Well, it's now official. David Gregory will take over the helm of Meet the Press. I think he is a pretty good choice (although I've also grown fond of Chuck Todd ("Chucky T" to us MSNBCer's)). But Gregory is tough, and won't let people roll him. I think he'll have to learn to balance the toughness with the respect factor that Russert had mastered. That's the way to do it. (I read somewhere in the summer that one of the hardest things to do was to knock these tried and true politicians off their talking points. I tend to believe that is true.) For example, Tim was pretty tough on old Tricky Dick Cheney, but fair enough that Cheney still did his show. It reaped benefits as Cheney was haunted by his "greeted as liberators" quip on MTP in the Iraq war build-up.
But, most importantly, it is a significant prediction break-through for me personally. See my June 23 post predicting Mr. Gregory's pending appointment (click on the "Predictions" label and you'll get there). Now I am going to advocate a review of the tape of the Hagler/Leonard fight to get that overturned. I don't know what to do, though, about my "Ghost" fiasco. Thoughts, dear readers?
Showing posts with label Russert. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russert. Show all posts
Monday, December 8, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Prediction
I love to make predictions. Sometimes they are wildly right (I correctly foresaw the Cardinals taking the 2006 World Series even though they stumbled, bumbled and fumbled their way in to post-season that year (remember the Astros closing in fast while the Cardinals reeled?)). But just as often (if not more often), they are stupefyingly wrong: I confidently asserted Marvelous Marvin Hagler would knock out Sugar Ray Leonard in the late '80s. Woops. The worst of all might have been after seeing "Ghost" in a sneak preview (on a double-bill with Days of Thunder, no less). It was a very rare instance of seeing a main Hollywood feature without knowing a gosh-darn thing about it in advance (think about how much you typically know about a movie before plunking down your hard-earned cash at the box office). After seeing that towering pile of junk, I prognosticated (with my usual air of arrogance) to Sharon that it would last all of one weekend (maybe not even a full weekend), then (definitely) straight-to-video and (to a moral certainty) never heard from again. (I still think that's the fate it deserved.) Double woops and a half.
But to get proper credit, I have learned the hard way one must make a prediction in advance--it does not help to say after the fact that you were secretly harboring a premonition of events to come all along (a trick I've tried to no avail).
So, while we learned this weekend from Brian Williams that Tom Brokaw will be helming Meet the Press through the November elections (which has to be a temporary fix), I will make my prediction on the permanent successor to Russert: David Gregory. I think they are grooming him for that spot. I'm not saying I think he's the best or my top choice, necessarily. But I predict he is going to get it. You heard it here, if not first, at least before it was announced.
But to get proper credit, I have learned the hard way one must make a prediction in advance--it does not help to say after the fact that you were secretly harboring a premonition of events to come all along (a trick I've tried to no avail).
So, while we learned this weekend from Brian Williams that Tom Brokaw will be helming Meet the Press through the November elections (which has to be a temporary fix), I will make my prediction on the permanent successor to Russert: David Gregory. I think they are grooming him for that spot. I'm not saying I think he's the best or my top choice, necessarily. But I predict he is going to get it. You heard it here, if not first, at least before it was announced.
Friday, June 13, 2008
"I saw it on Russert"
That's the way I referred to Meet the Press--it wasn't "Meet the Press" to me, it was "Russert". I have missed very few episodes of Meet the Press in the last many, many years. He was rigidly dogmatic, to the left and right and center(who else was fair to Pat Buchanan?), in getting to the real nub of the matter.
He more than "covered" the news; he helped shape what it was, but not in an obtrusive or manipulative or unfair way. What are the defining statements for Cheney, if not (to Russert on MTP): "We'll be greeted as liberators" - "Saddam has reconstituted his nuclear program"? My personal belief is that he played a central role in taking down the candidacy of Mitt Romney in December 2007, not because he vindictively went after him in a partisan way (Bill O'Reilly anyone?), but because, through his sheer journalism skills and enormous preparation simply exposed the guy as a "phony" (that was the worst word that his dad, Big Russ, could say about anyone). That's what he did--he would expose you. If what he exposed about you was great, then your stock went up. If not--well, you better hope the video goes in the same warehouse as at the end of Indiana Jones.
