Russert v. ABC: Steel Cage Stupidity Death Match

Poor Tim Russert. No longer the most simple-minded questioner on the block. Surprisingly surpassed by Stephanopoulos and Gibson with their hand fed questions from Sean Hannity.

What to do?

I know. Let's lie and accuse Barack Obama of not putting his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance! That would be both superficial and dishonest at the same time.

This whole hand over heart meme rests on what now appears to be a subtle distinction. We put our hands over our hearts during the Pledge of Allegiance but we do not during the National Anthem. Why? Who knows, but that is what we do.

For some reason Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, and Ruth Harkin have their hands over their hearts in this picture that was taken during the National Anthem. I'm thinking Hillary started it, but that's just my evaluation of the pander-meter. Obama, at the front, never got the word and stands at attention. (Otherwise, he looks just like the other three, right?)

Now everybody who follows these things, even Tim Russert, knows that the right wing has taken this photo, falsely claimed that it was taken during the Pledge of Allegiance, and has used it to allege that Obama is unpatriotic. All those same people know the charge is not only stupid, but untrue, because the picture was taken during the Star Spangled Banner.

So, why did Russet ask David Axelrod about the Pledge of Allegiance on Meet the Press on Sunday?

RUSSERT: Let me ask about two final issues. David Axelrod, based on the last couple of weeks, many Democrats fear Republicans in the fall will string together an ad which shows . . . Barack Obama with his hands clasped in front of him rather than holding his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.

Either Russert doesn't care or he doesn't know. In any event, he is not qualified to host this show every week.

Here is the video from Media Matters:

Follow Stephen Kaus on Twitter: www.twitter.com/stephenkaus

Comments

[FranksMusings]

As Michael Kinsley said today on WNYC’s Brian Lehrer Show, the theme of the 2008 Democratic primary campaign is umbrage. The Obama failing that Tim Russert chose to take offense from was his not covering his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance (or National Anthem). Mr. Russert did not thereby lose his eligibility to host a network interview program. After all, news programs like his exist in symbiosis with the vicious primary candidate selection process.

That process doesn’t satisfy the real need of the Democratic Party: to nominate a candidate who can be most effective in November. Instead it and news programs like Meet the Press review the abilities of political hopefuls to pander to particular segments of the population, in this case those that already lean toward the Party’s policies. Mr. Russert’s taking umbrage at Mr. Obama’s standing with arms at his sides does a good job of offering a forum for pandering. That’s what he’s supposed to do.

It’s unreasonable to expect the media to correct the shortcomings of the Democratic nomination process. They are very effective in taking advantage of those shortcomings to generate viewership revenues. It is up to those of us who are concerned about how our country is governed (and that should be all of us) to insist that our system of selecting potential office holders reveals their real competencies and policy objectives rather than merely represent their appearances.

[cramos]

Isn't Russert one of the OBAMA media backers........I loose track...now he is bad?

[UnionJok]

The latest spin is that the mettle of an interviewer is shown forth by the inanity of the questions asked. By this measure, John Melendez, as "Stuttering John" was the best in the business, and years ahead of his time. John's genius was not the inanity of the questions so much as getting his publicity-hungry interlocutors to blow their cool.

[BobCozzi]

He asked the questions because there isn't enough news for multiple 24-hr/day news channels so they have to do what kids do in school when the teacher wants a 1500-word essay, they make stuff up.

[calibpatriot]

Why should the inane gotcha questioning by media airheads such as George Stuphitupyerpopolous, Russert potatohead and Charley Gibson surprise anyone? These intellectual dwarfs think that a debate consists of throwing out such doo doo droppings as "How many times a day do you beat your wife?" or "why don't you ever where a flag pin in your lapel? Are you unpatriotic?"

Who cares about such trivia, in their eyes, as the nosediving economy, the failed health system, the wars in the Middle-east, the collapsing infrastructure, ski-rocketing food and gas prices, etc., etc, etc.

[DiogenesII]

I caught that as well. As much scrutiny and declarations affirming the fact that the photo in
question was one reflecting the National Anthem, Russert the Bloviator, the Confectioner
of the Concise, the Sorcerer of Veracity, conspicuously, conveniently and maliciously
represented a widely known Falsehood to be the Truth. I immediately change the channel, but was quickly reminded, that all of the news outlets function without an HONEST BROKER and are accountable to no one.

All of these so called reporters are nothing more than REPEATERS.....Reporting and FACT
checking seems to be too much effort.

[NABNYC]

Chris Matthews keeps bringing up the white male east coast ethnic Catholic male voter (he's one of them). He acts like these are the "real" Americans, these are the people whose votes "really" matter. I guess that means women and all the minorities should just defer to the white men. But he's been alarmed at suggestions that these white men no longer control everything. And he has been celebrating the polls that show Catholics going for Hillary.

And Matthews always makes a point that he and Tim Russert are both the old the Catholic east coast guys.

