By Far the Worst Performance and Demagoguery at Last Wednesday’s Democratic Debates

[Time for change]

Perhaps some might think it surprising that the award for the worst performance at last Wednesday’s Democratic presidential debates at Dartmouth would be earned by someone who’s not even a Democrat. But anyone familiar with the so-called journalist who moderated those debates shouldn’t have been surprised.

My first insight into Tim Russert’s true character came when I observed the contempt with which he announced the Florida Supreme Court’s decision that, because of technological problems that made it impossible for voting machines to ascertain the intent of Florida voters, Florida’s ballots in the 2000 presidential election must be recounted by hand in order to determine the intent of the voters.

More than a year ago I posted an article on DU titled “What if Dems Fought Back Against Corporate Media Shills Like Tim Russert?”, which described how Russert: bullied Joe Lieberman into conceding the validity of 680 highly questionable Florida overseas ballots in the 2000 election; virtually destroyed Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential candidacy; slyly revealed a hidden Bush campaign button to George Bush while appearing at a 2004 presidential campaign function; let George Bush get away with bald faced lies in responding to accusations of his being AWOL from the Air National Guard as a young man; and let Dick Cheney get away with bald faced lies in responding to egregious Bush administration lapses on 9-11-01.

Well, the so-called journalist is at it again. Consider the following from last Wednesday’s Democratic presidential debates:


Mischaracterizing responses to his question about pledging withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013

Russert put the following question or a close version of it to all the Democratic candidates:

Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?

The use of the word “pledge” and the phrase “no U.S. troops” make that an extreme question. No candidate should be asked by a debate moderator to “pledge” to accomplish something where there is a possibility that unforeseen circumstances may make it impossible to fulfill the pledge. Instead, real journalists interested in real debate would simply ask how the candidate intends to handle the issue, without asking for a “pledge”.

There are few people who are against George Bush’s war in Iraq more than I am, but I can see at least two reasons why, if I were running for President, I would have refused to go along with Russert’s “pledge”. First, because it is possible that unforeseen circumstances might cause me to have to break the pledge; and second, because even if I believed it was reasonable to pledge such a thing, doing so would lay me wide open to attacks that could derail my candidacy. You can bet your bottom dollar that had the future 2008 nominee of the Democratic Party agreed to Russert’s pledge and then appeared on “Meet the Press” during the 2008 general election campaign, Russert would grill him or her mercilessly for making what he would then term an irresponsible pledge.

All three of the leading candidates said essentially that they would drastically reduce our presence in Iraq and that meeting Russert’s pledge would be a goal of theirs. But they wouldn’t promise that they would be successful in withdrawing all troops from Iraq by the end of their first term. I thought that Edwards’ response was especially reasonable. He said that he would immediately draw down about half of the 100,000 troops that General Petraeus expects to be there by January 2008, attempt to draw down the good majority of the remaining troops over the next few months, and probably have to leave in place about 4% of the original total in order to protect our embassy and humanitarian workers who would likely be there.

Following those responses, Russert turned to Bill Richardson and said, “You’ve heard your three other opponents say they can’t do it in four years.” BULLSHIT, you lying sack of garbage! They said nothing of the sort. They didn’t say anything remotely resembling that they couldn’t do it. They simply refused to make an iron clad promise.

But, the next morning on C-SPAN, picking up on Russert’s claim that “they can’t do it in four years”, the whole theme of the program was about that specious claim. And so, I listened to one Democratic caller after another pillory all the leading Democratic candidates for refusing to get out of Iraq in four years.


Invoking Rudy Giuliani as the ideal candidate for preventing nukes from falling into the hands of Iran

A little later Russert hyped the Iran threat by asking if Israel would be justified in attacking Iran if they concluded that Iran’s nuclear capability posed a threat to them. After Senator Clinton refused to take the bait, Russert held up Rudy Giuliani’s answer to the same question as a model:

You will all be running against a Republican opponent, perhaps Rudy Giuliani. This is what he said:

“Iran is not going to be allowed to build a nuclear power. If they get to a point where they're going to become a nuclear power, we will prevent them, we will set them back eight to 10 years. That is not said as a threat. That should be said as a promise."

Russert then asked the Democratic candidates:

Would you make a promise as a potential commander in chief that you will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power and will use any means to stop it?

So there we go again. Rudy Giuliani essentially promises that he will go to war if necessary to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear capability, and Russert challenges the Democratic candidates to agree with that extreme and dangerous position.

Yet all the Democratic candidates handled it quite well. Senator Obama’s response to Giuliani’s warmongering was typical: “I think what Mayor Giuliani said was irresponsible, because we have not yet come to that point. We have not tried the other approach.”

And Russert’s response to that was to put Obama’s responsible caution in the worst possible light, challenging him to equal Giuliani’s extremism:

So you would not offer a promise to the American people, like Giuliani, that Iran will not be able to develop and become a nuclear power?

Bringing John Edwards’ haircut into the debate

Turning to one of the most important issues facing the American people today, and believing that we haven’t yet heard enough about it, Russert zeroed in on John Edwards’ haircut:

Senator Edwards… your campaign has hit some obstacles with revelations of about $400 haircuts… Do you wish you hadn’t made that kind of expenditure for a haircut?

