Memories of Tim Russert: The night he opened my eyes.

[tom_paine]

In all this firestorm of chat and debate about Mr. Russert, which I am compelled to point out itself mirrors the 24 hr. Tim Russert Memorial on the Cable Networks, a very sharp and distinct memory popped into my head. In truth, it was a salient moment for me. Like the night I saw my first Freeped Poll in 2000 ("Do you have a favorable opinion of Al Gore?" 3 minutes from when the poll was initially posted, the vote was Yes 3 No 60002), or the night after the 1st debate, when the Toady Media so easily turned a Gore trouncing of babbling Bush into a commentary on his sighing, what we now know as the normal Bushie distracting nonsense to suck the life out of and control the news cycle and the "message". And I still wonder if a turned-up mic pickup may have been the work of a Bushie performing a Nixonian-style old-fashioned dirty trick.

But I digress. For good or ill, this is a genuine memory that popped into my head. Take it as you will.

Let me be clear, my opinion of Russert had up until that moment been solidly positive. Though I didn't often watch MTP, when I did, Russert impressed me in the ways that so many have described. He seemed to my eyes at that time, a competent journalist who asked some pretty strong questions.

Mostly I didn't give it much thought. I resolutely ignored (tried to anyway - but of course it just seeped in from all directions, everyone was talking about it, snippets on TV, even watching Late Night Shows with the jokes were a form of update) the nonsense of the Phony Clinton Impeachment once I figured out what it was, so I missed Tim's shameful weekly performances during that period, now that I have seen transcripts of or on video and there is little doubt I would have caught on then had I watched.

But this was October 2000, and Tim was being interviewed by a colleague. I clicked on it and decided to rest my weary remote control there for awhile and watch. This was well after the Freeped Poll and 1st Debate, so my hackles were up. Something was wrong, something was VERY wrong, but I couldn't tell what it was, couldn't see the full shape of it yet. But it was there like a ghost-image.

It was an informal TV interview, I recall. Tim was chatting, responding lengthily to a question, I can't remember what is was, when he said, "Oh, I think the Republican National Committee does a fantastic job with research. They send me stuff all the time and it's always dead on."

I did a double-take. Hell, if I had been drinking a glass of water, I would have done a spit-take.

This is what the crazed, programmed Bushies will NEVER understand because they are one-sided and absolutist as Nazis, the living opposites of our Founding Fathers. Democratic, Republican, Green, Libertarian, Rastafarian, a journalist should NEVER be accepting information from Party-Loyal Opposition Research Teams with an axe to grind, should not be running with it blindly and "catapulting the propaganda" to millions who trust you NOT to do that!

My God, that crosses the interface between journalist and propagandist in a BIG way, IMHO.

Oh, and by the way, I think we all know what a falsehood he told when he made that part of the quote, "and it's always dead on."

As any DUer worth their salt can say "to the tenth decimal place" and with links, facts, video and transcripts to back it up usually, reality is quite the opposite of what Mr. Russert opined.

The Bushies, as we all know (and can prove to the tenth decimal place, metaphorically-sepaking) are the lyingest, falsest people to ever rule America, with a Mighty Wurlitzer, a Noise Machine, a Lie Machine, a Reality Laundry. Before 2000, to see this kind of serial mendacious lying from people in power, you had to go to a Third World Country or Communist China!!

And yet, Russert said what he said. He said it glibly, off-the-cuff, a rare moment of candor, like the alleged "principles are for paupers" comment. (anyone got a video link?) But this quote I am certain of for I saw it with my own two eyes and it stunned me...it floored me.

And still, I could not see the full shape of it yet, but NOW alarm bells were ringing in my head. Then, a few weeks from then, the final blood-chilling moment on Stolen Election Night 2000, when the Bush Family basically calmly announced to the world, with their usual amount of "Plausible Deniability" built into the words, that they were stealing Florida and it really didn't matter who the Little People voted for.

Jebbie promised him after all. The rest, as they say, is nightmarish history.

But that is my memory of Mr. Tim Russert. Say what you will.

[countryjake]

1. If only “Integrity is for paupers!” had been caught on video...

but I believe that this article is the origin of that little snippet:

http://www.makethemaccountable.com/podvin/media/020109_Russert.htm


I could fill pages with all the times my tv tube was at risk while watching Meet the Press and the man would introduce a talking point, give a perfect opening to whatever neocon asshole he had on...lead them into the spin-of-the-month.

Thanks for a thoughtful post!

[midnight]

2. "principles are for paupers"

Isn't that what the Republicans have been saying. They just convinced Russert what his new job would be about.

[lostnfound]

3. An interest read on that topic from old DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1300017

[seemslikeadream]

42. thanks

I hope you don't mind but I'm OPing that

[Skittles]

4. thank you

he fooled a lot of people - including a lot of DUers

[fasttense]

5. Well said tom_paine.

You know the reason I believe the money grubbing liars who call themselves "reporters" on the TV wont have the same impact on this election as they did on the 2000 and 2004 elections is that they lack the element of surprise.

Really, to hear such blatant partisan comments and spin were really very rare until about the time of Clinton's Impeachment. Up until then, it was simply screening out the facts by the corporate media. As I understood it, before the pretend Impeachment, you could not trust the corporate media to give you all the facts but the facts they did give you were accurate. But of course that all changed when the corporate media decided to become nothing more than a propaganda tool for the neocons.

But there is one thing we Americans are experts at and that is identifying advertisement and marketing. Of course there are those idiots who will never understand that that pill will not get rid of your cellulite and that Rush Limpball doesn't give a crap about America. But the majority of Americans can see a marketing technique a mile away, otherwise they wouldn't have to keep inventing new and more effective advertising. We have grown up with this stuff and just because it has moved into the newsroom doesn't make it any less identifiable.

But it was a surprise at first. We really were operating under old standards that have been deregulated out of existence but we were never told. We thought we could trust, somewhat, the news but of course we have now seen the news turned into a neocon tool. It's like the mortgage scandal. Americans were operating under old rules that were deregulated out of existence. The old rule was that the government protected you from fraud in lending and severely regulated the banks and lenders. So you could trust what the bank said and when the lender said it. Of course today if a lender came up to you offering an ARM with all the bells and whistles, most people would laugh in their face. See we do LEARN.

