Pittsburgh Tribune-Review blog suggested "giant lead" in poll for Obama foreshadows his defeat
SUMMARY: Political reporter and editorial page columnist Salena Zito suggested in a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review blog post that Sen. Barack Obama's 15-point lead over Sen. John McCain in a Newsweek poll foreshadows defeat for Obama by comparing him to 1988 Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis.
In a June 20 blog post on the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review's Forty-Fourth Estate blog, titled "Shades of Dukakis, Obama up 15," political reporter and editorial page columnist Salena Zito suggested that Sen. Barack Obama's "giant lead" over Sen. John McCain in a June 18-19 Newsweek poll foreshadows defeat for Obama by comparing him to unsuccessful 1988 Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis, who, according to Zito, "enjoyed a 54 to 38 percent lead over" Republican George H.W. Bush "after all of the Democratic primaries ended." Zito wrote: "This evening a new Newsweek poll shows Obama having a giant lead, from 51 percent to 36 percent, over McCain among registered voters across the country." She added: "Obama got his bounce, Dukakis style."
Media Matters for America has noted a pattern of media portrayals of any news, even seemingly negative, as good news for the Republicans.
Zito's June 20 blog post in its entirety:
Shades of Dukakis, Obama up 15
In May of 1988 after all of the Democratic primaries ended presumptive nominee Michael Dukakis enjoyed a 54 to 38 percent lead over then Ronald Reagan wing man George H.W. Bush.
H.W. went on to win in that November handily
This evening a new Newsweek poll shows Obama having a giant lead, from 51 percent to 36 percent, over McCain among registered voters across the country.
Obama got his bounce, Dukakis style.
The negative things that can and do result from "giant leads" (in political campaigns, or even in foot races and football games) are a relaxing and satisfied easing up in your work and your efforts: a pre-mature slowing down or even stopping: a distracting joy and even celebration (as though that were the real prize and desire, instead of the actual accomplishment): a dividing up of credit for, and a share in the victory, despite the race not even being over yet....
And these things look so much like pride and arrogance, to your opponent and all others.
And so when "giant leads" in these types of contests and races, cause in the "leaders" the things I just listed, then what happens in and to the opposition, is this: they work harder and run faster, at seeing the leader slow down or even stop, in the hope that this may be their chance to catch up and overtake: they (the opposition) become antagonized at any type of pre-mature celebration of victory, in a race not over yet... and when they see the prize being claimed (while the race is still on!), and backs being slapped and high fives and the dividing up of the spoils, then they burn more energy and more fuel to catch up and overtake, and to punish that arrogance and that pride.
That describes only in part, how the Dukakis campaign wasted the political capital they temporarily held with the American People... and it describes even a smaller part of what happened in the Kerry campaign (they too had political capital that they lost, or arrogantly jettisoned, over "flyover country")...
It shouldn't be the undoing of the Obama campaign though, and their "giant lead" and the political capital they hold, with so much of the American People...
...if for no other reason, than that they have the many missteps and mistakes of those who've gone before them, to mark the hazards of the trail, and to avoid.
When Sen. Obama goes to Iraq (and Afghanistan too I guess), he need not be photographed wearing a flak jacket and helmut: he doesn't even need to wear those things at all in Iraq, let alone be photographed wearing them... because if he is not made completely safe from gunfire shrapnel and bombings, in the places that the U.S. Armed Forces would escort him to, in Iraq, then they shouldn't be taking him to those places, should they?
Wherever it is in Iraq that Sen. Obama and Gen. Clark tour, it should be safe enough (and their U.S. Armed Forces escort being the source of that safety) that Sen. Obama need not wear a flak jacket, or a helmut, or least of all be photographed wearing a helmut...
...like Mike Dukakis was, as you all remember, and have learned from.
But it's also important to reflect, as you did, on the ongoing problems with the corporate media. This essay on buzzflash and comments section express my take on this very well.
hey mary these gyujs arte goode at buzzfvlashe!
Russert and Reagan
Submitted by Newsguy on Sat, 06/21/2008 - 12:42pm. The canonization of Russert after his death reminded me of the press coverage when Reagan died. It was sickening. It went on and on and on. I thought they would never stop. And so it was with Russert. The coverage was non-stop.By giving Russert wall to wall coverage, the impression was created that Tim Russert was a media saint. But he never seriously challenged the run up to Bush's war. The media wake was an indication that Russert was a Very Important Journalist. Here's the dilemma. If Russert was so damned important, why didn't he act responsibly and challenge those who were taking us into war? Why didn't he put those on the hot seat who were advocating torture? Why didn't he ask hard question of those who were intent on trashing the Constitution?
Russert worked for NBC. That is to say, he worked for General Electric, one of the very biggest of America's defense contractors. Russert knew who he worked for. I think this goes a long way toward explaining why those hard questions were not asked. Russert was a master illusionist. He gave the impression he was asking hard questions while actually avoiding anything that would really embarrass his main employer -- G.E.
And for those who would excuse Russert, I offer two shining examples: Edward R. Murrow denouncing the McCarthy hearings and Walter Cronkite denouncing the Vietnam war. Both cases called for courage, something that journalists these days don't seem to have.
www.mcbush08,blogspot.com » login or register to post comments
I'm not sure what the nonsense is supposed to mean that you're typing (it's probably something that's giggling snorting hilarious to you), but I understand perfectly what it was you pasted into your comment.
It makes perfect sense, and makes for a good feeling, that not everyone in this political world has lost their mind, or has so lost their nerve, as to feeled cowed into expressing a solemn and regretful loss, for a political media hack television personality that they never even knew, or that did anything for them, or for the American People.
...as to feel cowed (which is to be pressured and intimidated).
And I think it's General Electric, and the corporate media, doing this to you all: after all, it's their property, Meet The Press, and their industry... they have you all cowed I think, into thinking you must worship as a Saint, the passing of one of their own... of a political media hack who they just loved forcing on your political mind in his life, and now forcing into your soft hearts, after his death.
