Luke Russert remembers his dad

I haven't commented on Tim Russert's death until now, because, quite frankly, I didn't really know what to write, which is pretty rare for me. I hate to pull out clichés when something awful like this happens, but sometimes we really don't realize what we have until it's gone. And the media and world really will miss Tim Russert. And so will I.

This morning on Today, Russerts's son Tim paid homage to his dad with a very moving interview with Matt Lauer, and I came away very moved by how Luke conducted himself throughout what must have been a very emotionally wrenching interview to give.

Later on this morning, it really hit me as sat in my chair to listen to the Meet the Press podcast, as is my habit every Monday morning. (I usually do it in my car when I'm commuting to my teaching job during the school year.) Anyway, not hearing Russert's voice booming, "Our issues this Sunday..." really was a downer. The longest running show in television history will never be the same, no matter who NBC picks to replace him.

Just hearing the music to begin the show always gets my political juices flowing & gets me in the political mood. I have many, many memories of MTP since Russert has been the moderator - the '92 election, the '00 election, the '04 election and especially the '06 election, when he made an otherwise dull and hot summer a very, very interesting one by highlighting many of the Senate races in battleground states.

I loved it that he never let any of his guests filibuster, no matter where they came from on the political spectrum. Russert was a genuine, affable guy who wore his emotions on his sleeve. I remember on MTP just days before the '06 election, when the insufferable Sen. Elizabeth Dole said Democrats were "content with losing" the War in Iraq, Russert became very short and had to play referee. Later on in the show, when Dole was filibustering by pimping every candidate that Republicans were running for the U.S. Senate, an exasperated Russert finally blurted out, "We get it, you like your candidates."

That's what I loved about Russert - he was always prepared, and he wasn't subservient or deferential to any of his guests simply because of their status. He was always respectful and fair, but he was firm and prepared.

Talking Points Memo put together a pretty nice montage of Russert's moments below - take a look...

Rare is the person in the world of journalism that everyone from all of the networks will be deferential toward when that person passes - Russert was given tribute on all the networks over the weekend, and he deserved all of it.

My favorite moments from the montage above were Bob Schiffer's words about Russert: "News programs are about the news, they are not about the newscasters." That's high praise from a seasoned pro like Schieffer, who's another throwback journalist who knows how to get a story without becoming part of the story.

I loved how he was always willing to show his Buffalo pride, and how he never missed an opportunity to express his love and affection for his son, Luke.

Russert is no doubt smiling down on all of us, wishing he could be a part of the action that will be the 2008 election. It won't be the same without him. Rest in peace, Tim.

McCain's beliefs on our soldiers inconsistent

One of the running themes of this blog from now until election day will be pointing out John McCain's inconsistencies (I'm being kind) on a host of issues.

The footage above is from a little while ago on Meet the Press, when Tim Russert took McCain to task for some of his past words on a U.S. Military mission abroad - in Somalia. We all know how that tragically ended, and the war was certainly mismanaged. (President Clinton often gets ridiculed for that mission, but the record shows that President Bush (41) put our troops in the country, not Clinton.)

Anyway, Russert uses McCain's words against him about Iraq, and clearly McCain doesn't like it. Too bad.

Yes, Somalia and Iraq are different in many ways, but there are some similarities, too. McCain's stance on Iraq is wrong, and has been wrong for years. It should also be noted that it differs pretty widely from American public opinion about the war, but that doesn't seem to faze him in the least. We'll see if the American public thwarts his ultimate goal in about 151 days.

Brave New Films: The Real McCain 2

Brave New Films has created another John McCain video, dubbed The Real McCain 2. In it, BNF does a pretty nice round-up of McCain reversals over the years on a host of issues. Probably my favorite is when Tim Russert asked McCain during one of the Republican debates about his quote regarding economic matters - that he doesn't have the expertise and know-how to deal with these issues (I'm paraphrasing). McCain, like most politicians who are embarrassed by an inconvenient fact, denies it, flatly asserting, "I don't know where you got that from..."