So the old neocon trick can't work (as well) again because it has lost the element of surprise.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

89. BRAVO

[pnorman]

6. “Integrity is for paupers!”

I've been Googling that damning phrase for several minutes so far. I've gotten several 'hits', but NONE could be "taken to the bank".

I spend a lot of time at the keyboard, Googling questionable quotes that the rabid-right constantly throws out. In almost all cases, I get the same result: A closed circle ("circle-jerk"?) quoting each other, but NO primary source. As much as I'd like to "run with that phrase", I can NOT. I try to hold myself to the same standards that I hold others.

pnorman

[tom_paine]

28. Agreed. And I think I mentioned that in my OP (that it was alleged)

But even IF that quote is misquoted, out of context or even a fabrication...it changes nothing of the rest of it.

And that RNC quote, I witnessed with my own eyes. Feel free to dismiss it as anecdotal, I understand.

But I saw it with my own eyes, and would take a polygraph to that effect.

[no_hypocrisy]

7. My theory why he integrated it into his presentation:

Russert was not a journalist. It's that simple. He was a news personality like Katie Couric. Or Charlie Gibson.

He never studied to be one. He was an assistant to Moynihan and Cuomo, but never a journalist. He was smart, but that doesn't make him a journalist by itself.

One of the principles that is inviolate in journalism is distinguishing and discriminating fact from opionion and investigating the "authority" behind your information. There are no shortcuts such as accepting someone else's information as though they did your work for you and using it if it seems plausible.

You would think that Russert would have had a staff who did the research if he didn't do it. Obviously not or not enough.

[Blarch]

25. sorry, he was a journalist.

he certainly gathered news on his own by making calls and asking questions.

He was no Greg Palast ...But Tim WAS a journalist.

[speedoo]

34. IF he was a journalist...

he was a lousy one.

[progdonkey]

40. no, he sat on his ass, waiting for the info (i.e. lies) to come to him...

via Media Matters: "During the interview, Russert famously complained that, during the run-up to the war, nobody called him to tell him they had concerns about the administration's case for war: 'My concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.'"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802290020

The only questions he asked were the questions that would either take down threats to his corporate employers and the supporting political establishment, or they'd be softball questions to give the appearance that he was putting the Bushie or whomever on the spot but functioning merely to help them skirt the issue.

Or his other statement that his view of being a journalist is to always assume you're off the record until the other person explicitly states it's on the record, which is exactly the opposite of a what a good journalist should be doing--but exactly what a propaganda shill does. He can be considered a journalist only if you set the bar extremely low.

[bluedawg12]

93. MediaMatters nail his ass to the floor- the most compelling eye opener

yet- this has great examples of how his behavior belied his own media created myth.

[Frank Cannon]

8. I, for one, am going to miss the Sunday morning softball games...

between Tim and whatever Bush admin flunkie he had on.

Tim so much as admitted that he got marching orders from the White House during the Scooter Libby trial.

I feel bad for the man's family. He might have been a nice guy in person. But a great, even mediocre, journalist he was not.

[trumad]

9. One of his most despicable episodes

was when he moderated the debate between Jeb Bush and Bill McBride for the Governorship of Florida. This in my mind was Russert in all his GOP talking point glory. Soft balls to Jeb, high insiders to Bill.....

BTW Tom.... great post and recommended.

[tom_paine]

29. As always, a hearty shout out to one of my favorite DUers!

:hi: :patriot:

One day I would love to have a discussion with you about Truman's signing of the 1947 Nat'l Security Act. But that is a topic for it's own thread.

[Flying Dream Blues]

102. As well as the Obama/Clinton debate...I'd up your metaphor and say he was aiming for Obama's head. n

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. Great post and great epitaph. Never has so much been said so ....

>>>"Oh, I think the Republican National Committee does a fantastic job with research. They send me stuff all the time and it's always dead on.">>>>

....succinctly.

[Hubert Flottz]

11. I think maybe that the "lord" worked again in his own mysterious

way and tombstoned another not too well camouflaged freeper type...Timmy Taterhead..."Cheney's Go To Guy" at GE/NBC.

General Electric wants us in Iraq, even more than General Petraeus does and St. Timmy worked for GE/NBC...so Timmy took his 30 pieces of silver and more than willingly helped the GOPers sell the war in Iraq and the re-selection of old "MORALITY" based George to the TV viewers. Is there a number on the TV dial that is not a party to the crimes of this gang of outlaws in power now?

TRUST is all but extinct in America, thanks to the GOP/PNAC infested media.

I don't see no stinkin' "MORALITY"...and "MORALITY" is what the rank and file republicans supposedly thought they were voting for in 2000 and 2004...stealing, lying, killing, looting, plundering, pillaging and water-boarding are not "MORAL"...the GOP's "MORALITY" is a sick, lame and wounded duck. Tim knew he was helping BushCo "Shade The Truth"

American "Reality" and "Morality" have probably been mortally wounded and they too are headed for extinction I'm afraid.

In just about 40 years the GOP's greed based gangsters have taken a country that had sat on a rock solid industrial foundation for over 200 years and they have cast it into an endless, bottomless, sea of quicksand.

Trickle down misery for working class Americans for as far as they eye can see, thanks to the frivolous debt the GOP is piling up and the jobs they've been shipping out and McCain wouldn't change a thing.

Why do the people in control of the GOP based media, hate America, enough to want to systematically undermine and destroy her from the inside out?

The "rotten apples" rule...

EDIT...BTW...K&R

[Raksha]

68. Your "30 pieces of silver" comment may be more than just metaphor.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, whether or not the "integrity is for paupers" comment is authentic, and I have no reason to believe it ISN'T. I didn't watch "Meet the Press" so I've mostly kept my mouth shut during the Tim Russert eulogies and grave-pissing threads. Since my information was mostly secondhand from DU and other lefty blogs, I've refrained from commenting except when I see what looks like troll activity.

But back to those 30 pieces of silver. If it's true that Jack Welch literally BOUGHT Tim Russert's integrity when he began working for NBC, and if it's true that Tim was a devout Catholic his entire life...then Tim Russert was a SELLOUT.

And what is worse, infinitely worse for Tim personally, he KNEW he was a sellout. He KNEW he had betrayed his working-class Catholic roots, the same roots he exploited so shamelessly. He KNEW he had betrayed his own conscience. For a Catholic--or actually any halfway religious person with even a shred of sincerity--no greater sin is possible or conceivable. Because your conscience is the voice of God within you, and to deliberately turn your back on THAT...

