Frank Rich is determined to join the ranks of the clueless editorial hacks

[ProSense]

Rich

Meanwhile, we’re hearing of behind-the-scenes Congressional softening of perhaps the most promising component of the White House’s modest financial regulatory package, a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Real-estate brokerages are being exempted from its purview, and banks will not be required to offer “plain vanilla” mortgages. As in health care, the question of what the White House will really fight for in financial reform remains open. While the ostentatious daily predators’ ball at Ristorante Tosca is a bad omen, we don’t know yet whether that omen is for the lobbyists, or the Obama administration, or both.

This is history that the president still has the power to write. It will be written in the bills he will or won’t sign into law. We can only hope that he learned an important lesson from his stunning failure to secure Olympic gold for his political home of Chicago last week. If the Olympic committee has the audacity to stand up to a lobbyist as powerful as the president of the United States, then surely the president of the United States can stand up to the powerful interests angling to defeat his promise of reform.

link

Will or will not? That's definitive. Maybe Rich can stop the distortion long enough to realize that this is still on track:

Obama unveils biggest regulatory overhaul since 1930s

As for Rich's idiotic comment about "stunning failure," here's a message:

Outdumbing the stupid

by Jed Lewison

So let's just submit that President Obama's trip to Denmark to boost Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics wasn't exactly the best moment of his presidency. At best, it was a bitter disappointment. At worst, it was a complete waste of time.

Against this backdrop, you'd think conservatives would sit back and shut up, satisfied to to let the plain facts of the matter speak for themselves. Rather, you'd think they would do that if they were smart.

But they aren't smart. And if President Obama's trip was a little bit stupid, the conservative response has been even dumber. Instead of biting their tongue, they decided to get out in front of the story, whooping with glee and using this setback as an opportunity to celebrate what they see as Obama's defeat.

As Rachel Maddow points out though in her must-see recap of the right-wing's reaction, this wasn't a defeat for President Obama. Chicago lost. America lost. And conservatives are celebrating this bad news for America as great news for themselves.

<Video>

[Cha]

1. And, here's the email contact for Frank Rich

which I just posted on another thread.

http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html

And, Rachel Maddow's take on the Olympic Fail Pushers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x382814

[Joe Bacon]

65. Screw Frank Rich

Go to Bob Someby's Daily Howler and look at Bob's archives on Frank Rich. See how Frank Rich lied any lie about Al Gore in 2000. See how Frank Rich never apologized to Al Gore or the American people. FUCK YOU FRANK RICH!

http://www.dailyhowler.com

[KittyWampus]

2. Frank Rich's schtick is weavin current events and popular culture into his take on political issues

Sometimes it works really well.

Sometimes he is trying to be just a bit too clever.

I wrote off this editorial as his trying too hard to be "current".

[Cha]

28. This is not the only time ..Frank Rich has tried to be "current"..

<snip>>

"Over the weekend, Frank Rich, the Resident GeniusTM on the New York Times Op-Ed Page (I don't mean to offend the nearly equally BrilliantTM Maureen Dowd) published one of his trademark columns (I'm not including a link to the column - you can find it pretty easily). The most effective way to understand the GeniusTM of Frank Rich is to showcase how he covered former Vice President Al Gore. You will continue to see the exact same shades in his coverage of Hillary Clinton: deep-seated and irrational hatred for Clinton (/Gore) packaged in a combustible mix of half-facts, fabrications, distortions and lies. Let's trudge through just a few snippets of history here, thanks to The Daily Howler, so you can appreciate the real Frank Rich."

<more>
http://theleftcoaster.com/archives/011940.php

<snip>>

BurtWorm (1000+ posts) Sun May-28-06 07:54 PM
Original message
Frank Rich seriously doesn't get Al Gore

In today's column, he displays a mind stuck in a 2000 lock box.

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/opinion/28rich.htm...