Gee Tim, I wonder what YOU spend on haircuts ... or meals … or whatever. Or I wonder how whoring for your corporate masters while disguising yourself as a journalist stacks up with what John Edwards has made of his life. Maybe that would have been a good debate subject. And have you ever talked publicly about the tens of billions of dollars in no-bid contracts that have been given to Bush/Cheney cronies to do the reconstruction in Iraq that has never been done? Or do you consider that unimportant compared with John Edwards’ haircut? …


Mischaracterizing the torture issue

Towards the end of the debate Russert got into the subject of torture:

Imagine the following scenario. We get lucky. We get the number three guy in Al Qaida. We know there's a big bomb going off in America in three days and we know this guy knows where it is. RUSSERT: Don't we have the right and responsibility to beat it out of him? You could set up a law where the president could make a finding or could guarantee a pardon. Obama – Would you do that as President?

Torture is indeed an important issue for our country to think about today. It is likely that since George Bush started his “War on Terror” our country has been responsible for the torture of thousands – the good majority of them innocent of any crime.

And what do we have to show for all this brutal inhumanity? Well, we got a high ranking member of al Qaeda to admit to a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda that didn’t exist. That in turn helped George Bush to justify his invasion of Iraq. And we’ve antagonized the rest of the world through our lawless and inhumane actions, especially Muslims, thus greatly increasing the recruitment of new anti-American terrorists.

Tim, let me tell you something. If a real journalist wanted to talk about torture, that’s what he should have talked about. That is an issue which, as you read this (I wish) is ruining the reputation of our country, causing us to lose ground in our efforts to combat terrorism, putting our own soldiers at extreme risk for being tortured, and greatly reducing our influence to control world events. It would have been very educational for the American people, and well worth the effort for you to have discussed this issue, as a lesson in what the official sanction of torture leads to.

But instead of talking about that you introduce a scenario that has a remote chance in hell of occurring. Why? You did it so that if the Democratic presidential candidates did the right thing they will appear to a certain percentage of your audience to be “weak on terror”. And then you can grill them some more about it if you can get them on your show.

Well, none of the Democratic candidates succumbed to panic over Russert’s torture scenario. So he persisted:

Senator Clinton, this is the number three man in Al Qaida. We know there's a bomb about to go off, and we have three days, and we know this guy knows where it is. Should there be a presidential exception to allow torture in that kind of situation?

Translation: Do you really care more about abstract civil liberties and moral concepts than you do about protecting the American people against a terrorist attack?

Senator Clinton responded by telling him where to go with his torture mongering, and I couldn't say it any better:

You know, Tim, I agree with what Joe and Barack have said. As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy period… But these hypotheticals are very dangerous because they open a great big hole in what should be an attitude that our country and our president takes toward the appropriate treatment of everyone. And I think it's dangerous to go down this path.

The implication for national politics of frauds like Tim Russert

The damage that people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly can do is somewhat limited by the fact that their extremism is so visible that most people don’t take them very seriously. But corporate media whores like Tim Russert are much more dangerous because they pretend to be serious, unbiased journalists – or rather, they are better at pretending to be serious unbiased journalists than are some of the more obvious types. Consequently, when they frame issues like Russert did as the moderator for last Wednesday’s Democratic debates, opinions are often swayed.

Consider for example the situation in February 2004, shortly after chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay exposed the Bush administration’s multiple lies of Iraqi WMDs. To repair the damage, George Bush appeared on Meet the Press with Tim Russert. Anthony Lappe, in his book “True Lies”, summarizes that interview of February 8th, 2004.

For over an hour, six million viewers were treated to one of the biggest journalistic letdowns of the election year. With so much on the table – from the nonexistent WMDs to the Iraqi quagmire to accusations that Bush was AWOL from the National Guard – Russert could have hog-tied the president and left him twisting in the wind. Instead, he let him off easy, failing to counter Bush’s dodges with obvious follow-up questions.

The implications for national politics have been quite unfortunate, as Democrats feel the need to move further and further to the right, lest they risk being ignored, mocked, or attacked by our corporate news media.

What I had to say about this situation in my DU post of May 2006 is just as true today as it was then:

Corporate journalists will attack Democrats whether or not they aggressively fight back against the corporate media attack on them. So why not change the rules of the game and expose those corporate shills for what they are? If they want to attack us for that, fine. But they’re doing that anyhow, and I don’t believe that they could do a better job of it than they are currently doing. In any event, with an open fight between Democrats and the corporate media, Republicans will have a hard time trying to sound legitimate when they whine about the “liberal media”.

I think that the Democrats did a good job of standing up to Russert last Wednesday evening. But I’d love to see them go even further, by lambasting him in front of a national television audience in response to his stupid hypocritical questions and comments, as he so richly deserves.

[EFerrari]

1. What a great dissection!

:applause:

[Mass]

2. Thanks - Excellent and needed to be said after the mischaracterization

that followed the debate.

:applause:

[BrklynLiberal]

3. You are absolutely right. Russert is no more than a talking-points repeating, water-carrier for the

Repukes.
Excellent post.

[Maribelle]

4. Excellent post!

It's feels good to breath your fresh air!