Now I am not a Catholic myself. I don't believe there is such a thing as an "unforgivable sin," nor do I believe in an eternal hell. But I know how it would torment ME if I deliberately turned my back on my conscience. I can't even begin to imagine Tim Russert's inner torment and self-hate, and don't want to eiher.

In other posts, people have suggested that Tim's sudden demise was brought on by his high-cholesterol diet and workaholic lifestyle, and no doubt these were contributing factors. But I suspect that an intolerable existential inner conflict may have literally been the final nail in his coffin.

My personal belief is that God DOES have mercy on his soul...far more mercy than he had himself.

[kath]

69. please don't mention "grave-pissing" threads. There was no such thing.

[Raksha]

72. You're right--that was a poor choice of words on my part.

I realize these people were just trying to set the record straight about Tim's shilling and covering up for the Bush mafia.

[kath]

74. thanks, Raksha.

I know how it is -- if you agonize over every word in a post, it takes freakin' *forever* to write. :-)

[Raksha]

80. I usually do agonize over every word in a post...

and it usually *DOES* take me forever to write! I'm kind of a self-defeating perfectionist that way. In this particular case, though, the idea was very important to me and I was just trying to get the gist of it down any way I could. So I got a little bit sloppy in my choice of words.

[eridani]

85. I'd say lousy genes myself

Comparatively early death from heart disease is mostly genetic. Of course, given lousy genes, poor diet and stress are much more harmful to you.

[KG]

12. he wanted to be one of 'them'; to hobnob with the power elite.

still trying to figure out what kool-aid the fawning faction here has been drinking.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KG]

19. oh, were your little feelings hurt?

can't begin to tell you how broke up i am about that. :eyes:

[Kahuna]

21. Sorry to break it to you but Tim was a bushco propaganda conduit. nt

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tblue37]

49. I think it is variation on the sort of thing that pops up when someone

dies unexpectedly in any situation. Twenty years ago an 18-year-old here in our town died in a car wreck after a high-speed chase with the police. The boy had an open can of beer in his car and was running because he wanted to avoid a MIP citation. His passenger was my son’s roommate. The roommate’s 20th birthday was that night, and he and the driver (who was killed) had been out drinking to celebrate the birthday. My son had stayed home to study—thank goodness! His roommate had to have 30 stitches, but was otherwise ok. The boy who died was killed instantly when the car went airborne after cresting a hill and then hit a tree many yards away. (His neck was broken.)

After the boy was killed (by his own stupidity and the stupidity of the cops who thought it worthwhile to chase a teenager for a beer at speeds up to 120 mph!), everyone in my son’s school suddenly announced that they were the dead boy’s closest friends (the boy was a dropout, and he really was not at all well-liked by his peers). They left flowers and sentimental notes at the foot of the tree that the boy had wrapped his car around and told stories about how wonderful the boy was and what a good friend he was. One person called my son excitedly the night that the local news program showed the notes and flowers at the foot of the tree, because HIS (my son’s) note was the one that was being shown front and center in the video clip on the news program.

But the dead boy was not wonderful at all. He was an alcoholic and heavily into drugs—as a dealer, not just as a user. He was nasty and abusive. He often knocked his pregnant girlfriend down and kicked her—right in front of friends at drinking parties. He was even abusive toward his mother, who was a real softie and spoiled him terribly.

With the newspapers and the TV cams all over the accident site and talking to the people who had known the boy, everyone wanted to be seen in the spotlight, to have a say as a “close friend” of the deceased. It’s reflected drama, a close relative to reflected glory.

I think that even without the TV/newspaper spotlight, people act that way when the death is sudden and unexpected. But add the glare of publicity, and it gets even more out of hand.

If the death is not unusual or unexpected—i.e., if someone very old dies after a long illness—then people do less of that frantic jockeying to attach themselves to the spotlight and the emotions of the moment, but even then, the dead person gets spoken about as if he or she were the most perfect person on earth.

I have been to funerals for people who were known to have abused their wives and children, and yet everyone there spoke glowingly of the deceased (including the victims of his rage and his abuse).

What upsets me about this praise of Russert is that it is so like what happened when Nixon and Reagan died. These are men who did incalculable and probably irreparable damage to our country and to the people in it, and yet they get praised as saints and icons, and anyone who says, “Hey, wait a minute. . . .” gets slammed as an insensitive vulture.

But sanctifying the likes of Nixon, Reagan, and Russert also ends up validating the things they did, and those things have caused a huge amount of damage.

Even worse, whenever the RW wants to bash our side, they can trot out Russert video clips, since there are so many of him deliberately undermining the progressive cause and Dems, as well as video clips of his softballing and puffing up of Bush administration figures and other partisan hacks.

We know that framing is essential in winning the public debate over policies, so why on earth are so many DUers so eager to contribute to the framing that just because someone is a multimillionaire celebrity propaganda mouthpiece on the MSM, that person is a virtual oracle of fairness and political wisdom? That just validates all the crap such a person has put out there over the years. Tim Russert wasn’t a good newsman. He was an extremely well-paid propaganda mouthpiece for the GE corporation that he worked for and that he compromised his own values for.

[ekwhite]

83. Thanks for the perspective

I do think that the media types who are praising Tim Russert genuinely respected him. They are inside the same "media bubble" and see him as a 'good guy.' Of course, for the most part, they are doing the same type of lackluster reporting Russert did. The unexpectedness of his death just adds to that.

What I have objected to in the past few days have been the personal attacks on him and his family, not the criticisms of his work. I do not personally know if he was a nice guy or a jerk, so I believe we must give him the benefit of a doubt on that, and respect his family.

I agree with you about lionizing him, as I did about Reagan and Nixon. I despised both of them when they were alive. The sanctification of Ronald Reagan, especially, was stomach churning.

I find it hard to work up a hatred for Russert though. He was just another interchangeable talking head on TV. NBC will put another corporate tool on Press the Meat, and things will go back to "normal."

