Will Russert offer Libertarian candidate Barr the same Meet the Press platform he gave Nader?
SUMMARY: Now that former Republican congressman Bob Barr has announced his candidacy for the Libertarian Party nomination for president, will NBC host Tim Russert invite Barr to be interviewed on Meet the Press, giving Barr the same platform to discuss his candidacy that Russert gave Ralph Nader?
On the February 24 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert interviewed activist Ralph Nader, who announced his 2008 run for the presidency on the program. On May 12, former Republican congressman Bob Barr (GA) announced his candidacy for the Libertarian Party nomination for president. In a May 13 article on Barr's announcement, the Los Angeles Times reported: "Political commentators debated the effect of Barr's entry into the campaign. Some argued that -- as with Ralph Nader, who in 2000 pulled votes away from Democrat Al Gore -- Barr could take enough votes from McCain in 2008 to give the Democratic nominee the election." In the 2004 presidential election, Nader received 465,650 votes, or .38 percent of the popular vote, while Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik received 397,265 votes, or .32 percent. This raises the question: Will Russert invite Barr to be interviewed on Meet the Press, giving Barr the same platform to discuss his candidacy that Russert gave Nader?
According to a Media Matters for America search of the Nexis database*, Russert has previously hosted Barr on Meet the Press five times, most recently on May 14, 2000, to discuss gun control.
From the May 13 Times article:
Bob Barr, a onetime Republican congressman from Georgia, on Monday announced his plan to run for president as a Libertarian, promising to rein in federal spending and limit military involvement abroad.
"The government has run amok fiscally," Barr said at a news conference. During the first quarter of this year, he said, the private sector lost millions of jobs while the federal government was "hiring with enthusiasm."
Barr, who left the Republican Party two years ago, is expected to win the Libertarian Party's nomination during its convention this month in Denver.
On Monday, he said presumed Republican nominee John McCain was not a true conservative.
"There's not a great deal of substance there in terms of a commitment to cutting the size of government," said Barr, 59.
[...]
Political commentators debated the effect of Barr's entry into the campaign.
Some argued that -- as with Ralph Nader, who in 2000 pulled votes away from Democrat Al Gore -- Barr could take enough votes from McCain in 2008 to give the Democratic nominee the election.
Barr confirmed that he was asked by McCain supporters not to run, but he defended his decision, saying that "American voters deserve better than simply the lesser of two evils."
It seems fair to host both candidates that hurt the big parties. I don't think it would be fair to host one and not the other. Do you?
Hi Tommy,
I think Nader announced on MTP. How long do you think is fair for MMFA to wait to examine why Russert doesn't give him airtime?
Excellent question.
When does the issue reach "maturity"?
Do you think it's been a reasonable amount of time considering Barr just announced yesterday and there has even been a Meet the Press on air since then?
Maybe wait for at least one airing of that show before preemptively implying that Russert may not have him on, like he did Nader. Of course, the stock defenders will say there is no such implication, but we all know there is.
Hi Tommy,
I meant to imply nothing of the sort. I was just curious as to what you thought a reasonable timetable was. Nader made the decision to announce on Meet the Press so the situations are obviously different. In your mind (no right or wrong answers to me), when do you think Barr should be invited on?
Fried,
I would think once the Democratic nominee is officially chosen, that would be a good time to start focusing on the general election and its candidates. That seems reasonable to me.
As I've seen you defend others with before, it's just a question.
And so what if there is an implication? I'd rather they make it now and let everyone know exactly what they are monitoring Russert for and get some people thinking about it, maybe even raise their expectations.
Monitoring is specifically mentioned in the mission statement. Is MMFA not allowed to let the media and others know what they will be focusing on?
Besides, if and when Russert does have Barr on his show, MMFA will be right on top of it with a victorious, "as MMFA previously mentioned," linking right to this item. Don't you know how this works by now?
a watchdog website that monitors, analyzes and corrects misinformation.
They're letting you know what they're monitoring for. There's nothing wrong with that, as much as you insist there is.
"MMFA wants" ..."MMFA expects"
What about the people?
Nader is important historical figure and a household name. He received 2.7% of the vote in 2000 - the largest vote total for a candidate from the left since 1924. There is no comparison with some no-name crank merely seeking the nomination of a party that gets almost no votes.
