Tim Russert was by all accounts, a great father and a good friend to
many people, often very interested in their children. When I heard he
had died after returning from a trip to Italy with his wife & son to
celebrate the son’s graduation, as a Dad, I thought it was a good note
to go out on, if way too early.

That’s all good, but it speaks to his personal life. The accolades he’s
receiving in the light of his too early death are overlooking his
shortcomings as a journalist/ TV personality.

As for not speaking ill of the dead until they are in the ground, well,
even at the Vatican when they consider someone for sainthood, they hear
out the opposing point of view.

Russert was the central axis of what one prescient website referrred to
as “Media Whores”.

He was wrong about almost every big issue that came down the pike in
recent years, from helping lead the GOP impeachment jihad against
Clinton in the 90s to softballing treatment of George Bush in 2000, to
giving Al Gore horrendous grief about non issues (brown suits,
“inventing the internet smears etc.) to accepting the lies of Cheney &
Bush about the Iraq War at face value, to consistently harrassing
Democrats about ridiculous non-issues.

It’s a tragedy for the Russert family that Tim died young; but
Russert’s doing such a sloppy job has lead to the deaths of over 4000
US servicemen and women, and countless Iraqis.

here’s a critique of his recent Democratic debate moderation, followed
bya piece detailing his dropping the ball before the Iraq War:

WORST MOMENT #2 - Tim Russert, Judge, Jury & Limelight Hog

Tim Russert, blowhard moderator of the MSNBC Democratic debate in New
Hampshire, logged more televised talking time than any of the
candidates.

Russert (19 minutes, 25 seconds) used 11%% more airtime than Hillary
Clinton (17 minutes, 37 seconds), 44%% more airtime than Barack Obama
(13 minutes, 30 seconds), 58%% more airtime than John Edwards (12
minutes, 17 seconds) and 67%% more airtime than Bill Richardson (11
minutes, 49 seconds). (Source: The Talk Clock from ChrisDodd.com, via
MyDD.)

In contrast, previous 2007 Democratic debate moderators... Anderson
Cooper of CNN, Tavis Smiley of PBS, George Stephanopoulos of ABC
News... logged significantly less talking time than the top candidates,
thereby ensuring that they didn't narcissistically hog the limelight.

Demeaning, Unanswerable Questions

Russert used (misused?) the time not to illuminate the issues or to
inspire discussion by or between the candidates, but to trap, to trick,
and to otherwise humiliate... thereby creating highly repeatable,
quotable soundbites and national election ammunition for Republicans.

For example, the following is a small sampling of the
impossible-to-answer, lavishly detailed, demeaning quasi-questions
posed by Mr. Russert during the debate:

"MR. RUSSERT (to Gravel): You were in the Senate, and you take credit
for stopping the draft. If you were a senator right now, what advice
would you give your colleagues still in Congress about how they can
stop the war even though they don't have enough votes to stop a debate
or to override a veto?"

"MR. RUSSERT (to Clinton): ... Senator Clinton, as first lady, your
major initiative was health care. You acknowledge that you did some
things wrong in that. Democrats and Republicans both rejected your
proposal. You said that the most important vote you cast in the Senate
was on the Iraq war. You voted for it.

If, in fact, you made fundamental misjudgments on health care as first
lady and the war as senator, why shouldn't Democratic voters say, 'She
doesn't have the judgment to be president'? "

"MR. RUSSERT (to Obama):... You have served in the U.S. Senate about 33
months. You have no landmark legislation as such that you have offered.
When you were elected back in 2004, you said, quote, 'The notion that
somehow I am going to start running for higher office, it just doesn't
make sense.'

If it didn't make sense in 2004, why does it make sense now?"

"RUSSERT (to Edwards): Your campaign has hit some obstacles with
revelations about $400 haircuts, $500,000 for working for a hedge fund,
$800,000 from Rupert Murdoch.

Do you wish you hadn't taken money in all those cases or hadn't made
that kind of expenditure for a haircut?"

"MR. RUSSERT: Congressman Kucinich, when you were mayor of Cleveland,
you let Cleveland go into bankruptcy, the first time that happened
since the Depression. The voters of Cleveland rewarded you by throwing
you out of office and electing a Republican mayor of Cleveland.

