I Have Some Questions For Tim Russert

Throughout the last seven years, we've observed the very serious traditional media reacting to what many perceive as a bias of all varieties: from a liberal bias, to an anti-liberal bias, to facts proving that some reporters were actually paid to be Bush White House propagandists. According to several very serious traditional media people, the anti-liberal bias -- the White House cheerleading -- has been a direct reaction to the far-right's accusations of a so-called liberal media bias.

So the very serious people who run the very serious networks and publications have deliberately manufactured what they consider to be very serious "balance" and "fairness." But it's artificial and misleading. For instance, when the Republicans were (and still are) boogie boarding through an ocean filled with lobbyist cash and Astroglide, the traditional media felt that, on balance, they needed to continually repeat the relatively insignificant story about that one Democratic congressman who was keeping some unsavory cash stored inside his mini-fridge.

That's not balance -- it's pandering to the far-right.

"Reality," as Stephen Colbert says, "has a well-known liberal bias." If the reality is that the Republicans are hypocritical fear mongering homophobes, and yet a big pile of them are caught rolling out of the closet at Jack Abramoff's house -- tweaking from the meth, and suffering from priapism after the Boner Cruise to Sex-tourism Island -- then that's the news. That's the reality. Mentioning a Democratic senator who is gay or another who took lobbyist cash doesn't offer balance, it offers non-sequitur irrelevance.

During last night's Democratic debate, and apropos of nothing, NBC's Tim Russert asked Senator Obama whether he "accepts the support of Louis Farrakhan." Again, it's the illusion of balance. But it would only have been balanced if Russert had just previously quizzed Senator Clinton about something equally as ridiculous. For instance, "Senator Clinton: do you accept the support of Ann Coulter who said she'd vote for you over Senator McCain? Ann Coulter once called John Edwards a fag, and she said that Jews need to be perfected. Ha-HAH! Gotcha!"

If Tim Russert couldn't come up with a challenging question for Senator Obama based on his views or policies or record, then he shouldn't have asked anything. But NBC has been widely accused of being too hard on Senator Clinton and not hard enough on Senator Obama, so it seems to me as if this Farrakhan thing was a direct reaction to the accusations that MSNBC has a pro-Obama bias.

But no degree of bias, whether real or imagined, excuses such a bizarre and irrelevant question -- a question which seems to me as if it was designed to test Senator Obama's question-answering skills; to see if he could discuss anti-Semitism without offending either African- or Jewish-Americans. Does Senator Obama accept the endorsement of well-reputed anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan? Was Russert somehow expecting the answer to be "yes?" What was the endgame here? Did Russert ask the question on a dare? Did Brian Williams walk up backstage and, as a prank, suggest, "Hey there, Mr. Stay-Puft! I double-dog dare you to ask about Farrakhan! Haha. That'd be rad." (After the debate last night, Williams asked Russert to press his tongue to a flagpole and Russert did that, too.)

So I have some questions for Mr. Russert.

In 2004, you appeared on the Rush Limbaugh radio show and had the following discussion on the air. [I'm holding up the printed transcript Russert-style between my thumb and index figure.]

LIMBAUGH: [W]e don't often have guests on this program, but we made an exception, here, for our friend, Tim Russert of NBC News and we -- Tim? How are you, first off. Nice to have you with us. It's a real pleasure.

RUSSERT: It's an honor to be here, Rush. Thank you very much.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: When you get to your rank, succession become[s] something that's often discussed. You will eventually become president of the news division of NBC. Who will you hire to replace you as the moderator at N -- at Meet the Press?

RUSSERT: ...I -- if I got hit by a truck tomorrow, I -- who -- who would take -- who should take over? That's a good question. What do you think, Rush?

LIMBAUGH: [laughs] I haven't thought about it. In all candor. That's why I asked you. You are such a fixture. I don't see anybody else in that chair.

RUSSERT: Well, thanks, I -- I mean, I --

LIMBAUGH: I -- I actually don't --

RUSSERT: -- should I nominate you?

LIMBAUGH: Look, Tim, I appreciate [laughter] -- that would fly. That -- you ought to try it, Tim, see how long those 12 years last you at NBC. [laughter] Anyway, this has been fun. I always enjoy talking to you, and I appreciate our relationship over the years.