Nice attempt by Media Matters to insulate that Democratic Party from real criticism (rather than Republican insanity) but by objective standards it fails utterly.
Again MMFA jumps the gun.
Will [fill in the blank] do [fill in the blank]?
How about offering a thread IF Barr doesn't get an invite within a reasonable amount of time? Till then, what's the point?
Knowing Russert's track record for interviewing every political figure under the sun, Barr is bound to be a guest, especially now that the Dem primary fight is winding down. No more having to fit both Obama & Clinton & McCain surrogates in to be interviewed. Now the prime guests will be representing only Obama-McCain.
So relax MMFA. If Russert doesn't invite Barr on, then you have a gripe. Till then this is just a lot of nothing.
Ha! I know Tommy, but we all know by now how the Libs get all edgy & paranoid about these things. I'm sure if Barr doesn't appear THIS Sunday, we'll get another thread...on Monday. ;-)
MMFA should have saved their angst till Monday & not wasted their time with this today.
Then again, this could be viewed as a little not so subtle intimidation on their part...something they like to claim only them big bad Cons do. Funny eh? Watch out Tim, Brock has you in his sights :-O
Me thinks the Dems are getting just a tad nervous about whether Obama can beat McCain.
Jeter wrote:
>>Me thinks the Dems are getting just a tad nervous about whether Obama can beat McCain.
No. I don't think so at all. MMFA is doing what it always has done. By the way, two recent polls have Obama and Hillary way ahead of McCain--and that's before either candidate has focused on attacking Mcsame.
Pete,
Barr just announced his candidacy yesterday [May 12th]. I would expect that Russert would attempt to interview him this upcoming Sunday. Or at the latest the following Sunday.
While I think Barr running for Prez is a tad pointless, so is Nader's candidacy. But fair is fair.
So to answer your question, I would have expected a thread here maybe next Monday. Since Russert had Nader as a guest, then one would expect he'd invite Barr on as well. And as soon as possible. If he doesn't, MMFA would certainly be within their rights to point this out and then ask if Meet The Press was going to extend an invitation.
To ask before they even know what Russert's plans are, is jumping the gun, IMO.
What exactly is it you want from MMFA, and why do you keep coming back if you're not getting it?
Do you do this when you have dinner over at someone's house... do you complain about the food, and the dinner table itself, and the house too...
...and then on your way out the door at the end of your miserable evening, do you say "So, same time tomorrow night?"
Dem stop whining.
This forum is open to everyone-- not just Dem/Libs.
Why do you come here? Just to find folks that agree with you?
I come to read the items, not to criticize them like you do.
What's the point of criticizing the watchdog... what, you are the thief, or you work for the thief?
Or maybe you think the corporate media is a just a peachy-keen fine and dandy truth-telling institution in America?
In which case it's even more a strange thing, that you come here to read the items that cite that corporate media, for it's bias...
You're a fool to think all's well in America with ABC and NBC and CNN and Fox News Channel on watch, and that the real problem is MMFA, and to criticize the watchdog...
You remind me of Inspector Clouseau, berating the blind peddler on the sidewalk outside the bank, for not having a Lis-caunse for his Min-quee, while not only the bank gets robbed, but Clouseau helps the bank-robbers get away!
"What are you, blind?"
Dem,
You sound like you're coming unglued.
I come here to read, debate, discuss.
If I find something I agree with, I will say so. And have many times.
If I don't agree, I'll say so. And have done so many times.
If you only come here to read, post, & have your every thought validated by only other like-minded folks, then I'm surprised you're still here.
And I question how many posts you actually read. This forum is a lively place with varied opinions offered on each item.
And don't you go thinking your contributions and sage advice are not appreciated. Thankfully, you’re here to tell MMFA to “relax” and not “get all edgy & paranoid,” to curb them the foolish Libs from “getting just a tad nervous” and remind them to “stop whining” when they’re “coming unglued.” Thanks a bunch.
No need to thank me Gov.
I only wish I could tell ya how much you're appreciated. But I can't ;-)
Tommy wrote:
>>Jeter, Keep dreamin'. Unless you learn how to be a website gnat and ask silly and irrelevant questions, parse and pick apart words to make you look foolish, get testier by the minute, and then end up hurling an expletive and saying "you win", or some such childish foot stomper, you will very much be appreciated.
