RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

The Intellectual Poverty of Frank Rich, Part II (A Continuing Series)

No other pundit has done more to inject the poison of race baiting and play the race card than the inimitable Frank Rich of the New York Times. I already acknowledged Rich’s dubious accomplishment as the NY Times’ chief Hillary hater in Part I (and his role as an enabler of the Iraq war). And Rich continues to excel in driving the debate about the Democratic presidential contest into the gutter. Even embarrassingly predictable Obama cheerleaders such as Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post and Jonathan Alter of Newsweek cannot begin to compete with Rich’s vicious tone and contempt for facts. Rich is obsessed with promoting Obama’s candidacy and tearing down his designated hate figure, Hillary Clinton. But unlike this blog, which uses the bright lights of fact to expose the weakness of Obama, Rich just makes things up.

This week, as usual, our intrepid pundit launches a new smear of Hillary, accusing her of playing the race card. But he really crosses a line with this attack. Rich accuses Senator Clinton of “racial gamesmanship” and compares her to none other than former Senator George Allen. He predicts that Hillary will suffer a fate similar to that of Allen in 2006:

In that year’s signature race, a popular Senate incumbent, George Allen, was defeated by a war opponent in the former Confederate bastion of Virginia after being caught race-baiting in a video posted on the Web.

We have now left the land of logic and reason. George Allen was caught on tape calling a dark skinned kid “macaca.” Macaca, according to the Urban Dictionary is a:

Common French racist slur. Meaning and use is similar to English ‘nigger,’ and is used to described non-European (Arab and Black) North Africans. It was in particularly prevelant use during French occupation of Northern Africa. The term has been showing up with increasing frequency as a racial slur on racist websites and chatrooms.

So, Hillary has called Obama racially charged names? Nope. Hillary has not used invective or insult of any kind against Obama or anyone associated with his campaign. Hillary has fought to eliminate such vile talk from the public arena. And yet, Frank Rich equates Hillary with George Allen, a man who kept the Confederate flag on his office wall? A man who picked on a youngster because of the color of his skin.

That is the evil essence of Frank Rich. But he does not stop there. Rich twists things further to make Hillary the race baiter when in fact it is Obama’s campaign that has initiated the race-baiting strategy.

As Sean Wilentz, the Princeton historian, notes in a definitive article ( Obama was the first to play the race card) in Sunday’s Philadelphia Inquirer:

In December, Bill Shaheen, a Clinton campaign co-chair in New Hampshire, wondered aloud whether Obama’s admitted youthful abuse of cocaine might hurt him in the general election. Obama’s strategists insisted that Shaheen’s mere mention of cocaine was suggestive and inappropriate – even though the scourge of cocaine abuse has long cut across both racial and class lines. Pro-Obama press commentators, including New York Times columnist Frank Rich, then whipped the story into a full racial subtext, charging that the Clintons had, in Rich’s words, “ghettoized” Obama “into a cocaine user.”

Got it? It was Frank Rich—not Hillary Clinton—who polluted the public debate with false racial charges and language. If anyone should be compared to George Allen it is Frank Rich. Frank Rich had his “macaca” moment by spreading the scurrilous charge that Hillary was trying to turn Obama into a criminal of the black ghetto. Worse, he keeps repeating it and attacking Hillary Clinton with one big lie after another.

Frank Rich is plowing forward with more racial smears. He fabricates a nonexistent straw man—the “persistent Beltway refrain that race will hinder Mr. Obama at every turn”—and then proceeds to attack all white working class men who might not vote for Obama (and might even have positive reasons to vote for Hillary).

Rich asserts, “The newest incessantly repeated scenario has it that Mr. Obama’s fate now all depends on a stereotypical white blue-collar male voter in the apotheosized rust belt town of Deer Hunter, Pa.” Has more class prejudice ever been compacted into a single sentence published recently in the New York Times? Now Frank Rich is having a new “macaca” moment about blue-collar white males.

Frank Rich’s snide dismissal of the fictional residents of “Deer Hunter, Pa.” is his pathetic, tawdry effort to diminish the importance of the Pennsylvania primary. In the racist world of Frank Rich working and middle class people who dare to vote for Hillary hate black people. Otherwise, according to his twisted logic, how could any sane person vote for that woman?

