This feels good. But you may have to register first. 
Warning: The tone of the article is very bitter. It may be offensive to some.
Update: Instapundit links!
The Gray Lady Concedes (Sort Of)
Previous post: All Things Made New
Next post: Comment Spam
{ 5 trackbacks }
{ 44 comments }
How to bypass the NY Times Web registration:
Their Web server is set up to let Google searches through. So if it sees a referrer URL coming from Google, it will let it through. Therefore:
1. Right-click (Ctrl-click if you’re on a Mac) on the NY Times link and choose “Copy URL” (I think it’s called “Copy link location” in Internet Explorer).
2. Open up Google.
3. Paste the URL into Google’s search page. Click Search.
4. Google’s search results give you a link to the URL you just pasted in.
5. Click that link. Voila, the NY Times Web server sees a referrer URL coming from Google and lets you in.
I believe Frank Rich is ‘Hollywood’ talking when he reduced the campaign down to ‘not the best man but the best actor will win’. It all comes down to ‘acting’, says he?
I guess this means Hollywood will be awarding President George W. Bush an Oscar for his outstanding performance in his three year story “Grace under Enormous Pressure”, the longest running film ever produced. The script for this film keeps getting better as each day passes.
Anyway, his Kerry campaign analysis is spot on.
Notice that the article is under the “Arts” section, where fiction belongs. Frank Rich is a theater critic, for goodness sakes.
Whooo-ee, Frank Rich sees sexual symbols everywhere, doesn’t he?
“Paging Dr. Freud, paging Dr. Freud. Doctor, you have a call on line one, a Mr. Rich wanting to speak with you. Doctor Freud, call on line one.”
What a whiney little sissy-boy. And what to make of this slander of the Presidential Lunchbox: “It’s not enough to stuff socks in the president’s flight suit”? Oh, dear, Frank. And here I thought you were glad to see me.
I wonder if Frank Rich will next say it was that rascal Karen Hughes who put the references to Christmas in Cambodia in John Kerry’s 1986 Senate speech?
I didn’t get much beyond the fourth paragraph but the first sentence of the second paragraph struck me.
“As we leave the scripted conventions behind us, that is the uber-scenario that has locked into place, brilliantly engineered by the president of the United States, with more than a little unwitting assistance from his opponent.”
Did he just call Bush brilliant?? I’m confused. For the last four years, Dems have been telling us that Bush is drooling manchildidiot who can’t tie his own shoelaces even with a ‘Nike Footwear for Dummies” book. Now we’re being told he’s brilliant?
Who is the uberidiot? Is it the idiot himself, or the people who keep getting beaten by the idiot?
For those who may not know, Frank Rich is Mr. Maureen Dowd. Figures. Marriage made in heaven, or someplace, and they deserve each other.
Rich’s disingenuousness is as egregious as Michael Moore’s. In a June 15, 2004 article in “The Times,” he mocked Bush for his lack of acting skills, especially when compared to those of Ronald Reagan (a President Rich also hates). Today, Bush is winning only because of his superior acting skills. When were you lying Rich, then or now? In May, Rich praised “Fahrenheit 9/11″ (his review is posted on MichaelMoore.com here: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=18), while recognizing it as polemics. Now, he bemoans the artfully scripted and acted polemics of the Republican Party. Hypocrisy? Oh, yes, I fogot. We’re talking about “The Times.”
Rich and Krugman — what a pair. A pantywaist drama critic and a former Enron advisor, both with bulging forehead veins. Why would anyone expect any sense out of these guys. Except Michael Moore, Whoopi Goldberg and Al Gore, of course.
It’s not enough to make jokes.
At some point “we the public” have got to demand a reckoning from those in the press who have behaved irresponsibly and at times with dangerous contempt during this election year.
That commentary is hilarious! Unintentionally, of course.
I thought it ironic that at the end of the NYT article there was an advertizement to get home delivery of the Times. After reading the article, I am even less inclined to ever want to subscribe.
“ONLY in an election year ruled by fiction could a sissy who used Daddy’s connections to escape Vietnam turn an actual war hero into a girlie-man.”