[tblue37]

92. Actually, most of what I have seen suggests that in his private life he

was a great guy, a terrific husband, father, son, and friend. My objections are to his work as a corporate shill, because it helped the GOP get away with doing a lot of harm to a lot of people, and of course I object to this canonization of him. I do understand that the media mouthpieces are mourning one of their own (though I still think they go over the top to bask in reflected drama, just as I thought that the way the kids in our town reacted went over the top when that young man died). And I am simply astonished that Russert is being lionized here on DU. We all used to know that he was, as one of the Cheney Lackey's revealed during Libby's trial, the administration's "best outlet" for getting their propaganda out to the public.

[annabanana]

13. Thank you for this post. We have such a hard time these days

delineating the personal and the professional, the private and the public.

Everyone mourns when a loved one dies. Everyone's heart goes out to the bereaved because of that. But there is such confusion when the deceased is a celebrity.

I keep thinking of how funny it was to me that there were people who confused the actors of soap operas with the characters they played. Now I see that this phenomenon is just a point on a sliding scale. "Public" people are successful professionally to the degree that they can make us feel like we know them. This is why Russert's death has been such an emotional incident for people who never met the man, or even watched him that often. This is why people react with such umbrage when people are critical of his work now.. It "feels" like a personal affront.

This is exactly the time that his work should be scrutinized, if only as an antidote to the unquestioning praise being heaped upon him while all eyes are turned his way, probably for the last time.

[many a good man]

20. Good point. Celebrities are like fictional characters to us

Like a character in a book or a movie. They are heroes or villains but rarely just regular people like you and me. We normally don't see the part of their lives that would humanize them to us.

I disagree, though, about your take on the umbrage-takers. I think some people really do think it's bad taste to speak ill of the dead so soon after their passing. It's almost as if we are saying these things in front of their family. I think it is most highly unlikely that any member of Russert's circle of friends or family will ever know or care about what is said here in an anonymous internet forum!

[tom_paine]

30. But that's the point, I think. It's the ILLUSION of connectedness that the weird cult of celebrity

brings.

And so even though Russert's family will almost certainly never see what was said here, and they shouldn't, I would feel terrible if I thought they were reading it so soon after someone they loved died.

That's the personal.

Problem is, with the cult of celebrity, because these people seem like "old friends". Old friends who would sic the dogs on you or call security if you tried to approach them.

But media saturation makes the illusion seem so real. The more society saturated with nonstop media, the more the cult of celebrity estabished itself and took over, the more the line between real and illusion faded, until today it is almost gone.

Great Sub-Thread Guys (and/or Gals)! :hi:

[many a good man]

33. It's not new with mass media

European monarchies and aristocracies often created the same false sense of connectedness between peasant and noble. Look at the intense attention given to the royal family in England. Even today in Andalusia you still see poor campesinos who take great pride and a sense of identity from the rich landowners whose fields they tend.

It must be some kind of human instinct (at least among some). I think the modern media recognizes this instinct and exploits it.

[tom_paine]

101. Media is like any other tool, it amplifies, collectively, our current dreams and desires, especially

those of our rulers.

But with the advent of very powerful, advanced psychology being delivered in advertising, marketings, and the whole host of sub-industries collectively termed "PR", the power wielded by the manipulators (that would be the top 0.01%, along with their cadre of middle-managers and propagandists, allies, vassals and shills) over the manipulatees (that would be all of us) is increased by orders of magnitude.

A nuclear bomb for the mind, as I'm fond of saying.

:nuke: The Bushie Reality-Generating Machine, with all it's nooks and crannies, all it's facets and multi-fronts, builds on lies and propaganda, creates new realities, and leaves a rubble of confusion and haziness in it's wake.

Try asking someone about the Anthrax Assassin of 2001-early 2002 and see what happens. Will they remember that the targets were all Democrats and Liberal media members. Probably not. Will they remember that it was Made in the USA Anthrax from Ft. Detrick, MD? Probably not. Will they remember that the first to receive the anthrax letters and die were the tabloid reporters who published pictures of drunk Bush daughters? No way possible, for that fact was edited from any Toady Media discussions...verboten for discussion, even at the time it was happening.

No, all haze and confusion, from being carpet-bombed repeatedly with these new powerful nuclear bombs for the mind, Bushie-style. We all must remember that all of us are affected by this in some way or another. To live in it is to be effected by it. Even those of us who see it for what it is, it acts on our subconscious with it's gestalt-generating capabilities.

[Jade Fox]

44. There is also the universal tendency to sanctify the dead.....

at play with anyone who passes, particularly if the death is untimely.

There's nothing like dieing to clean up your tarnished image.

[Junkdrawer]

14. There are two ways to cook the news....

One is the obvious, top-down, catapulting of "The Party Line" direct to news readers. There's a lot of this going on, but excessive reliance on this much makes the whole charade too transparent.

More subtle is this: promote biased reporters and marginalize the honest. Keep one or two token liberals (such as Olberman) to spice the mix, but make sure everyone else gets the point: Follow the talking points and you advance, ask the hard questions and you'll be covering dog shows.

[malaise]

15. Great post

K & R

[Admiral Loinpresser]

17. Inspiring.

I have gone from sadness to grudging acceptance regarding the propensity of the vast majority for black and white thinking. "I accept whatever confirms what I already believe and reject the rest."

Nuance and the ability to change one's mind are in short supply (although less so on DU, I believe it is even here a majority mode). So reading about someone actually changing his mind based on information-- and then following it up with independent rearch-- truly inspiring. K & R

[KharmaTrain]

18. This May Open Your Eyes More...

Russert biggest supporter was former GE CEO Jack Welch...who had an agenda in 2000 and Russert was part of his team to get it accomplished...

http://www.glennston.com/antibush/article_coverup4.htm

By contrast, Welch viewed Al Gore as the candidate of the parasites. Gore voters were not the generators of wealth; they were the consumers of taxes. Welch privately described the typical Gore voter as “someone who needs all these goddamned social programs because she’s too goddamned dumb to keep her legs crossed and too goddamned lazy to get an abortion.”

This view of the world led Welch to implore associates at GE that doing whatever it took to get George W. Bush into the presidency was not only good for General Electric, it was good for America.

Having satisfied himself that his cause was just, Welch focused on putting his candidate in the White House with the tireless determination of a man whom Business Week described as having “an unbridled passion for winning”…

Welch was proud to have personally cultivated Tim Russert from a “lefty” to a responsible representative of GE interests. Welch sincerely believed that all liberals were phonies. He took great pleasure in “buying their leftist souls”, watching in satisfaction as former Democrats like Russert and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews eagerly discarded the baggage of their former progressive beliefs in exchange for cold hard GE cash. Russert was now an especially obedient and model employee in whom the company could take pride.

- snip -

[speedoo]

36. Thanks for posting that, re. Welch.

Kind of, I knew it, but I didn't KNOW it.

That's damning stuff.

[Raksha]

82. That's pretty cold and callous.

Re Welch privately described the typical Gore voter as “someone who needs all these goddamned social programs because she’s too goddamned dumb to keep her legs crossed and too goddamned lazy to get an abortion.”

That's the attitude of a lot of right-wingers if not most of them, but I've rarely heard it expressed with quite that degree of brutal honesty.

[ronnie624]

98. Good essay. A revealing read. Thanks. n/t

[Echo In Light]

22. Mark Crispin Miller cites a damning quote from Russert re the 00 "election"

It's either in Cruel and Unusual, or Fooled Again, don't recall. It's a transcript from his show, I don't even recall who he is interviewing, but Russert completely, unquestioningly closes the book {signal to viewers} on Florida, indicating the election's conclusion was just and correct, hence those sour grape whiners had best shut up and get over it.

[kath]

86. Echo, maybe you can help me.

see this post of mine, downthread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3455657&mesg_id=3458398

I KNOW I read this somewhere, and it's bugging me that I can't find it. It'd provide written verification of the episode in Tom's OP,
COuldn't find it in Palast's book. Now I'm wondering if it might be in one of MCM's. Does it ring a bell with you?

My husband distinctly remembers me discussing it with him, so I know I'm not going crazy. He's pretty sure I said Russert was the mediawhore involved, but possibly could have been Tweety.

[Mabus]

24. Your post typifies one of the reasons that I like DU - honesty

I found DU after the 2000 election. I noticed that people were linking to it in e-mails or they were copying someone's posts and sharing them. The one thing that impressed me was the honesty of posters who shared their experiences. I read posts from people whose eyes, like yours, were opened to the dishonesty of the press and reporters. I read posts where people actually questioned and sought answers to whether or not the press and reporters had their own agendas and were shaping the news to fit those agendas.

Anyway, I woke up early this morning, just after 4 a.m. my time, and found your post. I read it and then recommended it. I believe I was the first or second one to do so. I was half afraid, because of the hour that it was posted, that it would disappear. I'm glad it did not.

Thank you for your honesty and insights. This is why I love DU. It is a place where we can come and express our opinions. Opinions that are often not talked about by the rest of society. We can question and try to hold the press and others accountable here. We can share our recollections of what we heard and, by doing so, help inform others of what really happened.

The truth makes for a better society and there is no time for discussing that truth than now. Thank you for doing it. I know it isn't a popular thing to do for some people on DU. They would prefer we wait and they accuse us of dancing on Russert's grave. I have been told that I have no empathy for his family or that I don't understand what it is like to lose a loved one. Well, I don't think an honest assessment of the man's work is grave dancing. And I have lost many, many people whom I loved (and still love) dearly. I miss them to this day. But I will not miss Russert. I feel sorry for his family's loss but I do not mourn Russert. Nor will I overlook what he did during his lifetime because he died suddenly.

I did not mourn Reagan and try to say nice things about him. I did not mourn Barbara Olsen and I did not try to say nice things about her. I did not mourn Saddam Hussein or try to find nice things to say about him either. Why should I? I did not respect any of these people while they were alive and I sure as hell don't have anything nice to say about them now. I feel the same way about Russert. I will not be cowered into being a hypocrite by those who try to tell me that his family is hurting now. I will not keep my mouth shut or my opinions to myself.

Russert, in his own way, helped ruin journalism as we know it today and he helped protect those in this administration whose acts have caused so much grief and will continue to cause grief in the future. He took MTP from a show with a panel of journalists asking policy and issue questions of those with power and made it a show about himself and his friends. He took a great show and made it into the 'Lil Russ hour of propaganda where he was the only one to question the people he liked and disliked. For instance, what value did he add to public discourse by having the Maitlin/Carville duo show up and hawk their books? None. He did it because they are friends and because he could.

I did not praise Reagan, Olsen or Hussein in life and I will not praise them now. They left behind family who grieved and hurt but they also left behind a whole lot of people whose lives they ruined or tried to to ruin. I will not praise Russert for the same reasons.

If someone wants to praise Russert they are free to do so. I haven't participated in those threads. I've only participated in the threads where people have wanted to talk about what kind of man he really was, what he did and the harm he caused. Thank you for talking about what he did and doing it both eloquently and politely.

[skepticscott]

26. Frankly, it took a while for honesty and sanity to break through

For a while it seemed that the only threads about Russert here and elsewhere would be endless combinations of "Rest in peace, Tim" (whatever that means), "it's so sad", "He was so young", "He was such a wonderful journalist and such a nice guy", interspersed with a few self-righteous scolds telling everyone to toe their line and not say anything negative about the man. Happily, the truth is finally starting to drown out emotion and sentiment.

[Mabus]

27. I know and that frightened me

I called my husband and told him that Russert had died. He asked what was being said on DU and I told him that he didn't want to know. He pushed and I told him, prefacing my remarks with, "my head is about ready to explode" with all the adulation being heaped upon him by people whose opinions I otherwise respected.

Right after I got off the phone with him, one of my girlfriends called me from California. She had been reading DU too (she's registered but rarely, if ever, posts) and she wanted to know what happened to the DU community. We spent an hour or more talking about the Russert we remembered and had been disappointed in for years. About the time I got off the phone, sanity had started returning to DU and I was quite relieved.

[Divine Discontent]

87. people tend to like to wait on the body to get into the ground before pointing out the facts

that the guy being discussed was a "media-whore". Most DUers have couth, and we shouldn't sink to the freeper type of simply waiting on a person to DIE so we can shred them apart for being a worthless piece of mediawhore crap the second their heart stops! Kinda makes people seem a bit vapid and uncaring...

[tom_paine]

31. "He took MTP from a show with a panel of journalists asking policy and issue questions of those

with power and made it a show about himself and his friends.

My God, could the truth of the situation and the debates here on DU be reduced any more succinctly and clearly than that?

The rest of your post is fantastic, too. I wish I could recommend IT.

Is not what Russert did to MTP just a reflection of the Cult of Celebrity trend that has overtaken our nation in tandem with icreasing levels of media saturation? I also believe that is outside the realm of Left/Right politics. I think we could all agree MTP would have been just as awful if he did this, but instead of a Bushie Stooge he was a Bernie Sanders Stooge.

Finally, you're welcome. With all the great comments on this thread I feel well repaid. Thank you and everyone else who posted here, even those who disagreed.

[Mabus]

97. That was my mom's biggest complaint

She passed away in 1996 after a battle with cancer. She and my father used to love watching MTP and encouraged us kids to watch it with them.

I realize that our positions are not popular on DU but then I do not recall a single post that I have made where I praised Russert's work. But I have made many where I criticized his show and how he handled his guests. I try very hard to stay away from personal attacks because they do little more than detract from the real issues. So, like many others, I have been consistent in my view points on what Russert did as a so-called news professional. My opinion has not changed and I see no reason to canonize him now.

Thank you for your kind comments.

[K Gardner]

32. Excellent, excellent post, Tom ! Wonderful read ! K&R

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

35. K & R. Thank you.

Finally, some sanity returns.

I used to respect him, but his cheer leading for the GOP and PNAC'ers soured me on his style of so called "journalism". Then, he has the nerve to accuse McClellan of being part of the "propaganda" in the lead up to the attack on Iraq.

I haven't posted here for quite a while, however, Mr. Russert's death marks such a significant change to the MSM dynamics, one which was completely unexpected, that I had to return and express my appreciation to tom_paine for pointing out his complicity in many of the catastrophic events that have damaged our country.

It's gratifying to see that Mr. Russert's history is NOT being rewritten and revised here on DU, of all places.

Here's my post about his interview of McClellan a few weeks ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3372271#3375092

[KoKo]

37. Remember when Russert promoted his son Luke's sports show with Carville on MTP?

That was how low Russert finally went in being a "self-promoter." His son was a sophomore at Boston College at the time...but he managed to get a co-anchoring spot with James Carville on some radio show where they would talk about sports. :eyes: I posted on a thread on DU about it at the time:


-----------------------------------------------------

KoKo01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed May-10-06 10:47 AM
Response to Original message
13. Interesting Review of their Book, thanks. When I heard James Carville

on Tim Russert with Begala pushing their Book and Russert revealed that Carville had a deal with Russerts College Sophomore son to co anchor a sports radio show...I finally had to give up my faith that he was a believeable spokesperson for Democrats any longer. The discussion about Begala and Carville's Virginia farms close to each other and Carville's marriage to Mary Matalin who is a constant spokesperson for Dick Cheney is also worrysome in that their "inside the beltway" connections has made them part of the "problem" we have in America. As great a job their did for Clinton with his War Room ...it seems they have now passed their prime in being able to bring fresh strategy to these times when our party is in desperate trouble ideologically.

I'm focusing on David Sirota who speaks to many of us who feel a Populist Message is what our "Left" of the party is really supporting and it's a message whose time has come once again and looking forward to reading his book,"Hostile Takeover" which would seem (from what I heard him say in discussions promo's) is a blueprint for Democrats who feel we must break away from the now failing Democratic Leadership Council's stale ideas and create a new direction for Dems by recognizing how the Corporate interests have worked to undermine both parties.

Again, thanks for the review. I'm sure Begala and Carville will find a campaign they can work on for '08 in some capacity and I welcome their participation only in that they are still the best attack voices we Dems have so far. But, whether they are a help or a hindrence in appearing on the Pundit shows remains to be seen in these coming hard times.

[KoKo]

38. NBC News PR Department Gets Down and Dirty..."Huffington Post"

NBC News PR Department Gets Down and Dirty...

Posted January 27, 2006 | 09:35 AM (EST)
NBC News PR Department Gets Down and Dirty...

Somebody's feeling the heat...

How else to explain the widely-off-the-mark responses from NBC's PR department in Lloyd Grove's column to our reporting on Russert's multitude of journalistic ethical conflicts.

Instead of dealing with the charges head on, the media giant and its Washington bureau chief Tim Russert have astonishingly decided to get down and dirty, dredging up and faxing to at least one reporter a 12-year-old false claim that I hired a private detective to snoop on Russert's wife Maureen Orth while she was preparing a hit piece on me for Vanity Fair in 1994.

I've denied this ludicrous charge, put forward without a shred of evidence many times before -- including directly to Russert during the '96 GOP convention in San Diego. But that's not the point. The point is that instead of addressing the issue of his failure to come clean with his audience on a host of ethical questions, Russert has turned the NBC publicity machine into a vehicle for sleaze and rumor-mongering.

How can one of the major news organizations in the world condone this abysmal behavior? Doesn't NBC News have ethical guidelines when it comes to this kind of thing? (And incidentally, why does NBC News refuse to publish its ethical guidelines, claiming that they are an internal document?)

Look, I know NBC News and Russert would much prefer to debate hoary charges against me rather than the real issues at hand. So let me remind them what those issues are.

Russert refuses to come clean with his audience about his role in Plamegate. He is a participant. He was interviewed under oath by Fitzgerald. But he continued to report on Plamegate as if he were a disinterested observer rather than a major player. And he still refuses to come clean and explain why he fought to keep from testifying in front of the Plamegate grand jury about his fateful chat with Scooter Libby -- even after Libby signed a waiver allowing him to do so.

Plamegate is the perfect segue to another unanswered question. How can someone with these ethical issues go and speak on ethics in the media, as Russert is about to do at Ripon College in Wisconsin next Thursday? And why is NBC refusing to disclose what his speaking fee is?

Russert's latest ethical lapse is his unseemly use of Meet the Press to promote James Carville's new XM radio sports show while refusing to come clean about the fact that Carville's co-host is Russert's college-age son, Luke.
NBC News' diversionary strategy might have worked in the days before blogs started holding the MSM's feet to the fire. But not anymore. One thing is for sure: the Huffington Post and many others in the blogosphere will keep asking the questions Tim Russert doesn't want to answer.

NBC News' diversionary strategy might have worked in the days before blogs started holding the MSM's feet to the fire. But not anymore. One thing is for sure: the Huffington Post and many others in the blogosphere will keep asking the questions Tim Russert doesn't want to answer.

[defendandprotect]

39. A good opportunity to explore again why TV can be dangerous to your brain ---

and to enjoy a new heaping on of honesty. Thank you!

[Individualist]

41. K&R

:applause:

[peacetalksforall]

43. When this is over - all can be said in a few words - he abandoned journalism to

spew Republcan propaganda - and he attacked good Dems with abandon - like Al Gore. He even giggled at his joke-smears of Gore and others along with his guests. And he was paid to do it. And he did it to our Nation and it was spread all over the world.

Al Gore was also a parent and son.

[tblue37]

45. K&R. Thanks for helping counterbalance the hagiography. n/t

[bbgrunt]

46. very well said. I sure HOPE that the

general public is beginning to see through the propaganda machine, but I have my doubts. Given the reinforcing nature of the echo chamber and all the freeper types, I think that those who are not internettally connected and politically savvy are perfectly content in their made-up reality. I sure hope I'm wrong.

[The Blue Flower]

47. Andrea Mitchell said it Friday

In paying tribute to Russert, she said that the reason Cheney would go on Meet the Press was because he knew that Russert would always give him a "fair hearing." In other words, Cheney could expect to never be challenged on his lies. In my humble opinion, Russert was in a position to speak the truth to America and save untold numbers of lives, but he chose not to. Instead, he continued until the end as an establishment insider, furthering the imperial lies.

[ooglymoogly]

48. Pretty much spot on...though for me TR was never more to me than

a transparent shill for the the pugs selling their snake oil. He has always been to me a peek through the looking glass at the corruption of the pugs and the lengths they would go to grab power at any cost by lieing stealing and cheating, though that was not by any means his intent. I stopped watching TR because the steaming anger was just not worth it. The air waves have become a little straighter in the aftermath of his passing....yet he must never be forgotten for what he was a party to...and so a relieved farewell.

[mnhtnbb]

50. All the media falling all over themselves to eulogize Russert just shows

how co-opted they've become.

What did Russert ever do? Ask people questions. Did it change the world?
Right wrongs of stolen elections or illegal war? No.

Russert was a toady to corporate journalism--make a buck telling lies and propaganda.

I'm sorry his family has lost him, but methinks we might be one step closer to cleaning house
in the media.

[pansypoo53219]

51. he was a bushie.

that just showed he was a typical gullible male.

[bigmonkey]

52. I think this is the origin of the "integrity is for paupers" quote:

David Podvin on www.makethemaccountable.com.
2002
http://www.makethemaccountable.com/podvin/media/020109_Russert.htm

It's a quotation, but the source is unnamed. The relevant section is at the beginning:


“I still believe,” Russert said, leaning across the table. “I believe in everything I ever did. But I also know that I never would have become moderator on Meet The Press if my employers were uncomfortable with me. And, given the amount of money at stake, millions of dollars, I don’t blame them. This is business.”

The executive agreed. “But are you concerned about losing yourself? You know, selling out?”

Russert pounded the table. “Integrity is for paupers!”

[troubleinwinter]

53. Here's a peculiar one:

yesterday on MSNBC-

Sheldon Gawiser, NBC News, Director of Elections said:

“As I said earlier, he (Tim) came to me before the election 2000 and said “Get me an election where one candidate wins the popular vote and one candidate wins the electoral vote.” And, of course, that’s EXACTLY what happened.”

NOT: "We were having a beer after work and Tim said to me..." No, "Tim CAME TO ME and said "Get me...".

Jeff Zucker, President/CEO NBC Universal said:

“I remember election night 2000 so well. I was producing that night. I remember talking to Tim before the night began about how we were going to be able to explain it. We came up with this crazy idea- just a little message board and Tim writing FLORIDA, FLORIDA, FLORIDA on it."

"the Republican National Committee... send me stuff all the time"

No shit.

[acmavm]

54. This is one of the saner, if not the sanest, threads on this place regarding

old Timmy.

Folks, something to remember. Timmy was NOT your friend.

[SwiperFox]

55. Fox: "Information is power."

You attribute too much human emotion to the mainstream media hacks IMO. These creatures do not think with their heart, they think with their wallets. Hmmm...dollars and cents to be made from distracting the public for their Republicrat masters? Of cour$e!

[bertman]

56. Hear! Hear!

[Warren Stupidity]

57. What remains staggering is how many here on DU still don't get it.

8 years after the fall and they are still enthralled by the spin.

[kath]

60. I crossposted with you just now,in frustrationdue to the same staggering* *gobsmacking* realization.

Can we draft a few of you to start an "education committee"? Or something? tom? anyone?

:banghead: :banghead:

[bluedawg12]

94. This has been very helpful in understanding MSM propaganda

A lot has happened over the years and the Media matters article has well documented and compelling examples of bias and spin.

I wonder, now looking back, even before the war, how did the lame stream ahndle the Monicagate matter?

I seem to recall every RW shill, bigot, hypocrite and philanderer on the show?

[kath]

58. A most excellent post, tom

and an excellent thread as well. Lots of knowledgeable people, and with far better writing skills than I possess.

I'm having this incredible urge/fantasy to make a brazillion copies of the OP and other info here as a leaflet or pamphlet, and drop them from helicopters or hand them out on street corners. (kinda like the ol' "Common Sense", eh?)

or how about an "e-pamphlet"? At least send it to DUers, as a way to target a reachable (or hopefully at least semi-reachable) audience. Many here could use some edumacatin'. A DU version of the ol' GOP blast fax technique??

yeah, maybe my brain is on the fritz here.

Anyhow, thanks tom paine, for shining a light in the darkness. (read the OP right after it went up around 3 am or whatever, and was the 1st to rec it, but was heading off to bed at the time and too tired to post)

:applause: :applause:

[opihimoimoi]

59. GOOD ONE......K&R

Thanx for the info....he hid his bias very carefully...

[truedelphi]

61. That should not surprise you, Tom.

The Right Wing has had their think tanks, their research from the Central Party and the interwoven relationship between the special "black ops" propaganda and the news teams for some thirty years or more.

We lobbed bombs on Bahgdad on Jan 17th 1991. And in the run up to that moment, CNN tried to get some of its journalists in. None of the first list of names was allowed to enter Iraq. Because Hussein knew which of our news people were CIA (Or just were lucky enough to always say what the CIA wanted - same thing to Hussein)

SO in the basement of the hotel, the reports that came out were made by unknowns, one of whom was Bernie Sanders.

"Toxic Sludge is Good For You" carries half a chapter or more abt the interweave between the news, "our" government and the propaganda. And that was published in the early part of the 1990's.

Russert could have not occupied the place of power that he did without selling out. And he admitted it, saying "Integrity is for paupers." He said that way back in 1992.

[kath]

62. Question, concerning the tight relationship between Russert and the RNC --

IIRC (but my memory isn't always the greatest), there was something in Palast's "Best Democracy Money Can Buy" about exactly what you're saying here. I think he wrote that Russert would call the Repub Opposition Research team and say "What'cha got?". They would feed him anti-Gore crap to catapult across the airwaves. Might have been the other way around in terms of who called whom - my memory's vague on this - Oppo Research may have called Russert with whatever they wanted him to spew on his show that week.

Does anyone else recall this? It may have been some other talking head type, and it may have been in another book, but I'm POSITIVE that I read somewhere about some mediawhore having the described tight relationship with the Bush campaign's Oppposition Research team.

think I'll head off to the library to find Palast's book. Or it may be in one of the piles of books around here...

Conason's "Big Lies" covers the Right Wing lie machine. I haven't read all of it, but I wonder if he mentions Russert at all. Anyone?

[kath]

75. can't find it in Palast's book.

Drat - I'm certain I read it, and pretty sure it was in a book, not online.

Sure would like to track it down...

[Mike Nelson]

63. This certainly comports with my opinion on Mr. Russert...

...may he rest in peace.

[27inCali]

64. playing ball to get access, that's all it is.

I think some journalists start out telling themselves they are just getting access, but before long they drink the cool-aid.

[gulfcoastliberal]

65. K&R.... Goebbels would've been proud of 'ol Timmeh... nt

[HCE SuiGeneris]

66. Timmeh

was just another corporate hack. While I feel for his family's loss, I cannot eulogize the man.

[earth mom]

67. Russert was spoon feeding GOP propaganda to * & Co loyalists.

So I find the guilt tripping that is being peddled around DU suspicious and no doubt the work of freepers who can't hide their anguish that one of their "own" is gone.

[Raster]

70. I said it before, I'll say it again. When cheney*/bush* need to sell lies to America...

they came to Russert first.:kick:Wake up America!

[bluerum]

71. .... and Timmy was one of the LESS offensive lying MSM bastards.

[kath]

77. only seemed so because he was less overt than the Faux News types. As someone put it the other day:

Is a journalist-poseur worse than an upfront right wing mouthpiece?
"Today's essay question, class" (TheBorealAvenger,post 19)

and someone replied:
heard it said once that a KKK member in a sheet is better than one in a suit
At least you know where you stand with the one in the sheet.

A poseur is worse than an upfront mouthpiece.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3445868#3446038



THe damage he did was huge, compared to other mediawhores, because he reached such a large audience on a well-known show, and because he managed to fly under the radar of many and masquerade as a "jounalist". Witness how many here at DU think he was just PEACHY. "and so fair! And he pissed off both sides that means he was the best most fair journalist *ever*, and so middle-of-the-road."

[bluerum]

91. You have a point,,, he was a snake in the grass.

[indepat]

73. Sadly Tim did not live to see the handiwork of his propaganda come full circle: may he

ultimately be known, remembered, and given full credit for his crucial handiwork in advancing junior's agenda. :D

[eppur_se_muova]

76. Shouldn't that quote have been headline news at the time?

NBC REPORTER ACKNOWLEDGES PARTISANSHIP!
RESEARCH DIVISION BYPASSED FOR POLITICAL INFLUENCE!

And he should have been called on the carpet shortly thereafter. (He probably was, but only to accept a bonus.)

Maybe there were some newspapers, somewhere, where it was. But it's sure as Hell the first time I've ever heard it.

I never did like Russert, and couldn't understand how he got the nod to head MTP over better journalists. It became clear enough eventually.

ON EDIT: K&R&bookmarked. Thanks for a most excellent post, Mr. Paine!

[ms liberty]

78. One of my main memories of Tim Russert...

He was on MSNBC with a couple of talking heads, although I don't remember the event they were covering, I remember that they were talking about Watergate; it was a few years ago, perhaps it was at convention time in the last miselection. Russert said that there hasn't been anything to happen of that magnitude and that's why there hasn't been another Watergate, that someone would have leaked something. He said that's the kind of story we journalists look for through our whole career...and then he turned to the camera and said that if there was a whistleblower out there who had the next Watergate to let him know.

I'm paraphrasing what he said. I cannot remember the exact words he used because it's hard to keep track of that kind of thing when your head is exploding as you are screaming expletives at the teevee.

edited for clarity.

[Raksha]

79. K & R Sorry I forgot to do this earlier. n/t

[ekwhite]

81. Russert was not a very good journalist

The idea that he was using RNC propaganda is bad enough. Actually stating that it was 'dead on' is incredibly stupid. I am not sure why he had the sterling reputation, when he was as sloppy as that.

It doesn't surprise me to hear something like this coming from the corporate media. That Russert actually believed that, as evidenced by all the testimonials on NBC/MSNBC, is particularly telling.

[Uncle Joe]

84. Thank you so much for this thread, tom_paine!

:applause:

Kicked and recommended.

[Swamp Rat]

88. KICK ASS tom_paine!

:kick:

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

90. K&R

[Time for change]

95. My moment came about a month or two after yours

Russert was discussing the Florida Supreme Court decision, after they ruled that all the votes must be counted in Florida. I don't remember the details of what Russert said, so I won't even attempt to quote him. But it was clear as a bell that he had nothing but contempt for the Florida Supreme Court's decision, and he was spinning it like mad, with his eyes apparently bulging out of his head, to make it look like Al Gore was trying to steal the election.

I wonder if there are any videos in existence of Russert saying what you describe in this post. If so, that SHOULD be enough to destroy his reputation as even a decent journalist forever.

[Ignis]

96. I'm here too late to rec, so here's a KICK!

Perhaps it will help balance out the Russert hagiographies that are cluttering up GD.

Hi, Tom! :hi:

[Gabi Hayes]

99. very well thought out, beautifully expressed. did you see the

Somerby column on his own experience/thoughts on Russert?

somebody started a thread here....

let's see:

[Gabi Hayes]

100. seen this....what do you think? right up there with yours

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3464938

I even gave it the nudge, but they're close