Oxymoron Alert

Tim Russert will be out at Ripon College in Wisconsin keynoting a conference on media ethics.  By eerie coincidence, Arianna and Mickey have a college-related question on media ethics for Tim and Littlest Russ.

Our Plame-related question for Tim is this:  Prior to the publication of Robert Novak's column, had he heard any rumors or reports that Ambassador Wilson's wife was at the CIA?

As a follow-up - did he learn that from Andrea Mitchell?

And having waited (impatiently) these many months, we have no worries - Libby's attorneys will ask him soon enough.  It is a question whose time is coming.  (And remote Ripon might be a great place to answer it... too bad all those other newsies will be there.)

Comments

[topsecretk9]

Come on Wisconsin, WE LOVE YOU!

[clarice]

ts and tm--what agitators! I promise if I still lived there I'd run over for the fun. I will treat any Riponite who can prove he/she asked Russert those questions a Brathouse brat and brew..Hell , I throw in a steak sandwich, too..Any takers out there?(My brother-in-law is Michael (Whadda you Know) Feldman in Madison, and I promise to send him the dough to pick up the tab.

[Rick Ballard]

What's "oxy" doing in the title?

[clarice]

*thwack*

[topsecretk9]

Natch, I am adverse to everything Ari....I snagged a ticket to the recall debate CA. She of course added nothing but UN-substance to the debate. She triangulated this speak to power BS that didn't have anything to do with substantive needs to the state (when did you stop groping you wife and other people kinda stupidity)

As it happened, I was seated behind Pete Camejo's folks. They were, hands down the most vocally adverse to Arianna when she hissed. (it was to be no speak, remember)

They were SO utterly , completely offended by her publicity whore presences. These people were of course were authentic as opposed to born again. They no likey.

I'd just like to thank little worker peon "M" who scored us the ticket and reads this blog now too!

[Jeff]

Now, I know Russert is probably the most powerful quote unquote journalist in DC and therefore a key member of the dread MSM. But surely you all recognize that he is no liberal, right?

I would love to go, but it's probably too much of a hike, given that the opportunity to ask the question, and the probably necessary followup when he answers with regard to Plame's name and undercover status, is uncertain at best.

[Syl]

Jeff

surely you all recognize that he is no liberal

The definition and makeup of the group known as 'liberals' has changed quite a bit according to both the Left and the Right. The Right sees liberals have moved farther left, the left thinks anyone who stands in place has moved to the right.

Russert stands where he has always stood. The Right thinks he's moved a tad left and the left thinks he's moved right and is no longer a member of their group.

To me that means liberals have moved way to the left and the conservatives a tad to the right.

[Rick Ballard]

Well, he's certainly no more a liberal than Bill Moyers or Chris Matthews. I really doubt that he ever had a Che poster or cut cane in Cuba but I wouldn't place any bets beyond that.

[clarice]

MR. RUSSERT: Mary Matalin, think it this way: if this book sells, it’ll help the Democrats. But it also may pay your daughter’s tuition.

MS. MATALIN: It provides a revenue stream. I want to give something to the person that’s going to be joining James in this new endeavor, because prolonged exposure to James requires an antidote. it’s called, “Think.” Give that to your son.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10909406/page/6/

[Jeff]

So you don't consider Russert to be a conservative?

clarice - Not sure what your point in quoting from the same MTP, if I'm not mistaken, where for some inexplicable reason Russert asked Obama about Harry Belafonte's comments in South America is, but surely your point is not that because Russert's son is doing a show with Mary Matalin's husband, it's clear that Russert is a liberal, right? I mean, it's repulsive the way they plugged the new show, but more telling of how DC is problematic across partisan lines, not in a particularly partisan way. I mean, I don't tar you in any way just because your brother-in-law has got a show -- funny or not -- on the dread NPR, you know? For goodness sake, Mary Matalin is much more powerful than her husband.

