The NYT is completely clueless, beginning with Frank Rich

[ProSense]

Op-Ed Columnist

Obama’s Squandered Summer

By FRANK RICH
Published: September 12, 2009

THE day before he gave his latest brilliant speech, Barack Obama repeated a well-worn mantra to a television interviewer: “My job is not to be distracted by the 24-hour news cycle.” The time has come for him to expand that job description. His White House has a duty to push back against the 24-hour news cycle, every 24 hours if necessary, when it threatens to derail his agenda, the nation’s business, or both. This was a silly summer, as wasteful in its way as the summer of 2001, when Washington dithered over the now-forgotten Gary Condit scandal while Al Qaeda plotted. The president deserves his share of the blame.

So it’s a little disingenuous for Obama to claim that he is not distracted by the 24-hour news cycle. What he’s actually doing is gaming it for all it’s worth.

As a mode of campaigning, this tactic was worth a great deal. Obama not only produced eloquent speeches — especially the classic disquisition on race that silenced the Jeremiah Wright pogrom — but also executed a remarkably disciplined tortoise-vs.-hare battle plan that outwitted and ultimately vanquished the hypercaffeinated political strategies of Hillary Clinton and John McCain. As a style of governing, however, this repeated cycle of extended above-the-fray passivity followed by last-minute oratorical heroics has now been stretched to the very limit.

Wednesday night’s address on health care reform was inspired, lucid and, in the literally and figuratively Kennedyesque finale, moving. It was also (mildly) partisan, a trait much deplored by high-minded editorial writers but in real life quite useful when your party is in the majority and you want to rally the troops to get something done. But there was little in the speech that Obama couldn’t have said at the summer’s outset. Its practical effect may prove nil. Short of signing a mass suicide pact, the Democrats were always destined to pass a bill. Will the one to come be substantially better than the one that would have emerged if the same speech had been delivered weeks earlier? Not necessarily — and marginally at most.

more

Same idiotic claim Maureen Dowd made last week.

The Fading Public Option

By ROBERT PEAR
Published: September 12, 2009

WASHINGTON — It was just one line in a campaign manifesto, and it hardly seemed the most significant or contentious. As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said he would “establish a new public insurance program” alongside private health care plans.

That proposal took on a life of its own, but it now appears to be dying, a victim of an ineffectual White House strategy, the president’s failure to argue passionately for the “public option” and all-out opposition by the insurance industry and much of the health care industry.

In the campaign, Mr. Obama said the public plan would compete with private insurers on the price and quality of care, thus benefiting consumers. What Mr. Obama did not foresee is that, to some people on the right and the left, it would become the most important issue in the debate over health care, touching off a battle over the role of government in one of the nation’s biggest, fastest-growing industries.

Once in office Mr. Obama and his advisers have sent conflicting signals about how critical a government-run health plan would be. He prefers a public plan but is open to other ideas.

more

Yeah, the last thing Obama wanted was the public option to inspire a vigorous debate. NYT = Clueless.

[Fading Captain]

1. Oh my. I thought the public option was for health care

Not for debate.
The debate took place before the election. We won.
Obama and his insurance funded blue dogs are stalling.

[ProSense]

3. "We won."

So did Mary Landrieu.

Too many people think this is about Republicans. They lost, and are unnecessary.

[katandmoon]

2. Idiotic? I think Frank Rich is 100% right on.

[ProSense]

4. Sure he is.

Giving the speech at the beginning of the debate worked out quite well for Clinton.

[chimpymustgo]

51. Somedbody's clueless, and it ain't Frank Rich.

[Betty]

5. I agree

he makes perfect sense.

[ProSense]

7. Rich might be right about this

So it’s a little disingenuous for Obama to claim that he is not distracted by the 24-hour news cycle. What he’s actually doing is gaming it for all it’s worth.

Obama is gaming the media, but Rich believes he didn't know enough to give the speech ahead of the debate?

Maybe Rich doesn't have a clue?

[Cha]

17. Maybe Frank Rich thrives on clueless dissing at times..

ala his slime at Al Gore.

[ProSense]

20. Think about his title: Obama’s Squandered Summer. Yet he writes about the speech

Its practical effect may prove nil. Short of signing a mass suicide pact, the Democrats were always destined to pass a bill.