I did think it was odd the amount of reverential coverage Tim Russert got in the media, including an entire episode of Meet the Press. They must have cancelled everything Russert had set up for the show when he died. From what little I know about Russert the person, I hardly think he would have approved of this. A brief tribute at the start of the show and then on to the real news would have been far more appropriate.
To me, this is one more indication that the media is now only about the media, a self-involved group of egotists who have only a passing interest in what actually goes on in the world. Huge chunks of so-called newscasts these days are actually about the business--- who's up, who's down, who got the scoop or made the best forcast.
Watch any cable show and the host will spend the best part of his energy pounding away at his rivals, touting the latest ratings, laughing at people--- even doing mocking imitations of their voices, throwing things, and having temper tantrums. Doesn't this all remind you of seventh grade?
Has any great humanitarian, artist, philantropist, scientist, philosopher, community organizer, soldier, medical researcher, ever gotten the kind of media attention Russert did? Were these tributes even about Russert? Or were they about the people making the tributes?
Mary, I'm pretty sure I posted an apology for referring to your opinion as worthless: maybe you didn't see it. I referred to your opinion that way, because you had said I was "trashing" Tim Russert: I was trying to add emphasis to how wrong I thought that was, to say I was "trashing" Tim Russert. What my comment said (the one I guess you missed) was that while I feel great amounts of love respect admiration affection and grief, for many People in my life who I know, and who I know to deserve those feelings of mine: and I feel those things also for People who I do not know, but know of their good works... with all of that said, I feel so little for television personalities, as to say I feel nothing for them: and when those television personalities are political media hacks, then I usually feel less than nothing (if there is such a thing) for them, and sometimes even worse than nothing.
Tim Russert did nothing whatsoever for any person I know in this life. He did absolutely nothing that I can see, for the American People. He was a highly paid television personality political media hack, who worked for and in the interests of General Electric, and their division, NBC. Again, Tim Russert did absolutely nothing that I know of, for the American People, but did much I'm sure, for his employer GE and NBC, and many others who knew and liked him... among which, as I said, I am not one.
I could give a squat about Tim Russert, who was nothing but a political media hack for General Electric's NBC. He was not a Humanitarian (that I know of), not an elected or appointed servant of the People, not a Political activist (or not the kind that works for the People, but I guess the kind that works for GE), he was not a Journalist (not a single day in his political media hack life)... he was no person I knew, or even cared to know: and seeing as how I fail to see what good things he did for me or any one I know or any one at all, any of the American People... you will forgive me (or not) for not feeling anything for the death of a television personality political media hack who worked for General Electric's NBC, named Tim Russert.
Actually, I feel something: amused, and variously annoyed too I admit, at the hushed and solemn observations and respect you are all giving Tim Russert: as though the Pope, or a Head of State, or a President, or some National icon and treasure, had passed away and been lost to us...
Just how Tim Russert is different from chris matthews, or from any other political media hack television personality (bill o'reilly included) is a mystery to me.
I don't think your assessment of the situation is wrong, read my link above.
Hola, Chica.
I think your opinions are always at least as good as a fresh made bowl of delicious guacamole. I love guacamole :-)
I read with interest yesterday the mostly irascible opinions of Dem02020's post and was feeling sorry for him. I wish that I had stepped in to defend him because of our shared disdain for most things on the teevee.
I remember my fathers death many years ago at an early age (63) from complications of his severe MS. I also remember feeling angry with my mother at the time because she wanted to put on a show about how we felt about him, instead of letting us feel what we felt.
My father was a very complicated man. He was angry most of the time and had a very bad temper. He was gruff but loving also. He wanted the attention from my mom that us kids took away. He was a good provider (always worked 2 jobs) and was accomplished as a sqaure dance caller (he was pretty famous around our area) and he brought a lot of people joy with his smooth style and charm. But he was nicer to people outside of the family more than to his family where he was often gloomy (you could cut the tension in our house with a knife as they say).
But I always knew he loved me. He would show his love by tickling me, teasing me and rubbing me with his stubbly bear, making my skin chafe (it was at once irritating and endearing). Mostly it made me yelp!
But unlike my mother, who could never and has never apologized to me or anyone else in her whole life that I know of, my Dad could admit he was wrong and apologize. Now that may seem like faint praise, but it was a very clear delineating line between him and my Mom who isn't a very nice person many times. In fact I saw her be cruel to him and he to her. But her cruely seemed so hostile, while his seemed bourne of frustration and stress and having had a very bad childhood himself.
And I may seem like I'm meandering here, but at my father's funeral that day and since, my mother has canonized my father. It angered me because she was upset at all of us telling stories about my Dad and his crazy ways. He was an Irish storyteller, quick with the quirky stories and silly tales of his boyhood. He used silly words and phrases that I still find myself using to this day and getting a laugh out of.
But one thing I never wanted to do was canonize him. I loved him for the strange, complicated, angry, colorful person that he was. I want to remember him that way. In fact it has only been in viewing him with some honesty and hurt that I became even more understanding of him since his death.
Now all that has little to do with Tim Russert of course. Except like Dem02020, I did not feel the need to canonize him. I feel like that is a disservice to a human being with frailties, foibles and also wonderful qualities. As others have opined, he was a father and husband. But so was my father. I don't feel any reason to think he was any better (or worse) than my Dad.
But Russert was on the television. People do feel like they know him and he seemed a very likable person. But there lies the rub for me. He seemed like he didn't want to rock the establishment boat. He seemed more inclined to do the bidding of the corporate masters than the people. The people on your site crystallized it better than I.
And while I did feel for his family, I felt like this crass canonization of him as a superior newsman was overblown and it did irritae me. It didn't anger me, but made me feel like people's way of prioritizing of somebody on TV was out of place. Even my husband who works as an engineer at the local Fox affiliate (and who is very non political) said that he was just chagrined at the non stop lovefest. But then he has to watch TV all day, so I guess it could get a little wearying.
Anyway, I understand how Dem02020 feels. Although I may not go so far as to characterize Russert as a hack, he could have been a whole hell of a lot better at having couage and challenging the status quo.