Which reminds me about all the complaints about Cooper based on who his wife is. Do you think that Jim Vandehei's reporting is terminally tainted because his wife is some big Republican staffer (for Delay, if I'm not mistaken)? And Brownstein, whose wife works for McCain? I don't (though I do think Brownstein has some issues with covering the 08 race). Or is that it's just Democratic connections that are problematic and oh so telling of where spousal journalists are coming from?

[topsecretk9]

I know Russert is probably the most powerful quote unquote journalist in DC

who says? i think he poses the biggest problem for you, regardless of left or right sundays. but power?..naw.

[topsecretk9]

i shouldn't have said biggest. Cooper might compete for this spot.

[topsecretk9]

AHHHH---And Brownstein, whose wife works for McCain?

I remember this well. And I believe he said he would start wearing earplugs at home...

BTW what the f*** differences is this from lobbyist? just asking.

[clarice]

I posted Matalin's comments in response to a remark on one of these threads about what she said. Either that comment or this one is on the wrong thread. (After midnight rule)

[TM]

What's "oxy" doing in the title?

Somewhere here is an oxycontin quip yearning to breath free.

[kim]

Oxycontin isn't any funnier than Tim Russert, and just as lethal.

Give the meme some oxygen so it can continue to be moronic.
==========================================

[Jeff]

who says? i think he poses the biggest problem for you, regardless of left or right sundays. but power?

Well, I say, obviously. But I also think it's right. Russert is both Washington bureau chief for NBC and host of the most successful Sunday show. He has perfected the art of the suckup to power while requiring that people come on his show; he is all about access journalism. And while it may be that not a lot of people out here actually watch his show, because it is the most important one on Sunday, it plays a huge role in determining and driving the narrative that the rest of DC lives and plays by.

Who do you think is more powerful? Sulzberger and Keller? Please.

As for his problem for me (by which I assume you mean the special prosecutor), because of what I just said, I actually think it would be better for the republic if things play out as you all wish -- i think it would be better for the republic if Russert ends up covered in shame than if Libby is convicted. I'm just skeptical that Russert did anything in this particular case that will lead to such shame. So if you're right that Russert is really that central to the case, and his shame is an essential prerequisite to Libby getting off the hook, it's looking like a win-win for me (as long as President Bush doesn't interfere and pardon both of them).

[kim]

Look, it's Joe and whoever turned him who are the villains here. The journalists were mostly just the left's patsies, as they usually are. Ethics, hah, the best would just prefer to assume that bias is present and immaterial. The Rosen Ostrich School of Journalism.
============================================

[SaveFarris]

So you don't consider Russert to be a conservative?

Indeed I do not. Anyone who had to suffer through the 2001-2004 shows where it seemed the largest problem facing America was Bush's refusal to roll back tax cuts would agree.

[Simon Oliver Lockwood]

"So you don't consider Russert to be a conservative?"

The man worked for Mario Cuomo and Pat Moynihan. The number of conservatives with those two names on their resume must be very small.

[Jeff]

The man worked for Mario Cuomo and Pat Moynihan. The number of conservatives with those two names on their resume must be very small.

I suspect you're wrong. The list of conservatives with Moynihan on their resume is long indeed. And I suspect, New York politics being what they are, lots of 'em also worked for Cuomo at some point. Regardless, haven't you ever heard of people migrating in their views? Are you going to say that just because George Soros was once a flaming rightwinger with major ties to prominent conservative institutions and individuals, he must still be?

As for SaveFarris, I'm skeptical of your characterization of Russert's shows, and would want to measure your claim. But rolling back the tax cuts hardly makes you a liberal in any case. Just ask Paul O'Neill or any number of other budget-hawkish conservatives.

[Sue]

I think I will nominate Jeff as contrarian of the year. A northeast conservative is a liberal where I live. ::grin:: That we would have to guess his party affiliation is a good thing.