“Daddy’s connections” may be true, but George W. and George H.W. have both specifically denied it for the record, and there is zero proof that it happened. So, we’re one sentence, one ad hominem “sissy,” and one unsupportable “Daddy’s connections” into our article. Think of those CNN commercials where Darth Vader says “THIS… is CNN.” THIS… is the New York Times.
PS- Former Texas Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes is the subject of a soon to air 60 Minutes piece. Previous to 60 Minutes, Barnes has said that no one asked him to get George W. in the National Guard, but that he did it to curry favor. When you watch Barnes on 60 Minutes, remember that he is the #3 largest fund raiser for John Kerry’s political campaigns over the last 5 years. Maybe the NYT can put together a Ben Barnes/Kerry diagram the way they did for the Swift Vets/Bush. Only it wouldn’t be much of a diagram. Just Barnes, with a direct arrow to Kerry.
Rich’s hypocrisy is matched only by that of Kerry himself. It’s interesting to see the left paint Kerry as a victim of a Republican “attack”, when the last 18 months have seen some of the slimiest, hate-ridden bile ever spewed out by the Democrats against a sitting president. They soil themselves over band-aids with purple hearts, but somehow “Bush Lied, People Died” and “Bushitler” is considered thoughtful and appropriate discourse.
How does it feel Rich? No need to answer, I don’t really care.
His substantial criticisms of Kerry are direct hits. Of course, we could do without the standard leftie obsession with sexual imagery and Freudian nonsense (sometimes, a stage is just a stage…), but he’s basically right that Kerry’s attempt to be macho is failing miserably. It appears that as others have mentioned, the “Ds lose because Rs are meanies and peace-loving, kitty-cuddling, world-saving Ds just can’t lower themselves to the R’s levels of lies/smear/etc” meme is getting trotted out as the reason Kerry will lose.
Of course, an odd undertone of the article is the “Bush as evil genius” as opposed to “Bush the drooling moron”…
Frank Rich’s article was an extremely sensible analysis of the post-GOP convention testosterone war between Pres. Bush and Sen. Kerry. Bush will win the upcoming election because he emulates John Wayne to those who want simplicity in an hypercomplex modern world. Sen. Kerry will lose because he can’t sell multiplicity in thought to scared people.
Even the most objective overview of the current Bush administration unearths glaring missteps in foreign and domestic policy, the Iraq war without located WMD’s and the first net job loss since Herbert Hoover to name two. Still, Bush, I believe, will be re-elected because Americans are willing to overlook glaring misuse of authority, opportunity, and power if they believe someone has come to save them by hurting others. Kerry’s “girlie-manliness” emerges because he appears more willing to understand issues while defending America, then to invade first and ask questions later.
The only irony is that Americans are forsaking their true, battle-tested, war-forged patriots, for political metrosexuals in Stetsons and cowboy boots. I guess we haven’t really learned from 9/11 after all.
Les:
“For those who may not know, Frank Rich is Mr. Maureen Dowd.”
Do you mean he’s a male version of Maureen Dowd, or do you mean these two are actually married to each other? The context of your post seems to imply the latter, but I just want to be sure I understood correctly.
James Lamb Jr. -
The reasons I’m going to vote for Bush instead of Kerry are as follows:
“[Kerry] appears more willing to understand issues while defending America, then to invade first and ask questions later.”
I disagree. I think Kerry looks more willing to talk out of both sides of his mouth, and never take any action. Not taking any action when faced with things like embassy bombings or the attack on the USS Cole is what made Bin Laden think the U.S. was a “weak horse” and led directly to September 11th.
I think Bush will take action when needed. Take Iran, for instance. They’re pursuing nuclear weapons, and so far the only response from the IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency) has been a resolution that “strongly deplores” Iran’s activities and tells Iran to “undertake and complete the taking of all necessary corrective measures on an urgent basis.” But they refused to declare Iran in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The U.S., with the support of Canada, Australia and Japan had been pushing to have Iran declared in violation of said treaty, but the other 31 countries on the IAEA governing board voted them down.