Hey, I'm going to attach this comment here, so as to keep it closer to the top: but it's for Mary... hey Mary, I hope you see this. Listen, what I wrote above, under your comment? While it is every word what I believe and feel, it was not at all the tone or the words I'd have typed, had I read your comment correctly in the first place. What I did was, I saw you post something under my comment, but my eye went too swiftly over your words... I saw the word "apology", and not slowing my quick eye down, thought that I was being asked to apologize! That's why my comment then went on about "maybe you didn't see my apology"... I thought I was being asked to apologize! Whoa! Read all the words Dem02020, you idiot! Read each of them as they're written, one at a time and in order... so you see, I didn't until just now read your comment correctly: and only now can I respond to it, in kind.
Apologize? You don't need to apologize for anything... I wasn't offended or bothered or any other negative thing, by what you said... you're a compassionate Human Being is all: so am I too... where you wrote that "Something profound has occurred: a human soul has left the earth"... that demonstrates you are Human, and compassionate. I won't bother running down again what I think of political media hacks, other than to say I draw a line over which my heart does not step: and on this side of that line, was not found Tim Russert... no more than do I find charles gibson and brit hume and bill o'reilly and brian williams, and especially chris matthews: because not only do I find Tim Russert and chris matthews to be remarkably alike, but I think NBC finds the same also: as I believe the political media hack chris matthews shall inherit the Archdiocese of Meet the Press, now that the Holy Tim Russert leaves us all empty, and all weeping, and gnashing our teeth... you make a bigger circle than I do, I bet: you draw the line to include many more people (many more Souls) than I do, I bet: you included Tim Russert in that bigger circle: That's great! There's nothing to apologize to me for: I understand.
All is well.
If I can stretch a point, we (the public) tend to canonize many people. Our presidential candidates can become objects of derision or of unrealistic expectation. They're human, complicated, and vulnerable to unbelievable pressure. One thing I like about Obama is that he challenges the voters as Kennedy did; it can't be up to one person or even a group of elected officials to change the country...we all have to do it.
Oh and Mary, thanks to your inspiration I have a title for my new book:
Tales of an Allegheny Mountain Woman (a nickname given to me by my husband for being from the somewhat of a backwater upper New York state town of Olean). I'm sure Anne Coulter's publisher will snap it up :-0)
No I didn't watch the Moyers' show. I saw that it was on but we switched, now wish I'd seen it.
In addition to hosting Meet the Press for 17 years, Tim Russert also wrote two books that were New York Times No. 1 Best Sellers, Big Russ and Me, and Wisdom of our Fathers.
He was a man of decency according to those who actually did know him. Decency is something that is becoming lost in our society. Your posts on this matter are a good example of that. And yes, that's just my opinion.
I can't take joy in anyone's death, even the death of someone I'd consider an enemy. Not that I ever considered Tim Russert an enemy.
When someone dies, for them the fight is over. To keep fighting an opponent when he can no longer fight back does nothing for your side and makes those who oppose you stronger.
Maybe it's just me, but there's a certain nobility involved in any kind of contest, whether it's a political argument, a football game or even war. And the ones who come though usually have a better understanding and appreciation of their adversary.
“These days all we seem to have left is our decency.”---WK
Sometimes fights get nasty and mean---including political fights. Politics is warfare without the physical violence in my mind.
“I can't take joy in anyone's death, even the death of someone I'd consider an enemy”---WK
I’ve never been in a combat situation, for example, but I imagine the killing of someone trying to kill me and my guys would make me feel good.
I don’t feel joy in this case either but if I see someone as being advantageous to the other side I’m glad when he leaves. By contrast, if Sean Hannity for example, were to pass away or just lose his jobs somehow, I wouldn’t feel sorrow but I would feel bad as I see him as a liability to the GOP, assuming his replacement had even a modicum of competence.
To keep fighting an opponent when he can no longer fight back does nothing for your side and makes those who oppose you stronger. ---WK
I think this is an attitudinal mistake politically. We should tell the truth on them. We should tell each other generally and journalists in particular in this case what we thought of the departed---there is too much at stake to be overly polite, IMO. This is more obvious in the case of political figures that can be also used as role models if they are not critically examined. Ronald Reagan comes to mind as someone the Right is using successfully this way in part due to people having been shyer than they otherwise would have been about attacking his legacy while he lived due to his Alzheimer’s. And if Richard Nixon would have been prosecuted and jailed I don't think the likes of our current President would be half as bold as he is---he would be scared of the same.
“Maybe it's just me, but there's a certain nobility involved in any kind of contest, whether it's a political argument, a football game or even war.”---WK
Politics is not a contest in the sense of being a game like football where just ‘who won’ is the reward itself. In politics (like war), to winner go the spoils. John Kerry and Al Gore seemed the epitome of your attitude.Killing someone who was trying to kill you doesn't make you feel good. It's something you take to bed with you for the rest of your life.
Sometimes the person you've killed is just like you. Someone who was sent to do a job. Someone who fought for his beliefs and country with valor. Someone with a family who loved them and who loved his or her family. Soldiers fight wars, they don't start them.
I'm not really in disagreement. The point I'm trying to make is that our side might win the upcoming election but if we choose the polarizing tactics that have been used against us, we'll control the government but lose in the long run. In 2012 or 2016, the right will take over and we'll be back where we started.
It's the fringes that stop progress. We need to find common ground and to rebuild the country. In order for that to be accomplished, we need to work with those who we've considered our enemies.
I agree with dem and eddie in the respect that the dead should not be given sainthood so that we further their errors. Julia managed to touch on many levels with her post about her father...he wasn't a saint and it didn't honor him to pretend he was...but he wasn't just one thing or another. Death has a way of giving us all pause about life itself.
I agree with you, polarization by the fringes simply tears down and doesn't build up. Telling the truth and standing for what's right is the best way to campaign and to govern.
