January 2, 2017--24 Hours At the New York Times

It took David Sanger, chief Washington correspondent for the New York Times, all of 24 hours to switch the story line.

On Friday his front page article was about how Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin, without overly joining forces, had "boxed in" Donald Trump by Obama's expelling 35 Russian diplomats, otherwise known as spies, and how it was expected that tempestuous Putin, as during the Cold War, would "retaliate" by doing much the same thing to American spies stationed in Russia.

Slipping into Soviet-era rhetoric, the Times party line proclaimed the boxing-in to be extra clever on Obama's part since what was Trump going to do--on his first day in office say to the Russians, who he appears eager to make a "deal" with, "Never mind. Your spies are welcome to return. I don't want this to inhibit my budding bromance with Putin."

If that came to pass we'd all be relieved to know that John McCain doesn't have his hands on the nuclear codes.

This first political reaction by the Times to the Obama moves, was that it effectively exposed Trump's naivety when it comes to Russia in the person of Putin, and would trigger an immediate retaliatory response by the hotblooded Russian president that would so sour any possibility for a real resetting of our relationship with Russia that Trump's efforts to cozy up to Putin would fail even before he was inaugurated and that would expose that Trump is as inept in dealing with the Russians as have been Obama and his succession of diplomats and secretaries of state.

Trump and the Republicans might manage to repeal Obamacare, chipping away at Obama's legacy, but this stealthy move by Obama would guarantee that Trump's presidency would start off with a whopper of a foreign policy failure. Not quite of Bay of Pigs or 9/11 or Syria magnitude, but still a big and embarrassing blunder.

Then a funny thing happened on the way to the boxing-in.

Putin did not retaliate. No U.S. spies were to be expelled. He said that wasn't a good or necessary idea because he didn't want to"create problems for American diplomats." The U.S. went low and he went high.

And then, undoubtedly not able to stifle a chuckle, added, "Furthermore, I invite all children of US diplomats accredited to Russia to the Christmas and New Year tree in the Kremlin." And then he signed the press release, in English, "Vladimir Putin."

Seizing the same moment, Trump tweeted--

Great move on the delay (by V. Putin). I always knew he was very smart.

Within minutes the Russian Embassy in Washington retweeted it.

And then within moments after that David Sanger and the New York Times had a different front page story--this time headlined: "From Russia, an Opening." "Risky," they warned, but an opening nonetheless. No longer so much a boxing-in.

Is it any wonder that a disproportionate number of chess grand masters are Russian?

                                

November 11, 2016--Trump's Line In the Sand

Sunday's presidential debate hit an all-time political low. It was as if we were watching an episode of the Jerry Springer Show. How appropriate was that considering what spawned Donald Trump.

At one point I said to Rona that I hope they had security guards nearby because I think Trump and Clinton were about to attack each other. Physically. Forget refusing to shake hands. I was thinking mud wrestling and biting in the neck.

There was a sense of menace with bulky Trump towering over Hillary, looking as if he was stalking her and about to pounce.

But in truth it looked like that largely because of the camera angles and the choice of perspectives and images the director selected to put on the air. There were the foreshortened shots that made it appear that Donald was right on top of her whereas those shots from the side revealed that less menacingly he was a more benign six feet away.

Talk about pictures being worth more than a thousand words and how there are in these choices political consequences that derive from camera angles and control room decisions.

Then post debate on line and in print there was the flood of fact-check results.

Since among other things I try to keep an eye on reporting by the New York Times, here is a little fact-checking of the fact-checking.

Priding itself as the "paper of record," one would think that the Times in the spirit of journalistic integrity--especially when it comes to something objective such as fact-checking--would scrutinize about the same number of facts alleged by each candidate since both did quite a bit of, how shall I put this, fibbing, OK, lying, to use a word they both were comfortable hurling, would check about the same number of facts. Say ten for Trump and eight for Clinton. This would give the appearance of being fair and balanced though with a wink indicating that Donald told more whoppers than Hillary.

It might surprise you then--though not necessarily--that the non-partisan Times fact-checked 22 of Trump's assertions and only five of Hillary's.

To offer a flavor of the accuracy, let's take a look at Trump's charge that Hillary Clinton was still serving as secretary of state when President Obama drew his famous "line in the sand" when it appeared that Bashar al-Assad was about to use chemical weapons against the Syrian rebels.