Beyond feeling enormously saddened that a vital man would die so young in the midst of doing what he truly loved, I feel frankly worried about the hole his passing is going to create in discourse about the election (not sure Stephanopolous is up to it, Matthews a bit too wild-eyed, David Gregory is a tad too smug for my personal taste). How am I going to get the raw information to inform my thinking on civic matters without having Mr. Russert spend hours doing the homework for me and presenting it in an immediately grasp-able way? Many of my political posts were done after watching "Russert" on Sunday morning, and being so juiced there was some point I just needed to make. (See "Dead Man Talking" about Russert's devastation of Romney discussed above.)
Russert was like a great portrait photographer. At his best, through his skills, he could show you what someone really looked like. Not his view of who you are, but who you really are. If you are a beautiful person, that will show. If you are ugly, that ugliness will show. It's not like other journalists (Sean Hannity, anyone?) who can't help putting their own spin on what you look like, don't prepare and overlay their own views--like taking a Polaroid, drawing a mustasche on the print and showing the picture to you and saying: "Here, here's what this person looks like." No, just take a picture that really shows the person. Sounds simple, but getting to a point where you can really do that, reveal the subject but not reveal yourself, I can imagine is one of the hardest things to do in portrait photography. That's what Russert did journalistically.
I'm going to miss him. Enjoy this more recent sample of his work:
The best part of this is that Russert was going to actually let him off the hook (relatively speaking), but McCain cuts him off and "answers" the quote, shooting himself in the left foot after having put his right foot in the bear trap. It's like Russert dug the grave, then led McCain in the general direction of the hole to see if he'd fall in. He does, and when Russert peers over the edge and starts to ask McCain if he'd like a ladder to get out, McCain interrupts him and says, "Hand me that shovel, this hole isn't deep enough!"
He more than "covered" the news; he helped shape what it was, but not in an obtrusive or manipulative or unfair way. What are the defining statements for Cheney, if not (to Russert on MTP): "We'll be greeted as liberators" - "Saddam has reconstituted his nuclear program"? My personal belief is that he played a central role in taking down the candidacy of Mitt Romney in December 2007, not because he vindictively went after him in a partisan way (Bill O'Reilly anyone?), but because, through his sheer journalism skills and enormous preparation simply exposed the guy as a "phony" (that was the worst word that his dad, Big Russ, could say about anyone). That's what he did--he would expose you. If what he exposed about you was great, then your stock went up. If not--well, you better hope the video goes in the same warehouse as at the end of Indiana Jones.
Beyond feeling enormously saddened that a vital man would die so young in the midst of doing what he truly loved, I feel frankly worried about the hole his passing is going to create in discourse about the election (not sure Stephanopolous is up to it, Matthews a bit too wild-eyed, David Gregory is a tad too smug for my personal taste). How am I going to get the raw information to inform my thinking on civic matters without having Mr. Russert spend hours doing the homework for me and presenting it in an immediately grasp-able way? Many of my political posts were done after watching "Russert" on Sunday morning, and being so juiced there was some point I just needed to make. (See "Dead Man Talking" about Russert's devastation of Romney discussed above.)
Russert was like a great portrait photographer. At his best, through his skills, he could show you what someone really looked like. Not his view of who you are, but who you really are. If you are a beautiful person, that will show. If you are ugly, that ugliness will show. It's not like other journalists (Sean Hannity, anyone?) who can't help putting their own spin on what you look like, don't prepare and overlay their own views--like taking a Polaroid, drawing a mustasche on the print and showing the picture to you and saying: "Here, here's what this person looks like." No, just take a picture that really shows the person. Sounds simple, but getting to a point where you can really do that, reveal the subject but not reveal yourself, I can imagine is one of the hardest things to do in portrait photography. That's what Russert did journalistically.