Let's not turn this into a partisan thing.---OM
I felt Russert was a partisan---biased towards the GOP at a very inopportune period of time. Having previously worked for the D’s made him all the more effective in that regard and all the more deserving of reproach for it from Democrats like myself, IMO.
Out of respect for his family and the people who loved him please consider their feelings as well while you are being critical.--OM
What of the feelings of all those that have been and are being hurt by the GOP policies he effectively aided and abetted by abdicating his implicit role as an unbiased journalist? They have families too.
What good is criticism at this point anyway?
I’ll repeat my response in this regard to WorrierKing earlier in the thread: I think this is an attitudinal mistake politically. We should tell the truth on them. We should tell each other generally and journalists in particular in this case what we thought of the departed---there is too much at stake to be overly polite, IMO. This is more obvious in the case of political figures that can be also used as role models if they are not critically examined. Ronald Reagan comes to mind as someone the Right is using successfully this way in part due to people having been shyer than they otherwise would have been about attacking his legacy while he lived due to his Alzheimer’s. And if Richard Nixon would have been prosecuted and jailed I don't think the likes of our current President would be half as bold as he is---he would be scared of the same.
It looks like you are being incredibly petty.—OM
In my mind I’m just being honest. That certainly has been my intention. But if I've also come off as less than noble, so be it. I think the country comes before any one journalist and his family or politician and his family, or all of them put together for that matter.
Believe me.
Killing someone who was trying to kill you doesn't make you feel good. It's something you take to bed with you for the rest of your life.
Sometimes the person you've killed is just like you. Someone who was sent to do a job. Someone who fought for his beliefs and country with valor. Someone with a family who loved them and who loved his or her family. Soldiers fight wars, they don't start them.
Worrier,
Very insightful and touching. the notion that killing would feel good is puzzling to me. Killing a human being even if they were trying to kill you does not leave one feeling good. Hollywood, and George W. Bush has sure given folks a complete misunderstanding of war.
"I’ve never been in a combat situation, for example, but I imagine the killing of someone trying to kill me and my guys would make me feel good."
Only if you are a sociopath.
The New York Times best-seller list?
You mean Tim Russert wrote a book right up there on that list, with the guy who sells "nature's secret miracle cures" (or whatever the name of his book is)... or with books by George W. Bush's wife? Isn't it Bush's dog, "millie", who's also a best-selling author on the New York Times best-seller list?
I couldn't give a squat what you think. But you know what? I'm tickled to respond to your idiocy about "decency"...
Let me crow out again, the single and only thing I said about Tim Russert. Look back if you like, at any and all comments I made: I said a lot of things about television, but I said one single thing and one single thing only, about Tim Russert... and I am pleased greatly to say it again:
The late Tim Russert was a television personality, of the type known as POLITICAL MEDIA HACK: He worked for and in the interests of, General Electric, and thier division, NBC... he did absolutely nothing, NOTHING, for the American People, or for me, or for anyone I know... if he did anything for the American People, it was to contribute to misleading them for whatever purposes served General Electric while he was employed by them, or for that matter, whatever purposes served the Bush administration these past seven years: most notably, the purposes of Dick Cheney.
If that's "indecent" what I wrote, then the truth is indecent... or at least the truth is called "indecent", by those who don't like it.
You understand (I think) that people read books for entertainment. People read books to enjoy themselves, to relax, to lose themselves in thought and perspective. To perhaps learn something.
Yes, Tim wrote two Best Sellers. Which simply means that he sold a lot of copies that people read and certainly at least some enjoyed. So for you to say he did nothing for the American people, I believe is not correct. Your focus on Tim's contributions seems pretty narrow. It's about more than just politics.
Thank you. The fact that at least some on your side of the aisle didn't is very telling to me as well.
I'm certainly not going to run from the fact that I respected Tim Russert. I am proud to say it.
Let's not turn this into a partisan thing.---OM
I felt Russert was a partisan---biased to the GOP at a very inopportune time. Having previously worked for the D’s made him all the more effective in that regard and all the more deserving of reproach.
Out of respect for his family and the people who loved him please consider their feelings as well while you are being critical.--OM
What of the feelings of all those that have been and are being hurt by the GOP policies he effectively aided and abetted by abdicating his role as a non-partisan truth-teller? They have families too.
What good is criticism at this point anyway?
I’ll repeat my response in this regard to WorrierKing earlier in the thread: I think this is an attitudinal mistake politically. We should tell the truth on them. We should tell each other generally and journalists in particular in this case what we thought of the departed---there is too much at stake to be overly polite, IMO. This is more obvious in the case of political figures that can be also used as role models if they are not critically examined. Ronald Reagan comes to mind as someone the Right is using successfully this way in part due to people having been shyer than they otherwise would have been about attacking his legacy while he lived due to his Alzheimer’s. And if Richard Nixon would have been prosecuted and jailed I don't think the likes of our current President would be half as bold as he is---he would be scared of the same.
It looks like you are being incredibly petty.—OM
In my mind I’m doing what little I can to get things straight. That certainly has been my intention. But if in the course of doing so, I come off as less than noble, so be it. I think the country comes before any one journalist and his family or politician and his family, or all of them put together for that matter. There’s 300 million non-journalists/non-politicians out here.
...he was no person I personally knew, or cared to know: I never met the man, and never wanted to.
I saw him on television many times though, and saw him "moderate" at least one presidential debate... also, I read extensively his words and opinions (and even viewed many video clips of him) at a website I visit often. As much as from those transcripts and citations of the many things this guy said on television, as from anything else, I judge with certainty that the guy was nothing but a political media hack who worked for General Electric's division NBC: and that he did nothing whatsoever for the American People, but worked purely in the interests of GE/NBC.
I teach my children how contrived and manipulative (even malicious and insidious) are the things that are broadcast on television in America today: I teach them to be suspect of what it is they see on television... to always be aware, that the programming of television is held in just a few private interest private concern privately-owned companies... and that their interests are not necessarily ours (me and my children), or of the American People.
