+0
Hi teachers,

I'm sorry this text is a little long, because I don't know how to seperate this text into several threads.

Excerpts:

The Obama White House is careful not to provoke the wrath of Krugman any more than neccessary. Treasury officials go out of their way to praise him by name (while also decrying the bank-rescue prescriptions of him and his ilk as deeply 'impractical'). But the administration does not seek to cultivate him. Obama aides have invited commentators of all persuasions to the White House for some off-the-record stroking ; in February, after Krugman's fellow Times op-ed columnist David Brooks wrote a critical column accusing Obama of overreaching, Brooks, a moderate Republican, was cajoled by three different aides and by the president himself, who just happened to drop by. But, says Krugman, "the White House has done very little by way of serious outreach. I've never met Obama. He pronounced my name wrong"- when, at a press conference, the president, with a slight note of irritation in his voice, invited Krugman to offer a better plan for fixing the banking system.

1. Does it mean that "the administration in any circumstances would not provoke Krugman's wrath, unless there was a need to"?

2. What's "by name" here means?

3. Does "to cultivate him" mean 'the administration never tries to court him on advice in this text"? Could it also mean "making friends with him" in this text?

4. What's 'stroking'?

5. Does 'overreaching' mean 'deceiving' or 'lost touch with reality' in this text?

6. Was it because Brooks' statement so he was made fun of by the aids and the president? Was it a humorous and light side of conversation or a sacrastic laced conversation?

7. What is "But" here? I can't understand.

8. Does 'outreach' in here mean 'the adminstration never really reach out for Krugman" or 'the president and his economic team are out of touch with reality'?

Thank you so much.

Tinanam
+0
1. Does it mean that "the administration in any circumstances would not provoke Krugman's wrath, unless there was a need to"?-- Not so extreme as that, but they try not provoke it.

2. What's "by name" here means?-- Mentioning his name; naming him

3. Does "to cultivate him" mean 'the administration never tries to court him on advice in this text"? Could it also mean "making friends with him" in this text?-- It could mean either, but probably the latter.

4. What's 'stroking'?-- Coddling, befriending

5. Does 'overreaching' mean 'deceiving' or 'lost touch with reality' in this text?-- No, not at all. It means trying to do too much; trying to do more than he should or is permitted to do.

6. Was it because Brooks' statement so he was made fun of by the aids and the president? Was it a humorous and light side of conversation or a sacrastic laced conversation?-- There is no text here to explain why Brooks was cajoled.

7. What is "But" here? I can't understand.-- It just means 'however'. It is not included in the quotation marks because Krugman did not actually say the word.

8. Does 'outreach' in here mean 'the adminstration never really reach out for Krugman" or 'the president and his economic team are out of touch with reality'?-- It means the former; they did not try to relate to, listen to, offer an interest in Klugman or his opinions.
Comments  
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Hi Mister Micawber,

Thank you for your help. In the text it says:

;in February, after Krugman's fellow Times op-ed columnist David Brooks wrote a critical column accusing Obama of overreaching, Brooks, a moderate Republican, was cajoled by three different aides and by the president himself, who just happened to drop by.

Here says Brooks wrote a critical column. Was the reason he was cajoled?

Thank you.

Tinanam
That seems to be the case, yes.
Hi Mister Micawber,

Thank you for your help.

Tinanam
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?