Search Box

Monday, November 22, 2010

Frank Rich


Twice in the past five years, after getting up in the middle of the night to visit the bathroom, I've have fainted. Once I woke up on the bathroom floor, my head a few inches from the base of the toilet. Once I tumbled into the bathtub, my head barely missing the faucet on the way down. This happens because I have low blood pressure, so getting up suddenly from a lying position can result in lightheadedness.

But I have found a cure for my low blood pressure: reading Frank Rich. This has never once failed.

Frank -- you may have saved my life, buddy.

One of more gratifying sights of late is to witness the liberals' absolutely rabid hatred of Sarah Palin. But recent polls have indicated that Palin would do worse against Obama in 2012 than virtually any of the other Republican contenders. So now the Dems want her to get the nomination in the same spirit that Republicans rooted for Nancy Pelosi, with her nine percent approval ratings, to come back as House Minority Leader. Thus, the Dems don't really want to destroy Palin in the meantime.

But....they just can't help themselves. Frank Rich's column yesterday was devoted to Palin. It was the usual bile-filled invective, long on nastiness and short on balance. It was headlined, "Could she reach the top in 2012? You betcha."  By implying that she would secure the nomination as well as making fun of her way of talking, as usual, he managed to combine wishful thinking with bitchiness -- a Rich hallmark. 

The first paragraph read:
“THE perception I had, anyway, was that we were on top of the world,” Sarah Palin said at the climax of last Sunday's premiere of her new television series, “Sarah Palin’s Alaska.” At that point our fearless heroine had just completed a perilous rock climb, and if she looked as if she’d just stepped out of a spa instead, don’t expect her fans to question the reality. For them, Palin’s perception is the only reality that counts.

I have yet to see a columnist describe Obama as "our fearless hero." Then again, I can't think of a conservative as snide as Rich.

Rich goes on to criticize Bristol Palin's dancing (now there's a substantive swipe at the Tea Party), and says that Sarah Palin endorsed "a 'Star Wars' bar gaggle of anomalous and wacky losers," among whom Rich includes "raging nativist" Tom Tancredo. If Tancredo is a raging nativist, so is the vast majority of the American public, which wants illegal immigration stopped, and now. (Describing politicians who hold positions in line with the majority as extremist is an old liberal tactic.)

The really telling thing about the criticism of Palin is that so much of it could be leveled at Barack Obama. Rich refers to Palin's "slender resume," a "lack of intellectual curiosity," and a "lazy inclination to favor from-the-gut improvisation over cracking the briefing books." Sound like someone else we know who never reads the legislation he backs?

Then Rich says, "To serve as Andrew Jackson or perhaps George Wallace for the 21st century, the last thing she [Palin] wants or needs is gravitas." George Wallace was most famous for his "segregation now, segregation forever" stance. Palin has never suggested, or even remotely implied, that she favors segregation. And she never met Wallace. But this doesn't stop Rich from trying to imply guilt by association.

Maybe we should just be grateful he didn't invoke Hitler.

Contrast that to the way liberals said it was unfair to tie Obama to his former preacher, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Obama attended Wright's church for seventeen years, was married by him, had his children baptized by him, and donated over fifty thousand dollars to him. Liberals felt that to even mention this was highly unfair. But, of course, drawing parallels between Sarah Palin and George Wallace is not.

I never read Rich's theater reviews, but do remember that during his long reign of terror as a drama critic he was often called "the most hated man on Broadway."

Not hard to believe.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

According to wiki

"[The term "bully pulpit"] was coined by President Theodore Roosevelt, who referred to the White House as a "bully pulpit," by which he meant a terrific platform from which to advocate an agenda. Roosevelt famously used the word bully as an adjective meaning "superb" or "wonderful" (a more common expression in his time than it is today).

I think the term applies perfectly to many of NYT op ed writers, but with the more familiar meaning of the term "bully".

Also according to wiki
"Bullying is a form of abuse. It involves repeated acts over time attempting to create or enforce one person's (or group's) power over another person (or group) , thus an "imbalance of power".[2] The "imbalance of power" may be social power and/or physical power. The victim of bullying is sometimes referred to as a target. Bullying types of behavior are often rooted in a would-be bully's inability to empathize with those whom he or she would target."

This last definition resonates all too well for anyone following the liberal agenda of the last two years!

G

John Craig said...

Thank you Guy. The ironic thing is that the liberals, who are nominally for free speech, want to shut down opposing voices. I hate Frank Rich but would never suggest that he not be allowed to write for the NY Times. Just recently Senator Jay Rockefeller suggested that Fox News have its license revoked by the FCC. Liberals would love to see talk radio shut down, and have made preliminary moves to do so under the guise of the "Fairness Doctrine" (the idea of which is that radio stations should allow equal air time for both liberal and conservative viewpoints). Strangely, I've never heard liberals agitate for the same at TV stations (like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC) or at newspapers (like the Times, or the Washington Post, or the LA Times, or the Boston Globe). I'm sure the major newspapers would love that: alongside Frank Rich's column the Times would be forced to print a column by George Will, or Thomas Sowell.