First thing today, we would like to congratulate David Gregory on becoming the moderator of MTP and we wish him long success, thus a new era begins for the program.
However, it's going to be the same old story for a while - economic gloom and all the talk to fix it. For good measure, political scandal takes politicians' eyes off the ball and that's where today's program began. Mr. Gregory spoke with Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan (D) and Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn (D) about Embroiled Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. The new moderator asked the attorney general with regard to her statements if there was some political motivation on her part. It's one of those questions that carries no merit but has to be asked, it's like the new standard in network interviewing.
With all the talk from the two guests mentioned above and then NBC's Political Director, Chuck Todd, and Chicago Sun-Times' Mary Mitchell after them, there's a simple bottom line to this entire drama. Governor Blagojevich is unable to see through his prime directive of the office he still holds, which is to serve the people of his statement. At this point, whether he is indicted or exonerated, he will remain unable to fulfill this duty. Therefore, step down immediately and if he can not see to himself to do that, remove him. Period.
Given the ensuing roundtable discussion with regard to the automotive bailout and the general economy, the above is (and here's a gross understatement) counterproductive is every way.
The aforementioned roundtable consisted of Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI), Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), Fmr. Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, Wal-Mart President & CEO Lee Scott, and Google CEO Eric Schmidt. With the exception of Carly Fiorina, it was an interesting mix of opinions and perspectives. And make no mistake, the reason that we single out Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, is because she slashed thousands of jobs and left the company is tremendous debt then collected the proverbial golden parachute... She said that because states have different, or more attractive as the case may be, business taxes that companies located simply based on that. To a small extent, that's true, but it sure helps in Alabama, for example, when Senator Richard Shelby manages $800 million+ in financial incentives for foreign auto to locate in his state. And now he is putting their interest ahead of America's interest. Her insights prove shallow.
Of course Gov. Granholm is going to defend the assistance to the auto industry - she's the governor of Michigan for Christ's sake, but her reasoning like everyone else's is steeped in common sense. In this economic state, we can not let the American auto industry go down. Her point that the tax burden would be far more costly to the American people than the bailout. The unemployment filing alone would be inside body shot. Too many job loses and the ripple effect... Well, let's just say that the ripples would be big enough to surf. Now here's the exchange between Governor Romney, former Presidential candidate, and Mr. Gregory:
GOV. ROMNEY: Well, I, I am glad to see that the proposal that was made by the chief executives of the Big Three didn't get accepted. They basically came to Washington saying, "Give us, give us a check so we can continue to fund business as usual." Look...
MR. GREGORY: Fourteen billion dollars is what they were, what they were...
GOV. ROMNEY: Well, and originally they wanted a lot more than that.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
GOV. ROMNEY: And I'm glad to see there was some progress made over the, the ensuing weeks. But, frankly, I think all Americans agree that we want a domestic automobile manufacturing sector. We don't want to see this go away.
There is a contradict in what he said, he is glad they didn't get the money, but doesn't want to see the auto industry go away... hmmm. Or should we sharply parse words and interpret "All Americans" does not include him? Mr. Romney's economic perspective comes from extraordinary long-term wealth, which has long seen him separated from the economic mainstream. Does he truly understand the struggle out there?
Maybe it's quite a populace post we written today, at least one more overt than usual, but the focus is all too obvious. It's painful for us to write BECAUSE it's so obvious. Why do we need to write it. But speaking of populace, two valuable perspective manifested themselves through two CEOs - Lee Scott of Wal-Mart and Eric Schmidt of Google. These two companies are modern American touchstones for business, Wal-mart as the pre-eminent retailer and Google proving itself essential to the web.
However, Wal-Mart is our economic existential dilemma. Generally, Americans dislike the business practices that Wal-Mart instills, from worker healthcare benefits and wages to trying to influence how their employees should vote. But Americans also like the low prices that Wal-Mart offers and that's why they go there. What was most impressive was the research Mr. Scott mentioned. For example, he discussed "Wal-Mart Moms" family eating habits, knowing how much they consume, but also the amount of leftovers they're eating. And you worry about someone knowing your social security number? Wal-mart's staked out in your refrigerator! (Please indulge our small bit of humor.)
But let's leave this week's column with this quote from Mr. Eric Schmidt. Fittingly, it is the CEO of Google who would state that, "This is not a time to be self-serving and that America can innovate its way out of anything." It's time to stop just talking...
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Monday, December 08, 2008
12.8.08: New York Times Article on David Gregory
Just in case your interested....
Big Shoes that can't be filled, but Mr. Gregory is tasked with keeping up the ratings lead. And one more comment with regard to yesterday's post - The reason this column did prefer Mr. Todd was that he is more inviting a personality to the average viewer, but ratings numbers demand that the executives go with a more solid interviewer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/08/business/media/08talk.html?scp=3&sq=Meet%20The%20Press&st=cse
‘Meet the Press’ Changes, and Hopes Its Rank Won’t
By BILL CARTER
NBC News used the occasion of an appearance by President-elect Barack Obama on “Meet the Press” on Sunday to make official its appointment of David Gregory as the next permanent moderator of that venerable political discussion program.