Oh please, stop the whinning! God what a baby. Do I need to point out how you said that an outrageous headline was okay because it contained a question mark, argued the point for many posts, and then at the end asked why everyone was arguing about a question mark--when you brought it up?
And I'm sure people do parse words during arguments, but often posters make bad arguments and are then then held accountable for their words. That's not word parsing, Tommy. That's honest argumentation.
Do you think watchdog sites are somehow above criticism? Watchdog sites that push specific narratives that put those they don't like in the worst possible light, while they advocate for a certain political party they do like, and because of that, are as open to as much criticism as those they are watchdogging.
They are not above it, sorry if you don't see it that way.
"Do you think watchdog sites are somehow above criticism?"
Of course not.
As an elitist however, I am concerned that you do no have the standing to criticize. After all, these articles are published by well-trained professionals.
You guys, on the other hand... :~)
Dem, I understand that you asked this question of Jeter, but I'll give it a shot as well. I come to this site to find out what conservative misinformation is out there in the media. It's educational.
Unfortunately, MMFA has been posting more trivial things lately, like this thread for instance, and the stupid "Hamel Humper" thread from yesterday, and they are failing to live up to the fine standards they once had.
If you were ever wondering why I hardly post anymore (which I'm sure you're not), that's why. The site has slipped IMHO.
"What exactly is it you want from MMFA, and why do you keep coming back if you're not getting it?" Dem 02020
Dem, he and they come here to play "Con Family Feud". One says something and the others say "Good answer!", and they all high five each other. ;-0)
Hey that game can be addictive. ;-0)
Yeah we learned that from watching the Liberal Lemming Show which has far more participants.
No high fives, just hundreds of bobbleheads nodding in unison.
One can get dizzy just watching ;-)
You guys are nothing if not predictable! Ha. And you say we'vre no sense of humor. He he.
They're only an 8 on the predict-o-meter. ;-)
Jeter and Tommy, they cry to their mommy
They use words like "leftist, sometimes pinko commie.
Ha!!!! Mary, you are a bad influence, chica.
;-)
Rut Roh
Great post, JuliaJayne !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL !!!!!!!!!!!
;0) ;0) ;0) ;0)
Hey, that makes me feel all warm inside!
Just how worked up do you think the folks at MMFA are? This seems likes a perfectly legitimate question to me.
(By the way, I support Nader's candidacy but did think it was odd that he was given an exclusive Meet The Press appearance to announce his run.)
Gov,
Why are you supporting Nader instead of Obama or Clinton? I'm just curious [not being snarky]
I don't find anything unusual about Russert inviting Nader on Meet The Press, after all he is a legitimate candidate. He has zero chance of winning, but then again neither did most of the Republican/Democratic second tier candidates months ago...but Russert gave them all a forum.
I think Russert will have Barr on. And he should. I just don't see the point of a thread asking if he will. If he doesn't, then MMFA can point it out.
I support his candidacy because, in my opinion, the two-party system has proven to be a failure. And I still don't see any problem with asking this question of Russert. I suspect Barr would have preferred to announce his candidacy one day before yesterday, on Meet The Press, a venue Russert afforded the so-called Dem spoiler.
I suspect Barr would have preferred to announce his candidacy one day before yesterday, on MeetThe Press, a venue Russert afforded the so-called Dem spoiler
Fair enough observation. But unless Barr contacted Russert before Sunday of his plans, then you really can't fault Meet The Press of not inviting him on. Again, I'd be surprised if Russert doesn't feature him soon. And he should. That's only fair.
And I still don't see any problem with asking this question of Russert.
MMFA is a watchdog for misinformation that has occurred, not what may or may not occur. Or at least that's what their mission statement states.
I support his candidacy because, in my opinion, the two-party system has proven to be a failure.
Damn it Gov, hell must have frozen over, we agree on something! Unfortunately, I don't see a change in that any time soon.
MMFA is a watchdog for misinformation that has occurred, not what may or may not occur. Or at least that's what their mission statement states.
But those are your words, not MMFA's.
Jeter wrote:
>>MMFA is a watchdog for misinformation that has occurred, not what may or may not occur. Or at least that's what their mission statement states.
I don't think so. I just re-read the mission statement. It doesn't mention anything about not stopping misinformation in the future.
Tommy wrote:
>>Of course, the best way to insulate yourself from criticism is by talking about what has yet to happen, or may not happen at all.