Frank Rich may be a man of paunchy physical stature, but he stands out like a Rockette in a chorus line of midgets as he jumps to the dance choreographed by the Obama campaign. Rich is on Obama time insisting that:

  • Pennsylvania doesn’t count!
  • Hillary, get out! Declare Obama the winner!
  • Don’t bother with voting!
  • Michigan and Florida don’t exist!

Rich never misses a chance to inject race baiting and smearing into his columns when he renders his version of the Obama talking points in the pages of the New York Times. That my friends is not only audacious, but shameful. Hillary is not the racist. Hillary is not race baiting. That despicable status belongs to Frank Rich.


  • Patrick Henry

    Tell It Like it Is Larry..NO Quarter..

    This is INFORMATION WARFARE…!

  • http://www.correntewire.com/blog/myiq2xu myiq2xu

    As Bob Somerby has chronicled for years, Rich is an old skool HillaryHater. He hated/hates Al Gore too.

    Actually, he seems to hate most Democrats sooner or later.

    Kinda funny considering he’s supposedly a liberal.

  • mel

    Larry, since it is your site and thank you for it very much, is there a way you can have some sort of online protest form set up for Democrats who feel if Florida and Michigan do not get redo’s or stand as voters have already voted, those Democrats are willing to forgo voting or will support McCain in the GE along with any SD who is up for re-election who supports a pre-convention exit from the primary?

  • http://www.partizane.com NewHampster

    Larry, Isn’t it pure Rove tactics to accuse your opponent of the exact opposite of the truth? Obama and Axelrod working with the Rich’s of this world will sink to any depth to steal the nomination.

  • Roberta

    What an excellent idea Mel. I already signed the petition to let FL & MI re-vote and today my husband & I contributed $100.00 to Hillary. This means so much to us that that was our 42nd. Anniversary present to ourselves! We already know that if BO steals this one the way bush stole 2000 & 2004, we will write Hillary in. Can’t under any circumstances vote for BO. It would be like pulling the lever for bush, they are one & the same.

  • Mary

    You know, Larry , most of us don’t care if Obama’s Black. Most of us don’t care if Rich is hyperbolically gay.

    We DO care when they’re just flat gas bag silly. And when they tell half-truths, and act like spoiled drama queens, falsely slandering others because they’re fact-challenged.

    I’d feel that way if Rich was Black and Obama was gay, or if both were straight, or both were White.

    Silly, is what they are.

    And that has to do with character, upon which Martin Luther King told me I COULD judge others. Besides, I’ve already raised an adolescent boy; turned out pretty well, if I do say so myself. He knew he’d NEVER talk Mom into anything without doing so calmly, rationally, and factually, without making whiny excuses.

    Thanks for your continued ridicule of Frank Rich, Larry. No one deserves it more, except maybe the equally silly drama queen Andrew Sullivan.

  • http://www.todayslies.com Will

    Frank Rich is the best columnist in America. He’s been the most eloquent opponent in print of the Bush Administration, and this horrible war, from the get go.

    Sorry Hillary Clinton wasn’t as tough as Frank Rich. Sorry she wasn’t as tough as she’d have us all believe. If she had been, she would have locked this thing down the first week of January. In fact, Obama wouldn’t have even entered the race.

  • anna shane

    Rich has amazing energy for saying the same thing over and over, and he’s making Maureen seem quite varied on the subject of Hillary and Barack. They say that great scientists often have some strange belief, like alchemy or phrenology, ,mostly science but a bit of the weird. I guess Rich is okay at theatre reviews, but he sure is on the wrong side of thinking on this race, he manages to accuse Hillary of Barack’s errors, but he doesn’t do it the other way round. Thank you for this interesting research, Larry, you can bet it’s getting into graduate school discussion groups.

  • Mary

    Uh, no, Will.

    Frank Rich and Markos Moulitsos and Josh Marshall were all FOR the invasion of Iraq, bashing anyone who was against.