Then he goes on to say:

None of this served his cause of health care reform or his political standing. The droop in Obama’s job approval numbers isn’t remotely as large or precipitous as the Beltway’s incessant doomsday drumbeat suggests. But support for his signature program declined, not least because he gave others carte blanche to define it for him. Perhaps the most revealing of all the poll findings came in an end-of-August Washington Post query asking voters what “single word” first came to mind to describe their “feelings” about Obama and his health care proposals. For Obama, the No. 1 feeling was “good.” For the policy package he’d been ostensibly selling all summer, the No. 1 feeling was “none.”

It’s not, as those on the right would have us believe, that Obama’s ideas are so “liberal” that the American public recoiled. It’s that much of the public didn’t know what his ideas were. Even now I’m not convinced that most Americans know what a “public option” really means or what Obama’s precise position on it is. But I’d bet that many more have a working definition of “death panels.” The 24-hour news cycle abhors a vacuum, and the liars and crazies filled it while Obama waited for his deus ex machina descent onto center stage.

One would think the speech failed.

[paulk]

6. Now it's Frank Rich, huh?

Gettin' pretty crowded under that bus...

[ProSense]

8. Make a point that supports why you agree with Rich

instead or appearing in threads every so often to discuss the hypothetical bus you love so much.

[paulk]

16. "why" I agree?

isn't it enough that I agree?

I mean, I realize there are some on DU that feel Obama is perfect in every way, but admitting a strategy is flawed is the first step toward correcting it. Obama must realize he's made mistakes - why else take the extraordinary step of a speech before a joint session?

And Rich is right - that speech could have and should have been made months ago. Obama has frittered away his advantages and now any bill we get will be so watered as to be almost worthless. The public option, if we even get one that isn't hamstrung by a trigger, or worse yet some sort of co-op, will not serve the function of bringing down cost because it won't have enough of the "public" in it. Ten million people? That's a joke. Throw in a mandate and all Obama will have accomplished is a 50 million person gift to the insurance industry, many of them at taxpayer expense.

The bill Obama outlined in his speech is so flawed it could come back and bite the Democratic Party in the ass in the next election.

[ProSense]

18. "And Rich is right - that speech could have and should have been made months ago."

"The bill Obama outlined in his speech is so flawed it could come back and bite the Democratic Party in the ass in the next election."

Then maybe Obama was smart enough not to make Clinton's mistake and give the scavenger media an entire summer to pick over a bill "so flawed it could come back and bite the Democratic Party in the ass in the next election"?

This is exactly why Rich is wrong.

[paulk]

22. they're not picking over it now?

they haven't been busy distorting it all summer? Or maybe they weren't distorting it, since no one actually seemed to know where the person central to the whole thing - Obama - actually stood. That's the mistake Rich points up.

why has Obama's approval rating taken such a dive? I don't see how his "hands off" strategy has worked any better than Clinton's.


ps - you quote parts of my post out of context - it's a cheap and disingenuous debating tactic, and you are not fooling anyone with it.

[ProSense]

28. " I don't see how his 'hands off' strategy has worked any better than Clinton's. "

Obama's bill is still alive and will pass. As for his ratings, those can be reversed. He never dropped to 42% as Clinton did. Ratings at this point are irrelevant. He was also able to swing public opinion by double digits at the most critical point in the debate.

[paulk]

36. Obama's bill is crap

it's a watered down piece of crap, and it's watered down because of a lack of leadership on Obama's part.

That's what Rich is saying.

Ratings are not irrelevant - falling ratings hurt Obama's ability to influence Congress.

Not that he's done much influencing...

[ProSense]

37. You can continue repeating that but, without evidence you fail. Obama's bill captures

everything that is in Kennedy's HELP bill.

"Ratings are not irrelevant - falling ratings hurt Obama's ability to influence Congress."

Ratings at this point are irrelevant. Clinton dropped to 42% and was re-elected. He lost nine seats in the mid-term because he mishandled health care and the bill failed.

Obama will pass health care reform, and unlike 1994, Americans still despise the Republican Party.

[paulk]

50. evidence of what?

I just explained why it's crap!

The public option he proposes isn't robust enough to force competition and bring down costs.