As you may or may not know, Mr. Russert, Rush Limbaugh has said many offensive things over the years and I'd like to get your reaction.

---Limbaugh once mocked Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's symptoms, and accused the actor of exaggerating his tremors for effect.

---Limbaugh recently said of Senator Clinton: "Because Mrs. Clinton's testicle lockbox is big enough for the entire Democrat hierarchy, not just some people in the media. And whether they have been taking steroids and the testicles are smaller than usual doesn't matter. Her lockbox, her testicle lockbox can handle everybody in the Democrat hierarchy."

---Last year, Limbaugh accused veterans who oppose the Iraq war of being "phony soldiers." He also compared a veteran to a suicide bomber.

---Rush Limbaugh produced a song parody about Senator Obama called "Barack The Magic Negro."

---Rush Limbaugh has on several occasions joked about Senator Obama being a "Halfrican-American."

So my question is this, Mr. Russert: do you accept, reject or denounce Rush Limbaugh's various on-air compliments and kudos of you, and will you ever again appear on Limbaugh's nationally syndicated radio show? Do you, Mr. Russert, retract your statement that you might nominate Rush Limbaugh to take over Meet the Press when you eventually retire?

Do you, Mr. Russert, see the logical fallacy in my questioning? In other words, just because Rush praised you then proceeded to say racist and offensive things, it doesn't necessarily mean that you agree with Rush about those statements; it doesn't necessarily mean that you're a racist or misogynist; it doesn't necessarily mean that you need to publicly reject or denounce a fuckwit like Limbaugh just because he said nice things about you.

UPDATE: Will Bunch demands that Russert denounce Imus, too. (h/t TPM)

Bob Cesca's Goddamn Awesome Blog! GO!

Comments

[auramac]

Yes, everyone sucks- the candidates suck, you suck, I suck, the author sucks, the media sucks- so does the internet, sucks all the way from the Grand Coulee Dam to the Capitol.

I could really use some quiet about now...

Is it Election Day yet?....

[MaureenSharkey]

Did't you notice how Tim Russert turned into a rabid wolf and attacked Senator Clinton before he asked Senator Obama that question, and in a much milder tone?
Looks like Cesca is a blind Obama supporter.

[BushSunkOurShip]

It is ok by Bill Maher standards and he excepts any BS that ones wants to say on the news media , after all , to him it is free speech.
In the last couple of months I have lost respect for Bill Maher.

[BardEric]

I am quickly losing respect for Mr Mahr as well..He used to be a sharp take no prisoners kind of commentator, now his show plays like the Obama dog and pony show..I would have thought that if Anyone had the balls to call out Barack on the free ride he has gotten from the media, it would be Bill. But he seems to have whole-heartedly jumped on board the hope express, and apparently, has lost much of his objectivity.

[Krazime]

The clintons will fix Ohio and Texas, and she will win both states. And where do we go from there? After listening to folks all over the country myself, the democratic party is probaby done. This election cycle has been too divisive and continues to be so.
Who is going to convince Obama supporters to vote for hillary? and vice versa?

If the DNC doesn't do something quick, it'll all be over but the shoutin'

[timetorevolt]

The KKK vote REPUBLICAN since the Civil Rights bill was signed by Johnson. Why haven't Russert ask any Republican candidate to denounce and reject the KKK? ...And don't forget David Duke...

[blico]

I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR BOB CESCA!!

Bob,
Did you actually listen to Rush or did you get your info from a blog like Ohlberman gets most of his?

1. Fox - actually did stop taking his medicine to intesify his tremors for his political ad.
2. Hillary - is there any doubt at the time of his comment and continuing comments about the lockbox are not really true - how dare anyone cross her.
3. Phony soldiers - was after ABC news had a story about fraudulent guys who claimed they were in combat and had all kinds of medals when in fact they didn't. Rush was referring to one particuar guy who claimed to be a war hero who supposedly served in Afgahanastan. He was spouting off about being opposed to the war. When in fact this particular "hero" washed out of boot camp.
4. Barrack - Great song! Actually composed after reporter from LA Times coined the phrase "magic negro"
5. Halfrican - He is - you lefties were the ones wondering if he's black enough.
Care to comment Mr. Cesca??
Respectfully,
Jack

[nellie]

Assuming you're not joking:

1. Untrue

2. Didn't know how to answer that one, huh?

3. Did you listen to the program? I heard it. Rush was talking to a caller about any soldier who thought the occupation in Iraq was going badly.

