Frank Rich: spewing MSM themes and GOP talking points

[Uzybone]

It takes a column like this to remind me of why I agree with the Daily Howler about Rich. He cannot help but spout corporate media memes.

On balance its a very good column that praises Obama, but its peppered with enough GOP talking points to spoil its taste.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/opinion/03rich.html?_r=1


But if those are the obvious hotspots for this presidency, there is also the domestic political culture to worry about. The Republican Party has collapsed, and that is not a good thing for the country or for Obama. We need more than one functioning party, not just to ensure checks and balances and pitch in ideas at a time of crisis, but to temper this president’s sporadic bursts of overconfidence and triumphalist stagecraft. No one is perfect. We must remember that there is also an Obama who gave us “You’re likable enough, Hillary,” a faux presidential seal and a convention speech delivered before what Sarah Palin rightly mocked as “Styrofoam Greek columns” hauled out of a “studio lot.”

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Do You Really Think Rich is Simply Parroting RW Talking Points?

Or do you think he happens to believe these?

[Uzybone]

4. He may actually believe that crap

just like he believed the Love Story lies about Al Gore.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Do You Have A Link On His Believing The "Love Story" Story? n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Actually, Looks Like The "Love Story" Story Is Fundamentally True

"The seeds of Gore's caricature had been planted in 1997 when he, the presumptive candidate for 2000, made a passing comment about Erich Segal's Love Story, over the course of a two-hour interview with Time's Karen Tumulty and The New York Times's Richard Berke, for profiles they were writing. Tumulty recounts today that, while casually reminiscing about his days at Harvard and his roommate, the future actor Tommy Lee Jones, Gore said, It's funny—he and Tipper had been models for the couple in his friend Erich Segal's Love Story, which was Jones's first film. Tumulty followed up, "Love Story was based on you and Tipper?" Gore responded, "Well, that's what Erich Segal told reporters down in Tennessee."

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/10/gore200710?currentPage=2

But Rich might have overstated it.

[dsc]

18. Rich lied through his teeth all the while calling Gore a liar

The fact is every damn thing Gore said in regards to Love Story was the absolute truth. Segal had told the reporter exactly and precisely what Gore said he said. Rich told us stories he liked, which were total lies, and we got Bush.

[MannyGoldstein]

20. Can You Point To One or Two of Those Total Lies?

Thanks.

[dsc]

21. Here

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h052500_1.shtml

[MannyGoldstein]

24. I DOn't See How That Rates "Total Lie"

At worst, it's overreaching. At best, it's human beings playing a game of "telephone".

[dsc]

25. He wrote the columns after, not before, but after

the article came out stating that Gore was telling the truth.

[JamesA1102]

30. No Rich lied, Gore told the truth

Gore merely repeated what was reported in The Tennessean. The problem was that The Tennessean had misquoted Segal. Rich, Dowd $ others knew this yet they still used this to paint Gore as a liar. Tumulty tried to correct the record but Rich wouldn't listen and continued to lie about Gore.

Same was true about Love Canal. In speaking to a group of students Gore refered to Love Canal saying "That was the one that started it all". The New York Times changed what Gore said to "I was the one that started it all" to make it seem that Gore was taking credit for Love Canal. And again Rich lied and used this to call Gore a liar. The students in attendance that day all signed a petition and sent it to the NYT asking that the record be corrected. But that didn't stop Rich from repeating the lie for months to hammer Gore.

[Uzybone]

12. he not only believed it, he was the source of the lie

Many many links here


http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh060706.shtml

[Stephanie]

2. The stage set for the convention speech was ridiculous

I agree with Rich on that

[Bread and Circus]

7. Wierd, because I love that set and everything about that event. It was wonderful..

To each his own.

[Stephanie]

29. Loved the event, hated the set

But it was not anywhere near as bad as George Bush's NYC convention set with the WTC towers all over the stage. That made me sick, and outraged.

[WeDidIt]

23. I thought it was cmpletely appropriate

since it was a recreation of the Illinois State House where the campaign started in February of 2007.

[ProSense]

3. "The Republican Party has collapsed, and that is not a good thing for the country or for Obama."

Boo!

The Party of No deserved to collapse.

[Hekate]

35. We need two parties for balance, but one of them morphed into a fascist caricature of itself...

... and I certainly agree that it deserves it demise.