Just days later, Russert took McCain to task on Meet the Press, providing the quotation and where he got it from (the Wall St. Journal). BNF doesn't include McCain's response to Russert in the film, but he basically just laughed and hemmed and hawed his way into a side step, and didn't really answer the question.

His reversals on the Bush tax cuts and conditions on the ground in Iraq are well documented here as well.

Wait, wait! Obama isn't wearing a flag lapel pin today!

Some maverick, that McCain.

For more videos and information about McCain, visit The Real McCain - the people over there are doing some startlingly good work on him.

Russert & Matthews on McSame's free ride

This is a pretty telling piece of footage from a few days ago, and again (!) I find myself agreeing with Chris Matthews. (I know - that's twice in one week!) Anyway, I have to applaud Matthews for raising the question, which in so many words was, "Is McCain getting a free ride?" Even more shocking is that Russert agrees with him that indeed he is. Of course, that doesn't suggest that much will change, starting with Cindy McCain's startling defiance yesterday that she will "never" release her tax returns, even if she becomes first lady.

Hmm - so far, I'm seeing and hearing very little in the way of outrage or backlash over that. And before you think it's not that big of a deal, again I ask you to consider and remember what big news the tax returns of BOTH the Clintons and Obamas was, just weeks ago.

What's more, the McCains have both "filed separate tax returns for the last 28 years," according the Cindy McCain yesterday. According to several reports I have seen in the last few days, all of the couple's assets are in her name. No way should all of this come out in the wash. What's more, there's mounting evidence that McCain is using his wife's wealth to skirt campaign finance laws. More on that a bit later in a separate post.

As far as the press giving McCain the same amount of scrutiny that Obama and Clinton have received, don't hold your breath. There are many reasons I feel this way, but the biggest is this - our multi-media conglomerate companies are just about all run by corporate, greedy Republicans. Asking them to give McCain the same amount of scrutiny as the Democrats would be akin to these media corporations shooting themselves in the foot. It isn't going to happen, folks. And guess what? It's why the Internet, and Net Neutrality, is so vitally important to our democracy right now - it's about all we have left, until the corporations and the lobbyists take the 'Net over. If we let them. That's not paranoia - it's a fact - there are numerous movements afoot to let ISPs do just that. Read more about Net Neutrality Here.

And that's precisely why the two most important topics that MUST be addressed in the next administration, no matter WHO wins the White House (including, heaven help us, McCain) are these:

1. Election Reform - electronic ballots, paperless voting, computers that can be easily hacked - these all need to be reformed, and massively.

2. Media Ownership - these media mergers must stop, and NOW. The next president has to put a stop to this - pretty soon, there will be only a handful of radio station owners (oops - that's already here), television station owners and newspaper publishers. Fewer and fewer media outlets now have more and more power, and this problem seems to grow by the day.

These two issues are and will continue to be a recurring theme in 2008 (and beyond) on this Website, because I really do feel that they threaten our democracy's very existence as we know it. That last sentence is not hyperbolic in any way - think about it - without free and fair elections, or a free press, the rest of our democracy is simply a sham, a house of cards, and both of these are being threatened right now, as you read this.

Do I think that Hillary or Obama will dramatically reverse these two troubling trends as if by magic if either of them wins the White House? Absolutely not. That's why we have to fight for it and demand it. However, I give reform of these two issues (and a whole lot more) a much better shot with either of those two than if McSame wins in November.

Helen Thomas: God help us if we get Dicked

This is a pretty interesting interview by Tim Russert of Helen Thomas, a pioneer in the White House press corps. Thomas, a Hearst newspaper columnist, has covered every president since John F. Kennedy.

She's got some particularly nasty words for presidents Bush and Cheney. In true Thomas fashion, she doesn't mince words, and she hasn't since 1943, when she joined UPI.

I've read her book Front Row at the White House: My Life and Times, which was very good. She has a new book out now, Watchdogs of Democracy? : The Waning Washington Press Corps and How It Has Failed the Public, which should also be a good read.

Based on her forthrightness, and her Front Row book, I recommend this one highly. Watchdogs of Democracy was released on Tuesday.

Telling poll numbers from NBC's Russert

Speaking of the War in Iraq, last night on NBC News, Tim Russert had some pretty interesting poll results. They are indeed very telling.