I think "Catholic" in this context is just code for racism. Hillary is appealing to this bloc not because of her policies, but because she's not black. And Russert and Matthews are confronted with that old dilemma of whether to side the boys from their hood, or whether to admit that 40 years on their own views may be a bit more sophisticated.

Let's put it this way: if the Catholic church came out against the war in Iraq (they have), in favor of massive tax increases for rich people and affirmative action to guarantee equal opportunity for women and minorities, I don't think these "Catholic" voters that Matthews is talking about would be going along. So it's not really a religious issue, it's just the old race card.

[AbrahamSadegh]

It is absolutely mind boggling how in our in the process of choosing a president we tend to "ignore a forest for the tree."

Four decades ago a prospective presidential candidate's hopes were shattered when he claimed in all honesty to have been "brainwashed" by our warrior generals during the disastrous Viet Nam War. In 1988 another great public servant and prospective presidential candidate, who in my opinion would have made a great president, lost the opportunity to serve the nation due to extramarital affair. Then we had the 2004 a "scream" of joy that cost us yet another possible great president.

It is incredible that all our prospective or actual candidates have to do is to manage to get elected to the highest administrative office in the land because then anything goes. It (he/she) can do anything it wants. It can brainwash an entire nation by starting another disastrous war at the cost of thousands of lives, monumental financial cost, and enormous loss opportunities. It can ignore the wishes of the majority of not only our own people but the rest of humanity in the process. It can undermine the most cherished ideals of our society and our legitimate liberties and ignore the power of the Congress of the United States by making the Executive Branch of our Government, the supreme branch for all practical purposes.

There has to be a better and more logical way of choosing a president we can all be proud of.

[columbuscharlie]

Abe, I'm also very frustrated by the "dumbing-down" of our society, it's like a nightmare from Invasion of the Body(mind) Snatchers. U.S. citizens, prodded by corporate media, argue over the meaning of "bitterness" & "clinging", while a White House memo is released (Friday-p.m.) detailing torture methods for p.o.w.s'. Is there no hope for America????

[AbrahamSadegh]

Give me hope or give me death.

[tandrmcdonald]

Note to Abraham;
There is, it's in the Constitution, but no one pays attention to it..
The main stream media has reduced our election process to a grammar school playground name-calling pissing contest. "Gotcha" journalism has replaced real journalism the same way "reality " shows have replaced damn near everything else. There's now even a competitive dog groomers reality show. What next, the BM express marathon? Thanks, but there'a already enough BM on what used to be the news.
Gramma Rose

[dnegri]

Now, pay attention, David Axelrod, I, Tim Russert, will now lay out all the reasons that I, Tim Russert,
feel that swing voters probably shouldn't vote for Barack Obama. And I will use my hands to make a convenient box into which I will paint your candidate. And I will not care too much about the truth of what I'm going to say. Yes, we in the media are holding ourselves to the highest standards in helping determine who is electable and who isn't. So, what do you say about that!

[Bluesage]

Why are my post not being approved and posted? I'll try again.

Does anyone think that Clinton or Obama will take on the media and the consolidation of media and the state of "news" in this country. I've heard neither of them bring this up but I think it is a very important issue. We no longer teach civics in our classrooms and the media has been dumbing us down for the past 25 years.

[Bluesage]

Does anyone think that either Clinton or Obama will do anything about the consolidation of our media and what passes for "news" in this country?

[skibum49]

I too was some amazed that Axelrod didn't make more of an effort to correct Russert's question?
The only conclusion I can come up with is that he figures its a loser either way. Technically Obama was incorrect whether it was the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem. Technically if you go by the picture all of them were incorrect in not facing the flag (although its difficult in both the still picture and the video to tell how many flags were on display). In Obama's defense he appears to be the only one who was actually attempting to sing the National Anthem (a rather difficult chore I mignt add considering the redention that was being sung at the time).
Unfortunately all this crap actually seems to be 'important' to the Nash McCabe type voters of America and improperly honoring the Pledge of Allegiance is somehow worse than the National Anthem in their viewpoint (probably because so many people fail to follow the requirements at your average football or baseball game). The whole flag pin thing is really beyond my understanding however. If one does an image search on Yahoo for Hillary Clinton or John McCain I dont think you will find one photo where either one is wearing a flag pin.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. ..."
Winston Churchill

[TBS]

Katie Couric school of journalism: "SOME would say that Obama is a terrorist-loving Muslim who just doesn't know his place...

Tim Russert: "Please let me do the Republican hit pieces now so they don't have to use up any of Al McCain's money"

[sandtats]

As far as I know, Katie...

[thebeerdoctor]

Tim Russert is a political hack that bottom feeders like Chris Mathews look up to. How strange. They are cowardly and dishonest, and always conscious of the corporate hand that feeds them.

[loratora]

I gave up taking Tim Russert seriously when, several years ago, I heard him refer to a peace gesture as "offering a fig leaf" instead of an olive branch. The mental picture caused me to laugh myself silly that Sunday morning. Wonder if anyone else remembers it?