It's true: I am not just making this up: you have indeed referred to something that I place a high priority on, in teaching my children about: I keep their minds and eyes away from broadcast television and it's manipulative and insidiously malicious objectives: objectives which are in part to turn them (my children and all of America's children) into craven little consumers, whose little hearts and minds have been captured by television, with the obscene use of almost non-stop 24 hour 7 days of images of men shooting other men with guns (I'm not talking about the "news", I'm talking about the "entertainment")...
And I teach them about television's attempt to influence and manipulate their opinions, especially about things political (I teach them what a political media hack is: I point at Tim Russert's face in so doing)...
I teach them that television uses political media hacks (like Tim Russert) to influence and manipulate the political opinions of the American People:
I Teach The Truth.
"Just asking, but perhaps if you met with his wife or son they would tell you that he isn't the things you describe him to be. considering they lived with the man it is quite possible that they would be better judges of Russert than you, but of course you seen him on television and that makes him part of the vast conspiracy of corporate news networks to fool us all."
I don't take a lot of stock in what relatives of people say. Subjectivity vs. objectivity. I'm not sure Russert deserves all that Dem is throwing at him, as I say elsewhere, but there is some fairly objective criticism to be made. If he could have asked more questions about the war, better questions, then the public would be best served by him doing so. That's just good journalism, by any standard. I don't know if the problem is purely systemic or personal, but judging him based on his performance on television instead of calling up his family is perfectly understandable in and of itself.
"I don't take a lot of stock in what relatives of people say."
Fine, I disagree in that not only a persons relatives but personal friedns and professional aquaintences are better reporters of a persons professional and personal character than an armchair critic who bases personal judgements about someone based on partisan perception. You and I simply disagree.
I would say professional acquaintances are a credible source of opinion, but personal connections like friends and family don't have an objective viewpoint and more importantly don't have the sense of journalistic standards and ethics needed to make the judgment. I agree someone coming at it from a partisan viewpoint can't make a fair judgment either, you'll note I'm not agreeing with Dem's conclusions either. All I'm saying is that we can judge his professional career based on what he did on television, since that was what his job was all about. His family has nothing to do with that.
I'm not sure what your disagreement with that is based on, but if you just want to bust out the "I don't have to justify what I say" attitude, have at it.
All I'm saying is that we can judge his professional career based on what he did on television, since that was what his job was all about. His family has nothing to do with that.
Exactly. My point is that Dem did not do this. He made personal observations of the man and my point was that such observations were worthless. I feel the judgements of his family would offer a better vantage point in terms of the kind of judgements DEM tried to make. The reality is that Russert received praise from folks on both sides of the aisle as being FAIR. If you happenned to see his memorial service you seen the outpouring of support from professional collegues, politicians, family, etc. His memorial was not a partisan love fest. There were countless observations, following his death, made by both conservatives and liberals which fully contradict DEM's judement. The obvious difference is that they worked with and knew the man and DEM saw him on television. My guess is that since Russert wasn't a flaming liberal he was a "partisan hack" in DEM's eyes.
Now, certainly DEM has the right to judge Russert's professional career based on what he seen on television, but in this instance, if he doesn't take into account the judgemnts of others who knew the man what does DEM then offer us?
In the end, I really don't have to justify anything to you and certainly by not doing so it does in now way destroy the credibility of my argument here. I dare say that appeasing you isn't that damn important. So if you want to define my argument to satisfy yours, have at it.
achrispage, you seem to think I need an assist from:
"the judgements of his family" and from the "praise from folks on both sides of the aisle" and from "the outpouring of support from professional collegues, politicians, family, etc." and from "countless observations, following his death, made by both conservatives and liberals" and from those who "worked with and knew the man"...
...and that I need to "take into account the judgemnts of others who knew the man"
No I don't... I don't need to do any of that.
No more than I need to hear the opinion of a film critic, to judge a movie... or to hear the opinions of the moviemakers themselves, or of their colleagues and their familes also, in order for me to judge the movie.
I have my own eyes, and don't need anyone's opinions to assist me in my judgment of a movie, or of music for that matter: I care nothing for the opinions of musicians or their colleagues or their familes when I listen to and judge music... I have my own eyes and ears.
The same is true of television: I have absolutely no need of the opinions of people in the television business, or of their families either, in order to arrive at my own good opinion....
Tim Russert was a political media hack employed by General Electric's NBC, to influence and manipulate the political opinions of the American People, on television and as a television personality.
That's the truth.
And I do not need anyone else's opinion, to have arrived at that truth: I have eyes and ears and have watched television and can form my own opinion of it and of all things on it (political media hacks included), thank you just the same for offering me an assist... but I don't need it.
No more than I need to hear the opinions of a movie critic, or of Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, or any member of their families, in order to arrive at my own good judgment of "Raiders Of The Lost Ark"
It's the same thing.
I've been talking about television, and about it's influence on and manipulation of, the American People: when that influence and manipulation is of the American People's political opinions, then it is done by television personalities who are political media hacks... like Tim Russert.
That's what I've been talking about.
I haven't been talking about or said anything in the least, about anybody's wife and kids and family...
What are you talking about achrispage6992?
You mentioned his wife and kids in your response to my comment: I don't know why you did that, and I'm tired of these strange references in responses to my comments about Tim Russert... references to things I haven't said anything about, like mentioning his wife and kids: you and that edenscape make my comments about Tim Russert personal, when they are not.
You think what I've said about Tim Russert is personal?
He was a political media hack, who as an employee of defense contractor General Electric, and who made many millions of dollars per year in their employ, going on television, on their division NBC, and working to influence and manipulate the political opinions of the American People.
Other than doing that for General Electric, Tim Russert did absolutely NOTHING for the American People... he was nothing but a political media hack (millionaire variety) who worked for GE's NBC.
Now, is that personal? Should I not have said that? Is that a personal attack "out of bounds"?
