Russert wasn't fit to tie the shoelaces of Murrow or Cronkite. Russert wasn't a great journalist, he was a Very Serious Journalist. As in he would kiss the ass of right wingers like Dick Cheney while playing petty gotcha games with everyone else.
"Learn as much as you can about your guest, and his or her position on the issues," Spivak said. "Then take the other side. If you do that, you will have a fair and balanced program."
I think he followed that mantra throughout.
As long as the people on the show were Democrats. Get a Republican on and he'd start throwing softballs. Cheney's media director suggested he go on the show for "message control", a nice way of saying Russert would let Cheney's BS go by unchallenged.
Russert was the broadcast version of print's David Broder: a Very Serious "journalist" who's very tough on Democrats, but bends over backwards for Republicans. Cheney's media director suggested he go on MTP for message control. Russert couldn't wait for Gore to conceed in 2000 so Bush could become president. He asked Bush about the number of nuclear missles under a Start II treaty and gave Bush a pass when he didn't know. Four years later, Howard Dean didn't know the exact number of active duty troops in the U.S. and Russert tore him a new asshole.
No, the only reason Russert looks good is because most of the press is so bad - he wasn't fit to tie the shoelaces of Cronkite or Murrow.
He was one of the few out there who still seemed like he wanted to do hard news and prevent bias as much as he could.
Like when he couldn't wait for Gore to conceed the 2000 election so Bush could become the president-elect? Or when he tore Howard Dean a new asshole for not knowing the exact number of active duty troops in the U.S., when he gave Bush a complete pass on a similar question on nuclear warheads four years earlier? Or how Cheney's communication director suggested he go on MTP for "message control", i.e. Russert wouldn't challenge Cheney's BS?
Tim Russert was incredibly biased. The only reason he's looking good is because most of the profession is so bad.
You must remember that Tim Russet's niche was political journalism which is arguably a more difficult beat to report on than the day to day goings on that Kronkite was known for.
Don't forget the tax writeoff. Between that and the high energy costs of running that many drives, you'd recoup your investment rather quickly while putting the old ones to good use.
I am so sick of this. Clinton LIED under oath in a federal court after taking an oath to tell the truth. He lied ABOUT sex.
No, he didn't. The impeachment of Bill Clinton wasn't about perjury, it was about removing him from office by any means necessary. In this country, we're supposed to investigate crimes, not people. Starr and the Republicans in the House should have been thrown in jail for malicious prosecution.
You have the right to your own opinion, but you don't have the right to your own set of facts. Fact #1: you can't even prove Clinton lied in the first place. Fact #2: a lie has to be relevant to the case for it to be perjury. Since the judge ruled that whatever happened between Bill and Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case, it was impossible for him to commit perjury on the subject. Fact #3: it was Robert Jordan who allegedly pressured Lewinsky, so Clinton wouldn't have been guilty of obstruction of justice in any case.
Fact #4: the only "justice" obstructed was the right of Republicans to investigate people rather than crimes. Which of course isn't justice at all. Starr and the Republicans in the House should have wound up in jail for malicious prosecution.
The point is not that he banged another woman. But that he lied under oath.
No, the point was the Republicans were determined to remove him from office by any means necessary. Because under the judge's definition he didn't even lie. And even if he did lie, the lie has to be relevant to the case at hand. And since the judge ruled that whatever happened between Bill and Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case, it was impossible for him to commit perjury on the subject.
Even if impeachment hearing don't result in removing either Bush or Cheney from office, they're still worth doing because they'd cut through the Executive Privilege BS and do something to stop the destruction of evidence.
So even if no one is removed from office, it would make it much easier to hold them accountable later.
Not really. Since we deal with other countries on a fairly frequent basis, it would suit us well to get some respect back. Say we suspect an Australian of participating in a terrorist plot, and ask the Australian government to extradite him to the U.S. for trial. Right now there's a decent chance for Australia's government to tell us to fuck off, because they don't want their citizen to be held without trial and tortured.
Ah, I see you firmly fall into the "incompetent tool" category. It's not an ad hominem when it's true.
The phrase you quoted includes the term "unreasonable search". Searches are legal, so long as a court determines them reasonable. It is not clearly defined.
But of course the NSA wiretapping deals with the government spying on people without warrants. Which is the whole point. Just how incompetent are you, Ender?
No where does the term privacy appear.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" is a long way of saying...wait for it...privacy from the federal government. Which is obvious to any four year old with a functioning cerebral cortex. Maybe you should have one proof read your talking points before you start to bloviate.
A big portion of this is the interpretation of the courts. That is precisely what I said.