The news of Mr. Gregory’s selection had leaked out in reports last week. On Sunday, Tom Brokaw, who became interim host in June after the sudden death of Tim Russert, said that he would step down. Mr. Gregory’s first program will be next week.
Mr. Russert had lifted “Meet the Press” to a long period of dominance among the Sunday morning shows, establishing himself in the process as perhaps the most formidable interviewer on television.
In a telephone interview, Mr. Gregory, who is 38, acknowledged that the task before him was challenging. “I’m honored,” he said. “I feel humbled and very excited. I’m not nervous or apprehensive about it, but it is daunting.”
The change comes as the Washington power-broker lineup is about to be recast with the arrival of the Obama administration. Calling this “a critically important time for the country,” Mr. Brokaw said on Sunday’s program that “more people are paying attention” to the weekly network Sunday programs than at any time since 1968.
That combination of factors has NBC’s competitors anticipating an opportunity to alter the dynamics of Sunday morning talk.
George Stephanopoulos, the face of ABC’s program “This Week,” said he saw genuine opportunity in the changeover, though he said, “There’s no question that ‘Meet the Press’ is a powerful brand.”
It is the oldest program on television, and like other programs started by NBC in the medium’s early days — “Today” and “The Tonight Show” — “Meet the Press” is a television institution. Still, it is hardly invulnerable. In the 1980s, ABC’s “This Week” dominated for a decade.
Mr. Russert reversed that, first by persuading NBC to expand “Meet the Press” to an hour to match “This Week,” then by ratcheting up the intensity of the interviews. But now NBC’s competitors see an opening.
“I think the post-Russert era begins now,” said Chris Wallace, the host of “Fox News Sunday.”
This year, NBC has averaged about 4.5 million viewers on its Sunday morning show, “This Week” about 3.4 million, and CBS’s “Face the Nation,” hosted by Bob Schieffer, about 3.1 million.
“Fox News Sunday” on the Fox network has about 1.6 million viewers, but that number jumps to about 3 million when the program is repeated in the evening on the Fox News Channel. The other cable entrant in the competition, CNN, is also about to make a change, with John King set to take over its “Late Edition” Sunday morning program soon from its host, Wolf Blitzer.
Maintaining the dominant position Mr. Russert established is clearly an important consideration. Steve Capus, the president of NBC News, said that he was most interested in the program sustaining a reputation for “tough but fair” interviews.
Mr. Gregory said that he felt “the great sense of purpose in the program.”
Under his new contract, he will continue to have a presence on “Today,” serving as the regular substitute host for Matt Lauer. But he will give up his interview program on NBC’s all-news cable channel, MSNBC.
NBC also extended the contract of Betsy Fischer, the executive producer of “Meet the Press,” who attended American University in Washington at the same time as Mr. Gregory.
None of the programs have ambitious plans to shake up the format. Ms. Fischer said any changes under Mr. Gregory would be “gradual and seamless.”
There isn’t much you can do differently with a program based on a face-to-face interview. The competition is generally not over how the programs are put together but who the guests are.
Some competitors suggest that Mr. Stephanopoulos may have an advantage because he worked in a Democratic administration populated by many names that are making a comeback.
“George obviously does have close relationships with people from the Clinton White House,” Mr. Wallace said. Mr. Stephanopoulos said, “I’m going to draw on every relationship I have.”
Mr. Schieffer, host of “Face the Nation,” recalled that Mr. Russert considered himself “the curator of a national treasure” and added that he had always been impressed with Mr. Gregory’s talents. “Tim is irreplaceable,” Mr. Schieffer said, “but somebody has to do it.”
Mr. Gregory, the new curator, will be under considerable pressure — and scrutiny. Mr. Stephanopoulos pointed out that “Brokaw is handing David about a one-million-viewer lead.”
Mr. Schieffer said, “It’s going to be tough competition. I wish David the best — and I’m going to try to beat his brains out.”
Big Shoes that can't be filled, but Mr. Gregory is tasked with keeping up the ratings lead. And one more comment with regard to yesterday's post - The reason this column did prefer Mr. Todd was that he is more inviting a personality to the average viewer, but ratings numbers demand that the executives go with a more solid interviewer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/08/business/media/08talk.html?scp=3&sq=Meet%20The%20Press&st=cse
‘Meet the Press’ Changes, and Hopes Its Rank Won’t
By BILL CARTER
NBC News used the occasion of an appearance by President-elect Barack Obama on “Meet the Press” on Sunday to make official its appointment of David Gregory as the next permanent moderator of that venerable political discussion program.
The news of Mr. Gregory’s selection had leaked out in reports last week. On Sunday, Tom Brokaw, who became interim host in June after the sudden death of Tim Russert, said that he would step down. Mr. Gregory’s first program will be next week.
Mr. Russert had lifted “Meet the Press” to a long period of dominance among the Sunday morning shows, establishing himself in the process as perhaps the most formidable interviewer on television.