[daninthemoon]

5. Just curious. Definetly NOT sticking up for the MSM in general,

but isn't it a journalists job to ask provocative questions? What questions would you have had russert ask, or not ask, and why? To me, a much bigger problem is the farce that goes on with the pre-selected questions at bushler's "press conferences". The problem is today's MSM doesn't challenge politicians nearly enough.

[Cha]

7. They weren't "provacotive" ..they

were abusive and in lock step with how timmy the potato treats Dems on mtw.

Funny, how he has two sets of standard procedurial questions for the Dems and the repukes. Abusive and softball.

[Time for change]

12. Good question

I thought of the issue you bring up while I was writing this post, as I feared that I might be falling into the trap of criticizing him for asking tough questions of my party's candidates. But I really don't think that that's the case at all. You are right that it is a journalists job to ask tough questions -- but not unfair questions.

Russert's asking the Democrats to make a "pledge" to withdraw all troops by 2013 was unfair and completely unnecessary. As I said in the OP, he could have simply asked them to explain how they would handle the situation. Instead, he asked them to make a ridiculous pledge, and worse, when they refused to do it, he completely mischaracterized what they said

If you read my post from May 2006 you will see that his approach to George Bush and Dick Cheney is exactly the opposite. He lets them get away with bald faced lies -- which he knows are lies, and he doesn't even challenge them.

Asking Edwards if he's sorry for spending so much money on a haircut is petty beyond description. No serious journalist would believe that that issue has any importance compared to the myriads of serious problems facing our country today.

The torture question was tough, but it seriously mischaracterized the issue. And by mischaracterizing the issue he hoped to put the Democrats in an untenable position that could be used to characterize them as "weak on terror". And I'll bet anything that he does exactly that. And not only that, but when they refuse to go along with him on that issue he puts it in an even harsher frame, virtually telling the audience that the Democratic candidates don't care enough about protecting us against terrorism to make tough decisions.

And then he holds up Giuliani's chest beating, war mongering statement on Iran as a gold standard for the Democrats to follow, and he asks them to vow to say the same thing that Giuliani did.

[daninthemoon]

15. True enough, there were some word traps there. The "pledge"

question actually seemed kind of silly to me at the time, since of course such a "plege" is impossible. Hopefully, he will host a rethug debate, and then we can see if you have him pegged correctly.

[Cabcere]

83. The "pledge" question seems to me to be very much along the lines of

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" - it mis-characterizes the situation, and there's no good way to answer it. :shrug: Of course, that's just my opinion - I'm not a journalist, just the daughter of one. :) Peace.

[Time for change]

85. His handling of the Bush interview in 2004 tells me all I need to know about that

Here's an excerpt from my May 2006 post on the subject:

In response to Russert’s asking if he would authorize the release of his military records to settle the question of whether or not Bush was AWOL from the National Guard, Bush answered “Yes, absolutely. We did so in 2000, by the way.”

Russert, regarded as one of the most well prepared journalists on television, must have known that that was a bald faced lie, as researcher Marty Heldt has previously publicly made clear that his efforts to obtain information on Bush’s military records through the Freedom of Information Act had been rejected. But Russert just let that slide.

[snot]

38. (A) Yes, if they were even-handed; but they're not. (B) Provocative -- no,

it's their job to get at the truth about what's most important to us. Haircuts pale in importance compared to thousands of other issues.

[The Wizard]

47. Why didn't Timmy ask:

If you saw the pictures of the Republican front runners wearing Ku Klux Klan attire and corn holing young black boys would you pledge not to reveal their identities?
Fuck that balloon head Russert. He's been posing as a journalist while shilling for the GOP for years .

[NCarolinawoman]

6. You helped me clarify some of my own feelings. Thank you.

:thumbsup: You should post this at DailyKos.

[procopia]

51. Exactly

Watching the debate, I felt Russert was hostile and actually campaigning for the Republicans, but this analysis pins it down perfectly. Thanks, Time for Change.

[ckimmy57]

59. I thought the same thing

that he was hostile to the candidates. He may as well wear the scarlet letter R and that doesn't stand for reputable.

[Time for change]

86. Talking about campaigning for the Republicans:

Confirmation of Russert’s political leanings (not that any is needed) come from an incident related by Al Gore to Anthony Lappe, which took place shortly before the 2000 election at the Al Smith dinner, attended by Gore and Bush. Here is Lappe’s description from his book:

At one point in the evening, Gore explains, Russert approached the candidates. As Gore was closest to him, Russert respectfully shook his hand and then moved on to Bush. Thinking that Gore had turned away, Russert shook Bush’s hand and, mischievously, turned over his jacket lapel to reveal a Bush campaign pin hidden under the fold.

[Time for change]

68. Thank you -- I'll try to do that today.

[xchrom]

8. first -- i'm recommending your OP -- second --

i thought HRC did a great job handling both timmy and the hypotheticals -- better than everyone else on the stage.
and let me qualify -- i do not want to see her as prez -- but she has my grudging respect.

the hypotheticals have become the sword used to mischaraterize dems and stances to the american people.

your article is truly worth a magazine spread for showing timmy what he really is and what the hypotheticals are about when it comes to ''liberal'' candidates.

i felt like timmy was a republican candidate who had been given the questions and answers before hand -- and was attempting to rip the dems up.

it is true that this crew of candidates is more than up to timmy -- to a point.
the media can handle clips of the debate however they want after -- and that presents a problem.

please, please try to get this published.