"If this were the whole picture, Mr. Gore would seem the perfect antidote to the Democrats' ills. But it's not. The less flattering aspect of Mr. Gore has not gone away: the cautious and contrived presidential candidate who, like Mrs. Clinton now, was so in thrall to consultants that he ran away from his own administration's record and muted his views, even about pet subjects like science. (He waffled on the teaching of creationism in August 1999, after the Kansas Board of Education struck down the teaching of evolution.) That Gore is actually accentuated, not obscured, by "An Inconvenient Truth." The more hard-hitting his onscreen slide show about global warming, the more he reminds you of how much less he focused on the issue in 2000. Gore the uninhibited private citizen is not the same as Gore the timid candidate.

Though many of the rave reviews don't mention it, there are also considerable chunks of "An Inconvenient Truth" that are more about hawking Mr. Gore's image than his cause. They also bring back unflattering memories of him as a politician. The movie contains no other voices that might upstage him, not even those of scientists supporting his argument. It is instead larded with sycophantic audiences, as meticulously multicultural as any Benetton ad, who dote on every word and laugh at every joke, like the studio audience at "Live With Regis and Kelly."

<more>>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1304606


<snip>>

"This Sunday, as you may have heard, Frank Rich put his imprimatur, (a somewhat muddy paw print as it turns out), on the possibility of a 2008 Gore run for President.

A more insulting endorsement would be hard to imagine.

I know that Frank Rich has become something of a hero to many of us who populate the left-of-center blogisphere, but let me be clear; the hero referenced in the tag "Heroes and Heroines" is Al Gore, not Frank Rich.

If you think that Frank Rich is on the side of any configuration of political beliefs that could be called liberal or progressive, if you think that Frank Rich is one wit different from any of the dim bulbs who make up the firmament of American punditry, you just haven't been paying attention."

<snip>

And Rich avers that there is "a certain logic to all this," since Hillary as Senator hasn't shown herself to be a leader on the issues near and dear to the hearts of liberal Democrats. To be sure, Rich makes sure to make fun of all those crazed right-wingers who can't wait to trash Hillary all over again, but between them and those dopey Democrats, Rich finds little to choose.


Since no crowd-pleasing Democratic challenger has emerged at this early date to disrupt Mrs. Clinton's presumed coronation, the newly crowned movie star who won the popular vote in 2000 is the quick fix. Better the defeated devil the Democrats know than the losers they don't.

Do you see what is so remarkable about Rich's entire approach to Al Gore's reemergence on the political stage? It's entirely based on Rich's total ignorance, or his decision to ignore, that there is nothing sudden, desperate, or ill-considered about the place that Al Gore has won in the hearts of grassroots liberal Democrats, nor are there any lack of potential candidates besides Hillary. In fact, since his public reemergence in October of 2002, Al Gore has proved himself to be a far more incisive, passionate, committed, and influencial critic of the Bush regime than Frank Rich could even dream of being."

<more>
http://www.correntewire.com/so_like_frank_rich_is_down_with_al_gore_yeah_now_he_is

[MannyGoldstein]

3. The Financial Reforms Are On Track To Be As Bold And Sweeping As Health Care Reform

It's practically in the bag.

[ProSense]

5. Why

yes, they are.

[Cha]

This thread makes too much sense so

it's been unrec'd by the Fail Pushers.

Creepy little things..all over this board.

[Enrique]

14. there are no fail pushers

people here have varying opinions of Obama and what he's doing, but we're all in one category here.

[Cha]

35. You've already proven yourself to be not

very observant.

[saracat]

4. The Olympic story is stupid all around but its reference in the Rich OpEd

hardly qualifies him as a clueless editorial hack. One may disagree with someone without using a broad brushed attack on the whole of either his OpEd or his career. Frank Rich is no "hack" and he is a really honest guy. I remember being offended by some of the reviews he wrote about some friends, but he always could justify it and he always had a fact based reason for his opinion which is more than can be said of many who post on discussion boards.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. +1

[Cha]

16. No, Frank Rich is not a "really honest guy"..

<snip>>

"Over the weekend, Frank Rich, the Resident GeniusTM on the New York Times Op-Ed Page (I don't mean to offend the nearly equally BrilliantTM Maureen Dowd) published one of his trademark columns (I'm not including a link to the column - you can find it pretty easily). The most effective way to understand the GeniusTM of Frank Rich is to showcase how he covered former Vice President Al Gore. You will continue to see the exact same shades in his coverage of Hillary Clinton: deep-seated and irrational hatred for Clinton (/Gore) packaged in a combustible mix of half-facts, fabrications, distortions and lies. Let's trudge through just a few snippets of history here, thanks to The Daily Howler, so you can appreciate the real Frank Rich."