Here cut-and-pasted from the Times' is their fact-checking--

Mr. Trump accused Mrs. Clinton of being there for President Obama’s “line in the sand” in Syria. She said she wasn’t.

Trump is wrong.

Donald J. Trump appears to be referring to the “red line” (not “line in the sand”) episode in Syria. At a news conference in August 2012, President Obama said if President Bashar al-Assad of Syria moved or used “a whole bunch of chemical weapons,” it would be “a red line” that would change his calculations about not intervening in Syria with armed force. 

A year later — after Hillary Clinton was no longer in government — there was a chemical weapons attack in a rebel-contested suburb of Damascus, killing as many as 1,500 people. The United States government issued a report saying “streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence” as proving that Syrian government forces were behind the attack, meaning Mr. Obama’s red line had been crossed.

So Trump gets a pants-on-fire for mixing up "line in the sand" and "red line." Fair enough--but he got the essential truth right--Clinton was still in office when Obama issued his feckless threat. Presumably, with Clinton's endorsement.

From the Pulitzer-Prize winning website, POLITIFACT, here is what they have to say about the same fact--

Basically, Obama drew the chemical weapons "red line" in August 2012 when Clinton was secretary of state [my italics]. But by the time the White House confirmed that Assad crossed it about a year later, she had been replaced by John Kerry.

The Washington Post came to a similar conclusion.

This is not just academic nitpicking but goes to the heart of any analysis of Hillary Clinton's experience and accomplishments as secretary of state.

Forget Trump--he's on his way next month to a well deserved thrashing. But the fact that Clinton frequently misrepresents her record should be of concern. Especially to those of us who support her. I

And, yes, the New York Times also needs to take a close and honest look at itself. We need it to be at its journalistic best and Hillary Clinton, out next president, needs to be forceful, visionary, and honest.

January 15, 2016--TRUMP's "New York Values"

Ted Cruz doesn't handle criticism very well.

Donald TRUMP's public ruminating about Cruz's eligibility for the presidency--he was born in Canada to an American mother and held joint citizenship until a few months ago--is clearly getting under the very junior senator's skin.

Interviewed the other day on the Howie Carr Radio Show, he snapped that TRUMP should stop playing "Born in the USA" at his rallies, a clear swipe at Cruz, and suggested he should "shift in his new rallies to playing 'New York, New York' because Donald comes from New York and he embodies New York values."

TRUMP responded immediately, counter-intuitively embracing rather than denying those values. When has it ever been good for a Republican to say anything good about the Big Satan, a favorite conservative slur about the Big Apple?

Passionately, with his New York accent dialed up, TRUMP said that he does in fact embrace those values and feels proud to do so. Also to Carr, in his words, he said--

One thing it means is energy. You know, when the World Trade Center got hit, we rebuilt that World Trade Center and we got through and very few places in this world could have gotten through what we went through. I mean, I was so proud of New York, the World Trade Center, these two massive, 110 story buildings came down. Thousands of people killed. I've never seen anything like it in my life.

He added--"Anyone who attacks New York City will have to go through me."

If TRUMP and others, including some constitutional scholars such as Lawrence Tribe, are discombobulating Cruz by questioning if he is a "natural born citizen," how will he explain away yesterday's reports in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal that he failed to report more than a million dollars in very-low-interest loans to his 2012 senatorial campaign, loans from Citibank and Goldman Sachs where his wife, Heidi, at the latter is a managing director after serving on the National Security Council under Condi Rice?

Failure to report loans of this kind, not incidentally, are not just careless mistakes, as Cruz claims, but violate federal law.

And it will not be so easy for the Princeton and Harvard-educated Supreme Court clerk Ted Cruz to point fingers at the establishment of which he and his wife have been such comfortable members.

It will also not be easy to counter his former Harvard Law School professor, Laurence Tribe, who in an op ed piece in The Boston Globe, "Under Ted Cruz's Own Logic, He's Ineligible for the White House," wrote that maybe, in spite of Cruz's assertion that his eligibility is "settled law," that it may not be after all.

Nor will it be easy for Cruz to explain why he jettisoned his Latino name, Raphael, for the more waspy Ted.

Above all, will it be hypocrisy for Cruz to continue to slip into New York City as frequently as in the past unless he learns the words to "New York, New York"?