[Blue_In_AK]

33. "Timmy and the Hypotheticals"

Good name for a band. :evilgrin:

[Ken Burch]

37. Damn, Blue, you beat me to it!

Their hit single would be "Do The Waterboard!"

[xchrom]

49. they have a good beat and you can dance to them. n/t

[Time for change]

84. I feel the same way about HRC

She is near the bottom of my list of Democratic candidates for President, but she did give a damn good answer to Russert's torture questions. Give credit where credit is due.

I posted this in daily kos an hour or so ago:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/30/16167/8661

[HughMoran]

9. Perhaps the Dems should put Russert on the "Fox News" list

After reading your analysis of his snarky biased questions, I think the Dems should give him a pass next time.

[Time for change]

72. I don't see why they shouldn't

They did it to FOX. Russert isn't much differenct, except he's more dangerous because he's less obvious about it.

[creeksneakers2]

10. That's exactly how Russert operates

Then he goes on to call himself an "analyst" and mouths right wing talking points on NBC Nightly News and the Today Show.

[Emit]

11. Excellent analysis. K,R&B'd! n/t

[Der Blaue Engel]

13. Thank you

I get too riled up to make coherent posts like this, so thanks for taking the time.

Kicked and recommended.

[UTUSN]

14. Have you sent this to him? If you don't, *I* will!!1 n/t

[UTUSN]

17. Done!!1 Not just to him, but to MSRNC Ombuds, Keith, FAIR, COLMES, KURTZ, & CSPAN Journal n/t

[emilyg]

26. good.

[emilyg]

27. good.

[Time for change]

50. Great, thank you

Please let me/us know if you get any responses of interest.

[bbgrunt]

16. k & r

[SaveAmerica]

18. !! THANK YOU!! I've tried to say this several times in the past few days,

but you put it perfectly!!! I'm so surprised that people didn't go into this debate with their foremost thought being that Tim The Fool Man Russert would be moderating. It's been obvious for so long that he has an agenda, I'm just so tired of these idiots leading so many by the nose with their lies and phrasing and re-phrasing until no one knows whether they're coming or going. I'm going to have to take up drinking to get through this next year.

I K'd and R'd , I regret that I have but one R to give you.

[madamesilverspurs]

19. Hypotheticals and Pledges

Wonder what would happen, how many "journalist-analyst" heads would explode, if just once a candidate responded to "Would you make a pledge that by 2013..." with "Will you stop beating your wife by then?"

And how come, when presented with hypotheticals, no one answers with something like, "Well, gee, Tim. First, I'd go over all the intelligence available and consult with those who have the most current information, in order to derive the best wisdom . Second, I wouldn't ignore that wisdom in order to promote a personal agenda."

[ladym55]

20. Thanks for saying so clearly what I've been thinking

I am tired of being told that Tim Russert is someone we need to revere and listen to.

The Democrats did a good job across the board in dealing with his Rethuglican games--

I knew the pledge on Iraq was designed to create an election nightmare for the Dems.

The hypothetical from Fox's 24 on torture has been used by Repugs to justify torture for awhile.

The nonsense on Iran ...

And the silliness about Edwards hair...

The debates said far more about Tim Russert than any of the candidates and none of it was good.

[ms liberty]

21. KR&B. An insightful critique. n/t

[Gloria]

22. "And the headline will be...." none of the Democrats will get the troops out

by 2013.

That's what he said immediately following the debate. And, lo and behold.....

He totally misrepresented what most of the candidates said. They should go after him.

[rodeodance]

23. Contact: Tim [e-mail]

[Hissyspit]

24. The questions he gave were much more serious AND PERSONAL

than anything the Republicans have had to answer in their debates.

[MethuenProgressive]

25. Very well done!!

:kick:

[tom_paine]

28. Russert is one of many bought and paid for propagandists

Yes, they should call him further and more indignantly on his Bushie bullshit.

[Kaleko]

29. Good to know for those who no longer watch TV news.

We totally rely on analyses like yours and comments by an informed readership.

Thank g*d for the internet and you all.

[nashville_brook]

30. i had to turn it off after 15 minutes... everything you say totally resonates.

people often say that certain tv journos are shills -- with russert, his demeanor is 100 percent shill. it's on the surface -- not hidden.

he was on the Daily Show a long time ago and came off like a complete dolt. i really really hate that the candidates had to endure his useless bullshit. it was painful to watch.

[scarface2004]

31. tim russert is a stupid fat asshole,...

who must give good head...because there is no other reason he isn t on a corner under a bridge holding up a piece of cardboard with the words 'appreciate anything, god bless'!!!

[Kurovski]

74. Tim Russert a doormat for the Republican Party's rear-entrance.

[Blue_In_AK]

32. Excellent rant.

Thank you for making it so obvious.

[TahitiNut]

34. There's a far better response to the Torture hypothetical ...

"Tell me this, Tim. Let's say that YOU are the interrogator who believes that the prisoner has specific knowledge of where the alleged nuclear bomb is located. Would you, as a decent human being and loyal citizen, let the threat of prosecution prevent you from torturing that prisoner to get that information? How sure would you be? Do you think you'd be prosecuted if you were correct and it saved millions of lives? Would you be willing to accept the punishment, including imprisonment, if you were WRONG?

