GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
[UPDATE]
Tim Russert asked, maybe one tough question in the whole interview. Even Chris Wallace did better last week, and even his performance was lame. Most of the questions were the Oprah-type, how do you feel about this, what do you think about that, could you have done better variety.
This interview was more about Russert than Obama. Obama is toast and has been. Russert asked ZERO follow up questions of consequence. Never mentioned the Ayers terrorist or the fact that Wright was told to stay in the basement and pray when Obama announced his candidacy before the press last year.
Russert is no longer a credible journalist. He occasionally gets shamed in to asking a tough question of a democrat if he hears Rush shaming him into it. But its hit and miss. He and Chris Matthews are becoming one, and it appears Matthews genes are dominant.
[end update]
Tim Russert deservedly established a reputation for fair and objective examinations of politicians of both parties from the beginning of his installation as sole host of NBC’s Meet the Press in 1991.
Before September 11, 2001, he was one of a very few major MSM reporter/anchors that was greatly respected by conservatives. He used to spend an hour each year around Thanksgiving interviewing Rush Limbaugh for many years and has even been a guest on the Talk Radio giant’s show, sometimes for the purpose of promoting a book.
But, since 911, and especially since the Iraq War didn’t produce a second Connecticut within the 13-week period given to sitcoms to produce ratings justifying renewal, Tim’s reputation has deservedly suffered. He frequently tosses softballs to democrats and treats republicans like lepers. On many occasions he treats the far left’s (see mainstream dem party) bushlied line as Known Fact.
Tim has let us down so much, that we no longer expect him to be fair or impressive.
So, tomorrow’s scheduled hour long interview with Barack Obama is as much a test of Russert as Obama.
More so.
Obama has mostly gotten a pass. And when ABC’s Charlie Gibson (the new Russert in fact) and even former Clintonite, George Stephanopolous, asked Obama tough questions the left deem out of bounds about his hate America pastor of 20 years and his terrorist neighbor that hosted his first campaign fundraiser, they were treated like republicans, i.e. as if they were racist, bigot homophobes.
Everyone knows that NBC is in the tank for Obama. (Just as they know CBS is incompetent, but, like ABC and CNN are near said tank.)
Look in the mirror Tim. We know you still listen to Rush since you met Limbaugh’s dare to ask Hillary about NY state drivers’ licenses for illegals and greatly disabled her campaign.
The question now is if you will meet David Hinz’s challenge and ask Obama tough questions about his terrorist pal.
[Dave has been a the best writer on Redstate since gamecock discovered same three years ago and is the main reason I gave the site a second look.]
Tim, read and prepare. We will be watching you more so than Obama. Obama has already disqualified himself from getting the nukes. We aren’t going to give a person that needs psychotherapy the nukes. He will soon get to re-join his 99 other colleagues as a full-time yea/nay voter in that low-skilled position answering to We the People.
But you, Tim, will still be regularly in our face after Election Day 2008.
Do you care if you are respected? Are you comfortable being seen as an incompetent bought and paid for elitist shill for eggheads?
If your answers are yes, and no, respectively, then air the hinzsight on Ayers and break the MSM’s 40 year practice of giving respectability to 60’s radicals and crazy black preachers and providing cover to the sell out of the Democrat party to anti-American kooks.
Read Tim, and call Ayers a terrorist (not just a “radical”).
So, what we have emerging is a picture not of a tenuous relationship, but an ongoing relationship dating back more than 20 years. Strangely enough, that is also the timeline of Obama’s tenure with the right Reverent Wright.
Ayres, a unrepentant terrorist, still harbors resentment toward the United States. Famously, on 9-11 he penned an Op-Ed in the New York Times in which he stated that he not only did not regret the terrorist bombings he participated in, but he only wished he had done more.