I'm going to miss him. Enjoy this more recent sample of his work:
The best part of this is that Russert was going to actually let him off the hook (relatively speaking), but McCain cuts him off and "answers" the quote, shooting himself in the left foot after having put his right foot in the bear trap. It's like Russert dug the grave, then led McCain in the general direction of the hole to see if he'd fall in. He does, and when Russert peers over the edge and starts to ask McCain if he'd like a ladder to get out, McCain interrupts him and says, "Hand me that shovel, this hole isn't deep enough!"
Saturday, May 10, 2008
"We're who we've been waiting for..."
A somewhat derided campaign line from one of Barack Obama's earlier acceptance speeches this primary season. I was reminded of it listening to MSNBC this week when Chuck Todd said sometimes you don't see turning points when you are in them. As HC's lead was dwindling Tuesday night in Indiana, the punditocracy was taking that, coupled with the big win in North Carolina, as the effective end of the Democratic primary. (I myself have been known to worship at the altar of Rev. Tim Russert ("we now know who the Democratic candidate will be, and no-one will dispute it")). Todd drew a parallel to the Obama victory in Missouri on Super Tuesday.
Same narrative--Clinton ahead early, but wait, the city vote is coming in late (go St. Louis!) and Obama does much better (winning in Missouri and coming close in Indiana). Two states that border Illinois. And, in Indiana and Missouri, two states that might, without further analysis, appear to favor the Senator from New York. But Todd rightly reminded us of the importance of that win in Missouri, giving Barack a good victory outside the deep South on that Super Tuesday and turning that day more or less into a wash, with a slight nudge to Clinton, rather than be viewed as a blow-out for Clinton. (See two earlier my posts, if interested, in February on Mighty MO, including the fact that George Will said the state to watch on Super Tuesday was the Show Me state. Also see Will's editorial from Thursday of this week--great: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050703190.html.)
Also, Indiana really is the first time that a narrow loss has been widely construed as a victory, even though the punditocracy had been (wrongly) spouting that margin of victory was the thing to watch in earlier races (not fully appreciating that, mostly, a win is a win). But not so in the dear old Hoosier state.
Same narrative--Clinton ahead early, but wait, the city vote is coming in late (go St. Louis!) and Obama does much better (winning in Missouri and coming close in Indiana). Two states that border Illinois. And, in Indiana and Missouri, two states that might, without further analysis, appear to favor the Senator from New York. But Todd rightly reminded us of the importance of that win in Missouri, giving Barack a good victory outside the deep South on that Super Tuesday and turning that day more or less into a wash, with a slight nudge to Clinton, rather than be viewed as a blow-out for Clinton. (See two earlier my posts, if interested, in February on Mighty MO, including the fact that George Will said the state to watch on Super Tuesday was the Show Me state. Also see Will's editorial from Thursday of this week--great: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050703190.html.)
Also, Indiana really is the first time that a narrow loss has been widely construed as a victory, even though the punditocracy had been (wrongly) spouting that margin of victory was the thing to watch in earlier races (not fully appreciating that, mostly, a win is a win). But not so in the dear old Hoosier state.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Dazed and Confused
I am terribly confused by the current state of the Democratic nomination process. I am disheartened by the fact that we've got a six-week slog to Pennsylvania, and that there seem to be at least two certainties in this period of general uncertainty: (1) Barack and Hillary will likely try to rip each other apart and (2) nothing will likely change after Pennsylvania. On the latter point, Barack seems likely to have a significant lead in the pledged delegate race even if Hillary wins decisively. And I can't articulate a logic for either of them to get out. Indeed, I would say the opposite--there is none. Why should she leave the race if she seems to have the momentum and has won a lot of big, important swing states that a Dem must carry to win the general and is behind by a relatively small margin? Even though she can't make it up, she is close enough to plausibly say they are essentially tied. And he has even less of a reason to leave, if he (as seems all but certain) will still be leading in pledged delegates. What is the rationale for quitting and conceding a race where you've won (1) the most states, (2) the most delegates and (3) (perhaps), the highest number of popular votes?