"It's NOT a question of policy, Tim. It's a question of whether you can (1) be so certain he knows and (2) that torture would work to obtain the information. Just how much are YOU willing to rely on what YOU say is a reason to engage in torture? Experts say such certainty is a myth.

If you think someone can be so certain, then no policy that allows torture should be needed. If you cannot be so certain, then no such policy is even remotely reasonable or ethical, even under the most ridiculous of hypotheticals."

[Time for change]

87. I would have loved to have seen that

[bleever]

35. Damn, this an exceptionally insightful analysis

of the playing field as it is tacitly laid out by the framing of Russert's questions.

I salute you, friend. Keep up the excellent work.

[Lindsey]

36. Russert is a disgusting, dangerous, and completely owned individual...

Do the candidates have a choice in who the moderator is? His behavior was
unacceptable and unforgivable.

[Time for change]

90. Well, they refused to come to a debate hosted by FOX

It would have been politically more difficult to refuse to come to a debate hosted by Russert, since many or most Americans think of him as an unbiased professional journalist (or NOT, I really can't be sure). I think that their best alternative at this time is to be really aggressive against moderators like that, calling them on their bullshit.

[Time for change]

89. Thank you bleever

I think that all the Democratic candidates more than held their own against the bastard, but unfortunately they couldn't control the post-debate spin that Russert manufactured. I would have loved to have seen them blast him for his stupid malignant questions and comments. That would have helped determine the spin.

[Up2Late]

39. Tim Russert is a JOKE!

A very BAD Joke. :grr:

[Disturbed]

40. Russert is a money grubbing Asshole who works for GE,

a company that profits from death. He is one of the worst water carriers for the RWing because he pretends to be neutral on issues, when he is consistently biased toward the RWing, which is where he makes his $Millions from.

[mitchum]

70. I second that (n/t)

[avrdream]

41. Great post.

Recommended.

This type of analysis is the reason I keep coming back to DU. Gives me hope.

Hillary got angry in another debate (I can't remember which one) about the hypothetical questions and said she wasn't going to answer them. They should all take that stand.

[democrank]

42. Corporate shill indeed.

Question for Mr. Russert: Hypothetical question, sir. How many more lives might have been saved in the Iraq War had you spent as much energy probing pre-war truths as you spent hawking your latest book?

[Time for change]

91. That's a great question. I would have loved for one of the candidates to ask it.

[donheld]

43. Then is Dennis Kucinich distorting the truth?

If it's true that no dem candidate can say "no U.S. troops" in Iraq after 2013, then how can Dennis say

"Stunning admission' by Clinton, Obama, Edwards is tantamount to a permanent occupation of Iraq, Kucinich says
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3562066

[Time for change]

64. I believe that Kucinich would make an excellent president, but I believe he was wrong about this

and he should not have said it.

At least he gives the other candidates credit for saying that they might keep the troops in Iraq, rather claiming that they said they can't get them out, like Russert claimed. But even so, his logic doesn't make sense here.

Their statements most definitely were not tantamount to an admission of a permanent occupation, because they said that they would make every effort to end the war and get the great majority of the troops out. Especially Edwards' statement, saying that he anticipates the need for about 3,500 to 5,000 troops to protect our embassy and humanitarian workers. We still have troops in Bosnia and in Korea, but that doesn't mean that a war is going on there or that lives are being lost. This is not an all or none proposition, which is the way Russert tried to frame it.

I was less impressed with Clinton's and Obama's statement on the subject, because they said that they would probably have to keep some troops in to combat terrorism. That's a statement that leaves an awful lot of lattitude, and I don't believe that "combatting terrorism" in Iraq is an excuse for occupying it. But still, Russert grossly mischaracterized what they said.

[donheld]

77. agreed n/t

[LiberalLovinLug]

44. this is how I wish the Dems would answer that hypothetical scenario:

Torture does not work. Ask John Mcain. And if you ran into a one in a million TV show-like situation, where CIA soldiers are holding the one terrorist who they know damn well knows how to stop some giant explosion of which the only thing they know about it is it will explode when the ticking clock above them reaches the 12....well perhaps in that rare instance the soldiers could defy the law, and if that somehow got the information they were after, and they stopped the explosion, then let those soldiers face the courts to answer for it. Chances are they would walk anyways, for there good intent as they saved the f*#king universe! But that shouldn't effect the law and the rule of law. America should not set the example and precedent to the world by endorsing torturing as a legal avenue. What moral high ground can America criticize the Myanmar thugs? Allowing torture as policy weakens Americas influence and power on this issue around the world and endangers its troops fighting abroad. It's not only an inhumane disgusting position, it's also pretty stupid.

[Disturbed]

45. The candidates should have all answered like this.

Tim that is a stupid question.
Torture is wrong, immoral and stupid just like your question.

On the bible question.

Tim, there should be no test about religion regarding public office.
Your question is stupid just like a lot of your questions tonight were.
I don't think that you should do any more of these because you are incompetent.
Goodnight, Tim.

[Time for change]

92. Excellent

[pwb]

46. Tim Russert to me is now..."Tim Rushbaugh"

[riona]

48. This is the type of reporter who asks a risky question hoping

that the respondent will fall into the trap of attempting to answer. Later, if the answer proves to be wrong, it's on tape and can be thrown back in his face. T's true character seems to be showing on his face as he ages.