And the problem of course is that the NSA wiretapping ignores the courts completely, even the FISA courts ludicrously low standards for getting warrants. Ask that four year old about it.
And that would be a real problem because...? Pelosi isn't running for president. But you're right, the bitch press and the Republicans would cry and moan about it endlessly. Easy solution: Pelosi appoints a Constitution-loving, corruption hating conservative to be VP. Maybe Patrick Fitzgerald, the Republican prosecutor appointed Bush who investigated the Valerie Wilson leak. Then Pelosi resigns and comes right back to the House since she's running this year anyway.
I think Kucinich's primary motivation here is attention whoring
About as much as Joseph Hartzler prosecuted Timothy McVeigh to pick up chicks, yes.
and satisfying the radical left.
You should see a doctor in North Korea to help you remove your head from your ass. Then you can look around and see what "far left" actually looks like.
Which of course is why she's an even bigger fool. Even if Bush isn't impeached, impeachment hearings are the one thing that cuts through the Executive Privilege bullshit like a hot knife through butter, as well as do something to stop the shredding of evidence before the next president takes office.
How many more Americans are doing to die in Iraq by January of next year? How much more spying will be done without warrants? How many more people will be tortured by our government?
Plus, the Democrats are looking to rout the Republicans in November at least in the Senate and House
Which would happen regardless. If the Dems had opposed the Administration and the Iraq invasion from the beginning, they would be winning outright instead of winning by default.
Playing good politics and taking a firm stand on ethics aren't mutually opposing stances.
"Worst" in what sense? He's been remarkably effective as a leader.
The only thing conservatives are good at is politics, and they've had a very complaint media. Democrats, while being infinitely superior on policy, can't tell their ass from the elbow when it comes to politics.
Slashdot Mirror
This is all a matter of perspective, right?
No.
From where I'm sitting, they both want to take my money and spend it for me.
And there are a lot of people in this country who can't see past their own nose, just like you.
of the Democrat party
Suck on it jackass. Suck it long, suck it hard.
Summary: the parent is right, and you're a tool who knows nothing of journalism or html tags.
Russert wasn't fit to tie the shoelaces of Murrow or Cronkite. Russert wasn't a great journalist, he was a Very Serious Journalist. As in he would kiss the ass of right wingers like Dick Cheney while playing petty gotcha games with everyone else.
Russert wasn't afraid of asking tough questions to powerful people.
Unless your name was Dick Cheney, of course.
"Learn as much as you can about your guest, and his or her position on the issues," Spivak said. "Then take the other side. If you do that, you will have a fair and balanced program."
I think he followed that mantra throughout.
As long as the people on the show were Democrats. Get a Republican on and he'd start throwing softballs. Cheney's media director suggested he go on the show for "message control", a nice way of saying Russert would let Cheney's BS go by unchallenged.
Russert was the broadcast version of print's David Broder: a Very Serious "journalist" who's very tough on Democrats, but bends over backwards for Republicans. Cheney's media director suggested he go on MTP for message control. Russert couldn't wait for Gore to conceed in 2000 so Bush could become president. He asked Bush about the number of nuclear missles under a Start II treaty and gave Bush a pass when he didn't know. Four years later, Howard Dean didn't know the exact number of active duty troops in the U.S. and Russert tore him a new asshole.
No, the only reason Russert looks good is because most of the press is so bad - he wasn't fit to tie the shoelaces of Cronkite or Murrow.
He was one of the few out there who still seemed like he wanted to do hard news and prevent bias as much as he could.
Like when he couldn't wait for Gore to conceed the 2000 election so Bush could become the president-elect? Or when he tore Howard Dean a new asshole for not knowing the exact number of active duty troops in the U.S., when he gave Bush a complete pass on a similar question on nuclear warheads four years earlier? Or how Cheney's communication director suggested he go on MTP for "message control", i.e. Russert wouldn't challenge Cheney's BS?
Tim Russert was incredibly biased. The only reason he's looking good is because most of the profession is so bad.
You must remember that Tim Russet's niche was political journalism which is arguably a more difficult beat to report on than the day to day goings on that Kronkite was known for.
Nitch, smitch. Russert was a biased hack.
Don't forget the tax writeoff. Between that and the high energy costs of running that many drives, you'd recoup your investment rather quickly while putting the old ones to good use.
And uphold it he has, until the Supreme Court says otherwise.
Out of curiosity, did you pull anything else out of your ass today?
I am so sick of this. Clinton LIED under oath in a federal court after taking an oath to tell the truth. He lied ABOUT sex.
No, he didn't. The impeachment of Bill Clinton wasn't about perjury, it was about removing him from office by any means necessary. In this country, we're supposed to investigate crimes, not people. Starr and the Republicans in the House should have been thrown in jail for malicious prosecution.