I find Russert's comments on Rudy Giuliani spot on, too. Rudy is trying to take control of the issue of terrorism. Interesting how he thinks he's going to do that - he was mayor of New York City during 9-11. Okay, so that makes him qualified to lead the United States for the next four years as we battle worldwide terrorism?

People who honestly believe that Rudy would make a great leader and that he's qualified to be president really don't know much about him, or are wooed by Giuliani's slick campaign of sound bites and arrogance. His comments a few days ago about Democrats and their ability to fight the War on Terrorism may have sealed his fate - how many Democrats are going to jump across the political divide and vote for him now? I'd stay home before I'd vote for him, and I've never missed a vote in a presidential election.

MTP: Good Gonzo chat, but T Russ lets Senator Specter off EASY

I watched Meet the Press yesterday, and I must say that host Tim Russert redeemed himself somewhat after having Tom DeLay on last week. That's not too surprising to me, though - Russert rarely has two bad weeks in a row.

Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (D-PA) were on to talk about the continuing saga of the eight dismissed federal prosecutors.

Just a few thoughts, and then I'll move on to other aspects of this story in different posts.

First of all, if I hear one more Republican mention that President Clinton dismissed all 93 federal prosecutors when discussing Alberto Gonzales, I'm going to scream until my voice goes out. All together now, folks - COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

Just about every president replaces all of the federal prosecutors when first taking office. It's the standard MO - prosecutors are expected to turn in their resignation letters with the arrival of a new administration. Clinton did what just about every president does. And, after the first term, if a president is around for a second term, typically some, if not all, are replaced.

That's not what the controversy is in this case, period. At issue here is that many of these attorneys were fired because they were not prosecuting cases the White House wanted (in some cases, more Democrats); and in other cases, the White House was peeved that certain Republicans were being targeted.

For instance...

As reported by the Congressional Research Service - a piecemeal "purge" of attorneys (especially mid-term) is not normal, or ordinary. Of the 468 U.S. attorneys confirmed by the Senate over a 25-year period, only 10 left office involuntarily. (This number does not include the eight that Bush bounced.) This excludes the typical resetting with every administration, which I mention AGAIN. I wish people would just stop it with the Clinton references. I'm going to start calling Clinton "Crutch" because more than any other person on the planet, he's been leaned on by Repubes in trouble.

The stories about WHY these attorneys were fired seems to change like the temperature, too. For example, check out what happened to David C. Iglesias, the fired attorney in New Mexico...

In February 2007, Iglesias publicly alleged that "two lawmakers called him about a well-known criminal investigation involving a Democratic legislator" and that "the lawmakers who called him seemed focused on whether charges would be filed before the November elections. He said the calls made him feel "pressured to hurry the subsequent cases and prosecutions."

As a quick aside, U.S. attorneys in Arizona, Nevada and California were also conducting corruption probes involving Republicans at the time of their dismissals, but I'm sure that's entirely coincidental, right?

According to Iglesias (and this was later confirmed), prior to the 2006 midterm election, U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) called and "pressured" Iglesias "to speed up indictments in a federal corruption investigation that involved at least one former Democratic state senator."

When Iglesias told Domenici that an indictment wouldn't be handed down until at least December, Iglesias said "the line went dead," and he was fired one week later by the Bush Administration.

After initially denying the call, Domenici recently copped to making it.

According to a WaPo article, "A communication by a senator or House member with a federal prosecutor regarding an ongoing criminal investigation is a violation of [Congressional] ethics rules."

Domenici admitted calling Iglesias despite initially lying about it, but Domenici said he never used the word "November" when he called Iglesias about an ongoing Albuquerque courthouse corruption case.

Yea, right.

I'll have more in a bit about subpoenas, A-Gonz and Arlen Specter.

MTP marks Iraq War Anniversary with...... TOM DELAY?

I've been meaning to get this one out, but other topics have been winning out and taking up my writing time lately. But, trust me, this one's worth a few minutes of your time...