[Time for change]

94. That's exactly what he does every time he interviews a serious Democratic candidate on his show

If the Democratic nominee accepts any interviews with him, he/she better come loaded for bear.

[Fly by night]

52. Tim Russert is STILL a herpes sore on the nation's anus.

Back in 2005, Timmy and Tom Brokaw were discussing (on the NBC "Today" Show) how much the media appreciates the bravery of "Deep Throats" and that NBC would be very happy to receive calls from others who can help shed light on government evil-doing. Given how completely ALL the corporate media had ignored our thousands of calls, letters and emails asking them to investigate the 2004 stolen election, that shameful display by Tim and Tom prompted me to write the following letter. (Over two years later, it is still posted on about a half-dozen wed-sites):
-----

To Tim Russert and Tom Brokaw:

This morning, I turned on TV briefly (to catch the weather report, since we really need rain here in Tennessee) and I heard the two of you discussing the self-outing of "Deep Throat" yesterday.

At the end of your on-air discussion, you said, "If there's another Deep Throat out there, give us a call, won't you. We're waiting for your call."

Yeah, bullshit.

For the past eight months, thousands of people have been sending you information on the 2004 stolen election and you've been ignoring it like a burning herpes sore on your anus when your wife asks you why you just can't sit still.

So here's one more attempt to call your bluff. How about contacting Clint Curtis and Sherole Eaton, both of whom have very important stories to tell about the 2004 election theft, and neither of whom is hiding anything (including their identities).

Clint Curtis has testified under oath numerous times and has taken a polygraph test (which he passed) saying that he was hired by Tom Feeney (now a Republican Congressman from Florida and the chief beneficiary of Tom DeLay's largess) to create a software program to hack electronic voting machines (and throw the elections) in south Florida.

Sherole Eaton has been fired as an elections official in Ohio after going public with an affidavit saying that a Triad employee (another electronic voting equipment vendor) had illegally tampered with the vote tabulating equipment in her county (including replacing the hard drive) just before the sham recount occurred there.

Once again, neither of these brave Americans have hidden their identities or their stories. But they may as well have, for all the attention that you and the rest of the corporate media has given their stories since they went public.

So don't fool yourselves, because you certainly are not fooling us.

There are no more Woodwards and Bernsteins left in the corporate media, only patriotism-deficient reporters competing to out-trivialize "Access Hollywood" on the evening (non) news.

If you had an ounce of journalistic curiosity or patriotic relevance left, you would write Clint Curtis immediately and arrange an on-camera interview tomorrow.

Or you would contact Bob Fitrakis with the Columbus Free Press or Brad Friedman with BradBlog to conduct an interview with Ms. Eaton -- I am sure they would be happy to arrange it right away.

If you don't do those things, stop kidding yourself that you are American journalists in the Woodward/Bernstein tradition any more than the "hot military stud" in OUR White House press corps whose presence there was another quickly forgotten and barely covered story.

Your self-imposed journalistic castration says more about your fear of, or fawning flirtatiousness with, this illegitimate regime which has captured our country than anything that you and your bloated cohorts have revealed in quite some time.

"Deep Throat, call us -- we're waiting." Waiting for what -- to put Clint and Sherole on indefinite hold, where they can listen to Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" played ad nauseum until the shuttle service to Gitmo comes to pick them up.

Shame on you folks -- your on-camera hubris is only matched by your irrelevance these days.

So get in touch with Clint and Sherole or stop pretending you do anything of value for this country.

Hurry along now, there must be another celebrity somewhere doing something else nauseating enough to keep us distracted while our votes are stolen and our democracy is smothered under a Paris Hilton-stained pillow.

If you're what passes for journalists these days, we don't need no steenkin' journalists. At least not ones who cash GE checks.

Most assuredly,

Bernie Ellis, Organizer
Gathering To Save Our Democracy

[Time for change]

96. That's an excellent point

I don't suppose you heard anything from them about this.

That's a real joke -- Tim Russert praising whistle blowers. Of course, it's safe to do that with whistle blowers who are old history.

[tblue37]

53. You're good.

K&R.

[pretzel4gore]

54. US politics is like watching a toilet bowl, after pigfat tim used it!

omg...it's 2007, almost October! "How long, oh Lored, how LONG!" to quote Hunter Thompson -who finally knew it was getting too dreary, the answer....
russert lives, and Hunter's gone.
goine crazeeheer

[cgrindley]

55. Slice it any way you want, but only Dodd had character

on the question of getting the troops out.


PS if Edwards didn't want to get called out on his 400 dollar haircut, then maybe he should have just gone to supercuts. His hair is nothing special.

[NastyDiaper]

56. Like Dowd, Russert is willing to lean on CW as a bibliography,

even when it's false. And even when you'd think he knows better.

Awesome dissection.

[Faygo Kid]

57. It's tough for Tim to talk with his tongue up Rush's rear.

Rush Limbaugh understandably never, ever puts himself into an environment where someone might disagree with his insanity (kind of like Bush). He has, however, been "interviewed" a couple of times by Tim Russert, and I have posted here before about it. Russert was worshipful to Rush, taking his insane ramblings and hate-filled pontificating seriously and never challenging him. He was simply grateful to get the interview with Limbaugh, and happy to suck up.