With this history, I fully expect Iran to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty soon and announce that it has finished developing at least one nuclear weapon. They will then threaten to nuke Israel if anyone attacks them. The only possible ways to avoid this scenario are:
1. Israel makes a pre-emptive stike into Iran, destroying their nuclear facility, just as they did Iraq’s Osirak plant in 1981.
2. Someone (almost certainly the U.S.) gathers together another “coalition of the willing” and invades Iran. Some countries will be in favor of this, some won’t — just like last time.
3. Iran’s fanatical mullahs finally come to their senses and really, truly abandon a nuclear program they’ve been pursuing for the past decade or so.
I can’t see option #3 happening. And given Kerry’s record and his often-repeated claim that he’d go to the U.N. for permission before doing anything on the international stage, #2 is out if Kerry gets elected. That just leaves #1, and Israel is left to pay the price for the world’s cowardice yet again.
On the other hand, if Bush is elected, I fully expect him to go for option #2.
This is priceless. I am glad that someone recognized the president’s brilliance. Blame the RNC but Kerry is his own worst enemy. He has tried to be all things to all people like he has had to struggle to pay bills while raising a family. His expensive toys be it bicycle,skis,sailboat,jet, etc. all fit in with the middle class. He isn’t too hungry at Wendy’s cuz he knows his catered luncheon awaits him.
hmmm, another parallel between Reagan and G.W.
They are both bumbling morons, until Democrats lose to them, then they are evil geniuses manipulating the very fabric of space time to achiever thier dark designs……..
What is really sad though, is that if the President doing EVERYTHING that Bush has done this past 3.x years had a D by his name, these very same schills would be singing his praises.
Robin Munn, you’re a genius. Thanks for the tip!
Frank Rich, he just doesn’t get it. Neither does James Lamb Jr, but that’s ok. Let them wallow in their ignorance. With “analysis” like theirs, the Dems will lose for sure.
Poor Frank Rich thinks we’re voting for platoon leader or something. If he knew any history he’d know there’s no correlation between military or even combat service and performance as president. Shall we tell him that neither FDR nor Lincoln served a day in the military?
Sen. Kerry will lose because he can’t sell multiplicity in thought to scared people - James Lamb Jr. Oh there you go, the people are so stupid and simple that we need the sophisticates to “guide us”. As WFB once said, I’d rather be governed by the first two hundred people in the phone book than by the faculty of Harvard and Yale combined.
James Lamb, Jr. could only have come to a conservative blog such as this one to comment in the manner he did, in order to insult its readers. Condescending to people who support Bush, by calling them simpletons, surely couldn’t have been intended to engender serious discussion of the issues. I’ll stack my (and our host’s) IQ, academic pedigree, and ability to appreciate the “hypercomplexity” of the world (”hyper” as compared to what, James?) against those of an an ill-mannered boor who believes that his side of the political debate has a monopoly on intellect and sophistication, and who feels the need to manufacture excuses in September for a result that he forsees in November. The liberals are starting to sweat already, and the conventions are barely over. By the way, James, true irony is anyone named “James Lamb, Jr.” calling any other man a “metrosexual.” In what part of ‘Nam did you do your tour, hard guy?
I do feel better!
La Shawn,
How can you leave that first entry posted? Could it be unethical to bypass NYT registration — a sort of payment for your access? Or is it OK because the Times is the liberal media?
Bob
Not to quibble about the necessity of war-time presidents serving in the military, but….
Abraham Lincoln was briefly a militia officer from Illinois during the Black Hawk War.
You know, militia.
Like the National Guard today.
Or in Texas during the sixties.
Didn’t seem to effect his ability to read a map or judge generalship during that whole “Civil War” unpleasantness. In fact, if memory serves, his side won.
Just like W’s will in November.
NYT registration is free, Bob.
Personally, I don’t feel there’s anything unethical about bypassing a free registration which is designed to collect personal information for marketing purposes. Now bypassing a pay-for-membership site, that would be unethical in my view.
If you consider the registration as a kind of payment that doesn’t involve money, I can see how you could disagree with me on this point. Myself, I just consider it harassment that I could gladly do without.
If La Shawn disagrees with me on this issue, she can (of course) delete my comment. It’s her blog and her right, after all. I won’t be offended in the least.