    As soon as they changed their minds, they bashed anyone who was for leaving carefully.

    As usual, you’re very poorly informed.

  • Andy

    Larry:

    Please email this post and the previous one to the NYT and to Rich himself.

    Rich is really pathetic and the NYT should fired him for he not only is intellectually an
    embarrassment but worse, he has no critical thinking skills whatsoever. He makes such basic mistakes in logic that these can be used in Logic 101 to show kids basic fallacies.

  • http://www.todayslies.com Will

    “Most of us don’t care if Rich is hyperbolically gay.”

    Mary, sorry to break it to you, but…

    “Rich has two sons. He lives in Manhattan with his wife, the author and novelist Alex Witchel, who is a reporter for The New York Times.”

    http://www.answers.com/topic/frank-rich?cat=entertainment

    Wow. Your statement was both factually wrong, and transparently bigoted. What a twofor!

    Here’s a tip: when you write a non-sequiter like “Most of us don’t care if Rich is hyperbolically gay,” that means YOU DO. Even when he isn’t.

  • simon

    He’s been the most eloquent opponent in print of the Bush Administration

    He and others working for the New York Times pimped the war, knowingly selling America on an issue of WMDs, most likely knowing it was false. They acted as PR flacks for a criminal Bush, and now they’re doing it for a criminal Obama.

    Maybe they’re just stupid, rather than criminal, trying to save their butts and reputations from being exposed.

    I mean, can you imagine if the NYTs, and Russert, say, and all the rest KNEW the pretext for war was false, but, being part of the greater Washington press machine, refused to advocate for the public, and instead behaved as trained lap dogs, pimping the war that killed how many Americans, and others, today?

    Ow.

    I mean, rather than pimping Obama, why aren’t’ they asking the hard questions, VETTING Obama?

    Why?

    Isn’t that what a journalist is supposed to do?

    I mean, what are they all but a bunch of overpaid gossip queens, Rona Barrett with polio, right?

    Do you think that’s it, maybe, they’re just dumb sellouts, in a spin?

    You’d be surprised how many people in prominent positions have minds like a shoebox, dull cheap cellulose, pretending it can compete.

  • http://www.todayslies.com Will

    “He and others working for the New York Times pimped the war, knowingly selling America on an issue of WMDs, most likely knowing it was false.”

    You’re going to have to produce a single statement of Rich’s that ever supported the war, or the WMD’s, for this to be believed. I have never seen him write in support of the war or the WMD lie ever. Rich and the NYT war reporting are not the same thing, at all. In fact, he was a persistent critic of Judith Miller’s “reporting”.

  • OxyCon

    Since race relations seems to be so important to Frank Rich, perhaps he should spend a little time investigating what those close associates of Barack Obama think about the Jewish Race.
    He might be surprised to find out that their opinion of Jews is closely aligned with the views Adolf Hitler held.

  • http://www.todayslies.com Will

    “Frank Rich and Markos Moulitsos and Josh Marshall were all FOR the invasion of Iraq, bashing anyone who was against.”

    Like Simon, produce a single statement of Rich’s that ever supported the war, or bashed anyone for being against it.

  • Ethan

    Just as in BushWorld, where you’re either “with us or against us,” in ObamaWorld, you’re either with then or you’re a racist pig. In that respect, if McCain is Bush 3, Obama is Bush 3.1.

  • RalphB

    Frank Rich is a lying racist douche bag. He’s partially responsible for Bush being there in the first place, with his dumb ass lying about Al Gore in 2000.

    Why don’t you try and buy a fucking clue.

  • http://thehorizontalworld.blogspot.com/ Mary Jo Kopechne

    Will, the looney bin let you out on furlough, did they?

    For you, and for Frank Rich, and certain Andrew Sullivan, and for the many so-called ‘progressive’ blogs: DKos, et al, please read this, from Reference.com

    Misogyny

    There are many different forms of misogyny. In its most overt expression, a misogynist will openly hate all women simply because they are female. Other forms of misogyny may be less overt. Some misogynists may simply be prejudiced against all women, or may hate women who do not fall into one or more acceptable categories.

