of the west wing of The White House? }
What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” {Who said that?}— the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.
The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons’ part, yet the “scandal” became a symbol of the Clinton administration’s alleged corruption. {I can tell he hasn't read Sally Bedell Smith's book.}
During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King. {Not by Obama.}
And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, {again, the media} after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network. {Ah, another vast conspiracy!}...
For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact. For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship {A gratuitous insult!}, they should want to see her win in November.
For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do.
But most of all, progressives should realize that Nixonland is not the country we want to be. Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptable. ...
I’d like to see more moments like [when a number of Jewish leaders signed a letter condemning the smear campaign claiming that Mr. Obama was a secret Muslim.], perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election. {Is he talking "Loyalty Oaths" here? Sounds pretty "Nixonlandish" to me.}

Here is the letter I sent to the Times about his column.

Paul Krugman's mastery of logic has apparently deserted him. Adlai Stevenson was talking about Nixon the candidate and politician, not about how the media reacted to various candidates.and elected officials. The political operatives and politicians who remind me the most of Nixon these days are Karl Rove, Dick Morris and, in many ways, Dick Cheney.Let's face it. Krugman likes Hillary, he doesn't seem to care much for Obama, nor for his supporters. Obama's campaign is based on hope, not hate. Krugman should reclaim the high ground and avoid the "slippery slope". We don't want to be greeted one day by a cartoon showing him emerging from a sewer, as Herblock once did for Nixon.

The Times published a number of letters today about Krugman's column, not including mine. I guess that the mighty Times didn't deem my letter serious enough. I should like to make a few additional points.
1) Does Krugman include among the "hero worshippers" all the veteran politicians and policy wonks - many of whom were past supporters of Bill Clinton or worked in the Clinton Administration - who have endorsed Obama or are actively working for his campaign?
2) If "hero worship" entails being blinded by your candidate's aura, then Krugman qualifies if he fails to see all the venom being directed toward Obama, maybe not from the mainstream media, but from Clinton campaign officials and their surrogates.
3) Just as "Tricky Dick" earned his nickname, surely "Slick Willie" has earned his.
4) Opposing Hillary does not necessarily make one a mysogynist. Maureen Dowd has an excellent column in today's Times related to this.
5) If Hillary gets the nomination, I intend to vote for her. Better a "two-headed" president than a "wrong-headed" one, which would be the case if McCain were to be elected.

Ask Not What I Can Do for Frank Rich

Readers of today's New York Times are invited to post comments on Frank Rich's column "Ask Not What J.F.K. Can Do for Obama." Here is what I posted.

You put too much gloss on JFK after when he was in office. Obama does not appear to be a philanderer, as JFK was before and during his presidency. J. Edgar Hoover (one of my least favorite people) got him to stop seeing a mistress he was sharing with a Mafia Don. And don't forget "fiddle" and "faddle" and other White House Interns, some of whom, if you believe Nora Ephron, didn't even have desks! True, Kennedy was very smooth about all this and didn't sully the oval office and environs, as Bill Clinton did.

And what about the "fairy tale" that has endured about the Cuban Missle Crisis, where Kennedy "machismo" almost got us into a nuclear war? And then there is the stuff that Dr. "Feelgood" injected to help Kennedy deal with his back problems. This may have affected his judgment and demeanor at crucial moments.

Also, Obama doen't have a daddy who could "buy" him a primary victory, as Papa Joe allegedly did in West Virginia, where Kennedy defeated Hubert Humphrey. For sure JFK was charismatic and inspirational, and witty, and for sure he had great writers. (One of whom, Ted Sorenson, is today part of the Obama campaign.) I'm sure he was sincere in his vision and about "the torch being passed."

To me, Obama is more genuine, and he doesn't seem to be ruthless, as the Kennedy brothers were at times. I hope he can carry through on his hopes and promises if elected. I fear this may be difficult, since he doesn't seem to have much of a "machine" to go with him.

Oh, and not to be a nitpicker, but Eisenhower "the most popular president since FDR"? Only Harry Truman was in between.

Your loyal fan,

Greg Bachelis

I have previously pontificated on the JFK presidency.

As for the above post, based on past experience it will never see the light of day. Rich usually goes through the comments and only posts those that he responds to. I once made the "mistake" of responding to two columns at once, and that got nowhere. At least I am following the rules this time.

In my continuing yet so far unsuccessful efforts to break out of the pack of 30 million bloggers, I have submitted some of my posts to an online publisher, Associated Content . I have modified them to conform to AC's rules. I may submit some original material as well. I also have a new webpage, http://www.mathpol.com/, which serves as a directory to all my blogs on blogspot.