And am I supposed to fall to my knees at the mention of Kennedy? The guy who was behind NCLB? Besides, anyone paying attention knows that the Obama admin is looking toward the bill that will come out of Finance... the HELP Bill is dead in the water.

And besides, the public option in HELP was yet another watered down piece of crap.

[ProSense]

53. "The public option he proposes isn't robust enough to force competition and bring down costs. "

You know what they say about opinions.

Now can you provide hard facts to support your nonsensical opinion?

[paulk]

54. my "nonsensical opinion"?

here come the insults - it's all you know.

Criticism of Obama's weak public option and it's inability to provide the real competition needed to make it work has been all over this board and all over the internet. Don't pretend you haven't seen it.

[ProSense]

55. Present facts, otherwise all you have is an opinion. Where is your proof? n/t

[paulk]

56. forget it

arguing with you is like arguing with a child

I have more important things to do.

[ProSense]

57. You have no facts to back it up. n/t

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OwnedByFerrets]

33. Unfortunately, the watering down was the goal all along.

[ProSense]

34. Watering down?

Can you show where Obama watered the plan since he originally outlined it?

[Arkana]

9. If I ever hear this phrase again I will e-punch the person who said it

right in the goddamn piehole.

It needs to die. It needs to die a violent, horrible death and be tossed into a mass grave along with all the other useless political turns-of-phrase.

[paulk]

12. well, aren't you special!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

45. In other words

the phrase needs to be thrown "under the bus!" Sorry!! Please don't "E-Punch" me!!!!:evilgrin:

[Cha]

10. Sometimes Frank Rich gets it and

sometimes he doesn't. He's not perfect..To Wit..the following about Al Gore from the second link in my reply..

"In his New York Times column of November 23rd, 2002, Rich begins his examination of Gore's reemergence on the political scene thus:"


"'Tomorrow night Liza Minnelli returns,'' said Larry King on Wednesday night. But while America held its breath, Al Gore was getting more airtime than ''The Bachelor.'' You could wake up to him and Tipper on the ''Today'' show. You could drift off to dreamland watching him with Charlie Rose. The man who went AWOL in defeat was back -- to sell not one but two new books (Mr. Gore can leave no lily ungilded) and, of course, himself."

<snip>>>

"Frank Rich on Al Gore"

"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.


Rich find Gore's response to the question of whether he will seek the presidency again (he has "no plans to run") an example of Gore being "Clintonesque." No, Rich does not mean this as a compliment.


Frank, if it were you, and the truth was that you really didn't know if you were going to seek the presidency again, what would you say? How do you know that isn't exactly what the situation is?


Rich finds the movie "larded with sycophantic audiences, as meticulously multicultural as any Benetton ad..."

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

<snip>>

"So, Like Frank Rich Is Down With Al Gore, Yeah, NOW He Is, Part 2"

"It has been the aim of this two-part post to show that even a writer as apparently "liberal" as Frank Rich is a fully committed member of the SCLM club, all dues paid up, which means that Rich is just as likely to include clueless dissing, in his columns, of all Democrats and all liberals and progressives, using the same fictional narratives and unexamined tropes as a Chris Matthews, or a Joe Klein, or any of the other names on that despairingly long list of media whores you might care to name.

Below the fold we will examine Frank Rich's response to Al Gore's October 2002 speech on Iraq, which presented a thorough, nuanced, unapologetic critique of the Bush administration's obsession with Iraq, and the consequent failures of its foreign policy initiatives everywhere. As a strident critic of the Bush administration, who had, himself, written negatively about the Bush drive to invade Iraq, you might have thought that Rich would have welcomed Gore's speech.

Part One of this post can be found here.
************************************************
Instead, he ignored it. Though not because he ignored Gore. No, indeed; Al Gore was back on the political scene, and there was fun to be had."

<much more>>>
http://www.correntewire.com/so_like_frank_rich_is_down_with_al_gore_yeah_now_he_is_part_2

I use to hate it when he sniffed his nose at Al Gore.

[ProSense]

11. Sometimes Rich gets it and sometimes

he sounds like Maureen Dowd.

The question is: Without Obama's speech fresh in everyone's mind, and given that the RW had been planning a late-in-the-game assault, what does Rich believe the media would be focused on at this point?