<more>
http://theleftcoaster.com/archives/011940.php

<snip>>

BurtWorm (1000+ posts) Sun May-28-06 07:54 PM
Original message
Frank Rich seriously doesn't get Al Gore

In today's column, he displays a mind stuck in a 2000 lock box.

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/opinion/28rich.htm...

"If this were the whole picture, Mr. Gore would seem the perfect antidote to the Democrats' ills. But it's not. The less flattering aspect of Mr. Gore has not gone away: the cautious and contrived presidential candidate who, like Mrs. Clinton now, was so in thrall to consultants that he ran away from his own administration's record and muted his views, even about pet subjects like science. (He waffled on the teaching of creationism in August 1999, after the Kansas Board of Education struck down the teaching of evolution.) That Gore is actually accentuated, not obscured, by "An Inconvenient Truth." The more hard-hitting his onscreen slide show about global warming, the more he reminds you of how much less he focused on the issue in 2000. Gore the uninhibited private citizen is not the same as Gore the timid candidate.

Though many of the rave reviews don't mention it, there are also considerable chunks of "An Inconvenient Truth" that are more about hawking Mr. Gore's image than his cause. They also bring back unflattering memories of him as a politician. The movie contains no other voices that might upstage him, not even those of scientists supporting his argument. It is instead larded with sycophantic audiences, as meticulously multicultural as any Benetton ad, who dote on every word and laugh at every joke, like the studio audience at "Live With Regis and Kelly."

<more>>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1304606


<snip>>

"This Sunday, as you may have heard, Frank Rich put his imprimatur, (a somewhat muddy paw print as it turns out), on the possibility of a 2008 Gore run for President.

A more insulting endorsement would be hard to imagine.

I know that Frank Rich has become something of a hero to many of us who populate the left-of-center blogisphere, but let me be clear; the hero referenced in the tag "Heroes and Heroines" is Al Gore, not Frank Rich.

If you think that Frank Rich is on the side of any configuration of political beliefs that could be called liberal or progressive, if you think that Frank Rich is one wit different from any of the dim bulbs who make up the firmament of American punditry, you just haven't been paying attention."

<snip>

And Rich avers that there is "a certain logic to all this," since Hillary as Senator hasn't shown herself to be a leader on the issues near and dear to the hearts of liberal Democrats. To be sure, Rich makes sure to make fun of all those crazed right-wingers who can't wait to trash Hillary all over again, but between them and those dopey Democrats, Rich finds little to choose.


Since no crowd-pleasing Democratic challenger has emerged at this early date to disrupt Mrs. Clinton's presumed coronation, the newly crowned movie star who won the popular vote in 2000 is the quick fix. Better the defeated devil the Democrats know than the losers they don't.

Do you see what is so remarkable about Rich's entire approach to Al Gore's reemergence on the political stage? It's entirely based on Rich's total ignorance, or his decision to ignore, that there is nothing sudden, desperate, or ill-considered about the place that Al Gore has won in the hearts of grassroots liberal Democrats, nor are there any lack of potential candidates besides Hillary. In fact, since his public reemergence in October of 2002, Al Gore has proved himself to be a far more incisive, passionate, committed, and influencial critic of the Bush regime than Frank Rich could even dream of being."

<more>
http://www.correntewire.com/so_like_frank_rich_is_down_with_al_gore_yeah_now_he_is

I think Frank Rich has a problem, really.

[saracat]

24. This proves he isn't honest? Those are his opinions. We aren't required to agree with him

That was my point and he always has a decent argument. but I forget. There is always only one way of looking at things.We should all have exactly the same viewpoint or be banished! Sheesh

[Cha]

30. No, his argruments aren't decent and if you get that from

reading all his shyte on Gore and Hillary then you need to take off the blinders.

