My NewsBusters colleague Noel Sheppard, in the course of detailing how the New York Times devoted four items and over 6,000 words today to attacking Sarah Palin, cited Frank Rich's column and its malicious message. Rich's piece is such a treasure trove for chroniclers of Palin Derangement Syndrome that I'd like to devote a bit more time to deconstructing it.
For sheer paranoid fantasy, it will be hard to outdo the scenario Rich sketches. In having mentioned Harry Truman in her convention speech, Rich sees nothing less than a "creepy" clue to what Palin has in mind. Truman, you see [roll the menacing music] . . . ascended to the presidency due to the death of the president whom he served as VP. Rich imagines a "Palin presidency" that is nothing less than a far-right, McCarthyite coup.
Annotated excerpts from Rich's The Palin-Whatshisname Ticket [emphasis added]:
A McCain victory on Election Day will usher in a Palin presidency, with McCain serving as a transitional front man, an even weaker Bush to her Cheney.
Note the "transitional." How long will McCain last once Sarah gets close to the levers of power?
The ambitious Palin and the ruthless forces she represents know it, too. You can almost see them smacking their lips in anticipation, whether they’re wearing lipstick or not.
Ruthless forces smacking their lips. Frank Rich: taking "e-e-e-vil Republican" to new heights of melodrama.
This was made clear in the most chilling passage of Palin’s acceptance speech. Aligning herself with “a young farmer and a haberdasher from Missouri” who “followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency,” she read a quote from an unidentified writer who, she claimed, had praised Truman: “We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity.” Then Palin added a snide observation of her own: Such small-town Americans, she said, “run our factories” and “fight our wars” and are “always proud” of their country. As opposed to those lazy, shiftless, unproud Americans — she didn’t have to name names — who are none of the above.
Good, honest, sincere, dignified small-town people. What could be more "chilling" than that? Note also how Rich accuses Palin of racism, somehow deciding that she called some people "shiftless." No, he admits, she didn't actually use the word or "name names," but don't you see?: that's precisely what makes it so insidious!
There were several creepy subtexts at work here. The first was the choice of Truman. Most 20th-century vice presidents and presidents in both parties hailed from small towns, but she just happened to alight on a Democrat who ascended to the presidency when an ailing president died in office. Just as striking was the unnamed writer she quoted. He was identified by Thomas Frank in The Wall Street Journal as the now largely forgotten but once powerful right-wing Hearst columnist Westbrook Pegler [NB: whom Rich later describes as a "rabid McCarthyite."].
So Palin's invocation of Truman was a "creepy subtext" because he became president when FDR died in office. Hard to read this as other than Rich implying the absolute worst about Palin and those "ruthless" minions who surround her.
Surely Palin knows no more about Pegler than she does about the Bush doctrine. But the people around her do, and they will be shaping a Palin presidency. That they would inject not just Pegler’s words but spirit into their candidate’s speech shows where they’re coming from. Rick Davis, the McCain campaign manager, said that the Palin-sparked convention created “a whole new Republican Party,” but what it actually did was exhume an old one from its crypt.
Run for your lives! The Night of Undead Far-Right Republicanism is about to walk the land!
Concludes Rich:
As Republicans know best, fear does work. If Obama is to convey just what’s at stake, he must slice through the campaign’s lipstick jungle and show Americans the real perils that lie around the bend.
Thank goodness for Frank Rich, the man with the courage to describe, in the last waning moments before the right-wing coup seizes power and shuts the MSM down, "the real perils" that lurk in the heart of Palin! Creepy, indeed.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Frank Rich, a la Keith Olbermann
September 14, 2008 - 12:44 ET by iveseenitallCuckoo,Cuckoo!
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
The Once Respected New York Times
September 14, 2008 - 13:19 ET by allanfPerhaps the former theater critic is thinking of replacing Keith Olbermann?
I don't think we do justice to the news business without referring to Rich's newspaper as the "Once respected New York Times".
Descent into Madness
September 14, 2008 - 12:58 ET by MidAmericaMcCain campaign manager, said that the Palin-sparked convention created “a whole new Republican Party,” but what it actually did was exhume an old one from its crypt.
Run for your lives! The Night of Undead Far-Right Republicanism is about to walk the land!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gUKvmOEGCU
the last waning moments
September 14, 2008 - 12:58 ET by SickofLibsIt's the classic quicksand scene: the upstretched hand sinks from view.
Several large blurping bubbles break the surface... and all is silent.
Whoo-eee!