4. Well, you do seem proud of who you are, odd as that may seem.

5. Ditto number 4.

Don't bother answering, Bob. Not much substance here in the final analysis.

[blico]

Nellie,

1. Sorry, true
2. Caught me there, but who cares?
3. I did - it is obvious you didn't.
4. Am proud, not racist - clever song.
5. Standby my comment.

[nazirmo]

Why is that candidates don't answer a question with a simple yes or a no when required ?
Obama when asked do you accept or reject Farrakhan's support could have just said NO.
Instead he went round about in his answer.

[BardEric]

Because at least in this, he is exactly like any other politician.. He had to think about how to distance himself from Farrakhan while at the same time trying not to alienate any of farrakhans supporters who might cast a ballot for him

[ms.understood]

Not to mention the fact that he's not the "take the high road" type of a guy that his supporters think he is. He's just as much of a POLITICIAN as those whom he criticizes. He should have said NO instead of dancing around this, just like he dances around most issues. This man is no savior.

[atp2007]

Why does every black candidate have to declare that they oppose Mr. Farrakhan? Nobody asks the white candidates to express their specific vehemence toward the multitude of white religious and media bigots, That includes John McCain whose pastor and supporter calls Catholics "whores".

[VSamuels]

Because of power, double standards, ignorance and habit, but not necessarily in that order. The very reason why some immediately launch into tirades about their susposedly former support has ended or they point to his Muslim heritage, in spite of him being raised by not 1, not 2 but 3 white Americans. There is in effect no one issue that actually upsets some folks, since it is his race which is the real and underlying objection, so any issue which rises is just a cover---they believe a legitimate cover to attack Obama. On the racist forums and boards, the posters are 'free' to actually express in xenophobic form that they dislike Obama because he is black, and they do not want a black to sit in the Whitehouse. On the so-called non-racist boards, they feign numerous blame scenarios, both big and small while realizing that they can't just come out and admit why they do not like Obama, as they would be banned from posting. And, while not all who oppose Obama are doing so because of his race, it is a factor in the manner in which they behave more angry towards his candidacy.

It is the same sort of 'thing' that fuels those who foam in the mouth about Barry Bonds, while tripping over themselves to find reasons to excuse the behavior of Roger Clemens. Some of it is conscious, but most of it is a general unconscious approach to black folks in general, and historically it beckons back to eras ago when blacks own survival was linked to being docile, compliant and non-threatening people whose central job was to simply please whites when the situation demanded, and to move into the shadows when they were not providing some reasonable service to white folks. So, for many , Obama can't please them for reasons far more than his policies, plans and inspiration, he can't please them because he is attempting to become the President of the United States, a position that in their mind's view is not a role that a black person should attain, since in such a role, he would be in their opinion, in charge of white folks.

Conversely, the role of president is exclusively the domain of white folks who some believe are the natural ones to be in charge of themselves and non-whites. Here, there's no degree or angle that Obama can ever reach to overcome such an objection, as this objection is spread out over 100s of different reasons; none being damaging in and of themselves, but each taking own a sum effect in declaring he is wrong.

Yet, when one visits the racist boards, one understands that while disagreeing with Obama along ideological terms is fair, it doesn't rise to the level of disagreeing with his blackness---the real reason some do not want him to win.

[bauersox]

I don't think that Obama's race is the objection at all. I think it's the slippery character of his positions, which seem to change according to whichever group he is addressing.

Furthermore, many of us don't feel comfortable having a self-admitted non-executive, who is a newcomer to Washington in the Oval Office. We think Hillary would make a better president. We think that Obama cannot possibly beat McCain in a general election. It has nothing to do with race.

Some of us also think it's quite disgusting when people like you say manipulative things like that. It makes us want to vote for *anybody* but Obama. Some of the misogynistic behavior of people who claim to be Obama supporters is also very obnoxious to a lot of us. Those are the things that have changed ordinary opposition into anger.

[dm92]

People, concentrate on the issues. Wasting time and energy on the obama-farrakhan thing is nothing short of insanely stupid. He is not connected to this man - stop wasting energy on this stupidity.