That statement makes no sense in context of my post. MMFA's statement does not limit it from talking about misinformation that may occur. That is what I wrote.
Tommy wrote:
>>Which essentially invalidates any criticism now doesn't it? Read it again, maybe you will figure it out.
Again, what are you talking about? Are you saying that MMFA is afraid of criticism? If so, then why do almost all of their posts contain misinformation that has already occurred?
Tommy wrote:
>>MMFA isn't afraid, they have an open comment section......it's just some of the posters here have such a darn hard time with it.
Again, what are you talking about? What do you mean by "it?" And if you are not talking about MMFA, then why did you write "the best way to insulate yourself from criticism is by talking about what has yet to happen?" The only one who choose to talk about a hypothetical was MMFA, not the posters.
How can you be in the business of monitoring, analyzing, and correcting something which may or may not happen?
EXCELLENT POINT!!! You just nailed it! :-)
Jeter and Tommy,
Should we analyze, monitor, and correct an unfortunate and offending racial statement which I think Don Imus will utter in the year 2010 now or would you guys like to let MMFA take that on sometime in the year 2009?
"I think it's great that you were able to make your collective complaint very clear in only 20 posts. You should complain one more time in celebration." He mumbles as he stumbles off the field, rejected again. He ponders the longest losing streak in the nation with ripe indignation. "Someday" he says "someday".
"Of course, the best way to insulate yourself from criticism is by talking about what has yet to happen, or may not happen at all."
Wow, deja vu.
All those times I've seen the WITH Patrol spout their "what if vice-versa? can you imagine the outrage? this would be all over MMFA if that happened! The left-wing gestapo would be out in the streets with torches and pitch forks!!"
I guess you're right, what a great way to insulate yourself or your political position.
Nor does it mention it.
Another words their mission statement doesn't include it.
It is a response watchdog.
Another words, first you get the mis-information, then you respond.
But I'm not going to spend the afternoon parsing, slicing & dicing this with you. It is what it is.
Jeter wrote:
>>Nor does it mention it.
So what? Not mentioning it does not mean it violates its mission statement. I think it is perfectly valid for MMFA to bring up this issue, since it is demanding fairness in coverage, something MMFA seeks.
Show us where MMFA specifically describes itself as a watchdog. I want to see that term used by them.
It clearly says that they monitor, analyze, and correct.
Is MMFA not allowed to divulge what they are monitoring Tim Russert for?
If the FBI comes to your home and performs a Patriot Act search, would you at least welcome the chance to ask what they are searching for?
Pete,
Barr just announced his candidacy yesterday [May 12th].
Why not wait till Sunday to see if he appears on Meet The Press before asking if he will.
If he doesn't, & Russert makes no mention that he will have him on soon...then MMFA has a reason to ask why.
Why would they ask before they even know Russert's plans?
"Why would they ask before they even know Russert's plans?"
Why can't they?
Pete,
You are going to honestly parse your way around the fact that monitoring, analyzing, and correcting is not the definition of a "watchdog", in this context?
Oh well........
Ok, I should have been more specific, as Jeter was with the term "response watchdog"
Did MMFA write themselves out of preemptive action? I don't believe they did.
Tommy, Jeter & Achrispage, tou're all OK guys, but I think this is a pretty silly battle to spend so much energy on.
Cops analyze and monitor crime. Sometimes they predict trends in crime, based on history and statistics.They use these "educated guesses" to help focus their efforts.It's food for thought, it's educational, and sometimes it can help to prevent crime.
If you're asking me, here you go (past votes for Pres):
2004: Kerry
2000: Nader
1996: Nader
1992: Nader (write in)
I'm whatever that makes me.
Governor wrote:
>>(By the way, I support Nader's candidacy but did think it was odd that he was given an exclusive Meet The Press appearance to announce his run.)
Nadar supporter here, too. Why? He was really for the environment, he has been for universal health care, he is for a living wage, and he stands for a sane policy regarding Israel. Those are just a few reasons.
I have no idea at all, what kind (if any) managerial skills Ralph Nader might have, whether it be the skills to manage people (like a staff or the collective Department and Agency heads of the Federal Government), or merely to manage resources (like the Federal budget)...
I also don't know much about Ralph Nader outside of his consumer and political activism, and his environmental and labor activism too (nor do I really want to know more about him, than what I know from those things)...