You have the right to your own opinion, but you don't have the right to your own set of facts. Fact #1: you can't even prove Clinton lied in the first place. Fact #2: a lie has to be relevant to the case for it to be perjury. Since the judge ruled that whatever happened between Bill and Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case, it was impossible for him to commit perjury on the subject. Fact #3: it was Robert Jordan who allegedly pressured Lewinsky, so Clinton wouldn't have been guilty of obstruction of justice in any case.
Fact #4: the only "justice" obstructed was the right of Republicans to investigate people rather than crimes. Which of course isn't justice at all. Starr and the Republicans in the House should have wound up in jail for malicious prosecution.
The point is not that he banged another woman. But that he lied under oath.
No, the point was the Republicans were determined to remove him from office by any means necessary. Because under the judge's definition he didn't even lie. And even if he did lie, the lie has to be relevant to the case at hand. And since the judge ruled that whatever happened between Bill and Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case, it was impossible for him to commit perjury on the subject.
Even if impeachment hearing don't result in removing either Bush or Cheney from office, they're still worth doing because they'd cut through the Executive Privilege BS and do something to stop the destruction of evidence.
So even if no one is removed from office, it would make it much easier to hold them accountable later.
How ironic.
Not really. Since we deal with other countries on a fairly frequent basis, it would suit us well to get some respect back. Say we suspect an Australian of participating in a terrorist plot, and ask the Australian government to extradite him to the U.S. for trial. Right now there's a decent chance for Australia's government to tell us to fuck off, because they don't want their citizen to be held without trial and tortured.
Ah, I see you firmly fall into the "incompetent tool" category. It's not an ad hominem when it's true.
The phrase you quoted includes the term "unreasonable search". Searches are legal, so long as a court determines them reasonable. It is not clearly defined.
But of course the NSA wiretapping deals with the government spying on people without warrants. Which is the whole point. Just how incompetent are you, Ender?
No where does the term privacy appear.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" is a long way of saying...wait for it...privacy from the federal government. Which is obvious to any four year old with a functioning cerebral cortex. Maybe you should have one proof read your talking points before you start to bloviate.
A big portion of this is the interpretation of the courts. That is precisely what I said.
And the problem of course is that the NSA wiretapping ignores the courts completely, even the FISA courts ludicrously low standards for getting warrants. Ask that four year old about it.
http://www.google.com/search?q=congress+wireless+wiretap
Too bad those links don't say what you think they say.
Care to enumerate a few of them?
I already did on the four Amendments he's broken. Since you've heard of Google, maybe you should try using it to read up on Guantanamo.
I'd love to blast your various arguments to shreds.
And I'm sure Danny Devito would love to win an NBA championship. The chances of either happening are slim to none, and Slim just left town.
And that would be a real problem because...? Pelosi isn't running for president. But you're right, the bitch press and the Republicans would cry and moan about it endlessly. Easy solution: Pelosi appoints a Constitution-loving, corruption hating conservative to be VP. Maybe Patrick Fitzgerald, the Republican prosecutor appointed Bush who investigated the Valerie Wilson leak. Then Pelosi resigns and comes right back to the House since she's running this year anyway.
Fascism at it's heart is unaccountable, corporate militarism. That is the Bush Administration, straight up - deal with it.
Impeach Cheney first and refuse to confirm any VP nomination before removing Bush from office as well.
I think Kucinich's primary motivation here is attention whoring
About as much as Joseph Hartzler prosecuted Timothy McVeigh to pick up chicks, yes.
and satisfying the radical left.
You should see a doctor in North Korea to help you remove your head from your ass. Then you can look around and see what "far left" actually looks like.
Which of course is why she's an even bigger fool. Even if Bush isn't impeached, impeachment hearings are the one thing that cuts through the Executive Privilege bullshit like a hot knife through butter, as well as do something to stop the shredding of evidence before the next president takes office.
How many more Americans are doing to die in Iraq by January of next year? How much more spying will be done without warrants? How many more people will be tortured by our government?
You sir, are a fool and a tool.
Plus, the Democrats are looking to rout the Republicans in November at least in the Senate and House
Which would happen regardless. If the Dems had opposed the Administration and the Iraq invasion from the beginning, they would be winning outright instead of winning by default.
Playing good politics and taking a firm stand on ethics aren't mutually opposing stances.
"Worst" in what sense? He's been remarkably effective as a leader.
The only thing conservatives are good at is politics, and they've had a very complaint media. Democrats, while being infinitely superior on policy, can't tell their ass from the elbow when it comes to politics.