To close out this piece, and to better understand the longtime Obama friend and associate, we need a few words from Ayres himself. In 2006, Ayres traveled to Caracas, Venezuela to speak before the World Education Forum, and, of course Hugo Chavez. His speech provides us with insight into the man. The avowed Marxist. From that speech:
President Hugo Chavez, Vice-President Vicente Rangel, Ministers Moncada and Isturiz, invited guests,comrades. I’m honored and humbled to be here with you this morning. I bring greetings and support from your brothers and sisters throughout Northamerica. Welcome to the World Education Forum! Amamos la revolucion Bolivariana!
This is my fourth visit to Venezuela, each time at the invitation of my comrade and friend Luis Bonilla, a brilliant educator and inspiring fighter for justice. Luis has taught me a great deal about the Bolivarian Revolution and about the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution, and I’ve come to appreciate Luis as a major asset in both the Venezuelan and the international struggle-I look forward to seeing how he and all of you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane. Thank you, Luis, for everything you’ve done.
–snip–
I walked out of jail and into my first teaching position-and from that day until this I’ve thought of myself as a teacher, but I’ve also understood teaching as a project intimately connected with social justice.
–snip–
Totalitarianism demands obedience and conformity, hierarchy, command and control. Royalty requires allegiance. Capitalism promotes racism and militarism – turning people into consumers, not citizens. Participatory democracy, by contrast, requires free people coming together voluntarily as equals who are capable of both self-realization and, at the same time, full participation in a shared political and economic life.
–snip–
Despite being under constant attack from within and from abroad, the Bolivarian revolution has made astonishing strides in a brief period: from the Mission Simoncito to the Mission Robinson to the Mission Ribas to the Mission Sucre, to the Bolivarian schools and the UBV, Venezuelans have shown the world that with full participation, full inclusion, and popular empowerment, the failings of capitalist schooling can be resisted and overcome. Venezuela is a beacon to the world in its accomplishment of eliminating illiteracy in record time, and engaging virtually the entire population in the ongoing project of education.
This is a man who hates America and all that it stands for. This is a man who has had a long and close association with Barack Obama for more than 20 years. William Ayres, Secretary of Education in the Obama Administration?
Read it all at The HinzSight Report, Tim:
William Ayres — La educacion es revolucion!
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
May 4th, 2008 at 1:02 am
[...] BCCStu wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThis is a man who hates America and all that it stands for. This is a man who has had a long and close association with Barack Obama for more than 20 years. William Ayres, Secretary of Education in the Obama Administration? … Read the rest of this great post here [...]
May 4th, 2008 at 3:21 am
[...] Kansas City Star: Politics wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThis is a man who hates America and all that it stands for. This is a man who has had a long and close association with Barack Obama for more than 20 years. William Ayres, Secretary of Education in the Obama Administration? … [...]
May 4th, 2008 at 6:01 am
Mr. Russert has turned into an Anti-Cheney extreme Left Wing hack.
May 4th, 2008 at 6:29 am
Russert is the man. Gamecock can disagree until he’s blue in the face –heck he can even disagree in third person. That will not change the fact that he’s the man.
May 4th, 2008 at 6:31 am
I think Gamecock is confusing Tim Russert with Chris Matthews.
May 4th, 2008 at 6:34 am
Roger Ailes would give his right arm to sign Tim Russert.
May 4th, 2008 at 6:53 am
I think he is right about Russert. Today we will see more of Russert saying something like “Last month you said,…..but two years ago you said….” kind of question. That is how Russert has built his reputation. This election season he has lost his way in a sense because he is so enamored with Obama. This has contributed to his fading rep. There are large segments of voters who have seen this and many have lost respect for Russert - he’s just another frat boy type for Obama. (The author is correct that NBC and MSNBC are in the tank for Obama. CNN is also near in the tank for Obama.)
May 4th, 2008 at 8:25 am
#4 Russert WAS the man, much like Ivy League schools WERE respectable learning institutions.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Russert sucks:
http://www2.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0712.yglesias.html
May 4th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Russert fails miserably
maybe one tough question
zero follow ups
nothing on the terrorist that held his first fundraiser when he ran for state senate
this was about Russert, not Obama
Obama has been toast in the general for months
May 4th, 2008 at 11:43 am
I’ll share my scratch notes on today’s MTP, along with my commentary interjected throughout…
Obama remains committed to the values of his church? Black liberation theology? A continued defender and supporter of the hateful words of Wright and Farrakhan?