They've spent the summer prematurely declaring the public option dead. Would giving a speech earlier have changed that? No.

He gave the speech, which was extremely well-received, turning around doubters in double digits, and within a day, the MSM went back to declaring the public option dead.

[Cha]

14. Exactly..and what does Frank Rich focus on?

Negative shite? Yeah.

Did you catch this?

"It has been the aim of this two-part post to show that even a writer as apparently "liberal" as Frank Rich is a fully committed member of the SCLM club, all dues paid up, which means that Rich is just as likely to include clueless dissing, in his columns, of all Democrats and all liberals and progressives, using the same fictional narratives and unexamined tropes as a Chris Matthews, or a Joe Klein, or any of the other names on that despairingly long list of media whores you might care to name."

"Clueless dissing" ..exactly what went on with Rich's column on President.

[amborin]

21. what he meant

is that Obama might have come out WAY more strongly, earlier, at summer's onset, and argued forcefully for a MUCH more 'radical' reform bill than what we're now looking at

the bill we're now considering is deficient in many respects.....

a much earlier speech, from a position of strength, could have shaped the discourse and debate....while great, O's speech was in a sense reactive, not proactive, since he essentially had to take back the reins

[paulk]

24. well said

of course, that's assuming that Obama even wanted a more "radical" bill.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

46. Which he did not

if judged by his campaign rhetoric, anyway. I respect those whom desire a single-payer system and I would love it if we could join other countries that already have one but Obama, despite frantic RW efforts to portray him as such, is NOT a "radical" and seems to have an idea about what people will accept and what they will not and it should be evident that people are not receptive to SP at this time, particularly since the RW has been able to convince people that Obama is actually trying to push SP on everybody through their rhetoric and histrionics even though his proposal is, in fact, more moderate and private-industry-based. Obama seems to be slightly more progressive than (Bill) Clinton 2.0 but he is still much more of an "incrementalist" and his cautious approach to HCR is typical of this. You may disagree with it and want more radical change but he never promised it during his most recent campaign.

[paulk]

49. I have seen nothing to convince me that Obama is

"slightly more progressive" than Bill Clinton, especially considering the majorities he enjoys in both the House and Senate.

My biggest problem with Obama is not that he is an "incrementalist", but that he sold himself as a change agent, a leader - and a leader is someone who goes out and leads people toward what he or she knows is right - not what he or she knows they "will accept".

The resistance from the right would have been the same no matter what changes he had proposed, which makes the milquetoast reforms he is proposing all the more disappointing.

[ProSense]

27. Don't agree

a much earlier speech, from a position of strength, could have shaped the discourse and debate....while great, O's speech was in a sense reactive, not proactive, since he essentially had to take back the reins

Obama has given press conferences and he held a nationally televised press conference in July.

This speech before Congress was a one time shot, and would have been squandered if given months ago.

Rich and the rest of the media would simply be calling on him to do it again.

[Uzybone]

26. I really can't stand Frank Rich

my memory is long with the many columns he has written that have helped bolster GOP lies.

[ruggerson]

42. Frank Rich is one of the only columnists in America

who has consistently and loudly and often stood up against heterosexual privilege.

One of the few voices in the wilderness.

[chimpymustgo]

52. What in the world are you talking about? Rich is one of the very best liberal columnists out there.

[pdxmom]

13. Giving his speech at the beginning of summer would have done no

good and he would have had to come back and do something else now. He let them get all of their lies out on the table...he let the Right show their hand. No way to predict what whacked-out argument they are going to make. And a joint session was a card that could only be played once. That speech was given at the right time in the debate, IMO.

[ProSense]

19. Exactly,

It's either these journalists are being disingenuous or the have no ability to assess the current media climate. Also, one has to wonder if they paid any attention to the path the 1992 health care bill took to its death.

[babylonsister]

15. So much going on in Rich's column. Worth a full read. nt

[Uzybone]

23. Some good points, but once again Rich proves why he is one of the biggest media whores

he always acts as if his profession has nothing to do with the state of current discourse. All the lies that were told could have easily been called out by a responsible media, yet Rich seems to think that it is Obama's fault that people are duped.