Hekate

[ErinBerin84]

5. Of course no one is perfect

But I'm not sure why Rich chooses to focus on "gaffes" (as if the convention stage, even if some say that it was a poor choice, reveals some deep character flaw. That buys a little too much into the "arrogant" BS meme) instead of policy differences.

[Uzybone]

9. thats how they build the narrative

bit by bit, with little nuggets like that in otherwise fine op-eds. By 2012 it'll be the arrogant President Obama running for re-election.

[Number23]

8. Man, it must suck. Absolutely SUCK to be an Obama-hater right now

From the article: "81 percent (per Wall Street Journal/NBC) who like the guy.

Nearly two-thirds of the American people (per every poll) {feel} that he has made an impressive start.

All those great report cards! ...A Time pundit sprinkled his evaluations with A-pluses. One of them was for Michelle Obama, whose approval rating is even higher than her husband’s.

What we do know is that his leadership is restoring the country’s faith in itself and the future; the spike in the number of Americans who say we’re on the “right track” is eye-popping."

This much happiness, restored faith and confidence in the new President must be like a knife through the heart of those sworn to dislike him and wail about every decision he makes.

Good. :)

[high density]

11. I fail to see what is wrong with the column

I confess to being among the 81 percent (per Wall Street Journal/NBC) who like the guy. And I share the belief of nearly two-thirds of the American people (per every poll) that he has made an impressive start.

The journalism industry is fighting for its life. Obama is the one reliable product that moves the market for newspapers, magazines and television. No wonder so many special sections, special issues and special cable marathons have alighted on the 100 Days.

The real Obama, unlike his predecessor, is more than strong enough as he is, without the steroids of excessive stage management. It will be incumbent on him now to remain grounded when there is so little opposition, in the political arena or most anyplace else, to challenge his high-flying course.

The overall message that Rich has conveyed is positive and realistic.

[ProSense]

13. Except the line about the Repubs' collapse being bad for everyone.

That's complete BS.

[TankLV]

31. Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely...

be careful what you wish for...

the Dem Party in Hawaii held power since STATEHOOD, with virtually EVERY SINGLE OFFICE HELD BY DEMOCRATS, and by the time it was finally overturned a few years back, it was one of the biggest thorouoghly CORRUPT machines I had ever personally been involved with...you can take that to the bank...

Then, the choice was for the corrupt Dems, or the EVEN WORSE repukes - and eventually, even the Dems voted for the REPUKES...

Democracy needs a vital and vigorous opposition to survive...

We do NOT want to become what the repukes have been for the past 12 years!!!

[Number23]

14. I agree.

This little gem sealed the deal for me:

"As The Economist recently certified, the G.O.P. is now officially in the throes of “Obama Derangement Syndrome.” ...But his critics have locked themselves in the padded cell of an alternative reality. Not long before The Wall Street Journal informed its readers that 81 percent of Americans liked Obama, Karl Rove wrote in its pages that “no president in the past 40 years has done more to polarize America so much, so quickly.”

Sweet. :)

[Captain Hilts]

15. The Daily Howler has links to some dreadful columns about Gore, etc. nt

[Berry Cool]

16. I think this was a pretty balanced column overall.

I don't think Rich meant any evil by what he said. It's true that Obama told Hillary she was "likable enough" and that sat wrong with some people. It's true that his people once created a campaign logo for him that looked a bit much like a presidential seal, and it's true that some people thought the Greek columns were over the top. Not everyone thought these things were so awful, but they didn't sit well with some people, and apparently Rich sees them as "warts" he can mention to make Obama look less than saintly, which is actually a GOOD thing. It's actually counterproductive to paint Obama or any other human being as a flawless saint.

In journalism when you learn to write profiles of people, one of the things you learn is that you'd better have some "warts" in the profile, however small they are, to keep your subject sounding human, or people just won't buy the truth of it. Sounds to me like that's what Rich was doing here: making sure he didn't paint too perfect a picture of Obama, while at the same time pointing out how popular he is. I don't think he was trying to drip-drip-drip in any MSM poison or "GOP talking points" to turn people's hearts for the great day when he starts ragging on Obama. To me, that's just tinfoil nonsense from people who can't stand to see their hero criticized. And I like Obama a lot. I may not agree with Rich about what I like or dislike every time, but I grant him his right to dislike certain things that I find to be no big deal.

