Russert cited "business and CEO experience" in claiming Romney "looks presidential"
On the May 30 edition of NBC's Today, co-host Matt Lauer said of former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA): "And while showing some strength at the polls ... many say he even looks presidential." Minutes later, NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert told Lauer: "Matt, I think your interview and your analysis is exactly on target. Mitt Romney is seen as someone who looks presidential with the business and CEO experience." As Media Matters for America has documented, numerous other media figures have praised Romney's appearance or said he looks like a president, including Republican pollster Frank Luntz, Newsweek senior writer and political correspondent Jonathan Darman and assistant managing editor Evan Thomas, MSNBC host Chris Matthews, Politico chief political columnist Roger Simon, and former Time magazine White House correspondent (now chief political correspondent for The Politico) Mike Allen.
From the May 30 broadcast of NBC's Today:
LAUER: He's a Republican candidate running for president who raised $23 million in the first quarter of the campaign.
[begin video clip]
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Welcome to Harvey's.
ROMNEY: Thank you. How are you today?
[end video clip]
LAUER: And while showing some strength at the polls --
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN [video clip]: Oh, we came here to see you.
LAUER: --many say he even looks presidential.
ROMNEY [video clip]: Nice to meet you.
LAUER: However, former governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney is very much still a man trying to define himself, especially on the question of his faith.
[...]
ROMNEY [video clip]: I'm convinced that America's days are brighter in the future even than they have been in the past.
LAUER: You talk sometimes in a room -- and I just listened to you a little bit -- you talk about your business experience, you know, what -- you know, the kind of CEO-slash-politician. I remember George [W.] Bush, who was running for president, talked about his business experience also. What do you bring to the table that's different?
ROMNEY: Well, every person is different. Just because people are in the same party or have a background that's similar doesn't mean they are the same people.
LAUER [voice-over]: The war in Iraq was not part of Romney's speech at a local high school, but one student did put him on the spot.
[...]
RUSSERT: Matt, I think your interview and your analysis is exactly on target. Mitt Romney is seen as someone who looks presidential, with the business and CEO experience. I think that the reason he's under the microscope is that some of his positions that he took as governor have evolved now that he's become a more conservative presidential candidate.
Didn't he also call the current president the CEO president?
Funny, but I was sort of thinking the same thing myself.
Compare Mitt to Rudy and ask yourself, honestly, based on appearance, which has a better chance to be elected?
Mitt wins every time.
Randy
Following your logic, I'm thinking Miss USA looks more presidential, she even reminds me of President Ford.
She's got my vote.
I'm so shallow.
Randy
Well I could see Romney cast as a President in a Hollywood movie, so in that regard he looks quite *Presidential* in the most superficial way.
Who could've imagined Hollywood would remake Bedtime for Bonzo?
I agree. He also looks like a mobster, a singer in a night club, the star of Evil Dead II, and maybe The Shadow.
So what happened to "Death Valley Days"?
As in Twenty Mule Team Borax and...was it "The Old Ranger...?
Yup a real businessman as in hustler:
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/05/30/these-ads-kept-mitt-romne_n_49954.html>
By your logic, campaign ads are reliable sources, and John Edwards is also a "hustler."
Did you read the article or just watched the ads?
The Kennedy campaign discovered that Ampad, a company purchased by Romney's Bain Capital in 1992, had recently bought SCM, an office products company in Marion, Indiana. All 350 workers at the SCM plant were laid off, then offered their jobs back at reduced wages. They went on strike. The Kennedy campaign sent a crew to Marion to film the workers. A half dozen ads resulted from the interviews, most of them quoting workers denouncing Romney for lining his pockets at their expense. A women tells viewers: "I'd like to say to the people of Massachusetts, if you think it can't happen to you, think again, because we thought it couldn't happen here either." Romney nosedived in the polls
Looks Presidential?So being a GOP flip floper means you look Presidential? Russert is terrible.
Romney does look "presidential", so what? He speaks well, he looks well, he carries himself well.......but that also translate to some as being slick, well packaged, and too polished. And considering his "evolving" positions, I opt for the latter.