Don’t pay “bob” any attention, Robin.
I used to get upset at such crivel. Now I laugh at it. Mr. Rich’s crying is proof that now Kerry ‘04 = Chernobyl Redux.
The guy is bitter, indeed, LB. Want to make him even more upset? Make powmiafamiliesagainstjohnkerry.com even more popular than swift vets.
The Kerry campaign is about to sink for good. glug glug glug
Robin - On Iran, I also don’t see your option #3 happening, but neither option #1 or 2 include further diplomacy and discussion with Iran. When the most powerful nation on the planet finds itself powerless to do anything but violence, something’s wrong. If Bush showed that he could talk out issues with other nations that disagree with us while maintaining his hawkish demeanor, he’d win November in a glaring landslide.
Redhunter - I never called any Bush supporter “stupid” or “simple”. I do believe people are having a basic human reaction to terrorism - they are scared. If the GOP media consultants use this fear to tailor their promotion of Pres. Bush to those who desire unambiguous action against the “bad men” who try to hurt us, then that’s nothing but savvy marketing.
Kevin - I really was not trying to insult anyone, even now as you are insulting me. Ms. Barber’s blog appeals to me because her commentary reminds me of that of the Southern Black women I grew up with in Virginia, esp. on religious and racial matters. No side of any debate has any more of a monopoly on intellect and sophistication than it would have on strength and conviction.
But let’s get sophisticated, shall we? What metrosexual let Osama bin Laden get away since 9/11? On what metrosexual’s watch has this country squandered a budget surplus and posted a net job loss for the first time since Herbert Hoover? Which metrosexual alienates sovereign allies during a global war on terror? Did we elect John Wayne or Carson Kressley? Incidentally, my father served two tours in Vietnam. He never talks about it.
Pres. Bush’s public persona and speech equates thoughtfulness with weakness, and weakness with effeminateness. Pres. Bush insults you by pretending that the war on terror can be won by bombing people of color while erasing your civil liberties. We care nothing for Sudan, do nothing about N. Korea, but Iraq suddenly became America’s last-ditch effort to attack al Qaeda? No. Bush is the candidate of Big Oil, insulting your good sense by pretending that the only solution to terrorism involves sacrificing American lives to protect international energy interests. I condemn no one for supporting the President; fear is a powerful motivator.
Rich: “French.” (That’s code for “faggy.”)
Oops! Is it? I always thought it was code for anti-American, anti-Semitic, backstabbing, ungrateful, holier-than-thou, elitist, pro-UN, pro-Palistinian, (the poor dears), hypocritical, pro-appeasement, dishonest, hygenically-challenged, and… well, French.
Which is largely what I think of Kerry, except that I can’t speak as to his personal hygene.
James Lamb Jr. -
The reason I omitted further diplomacy and discussion with Iran from my list of options is because it’s a list of end results, not means. Diplomacy and discussion is a means, not an end. It will either lead to option #3 if it works, or option #2 (or #1) if it doesn’t.
I realize now that there’s a fourth option that I didn’t list, though:
4. Nobody stops Iran, they achieve nuclear status, and we have another North Korea on our hands — except this one is sitting smack dab in the middle of the Middle East, ruled by fanatical Muslim theocrats who hate America and love sponsoring terrorism. And now they have nukes. Oh joy.
On a scale from good (on the left) to bad (on the right), here’s how I see these options:
Good ——— Bad, but could be worse ———— Horrible
#3——————–#2—-#1————————-#4
If left alone, I believe Iran will eventually reach point #4. I think #3 would be absolutely terrific, but short of a successful revolution in Iran that overthrows the mullahs, I really don’t see it happening.
Further diplomacy and discussion would be a really good idea, up to a point. That point is when it’s obvious that Iran, despite claiming it’s heading for #3, is heading for #4 instead, and it’s time to quit talking and start acting.