How can you claim that you have the ability to manage the United States
of America, when you let Cleveland go bankrupt?"

"MR. RUSSERT: Governor Richardson, you talk about your experience, and
yet when you were the secretary of Energy, there was security breaches
at Los Alamos. You talked about Justice White being your favorite
Supreme Court justice, someone who voted against Roe v. Wade. New
Mexico ranks 48 in terms of people below the poverty line, 48th in
children below the poverty line.

You said that being gay is a choice. Based on those kinds of comments
and that record of performance or questionable activities, how can you
tell people you have the experience to be president?"

"MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, if you are the nominee, it will be 28
years, from 1980 to 2008, where there's been a Bush or a Clinton on the
national ticket. Is it healthy for democracy to have a two-family
political dynasty?"

Irrelevant Questions, Ignoring the Issues

Russert's cynical low-blow questions were clearly not aimed at
improving the human condition, or at addressing the challenges facing
the American people.

And did you notice? He asked NO questions about either education or
health care insurance, which are considered the top domestic priorities
by a majority of all voters. Both health care insurance and education
are vital issues for which Democrats have popular, fully-fleshed
proposals, and Republicans have no solutions.

But Tim Russert did find plenty of time for irrelevant subjects as
smoking in public places, the legal drinking age, a religious litmus
test, and baseball playoff prognostications.

Quizzes, Not Issues

While hogging the camera time, Russert repeatedly pushed the candidates
to respond in 30-seconds or less, and even dubbed one set of his
questions as a Jeopardy-style "lightening round."

The problem with our country under the Bush administration has been
governance by 30-second sound-bites and poorly-planned policies.

The MSNBC Democratic debate in New Hampshire demanded the same kind of
smile-and-a-wink superficial thinking as that of the Bush
administration. A "lightening round" quiz show is clearly inadequate to
articulate thoughtful policies and well-planned program proposals.

But then again, apparently Tim Russert never intended his debate to be
about thoughtful policies, well-planned proposals, or articulate
discussions of the most pressing issues facing our great country.

The MSNBC Democratic debate was more about... well, Tim Russert.

__________

From the Village Voice:

Submitted by davidswanson on Sun, 2008-06-15 00:08.

Remembering Tim Russert. . . as one who at a crucial time in '02 lobbed
softballs to Dick Cheney.
By Harkavy, Village Voice

It's tragic that Tim Russert unexpectedly died, leaving behind family
and friends who loved him.

That said, let's try to keep this in perspective — and not the
perspective offered up this afternoon by the Washington Post, which
called him "the Democratic operative turned NBC commentator who
revolutionized Sunday morning television and infused journalism with
his passion for politics."

He did not revolutionize anything. He was a news reader, a media
celebrity, not a soldier dying in a futile war.

As our body count in Iraq keeps right on climbing, I'll recall
Russert's classic '02 interview of Dick Cheney on Meet the Press as a
true exemplar of recent American journalism.

I don't mean that in a nice way.

The exact date was September 8, 2002, as Cheney and his frontman,
George W. Bush, were lobbying Americans and members of Congress on the
urgent necessity of invading Iraq. This was before the key Senate vote.

We now know they were lying, but many of us were thinking that back in
'02. Drowning out the dissenters were most of the U.S. media outlets —
not all, but most.

And media celebs such as Russert were playing their roles as wing men
for schnooks such as Cheney.

In June 2005, I parsed Russert's '02 interview with Cheney in an item
called "Shuck and Awe." So I'm just going to plagiarize myself and
re-run that item here. See for yourself:

Shuck and Awe
Originally posted June 6, 2005

Before the "shock and awe" of March '03, there was shuck and jive. But
the Downing Street Memo and other British government documents
revealing Blair-Bush skullduggery in 2002 are not old news.

In fact, the recently released documents offer fresh clues not only
about (1) the contempt the Bush and Blair regimes had for the
intelligence of the American public and press but also about (2) why
the occupation of Iraq has turned into such a horror show.

On March 14, 2002, Tony Blair's foreign policy adviser, David Manning,
reported to his boss after meetings with Condi Rice and a National
Security Council "team" in D.C., according to a memo leaked three years
later:

We spent a long time at dinner on IRAQ. It is clear that Bush is
grateful for your support and has registered that you are getting flak.
I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but
you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was
very different than anything in the States.

