Russert Watch: Andrea Mitchell, Please Don't Go Away Again

Good morning, and welcome to a one-day late Russert Watch, which was neither Russert nor watched, as it was guest-hosted by Andrea Mitchell and turned out to have been broadcast an hour early in Canada, where I am currently spending the long weekend. Since this column is technically about watching Russert, we were going to take the weekend off; but after reading the transcript and discussing with a few emailers, I thought I'd post my thoughts and then leave it open for discussion, "open thread" style.

Guests: Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY); Roundtable: Bill Bennett, the WSJ's John Harwood, WaPo's Dana Priest, and the NYT's William Safire. Transcript here.

Mitchell was a welcome respite from Russert, providing even-handed and - gasp! - responsive moderation, letting her audience know that she has the wherewithal to discuss the issues beyond her set questions and clips. She leads off the day with words I'd wager we'd never hear from Russert: "The president leads an attack on the media." Please note that the alternatives include "The media leads an attack on the president's war on terror" and "The New York Times: Treasonous and Evil?" This is what set me up to do more than skim this transcript. Mitchell plucked the Bush quote I highlighted as "scary" last week: "There can be no excuse for anyone entrusted with vital intelligence to leak it, and no excuse for any newspaper to print it." (emphasis added) We're all set to dig in and - teaser! They'll talk about it in the second half! This is actually a very effective MTP hook. So, we're really going to start with the Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan. Mitchell asks McConnell what he thinks, and he says that, well, Congress is going to be very busy in the coming weeks, addressing the decision and forming military commissions to circumvent the Geneva Convention address the concerns raised by Hamdan. How busy? "There's nothing more important than the war on terror, and I think we will have to act on this very soon, either in July or in September, certainly in the next couple of months." Hilarious! It's so important they're skipping August! Just like all the troops over in Iraq are getting August off. Oh, wait.

Schumer says that it's not what was done that he has a problem with, but how it was done: unilaterally, sneaking around behind the Constitution's back. But he does say this: "But on giving the president what he needs, and giving our country what we need to fight the war on terror, there's going to be agreement." Those sound like words that may come back to haunt him and the Dems. Why do the Dems always have to be so agreeable?

Fortunately, Mitchell isn't so agreeable. She reminds McConnell of the abuses beyond Guantanamo: secret CIA prisons, prisoners in Afghanistan, and asks if "we going to see a flood of habeas corpus petitions now?" Think about that for a moment. A flood, of habeas corpus petitions - habeas corpus, pretty much the most basic right going: the right to be brought before a judge so it can be determined if the prisoner is being lawfully held. It dates from somewhere in the 12th or 13th century, when the rule of law was far less evolved than it is now. And yet.

Another example of why I like Mitchell much better than Republican rhetoric:

MITCHELL: Senator McConnell, should Guantanamo now just be closed?

McCONNELL: No. I, I...

MITCHELL: Because it's just been such a black eye diplomatically.

McCONNELL: What, what are we, what are we going to do with these people? I mean, we want them to free them so they can come kill us again? Look, I, I think the Congress is very, very likely to give the president exactly what he thinks he needs to continue to fight the war on terror. And it's important for all of us to remember that we haven't been attacked again here at home again since 9/11. That's not an accident. That's not an accident. The policies that we've pursued are protecting us here at home. (emphasis added)

Two important points: "What are we going to do with these people?" is not, last time I checked, a lawful justification for holding a prisoner indefinitely without charges or counsel or bail or due process. "We want them to free them so they can come kill us again?" No, no one wants that - assuming they are terrorists who will, in fact, come kill on U.S. soil. But isn't there supposed to be a burden of proof for establishing that? Yes, says Schumer, which is why he's sent a letter to Alberto Gonzales demanding a review of all the other "arrogations of power" by this administration. No doubt Gonzales will find his letter quaint.

The talk turns to leaks, and security. Schumer says yep, investigate leaks, sure, but Bush has gone way overboard, and by the way the fact that they are tracking terrorist financing is NOT news. He bets that any investigation will not find security to have been compromised "one jot." McConnell thinks actually it WAS compromised, by many jots. I fall for Mitchell all over again when she asks if the admin is looking to "demonize" the press. McConnell, predictably, says no. Schumer says yes and calls out the admin. double standard: "They leak things they want to leak. And when the Plame leak came out, there was no outrage, there was no high dudgeon... You can't have it both ways and use leaks when you want to and don't use leaks when you don't."