[bagimin]

58. Good god, exceptional work.....

for which news service do you work?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

60. It still astonishes me that Russert testified UNDER OATH, that he took calls from the WH

And, upon receiving said call treated it not as a journalistic interview, but as a "chat" between colleagues.

A true journalist, on receiving Libby's complaining call, would have immediately started "on the record" questioning. Not Timbo.
MKJ

[Time for change]

97. Yeah, that's another episode that showed his true colors

[mistertrickster]

61. See also the Daily Howler: "Russert Happens."

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

Tim Russert didn’t ask about climate change at Wednesday night’s Democratic debate. We had no time for a topic like that. But we did have time for these ruminations. To Russert, these things really mattered:

1) Russert found time to ask John Edwards (for the ten millionth time) about his troubling haircuts.

2) He found time to present the latest 24-style hypothetical—and to play “gotcha” with Hillary Clinton, employing an old Sean Hannity trick. (You get your guest to disagree with a quote. Then, you try to embarrass your guest when you reveal who said it!)

3) He found time to bore the world with a question (to Dennis Kucinich) about a municipal problem in Cleveland—a problem which occurred in Cleveland in 1978.

4) He found time to collect a Bible passage from each of the hopefuls—after leading with the latest RNC-scripted suggestion about the troubling lack of faith among these bad vile Democrats. (“Before we go, there’s been a lot of discussion about the Democrats and the issue of faith and values. I want to ask you a simple question...”)

“There’s been a lot of discussion about the Democrats and the issue of faith and values!” And yes, that’s true, there has been such discussion—among the nation’s pseudo-conservative hacks. But then, Russert has increasingly become a parody of a corporate-selected, multimillionaire mogul. And this is before we consider the bungled discussion he led Wednesday night about Social Security, his favorite topic—the topic on which he has misled the public, and roiled our politics. over the past many years.

How inept is our multimillionaire press corps? Let’s start with Russert’s introduction of this topic at Wednesday’s debate:
RUSSERT (9/26/07): And we’re back at Dartmouth College talking to the Democrats. I want to talk about Social Security and Medicare.

The chairman of the Federal Reserve, the head of the Government Accountability Office, have both said that the number of people in America on Social Security and Medicare is going to double in the next 20 years—there are now 40 million; it’s going to go to 80 million—and that if nothing is done, we’ll have to cut benefits in half or double the taxes. That is their testimony.

Senator Biden, in order to prevent that, would you be willing to consider certain steps? For example, back in 1983, Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, Patrick Moynihan and Bob Dole got together and changed the retirement age. It’s going to be going up to 67 in a gradual increase.

Right now, you pay tax for Social Security on your first $97,500 worth of income. Why not tax the entire income of every American? And if you do that, you’ll guarantee the solvency of Social Security farther than the eye can see.

“I want to talk about Social Security and Medicare,” Russert said at the start of this segment. And then, just like that, for whatever reason, he switched his field to a (largely bungled) discussion of Social Security only. The absurdity of this approach should be obvious; everyone agrees that the real problem with future entitlements concerns the costs of Medicare, not of Social Security. Indeed, the former head of the federal reserve had said this to Russert just three days before the self-impressed burgher led Wednesday evening’s debate. On Sunday morning’s Meet the Press, Alan Greenspan laid out the shape of the entitlement problem, as even the Greenspans now limn it:

RUSSERT (9/23/07): Do you believe either political party has stepped up to the crisis we face with Social Security and Medicare in the coming years?

GREENSPAN: I do not.

RUSSERT: How big a crisis will that be?

GREENSPAN: Social Security is not a big crisis. We are approximately 2 percent points of payroll short over the very long run. It's a significant closing of the gap, but it's doable, and doable in any number of ways.

******

Summersby rightly points out that Russert conflates Social Security (not a problem) with Medicare (huge problem) and then proceeds to only talk about Social Security . . .

[Time for change]

98. Good to see Russert getting this kind of publicity

One reason that I didn't talk about the Social Security issue in my post is that, although I'm sure that the only reason he brought it up was to put the Dems in a politically very difficult position, nevertheless I agree with his suggestion (though I'm sure that he doesn't believe in it himself) that the cap be removed from the payroll tax. As it is, it's a very regressive tax. Why should working people have to pay it on 100% of their income, while the wealthy pay it on less than 1% or their income?

[Gabi Hayes]

62. russert, as always, reveals himself to be worse than he seems

[Joanne98]

63. Bravo! You nailed him to the wall! Good job. kr

[The Count]

65. Ruslut - messing up elections since...as long as I remember

I recall his interview of the Florida candidate in 2002 I think - when he demanded the Democrat to specify where he'll get the money for any of the proposals while lobbing soft balls at Jeb.
I remember his trying to "get" Wes Clark - because that was the best table turning ever!
Russert had the audacity to ask Clark "Don't you think people will say that you are going to witness at the Milosevic trial to raise your profile in the primaries?"
To which Clark replied "And by "people" you mean - you? then explained how and why one becomes a witness.

[Time for change]

100. Russert interview with Wes Clark

I also remember him DEMANDING of Clark that he disavow Michael Moore, who was a big supporter of his at the time. Clark refused to do it, and Russert was really obnoxious in his demands.