    Entire cultures may be said to be misogynist if they treat women in ways that can be seen as harmful. Examples include forcing women to tend to all domestic responsibilities, demanding silence from a woman, or beating a woman. Subscribers to one model, the mother/whore dichotomy, hold that women can only be “mothers” or “whores.” Another variant is the virgin/whore dichotomy, in which women who do not adhere to a saintly standard of moral purity are considered “whores.”

    Frequently, the term misogynist is used in a looser sense as a term of derision to describe anyone who holds an unpopular or distasteful view about women as a group. A man who considers himself “a great lover of women,” therefore, might somewhat paradoxically be termed a misogynist by those who consider his treatment of women sexist. Archetypes of this type of man might be Giacomo Casanova and Don Juan, who were both reputed for their many libertine affairs with women.

    Misogyny is a negative attitude towards women as a group, and so need not fully determine a misogynist’s attitude towards each individual woman. The fact that someone holds misogynist views may not prevent them from having positive relationships with some women. Conversely, simply having negative relationships with some women does not necessarily mean someone holds misogynistic views. The term, like most negative descriptions of attitudes, is used as an epithet and applied to a wide variety of behaviors and attitudes.

    As with other terms, the more antipathetic one’s position is in regards to misogyny, the larger the number of misogynists and the greater variety of attitudes and behaviors who fall into one’s perception of “misogynist.” This is, of course, the subject of much controversy and debate with opinions ranging widely as to the extent and breadth of misogyny in society.

  • Andy

    And someone should tell Rich about Obama’s fantasies about JFK helping his father and his parents in Selma:

    Obama made statement in speeches about how he “owed”
    his existence to JFK “for making possible his father studied at Harvard, and meet
    his mother and so he was born” and how his parents march in Selma…

    Well… None of it is true !

    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/30/13655/6958#63

    also in WasPo:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/29/AR2008032902031.html?hpid=topnews

  • Susan

    Rich was once the feared theatre critic of The New York Times and he singlehandedly could make or break a show — or a career, for that matter — with his reviews. It always seemed that he relished that power, sick as such a thing may be, and he used it relentlessly and mercilessly.

    Throughout this primary season, he has seemed to be wielding the same vicious, egoistic sword. But this is not a musical comedy, Mr. Rich — this is a nation. Leave your personal vendettas and need for power aside. Better yet, go back to Broadway.

  • Andy

    Frank Rich is the best columnist in America.

    Will, are you sure? Because intellectually he is pretty bad. But then again, your reasoning and intellectual standards haven’t been impressive.

  • http://NoQuarterUSA.net Larry Johnson

    You are nothing more than a not too bright troll. You don’t even have the decency or smarts to read the link where I clearly showed Rich’s role as an enabler of the war. Please go waste someone else’s time.

  • http://www.reflectivepundit.com Brigitte N.

    Look, I used to read Rich and thought he was okay when he targeted President Bush. Since then, I have read him with increasing alarm until, more recently, I have simply stopped reading him and his twin Maureen Dowd. It is telling, though, that with the exception of Paul Krugman both the conservative and liberal line up in the New York Times have been pro-Obama and, at best, benign as to McCain.
    I have great reservation about the blogosphere’s “progressive” advantage. I hope you people keep up as will I. But we need more broad support to counter the progressive extremes who will be instrumental in making sure that John McCain will succeed George W.
    What a prospect!

  • TeakWoodKite

    Here ye, here ye; all people with biasness before the court please rise!
    First on the docket; “The greatest story ever sold”
    Defendant, How do you plead?
    I plead the 5th your honor…
    You can’t plead that. Are these not your words?
    ah…ah no your honor.
    Who’s are they then?
    They are from Obama’s campaign staff.
    Who gave them to you?
    A guy I have known for years, Mr Axelrod.
    How much did he pay you?
    He promised me an exclusive audience with Lord O’bama
    You sold your self for a promise? Or are hoping for something more?

    Well I dreaming he would make me a Knight of Ni…
    Of what?
    Of Ni!
    So be it.
    The court finds you GUILTY

    Bailiff whack his p p!

