Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The rage out there is larger than Palin and defies partisan labeling. Her ever-present booster Continetti, writing in The Weekly Standard, suggested that she recast the century-old populist outrage of William Jennings Bryan by adopting the message 'You shall not crucify mankind upon the cross of Goldman Sachs.' If Obama can’t tamp down that rage across the political map, Palin will at the very least pave the way for a demagogue with less baggage to pick up her torch."
Location: The Land Mass Between NOLA and Mobile, AL
1,796 posts, read 1,661,814 times
Reputation: 1411
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne
"The rage out there is larger than Palin and defies partisan labeling. Her ever-present booster Continetti, writing in The Weekly Standard, suggested that she recast the century-old populist outrage of William Jennings Bryan by adopting the message 'You shall not crucify mankind upon the cross of Goldman Sachs.' If Obama can’t tamp down that rage across the political map, Palin will at the very least pave the way for a demagogue with less baggage to pick up her torch."
It's cool that you posted this--I think it is a pretty smart analysis. BTW, I posted this myself several hours ago on my FB page. I only wish Rich would have gone farther in defining demagoguery. There is nothing good about this person for anyone, wherever they are on the political spectrum. She is harmful to the whole idea of honest argumentation, something we need now more than anything.
Location: The Land Mass Between NOLA and Mobile, AL
1,796 posts, read 1,661,814 times
Reputation: 1411
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
Shouldn't Rich be reviewing the latest revival of South Pacific?
Not really. That is not quite the sort of thing he generally writes about. Last week he wrote about terrorism and the Ft. Hood shootings, for example. His columns, which I often agree with, appear every Sunday, and they are often about the zeitgeist of the week, which he defines as he sees fit. I think that is all to the good .
Not really. That is not quite the sort of thing he generally writes about. Last week he wrote about terrorism and the Ft. Hood shootings, for example. His columns, which I often agree with, appear every Sunday, and they are often about the zeitgeist of the week, which he defines as he sees fit. I think that is all to the good .
It is scary that the followers of Rich have no idea that he prepared for his role as a shaper of public opinion on policy issues as a broadway critic.
And we should care what this liberal Sunday Arts & Leisure columnist thinks why?
Why? Because it's about Palin, of course. Every left-leaning hack is coming out of the woodwork to chime in. She's back in the spotlight thanks to the book, so she's once again fair game. What better sport is there?
Actually, I did know that. I think you are changing the subject. The fact that Reagan started out his career as an actor is pretty much immaterial to his later status as a politician. I don't like him, but I won't be dishonest and say, "because he was an actor, he could never be a good politician." And I'm not a "follower" of Rich, rather merely a reader of his columns. I read them because I generally find them to be intelligent and well-written, even when I don't agree with them. I appreciate that he provides well thought out reasons for his claims, something that is both sorely lacking in public discourse and missing from many discussions on C-D. Just because someone was once a broadway critic does not mean that they do not have something to say about public discourse. We are all, after all, citizens, and thus we are all qualified to say something about the state of our imperfect union.
Actually, I did know that. I think you are changing the subject. The fact that Reagan started out his career as an actor is pretty much immaterial to his later status as a politician. I don't like him, but I won't be dishonest and say, "because he was an actor, he could never be a good politician." And I'm not a "follower" of Rich, rather merely a reader of his columns. I read them because I generally find them to be intelligent and well-written, even when I don't agree with them. I appreciate that he provides well thought out reasons for his claims, something that is both sorely lacking in public discourse and missing from many discussions on C-D. Just because someone was once a broadway critic does not mean that they do not have something to say about public discourse. We are all, after all, citizens, and thus we are all qualified to say something about the state of our imperfect union.
Yes Reagan was an actor, president of a union and Governor before he became President. Frank Rich went from reviewing Cats to the op ed page.
I find Rich's opinions as simple liberal cheerleading, thoroughly predictable. Some one like Rich would have been unthinkable in the glory days of the Times, it is truly sad what has become of it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