[BeyondGeography]

38. He's a calculating little shit

Long on snark, short on soul.

[Cha]

43. Thank you! Somebody out there who

isn't sticking up for the "souless snark" of Frank Rich.

[saracat]

44. If so, "takes one to know one".Remind me why it is you don't have a job

writing well regarded OP-ED's about anything?

[Enrique]

6. your posts are very strongly worded

you must be very confident in your opinions.

[ProSense]

7. Yes, I strongly believe

that Frank Rich is determined to join the ranks of the clueless editorial hacks.

You're observant.

[Enrique]

8. not just Frank Rich

you seem equally certain in your positive opinion of Obama to use very strong language against many other (maybe all other) people who criticize Obama. Equally certain that those critics are clueless and their criticisms are worth absolutely nothing.

[saracat]

11. Indeed.

[Cha]

20. And, those who trash Obama are really "strong worded" too.

Do you go around questioning them?

[saracat]

26. Actually I question everything.Unlike some who dare not question anything.

[Enrique]

27. absolutely

people aren't yet using abusive language routinely against Obama, the way which has been common towards people like Nancy Pelosi, for example. The only ones who do that against Obama here are trolls, and I've called out my share of Obama hating trolls.

[Cha]

34. Yes, they are using abusive language against Obama..

there have been several who have been banned bc of it.

[Enrique]

39. People called Pelosi a "stupid bitch" and didn't get banned

no one even noticed, in fact. I found this in about ten seconds.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3148062&mesg_id=3148789


Do people call Obama ANY names? Any names at all? What's the worst name that Obama has been called?

[Cha]

49. I'm not getting into this juvenile game with you.

I already stated that people have been banned because of dissing Obama way beyond the rules ..if you don't believe then tough shit.

[saracat]

51. Great argument. Love the facts!

[saracat]

10. The Op believe that anyone who does not 100% agree is a "hack"

Frank Rich is anything but a hack and neither is Helen Thomas. The fact that theuy may not agree with the OP doesn't qualify them as hacks no matter how "strong" the OP feel they are.

[ProSense]

13. No, anyone characterizing Obama's efforts to secure the Olympics as "stunning failure"

is a fucking moron.

[saracat]

18. I don't think it is a stunning failure but I don't think it was a success either

I don't think it is important either way.But Rich isn't a moron for thinking what he does.This reminds me of all those folks who decide Krugman is stupid when he dares to disagree with Obama. Same hypocrisy.

[Enrique]

19. I thought his Olympics reference was lame

but it was only a passing reference.

[Cha]

It wasn't a "passing reference".."stunning failure" is

not a passing reference.:think:

[Enrique]

32. ok, you win

Rich's Olympics reference was not a passing reference in that column. It was an important part of the column. Happy now?

[saracat]

36. Nah. they won't be happy until Rich and Thomas both apologize or are fired.

I have met Frank Rich and believe me we didn't often agree about theatre but he is a sincere guy. I think actors and politicians are much more used to "critics" than some folks on this board.

[Cha]

41. "Apologize or fired"? Fuck that. Maybe

I'd be happy if they got a clue, though.

Frank Rich can be a very sloppy critic.

[saracat]

50. I commend your creative and inovative style of language.

Perhaps there is a pulitzer or a literary award in yor future! :sarcasm: :rofl:

[Cha]

53. Frank Rich is a sloppy critic.

[saracat]

59. Maybe so. That is a matter of opinion.And everyone has one.

[Cha]

37. I'm stating facts and you're spewing bullshit..

Fuck no I'm not happy.

[saracat]

40. Classy, aren't ya? What a wonderful argument.You must be so proud of yourself!

:sarcasm:

[Cha]

46. Yes, it's classy enough to point out the facts when

somebody is spewing bullshit.

[paulk]

75. actually, you're not "stating facts"

you're stating opinions, just like Frank Rich is.

[paulk]

42. he's the first US President to make an in person appeal

to the IOC...