In a telephone interview, Mr. Gregory, who is 38, acknowledged that the task before him was challenging. “I’m honored,” he said. “I feel humbled and very excited. I’m not nervous or apprehensive about it, but it is daunting.”
The change comes as the Washington power-broker lineup is about to be recast with the arrival of the Obama administration. Calling this “a critically important time for the country,” Mr. Brokaw said on Sunday’s program that “more people are paying attention” to the weekly network Sunday programs than at any time since 1968.
That combination of factors has NBC’s competitors anticipating an opportunity to alter the dynamics of Sunday morning talk.
George Stephanopoulos, the face of ABC’s program “This Week,” said he saw genuine opportunity in the changeover, though he said, “There’s no question that ‘Meet the Press’ is a powerful brand.”
It is the oldest program on television, and like other programs started by NBC in the medium’s early days — “Today” and “The Tonight Show” — “Meet the Press” is a television institution. Still, it is hardly invulnerable. In the 1980s, ABC’s “This Week” dominated for a decade.
Mr. Russert reversed that, first by persuading NBC to expand “Meet the Press” to an hour to match “This Week,” then by ratcheting up the intensity of the interviews. But now NBC’s competitors see an opening.
“I think the post-Russert era begins now,” said Chris Wallace, the host of “Fox News Sunday.”
This year, NBC has averaged about 4.5 million viewers on its Sunday morning show, “This Week” about 3.4 million, and CBS’s “Face the Nation,” hosted by Bob Schieffer, about 3.1 million.
“Fox News Sunday” on the Fox network has about 1.6 million viewers, but that number jumps to about 3 million when the program is repeated in the evening on the Fox News Channel. The other cable entrant in the competition, CNN, is also about to make a change, with John King set to take over its “Late Edition” Sunday morning program soon from its host, Wolf Blitzer.
Maintaining the dominant position Mr. Russert established is clearly an important consideration. Steve Capus, the president of NBC News, said that he was most interested in the program sustaining a reputation for “tough but fair” interviews.
Mr. Gregory said that he felt “the great sense of purpose in the program.”
Under his new contract, he will continue to have a presence on “Today,” serving as the regular substitute host for Matt Lauer. But he will give up his interview program on NBC’s all-news cable channel, MSNBC.
NBC also extended the contract of Betsy Fischer, the executive producer of “Meet the Press,” who attended American University in Washington at the same time as Mr. Gregory.
None of the programs have ambitious plans to shake up the format. Ms. Fischer said any changes under Mr. Gregory would be “gradual and seamless.”
There isn’t much you can do differently with a program based on a face-to-face interview. The competition is generally not over how the programs are put together but who the guests are.
Some competitors suggest that Mr. Stephanopoulos may have an advantage because he worked in a Democratic administration populated by many names that are making a comeback.
“George obviously does have close relationships with people from the Clinton White House,” Mr. Wallace said. Mr. Stephanopoulos said, “I’m going to draw on every relationship I have.”
Mr. Schieffer, host of “Face the Nation,” recalled that Mr. Russert considered himself “the curator of a national treasure” and added that he had always been impressed with Mr. Gregory’s talents. “Tim is irreplaceable,” Mr. Schieffer said, “but somebody has to do it.”
Mr. Gregory, the new curator, will be under considerable pressure — and scrutiny. Mr. Stephanopoulos pointed out that “Brokaw is handing David about a one-million-viewer lead.”
Mr. Schieffer said, “It’s going to be tough competition. I wish David the best — and I’m going to try to beat his brains out.”
Sunday, December 07, 2008
12.7.08: The Future - The President-Elect and The Program
It is a new phenomenon to listen to the person in charge and actually want to hear what they have to say instead of anticipating dread, which has been the case for the last eight years. Today's much publicized guest - President-Elect Barack Obama. Let's face it, for the average American, it's panic time - we're officially in a recession, we've been shown the worst job loss statistics in the last 24 years, and we're going to see an American institution - the U.S. auto industry - is on its deathbed... And as anyone would remind you - that's just on the home front.
But as the President-Elect stated, that is his No. 1 priority, an economic recovery plan. This column watches and reads a lot of interviews and we've never witnessed a definitive answer to any of the problems we're facing. With that said, it is slightly comforting to know that the next President has a firm grasp of the nuances and the problems but there is no quick fix, ready solution, easy answer, or word of encouragement right now.
Mr. Obama has increasingly said that even though a short term is essential, we have to focus on the long term so that we don't have a repeat these systemic problems. He stated that again today and there has been much talk of Infrastructure projects to put people back to work. It's about time. This sounds like a 'new' New Deal and this is what is needed. What we first must understand is that even though we may not be collectively in a place as bad as when we were in the Great Depression, today's potential for things being much worse is right at our doorstep. The financial industry is a much more complicated working beast than it was in the 1930's so the pitfalls are much more dangerous.
