After reading Frank Rich’s, a colomnist for The New York Times, article titled “McCain Channels his Inner Hillery”, I have learned some new things about McCain and about the author himself. Before going over the article, I read Mr. Rich’s biography; graduating with a B.A. degree in American History and Literature, Rich has worked with media and critiquing since the 1970s. Soon after joining Times, he became chief theater critic in 1980 and then Op-Ed columnist in 1994, and in 1999 he wrote the 1st double-length column for the Op-Ed page.
Frank Rich uses some sarcasim when explaining his thoughts about John McCain explains how you shouldn’t “look too hard at the fine print” when looking at McCain. He ridicules McCain quite a bit. He quotes Senator McCain about Mr. Limbaugh being a clown: “I would like to extend my apologies to Bozo, Chuckles and Krusty”. Those were McCain’s words on a Fox news show.
The author gives facts to belittle McCain; McCain is “closer to the Democrats on immigration, campaign-finance reform, stem-cell research, global warming, oil drilling in Alaska, waterboarding, Gitmo and, until a recent flip-flop, the Bush tax cuts”. These are good things for Democrats except Rich wonders if the liberal’s votes that go to McCain could be a deciding factor. McCain and Clinton have ganged up on Obama by speaking about Obama’s words about getting “Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan’s mountains”. McCain did not mention how Obama explained this would only happen with adequate intelligences and if Pakistan’s president would not agree.
Rich claims that McCain “offers voters no tangible exit strategy from Iraq”. He also concludes with McCain and Clinton’s statements about “Mr. Obama’s race, middle name and tourist snapshot in Somali dress”. He talks about how McCain claims Obama is making impossible dreams, but that Obama’s attitude claims Americans who are “hungry for optimism”.
Rich wrote a good article and gave straight facts to back his opinions. I am, though, a little unclear who he would vote for: McCain or Obama? A big political implication for McCain. says Rich, is “he knows that history will judge him exactingly on how he runs against America’s first black or female presidential nominee, win or lose”.
Frank Rich uses some sarcasim when explaining his thoughts about John McCain explains how you shouldn’t “look too hard at the fine print” when looking at McCain. He ridicules McCain quite a bit. He quotes Senator McCain about Mr. Limbaugh being a clown: “I would like to extend my apologies to Bozo, Chuckles and Krusty”. Those were McCain’s words on a Fox news show.
The author gives facts to belittle McCain; McCain is “closer to the Democrats on immigration, campaign-finance reform, stem-cell research, global warming, oil drilling in Alaska, waterboarding, Gitmo and, until a recent flip-flop, the Bush tax cuts”. These are good things for Democrats except Rich wonders if the liberal’s votes that go to McCain could be a deciding factor. McCain and Clinton have ganged up on Obama by speaking about Obama’s words about getting “Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan’s mountains”. McCain did not mention how Obama explained this would only happen with adequate intelligences and if Pakistan’s president would not agree.
Rich claims that McCain “offers voters no tangible exit strategy from Iraq”. He also concludes with McCain and Clinton’s statements about “Mr. Obama’s race, middle name and tourist snapshot in Somali dress”. He talks about how McCain claims Obama is making impossible dreams, but that Obama’s attitude claims Americans who are “hungry for optimism”.
Rich wrote a good article and gave straight facts to back his opinions. I am, though, a little unclear who he would vote for: McCain or Obama? A big political implication for McCain. says Rich, is “he knows that history will judge him exactingly on how he runs against America’s first black or female presidential nominee, win or lose”.
No comments:
Post a Comment