UPDATE: I made it! Comment #225 out of 510. Frank Rich has not responded to any of them, at least not yet.

United We Fall

Paul Burka, the senior executive editor of Texas Monthly, has an incredible column with that title in today's New York Times. The whole thing has to be seen to be believed. Here is a letter I sent to the Times.

Paul Burka's column is disingenuous, to say the least. To compare George W. Bush with Barack Obama is like comparing oranges with apples, or rather lemons with apples. Bush made a conscious decision after 9/11 to "go it alone". Karl Rove & Co. were striving for a permanent Republican majority. Bush could have had more bipartisanship after 9/11, which is usually a President's goal in times of war. (Remember the saying "Partisanship ends at the water's edge"?) Instead he, Cheney, Rumsfeld & Co. decided they could have things their way, that they could enforce their own view of reality on the country and even on the rest of the world. We now have to deal with the results of their arrogance.

Obama may be naive, but he is sincere, and he is anything but arrogant (except about hope). Even granting his naiveté, he doesn't need to be lectured to like a little schoolboy about the rough and tumble political world.. Remember, he comes from the "Chicago School" of politics. He is entitled to spread his message of hope, and it is amazing to me the way the political establishment, from left to right, is -almost frantically and hysterically- trying to marginalize him.

There He Goes Again!

In an incredible "attack" op-ed on Barack Obama by Charles Krauthammer in today's Washington Post, "A Sneer, A Tear, A Comeback", there is the following paragraph:

"One does not have to be sympathetic to the Clintons to understand their bewilderment at Obama's pre-New Hampshire canonization. The man comes from nowhere with a track record as thin as Chauncey Gardiner's. Yet, as Bill Clinton correctly, if clumsily, complained, Obama gets a free pass from the press."

Here is the comment I posted.

Obama as Chauncy Gardiner? This is a low blow, even for you. Do I detect a whiff of racism here, or is it just your usual snit when things don't go the way you deign from on high that they should?
Obama has been a community organizer, a law professor, a state senator who spoke out on foreign policy issues, and now a U.S. Senator. How do you like them apples? As Chauncy might say.
Obama may be naive and untested, but he is hardly an empty suit. Sometimes I think that as a columnist you make a bad psychiatrist.
(end of comment)

I suppose that should have been "would make" in the last sentence.
Spellcheck: The character Peter Sellers so memorably played in "Being There" was "Chance the Gardener", and he was addressed as "Chance Gardner" after he was thrust into the public eye.

But getting back to Krauthammer, I suppose I should just accept the fact that he is an "evil genius" and move on. Except that he has a big following and needs to be "kept honest."

As for the politician in today's world who most resembles Chance Gardner, I'd say the winner hands down is George W. Bush, not the "uppity" Barack Obama.

Hendrick Hertzberg in The New Yorker

Below is a letter I sent to The New Yorker, in response to Hertzberg's article in the December 10th issue. "Follow the Leaders".

The premise of Hendrick Hertzberg's article, that the "Bush Administration's Mesopotamian misadventure" brought about "regime change" among our allies as well as in Iraq, is absurd on its face. Over a long enough time period, the leadership of democratic governments does change, for example in France, which Hertzberg conveniently overlooks, where the new president, Sarkozy, is a much stronger ally of Bush (for better or worse) than Chirac ever was. I am anything but a fan of the Bush Administration, but we shouldn't let that affect our ability to reason properly.
(end of letter)

Don't hold your breath waiting for this letter to appear. After sending it, I realized that "absurd on its face" is too"in your face" for The New Yorker, although it would fit in quite nicely on the Wall Street Journal editorial page!

William Kristol, Now a New York Times Columnist

This is a slightly expanded version of an email I sent to Jack Shafer of Slate in response to his column, "Who's Afraid of Bill Kristol?", and his suggestion that his readers send in nominations for a better choice. I also posted it on The Fray

Subject: William Kristol
I dislike him, not because he is a conservative, but because he is a lightweight, with only his name going for him. Why doesn't the Times go for the real deal and hire his daddy, Irving, or Norman Podhoretz? William Safire has a certain elegance and intelligence about him. A certain gravitas, if you will. I don't care much for columnists who are reflexively or predictably this or that. Hendrik Hertzberg or Anthony Lewis, for example. I like columnists who add something. I don't have to agree with them all of the time, or even most of the time.
I would suggest Krauthammer, but he is sometimes devious and plays loose with the truth. George Will is over-rated, mainly by himself. Despite his grandiose style and logic, he is sometimes inconsistent or makes mistakes, without of course realizing it. And then there are all his factoids!

H. L. Mencken was in a class by himself, as was Walter Lippmann.

Maybe the Times should hire me.