Also, with respect to this 'new' New Deal comparison, it must be said that America needs a collective change of attitude and we hope that the President-Elect will bring this to the country. Waiting this long to address infrastructure is typically American. Instead of practicing preventive medicine in the form of steady infrastructure maintenance, we've handled it like our own personal health - let it go until its way too late and then radical surgery is required. Instead of a daily dose of fitness, we forego it and eventually rely on cosmetic surgery. Now we're at that point where not even a plastic surgeon can help.
Mr. Obama frequently talks about resetting and it is exactly what we have to do. It seems counter-intuitive to spend through a recession but that's exactly what needs to be done and the government is the only one who has the money right now so rightly, the President-Elect stated that we can not worry about the deficit in the short term.
With this said, the President-Elect has been measured in his statements about the auto industry. He's said they've made mistakes but they are the backbone of American manufacturing. Eventually, he gets to a statement resembling - we want them to succeed but we don't want them coming back in six months with hats in hand, but it's one of the few things he doesn't on which he does not have a sound of conviction. We constantly hear about GM, Ford, and Chrysler as one - the big three as if they have always been a collective. This is simply not the case and they should be treated as individuals. When things were going well, they did not have this sense of collective identity, but now that they're in grave trouble... What they have collectively in common is poor management and having no sense of the future of industry. The deterioration of manufacturing, as a whole, in the U.S. has been occurring for years. What the President-Elect conveys in this interview and beyond is a calming effect that he understands the problem. This was the essence of the interview, void of no tangible solutions. Are these solutions that he speaks about coming on January 20th? The philosophy that shared success by all Americans is the key to long-term prosperity seems like an obvious notion now, but this has not been the case as exemplified by the current administration. The audacity of hope...
The domestic economic conundrum makes foreign policy almost seem cut and dry in terms of what to do - country by country. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, India, and Pakistan are collectively linked, yes, but all have their individual solutions as well. The President-Elect, in this interview, recognized this and has put a team in place, one which this column endorses, to handle these relations. The most complicated of which remains Iraq. On a campaign promise, Mr. Obama said that he would end the occupation of this country. We predict that it will never be fast enough for the hard left. However, there is a responsibility for the United States to do the right thing and not leave Iraq in chaos or with doubt about its own future. It will take longer than 16 months. Mr. Brokaw mentioned the term residual force... Become familiar and comfortable with this term as it will be with us for some time.
Mr. Obama has pulled together an all-star team for a cabinet and the names do inspire confidence - Clinton, Richardson, Holder, Geithner, Napolitano... our only worry is that the posts vacated by these individuals will not be replenished with the same talent in kind, but only time will tell.
_____________________________
Now, with regard to the future of Meet The Press... After much speculation and a mid-week leak, all curiosity has been laid to rest and David Gregory will be taking over as host. The final four, as it were, consisted of Mr. Gregory, Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell, and Gwen Ifill. When looking at that list, the choice becomes obvious. As previously stated in this column, the drawback to Mr. Todd is that he doesn't have the interview experience, just crunching election numbers. Granted, he did bring a new precise calculus to it, but that's not enough to be Moderator. Andrea Mitchell has guest hosted MTP in the past and may do so in the future, but frankly, what a snooze fest when she does. Ms. Ifill, on the other hand, is more than qualified and ready to be Moderator, however, why would you want to leave PBS and the News Hour - our equivalent of BBC 1 News? You don't so it became a process of elimination.
In the most recent past, Mr. Gregory elevated his profile as NBC's combative White House Correspondent. In terms of network news, 'combative' is not considered a compliment. However, it was the only dose of sobriety that the public had seen from the White House Press Corps in the face of ridiculously misdirected statements coming from the White House at the time. What is key is that Mr. Gregory, at 38, will be the long-term Moderator and will grow into the desk. He talked about bringing a sense of purpose to his work on Meet The Press and as discussed, there is no other in which people are paying more attention. This column is looking on with its own sense of purpose and growing with him.
But as the President-Elect stated, that is his No. 1 priority, an economic recovery plan. This column watches and reads a lot of interviews and we've never witnessed a definitive answer to any of the problems we're facing. With that said, it is slightly comforting to know that the next President has a firm grasp of the nuances and the problems but there is no quick fix, ready solution, easy answer, or word of encouragement right now.
Mr. Obama has increasingly said that even though a short term is essential, we have to focus on the long term so that we don't have a repeat these systemic problems. He stated that again today and there has been much talk of Infrastructure projects to put people back to work. It's about time. This sounds like a 'new' New Deal and this is what is needed. What we first must understand is that even though we may not be collectively in a place as bad as when we were in the Great Depression, today's potential for things being much worse is right at our doorstep. The financial industry is a much more complicated working beast than it was in the 1930's so the pitfalls are much more dangerous.
Also, with respect to this 'new' New Deal comparison, it must be said that America needs a collective change of attitude and we hope that the President-Elect will bring this to the country. Waiting this long to address infrastructure is typically American. Instead of practicing preventive medicine in the form of steady infrastructure maintenance, we've handled it like our own personal health - let it go until its way too late and then radical surgery is required. Instead of a daily dose of fitness, we forego it and eventually rely on cosmetic surgery. Now we're at that point where not even a plastic surgeon can help.
