Showing posts with label New York Times Paul Krugman and Tom Friedman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York Times Paul Krugman and Tom Friedman. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Gee, Valerie Jarrett Ran the Presidency for Eight Years and the New York Times Said Nothing

Love this snap!

For eight years, President Obama basked in the glow of the artificial light created by his Team of Brand Obama craftsmen and directed the affairs of the nation at the behest of Valerie Jarrett the de facto Chief Executive from January 2009-January 20, 2017.

President Obama parted with high poll numbers, no sense of obligation and a Presidential Library next door to Tiger Woods' Jackson Park Golf Mecca. The New York Times praised the commands of Valerie Jarrett:

WASHINGTON — President Obama was in a bind, and his chief of staff could not figure out how he had ended up there.
Leaders of the Roman Catholic Church were up in arms last fall over a proposal to require employers to provide health insurance that covered birth control. But caving in to the church’s demands for a broad exemption in the name of religious liberty would pit the president against a crucial constituency, women’s groups, who saw the coverage as basic preventive care.
Worried about the political and legal implications, the chief of staff, William M. Daley, reached out to the proposal’s author, Kathleen Sebelius, the health and human services secretary. How, he wondered, had the White House been put in this situation with so little presidential input? “You are way out there on a limb on this,” he recalls telling her.
“It was then made clear to me that, no, there were senior White House officials who had been involved and supported this,” said Mr. Daley, who left his post early this year.
What he did not realize was that while he was trying to put out what he considered a fire, the person fanning the flames was sitting just one flight up from him: Valerie Jarrett, the Obamas’ first friend, the proposal’s chief patron and a tenacious White House operator who would ultimately outmaneuver not only Mr. Daley but also the vice president in her effort to include the broadest possible contraception coverage in the administration’s health care overhaul.
A Chicagoan who helped Mr. Obama navigate his rise through that city’s aggressive politics, Ms. Jarrett came to Washington with no national experience. But her unmatched access to the Obamas has made her a driving force in some of the most significant domestic policy decisions of the president’s first term, her persuasive power only amplified by Mr. Obama’s insular management style.
From the first, her official job has been somewhat vague. But nearly four years on, with Mr. Obama poised to accept his party’s renomination this week, her standing is clear, to her many admirers and detractors alike. “She is the single most influential person in the Obama White House,” said one former senior White House official, who like many would speak candidly only on condition of anonymity.
“She’s there to try to promote what she understands to be what the president wants,” the former aide said. “Ultimately the president makes his own decisions. The question that is hard to get inside of, the black box, is whether she is really influencing him or merely executing decisions he’s made. That’s like asking, ‘Is the light on in the refrigerator when the door is closed?’ ”

Gee, only today the New York Times, beefed about Steve Bannon doing exactl;y what Frau Jarrett had done for eight years of thigh-tingling Obama-licious policy.

 Plenty of presidents have had prominent political advisers, and some of those advisers have been suspected of quietly setting policy behind the scenes (recall Karl Rove or, if your memory stretches back far enough, Dick Morris). But we’ve never witnessed a political aide move as brazenly to consolidate power as Stephen Bannon — nor have we seen one do quite so much damage so quickly to his putative boss’s popular standing or pretenses of competence.
Mr. Bannon supercharged Breitbart News as a platform for inciting the alt-right, did the same with the Trump campaign and is now repeating the act with the Trump White House itself. That was perhaps to be expected, though the speed with which President Trump has moved to alienate Mexicans (by declaring they would pay for a border wall), Jews (by disregarding their unique experience of the Holocaust) and Muslims (the ban) has been impressive. Mr. Trump never showed much inclination to reach beyond the minority base of voters that delivered his Electoral College victory, and Mr. Bannon, whose fingerprints were on each of those initiatives, is helping make sure he doesn’t.
But a new executive order, politicizing the process for national security decisions, suggests Mr. Bannon is positioning himself not merely as a Svengali but as the de facto president.
Yeah, what are you gonna do?

Me?  Steve Bannon is not a slum Lord; nor is he friendly with the mullahs in Tehran.

Not bothered. 

Monday, September 12, 2011

My Heartfelt and Very Warm Response to Prince Turki al-Faisal on Palestinian Statehood, Saudi Arabia, and the U.S.

Sinatra treated dames better than a Saudi.
Gang, meet the Prince; Prince meet the gang! Ain't he just the cat's nuts?

Dear Prince Turki-al Faisal,

I was delighted to read your demand that we, as a nation, must abandon our only ally in the Middle East, Israel, by not doing a veto on the Palastinian Statehood nonsense.

You are a howl, Son!

The New York Times is the only place to have lodged such a comically ludicrous string of words, there, Prince. With writers like Tom Friedman and Paul Krugman the New York Times trumps The Onion.

You opening imperative sentence made me wet my britches, Turki! "The United States must support the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations this month or risk losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world,"

Allah's Underwear, that kills me! ' Or risk losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world' - like the time you and Dad and the Bros of the House of Faisal - The Beverly Hillbillies of the Globe - whined like bitches in 1991 when Saddam crossed into Kuwait?

You had me at the Title -Veto a State, Lose an Ally Neither! There is not now, nor ever was a State of Palestine and you clowns are merely oily extortionists. But, you know that.

Every time I hit the pump at Kean I think of you, your Dad, your Bros and Islamic Fascism - you guys spell it Wahhabism - that you export in order along with petro chemicals to keep your poor from cutting your collective throats. No wonder you Faisal boys are so . . . energetic. They'll get around to it in time, I suppose.

This one was a tasty nugget -

Moreover, Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to cooperate with America in the same way it historically has. With most of the Arab world in upheaval, the “special relationship” between Saudi Arabia and the United States would increasingly be seen as toxic by the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims, who demand justice for the Palestinian people.



What exactly has been the benefit of knowing you clowns, anyway? Since Lawrence of Arabia your family has done less for its people than the Kennedy Clan has done for America, besides scandals and hot-air. Israel is productive, fertile, democratic and welcomes people. Saudi Arabia is a place one 'has to' go to - a desert ruled by dame beating tyrants.

Your conclusion is equal to your opening, Prince -

Although Saudi Arabia is willing and able to chart a new and divergent course if America fails to act justly with regard to Palestine, the Middle East would be far better served by continuing cooperation and good will between these longstanding allies.

American support for Palestinian statehood is therefore crucial, and a veto will have profound negative consequences. In addition to causing substantial damage to American-Saudi relations and provoking uproar among Muslims worldwide, the United States would further undermine its relations with the Muslim world, empower Iran and threaten regional stability. Let us hope that the United States chooses the path of justice and peace.


Nothing says humor than time-honored homage to the drunken, crack-takin' Methhead Mother-in-Law imitation.

Nothing gets an American's heart warmed like a threat from a third-rate punk, either -Get the $%^& outta here, before I gives you a crack.. Funny stuff.

You must have gone to Georgetown. They gave Clinton a sheepskin too.

Anyway Prince, thanks for the giggles. President Obama has Samantha Powers pissing in his ear and you may get your demands. Failure to veto this stupid and hateful crap document at the U.N. would put the final nail in his Administration's coffin.

Hey, have a great Arab Spring!

My Best to Al the Faisals at home or strip clubs here in the States.