Sorry Tommy. I have to disagree with you on this one.
Romney might be a handsome man, but that doesn't mean he looks presidential. Not many of our presidents have been handsome in the traditional sense. Except for Richard Nixon, of course.
Eh. Either Russert gets to have an opinion on the looks of a candidate, or media guys and gals should be opinionless on air (that means Olbermann too!).
Ben Affleck recently commented that Romney looks like a Ken Doll. The sun still rose the next morning.
Ben should know, as one Ken Doll to another.
Randy
Responding to the hint of a comparison with Bush;
ROMNEY: Well, every person is different. Just because people are in the same party or have a background that's similar doesn't mean they are the same people.
Har! Republicans are throwing Chimpy under the bus pretty easily these days.
Exactly, unless one can prove that Romney's business experience makes him look "un-presidential", this is just an opinion that MMFA doesn't share.
Tommy:
You can't prove a negative (un-presidential). And that's not the point.
MMFA seems to be delving into the psychology of presidential campaign reporting as it pertains to Republican candidates.
Put another way, how many times will some media personality utter similar hollow claims about a Democratic candidate's qualifications?
Godot will show his face first.
Randy
What I would hope the point is, although no one has addressed it yet, is that "news" programs are spending time discussing who "looks presidential" instead of what any of their policies may entail if elected.
And that's the point that some here seem to be trying so hard to miss.
I am sure that the media will soon utter how the Democratic qualifications are hollow, not to worry.
Way to not address the point.
Apparently you would prefer a presidential pageant instead of a debate? I can't wait to see all of the RNC hopefuls in the swimsuit competition (barf)
I'm sorry, but if I seriously addressed another whiny anti-liberal bias in the media complaint, I would barf.
Actually, it's the fools who believe there is a liberal media bias that are the whiners. The one's that can see there is a serious lacking liberal opinions in main stream news that are the realists. Want liberal media bias listen to Thom Hartmann. What the mainstream media ignores daily will change your opinion.
For the record, anyone from the left or the right who whines that their message is either not being heard, or being misinterpreted, or being ignored, or being treated unfairly is either one of two things, or both.
Either they are cry babys, or their message isn't worth the time.
So says the voice on high. Either accept your propaganda or you are a crybaby from the guy who regularly snivels that MMFA doesnt do things the way HE wants them to. The WHINERS like YOU who demand we take what we get and like it are pathetic. Stories ARE ignored, that is simple fact, they are ignored for ideological reasons. They ARE biased again for ideological reasons. The fact you LIKE those reasons doesnt mean it isnt happening. Every major paper has a business section yet most of Americans WORK for a living and where is the LABOR section? The Downing Street memo was ignored completely in this country for a MONTH while it was the biggest story in Europe. Only the internet firestorm EVER got it talked about. Yet to tommy it wasnt worth anything. There is a business bias in the media. You guys can snivel all you want that we actuall SEE reality it only shows how desperate YOU are.
If the reality you get is from here, then you need a fresh dose.......you show me two media bias' against your liberal mentality, and I'll raise you three, and then you haul out four, and I'll go best five out of nine....and we keep at this nonsense until we are both exhausted.
Keep propping up the conservative media bias for the exact reasons the other side keeps fanning the flames of liberal bias........it's used by those whose arguments are weak and can't handle the scrutiny. I thought you were better than that, apparently not.
So keep whining and crying about the mean nasty media all day long.....some us would rather not drink the same "whine", sorry.
