I meant to post this before–there’s a really interesting take on Frank Rich and Paul Krugman and the NYT power structure by James Wolcott. Here’s a choice selection about the columnist I shyly crush on:
“Look at Frank Rich. His politics aren’t that much different from Krugman’s, practically indistinguishable. But Rich doesn’t draw institutional flak because he’s part of the institution, a superb career politician and champion schmoozer. I’m not saying that as a putdown of Rich, simply pointing out that his identification with the Times itself immunizes him from the sort of static Krugman receives. Rich is a Times insider (as is Dowd). Part of the team.”
I’ve felt the static on Krugman–I enjoy defending him from Dems who find him too zealous (most don’t put up much of a fight, as it’s a retold line they’ve heard themselves). The perception is that his early work of simply explaining complex economic theories was great, and that his Bush-bashing is not. I’ve enjoyed every article I’ve read through–he’s a great voice to rally around.
The Price of Being Too Popular [James Wolcott]
i like rich better than krugman. i think krugman makes the same argument over and over. krugman, and dowd make good points, but sometimes obvious ones.