Because if it is, then I don't care about the foolish boundries you define: because what I said there, is exactly true of Tim Russert, and it is true of chris matthews also (except he's probably paid a million or two less by GE, than Tim Russert was)... it's exactltly true also of brian williams and joe scarbourough (who GE pays less than they paid the political media hack Tim Russert) and tucker carlson (paid much less by GE, and on the last of his contract, for having too ineffective an influence on the political opinions of the American People)... and bill o'reilly (different employer than Tim Russert's, but the same job and probably more highly paid)...
I say the same thing of those political media hacks, that I say of Tim Russert: too personal for you? Too personal an attack?
If so, then forget you. It's every word the truth, that Tim Russert was a political media hack who worked for and was paid millions of dollars by General Electric, and did NOTHING for the American People, outside of influencing and manipulating the political opinions of them, according to the wishes of GE
That's an appraisal of the man's profession, and of him professionally: it's no more a personal observation of Tim Russert, than the same thing would be when said of those other political media hacks I mentioned: if it's too personal for you, then get out of the way, we have enough defenders and apologists already for GE and NBC and for the political media hacks they employ... get out of the way, and forget you.
They can do it to anyone and on any subject. If the GOP gets a bug up its ass to criticise Obama's ears, they could make that the dominant story of the week.
He was a goofy looking dude anyway,
I meN REALLY WHAT THE f WAS THEIR F'N MIONDS. gimme some of trhat down home whatever.....
I don't know if the following will post, but ... it isn't just how you look in a helmet that can make or break your campaign, it's who you hug:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/9/72554/21851/698/532220
Totally off topic but v. Buglisosui onm bobg K's shopw . wow! Hoooo! wooooo!
When you only flag items that fit a certain criteria, it's easy to create your own patterns.
The Pittsburgh Review Tribune Blog? LMAO.
Mr. L....totally agree with you. The Tribune Review, as you know is an original rag out of Greensburg. The Mellon money has prompted it to become a quasi-regional paper. Conservative lingo throughout this paper is so well pronounced that its intent cannot be confused. And it reaches into the Alabama part of Pa. where it just preaches to the choir.
I have never and will never purchase this paper. At least the Post Gazette will occasionally lean Right. Occasionally...the Tribune...nope!!!!
Sometimes people say that they use newspapers to line their bird cages. I don't think birds should be subject to their propaganda either. Urban legend has it that PETA will assualt anyone forcing their birds to be near this papaer.
The thing to remember about anything written in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is who publishes the paper. The publisher is Richard Mellon Scaife. Scaife is one of the richest men in Pennsylvania. He inherited part of the Mellon banking fortune. In addition he is probably the most extreme right-wing person in the state.
Scaif's money largely funded the investigated of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Ken Starr now hold a chair at Peperdine University funded by Scaif.
No one in Pennsylvania believes anything in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is anything but right-wing propaganda.
I'd like to comment both on the topic and the odd, off topic Russert rant within the thread.
Full disclosure, there are people whose death I would celebrate, Rev. Fred Phelps immediately springs to mind. I'd like to be there during the ceremony to whistle Ding Dong the Witch is Dead, maybe sing a few bars at the end and finish by pi$$ing on his coffin. That said, Tim Russert was not one of those people. I didn't know him, I have no personal experience to share, all I know is that his wife and son will miss him and that they feel a lot of pain and loss. DEM, say what you want, it's a free country. But do not for a second think that it doesn't speak to YOUR character, or lack therof. Of all the TV hacks to lash out at this one is a trifle misplaced. Condemn the man's life work, that is fair. The personal attacks though are cheap, petty and show no class when the man's wife and child are taken into account.
Take a look at the folks cheering a death and accepting the posters rationale, you'll remember these folks as the ones most ardently defending Hillary in the primary. Hating on anyone that dare question the 3am ad, the race baiting, the fear mongering and the lack of partisan concern. These are the folks that slowed the Obama train enough that McTorture is within stricking distance. I don't know what's wrong with these people but the fact it's the same folks doesn't surprise me at all. Worrier is right.
When we embrace the tactics of our enemy we lose a little bit of ourselves, even if we win as a direct result. One day we will see the Righty circle jerk bonanza when Dan Rather kicks the bucket. It'll look a lot like the posts in this thread. One day we will see the 3am ad again too, it'll look a lot like the posts from the last few months.
Know your enemy
You make some good general points about the decline of decency in America. It is obvious that Russert was a decent American who will be missed forever by his family members.
The media, particularly his own channel, really went over the top on the coverage of his untimely death. The time and resources spent covering the associated discussions and events were comparable to President Ford's funeral, IMO (and almost as excessive as Ronald Reagan's funeral). The truth is that Russert was merely one of many political pundits making his living by commentating. The excessive coverage of his death and many memorials must have resulted from his fellow commentators shock at his untimely death combined with their unlimited access to the airwaves, and that is where MMfA comments are appropriate. You may think that questioning Russert's failure to question the run-up to the Iraq war is indecent. I think it is fair, and am really glad MMfA is here to give us a forum for applying perspective.
Another point: I give McCain full credit for being the bravest American to take a public stand against Bushco's illegal torture tactics. If you've got a good reason to frame him as a torturer please post it.
Criticizing the man's work or lack therof is not indecent...that is fair game.
Umm, you did see where McCain voted FOR torture when he finally had the chance to make a principled stand against it didn't you???
John McCain...he was against torture before Limbaugh said he was for it
Nope, I hadn't seen it and don't know how I could have missed it. I just googled "mccain votes for torture" and got over 400,000 hits.
Thanks for the correction. McTorture it is.
Anytime, cheers
I don't see where Dem either pushed Hillary in his previous posts, nor do I see him making cheap shots at Russert on a personal level. I think you are a bit mixed up. He was taking aim at Russert professionally and made some very good and salient points if you took the time to read his posts. Your ire is misplaced.
And just because you don't like Dem's view in this instance doesn't give you the right to judge his character in the way you just did. I find nothing hurtful or wrong in HIS opinion. He made clear where he stood and you disagree. DEAL!