Here's a great example of why Mitchell should be doing this show instead of Russert: she turns to Schumer, grilling him (not inappropriately) for ceding responsibility in Iraq to the President ("He got us in there, he's got to figure a way out." Whaaat?). He says the Dems job is to "hold people accountable" which translates into after-the-fact fingerpointing. Schumer, hold your wrist out so I can smack it. Mitchell, responsive says: "Wait a second, you're going to the election...to the voters in November. Don't you also have the job as campaign chairman for Democrats of presenting an alternative?" See, this doesn't happen often on Russert's watch. If it did, the program would be a lot livelier, and guest would be a lot more challenged. And she challenges Schumer's contention that the Dem minority in Congress is to hold the admin's "feet to the fire." And she hold's Schumer's to the fire too - because the Democrats agree on a plan for Iraq, and, Schumer's poll data or not, the Republicans know how to use that.

The Lieberman/Lamont question: Russert posed it to Feingold last week, and Feingold said he'd back whoever won the primary. Schumer dodges by saying that he and the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee supports Lieberman and thinks he'll win. Upshot: no speculation on horse-changing midstream until they're midstream. Oh, did you really think that would be enough for our Andrea? Are. You. Supporting. Joe. Lieberman? Which is it: might you throw your support against the former Vice-Presidential nominee, or might you not support the Democratic winner? Unfortunately for Schumer, that ain't a trick question. Schumer says "we're not speculating after the primary" about five times....and McConnell picks that one up. He pipes up: "Andrea?" and we all know where this is going: McConnell uses Lieberman as an example of the Dems divided stance on terror, and an excuse to toss "cut and run" into the mix. Wouldn't be "Meet The Press" without it!

And finally, the dodge: Will Schumer support Hillary? "Well, let's let her announce first." The buck, she be passed.

Roundtable: Mitchell gives Bennett the first chance to bluster over leaks and security, then dismisses his dark musings with the fact that, duh, the monitoring of terror financing is - say it with me - NOT NEWS. Then she switches over to Bill Safire, whose statement I want to excerpt in full:

SAFIRE: Look, I don't speak for the Times. I've been in the Times for 30 years disagreeing with Times editorial policy right down the line. On this one, I think they did the right thing. Here we are on Independence Day weekend, 230 years ago, celebrating what was the resistance to a king who said "We're going to hang you for treason." And here we have a Long Island congressman, happens to be named King, who's saying "treason" and "put these reporters in jail." I think there's a big fundamental thing going on here now, and across the board, of "get the press, get the media." And, look, I used to write speeches for Spiro Agnew, I'm hip to this stuff, and, and I can say that it gives you a blip, it gives you a chance to get on the offensive against the, the darned media. But in the long view of history, it's a big mistake.

A note on John Harwood, WSJ who says: "First of all, that editorial wasn't kidding when they said there's a separation between the news and the editorial pages at The Wall Street Journal." He goes on to prove it, saying, hey. The terrorists aren't stupid. This isn't a surprise. Bennett counters by saying FINE but if THAT'S the case then why did people like Jack Murtha ask the Times to hold off? And just before we get wildly distracted by the chaff, in comes Dana Priest with the wheat: "Every time there's a national security story they don't want published, they say it will damage national security. But they--for one thing, they've never given us any proof." And by the way, Bill Bennett, it's actually not a crime to publish classified information. And here she goes for the jugular: "Now why isn't it a crime? I mean, some people would like to make casino gambling a crime, but it is not a crime." Oh, zing. But really, it's not a crime because the Constitution wants it that way.

Before we close, a history lesson: Mitchell asks Safire about a phrase of his own invention: "The nattering nabobs of negativism," which by the way would NEVER fly today. But, it was written by Safire as a White House speechwriter, meant to foment or at least redirect anger at the press. Poor Bill Bennett is going crazy trying to get a word in edgewise, and it feels unfamiliar as he says "You've got three people on one side, you've got me on the other side. Let me just, let me just state my position." It seems like an inverted world from MTP, and not in a bad way. His position: slapping back at Priest ("this is not time to break out the champagne and the Pulitzers") and implying that people like Priest are sloppy with their facts and as a result innocent Americans die. It's too, too tempting to include the whole snip-fest between Bennett and Priest ("I heartily appreciate your talking on behalf of all the American people") but you'll have to go to the transcript for that one; my time is up and it's stupid to debate the point that the president is elected and the media are not. I suspect the framers knew that.

There's more and you'll no doubt add it in the comments. Russert - and, accordingly, his timely watch - will be back next week at a special 8am time thanks to Wimbledon. Set your TiVos, that's early...or just tune back in here, because if it's Sunday, it's Russert Watch, except on national holiday weekends.