    Sorry your honor?

    I said whack his p p!

    Sorry your honor I would love to comply but he doesn’t have one!
    Oh sorry Bailiff, my bad. It says here Mr Rich, you graduated from the Bobbitt School of Journalism. Is that correct?
    yes your honor.

    After driving a short while, he rolled down the car window and threw it out into a field.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorena_Bobbitt

  • http://www.correntewire.com/blog/myiq2xu myiq2xu

    Actually it’s one of Rove’s tactics to accuse your opponent of exactly what you are doing, but accuse them before they accuse you.

    For example: If you are “playing the race card” accuse your opponent of doing it, even if they aren’t.

  • Fran

    How can we contact Frank Rich? Can’t we organize some kind of email blast to let him know we are disgusted by his tactics in no uncertain terms?

    If we respond as one voice, he’ll get the message!

  • simon

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE4DD123AF931A25753C1A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

    Try this, dated Oct, 2002.

    Seeing the coming sinking of the Titanic, Rich excoriates GORE, and the democrats, as opposed to Bush, and the Republicans.

    Astroturfing, deflection of what he clearly knew was a Republican engineered falsehood onto GORE, and the democrats, he started blaming the democrats, for a republican CRIME, pre war. It’s an old PR, propaganda technique.

    Especially if he KNEW the war was simply another PR sell, a falsehood, which many in the press did, I would venture, while the American people did not.

    If he were to mount a serious journalistic query, he would have been going after the players, instead he went after GORE, glorifying Hagel.

    What is this type of move again, exploit your opponents faults, while minimizing those of the men you’re really advocating for?

    Kinda like a republican mole, right?

    BTW, looking at this, and Rich’s support for Obama, I would look at his connection to the Combine, Carlyle, that whole group.

  • TeakWoodKite

    He would half to trade some Kool-aid, which he is loathe to part with.

  • TeakWoodKite

    A vampire of Broadway? What a queen!

  • Madison

    Actually, Frank Rich treated Gore awfully. He constantly smeared Gore during his campaign. He called Gore a liar and fraud. He is now doing the same with Hillary.

    I agree Frank Rich has been a good critic of Bush.

  • Madison

    Here’s how’s to contact Frank Rich:

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

  • http://sugarmyths.blogspot.com tas

    Wow Larry, you accuse Rich of race baiting a day after you wrote a post titled “The ‘Wrong Nigga To Fuck Wit’ Problem for Barack”. I call bullshit.

  • mimi

    The answer has been simple for me for a long time: the NYTimes does not get my money!

    And old habits don’t die hard, btw. Just like Obama says: Time for CHANGE!!

  • sisterdo

    What a great article! It is pretty hilarious that your demented troll Will didn’t even read the article with the volumes of proof that Frank Rich was FOR the war before he was against it.

    Again— what an article. Rich is the worst columnist in America (that’s why Chris Matthews calls him the best). He’s an ignorant, slobbering fool whose analysis is pretty much lock step with Matthews.

    Glad I don’t read him, I’ve heard his punditry and it was atrocious. He’s horrifying.

    As an aside I have to admit I too thought he was gay like Andrew Sullivan. And I like gays, thank you.

    But Frank Rich doesn’t come into the category of human. Some of these people really do think their pens are mightier than swords and votes. And they are determined to carve up Hillary and anyone (or any 2 states) who dare help her or vote for her.

    Where’s the OUTRAGE over Reverend Wright! The BIGOT this week is Hillary? When you LIE, LIE, LIE to get your way you should get your pundit license revoked. What does it mean to be a columnist or a pundit anyway? If you’re not willing to use facts to support your arguments then what are you doing in our major media?

    This BIZARRO media is so crazy– I really believe they’re becoming so unconscionable that it will catch up to them. They are not going to shove the Obamanible One on me.

  • justus949

    Bravo, Larry Johnson, for providing a forum for great articles such as this. I have given up on Huffington Post and other trendy so-called liberal sites and am so glad to find someone who stands up for what is right rather than popular.

