I think Russert said his anonymity guarantee, plus a right to review and retract - was a privilege he afforded his VIP subjects - like Cheney - only.

Cheney may have reciprocated: Russert's son got a music review broadcast gig along side James Carville, husband to Cheney's factotum Mary Matalin.

When it came to average folks, though -- especially those who challenged the status quo -- he was one hard-hittin' newsman.

Posted at June 14, 2008 9:21 AM in response to Tim Russert: In Memoriam

while I feel for Russert’s family and have no wish to be churlish, the salient fact for me of Russert’s career is that he was the preeminent Washington reporter of his time; the same time that the Bush/Cheney regime achieved a stranglehold on the press, and turned our 4th estate into a propaganda outlet.

Russert was seduced or coerced into serving as the “platform” for Cheney’s most outrageous and important lies. Material was leaked to Judy Miller in the morning, and pounded in by Cheney in the afternoon.

Russert had to know what was going on - but he rarely posed even one question.

I’m sure he was a great guy - but as journalist, he was a failure at the time when our democracy needed him most.

A poster at kos linked to this WaPo story from last year that summed up Russert’s special relationship with Cheney:

In Ex-Aide’s Testimony, A Spin Through VP’s PR

Flashed on the courtroom computer screens were her notes from 2004 about how Cheney could respond to allegations that the Bush administration had played fast and loose with evidence of Iraq’s nuclear ambitions. Option 1: “MTP-VP,” she wrote, then listed the pros and cons of a vice presidential appearance on the Sunday show. Under “pro,” she wrote: “control message.”

“I suggested we put the vice president on ‘Meet the Press,’ which was a tactic we often used,” Martin testified. “It’s our best format.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....51_pf.html

It’s not my intention to knock Russert when he’s just died, but the facts of a public figure’s career is relevant to the discussion when that person pasess on.

Posted at June 14, 2008 9:17 AM in response to Tim Russert: In Memoriam

Listen to those guys all giggle when they talk about the constitution. It's just a big joke.

The striking thing about it, as noted, is the craven obsequiousness they all show Rummy -- one of the most incompetent figures in American military history.

Posted at May 8, 2008 6:16 PM in response to Audio: Military Analysts Laud "The Leader" Rumsfeld

I am extremely troubled by the use of "anihillation" by HRC. Her meaning was pretty clear. It seemed like pandering at the most base level.

Hopefully she's more rational at 3 AM.

Posted at May 6, 2008 3:23 PM in response to Hillary Should Be Dismissed From The Democratic Party For Iran Comments

Liam, you hit it on the head. I too have supported HRC over many years - but there is something appalling about the way she assumes these bizarre positions, supposedly to demonstrate her fitness to be President.

By displaying complete cynicism, a willingness to support dangerous and misguided policies, by picking up the talking points of the whackjob right, she thinks she shows us she can win. Win? Win what?

Here's my question: what about the non-whackjob conservatives who have loathed HRC for 20 years? Were they right? Did they see something we didn't? Did we blind ourselves, the same way the koolaid-drinkers who support W do now?

Posted at May 6, 2008 12:09 PM in response to Women aren't fit to hold office, it seems.

Fact check: HRC voted for the Kyl-Leiberman Amendment, which designated the Iranian National Guard a "terrorist organization" and can be interpreted to authorize Bush to take military action in response.

Obama was not in Washington at that time, and did not vote. He stated that he opposed the amendment, which passed 9/26/07 76-22.

HRC has persistantly echoed the Bush Admin's hard line on Iran, recently raising the ante by calling to commit the US to "total annihilation" of Iran if it ever strikes Israel.

Obama has criticized the Bush administrations neglect of diplomacy, and made clear that establishing dialog and attempting to reduce tension would be his first intervention.

Posted at May 6, 2008 10:37 AM in response to Women aren't fit to hold office, it seems.

I agree with the post - but I think HRC's macho, militaristic, economist-doubtin' stance also seems to be a piece of classic Big Bill pol-driven calculation:

If the uneducated, poorer, more "bitter", more openly or subliminally racist white voters are the ones HRC can chip away to pull up her vote tally, she goes for them.

If it was the lesbian vote that could make the difference, she'd be wearing a vest and chugaluging Pinot Grigio in Provinctown right now, instead of telling everyone how she went huntin' with her dad with his left-handed Mauser rifle.

Posted at May 6, 2008 10:29 AM in response to Women aren't fit to hold office, it seems.

Mr. Phillips - you're the man! You definitely earned your place in the Intellectual Honesty Hall of Fame, if they ever build one (not too likely).

A question for you, and other readers: when I was a kid in the 60's and 70's, I believe there were Usury laws that capped the amount of interest that could be charged on consumer debt. I understand that one state perhaps Nevada, abolished it's laws, rendering all other state laws invalid.

Is this true?

Definitely, a whole "industry" has grown up charging working Americans 20-30% interest on credit card debt- debt often used to finance emergency health care, heating oil, and other necessities.

In 2006, Joe Biden (I think) championed lending "reform" that made it harder to declare bankruptcy, and easier to force homes into foreclosure in the event of bankruptcy (whereas previously, I understand that depression era laws protected people in bankruptcy from losing their homes).

Do I have this right?

If my two propositions are true, do you think it's fair to say that there is a multi-billion dollar "industry" dedicated to forcing middle class Americans into debt, draining their prosperity, and siezing their homes?

To the extent that this is true, can you outline the persons/parties/policies that helped bring this "industry" about?

Posted at April 15, 2008 7:02 PM in response to The Crisis of American Finance

The DLC is a commie front! I love it!

Posted at March 24, 2008 12:41 PM in response to Bill and Hillary are life-long communist

We couldn't have stopped the Iraq War?

Possibly, but the country could have been informed that the Iraq NIE was a joke, that few Senators voting on the war resolution ever read it.

If the NYT wasn't so enabling to the Bush/Cheney administration, obediently printing "leaks" of classified disinformation pieces so that Cheney could chat them up with Tim Russert, the environment would have been different.

Check out Bill Moyer's "selling the war". The more an informed body of citizens demand real information, the more the climate shifts so that we may actually get some.

Posted at March 24, 2008 12:40 PM in response to Too Much to Ask?