September 14, 2008 - 13:21 ET by Indiana JoeThe Sarah-cuda has really got them baying at the moon, doesn't she? It's like earthworms crawling out after a spring rain; they're EVERYWHERE! And now it's her "people." "People?" Who are they lining up in the "Emporer Cheney" role? Or "Darth Rove?"
Give me a friggin' break!
Thank God our "betters," like Rich and Obama, are here to 'splain things to us poor, blinkered fools. Good thing we have them to "show Americans the real perils that lie around the bend."
Desperation...
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Can we call it Palin Madness Syndrome?
September 14, 2008 - 13:54 ET by cjbreischCan we call it Palin Madness Syndrome instead of Palin Derangement Syndrome? I like the abbreviation better.
;-)
Seconded. "...
September 14, 2008 - 18:54 ET by Indiana JoeSeconded.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
This just in..........
September 14, 2008 - 14:43 ET by TheBigBThe National Weather Service has issued a Flood Warning effective until 11:00 p.m. Tuesday, November 4th, 2008 for the Left banks of the Boo-Hoo River along its banks and tributaries located in New York, Washington, D.C. and Hollywood. Other Left Bank tributaries of the Boo-Hoo may also expect intermittent flooding during the warning period.
People living in these areas may expect loud noises such as screams and gnashing of teeth during the warning period. Also, be advised to use caution while reading print media due to the possibility of arrogance and contempt dripping from paper products, especially in editorial sections.
Residents of the warning areas are further advised to roll up their pant legs during the warning period and to stock up on extra items such as ear plugs and extra filters for their BS detectors. You may also seek shelter along the right banks, where flooding is not expected to occur.
Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.
That is FUNNY!
September 14, 2008 - 16:33 ET by CrimsonfistedThat is FUNNY! HAHAHAHAHAHA! I am going to print that comment, post it on my desk at work and at home, and proclaim it on Nov 4th!
Boo-Hoo River. Left Banks.
Classic.
WhatAMaroon
I second that...now this is
September 14, 2008 - 16:48 ET by bigtimerI second that...now this is absolutely priceless..
Thank-you.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
EXCELLENT, BigB
September 14, 2008 - 18:58 ET by Secret ConservativeLOL!!!!! That was great! Very creative - and soooo true!!!
Sorry, I can't read Frank
September 14, 2008 - 14:45 ET by motherbeltSorry, I can't read Frank Rich any more.
He just creeps me out completely.
"As Republicans know best,
September 14, 2008 - 14:45 ET by Richard Romano"As Republicans know best, fear does work"
Physican, heal thyself! What in the world do you call your piece Mr. Rich, if not an exercise and demonstration of how to stoke fear?
The lack of self-awareness is just staggering.
What a sick individual,
September 14, 2008 - 14:50 ET by general companyWhat a sick individual, wonder how many sleepless nights he spent researching this nonsense. I would rather hang out with my "small town" folks then the likes of him anyway. This lying a$$wipe is putting words in her mouth and thoughts in others head. He is a discussing fool, who quite frankly should be put on suicide watch.
Great job Mark
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Correction
September 14, 2008 - 16:19 ET by kilrod"This lying a$$wipe is putting words in her mouth and thoughts in others head. "
Corrected to "This lying piece of "used" a$$wipe---"
(GRINS) kilrod
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier
Why?
September 14, 2008 - 18:57 ET by Indiana Joe"... who quite frankly should be put on suicide watch."
I repeat: WHY? >:^)>
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
I was going to say
September 14, 2008 - 19:37 ET by general companyI was going to say humanity,,but,,Ill think of something,,,I even have the wife working on it
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Are you kidding me? Why
September 14, 2008 - 15:31 ET by SnappyAre you kidding me? Why would the Republicans be wasting time with a "McCarthyite coup" when we are busy trying to keep a Manchurian candidate Muslim socialist who has trouble uttering a cohesive sentence without a teleprompter out of the Oval Office?
Frank Rich is a fat little dough boy who feigns courage...
September 14, 2008 - 15:34 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasFrank Rich is a fat little dough boy who feigns courgage by hiding behind print. Boring and increasingly irrelevant but he certainly is helping McCain/Palin to victory. The more the MARXIST AMERICANS hate her the MORE TRADITIONAL AMERICA LOVES HER!
The answer to terrorism IS war. Next Please!