Oh, have I been waiting to blog about this one. Before I get into it, I'll offer this qualifier: I love Meet the Press. I love it that the show's been on the air since 1947. I love it that it brings political figures into my living room every Sunday morning about issues that matter to me. I've been watching MTP for years. Rare is the week that goes by where I don't either watch it, or listen to a Podcast of it. On balance, I like Tim Russert, who's been hosting the show for 15 years. However, I don't always agree with his choice of guests. I don't know what goes into booking various guests on his show, or who is responsible for booking them, but whoever that person is ought to be fired for booking the guests it did before the four-year anniversary of the Iraq War's start.

Eight days ago, this was MTP's line-up during the show's last 1/2 hour to debate the war:

On the Democratic side, Russert bagged Tom Andrews, a former House member who has been out of Congress for the last 12 years, but the leader of Win Without War; and Congressman Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired Vice Admiral and Naval Academy graduate, who just happens to have a Ph.D. in Political Economy and Government from Harvard University.

Okay, not bad. Russert could have done better than Andrews, but not bad.

However, on the Republican side of the debate, Russert had on Tom DeLay, the disgraced former House Majority Leader who resigned from Congress under federal indictment, and Richard Perle, who, as the chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee from 2001-2003, was one of the principle architects of the Iraq War.

Wow, nice choices, Tim. Wasn't Donald Rumsfeld available?

If you didn't get a chance to see this particular episode of MTP, you've got to take 15 minutes to watch this circus. I can't post it here myself, since I can't host videos directly on my blog since it's hosted on Blogger, and YouTube only lets users post clips that are 10 minutes or shorter. But, I did find a clip of the DeLay ridiculousness on Crooks and Liars. Get it by Clicking Here, and it should be the second or third entry down.



Air America Radio host Rachel Maddow took some pretty good swings at DeLay last Monday - above is a clip of her DeLay diatribe. I love Maddow - I listen to her show when I can, and I have her Podcasts loaded into my iPod, so I listen to them when I have time.

In case you can't view the video, here's a brief transcript. Try to read it without falling down in fits of laughter.

The entire segment starts out with DeLay's grandstanding (surprise)...

RUSSERT: And we're back. Welcome all. The war in Iraq four years old, and let me show you some of the numbers after the first four years. U.S. troops killed, 3,192; US troops wounded, 24,042. The cost is $351 billion. If you include budget requests, it would be about $500 billion. And the Iraqi civilian deaths, some 54,000.

Congressman DeLay, is the war in Iraq worth the cost in life and treasure?

DELAY: Well, you said it yourself, Tim. It's been four years since American has been attacked by these terrorists. We seem to forget that we are at war, and when you're at war, you've got to fight that war to win rather than fight the war for political posturing. We have been fighting that war. Sure, it--it's been tough. We've had to write a complete new war manual on how to fight terrorists that [sic] want to kill women and children. If you compared that note to, say, the Vietnam War in the same period of time, you're talking about much more in casualties and, and relative spending.

##

First off, someone needs to give "The Exterminator" a grammar lesson on the "that/who" rule. But, I wouldn't expect a rube like DeLay to know it - political character assassination is his speciality. If political hate speech and invective were knowledge, he'd have a Ph.D. Back to the show...

DeLAY: "...this is hard [referring to Democrats' desire to set a deadline for withdraw or redeployment], so I want to surrender."

SESTAK: Absolutely not.

DeLAY: That's exactly what it is.

SESTAK: You never just keep banging your head against the wall, we learn in the military. Is there a better way to go about it? And that's what this bill does is it takes the last leverage we have to make it happen.

RUSSERT: But setting a date for–is setting a date for withdrawal...

DeLAY: ...every step of the way, undermine–I think it's aiding and abetting the enemy. When you tell the enemy what your strategy is, that's aiding and abetting the enemy because they can use that strategy to come back and harm your soldiers.