One thing that we seem to have learned is that Hillary has a base of committed supporters who seem unlikely to switch allegiance to Barack in the nomination process in large numbers. I think we already knew that about Barack's supporters (as the infamous David Brooks has described it, Barack's supporters are passionate and and many of them are not just supporters but believe he must be nominated and must win). While I don't know that I go that far in the Barack/Hillary battle (although I do go that far for whoever is the Democratic nominee, as I think another 4 years of Republican (at least Bush-style) leadership may put solving the world's environmental issues, in particular global warming, beyond reach for all time), I am one who believes that because there is a dedicated base of Hillary-haters in this country, that she will unite the opposition in a way that will be difficult to overcome.
But then back to point #1: in order to win, I think each of the Hillary and Barack camps feel the need to sharpen the distinctions between the two. I am not generally squeamish about a tougher campaign, but it works against Barack because that is one of the prime underlying rationales of his candidacy and its appeal: that he is a different kind of politician. But I despair that the likely result of the next 6 weeks (and beyond) is more fodder for the mounting Republican attack machine which will come with guns-ablazing against whomever--it matters not to them.
It also bugs me, as an aside, that Hillary includes in her laundry list of wins (and this is her, in her stump speeches, not just her campaign or other surrogates) Michigan and Florida. Florida is at least arguable, but including Michigan is completely disingenuous--no campaigning, and she was the only name on the ballot. (Didn't we used to criticize the USSR for "elections" where there were only Communist party candidates?) Every interviewer should question her on that in every interview until she stops. She has legitimate claims to victories, and, as Barack has said, to argue that her policies are superior to hers. But not to argue she won the Michigan primary where no-one else (most notably Barack) campaigned or was on the ballot. A whopping 40% took the trouble to come out and vote "uncommitted".
Also, although I can admire for sheer political chutzpah Hillary and Bill's notion that in a race in which you are behind, your solution is, we'll take the #1 spot and give you the veep nod, I'd also say it is possible to admire chutzpah (e.g., Lee Atwater and Karl Rove) and admit is is "brilliant" (or at least damningly effective) politics, while being disgusted by it.
I don't see any alternative but do-overs in Florida and Michigan. The argument in Michigan that we must "respect the voters" demands this--although not in the way most mean it. I hear that argument as a rationale that we must respect the votes cast in January. But what about those who would have wanted to vote for Barack (or others who were in the race at the time, Edwards most notably) but didn't have the opportunity? How is that showing "respect" for the voters of Michigan? 'Sorry, but you had one alternative, and since you took the trouble to come out, we're going to "honor" it.' That's just not right, no matter whom you support.
One thing that we seem to have learned is that Hillary has a base of committed supporters who seem unlikely to switch allegiance to Barack in the nomination process in large numbers. I think we already knew that about Barack's supporters (as the infamous David Brooks has described it, Barack's supporters are passionate and and many of them are not just supporters but believe he must be nominated and must win). While I don't know that I go that far in the Barack/Hillary battle (although I do go that far for whoever is the Democratic nominee, as I think another 4 years of Republican (at least Bush-style) leadership may put solving the world's environmental issues, in particular global warming, beyond reach for all time), I am one who believes that because there is a dedicated base of Hillary-haters in this country, that she will unite the opposition in a way that will be difficult to overcome.
But then back to point #1: in order to win, I think each of the Hillary and Barack camps feel the need to sharpen the distinctions between the two. I am not generally squeamish about a tougher campaign, but it works against Barack because that is one of the prime underlying rationales of his candidacy and its appeal: that he is a different kind of politician. But I despair that the likely result of the next 6 weeks (and beyond) is more fodder for the mounting Republican attack machine which will come with guns-ablazing against whomever--it matters not to them.