My GOD you are a pathetic sniveller. You are so intent in raising your snivelling volume that we dont just ACCEPT whatever the media doles us out you completly changed my argument. Surely by now you have read me say before I dont think the media bias is conservative or liberal. In fact yes you could easily go example for example were I to try to bolster that frame. Now I dont know why I WOULD since I have repeatedly said I dont see it that way. IF we did go example for example what you would probably see is a pattern. YOUR examples would be mostly social, and mine economic and foriegn policy. Just because the media bias doesnt break down on the typical libearl/conservative lines doesnt mean that one doesnt exist NOR that it doesnt merit exposure or attention. It is typical of rightwingers, though before I had noticed you werent as prone to this logical fallacy as most on the right, that because I am saying there is a bias you JUMP to the conclusion that I am talking about a conservative bias. It isnt that simple, its not a Manichean world where everything is simple or black and white. If you keep analyzing EVERYTHING by that standard you will never understand what is going on in this complicated world. If you see nothing but black and white you will miss that about 90% of the world is a shade of grey. It is also not an exuse nor a whine as you so patheticall put it. The media is a resource. It is a much better one if you UNDERSTAND IT. The information is dribbled out. You can get much more out of it when you can decode the spin and read between the lines. Now the media is also not monolithic. Sometimes things break through the cracks and other times for reasons that surpass my understanding there is a break in the stranglehold and real stories that buck the trends come out all over the place. IF you can recognize both it will help you to make the media a much better resource and not just a brainwashing machine. Even when they try to mislead these people have ethics, even when they KNOW they cant buck the editorial policy on an issue the can hint and point toward what is going on. If you can SEE the man behind the curtain and he isnt a horned conservative stringpuller its much more complicated than that but if you SEE him then its much easier to get at the truth even when its hidden behind layers of obfuscation
Solon,
I am glad you finally agree with me that the media, in it's totality, is neither bias one way or another towards conservatism or liberalism.
Thanks.
i dont believe mmfa ever stated that there was no liberal bias in the media i believe they are honest in stating they are here to point put conservative misinformation i dont see the point in coming on here as often as you do then complaining when you already know whats going to happen .im not saying you shouldnt have an opinion on the examples rasied by mmfa im just saying the "what about the liberals"argument is getting old . its a bit like going to a football game and shouting about how much you hate football. for the record i dont think there is an actual consipiracy in the all the media (talk radio not included) i just think hey realise that most of the country is liberal and know how to push the buttons to keep people tuned in . example i reguarly laugh and cry at the garbage comingh from fox news yet i cant keep my eyes off it its like a car crash
Are you suggesting that you've "seriously addressed" anti-liberal bias in the media? I've seen you address it, but not in a convincing or serious way.
No, because I don't waste my time on it, because it's used by both sides an as excuse when their message stinks, apparently.
I don't buy into the myth, either way........sorry.
As long as you treat both sides the same way, more power to ya.
No Tommy. No. As I said, to illustrate my point more clearly; listen to Thom Hartmann and realize what the main stream media doesn't cover and it is difficult to say that their is a liberal media bias. It's not about showing liberals in a positive light or conservatives in a negative. It's about quality of content that is sorely lacking. When someone claims the media is liberally biased they are exposing themselves as being ignorant of what's really going on and using a convenient excuse to dismiss what doesn't jibe with their ideology.
ya dig?
Bing,
I dig what bias in the media is all about.......it's about the way certain issues are covered and reported that is inherently biased, such as social issues for example. Or illegal immigration, rarely is the term "illegal" used, it's almost always "undocumented immigrants"......that is biased in the open borders crowd's favor. There are plenty of subtle bias' either way, and as I've said - mostly they cancel each other out.
As for your recommendation to listen to Hartman, perhaps you are biased towards his reporting or commenting the way he sees it.....just as this website comments the way they see it. It all goes to perspective, and to "dig" it all it the only fair way......not selective" digging".
Actually what the main stream media is lacking is actual reporting, not verbage. If you listened to Hartmann, he would present to you information you probably aren't aware of that might considered to be "liberal." What I am suggesting to you is you is what Hartmann talks about and what is ignored by the media. I ain't talking about grammar, I'm talking about content. And it appears that what you consider to be liberal terminology is just called being polite to us liberals.
I suggest Hartmann becuase he exemplifies to me what a true liberal is. He has a conservative on each day to talk about this or that. Stays above the fray, takes calls is well read and well written. He often also points out several things the main stream media doesn't cover. Thus, to me and many others, a truly liberally biased source of information. Down load a pod cast, listen live. It's not about spin, it's about flow of information.
No its more superficial cheering for a GOP nominee that has ZERO to do with their suitability to be president. In other words propaganda.