Bush has already proved that he will take action when he believes it’s necessary. Saddam Hussein had been given twelve years by the world to shape up, and he was still defiant. Pressure was mounting in the international community to remove the sanctions, which were proving ineffective: Hussein had proved that he was willing to let Iraqis die by the thousands due to lack of basic medicines, and spend the “Oil-for-Food” money on weapons instead of medicine & food. The only humanitarian thing to do for Iraq was to remove the sanctions, that was becoming obvious: but removing them with Hussein in power? What, are you crazy? The man was (still is) a raving megalomaniac. So Bush decided, “OK, we’ve talked and we’ve talked, and the situation’s never going to get better just by talking. Time for action.”
Kerry’s record is all talk. I don’t believe he’d ever be capable of recognizing when action is necessary and taking that action. Under a Kerry Presidency, Iran would continue claiming they were heading for option #3, really head for option #4, and the world would continue to believe them and engage them in debate and discussion until it was too late.
LaShawn got it perfectly right. This is a very bitter article. But don’t forget one reason for that bitterness. The New Media–Fox News, talk radio and the Internet–made it impossible to suppress the SwiftVet story that started Kerry’s slide. The Grey Lady and her politicized knitting circle are bitter that they can’t script elections like they have in the past. They can’t make Kerry a hero and Bush a fool while giving us no alternative to the numerous inaccuracies in the article. They’re being forced, almost against their will, to make Kerry a buffon and Bush an evil genius.
But we shouldn’t forget that, while the Old Media and an angry and often irrational Democratic party base may not be able to win elections, they may distort politics enough that the war on terrorism becomes as distorted and perhaps even as ineffective as the Vietnam War.
Though the parallels between the two wars aren’t what the NY Times and others would have them be, they do exist. The evil being fought–the North Vietnam police state and the horrors of Saddam–are ignored. (Michael Moore’s pre-invasion Iraq is a peaceful land where children fly kites.) In the Old Media, our successes in Iraq are concealed and our defeats magnified as they were with Vietnam. Atrocities by our soldiers get blown out of proportion. There’s even a domino effect of sorts championed by supporters of the war, although it works the other direction. A democraticized Iraq could lead to a democratic Iran and a Lebanon free of Syria.
That’s perhaps why Kerry, a key propagandist in the Vietnam War, is the Democratic candidate. He fits the role far better than Dean, a ill-tempered New England policy wonk.
Unfortunately, the Democratic Party’s obsession with focus groups, began under Clinton, has forced them in a bizarre situation. They’re having to pretend to support a war that they loathe and the public is picking up on their hypocrisy.
–Mike Perry, Inkling blog , Seattle
Mr Lamb, I take issue with your statement “I do believe people are having a basic human reaction to terrorism - they are scared.”
I assure you I am not polarized in support of Bush based on fear. I am angry pure and simple and I believe we must do the dirty work to rid the world of this disease of terrorism.
The idea of negotiating sounds lovely on paper, but I don’t believe you can negotiate with rabid dogs and if the images of the murdered children in Russia doesn’t show you what we are dealing with in this fight then maybe nothing ever will.
If you want to do something about the Sudan then stop bitching and get your butt out there and make your voice heard. There is a rally at the UN on Sept 12 will you be one of the voices that show up or will you only complain about what the Government is not doing?
Will someone please tell me how if there were approx 135.9 mil jobs in Dec of ‘00 and now there’s approximately 139.6 mil jobs, there’s a net loss?
I had new math, but this everyday math is worse.
And mfg jobs peaked in 1998, don’t even go there. And LLC creation is about as big under Bubba? See Bill Hobbs’ work.
How to bypass the NY Times Web registration:
http://www.bugmenot.com
I just used this sight to access The NYT and really enjoyed
Frank “but I’m not bitter” Richs rant.
–What metrosexual let Osama bin Laden get away since 9/11?–
I guess that’s what happens when the US goes multilateral. We still haven’t learned after all our experience w/Europe.
As Zell Miller said , Kerry (or Kerry’d peep’s) are mad about outsourcing jobs but they want to outsource foreign policy. Nuff said. We all know that its true. People are scared, the Russian 9-11 should scare everyone cause it could happen anywhre. These people are demonic, do not have any scruples and want to kill all of us. Period.
If Kerry is the man to stop this by all means vote for him, but deep down I think we know that is not the case. Its W by a wide margin.