[kim]

A pox on both their houses. That'll be the phenom of '08. Politicians are misbehaving today to an even greater extent than usual.
==============================================

[boris]

Now, I know Russert is probably the most powerful quote unquote journalist in DC and therefore a key member of the dread MSM. But surely you all recognize that he is no liberal, right?

JFK and RFK used to be "liberals". Liberals are no longer classically liberal, they are social democrats and leftists.

Russert seems to fall somewhere between classic liberal and social democrat.

[Tom Bowler]

Look, it's Joe and whoever turned him who are the villains here. The journalists were mostly just the left's patsies, as they usually are.

I don't agree. I think some of our friends from MSM took an active role. I go back to Joe's certainty that Karl Rove would be "frog marched" out of the White House. Hell, they became active participants just by pretending on their front pages that they believed Joe's idiotic claim of discrediting the State of the Union.

[Cecil Turner]

"So you don't consider Russert to be a conservative?"

Good grief. If you can't hear his opinion in his interviews (I certainly can), you should at least be able to figure it out from his calling Moynihan his "intellectual father." Do you guys really want to cede every voter more conservative than Moynihan to the Republicans? Can you spell "permanent minority"?

I think this is further evidence of the radicalization of the American Left. Not satisfied with an overwhelmingly liberal media, they want to press it farther left (which, not surprisingly, is self defeating: it merely serves to undercut their credibility even more, and provide an opportunity for right-leaning sources). And as much as I dislike the idea of liberals running anything, the self-immolation of the Democratic Party has progressed to the point where it's bad for America. Competition is essential, and you guys aren't providing any.

[Jeff]

you should at least be able to figure it out from his calling Moynihan his "intellectual father."

What an extraordinarily philistine view of intellectual life! As though one could simply read off someone's political views from the political views of those who shaped them intellectually. What's more, the point is not about those to right of Moynihan being ceded to Republicans. The point is that all manner of people tutored by Moynihan ended up being serious conservatives.

I think this is further evidence of the radicalization of the American Left.

This is just total nonsense betrayed by the vast majority of research out there. In fact, it's the Republican Party that has radicalized and the Democrats who have moved center. (see Off Center.) And if you think that is incompatible with the Republicans winning elections, you've got to rethink the median voter theorem.

Competition is essential, and you guys aren't providing any.

Again, betrayed by the facts. I will agree with you that the Democrats are miserable at electoral politics. But the last two presidential elections have in fact been quite competitive, which tells you something in light of the Democrats inferior abilities at electoral combat.

[maryrose]

Jeff; Now don't get too excited but I can see your point about Russert. He went to Canisius High Scool in Buffalo and John Carroll University in Ohio. My husband and sisterin-law both went to JCU and I have taken copurses there. Though a Jesuit university, it's not super radical and Russert does attempt to eqally question both sides on his program Lately though I've been watching less because more far left liberals have been scheduled for almost the entire program. Conservatives appear to get less time. The recent show with Matalin, Begala and Carville, it was 2 liberals and one conservative. At times the roundtable discussion will also be unbalanced. As far as Plame goes, I think there's more there, more that he knows so that it's a sin of omission rather than commission.

[clarice]

Lucianne.com ran Mickey Kaus' piece today, so many more readers will see it, increasing Russert's embarrassment.

Whatever his political views, if you saw his two interviews with Kerry--suck up does come to mind. He threw softballs and never followed up. He still hasn't called JFK on the fact that he twise reneged on his promise to release his records.

These guys get paid too much..then they enter the Martha's Vineyard school of access and suck up journalism--just a pace or two behind Larry King.

[maryrose]

When Hillary was running for the Senate in2000 Russert was the only reporter to call her on the "right -wing conspiracy comment after Clinton's denial. Since then however I agree he has mostly asked fairly easy questions and appears unwilling to anger the left. In the 2004 election night coverage he appeared more partisan than in 2000. In that sense I agree with Clarice that in some interviews he appears to suck up. On Imus he's seems pretty even and he does hold Howard Dean to account sometimes with a kind of "gotcha" journalism.