SESTAK: Tim, I spent 31 years in the service of our nation leading men and women into combat in war. And I always assumed, at least I always hoped, that the men and women back here, the policy makers, day in and day out, were spending hours, weeks, debating about the best use of this national treasure. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said it best a few weeks ago when he said, as someone asked him about this debate and what's going on in the House, he said, "Our men and women of our military are educated. They understand the democratic process." I remember when working for President Clinton as director of defense policy, when I didn't agree with you, Tom, but that there was the Buyer Amendment to stop in a year any more funding for our troops in Bosnia. And then there was, in 1999, the effort not to place any more troops not–in Kosovo. While I may have disagreed with you, I respected your office, that that is the constitutional duty of Congress, to take pride for the common defense. [Emphasis Mine]

DeLAY: Joe, you're a congressman. Go back to Iraq and talk to those same soldiers and you'll get exactly a different response from those soldiers.

SESTAK: I talk to them, Tom. I talk to them all the time.

DeLAY: I do, too.

###

Does anyone honestly believe that Tom DeLay talks to soldiers in Iraq? Or Iraqis? That one's got b.s. written all over it.

A little more DeLay...

FMR. REP. ANDREWS: Tom, with all due respect, I think I'd be much more comfortable taking the military strategy advice of Admiral Sestak than, than Tom DeLay. And listen, you know, we in Washington love to talk about what's in the best interest of the, the people of Iraq. We've been doing this for years and years. Why don't we ask the people of Iraq what they think? If you ask the people...

DeLAY: Well, let's ask what's in the best interest of the American people.

ANDREWS: Well, ask the people--let's ask--let's ask the people of Iraq, OK?

DeLAY: No, let's ask the American people.

ANDREWS: What is--let's ask them first, OK? Because listen, they're the ones that have the most at stake. They're the ones that have the most at stake.

DeLAY: I'm more interested in the American people.

##

Evidently, since DeLay was forced to leave Congress under federal indictment, he isn't following polls too much anymore. A majority of the American people want us out of Iraq. If you pick up a newspaper other than The Washington Times or watched some television other than Fox State TV, you'd know that. (I believe the latest poll has Americans wanting to leave Iraq by just shy of 2/3 - it's at around 60 percent.)

But wait! There's more... (Feel like you're watching a Ginsu Knife commercial yet?

I'd be remiss if I didn't miss war criminal Richard Pearle, taking an Al Gore quote completely out of context, as reported by Media Matters:



HOWEVER, Gore STILL opposed going into Iraq.

Eh, I could go on an on about this memorable Meet the Press, but why bother? It did bug the living daylights out of me that Russert (or his superiors) decided to bring in Tom DeLay, so he could plug his piece of garbage tome. I wouldn't buy his book if someone paid me a grand to read it.

I counted Russert holding up the book at least three times (maybe more - I was doing stuff around the house as it was on). How annoying. Go on Fox News and plug your tripe.

Meet the Press for idiots

This one is from Conan O'Brien, and it's pretty good. No set-up required from me, just watch it. The punchline is worth the wait.

McCain's misguided Iraq proposal

Here's judas John McCain pontificating on how we are going to win or lose in Iraq in the next "several months" on Sunday's Meet the Press. What a truckload of crap. I'm sick and tired of hearing politicians say we can win in Iraq, all for political gain. There IS NO WINNING IN IRAQ, period, and the sooner our leaders realize it, the better. What, exactly, would constitute a victory? The terrorists laying down their arms and pledging not to kill any more Americans or Iraqis? That will never happen.

McCain is insane if he wants to send in more troops to that hell hole. An overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the move, and in this case, I think the opinion polls have a point. McCain correctly points out that you can't conduct foreign policy from opinion polls. I'd add "most of the time" to that phrase, though. And in this case, I'm afraid the American people are right.

What are more troops going to accomplish? More combat deaths. It's funny, as I listened to the whole episode of MTP, I was struck by the overtones of Vietnam in McCain's choice of words, i.e. - using phrases like "sweep and hold" and talking about the need for more troops. His reasoning, that chaos would spread in the area if we pulled out, is reminiscent of Vietnam; the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations all felt that if Vietnam fell to the communists, then all of Southeast Asia would fall to communism. This "domino effect" never happened, and we paid for that mistake in a tragic amount of American blood - over 58,000 war dead. I hope and pray that we don't ever make that same mistake again, but we may be on the verge of doing just that. I feel analogies to Vietnam have been wildly overdone in the press, but it seems like we get closer and closer every day to that analogy becoming all too real.