Yes its all about genitalia, who has it and who doesnt in the “backbone” sense. Kerry did go to Vietnam, so did my husband and thousands of others, that doesnt qualify you for Commander in Chief. Backbone does and 20 years of waffling in the Senate show that Kerry is a sweet faced chump that votes his dinner invites not what is right. Weve had three years of Bush and guess what no more attackes. Could it be luck or rather that hes doing something about it! The choice is yours and vote!
God Bless You all
Robin,
Specifically, how did Sadaam remain defiant? What was found in Iraq that validates your statement? It seems quite clear that he tried to bluff us into thinking that he had WMDs in order to at least get us to think twice before attacking. Obviously, his bluff failed. Iran and North Korea are far, far more demonstrably dangerous than Iraq was and Bush leaves them alone. There is enough information out there to merit us attacking both of them NOW. He is like Reagan, who invaded Grenada to distract attention from the deadly mess in Lebanon.
Just remember who created this mess in Iraq…the Reagan and Bush administrations. Its on their heads while the sons and daughters of the middle class and poor have to die.
Kerry says Iraq is wrong war. Please read this
http://insideviewfromiraq.blogspot.com/2004/09/iraq-media-is-misleading-world.html
Besides Saddam’s general attitude, there’s several things that he was obviously trying to hide. I’ll mention two, one that we found, one that we did not and probably never will:
1) The vial of botulin toxin hidden in a scientist’s refrigerator. That is a seriously nasty bug, and if Saddam ever got a free couple of months with nobody watching him, and a half-way decent bio lab (which he did have), he could easily have turned that into a biological warfare agent capable of killing tens of thousands of people. More if released in a major city.
2) Those trucks captured on satellite photos moving large quantities of something into Syria shortly before the U.S. invasion. This was not normal truck movement: it was very obvious that Saddam wanted something hidden away out of Iraq, fast. What did he have to hide? We don’t know. But he certainly did have something to hide, something he didn’t want American troops finding out about.
By the way, I agree that Saddam tried to bluff us by claiming he had more capability than he actually had. But if we believed the bluff, or even if we weren’t sure, that was enough justification for going in. Try this thought experiment: you’re a police officer confronting a suspect who’s got one hand in his coat pocket. He claims that he has a gun in there, and he’s going to shoot you unless you back off. You believe that he does indeed have a gun, because you can see what looks like the outline of a gun in his pocket. Continuing to threaten you, he starts to pull his hand out of his pocket. You have an instant where you know you could draw your gun and kill him before he finishes his motion: do you shoot? Or do you wait and see whether he was bluffing or not? If he wasn’t, you’ll be dead.
Once you’ve thought about it, ask that question to any policemen that you’re friends with. See what they think. Find out what the policy is: if the criminal only had a water pistol in his pocket and was bluffing with it, would your shooting lose you your job, or would it be ruled legitimate self-defence in the line of duty?
Now compare that analogy with the situation with Hussein in March 2003. Draw your own conclusions.
Sen. Kerry has (and continues)claimed repeatedly that he would have done “everything different from the way Pres. Bush did it” including the budget, the economy, the War w/Iraq, the discussions of his Viet Nam service, etc. He has more and better plans for “bringing the US back into the Community of Nations” (whatever that tripe means)and knows a secret way to extricate America from war, without any additional sacracrifices. Sen. Kerry is a sitting US Senator, elected to serve and being paid a not-so-small Federal salary for doing his job. Isn’t the good senator bound to work for his money? As a US Senator, if he knows how to remove our troops from danger and/or has knowledge of a method for extricating us from this war, isn’t he honor bound to present such proposals? Isn’t he receiving a federal salary to study and develop exactly such alternates? Is he justified, regardless of any new job he would like to secure, to not present any proposal(s) for the saving of US Military Members lives, US funds or any other benefit to the country to the President, or Congress? Sen. Kerry is being paid something in the neighborhood of $150K per year to do his job and even if that is a paltry amount for someone in his income bracket, it looks like a lot of money to the “little” folks. If he is not going to do his job, he should resign from the Senate and run for President on his own time. Sen. Dole did, but then Sen. Dole was a real and honorable hero in “real life,” too.
Bill P
Comments on this entry are closed.