DM92

[BardEric]

Obama might not be directly connected to Farrakhan, but Barack's mentor Rev.Wright certainly has spoken with great admiration of him. Please consider that one does generally share at least SOME of the ideals of someone they chose to call a mentor. Barack has made it a point that his ideals and judgement are what makes him the better choice for president.That makes it a legitimate question, one that many Americans would like to know more about.

[bauersox]

They have to declare that they oppose Farrakhan because Farrakhan is famously antisemitic. If black candidates don't declare against him, they will lose the Jewish vote, and the vote of everybody else who opposes antisemitism.

[rubyr]

Good question. I would love to know the answer.

[FauxNewsAlert]

Great article Bob.

Tim Russert is nothing but a Republican hack. He has the same agenda as Limbaugh, Hannity, or any of the other self-described GOP water carriers. Russert is just a little bit more polished at his craft than the others. Brian Williams is also a total fucking joke. In fact, if it were not for Keith Olbermann, NBC and MSNBC would be just another version of Fox News.

I wonder if Russert will be asking McCain if he denounces Rev. Hagee (the guy who described Catholocism as a "cult", and Catholics as "whores". Don't hold your breath waiting for that question to come from Russert.

[ProfessorDuh]

I'm surprised anyone listens to Tim Russert, who regards the empty bromides of his sanitation worker father as the collected works of Aristotle.

[ssg13565]

I agree. That is why I muted the TV whenever Russert asked a question during the

debate. Just for fair measure, I also muted Brian Williams.

[bogtrotters]

Russert is fawned over by his colleagues at MSNBC,and he's come to believe he's as tough a guy as they say he is. He isn't. His cheap-shot what-you-said-I-have-the-quote-here questions don't do anything to advance political dialogue, and he and the journalistic establishment have been absolutely gutless in confronting the scandals, crimes and extraconstitutional tactics of the Bush Administration, treating this presidency as if it were legitimate and Bush as if he were any other President. Russert needs his generous ass demoted to working a reporter's beat, preferably far from Washington. Darfur, Afghanistan and the Gobi Desert come to mind immediately.

[rubyr]

And then when asked about being a Republican hack, he claims that the Dems see him as a Repub hack and vice-versa thereby rendering him "balanced". I don't think anyone in their right mind would see him as a cheerleader for the Dems (except that he does seem to love James Carville--as long as James is with the Repug wife).

[mcearlgrey]

Why do people in the public eye need to renounce each other? Why can't personalities just be responsible for their own selves and what they say?

Listen, I'm not comfortable with everything Limbaugh says but his show is entertaining. I'm an Obama supporter and a Rush listener. If you don't develop a sense of humor about politics and learn to laugh at yourself and your side you end up like the Taliban.

Bob, you point out, correctly, that Obama shouldn't be responsible for what Farrakhan or Jeremiah Wright say. (I feel like the fact that we know Wright's opinion of Farrakhan and yet we don't know the names of Hillary's or McCain's pastors says something definitive about the actual racial content of this election.) We know that Russert's Farrakhan question was unfair, but let's not kid ourselves that Russert's job is to ask the hard-hitting questions, the answers to which will affect the lives of the American people. His job is to make good TV, and that back-and-forth between Hillary and Barack about "denouncing" and "rejecting" was some of the best TV of this election cycle.

Russert isn't running for office, and therefore I don't think he owes anyone an apology for being friends with Limbaugh.

One more thing, Bob, I love your blogs usually, but it's totally disingenuous to saddle Limbaugh with the "Magic Negro" song, since it was made in response to an LA Times editorial (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story) of the same name, and the term itself, according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro) was popularized by Spike Lee in this decade

[OhComeOnNow]

NBC ans MSNBC have become uncomfortable to watch. They are neither fair or balanced. Most of the moderators display their right-wing bias or kiss Obama's ass.

[ErinG]

Right on! MSNBC has this warped notion that it must, in the interest of so-called balanced reporting, manufacture dirt on Obama. MSNBC had better snap out of this Hillary-induced foolishness--fast.

[justrikke]

You're kidding...right? MANUFACTURED DIRT? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do I hear sheep? "O BAAAAAAA MAAAAAAAA!"