Mr. Obama frequently talks about resetting and it is exactly what we have to do. It seems counter-intuitive to spend through a recession but that's exactly what needs to be done and the government is the only one who has the money right now so rightly, the President-Elect stated that we can not worry about the deficit in the short term.
With this said, the President-Elect has been measured in his statements about the auto industry. He's said they've made mistakes but they are the backbone of American manufacturing. Eventually, he gets to a statement resembling - we want them to succeed but we don't want them coming back in six months with hats in hand, but it's one of the few things he doesn't on which he does not have a sound of conviction. We constantly hear about GM, Ford, and Chrysler as one - the big three as if they have always been a collective. This is simply not the case and they should be treated as individuals. When things were going well, they did not have this sense of collective identity, but now that they're in grave trouble... What they have collectively in common is poor management and having no sense of the future of industry. The deterioration of manufacturing, as a whole, in the U.S. has been occurring for years. What the President-Elect conveys in this interview and beyond is a calming effect that he understands the problem. This was the essence of the interview, void of no tangible solutions. Are these solutions that he speaks about coming on January 20th? The philosophy that shared success by all Americans is the key to long-term prosperity seems like an obvious notion now, but this has not been the case as exemplified by the current administration. The audacity of hope...
The domestic economic conundrum makes foreign policy almost seem cut and dry in terms of what to do - country by country. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, India, and Pakistan are collectively linked, yes, but all have their individual solutions as well. The President-Elect, in this interview, recognized this and has put a team in place, one which this column endorses, to handle these relations. The most complicated of which remains Iraq. On a campaign promise, Mr. Obama said that he would end the occupation of this country. We predict that it will never be fast enough for the hard left. However, there is a responsibility for the United States to do the right thing and not leave Iraq in chaos or with doubt about its own future. It will take longer than 16 months. Mr. Brokaw mentioned the term residual force... Become familiar and comfortable with this term as it will be with us for some time.
Mr. Obama has pulled together an all-star team for a cabinet and the names do inspire confidence - Clinton, Richardson, Holder, Geithner, Napolitano... our only worry is that the posts vacated by these individuals will not be replenished with the same talent in kind, but only time will tell.
_____________________________
Now, with regard to the future of Meet The Press... After much speculation and a mid-week leak, all curiosity has been laid to rest and David Gregory will be taking over as host. The final four, as it were, consisted of Mr. Gregory, Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell, and Gwen Ifill. When looking at that list, the choice becomes obvious. As previously stated in this column, the drawback to Mr. Todd is that he doesn't have the interview experience, just crunching election numbers. Granted, he did bring a new precise calculus to it, but that's not enough to be Moderator. Andrea Mitchell has guest hosted MTP in the past and may do so in the future, but frankly, what a snooze fest when she does. Ms. Ifill, on the other hand, is more than qualified and ready to be Moderator, however, why would you want to leave PBS and the News Hour - our equivalent of BBC 1 News? You don't so it became a process of elimination.
In the most recent past, Mr. Gregory elevated his profile as NBC's combative White House Correspondent. In terms of network news, 'combative' is not considered a compliment. However, it was the only dose of sobriety that the public had seen from the White House Press Corps in the face of ridiculously misdirected statements coming from the White House at the time. What is key is that Mr. Gregory, at 38, will be the long-term Moderator and will grow into the desk. He talked about bringing a sense of purpose to his work on Meet The Press and as discussed, there is no other in which people are paying more attention. This column is looking on with its own sense of purpose and growing with him.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
11.16.08: Put Up or Shut Up
Today's Meet The Press first featured Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) and Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) as opposing views on the automotive bailout, you can easily surmise who is for and against in this duo. And it's easy for a column such as this to sit back, not claim expertise, and just report what the two senators said without taking a stand on this issue. Well, it's put up or shut up here in this space and everywhere in America. Hard decisions are at every turn.
Before we get to that, let's just briefly review some of the details presented by the two men. Senator Shelby's argument is that the Big 3 should not be bailed out and go into bankruptcy because they don't make products that people want, they're not innovative, and bad management abounds. True, true, and true. On the other side, Senator Levin pointed out that 1 in 10 jobs are automotive related and that GM, in particular, is making many innovations. Additionally, if GM files bankruptcy, 175 billion dollars will be lost in tax revenue and the ensuing legal fees.
Right now, there is 25 billion dollars waiting for the Big 3 - this column say use it. As Katty Kay pointed out later in the show, under normal economic circumstances, you could let it go, but these aren't normal circumstances. This column believes that the big three should receive this money with strict conditions. First, it should be taken out of the $700 billion initially allocated -$25 billion is 4%. The Bush Administration is against this idea because that money is strictly for the financial industry. The Bush Administration, we believe, is giving this money to save its corporate cronies and coffers and the vote of no-confidence with their decisions has long been established.
Remember that GM is a global company and leads the way around the world in the auto industry. This is the catalyst for their recovery and it should be invested in. The strict conditions should include but not be limited to the following: the head of GM, Wagoner, has to re-interview for the job. He should come with an action plan and make the case to the government that he is the one that can turn things around. If the Board at GM, who wants Wagoner kept on, can fork over $25 billion then they get the say, but if it's coming from the government, us, then the government has the say. Clear goals need to be set and fuel efficiency has to be the top line of the mandate. These things will be difficult on the American Auto Worker, but here's the choice - lower benefits or no benefits. Most Americans right now, even the ones on Wall Street, are saying at this moment that they just feel lucky to have a job. This is an attitude to be capitalized on. It's about survival and survival is a powerful motivation. Also, messaging on behalf on the Big 3 is vital as well. If GM and the other two U.S. auto companies were to replace every "Escalade" commercial during Sunday football with commercials explaining innovation and change in philosophy and new models that reflect that - people would feel more confident about helping these companies. And that's another why we should let these companies fail. The devastating psychological effect of the loss of that many jobs, essentially all at once, will grind over spending and confidence to a resounding halt. Lastly, some people would argue that if you bailout the auto companies, then why not then Circuit City or DHL? Retailers and Service companies have failed in this country and have been reinvented - it's more of a natural life and death cycle of business. Remember Woolworth's? The autos are absolutely different, manufacturing can not be allowed to fail - if manufacturing forever flees, it will never return. Retail outlets will always spring up anew.
Everything else about the program today was periphery. T Boone Pickens is on his way to getting his wind farms done. It's going to happen. It's the natural gas initiative that needs the scrutiny and support. How fast we act on that is key.
Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State? Good choice, it is the number 3 spot in the administration and placates many hard feelings. However, there are two other reasons why it's a good choice. One, she has the experience, savvy, and forthrightness to do the job AND it's true, she doesn't have the much leverage in the Senate as a junior Senator. Clintons are best when they're on the world stage. Andrea Mitchell brought up that they would have to vet Bill Clinton with regard to the donors for his library. Talk about not rehashing the past... the library is built and whoever donated, the result is that it will not be torn down. Hillary Clinton carries a ton of Bill's luggage. At a certain point, we have to let her stop paying the fees to check those bags.
Before we get to that, let's just briefly review some of the details presented by the two men. Senator Shelby's argument is that the Big 3 should not be bailed out and go into bankruptcy because they don't make products that people want, they're not innovative, and bad management abounds. True, true, and true. On the other side, Senator Levin pointed out that 1 in 10 jobs are automotive related and that GM, in particular, is making many innovations. Additionally, if GM files bankruptcy, 175 billion dollars will be lost in tax revenue and the ensuing legal fees.
Right now, there is 25 billion dollars waiting for the Big 3 - this column say use it. As Katty Kay pointed out later in the show, under normal economic circumstances, you could let it go, but these aren't normal circumstances. This column believes that the big three should receive this money with strict conditions. First, it should be taken out of the $700 billion initially allocated -$25 billion is 4%. The Bush Administration is against this idea because that money is strictly for the financial industry. The Bush Administration, we believe, is giving this money to save its corporate cronies and coffers and the vote of no-confidence with their decisions has long been established.
Remember that GM is a global company and leads the way around the world in the auto industry. This is the catalyst for their recovery and it should be invested in. The strict conditions should include but not be limited to the following: the head of GM, Wagoner, has to re-interview for the job. He should come with an action plan and make the case to the government that he is the one that can turn things around. If the Board at GM, who wants Wagoner kept on, can fork over $25 billion then they get the say, but if it's coming from the government, us, then the government has the say. Clear goals need to be set and fuel efficiency has to be the top line of the mandate. These things will be difficult on the American Auto Worker, but here's the choice - lower benefits or no benefits. Most Americans right now, even the ones on Wall Street, are saying at this moment that they just feel lucky to have a job. This is an attitude to be capitalized on. It's about survival and survival is a powerful motivation. Also, messaging on behalf on the Big 3 is vital as well. If GM and the other two U.S. auto companies were to replace every "Escalade" commercial during Sunday football with commercials explaining innovation and change in philosophy and new models that reflect that - people would feel more confident about helping these companies. And that's another why we should let these companies fail. The devastating psychological effect of the loss of that many jobs, essentially all at once, will grind over spending and confidence to a resounding halt. Lastly, some people would argue that if you bailout the auto companies, then why not then Circuit City or DHL? Retailers and Service companies have failed in this country and have been reinvented - it's more of a natural life and death cycle of business. Remember Woolworth's? The autos are absolutely different, manufacturing can not be allowed to fail - if manufacturing forever flees, it will never return. Retail outlets will always spring up anew.
Everything else about the program today was periphery. T Boone Pickens is on his way to getting his wind farms done. It's going to happen. It's the natural gas initiative that needs the scrutiny and support. How fast we act on that is key.
Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State? Good choice, it is the number 3 spot in the administration and placates many hard feelings. However, there are two other reasons why it's a good choice. One, she has the experience, savvy, and forthrightness to do the job AND it's true, she doesn't have the much leverage in the Senate as a junior Senator. Clintons are best when they're on the world stage. Andrea Mitchell brought up that they would have to vet Bill Clinton with regard to the donors for his library. Talk about not rehashing the past... the library is built and whoever donated, the result is that it will not be torn down. Hillary Clinton carries a ton of Bill's luggage. At a certain point, we have to let her stop paying the fees to check those bags.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
11.9.08: The Hang Over
Despite the conversations on the program today and the introduction of an Obama central figure, Valerie Jarrett, the hang over is over... The autos are running out of cash, job losses continue to mount in huge chunks, spending at retail is at a stand still, and even the vaunted Warren Buffett is experiencing revenue losses at Berkshire Hathaway. The consolation comes in the form of President-Elect Barack Obama because he understands these dynamics infinitely more than John McCain does - it's just fact. And keep in mind that domestic policy and foreign policy are not mutually exclusive. Why does China have leverage on the world stage? Because they have the cash.
However, as Valerie Jarrett said, there are not two administrations are work here and, frankly, these two months will be crucial and this country still has to rely on George W. Bush. However, if there is any indication of the thoughtfulness that will go into an Obama administration, the transition team, co-chaired by Ms. Jarrett, has studied Presidential Transitions going back 50 years - what happened day by day, hour by hour in some cases. Do you think the Bush Administration did that?
Ms. Jarrett also touched on the fact that President-Elect Obama would seek different opinions and will most probably have Republicans in the cabinet. This column has advocated in the past that Senator Chuck Hagel from Nebraska would be an excellent choice, specifically for Secretary of Defense. No one would question his credentials or commitment to the job. Also, there is a quality to Senator Hagel (who did not run for re-election) that this column appreciates, which is that he understands the smallest parts of the great wheel are the most important. Having been a grunt (a non-commissioned soldier) in Vietnam, he understands the the chaos on the ground is not just theoretical when discussed in the power-broker halls of Washington.
Another item touched on during the hour was Mr. Obama's choice for chief of staff - Rahm Emanuel. Congressman Clyburn articulated is best when he said that managing is distinctly different than governing. We couldn't agree more, Congressman Emanuel is known for having sharp elbows and getting things done. John Boehner, Republican from Ohio, said that this choice was ironic because Mr. Emanuel, in his opinion, is very partisan and not emblematic of a bi-partisan effort that President-Elect Obama spoke about. We refer you back to Mr. Clyburn's statement. Also, Congressman Mel Martinez, also on the program, agreed, "I think you need someone in that job who you can trust, who's going to cover your backside, and who's smart and can run the trades on time--the trains on time. So I differ with, with Leader Boehner. I think that Rahm Emanuel for Barack Obama's a good choice."
This is the best opportunity that this country has had in a long time to build consensus. National greatness will never be constructed if consensus is not build first.
With this, this column believes that Senator John McCain could actually play a big role. Remember that his position on immigration was very much at odds with most Republicans, and even though it didn't go far enough, it was a big step. Are we saying that he should have a significant position in some capacity... no. It is for him to decide how his voice will be heard, but we can't help thinking that he is a different man than what his campaign portrayed him to be.
Are we being a little too forgiving? Are we too caught up in the moment of a new beginning? Our ability to 'reboot' as Bill Maher put it. Maybe, but when a woman in line to vote said to me that she had never seen a line like this before, I said to her that people seem to believe that for the first time in a long time, they have something to vote for. My vote for Senator Kerry in 2004 was a vote against George Bush, not FOR Kerry. He would have not been a good President - a blessing in disguise really. If the outcome would have been different, we as a country would have not arrived at this monumental moment.
[Aside: As it relates to Senator Kerry, this column does not advocate for him in any cabinet position in an Obama Administration. Reasons to be discussed in the coming days.]
Lastly, there were two quotes from today's MTP that encapsulate the discussion - one directly from Congressman James Clyburn and the other from Ms. Doris Kearns Goodwin quoting FDR.
Mr Clyburn: That kind of excitement will not last if people don't have dignity restored to their homes.
Ms. Goodwin quoting FDR: "Great crises present great opportunities."
So enjoy the moment, we absolutely should, but just know that you might have to go to the bottle again very soon to get the hair off the dog.
However, as Valerie Jarrett said, there are not two administrations are work here and, frankly, these two months will be crucial and this country still has to rely on George W. Bush. However, if there is any indication of the thoughtfulness that will go into an Obama administration, the transition team, co-chaired by Ms. Jarrett, has studied Presidential Transitions going back 50 years - what happened day by day, hour by hour in some cases. Do you think the Bush Administration did that?