[Joe]

Hey, Tom, thanks for the link and the kind words.

I have to rain on your hopes (as well as my own), though: word on the Ripon campus is that Russert will not be taking questions during his appearance at the college. I suppose I wouldn't expect anything less.

Incidentally, the other two headlining speakers at this conference are Peggy Noonan and Fred Barnes. Words fail me.

Joe Fontaine
Ripon College

[clarice]

No brats for you..Here's an idea:Talk the school paper into persuading him to submit to an interview and THEN ask those questions...I mean we're talking Brathouse brat and brew here.

[Jeff]

Incidentally, the other two headlining speakers at this conference are Peggy Noonan and Fred Barnes

It's a whole oxymoronosphere!

[Cecil Turner]

The point is that all manner of people tutored by Moynihan ended up being serious conservatives.

If you're standing far enough left, I'm sure they look that way. (Fred Barnes looks like a liberal to me . . . but I recognize I can't win an election just with the folks to the right of him, so I accept more moderate positions.) By the way, Off Center looks like a hoot.

Despite holding very narrow advantages that are supposed to force compromise, conservatives have pursued a very right-wing agenda (as judged by public views of their major domestic policies) and yet continued to rack up policy successes and electoral victories.

And they'll now conduct a series of mental machinations to try to prove that it's not them going left, it's those Republicans going right. (And, mysteriously, adding people to their ranks in the process.) Can those guys count?

But the last two presidential elections have in fact been quite competitive, which tells you something in light of the Democrats inferior abilities at electoral combat.

Jeff, you need to take a look at the 8x10 color glossy (aka "the big picture"). In 12 short years, Dems have gone from running both houses of Congress and the Presidency to fighting to maintain the ability to filibuster in the Senate. That isn't "competitive," it's a rout. And in large part it's due to a party in such a hard-left tailspin that it's creating a widdershins cyclone.

The intellectual leadership of the party is passing to someone so radical that he alienates the vast majority of the electorate (I'm talking the true guru here--Markos Moulitsas Zúniga--not that milktoast sycophant running the DNC). See a connection with the "inferior abilities at electoral combat"? I sure do.

[Gary Maxwell]

Jeff

Here is a downer pill for you right now. Memedez in NJ and either of the Dems in Maryland are behind the presumptive Republican nominee(s). Now if Kennedy in Minnesota picks up Dayton seat and Santorum somehow manages to hang on ( I think you get 58 Rs and Nelson from Nebraska ). Any nervous Red State Dem breaks the filibuster then.

None of this flailing about on Alito or on methods to monitor Al Q is helping your side. Just an observer trying to help.

[Jeff]

Gary - Far be it from me to underestimate the Democrats' ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, though the reasons for that have very little to do with what Cecil's evidence-light mental machinations produce. November also remains a ways off. I'll just say Santorum, Chafee, Burns, Kennedy, for starters.

And whether it's flailing or not, something is sure helping the Democrats, since something is making the President deeply unpopular and therefore in a weakened position for policymaking and electoral heft. It would be nice if the Democrats could kick ass as convincingly as they did in the Social Security debate. But I know it's not going to happen.

[Gary Maxwell]

You know the sad fact is that the Presdient cant run any more so I would think his polularity is a red herring. Unless you would like to pitch in and help bipartisanly to repeal the 22nd amendment. Which, BTW, I think is a marvelous idea.

Soc Security needs to be fixed and every day that passes makes the options smaller and more difficult to swallow. I am not sure that should be a gloat point but I will concede the Republicans gave that the worst effort I have seen, well since 1961 Mets anyway.

[kim]

I would worry about the two party system but that I foresee an American political landscape similar to that of Kansas(not flat), with moderate Republicans holding the balance of power and Conservative Republicans, and Democrats variously serving as the instrument of coalition majority.
===========================================