How would you characterize his failure, especially considering Chicago was eliminated in the first round?

A waste of political capital? An ill-guided failure? A little egg on the face, perhaps? A bump in the road?

What about "stunning" makes Frank Rich a "fucking moron"?

[saracat]

45. Thye OP thinks their opinion is sufficient.

[ProSense]

48. It's idiotic. What difference does it make that it was Obama?

Did you think that just because he went, it was a automatic win?

Ludicrous. Rich is an idiot.

[ShortnFiery]

55. "Rich is an idiot."

We all RESPECT President Obama here but part of his good character is that he KNOWS that he can make mistakes.

Going to Copenhagen was "a mistake."

I admire him more than words can say but because he's way up in the big leagues, we have to HELP keep him humble.

Because I believe Frank Rich is not a partisan, he speaks more freely when evaluating politicians.

Whatever Frank Rich IS, he is NOT *an idiot.* :shrug:

[BeyondGeography]

54. Try not to be an American fool

The President of Spain and the Prime Minister of Japan was there, too. Stunning failures for them as well? Whoop-de-dam-do if it was the first time an American President went to such lengths. The whole world was playing it this way this time around.

[ShortnFiery]

58. 1st time an USA President has gone. It was a mistake. eom

[paulk]

66. the leaders of Spain and Japan don't exactly have the cachet

of the President of the USA.

---------------

I hope the "fool" you are referring to was Rich and not me...

[CTLawGuy]

70. +1

the Olympics have never been held in South America. I think that was a big factor in their favor.

[Cha]

25. When the so called journalists are wrong ..we can point it out

just like you all point it out when you think Obama is wrong. YOu can dish it out but you cannot take it.

[saracat]

33. Yes you can but you can't charecterize a persons whole career as a "hack" because you disagree

I have not said Obama's entire presidecy is a failure. I haven't called him a "hack".I have praised him when warrented as for the Ledbetter Act.
People ridiculing and stalking reporters for disagreeing is just like the GOP.First you ridicule an icon like Helen Thomas and now mock Rich for "disageeing". It isn't as though he is Glenn
Beck. Disagreemnt is all it is about.Writers and reporters shouldn't be allowed, in the opinion of some, to disagree.

[BeyondGeography]

12. That's been happening for a few weeks now

And anyone who calls the IOC's decision on 2016 a "stunning failure" for Obama is seriously out of his depth as a political analyst. Rich's rise to prominence at the Times was as theater critic, not political editorializer. It was only after he got bored with Broadway that he pushed for his present gig. He's more qualified to dissect the movie version of Fame than anything Obama is doing.

And don't give me the whole, "you loved him when he was killing Bush," line. A monkey could have done that.

[saracat]

15. really? Hypocrisy runs rampant here.Reminds me of roses for Helen and snark

when she "dares" to question the admin. I thought hypocrisy was aGOP trait. I guess I was mistaken.

[BeyondGeography]

17. Oh, look, I'm being called a hypocrite by the "Obama, who I never liked, threw women under the bus

because he didn't include paying for abortions in his HCR speech" person.

Ain't that grand?

[ShortnFiery]

22. Sadly it's not. The scouring that Sibel Edmunds has received extends their fury to any

slight against the coveted gentrified democratic representative. :eyes:

It seems like the blinders are firmly attached. Instead of throwing these people out, why don't we DEMAND that they do their jobs and serve the people before the corporations?

[CakeGrrl]

71. So it's "criticism" when you do it, and when you don't like it, it's "snark"?

I've seen the Helen Thomas threads. She's as capable as making a mistake as anyone. She's not above criticism for her approach or rationale for the line of questioning she uses.

She's allowed to be criticized as much as you believe the President can be. She's not a perfect, untouchable being.

[Thrill]

21. Its okay to criticize on Financial Reform or even Health Care Reform the problem here is with

the bullshit about "stunning failure to secure Olympic gold"

That solidifies him as nothing more than a look at me media hack.

[Vattel]

23. Frank Rich was already clueless in 2000

when he joined in on the slanders of Gore that gave us Bush.