Obama continues to suggest that Wright’s words of hatred were snippets in a loop taken out of context. He considers his two-decade close relationship with Wright not a legitimate concern about his worldview and his judgment, but a distraction from what’s really important.
Obama talks about how the American dream is slipping away…sure, for blue collar union workers who can’t continue to get paid and compensated through benefits and pensions in a way they never deserved in the first place, and because they’re too stupid, uneducated, unskilled to compete in a 21st Century technologically advanced global economy….that is the reason they’re not achieving the ‘American dream’. A house with a white picket fence and 2.5 kids is not a right or something owed to Americans. It’s about the opportunity to succeed…or fail, and the pursuit of happiness.
Pensions are a reason these individuals lose their jobs…because they can’t compete against foreign competition that is not burdened with absurd legacy costs.
Obama doesn’t address the problem he has appealing to whites; credits Clinton instead for getting their vote.
Obama admits we’ve been neglecting for decades our domestic energy sources, and says he’s serious about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, but neglects to offer the necessary solutions of drilling and new refineries.
Question: Why does a reduction in the federal gas tax cause oil companies to raise their prices? What impact does that have on their margins? If anything, I would think it would result in an increase in consumption, and in turn, profit for the oil companies.
A fawning Russert tries to help Obama after bringing up his support 8 years ago for a gas tax holiday…’so you learned from a wrong vote?’
Question: Would gas prices come down if our demand domestically was reduced while China’s and India’s grew exponentially?
Why wouldn’t car manufacturers pass along higher costs to consumers if forced by government to use more expensive engines that are more fuel efficient?
While Russert brings up ethanol and its impact on food supply, no mention is made regarding its failures to satisfy environmental concerns.
Obama speaks of nuclear energy as if it’s still unresolved whether it can be used in a secure, safe manner. Obviously, the answer is yes, and has been for several decades.
Obama continues with the tired mantra of ‘global warming’ being real and serious…except for the stubborn fact that the Earth’s been cooling for 10 years now, and is expected to continue cooling for another decade.
Obama says we need to withdraw from Iraq because we’re fanning the flames of anti-American sentiment there….but we’re not in Afghanistan where Obama wants a troop surge???
Barack, how do you plan on recalibrating/weakening Iranian influence in Iraq by withdrawing all US combat troops?
And, why is Afghanistan, not Iraq, the real battlefront?
Obama does not answer Russert’s question about targeting Iranians responsible for killing Americans inside Iraq.
He says we would send a clear message that the Iranians have to stop funding militias in Iraq, Hamas and Hezbollah.
Or what, Barack??? What are you going to do when they tell you to f*ck off???
Obama says there will be continued consequences for Iran’s actions, but fails to articulate what those might be. He focuses more on the carrots…wanting to offer rewards to Iran economically should they stop funding Hamas and Hezbollah.
Obama makes an asinine, illogical statement, asserting that, if the Iraqis can’t stand up on their own after 7 years, then they won’t be able to in 14, 28 or 56 years.
Hell, it took the US 13 years after declaring independence to have a constitution; and went through a tumultuous civil war 70 years thereafter.
Obama delusionally suggests the UN will put troops into Iraq to prevent genocide while the US withdraws in his administration.
Russert attacks Hillary for her comment about obliterating Iran, inviting Obama to pile on.
But, if Iran were to obliterate Israel in a nuclear strike, would the US not nuke Tehran in response? I think that goes without saying.
Obama disturbingly uses soft language on Iran, saying “it is my intention”, “it is my goal” to make sure Iran doesn’t get nukes. He does not state with conviction and authority that he will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and will not hesitate using military force should Iran fail to comply.