Oh darn, pretty soon we are
September 14, 2008 - 16:05 ET by bigtimerOh darn, pretty soon we are going to have to send therapists all over the two coasts to revive the ailing elite know it all leftists...who are quaking in their boots...who are cowering under the covers...who very well know Sarah has given hope to the conservatives, that people will vote in troves for her, that the critters up in the House and Senate aren't such a sure thing as they thought when it comes to their wittle plans...in fact they are more terrified of this woman becoming President, no matter when or how that they are screaming the sky is falling...
Yep, things came crashing down on their parade...and we've only just begun.
I have never ever seen the repubs in our party of all different areas of jobs, political or otherwise come out and fight for our side of the aisle...
Please...they internet has made a huge difference...and they finally got the message loud and clear...
Stand up and fight...
Wussies like little Frankie are done....we are going to eat them for breakfast....and toss the crumbs in the fire when we clean up.
...well, done with my rant...on to other things...
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Bias in the Op-Ed column
September 14, 2008 - 16:33 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi Mark,
I was curious about what constituted liberal bias, so I looked at the MRC's page on identifying bias, and what doesn't count as bias (http://www.mediarese...). Now, I'm just a civilian here in the media-wars, but doesn't the MRC guidelines specifically state that Op-Eds not fair game? (In other words, that an opinion that wasn't biased would hardly be an opinion would it?--we'd probably call that a fact.)
The guidelines go on to state that you can use Op-Eds to prove systemic bias (i.e., if a newspaper almost always prints liberal pieces, then we can agree that the newspaper is liberal). But in this case, since everyone here would probably agree that the NY Times is liberal, you don't need to prove it by looking at the Op-Ed columns, right?
So if we already know that the Op-Ed column is not fair game except to prove systemic bias that doesn't need to be proved in this case, what exactly are you trying to prove with this post?
I don't think Mark it
September 14, 2008 - 16:40 ET by motherbeltI don't think Mark it claiming that it is bias...I think he is marvelling at Rich's flight of fancy and paranoia.
Everything here isn't always blatant bias, although that is the main mission.
Strange logic
September 14, 2008 - 19:05 ET by Indiana JoeSo, once a "systemic bias" is proven to one extent or another, pointing out said bias is "hands-off" according to this philosophy? "Nothing to see here, move along. Just forget about it." Otherwise, NB is violating it's own "guidelines," shame, shame.
Wow... just... wow.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
clarification
September 14, 2008 - 19:22 ET by nicholas nicklebyHey Joe,
Don't complain to me, complain to the MRC. From their page on guidelines on identifying liberal bias (two paragraphs):
"You should stick to analyzing
news stories. They are supposed to be unbiased presentations of the
news. When they are biased, the reporter is not doing his job.
Editorial and column writers, in contrast, are supposed to take a point
of view. They are under no obligation to be fair or balanced.
"The
only exception: If you are interested in showing that a newspaper's
editorials are consistently liberal, or advocate liberal policies more
often than conservative ones. Similarly, you can analyze the columnists
run by your local paper if you want to prove that contrary to the
paper's claim or public perception, they do not balance out. But don't
ever cite an editorial or column as evidence of how a newspaper's
coverage was biased."
Now, you're right that I did put some of this into my own words: where they say "consistently liberal" I said "systemic bias," but I don't think I changed anything major when I represented MRC's policy guidelines.
For instance, I never said "hands-off" and I don't believe the MRC guidelines say anything like that. No, if Mark wants to analyze every Op-Ed to prove liberal bias, that's perfectly fine, as far the guidelines go (although they do say "You should stick to analyzing
news stories").
I just asked what the reader was supposed to get from this post by Mark. Was I supposed to learn that Frank Rich is a liberal? But I already know that. Was I supposed to learn that the NY Times is liberal? But I already know that too. So, why analyze the Op-Ed page, when the MRC guidelines are pretty clear about how Op-Eds aren't really what we should be worrying about here? I'm sure there's some news that Mark could analyze to better advantage.
(Also, although the NB contacts page does link to the MRC page about identifying liberal bias, I'm not sure that those are the operating guidelines of NB or if those guidelines only apply to commenters and not to posters. It could very well be that--the NB staff doesn't want to be deluged by us finding liberal bias in every little Op-Ed we read, but they want to make sure that we know about major liberal bias in the Op-Ed pages. That could be the answer, but the only way I will find out is to ask.)
Yeah Joe... Quit yer'
September 14, 2008 - 19:34 ET by bigtimerYeah Joe...
Quit yer' complaining with the nit-picker.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Quit yer' complaining with the nit-picker.
September 14, 2008 - 19:40 ET by general companyThats nit-witter
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg