Questions for debate:

Is Tim Russert Liberal, Moderate, Conservative, or other?

What evidence leads you to label him?

I don't know what Tim Russert's political leanings are and I don't care.

Russert has at one point or another ticked off or delighted liberals, moderates and conservatives.

I'm sure he's quite proud of that because if nobody can label him, nobody gets to claim him.

"Russert recited Irrelevant Facts on SS. None of his panelists challenged him"
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh011005.shtml

Basically the Howler is admitting that the "conservative" position on SS is based on facts!! I'm sorry but that doesn't make Russert a Republican stooge.

MR. RUSSERT:  Did anyone in the congressional branch say is this constitutional?  Should we be doing this?  What about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act?  What authority does the president have to do this?

Don't you think an appropriate question during any interview would be:  "Opponents of XYZ say this...<fill in assertions here>.  How do you respond to how issue XYZ should be handled?"

But when Russert pushes the talking points that are irrational, such as the stuff about "Dems blaming America" or "Pelosi hurts the troops," I believe he could be a lot more discerning and a lot less partisan.

As host of "Meet The Press," Tim Russert seems to do a fair job at not disclosing his own opinions, or showing his own personal biases or ideology. 

I've heard various people representing most parts of the spectrum exclaim that they honestly don't know where Russert's allegiances lie. 

Of all journalists, pundits, and media personalities with which I'm familiar, perhaps only C-span's Brian Lamb is more secretive about his political leanings. 

What do you think?

Questions for debate:

Is Tim Russert Liberal, Moderate, Conservative, or other?

What evidence leads you to label him?

lordhelmet, Russert felt that Moynihan was a centrist, not a liberal.  Russert felt that he didn't fit in with the other Moynihan staffers.

from "Big Russ & Me" by Tim Russert, p. 260:

"My difficult moments came not with the press, but with a few of Moynihan’s other staffers. They were serious, high-powered intellectuals, Ivy League graduates whose idea of a good time was a two-hour argument over the intricate details of arcane left-wing factions in the City College cafeteria. I didn’t always follow their conversation, and I was sometimes intimidated in their presence.

One afternoon, when I was alone with the senator, I told him that I wasn’t sure I fit in with the rest of the staff. “I think a little differently from these guys,” I said. “We have meetings and discuss the votes, and the conversation veers off into theoretical discussions about socialism. I have a Jesuit education and a law degree, but I have no ideas what they’re talking about.”

p. 238:

“I was convinced that, for a Democrat [like Moynihan] to win [in New York] in 1976, it would take a centrist who could appeal to mainstream Democrats like [my] Dad, who felt the party had drifted away from them.”

hi amlord,
I agree completely with this. and I think most of them time Russert does this well. but this doesn't exactly address my position. from my earlier post:



I don't think that repeating a position automatically means you agree with it. the examples that I chose were of Russert showing a glimmer of an allegiance with a Republican stances, by forwarding things that were irrational.

I don't see that Russert does this in your example. "Is congress asking whether or not this is Constitutional" is absolutely different than "doesn't it make al Qaeda happy when you criticize the president like that?" ... or ... "the Democratic party has too many blame-America left-wing socialists”

MR. RUSSERT:  What message does this send to the troops in Iraq when the ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives says that the commander in chief is not a leader, has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge?  How does that make the troops feel?

PELOSI: <dodges question>

MR. RUSSERT:  What do you think the people leading the resistance in Iraq or al-Qaeda think when they hear the ranking Democrat in the House say that President Bush has no knowledge, no experience, no judgment?

PELOSI : <dodges again>

MR. RUSSERT:  Do you think that President Bush does anything well?

REP. PELOSI:  Of course I do.

MR. RUSSERT:  What?

REP. PELOSI:  And this is not about a partisan--this isn't about politics. It's not even about personalities. It's about policy.  It's a situation where the clear and present danger facing our country is terrorism, and we're in this abyss in...

MR. RUSSERT:  Senator Roberts, I want to ask you the same question, but add into it Congressman Harman’s comments and Senator Daschle’s comments about the vice president. This was the National Journal on Thursday. “Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, testified to a federal grand jury that he had been ‘authorized’ by Cheney and other White House ‘superiors’ in the summer of 2003 to disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush administration’s use of prewar intelligence in making the case to go to war with Iraq, according to attorneys familiar with the matter, and to court records.”

SEN. ROBERTS:  Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT:  Should there be an investigation into that leak by the vice president?

SEN. ROBERTS:  The executive basically has control over what’s classified and what isn’t. It could very well be that we don’t know yet whether that information was declassified and was actually given as purported in the press. That has to play out in regards to grand jury proceedings.

MR. RUSSERT:  But should we find out?  If there’s been an allegation made that in fact classified information was leaked, should there be an investigation?

"Do you regret misleading the American people?"

http://www.australianpolitics.com/news/2000/00-09-13.shtml

In trying to unite people, however, is it appropriate to brand anyone who criticized the president as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy?

And your response, Mr. Lazio. Would you also address your fund-raising letter of July of 2000 where you said the first lady embarrassed our country?

My last word in this topic.  I concede we'll never agree on these things.  I already knew that Russert poses ideas from each party at the other.  It's mostly a good thing.  Does Russert occasionally frame questions in such a way that he appears to side with Republicans, as in my SS example?  I believe that he does.  Because I've seen it.  I've not seen examples where Russert states the Democratic argument, as if from his own head, and then says, "now the Republicans are saying..."

Russert WASN'T quoting Delay, when he asked Pelosi:

"What do you think the people leading the resistance in Iraq or al-Qaeda think when they hear the ranking Democrat in the House say that President Bush has no knowledge, no experience, no judgment?"

Bizarre. 

lordhelmet, you had nothing to say about how Russert distanced himself from those "socialists" in his younger days.  Russert's book is critical of Dems.  In Russert's own words, Dems "blamed America," they "abondoned the party," they belonged to "arcane left-wing factions," and they were "left-wing socialists."

Does Russert use such terms when describing Republicans or Conservatives, past or present?  Lordhelmet, post them here.

I'll fire one last parting shot over the bough, before disappearing, allowing y'all to have at my statements and my arguments.

Russert moderated a debate in 2000 between Hillary Clinton and Rick Lazio.  Russert asked Hillary Clinton if she would apologize for calling her husband's accusers in the 90's part of a right-wing conspiracy. 

Try to believe that Russert really said this.  Mind you, this was in a debate.  A debate between two candidates running for public office.  This was a debate question.  Russert said this to Hillary Clinton.  His exact words were:



Russert preceded that question by speaking about character and trust. Russert responded to Hillary's answer by saying:



And when Bush is criticized, Russert wonders (whether from his own head or not) what al Qaeda might think about it!

I don't really buy this notion that equal criticism from both sides is some indication of being "fair." Being accurate is being fair. Repeating corny and/or irrational questions is not being "fair."

OK! Back to the debate. Russert's follow-up question. Now try to comprehend that this even-handed fair man said the following:



I rest my case.