[The Count]

103. It was the Rove approved preemptive strike against AWOL charges that culminated

with Rather's firing.
Clark took the attacks for not disavowing Moore, Kerry got the defense (from DNC) for it. It was an interesting crossing of spin.

[Cameron27]

66. Excellent analysis,

what a pleasure to read something so well thought out. Thank you.

K&R

[immoderate]

67. Thanks for that post.

Candidates should play their cards closed. Presidents should have all options open. However, our principles should be clear.

--IMM

[DFW]

69. Tim Russert has evolved..........

And not in a pretty way.

He used to be with Sen. Pat Moynihan of New York.

He then got the Meet The Press job. He is a pious Catholic, and went
ballistic with moral outrage when the Monica Lewinsky affair broke.
In the meantime, he has become a grossly overweight stuffed shirt, supremely
full of himself, knowing no other stance than self-satisfied arrogance, and
apparently only happy when he can take down people he is talking to/about.

He has totally lost sight of the purpose and the principles of journalism, and
indeed, has ceased to be a journalist. A journalist is there to find things out
and report them. Russert is the verbal equivalent of the fat schoolyard ass-kisser
who gets his job as recess proctor for the sole purpose of being able to beat
up on other kids publicly, in full view of the teachers, and know there is nothing
his victims can do about it. Meet the Press? Russert hasn't the slightest idea of
what it means to be the Press.

Of course, there IS something his victims can do about it. All they have to do is show some
solidarity and some guts and say with one voice, "Tim Russert, you are nothing but
a fat pompous gasbag, and we are not going to let our positions or our constituencies
get pummeled by you any longer. If you want to know anything further, send our respective
appointment secretaries an email like any other private citizen looking to spam us."

Let the screen fade with his fat beefy neck supporting his agape mouth while his panel
of candidates leaves to do something more important, like take a nap, or order a cappucino,
or something.

[Cha]

78. I especially like this paragraph, DFW..

"Of course, there IS something his victims can do about it. All they have to do is show some
solidarity and some guts and say with one voice, "Tim Russert, you are nothing but
a fat pompous gasbag, and we are not going to let our positions or our constituencies
get pummeled by you any longer. If you want to know anything further, send our respective
appointment secretaries an email like any other private citizen looking to spam us."

I wouldn't be putting up with that if I were on the receiving end..year after year after YEAR..but our dems?

[DFW]

79. I have to hope that even they are reaching the breaking point

[Cha]

82. I think Howard Dean was

good at reflecting the frw talking points back to wolf blitzer when Dean was on his "denounce the Democratics" show.

I don't know if tim russert has had Dean on lately but I hope if he goes on that he does "timmy plays GOTCHA with the DNCers" homework and tells tim he doesn't get into speculative or negative or "some people say" shit(Dean will have a nicer word).

[DFW]

93. I am stationed overseas, so I miss most US TV

But I know Howard, and he wouldn't stand for Russert's crap for long.
Besides, they can replay his scream all they want now (you notice they
don't--he's not a candidate for anything now, and couldn't care less).
Howard would be sort of polite, but he'd run rings around Russert with
intellect and logic, and Russert would be left there dribbling from
his big mouth. Howard knows where the momentum is right now, and at
some point, so will Russert. If Russert becomes irrelevant in the public's
eye, his job is in peril. He'll change with the wind before he gets blown
away by it. Russert wouldn't let little things like principles or shame get in
the way of that, because he is burdened by neither.

[Cha]

101. I don't watch newcable tv

but see clips of certain things DUers bring on the Board.. even then I don't watch very much but I will break for Dean. :)

Dean is an accomplished Diplomat who doesn't take shit from anybody..not an easy task..it's a Gift!

[spanone]

71. i agree with your assessment of timmy boy

[Raksha]

73. Great analysis, Time for change. This one is a keeper. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

75. The Media Heathers are creating ammunition for the GOP to use in the general.

Obama's 9/12/07 Iraq policy statement:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3565652&mesg_id=3565652

[DeepModem Mom]

76. K&R

[Major Hogwash]

80. Tim bragged that he was at Rumsfeld's Xmas party when Saddam was captured.

It was probably his "pay off" for being such a rightwing shill for Bush.

[f the letter]

81. Great post!

That was horrible to watch. What i don't quite catch is why candidates refuse to call out the moderator when the questions are so ridiculously framed.

[Time for change]

102. At least they disagreed with Russert on numerous occasions and held their ground against him

I agree with you that they should have called him out and castigated him. And I would have loved to have seen that.

But I assume that the reason they didn't was that they considered it too politically risky. Nevertheless, it is my belief that he and others like him do so much damage to Democrats that they would be better off telling him off.

[Auntie Bush]

88. Excellent analysis of Tim RusSHIT'S debate! K&R n/t

[Uncle Joe]

95. Everybody in Iraq should send Tim Russert a thank you card.

His bullshit reporting, his slandering and trashing of Al Gore when he knew otherwise and his sphincter kissing up of Bush during the same period enabling this corrupt incompetent to power, is the primary reason, you're over there. And those were his glory days of reporting, he's only gone down hill since then.

[roxnev]

99. I had to Reply

Russert is a scumbag Republican. After the question to Hillary about torture, just goes to show he is still trying to justify IDIOT Bush and his Republican party for torturing humans.