And nobody here slowed any train. Except maybe the one in your mind. Again, you might seek to understand some facts before applying your judgement that you issue so harshly. I argued against unfair attacks against Hillary only. You chose to apply the beleifs supplied in many instances by the very media we rail against here daily. I got facts before issuing judgement on Hillary. You used emotions and visceral reaction. You couldn't even see that my sticking up for Hillary and support for Obama weren't mutually exclusive. I still don't understand why you can't grasp that simple concept.
Please get over your grudges. It is as petty and unseemly as what you accuse Dem of.
Knocking on my door again JJ
Not that laying out a perfectly resonable argument has ever meant anything to you here are a few of DEMS own words that support my position, not that you bothered to read any of it
"as to feeled cowed into expressing a solemn and regretful loss, for a political media hack television personality that they never even knew, or that did anything for them, or for the American People.
they have you all cowed I think, into thinking you must worship as a Saint, the passing of one of their own... of a political media hack who they just loved forcing on your political mind in his life, and now forcing into your soft hearts, after his death.
with all of that said, I feel so little for television personalities, as to say I feel nothing for them: and when those television personalities are political media hacks, then I usually feel less than nothing (if there is such a thing) for them, and sometimes even worse than nothing.
Tim Russert did nothing whatsoever for any person I know in this life. He did absolutely nothing that I can see, for the American People. He was a highly paid television personality political media hack, who worked for and in the interests of General Electric, and their division, NBC. Again, Tim Russert did absolutely nothing that I know of, for the American People, but did much I'm sure, for his employer GE and NBC, and many others who knew and liked him... among which, as I said, I am not one.
I could give a squat about Tim Russert, who was nothing but a political media hack for General Electric's NBC. He was not a Humanitarian (that I know of), not an elected or appointed servant of the People, not a Political activist (or not the kind that works for the People, but I guess the kind that works for GE), he was not a Journalist (not a single day in his political media hack life)... he was no person I knew, or even cared to know: and seeing as how I fail to see what good things he did for me or any one I know or any one at all, any of the American People... you will forgive me (or not) for not feeling anything for the death of a television personality political media hack who worked for General Electric's NBC, named Tim Russert
Actually, I feel something: amused, and variously annoyed too I admit, at the hushed and solemn observations and respect you are all giving Tim Russert: as though the Pope, or a Head of State, or a President, or some National icon and treasure, had passed away and been lost to us..."
------------------------- So let me get this straight...all of that was not a bit morbidly tasteless In my OPINION, it was overboard and I am entitled to it...so you can go deal. I'll take no advice from you. Go back to the limmericks, at least those were amusing. Besides you've said many times you don't read my stuff, nor can be bothered to comment upon it...my myWhat did you high-light the word amused for?
If it was to emphasize the word, then thank you: I think it needs emphasizing, and I'll repeat it here myself...
I feel amused at the hushed and solemn observations and respect you are all giving Tim Russert, a POLITICAL MEDIA HACK employed by defense conractor General Electric... I do.
I appreciate the character defense, thanks Julia.
And it is true, that some people have a fevered imagination, and the things they see in it, they then project onto others: I was never a supporter or defender of Hillary Clinton... the particular thing (I recall) that drew so much response from this particular poster edenscape, here in these MMFA pages, was a sharp and biting ridicule I aimed, at Clinton-haters in general, and the Huffington Post in particular: and it drew this particular poster out against my comments, and then got he/she to projecting onto me, the role of defender or supporter of Mrs. Clinton... a defense and support I had not registered (although I easily could have), but was just something in the mind of a Clinton-hater, who then colored my rational and objective words, with their irrational and biased hatred.
And I think this poster still does me that wrong: although in truth I couldn't care less, or would even comment on it: but I saw your words here Julia, defending my character, and figured I'd add to them.
You see above, in edenscape's post, a fevered and obscene description, of how he/she would urinate on someone's coffin?
What does that have to do with anything I've posted in these pages, about Tim Russert?
You see also in edenscape's post, references to "personal attacks" and "a man's wife and children" and "cheering death" and a lot of other foul thoughts: what does any of that fevered and imagination crap, have to do with anything I've posted in these pages, about Tim Russert?
People who project the dark and strange things that cloud their minds, out onto other people who never said or did anything that even resembles such dark stuff (and again, what awful descriptions of things done on coffins and/or graves does edenscape describe: describes his or her self doing... on someone's coffin... and how does that involve anyone other than edenscape?)
People like that are harder to deal with and reason with and talk to, than are drunks and psychotics and delusionals, and even dumb animals: because those things also are living creatures, that see nothing before their own eyes, except their own fear and anger and hatred.
Unless it be thought here, that I'd disavow anything I've typed about Tim Russert, let me type again the single and solitary thing I have said about the man, in what is now many comments on the matter:
Tim Russert was a television personality POLITICAL MEDIA HACK, who worked in that capacity for General Electric's NBC: he was never a Journalist, not one day in his life: he did absolutely nothing NOTHING for the American People: he was not a Humanitarian (not that I know of): he was not a Political activist (or not the kind that works for the People at least, but I guess maybe the kind that works for General Electric): he was not an elected or apponited Public official, nor was he a Public or Civic leader: and above all I'd repeat, Tim Russert was a POLITICAL MEDIA HACK who did absolutely NOTHING for the American People.
That's all that I've said about the man, because it's true, every word of it... and none of what I say there, has anything to do with coffins or urine or cheering death or the man's wife and kids, or even anything personal about the man: as it is a true observation about his occupation, POLITICAL MEDIA HACK, and nothing about the man personally.
As an end-note: I see on MMFA's front page at the moment, several interesting links about the POLITICAL MEDIA HACK david broder, and of how he takes money from people with political and business interests (like realtors), as though he were in their employ, or at least on their payroll: as though he were an agent of theirs, or a lobbyist for them, while pretending to be a Journalist...
Interesting stuff.
It has me wondering about the POLITICAL MEDIA HACK named Tim Russert, and whether any such payoffs and payola shall be reported about him...
...like as if we should find out he took money from a defense contractor, maybe like General Electric: maybe millions and millions of dollars... and then pretended to be a Journalist, while working for defense contractor General Electric.