  • Mary

    Frank Rich has only been a Bush critic in the last 2-3 years. In fact, in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, he was quite the cheerleader for Bush, bashing anyone who disagreed—including the millions of Americans who demonstrated against that invasion.

    Josh Marshall at TPM supported the invasion, too. So did Markos Moulitsos at Daily Kos. And they literally TRASHED anti-war supporters at the time.

    They have only come to the “critical of Bush” team in the last few years.

    Mr. Rich likes to follow the “what’s the popular opinion at the time” group.

    And when he switches, he switches with an ugly vengeance.

    But it doesn’t cover up the fact that he was wrong all along.

    He and Andrew Sullivan are soul-mates , in that regard.

    I’m not impressed.

  • Mary

    Yes, indeed.

    I guess Mr. Rich doesn’t think Democrats remember him trashing Al Gore the same way he’s now trashing Clinton.

    Or maybe he doesn’t think Democrats remember he also trashed anti-war demonstrators and supported completely and dramatically, Bush’s initial invasion.

    My big guess is that Frank Rich (and Eugene Robinson at WAPO) have no idea they’re only preaching to their own rabid choir, and that every article they post trashing the Clintons turns OFF another voter their Obama may well need to win in November.

    It’s sad, really, how they defeat themselves, and don’t even have a clue.

  • Mary

    Yes. They have become so toxic and rabid , that they TURN OFF the very Independents and Reagan Democrats the Democratic nominee will need in November.

    And besides, if people are no longer reading their nonsense, then their ability to HELP Obama is hugely diminished.

    Their rabid hatred is diametrically opposed to Obama’s call for a “new kind of politics.”

    And everybody with an IQ over 50 can clearly see it for what it is.

    Obama hasn’t “inspired” them to be different at all.

    Same ole, same ole. YUK

  • Mary

    He is the EPITOME of what we all know are the snobby “elitists” of the American media.

    His trashing of Al Gore HELPED elect George W. Bush (the village idiot) as president.

    But I have yet to see an intellectually honest mea culpa from ole Frankie.

    He just moves on to his next trashing craze…..which happens to be Hillary now.

    But you can thank journalists like Frank Rich for convincing the American public that George W. Bush was the good-ole guy everybody wanted to have a beer with, and Al Gore was just some wonkish nerd who wasn’t cool enough to hang out with ole Frank.

    And THAT is what defines who Frank Rich is.

    Slide ole Andrew Sullivan right in there with him.

  • Mary

    Give it up, tas.

    The rich white record producers are the ones who promote the rapper trash; they like the MONEY. And the white suburban teenage boys are the ones who BUY 80% of those CD’s, fool.

    Larry Johnson is the “Wrong Honkey to Fuck Wit,” tas.

    Rapper music is not about racism.

    It’s about GREED.

  • ybnormal

    “Rich asserts, ‘The newest incessantly repeated scenario has it that Mr. Obama’s fate now all depends on a stereotypical white blue-collar male voter in the apotheosized rust belt town of Deer Hunter, Pa.’ ”

    Talk about straw-man hyperbole.

    1. there is no such place as Deer Hunter, PA; Frank made it up
    2. while hunters of deer in PA, can and should vote just like everyone else, as a group they are unlikely to be the decisive election factor
    3. apotheosis is the assignment of god status; the loudest apotheosizers I hear are those who apotheosize Obama.

  • john567

    I e-mailed Donna Brazile and asked her what part of Bill Clinton’s fairytail statement was racist. And if she couldn’t quote the specific racist slur didn’t she owe the Clinton’s an apology. She actually returned the e-mail but she didn’t answer the question and accused me of not having a reason to support my candidate other than being against Obama. I guess she was calling me a racist too. I will vote against this imposter. We also return all of the fund raising appeals from the DNC with our sentiments and hopefully heat up the ears of the phone solicitors. I hope this is happening often enough to impress Howard and Donna.

  • GR3

    Some of these columnists write to incite. They get lots of angry letters to the editor whcih means people are paying attention.
    Call me cynical.
    I found an interesting article on the upcoming convention by Karl Rove, of all people. Political junkies take note!
    http://www.newsweek.com/id/129586

blog comments powered by Disqus