[ShortnFiery]

29. No, I honestly believe that President Obama has been kept in such a bubble that he

and his people truly thought that him going there would make it "automatic."

What they forget is that you can't erase 8 years of Bush. Especially when, foreign policy wise, you're continuing his policies.

The rest of the world, those whom we don't prop up, is not too fond of the USA ... albeit we all are proud to have an intelligent and articulate President.

President Obama needs to get out of his bubble and MIX with the common folk more. :shrug:

I agree with Frank Rich although I don't find any "glee" with it ... it was A Stunning Failure. :(

[Tansy_Gold]

47. A Stunning Failure indeed.

Obama's presence in Copenhagen was an emergency afterthought. Oh, maybe he better go just in case, even though he hadn't really given it a whole lot of thought until the last minute. After all, Michelle was there and Oprah. They should be sufficient, non?

But they weren't, and neither was he, and maybe it's not just about Obama or even the legacy of the booooosh administration. Maybe it's not even about the continuing U.S. "involvement" in Afghanistan -- remember, we boycotted the Moscow Olympics when the USSR invaded that same country -- though I suspect that plays into it.

Maybe it's because someone else wants a turn, and another someone else decided they deserve it.

Maybe it's not about Chicago "losing" or Obama "losing" but rather it's about Rio winning.

Remember too that other cities "lost," and their citizens aren't engaging in mass suicide at the ignominy of the loss. It's not the end of the world.

The Stunning Failure, then, is maybe Obama's failure to understand what the whole deal is about. Yes, it's about winning, but it's also about how you play the game.



Tansy Gold

[saracat]

52. Nicely put.

[Tansy_Gold]

56. thank you

DU has become sorely lacking in civility lately.

[ShortnFiery]

57. Yes, she presents excellent perspectives, much of which I have not considered.

:-) :hi:

[Cha]

60. The only "failure" would not be trying to secure the games

for jobs in Chicago. This wasn't about President Obama and any 1/2 way bright person could see that.

Here's Rachel Maddow's take on your so called "failure"..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8682908

And PO's take on so called "failure"..

That's okay. Some of the most successful people in the world are the ones who've had the most failures. J.K. Rowling's -- who wrote Harry Potter -- her first Harry Potter book was rejected 12 times before it was finally published. Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team. He lost hundreds of games and missed thousands of shots during his career. But he once said, "I have failed over and over and over again in my life. And that's why I succeed."

These people succeeded because they understood that you can't let your failures define you -- you have to let your failures teach you. You have to let them show you what to do differently the next time.
snip

No one's born being good at all things. You become good at things through hard work......You've got to practice.
snip
And even when you're struggling, even when you're discouraged, and you feel like other people have given up on you, don't ever give up on yourself, because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.

The story of America isn't about people who quit when things got tough. It's about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best.
snip

<more>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8682908

[ShortnFiery]

31. We all know that Gore ran a shitty campaign and made no effort to reach out to

the Greens or liberals for that matter. Dare I say Lieberman as his running mate? :eyes:

[Cha]

61. Frank Rich wasn't talking about the "campaign" when

he played sloppy critic on Gore..it was on an "Inconvenient Truth".

<snip>

"He goes on to argue that "there are considerable chunks of 'An Inconvenient Truth' that are more about hawking Mr. Gore's image than his cause."

I find the use of the words "cautious and contrived" near the beginning of the long initial excerpt interesting. Rich says these less flattering aspects of Gore "have not gone away."

When I think of what Al Gore has been doing on global warming over the past five + years, on Iraq for four of those years (oh, and we might as well throw in his powerful speeches, the best anyone has given by far, on the threat to liberty posed by various Bush Administration actions), those words do not come to mind."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2006/05/frank-rich-on-al-gore.php

[ShortnFiery]

63. Hey, we get it - you don't like Frank Rich. Sorry, but that doesn't make him either wrong

or a hack. It's commentary where some people agree and others, do NOT.

Gore was a poor campaigner and IMO, and even worse leader. He hurt himself. :shrug:

[Cha]

67. But, you like red herrings and strawmen..so

whatever gets you through the day.