What really riled me was when Russert pressed McCain on why the American people should believe him, or believe that his strategy would work, the Senator replied that people should trust him because of his military background. Spoken sotto voce, McCain is implying that because he spent 5 1/2 years in the Hanoi Hilton, we should trust his foreign policy proposals? Sorry, I ain't buyin' it. I'm not Swiftboating McCain here - he's a hero and I can't even begin to imagine what he went through as a POW. But, that doesn't qualify him to set Iraq policy, or be president.

Just as an aside, where were the Democratic Senators on MTP on Sunday? I realize that Harry Reid, the soon-to-be Democratic Senate Majority Leader, was on Face the Nation, but I'm sure Tim Russert could have found someone from the Democratic side of the aisle. Joe Lieberman barely qualifies, since he's a self-identified "I.D.," as in "Independent Democrat," as he told Russert.

I wax and wane on whether I like Russert or not - it depends on the week, the guests, and the show, but most times he does a pretty effective job at taking politicians to task on their answers, especially when it differs from their past answers on the issues. One thing's for sure - Russert is always prepared, researched and ready to interview his guests, and most of the time, he's not afraid of the hard-hitting question, and that applies to Democrats and Republicans alike. Journalists of his ilk are in shockingly short supply these days.



Just a quick blast from the past. This is McCain on Meet the Press earlier this year, explaining that Jerry Falwell is NOT (emphasis mine) "an agent of intolerance." The Senator has a nice dodge at the end of this clip, too, when Russert asks him if he thinks Falwell is just that: "I think Jerry Falwell can explain his views on this program when you have him on."

I sure hope Democrats store away this video clip for the '08 campaign - this is shameless pandering to the far right for votes, and it sickens me. I won't even waste my time explaining why Falwell is so despicable, save for one example: following the 9-11 attacks, he opined that gays and abortion doctors were part of the reason the attacks happened.

Does that sound like intolerance to you?

Senator McCain, please run. Please.

He'll get torn to pieces, if the Democratic Nominee has any backbone.

Dole an outrage on Meet the Press

Above is a comment from Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), Chairwoman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, on yesterday's Meet the Press. These kinds of comments have become so commonplace that in some circles they are routine, but not with me. It's inexcusable for a politician from either party to make comments like this, but I mostly hear Republicans saying it these days, for obvious reasons - they are in power, they set the agenda, and if you don't come along with what they want, well, then you're "for the terrorists."

Notice when Russert tries to let her Democratic counterparts rebut her outrageous claim, she won't STFU, repeatedly talking over everyone, including Russert, in an attempt to qualify her remarks. (No doubt saying to herself, "I just pulled a John Kerry - I'd better take that back!") Why? Because she knows better. Notice the second time she says it, it's qualified. Yes, it's campaign season, but some lines shouldn't be crossed, especially when they are lies.

Dole, known affectionately as "Liddy," (maybe now, she should be called "Dip Shiddy" - she could be a rapper!) ought to be ashamed of herself. No wonder her presidential campaign lasted about 10 minutes - with divisive, inflammatory comments like these, how much appeal could she hope to have?

And to be clear, I listened to all of yesterday's Meet the Press on my commute to work this morning, and Dole's comment in the clip above is NOT taken out of context. If you don't believe me, download the Meet The Press podcast - you can get it for free.

What's more, Dole made herself look absurd with her grandstanding and filibustering throughout the entire show, talking over Tim Russert more than once, making sure she mentioned every single Republican Senator who's in a competitive race. At one point, a clearly exasperated Russert said, "Okay, we know you endorse all of your candidates." I could hardly tolerate listening to it.

She boldly goes on to say that Republicans will retain control of the Senate (surprise). Her counterpart, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), chairman of the National Democratic Senatorial Committee, was more reserved, saying it's "not time to pop the champagne and high five just yet," saying he "didn't want to jinx it." Well said, Chuck.

We'll see if Dip Shiddy's predictions prove true when the returns come in - starting about 36 hours from now.