I don't know that if in my present grief for the man's passing, that I could take such a revelation at this time... say it ain't so Tim: say you didn't take millions of dollars from business and political lobby interests... say it ain't so Tim: say you weren't a highly paid POLITICAL MEDIA HACK for General Electric's NBC?
So criticizing your bashing of the recently deceased constitutes a varied multitude of disorders IYHO? Interesting. Are you a doctor or are you just diagnosing from your rectal cavity?
Yes, I'm glad you remember what brought me to you before. The Hillary hater club. As I remember it that was when JJ and her ilk lost quite a bit of respect here for blindly asserting that anyone calling Hill's Rove card was some kind of blaspheming nut. It's interesting that you are so open to defense from JJ yet slur my defense of other posters during your Hill Hate ranting days. But we're ALL Obama supporters now aren't we. The speech was made, a few days late and the fundraising has begun, a few dollars light. Everyone has kissed and made up but not me. Nope. I have a memory. I know my enemy.
Alas, DEM, it seems you are flipping and flopping worse than McCain on torture...if you embrace your words then EMBRACE them. Cast aside any need to be defended...own up to what you said. I didn't Bill O'Quote you out of context, did I???
Geez, everybody got wordy on this one.I mean "prolific". ;0)
For the record, I saw Demo2020's posts about Russert, and didn't see any of the disrespect for the recently deceased that brought out so much anger. What I saw was a reminder that death, although it should be treated with reverence, doesn't automatically mean Sainthood.
The danger of elevating fallen media personalities, politicians, or military people to an area beyond honest criticism is too easily abused.
The dead are no longer part of the debate, they can do no further damage. I'm just picturing how I'd feel if my dad just died and some nitwit with a keyboard smashed him while I grieved.
DEM paints the man as worthless. I diasgree. I bet his family would too.
I don't think anyone's commenting on his family life here. "Worthless" or whatever other term used would seem to apply professionally, nowhere else. What's more, the feelings of anyone's family are trumped by the importance of professional journalism.
I remember when Nixon died Tom Tomorrow ran a cartoon on this subject, talking about how nobody can speak negatively about anyone dead ("Al Capone was a hell of a marksman!", comments to that effect). We should try to insure that any criticism is fair and not excessively personal, but as long as those standards are met such criticism should be made. If Ann Coulter died tomorrow (not to compare her to Russert, by any stretch of the imagination), the damage she's done to the national discourse shouldn't be glossed over just because she has a grieving family member somewhere. Whether she personally can do further harm or not means little when there are countless others out there who can fill the void and continue doing harm.
The merits of particular criticisms can be evaluated, of course. Whether he's "worthless" or not can be judged on his history. But the idea that such criticism can't be made at all because of a sense of etiquette lacks proportion.
Thanks!
I've tried to avoid making judgments about Russert because I think most people here know more about him than I do. I saw him sometimes and I've seen some of the stories online about him, but he's just not someone I've spent any real time looking into.
If it's a matter of his employer being General Electric and their vested interests in profiting from war, then that's a systemic problem. That compromises the integrity of the entire process, and is definitely a major concern. But then that leads to the question of how much that alleviates Russert from personal blame, which is what we're seeing here. If it's a matter of great courage, taking a risk in losing your career for the sake of doing what's right, then the failure to do that doesn't really merit very harsh criticism. That's just idealism vs. realism. I'd love for everyone to do what's right no matter what the consequences as well, but it's just not human nature. If there's a system in place that prevents people from being totally honest and objective, then all you can really expect is for people to be as honest and objective as they can be within those boundaries. Would he get fired for asking tougher questions about the war, and risking his career? Or is it just a matter of getting a demotion, being able to make a decent living while keeping your scruples? Self-preservation vs. opportunism makes a big difference in such judgments, even with a systemic problem.
If self-preservation is the standard for judging him as a "hack", then I think there are an awful lot of hacks out there. It sort of loses its meaning, like a word you say a couple hundred times in a row. It's similar to how I feel about every single policeman and fireman who showed up to work on 9/11 being hailed as a "hero". There's no middle ground there. Either you're a "hero" or you're a coward who let down the people of your city in its most desperate hour. I have nothing but respect for those who helped to save lives and maintain some sense of order in the city, but such labeling diminishes the actions of those who went beyond what they were expected to do. Either you're a hero or a coward. Either you're Cronkite or Murrow, the examples from Eddy's post, or you're a media hack. By the same token that those who take exceptional behavior lose some of their due glory, so do people who fail to do what's expected of them lose some of their due shame. Just about everyone's a hack, so it doesn't matter how badly you perform. It's all the same.
So if that's the basis for his comments, then I would agree that it's unfair. If there are other factors involved, then Dem can make a better case for his labeling. I'm not interested in defending Russert, I'm only speaking theoretically. If there are other reasons to criticize him, or if that's not the framework being used, then I'm sure that argument will be made here.
You seem put out by the term political media hack, and you make special reference to "political hack", and you think it's an "unfair and/or inappropriate label"
You know what the words political and media mean: Merriam-Webster's (the Gold standard in the definition of words) has for "hack"...
3 a: a person who works solely for mercenary reasons : hireling <party hacks> b: a writer who works on order; also : a writer who aims solely for commercial success
Tim Russert was a political media hack (hireling) for General Electric's NBC... he was not a writer (despite everybody's strained attempts to claim he was: no more than Bush's dog "Millie" is a writer, or that guy who's book about "nature's miracle secret cures the businesses don't want you to know about" is a writer)... he enjoyed great commercial success, Tim Russert did, as a television personality political media hack who worked for GE's NBC to influence and manipulate the political opinions of the American People.
Tim Russert made millions and millions of dollars from General Electric doing that... he was quite the hireling... quite the hack.
You still don't grasp that I never had a favorite between Hillary and Obama. But I was and still am able to defend each on unwarranted attacks. You seem to have trouble with simple concepts.
But project away. It is what you do.
What are you, Bill Frist?