And if he thinks the collapse of the Republican Party isn't a good thing for the country or Obama, he's right, to an extent. What he means is that Obama, like anyone else, needs an opposition to push against and someone to be a watchdog on him and keep him honest. All politicians need that. They need someone they can be "different from." Life in general needs variety and diversity. It needs different opinions. True, it's fun to watch Republicans eat their own and for various forms of their evil to wither and die, but it will ultimately weaken the country if the push-pull of political forces and the sound of varying voices dies out altogether. New perspectives and looking at things from varying angles keeps us strong. You might say, we need a "them" in order to help us define "us"--what we stand for and what we don't.

[ProSense]

17. It's clear what he's implying about one-party rule

Regardless, the demise of this Republican Party shouldn't be held up as a bad thing. In fact, it's a tremendously positive thing.

[Old Hank]

19. I think that Rich is preparing to become an Obama hater

Little by little, his columns have become critical of Obama in matters that have little importance to the nation. I don't like what I'm reading from him.

[Beacool]

22. I just read the column.

I think that Rich is just advising Obama not to believe his own hype.

But this is funny only up to a point. It was in 1937 — the year after the Democratic landslide left the Republican national ticket with a total of eight electoral votes — that a hugely empowered F.D.R. made two of the biggest mistakes of his presidency. He tried to pack the Supreme Court with partisan allies and, overconfidently judging the economy recovered, retreated from the New Deal by instituting spending cuts that prompted a fresh economic tailspin.

In the current climate Obama mustn’t drink his own Kool-Aid. As the 100 Days rollout reminded us, he remains a master at promoting and controlling his and his family’s image for maximum effect, down to each picture of Bo. The Obama White House has been more adept and broad-based than any of its predecessors at working the media, whether “Access Hollywood” or ESPN, Leno or YouTube, Us Weekly or what remains of newspapers. As Angela Burt-Murray, the editor of Essence, a magazine aimed at black women, recently told The Los Angeles Times after negotiating access to the Obamas for a photo spread, “There’s definitely a science to the way they’re approaching this.”

But he was also quite complimentary.

Of course the high marks, mine included, are all ludicrously provisional. It’s too early to judge the results of any Obama policy. What we do know is that his leadership is restoring the country’s faith in itself and the future; the spike in the number of Americans who say we’re on the “right track” is eye-popping. And, for all the politicians and pundits who complain that Obama is attempting too much at once, many of us like the breadth of his ambition. Doing too much at the same time, even at the risk of failure, is a core American trait that built the nation. It’s as American as Benjamin Franklin, “Moby-Dick,” the New Deal and a double cheeseburger with all the toppings.

A pretty balanced column IMO.

[ErinBerin84]

26. one thing

that Obama (or one of his advisors? Don't remember) said recently is that it's never as bad as the media is telling you it is, but it's never as good either. I loved that quote from just after the election, where Plouffe said that if Politico or The Page said they were "winning", they took the opposite to be true, heh. Anyway, I think the "it's never as good as they're telling you" thing is pretty sound, hopefully they'll remember their own advice down the line . :)

[Beacool]

27. That's pretty good advice for any politician.

Don't believe your own polls and least of all the media. Their only interest is to sell, they would sell their mother for good ratings.

;)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

28. I read it as Rich's attempt to appear balanced. But I also thought that he may have been facetious.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

32. The NYT gave us Bush first term with their bizarre and derogatory coverage

of Gore, they gave us the Iraq War courtesy of Judith Miller, and they gave us Bush second term by suppressing the wiretap story until after the election.

They are no longer the News of Record as far as I am concerned. I almost just don't care much if anything about the New York Times. I now wonder a lot more about what are they suppressing than what are they reporting.

[cali]

33. no they didn't. the SCOTUS gave us bushco

and the NYT ran many more negative stories about bush than gore- though they did run some nasty ones about gore.

yes, they've had their share of real fuck ups, but they've also ran many vital stories.

We'd be the poorer without the NYT.

[Uncle Joe]

34. Bullshit, they made Gore out to be a habitual liar.

They enabled Bush to power and the SCOTUS would never have come in to play without the corporate media, including the NYTs virtual two year War Against Gore's credibility beginning in March of 99.

For all practical purposes, they gave Bush a free pass to the White House.

The race would never have been close without the continuous corporate media slander and libel against Gore.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

36. What he said. nt