No, people are duped because Rich and his ilk do not do their jobs. They were duped to choosing Bush over Gore, duped ionto the Iraq War and duped into Bush over Kerry because the media didn't do its job.

[amborin]

32. you speak as if

you've never read Rich

he's always calling out unacceptable conditions and actions

[ruggerson]

43. yep n/t

[depakid]

25. Rich is spot on as usual

Obama’s leadership poll numbers have also suffered from his repeated deference to Congress. Waiting for the pettifogging small-state potentates of both parties in the Senate’s Gang of Six is as farcical as waiting for Godot.

[ProSense]

29. That's a fact, Obama's poll numbers suffered, but

that is largely irrelevant at this point.

[depakid]

30. It's a consequence of the administration's passive behavior

which, incidentally mirrored last summer's campaign behavior. You can't simply let these lunatics run around making wild accusations and owning the news cycle.

[ProSense]

31. It's irrelevant. n/t

[Paladin]

39. Bullshit.

This administration's passivity---beautifully detailed by Frank Rich, as usual---has allowed for a right wing resurgence that didn't have to happen. You don't win against these lunatics by accommodating them---something I would have thought was painfully self-evident, until I witnessed the gutless behavior of Democrats these last few months. I just hope the damage isn't irreparable at this point......

[ProSense]

40. Bullshit back at you. Rich's piece is the work of, to quote him,

a "high-minded editorial" writer.

Why the hell isn't he writing a piece about the fact that the public option survived the debate with significant support by Americans and that Obama's speech turned the tide?

No he chooses to spin some retro bullshit about a squandered summer.

[CTLawGuy]

35. yeah

King Obama should not have given his subordinates so much power...

[Phx_Dem]

38. He's an idiot, which is why he's a columnist instead of President.

If President Obama had given his speech during the raucus summer, it would have been lost and we wouldn't be seeing his poll numbers rising today, or hearing on The Chris Matthews Show that all 12 journalist contributors agree that the President has got his command back.

Frank Rich should stick to the things he knows about. I'm sure what that would be though.

[ProSense]

41. No he's brilliant for

being ignorant of the current media climate and for having paid no attention to the path the 1992 health care bill took to its death.

The media pundits have been clamoring all summer for Obama to follow Clinton's exact path: have the executive branch overstep its bounds by writing a bill, then give a speech early in debate and spend the summer trying to force a bill through Congress after excluding them from the process, and while the media and the RW attack.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

44. What kills me

is that it is people like Rich, Dowd, et. al that complain about President Obama being "passive" or not pushing back enough against the now pervasive and utterly inescapable RW spin that's shoveled on us 24-7-365 but they turn right around and, well, help push the RW spin themselves by repeatedly highlighting and uncritically accepting it as fact or as part of a legitimate "debate" in the interest of achieving some mystical ideal of "balance" and "objectivity", which, as far as I'm concerned, means that both sides have to be treated "equally" regardless of how incorrect, biased, politically motivated, or otherwise flat-out WRONG one side might be.
:puke:

[moondust]

48. Get real, Frank.

Between TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, and the Internet tubes there must be more than a hundred RW propaganda and misinformation outlets spinning the truth into bullshit 24/7. You can't seriously believe that this or any other President could ever compete with all that for the public's attention.

Just this past week as the President was about to address Congress there were TV pundits noting that he would also be speaking at a rally on Saturday in Minneapolis. "Is he overexposing himself?" at least one asked. How many times have you heard that?

The President has far more important things to do than constantly wrestling with lying, sensationalist, corporate media spinmeisters with ulterior motives. We should be glad he stays focused on those things rather than on the pervasive bullshit that dominates the 24-hour "news" cycle these days.

[BlooInBloo]

58. There's some fair criticism in the Rich piece....

But he goes too far - even by his own lights.

"But there was little in the speech that Obama couldn’t have said at the summer’s outset. Its practical effect may prove nil."

Yes, it *may*. If he would have given the speech at the summer's outset, the nil effect would have been a *certainty*, not a possibility.

And it would be better, in terms of talking about the effect the media has, to speak instead of the accumulated effects of *many days* worth of the 24-hour-news-cycle. This cuts both ways, validating Rich's criticism of Obama, and also my criticism of Rich.