Obama speaks of Al Qaeda’s sanctuary in Pakistan. Well, he previously said he’d attack Al Qaeda there if the Pakistani government didn’t confront the terror group. Again, Russert fails to follow up.
Obama suggests, falsely, that his patriotism is only being questioned or attacked by Republicans. In fact, the latest Rasmussen poll shows 48 percent of Democrats believe it is somewhat or very likely that Obama shares the hate-filled anti-American views of Reverend Wright.
Obama says Americans don’t think of themselves as black or white, but as Americans. Then, why do over 90% of blacks vote for you, Barry?
Obama doesn’t think losses in both North Carolina and Indiana would put him back on his heels in the race for the nomination.
Obama tries to attack McCain by saying he wants to continue Bush’s economic policies, without ever addressing the substance of why they’re bad policies. He bashes McCain for wanting to cut corporate taxes, seemingly oblivious to the fact that a 10% cut in rate would provide incentive for American companies to remain based in the US, encourage foreign companies to relocate to the US, and would allow companies to hire more employees and put more resources into R&D.
Neither Russert nor Obama make any mention of the popular vote as meaningful to undecided superdelegates; both, however, focus on the elected, or pledged delegates.
Russert asks Obama: If the superdelegates go with Hillary Clinton, will you abide by their decision? Obama does not answer the question, instead saying he’s committed to a Democrat winning in November.
Lastly, Russert the sycophant issued Obama his top grade at the show’s conclusion, saying “Thank you for joining us.”
May 4th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
“sure, for blue collar union workers who can’t continue to get paid and compensated through benefits and pensions in a way they never deserved in the first place, and because they’re too stupid, uneducated, unskilled to compete in a 21st Century technologically advanced global economy….that is the reason they’re not achieving the ‘American dream’.”
I hope this wing of the party keeps quiet during the election.
May 4th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
No joke…how insulting. You must have little appreciation for how this country was built on the backs of blue collar men and women, especially the World War II generation. That represents a view of the extreme libertarian economic right who would NEVER win an election on their own in this country and thank God for it!
May 4th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
ugadawg,
It’s insulting the intelligence of many of today’s blue collar men and women to suggest, as Mitt Romney shamelessly pandered, that the manufacturing jobs performed admirably by previous generations of hard-working Americans will ever magically return. I much more appreciate the brutal candor and honesty delivered by John McCain — and if you take offense to me echoing his sentiments, so be it.
May 4th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
My comments towards you have nothing to do with the political solution to their problems, instead it involves your characterization of them as dumb and uneducated. There is a segment of the GOP and Democratic parties that have low regard for the blue collar, high school educated workforce of this country–always have always will. I would go so far as to even put social conservatives in this group as many of the Connecticut liberal/establishment GOP has nothing but loathe for them and insists they are stupid. There is a reason places like Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia have residents who would seemingly fit the “GOP voter” profile, but resist and vote Democrat because of the belief that the GOP works only for corporate America and not the little man. Individuals with attitudes like yours only perpetuate that attitude.
May 4th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Aron,
Most of your (rather long) post I agree with. The part about blue collar workers I object somewhat to. You misquoted Russert’s comment at the end, though. I think Timmy boy said “Thank you for joining us for the full hour.”
Regarding those blue collar workers, I agree there is no silver bullet. The pensions that were so popular with my parents’ generation are now starting to show their cracks. The plans were negotiated when life expentancies were much shorter and American companies dominated the world. Now that they are unsupportable, companies are suing their own retirees in preemptive strikes to try and get sympathetic courts to hear the companies’ arguments as to why they shouldn’t have to honor their agreements.
Frankly, it seems abhorrent to depend on someone else to “take care of you.” Whether it’s the government or a company you worked 40 years for, what’s the difference? YOU should take care of you. No one should ever negotiate away that right/responsibility.
May 4th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
#11 I’m not worthy! great analysis
May 4th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Gamecock, quick question: do you view these posts of yours as being objective analysis or partisan hackery? Or somewhere in the middle?
May 4th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
yes and no
May 4th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
I loved, as always, Aron’s comments.