[Cha]

62. Paul Krugman on "the politics of spite" Cross posted from GD

and not a "stunning failure" as Frank Rich so disingenuously spiels.


cal04 (1000+ posts) Sun Oct-04-09 11:40 PM
Original message

Paul Krugman:The Politics of Spite

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html?_r=1

There was what President Obama likes to call a teachable moment last week, when the International Olympic Committee rejected Chicago’s bid to be host of the 2016 Summer Games.

“Cheers erupted” at the headquarters of the conservative Weekly Standard, according to a blog post by a member of the magazine’s staff, with the headline “Obama loses! Obama loses!” Rush Limbaugh declared himself “gleeful.” “World Rejects Obama,” gloated the Drudge Report. And so on.

So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.

But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America.

(snip)
The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else’s right to govern.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6698772

[ShortnFiery]

64. Not everyone who criticizes President Obama is a hack.

:crazy:

[saracat]

68. Same folks called Krugman slime and an idiot when he criticized Obama!

Now they quote from him when they agree!:rofl:

[QC]

73. People are either saints or demons here, depending on their opinion of Obama at a given moment. n/t

[jeanpalmer]

69. If what he says is true

that banks won't be required to offer plain vanilla mortgages, then Rich is correct, because a lot of the damage occurred as a result of exotic mortgages. You can't have reform without requirng plain vanilla mortgages. It would be like "credit card reform" that allows banks to raise rates to 30%.

I read your links as to what Obama has proposed, and he laid out some overall objectives, but no specifics. As one of your links Harrison points out, the devil is in the details. If what Rich says is true, it looks like Congress will take financial reform in the same direction it's taking healthcare reform -- reform dictated by special interests. That's a legitimate concern. And the person who should stand up to that kind of effort is President Obama. We'll see.

[joeycola]

72. I recall reading an article over a week ago here that the plain vanilla

option was dropped by the WH and many Dems agreeded. It is out as far as I know.

[Mass]

74. Get the big picture rather than stopping at details. Are lobbyists still working with people in the

House and Senate to write bills, including with Democrats: YES.

Are they still working with the White House to write bills: YES.

Of course, you will say there was no time to do something, but it happens that, at least when it comes to the White House, there is nothing to do but a strong will.

So, the criticism is warranted.

I am no fan of Rich and his writing style. Too grating for me. But here, the general message is right on target. Get the lobbyists out of the business of writing the laws.

[TayTay]

77. Lobbyists are going to be a part of the legislative process

Lobbyists can also be representatives of non-profits, social service organizations, environmental groups and so forth. There are bloggers who are working Capitol Hill in support of a more robust Public Option who want a hand in writing the bill. They are lobbyists, as allowed under the Constitution's right to a redress of grievances.

You might mean undue corporate influence by people who have donated money to lawmakers? (Ah, liberals donate money to politicians too. They didn't stay "bought" by us and that is part of the problem for some people.) I think the solution to this is publicly funded elections, but there will still be lobbyists as long as we will have citizens who have legislation pending before Congress that afters them or their livelihood. There should be a better way to regulate outsized influence of some lobbyists within a legal framework that doesn't deny access to lawmakers for citizens.

Frank Rich, Paul Krugman and so forth serve their own interests as independent commentators. They answer to the NYTimes editors, not us and not the govt for their opinions. I happen to think they are great commentators that I agree with a fair amount of the time. I also disagree with them sometimes, but I always welcome them as outside commentators who are not acting within the government system or lobbyists before the Congress on either side. They are not hacks.

[TheKentuckian]

76. It is hard to take anyone seriously that makes Rio winning the Olympics

as an Obama failure because it is such a stupid reach that anyone making the assertion is either a cynical douchebage or trying to pile on to be relevant to the conversation of the day.

I'm also dead certain that given the same results minus Obama going that he'd be getting roasted over a slow fire for not doing what every other nation's leader did and show up to help make the case. This one is a PURE damned if you do and damned if you don't and it is clear as day to anyone with eyes to see and half a brain.