It also bugs me, as an aside, that Hillary includes in her laundry list of wins (and this is her, in her stump speeches, not just her campaign or other surrogates) Michigan and Florida. Florida is at least arguable, but including Michigan is completely disingenuous--no campaigning, and she was the only name on the ballot. (Didn't we used to criticize the USSR for "elections" where there were only Communist party candidates?) Every interviewer should question her on that in every interview until she stops. She has legitimate claims to victories, and, as Barack has said, to argue that her policies are superior to hers. But not to argue she won the Michigan primary where no-one else (most notably Barack) campaigned or was on the ballot. A whopping 40% took the trouble to come out and vote "uncommitted".
Also, although I can admire for sheer political chutzpah Hillary and Bill's notion that in a race in which you are behind, your solution is, we'll take the #1 spot and give you the veep nod, I'd also say it is possible to admire chutzpah (e.g., Lee Atwater and Karl Rove) and admit is is "brilliant" (or at least damningly effective) politics, while being disgusted by it.
I don't see any alternative but do-overs in Florida and Michigan. The argument in Michigan that we must "respect the voters" demands this--although not in the way most mean it. I hear that argument as a rationale that we must respect the votes cast in January. But what about those who would have wanted to vote for Barack (or others who were in the race at the time, Edwards most notably) but didn't have the opportunity? How is that showing "respect" for the voters of Michigan? 'Sorry, but you had one alternative, and since you took the trouble to come out, we're going to "honor" it.' That's just not right, no matter whom you support.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Dead Man Talking
NBC aired a great new comedy special this morning--Tim Russert interviewing Mitt Romney on Meet the Press.
This guy has no shot. He makes John Kerry look resolute. Romney just got called out on issue after issue where he has changed. No new real info, but with a full hour with the guy, Russert had time to show extensive clips, read extensively from articles, let Romney respond and follow-up when the response didn't make sense. And boy, they didn't. While it's exasperating to me, I think it must be as, or even more, exasperating for a conservative Republican. Romney's got to hope that everyone's cable was out in Iowa and New Hampshire this morning.
Russert started off on the now infamous religion speech Romney gave and zeroed in on the statement in the speech "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom." They didn't touch on the second part of that statement, but here was the gist of the interview. Romney: that was in the context of the founders, and what I was doing was paraphrasing John Adams that freedom requires morality. Russert: Can an atheist be moral? Romney: Of course. Russert: So if you were evaluating a Supreme Court or Cabinet appointee who also happened to be an atheist, you would still consider him or her? Romney: Of course, you would evaluate the skills and abilities of the person. Russert: No litmus test. Romney: No. Russert: Then what does the statement in the speech mean that 'Freedom requires religion'? Romney: [Incomprehensible] [Black is black and white is white, and that's it. Doesn't gray exist? Yes, of course. Then how does that square with what you just said about black and white? I've already told you Tim--black is back and white is white, and that's it.]
And then it got worse as they marched through everything else.
This guy has no shot. He makes John Kerry look resolute. Romney just got called out on issue after issue where he has changed. No new real info, but with a full hour with the guy, Russert had time to show extensive clips, read extensively from articles, let Romney respond and follow-up when the response didn't make sense. And boy, they didn't. While it's exasperating to me, I think it must be as, or even more, exasperating for a conservative Republican. Romney's got to hope that everyone's cable was out in Iowa and New Hampshire this morning.
Russert started off on the now infamous religion speech Romney gave and zeroed in on the statement in the speech "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom." They didn't touch on the second part of that statement, but here was the gist of the interview. Romney: that was in the context of the founders, and what I was doing was paraphrasing John Adams that freedom requires morality. Russert: Can an atheist be moral? Romney: Of course. Russert: So if you were evaluating a Supreme Court or Cabinet appointee who also happened to be an atheist, you would still consider him or her? Romney: Of course, you would evaluate the skills and abilities of the person. Russert: No litmus test. Romney: No. Russert: Then what does the statement in the speech mean that 'Freedom requires religion'? Romney: [Incomprehensible] [Black is black and white is white, and that's it. Doesn't gray exist? Yes, of course. Then how does that square with what you just said about black and white? I've already told you Tim--black is back and white is white, and that's it.]
And then it got worse as they marched through everything else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