And the moon also rises. What in the world does LOOKS presidential mean? FDR one of our greatest presidents was crippled by polio. It is an inane framing. This kind of framing SHOULD be exposed for what it is and what it isnt. It ISNT anything to do with analysis of a presidential candidate.
Think like in the movies Solon.
Superficial of course...but I think that's what people mean when they say it.
I don't know about all of you people, but I DEFINITELY vote for presidents based on looks!!
John Edwards will be glad to hear that.
... Hillary is MUCH cuter than him... I got flagged for this a while back, but Hillary can be HOT at times!
They shouldn't flag someone with a vision disorder.
I agree, they should be fair, I mean they dont flag people with cognitive function disorders which is why we get treated with so many of YOUR posts.
So you think he's hotter than she is leather? You should change your position on gay marriage.
You should not be flagged for making a personal observation, unless Mitt comes on here and complained?
Hey, the retardicans are the ones talking about edwards looks, not edwards.
What clowns like Russert and the Republican Party fail to understand is that a country and a government is not a business.
The last thing we need is a Ken Lay aka Bush Jr cooking the books. That may be fine for a business but it's disasterous for a country.
This concept of running a country like a business doesn't take into account that businessess do fail and go bankrupt year after year. Do you want our country to fail and go bankrupt? We are heading in that direction. So much for the CEO image.
The other problem with this CEO baloney is the CEO's are of the nature where they never admit to a mistake hence waste deep in the big muddy and the big fool says push on.
I could care less if a midget who doesn't look presidential ran the country as long as he or she understands that running a country is not the same as running a business. The two business and country are miles apart.
The last thing we need is a Ken Lay aka Bush Jr cooking the books. That may be fine for a business but it's disasterous for a country.
Huh? Fine for business? Didn't Enron go bankrupt?
HuffPo today had some devastating attack videos on "CEO" Mitt...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/05/30/these-ads-kept-mitt-romne_n_49954.html
We've had 43 Male White Presidents in a row, let's do something different in 2008. The country, and the World, needs it.
Is this an endorsement for Condi Rice, who isn't even running?
Ha. Ha. Kennedy claiming someone else is taking money out your pockets. That is hilarious.
You're certainly not advocating voting against someone simply because of their race or gender, are you?
Only if you insist on over simplifying.
The other problem with running a country like a business is the sacrifice of equality in the name of efficency which leads to a gestapo state.
We've had 43 Male White Presidents in a row, let's do something different in 2008. The country, and the World, needs it.
I'd vote for a transgendered male/female who's fat, ugly and bald as long as he/she gave me a tax break and wanted to secure the borders.
I don't think Karl Rove is running.
Neither is Not So Rosie (although she is in need of a job).
Funniest response ever HBLefty!
..it's all about the tax cuts hey rich Dave. Those tax cuts are working extremely well for about 3% of the population; but who care's huh suckers should have worked harder !
Russert: I think that the reason he's under the microscope is that some of his positions that he took as governor have evolved now that he's become a more conservative presidential candidate.
MMFA failed to comment on this Russert gem, even though they included it in the transcript. "Evolved?" Are you kidding me? John Kerry was a flip-flopper, a man without true convictions, yet Mitt Romney is simply "evolved?" Unbelievable. That liberal media is just brutal on these conservatives.
One bright spot for Dems is the fact that Romney may struggle to gain the evangelical vote with all this talk of "evolution."
He looks to me like another Bush, and the possibility that the next president could be someone who does not believe in evolution but believes the earth is 6000 years old, is beyond incredible. But the MSM is not talking about that. They want another republican administration because all they care about is losing their precious tax breaks and media conglomerations.
Yeah, just what we freakin' need, Gordon effin' Gecko as President. Mitt made all his $$$ as a Gordon Gecko style corporate raider, by the way.
"Greed is good. Greed works."
Uh, nope, I don't think so, thanks ever so much.
Lauer and Russert are good corporate employees of the major media conglomerate. I wrote Russert telling him that Romney looks more like the guy in the soap opera putting the moves on his host's wife, and succeeding, just before he lines up a lucrative contract with the poor husband.