Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(11,464 posts)
6. Used to say Frank Rich was 100% correct...now 98%..I have read this article three times
Thu Oct 18, 2012, 02:46 AM
Oct 2012

and it is written in an issue of NEW YORK MAGAZINE (not the new yorker which is another)
which is a 2016 issue more than anything else.

Frank Rich likes high drama.
I used to say Frank Rich was 100% correct, but then he quit (was canned?) the NY Times and has practically disappeared writing once or twice a month in the magazine, and sometimes adding stuff on line.

I read this 3 times, and also read the Hillary 2016 article and the Jeb 2016 article in the same issue, which really was more about 2016 than 2012...I think both John and Frank take it as a given that Obama will win.

this article has to be taken into that context.

I myself think Hillary45 will defeat Jeb (two titans, the Kennedy/Reagan match we never got).

That will be the biggest election ever (if you can believe there is a bigger one than this year.)
This year we have one Titan(Obama) and one lightweight poser (Mitt). We have not had 2 titans since???

LBJ/Nixon never happened in 1968.

it has been 1 titan/ 1 lightweight each cycle now (lightweight is not necessarily a bad word either but by Titan I mean game changing different between each person of equal stature in their power to get their fans to vote and have their unconditional back because they are such opposites. OR the party fractures itself, turning a heavyweight into a lightweight
(in 1968 we saw that happen, and in 1980 we also saw it happen.)

United each side stands, united they win (and having someone the vast majority of the party likes vs. having a candidate just to say they don't like the other guy).

Reagan Vs. Teddy would have been just that. (1984 would have been the perfect time too, not an innerparty war like 1980 turned out to be. Teddy should have made a deal with Jimmy
and had the party been united, Jimmy would easily have beaten down the actor.(and I love Teddy).

And Rich is 100% correct, if you consider the Bushfamily the cocharoaches of the world.
Because thank God Jeb isn't running this year.
Compared to Mittens, people are pining for W of all things (it was a great debate moment when Obama KO'd Mitt using the logic that Mitt/Glove are even more draconian than bush was.
So by 2016, with Glove(Ryan) getting blamed for Mitt's lose(they will say if only Mitt wasn't forced by the farright that Ryan leads...
Jeb will be the "sane" one (with the minority wife to attempt to get the Hispanic/Latino vote)
(which is why President Obama in 2013 needs to spend a good heapin' hunk of his capital and get amnesty/citizenship (then also have millions of new taxpayer dollars to get the deficit down)

leading to the battle of the next 8 years.

When Hillary45 wins, we will own the courts, the house, the senate and WE MUST WIN THE GOVERNORSHIPS in every state we can, then we decide how the election boards are run
and the Jim/Juan Crow bullshit will stop.

That is what Frank Rich in the political issue of NY Magazine is talking about.
Not 2012 at all. Because you gotta read the whole issue.
(also remember John Heillerman(MSNBC, writer in NY MAG) and Rich both were major Hillary supporters to start off with.
And remember for those that are not from the NY area, Frank Rich started off a a Broadway play reviewer, perhaps the single biggest one ever, and his words made or broke a million dollar production instantly. A bad review from him closed the show.
So Frank Rich knows and loves drama.

I used to say Frank Rich was 100% correct til he left the NY Times. Now it's just 98%.
But I do love reading him and his views.

just my opinion.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Frank Rich: The Tea Part...»Reply #6