I know this much about Ralph Nader:
Every damn thing he says is true... everything!
It's more than true, it's insightful. The man's opinions about the two party political system we have to suffer under, about lobbying and corporate influence in Washington D.C. (he's been a fixture in D.C. for almost 50 years now), about what keeps labor down in America, about who it is that opposes our Environmental Regulatory efforts in D.C., and how they do it...
But especially insightful is his opinion on the faults (almost criminal) of our corrupted "Political Duopoly" (if that's how it's spelled)... of our two party system, that postures and simulates action, independently and in tandem and even in a farce of pretended opposition to one another...
...as the American People stand by, hopeful and watching, just to continually see nothing done on their behalf, or in their name... and as they slowly realize what's the truth of the matter, and why there is no true opposition party in Washington D.C., just the false appearance of one.
Ralph Nader tells all about this, and every word of it is the truth, and most of it is extraordinarily insightful, and you won't hear this stuff anywhere else on the national stage except from him, and that's too bad...
Those stinking and false "debates" that we suffered through recently, and the foolish role played by the media idiots in them, who called themselves "moderators", remember that crap?
Well, if I could empower Ralph Nader to do one thing in America for the American People, I wouldn't waste his talents on being President... I'd make him the True and Absolute Sole Moderator of our Presidential Debates, for life... like a Federal Judicial appointment, for life! And in the process, I'd hope that he'd also be moderating our Public Discourse on National Policy, all of our's, the American People!
I know this much: if that happened, there'd be ACTION in America's Political Discourse, and it'd be great!
"I fail to see what MMFA is digging for with this question."
Now, pay attention. Nader has taken votes from DEMOCRATS in past elections, most notably in the 2000 election, essentially giving numbn*ts Florida and the presidency. Now, if a non-major party candidate will take votes from the REPUBLICANS, will Russert give said candidate a forum? Wouldn't that be fair?
No one said Russert is "as conservative" as anyone else, just that he does in fact lean to the right. It is well documented that he voted for GW Bush and has used his show to give the administration a forum to promote its agenda on more than one occasion.
Wow. I'm curious about that one, too.
If it's 'well documented' I should be able to find mention of it somewhere in the online world. So far, zippo.
Russert has previously hosted Barr on Meet the Press five times, most recently on May 14, 2000, to discuss gun control.
Off topic, but I recall seeing Barr on another show discussing gun control around that time, perhaps Bill Maher's show, in which Barr quipped that his (Georgia) constituents "still fished with dynamite." Funny guy...I think he will make a sterling alternative to John McCain for libertarian leaning Republicans and I hope he gets lots of their votes. ;>)
Magnolialover wrote:
>>Nader doesn't pander? If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. It's just that he panders to others who do not identify themselves as a "D" or an "R".
Sorry, but I have to disagree here! I think it is pretty hard to prove if a politician is pandering or really standing up for what he believes in. One way you can tell is if the politician changes his position suddenly to win over a group of voters he needs to win. I don't believe Nadar has ever done that, because he has never come close to winning. He is a very principaled person.
He's a raving ego-maniac. Instead of starting small and getting people elected locally first where something tangible can be accomplished, he instead goes on this pipe dream of a campaign.
Then again, he's about as old as Gramps himself, so that approach was thrown out the window.
If he were the Republican nominee we would actually have a candidate who believes in limited government and a sane foreign policy. (RH)
And if Gary Coleman was the Lakers center, you'd have something about as likely.
All the polls I have seen on the Libertarian candidates show that Barr is neck and neck with both Wayne Allen Root and Mike Gravel for the Lib nomination.
Why is Barr's entry into the Libertarian race getting so much press when there are two other candidates who have just as good a chance as him?
Could it be just another sign that the media is in this for the Democrats, and are dying to insert a right wing Ralph Nader into this campaign to get revenge for 2000, so therefore for they'll give the impression that Barr is the only candidate in the Libertarian field?
I wouldn't comment, but the fact that Barr got an entire AP article on his entry into the Lib race, while Gravel's switch to the Libs was ignored as usual just shows what an agenda the media really does have in America, and this article just reinforces that conclusion.
I would expect better from Media Matters, but I guess you have to keep in mind that everyone has an agenda, and I know how bitter Alterman is about Nader.