What do you suppose he meant by "different"? Well, the U.S. press, for
one thing, is much more easily gulled—in general, that is.

Only three days before Manning sent that memo to Blair, Dick Cheney (on
his way to the Middle East) was in Great Britain meeting with the prime
minister. The two regimes' CEOs stood still for a press conference in
London, where the reporters aren't afraid to ask tough questions, and
the Bush regime can't put on its own dog-and-pony show. Here's an
example from the March 11, 2002, press conference, courtesy of a White
House transcript:

QUESTION: Mr. Vice President, if the inspectors are allowed into Iraq,
will that negate the need to take military action against Baghdad? If
you do have to take military action against Baghdad, what will be the
legal basis of that action? And if you can't build a coalition that
many support, will [you] go ahead anyway?

Cheney's reply? This is how he started it:

They do the same thing here they do in the States, that's ask these
long complex questions.

russert-meet-the-press-135.jpgYeah, that was really complex. But I
guess compared with the "grilling" he gets from people like Tim Russert
(left), it's complex. On September 8, 2002, Russert hosted Cheney on
Meet the Press and played slow-pitch with him—open-ended questions,
perfect for spinning. Here's one:

RUSSERT: Let me turn to the issue of Iraq. You have said that it poses
a mortal threat to the United States. How? Define mortal threat.

Yes, ask the vice president to define a buzz phrase that he and his
handlers have spent a lot of time honing. Here's another softball:

RUSSERT: There seems to be a real debate in the country as to
[Saddam's] capability. This is how the New York Times reported comments
by Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican, who said, “The Central
Intelligence Agency had 'absolutely no evidence' that Iraq possesses or
will soon possess nuclear weapons.” Is that accurate?

Gee, what do you think Cheney will say when you let him off the hook
with a stupid-ass "Is that accurate?" appended to an
otherwise-promising line of questioning? Here's how Cheney belted that
blooper pitch:

CHENEY: I disagree. I think the accurate thing to say is we don't know
when he might actually complete that process. All of the experience we
have points in the direction that, in the past, we've underestimated
the extent of his program.

Keep in mind, now, that Cheney was making up this shit. The Bush and
Blair regimes were "fixing" the intelligence, as the Downing Street
Memo, revealed three years too late, put it.

A little later in the Russert interview, Cheney said:

We know we have a part of the picture. And that part of the picture
tells us that [Saddam] is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking
to acquire nuclear weapons.

Which provoked this question:

RUSSERT: Why haven't our allies, who presumably would know the same
information, come to the same conclusion?

Big problem with this question, Tim. You're asking a question that
Cheney cannot answer. He can't speak for others' actions. Instead of
pinning him down, you're leaving him room to roam.

Russert could have asked this instead: "Our allies haven't come to that
conclusion, and they would have no reason to cover for Saddam. You say
'we know.' Give me a specific example of what 'we know,' and how that
is at odds with what our allies' intelligence tells them."

But Russert didn't ask that. Instead, he asked Cheney why our allies
hadn't "come to the same conclusion." How in the world could Cheney
know "why"? (Except for the fact that he and Blair were making up shit
and the allies weren't—but he couldn't very well admit that.) This one
was easy for Cheney to hit out of the park:

CHENEY: I don't think they know the same information. I think the fact
is that, in terms of the quality of our intelligence operation, I think
we're better than anybody else, generally, in this area.

Oh, so our intelligence was good, eh?

Cheney was just giving himself a pat on the back, because the Bush
regime was making it up as it went along, so it could justify an
unjustified invasion of Iraq.

So, do you see a difference in the kinds of questions British and
American politicians have to face? Democracy is more raucous in Great
Britain, and the press—with exceptions—is more docile in America.

Now for the other part of the equation: the disastrous occupation that
has followed the unjustified invasion. Go directly to the Downing
Street memo itself for that. The memo from Matthew Rycroft to Manning
of Manning's meeting with Blair on July 23, 2002, summarized MI6 chief
Richard Dearlove's recent visit to D.C. (Dearlove is referred to as
"C.") Here's a passage from the memo:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible
shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush
wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the
conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were
being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN
route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's
record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath
after military action.

"Little discussion" of the "aftermath," huh? We'd better make sure
there's plenty of discussion about that.