[hank48188]

No need to make anything up about Obama, he has enough baggage to prevent him from ever winning. Sean Hannity has been hammering Obama every night about his friendship with two WEATHERMEN TERRORISTS from Chicago. Obama sought out their support when he first ran for State Senate and they are current supporters. They bombed Gov't buildings in the 70's like the PENTAGON and NYC Police Headguarters. Obama also has the corrupt House deal with Tony Rezko, accepting the "Favor" of Tony buying a vacant lot for $625,000. The Tony Rezko Federal political corruption trial starts tommorow, should get lots of press coverage. This guy has baggage

[ErinG]

Right on! MSNBC has this warped notion that it must, in the interest of so-called balanced reporting, manufacture dirt on Obama. MSNBC had better snap out of this Hillary-induced foolishness"fast.

[bauersox]

Nothing has been manufactured about Obama. And quite a bit of the real dirt has been suppressed.

[57basque]

Hey, what in the world is wrong with being against Israel? America's unconditional support of them is wrong. They killed their last king, who broke the covenant between night and day while up on that tree. And they have not had a king since! Are those not facts? Is it Jeremiah 31 about the covenant between night and day being broken, is spoken of? Are they not living a lie? Though from what I have seen of the Church on our TV, they are living a lie too. It was a quote from a Bill Moyer email where there was a quote, "Politics are run by big money and religion... then when they get in to office, they fall under the influence of really big money."
Those are the 2 things this debate should be about. Both of them are wrong. Just like our un-conditional support of Israel is wrong. They have the Bomb, and no children of Abraham would drop it on anyone!
Abraham would not have dropped it on Sodom. So why do we still have it?
You writers here expose a lot of bs from the right. Lets get to the core of America's mistakes. Please!
http://my.care2.com/com

[Loeb]

To 57basque:

I am against Israel. I recommend strongly that you reald "FATEFUL TRIANGLE" by Noam
Chomsky. It provides depth, perspective, history. It also gives us facts that most dare
not mention mention in the US. The US-funded military, the massacres, rape,
torture, humiliation, fabrication of facts and so forth. While you are free (as are
all readers and learners) to dissent from whatever Chomsky points you please, I believe it
would be an important work for you.

For me it was emotionally tough but a pivotal work.

Note that while we are encouraged to deal with the (potential) threat of Iran, Israel already
possesses nuclear reactors, misseles. Israel is the 4th largest military power
in the world.

Such issues are not on the agenda of any candidate for President. They would all rather
discuss "patriotism" and patriotism means that one is 100% in back of everything
the State of Israel says or does or fails to say at all.

Last summer the IAEA (of the UN) at their meeting in Geneva considered the
creation of a NUCLEAR-FREE ZONE in all of the Mid-East.

The proposal was opposed by only two nations:

Israel
The US

There was not much play about this in the US, of course, It is such a common
pattern to be almost "non-news".

[Crozier]

Dr. Noam Chomsky is one of the radically brilliant men of his age. For that reason, Dr. Chomsky is the bete noir of the International Corporate Fascists. He is alive because they feel that they have exiled him to the outer reaches of respectability. Ivy League from undergraduate to PhD and an MIT professor for a half century, Dr. Chomsky is Jewish. Yes - you read correctly, Dr. Chomsky was born into an observant Jewish family and was Bar Mitzvah in the traditional orthodox congregation. He is an American, and is anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli Right Wing.

Now watch the AIPAC and ADL supporters come to attack their own...Noam Chomsky ....because like Israeli and Jewish American pacifists and patriots, he hates what he sees in the Middle East and the US MIC who support them,

[TishiJo]

The real question is whether the Clintons have enough power to fix the election in Ohio and Texas "woking from the top down"? They have tried every other means of breaking the rules, and Bush got away with it twice. And why else do they keep pushing the idea that caucuses don't count, they're counting on the elections in Ohio and Texas? Caucuses are difficult to fix, thats why.

[IngeniousGirl]

This is a good comment which indicates we should be watching everything on election day, not like what happened in Florida.

[bauersox]

Caucuses don't count because they are not a secret ballot and voters are subject to manipulation and peer group pressure. They don't count because people are lured to the caucuses by refreshments and a party atmosphere.

And caucuses don't count because most of the caucuses Obama has won are in states that won't ever be in the Democratic column in a general election until Hell freezes over.

They don't prove a darn thing, and they are misleading and harmful. They suggest "momentum" that's really fraudulent.