Ms. Jarrett also touched on the fact that President-Elect Obama would seek different opinions and will most probably have Republicans in the cabinet. This column has advocated in the past that Senator Chuck Hagel from Nebraska would be an excellent choice, specifically for Secretary of Defense. No one would question his credentials or commitment to the job. Also, there is a quality to Senator Hagel (who did not run for re-election) that this column appreciates, which is that he understands the smallest parts of the great wheel are the most important. Having been a grunt (a non-commissioned soldier) in Vietnam, he understands the the chaos on the ground is not just theoretical when discussed in the power-broker halls of Washington.
Another item touched on during the hour was Mr. Obama's choice for chief of staff - Rahm Emanuel. Congressman Clyburn articulated is best when he said that managing is distinctly different than governing. We couldn't agree more, Congressman Emanuel is known for having sharp elbows and getting things done. John Boehner, Republican from Ohio, said that this choice was ironic because Mr. Emanuel, in his opinion, is very partisan and not emblematic of a bi-partisan effort that President-Elect Obama spoke about. We refer you back to Mr. Clyburn's statement. Also, Congressman Mel Martinez, also on the program, agreed, "I think you need someone in that job who you can trust, who's going to cover your backside, and who's smart and can run the trades on time--the trains on time. So I differ with, with Leader Boehner. I think that Rahm Emanuel for Barack Obama's a good choice."
This is the best opportunity that this country has had in a long time to build consensus. National greatness will never be constructed if consensus is not build first.
With this, this column believes that Senator John McCain could actually play a big role. Remember that his position on immigration was very much at odds with most Republicans, and even though it didn't go far enough, it was a big step. Are we saying that he should have a significant position in some capacity... no. It is for him to decide how his voice will be heard, but we can't help thinking that he is a different man than what his campaign portrayed him to be.
Are we being a little too forgiving? Are we too caught up in the moment of a new beginning? Our ability to 'reboot' as Bill Maher put it. Maybe, but when a woman in line to vote said to me that she had never seen a line like this before, I said to her that people seem to believe that for the first time in a long time, they have something to vote for. My vote for Senator Kerry in 2004 was a vote against George Bush, not FOR Kerry. He would have not been a good President - a blessing in disguise really. If the outcome would have been different, we as a country would have not arrived at this monumental moment.
[Aside: As it relates to Senator Kerry, this column does not advocate for him in any cabinet position in an Obama Administration. Reasons to be discussed in the coming days.]
Lastly, there were two quotes from today's MTP that encapsulate the discussion - one directly from Congressman James Clyburn and the other from Ms. Doris Kearns Goodwin quoting FDR.
Mr Clyburn: That kind of excitement will not last if people don't have dignity restored to their homes.
Ms. Goodwin quoting FDR: "Great crises present great opportunities."
So enjoy the moment, we absolutely should, but just know that you might have to go to the bottle again very soon to get the hair off the dog.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
11.2.08: 48 Hours to Go
With 48 hours to go, the last MTP before the general hosted Obama and McCain mouthpieces - Senator John Kerry and former Senator Fred Thompson respectively. They did not appear together, which is usually the better way to go, but with so little time, the circumstances dictate equal time.
Fred Thompson is an unreliable Republican. So few people take him seriously, especially after that half-assed Presidential run... yeah, remember that - it seems like a forever ago. He's unreliable because his self-agenda trumps party. When he was not a Senator, he was employed by a right to choose lobbying firm - not a republican platform. And his whole-hearted endorsement of Sarah Palin as vice-president reeks of wantonness for a cabinet position. And by the way, he was a mediocre Senator, at best.
Mr. Thompson talked about unprecedented headwinds facing McCain, and this column must admit that this race is closer than it really should be. More about that later. Mr. Thompson came off as a bit of a John McCain shill, not necessarily a Republican one. Mr. Brokaw asked a good question about principles and Mr. Thompson's response was telling. He said it's not the principles that are the problem but the deviation from those principles, referring to Republican principles. Well, you can see the problem with that answer. Two words - Ted Stevens. Republican principles in this election center around keeping power. Little else outside of the major motivation is considered.
One last thing, Mr. Thompson also talked about courage on the Senate floor. I'm sorry (not really), but this is a sham - that's not real courage.
Go to this link for real courage: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/world/asia/01afghan.html?scp=2&sq=afghan&st=cse
With that said, John Kerry still carries a huge chip on his shoulder from the '04 race with a long saber slash across his back for good measure. It's still raw and still visible. But Senator Kerry hammered a good point that Fred Thompson, or any Republican, does not mention the middle class. They have no answer or strategy or tactic even when it comes to working families in this country.
And I am tired of hearing about how Sarah Palin is getting beaten up in the press. Mr. Kerry is right when he said that zero foreign policy experience disqualifies here for the office she's seeking. Ms. Palin has not held one national press conference where national reporters are in a room asking questions. She deserves what she gets. You don't answers questions and we'll start digging... deep.
Where I disagree with Mr. Kerry is that he said that he wants Joe Lieberman as a Democrat. However, no effing way! Lieberman has effectively ceded his say within the Democratic caucus. Joe Lieberman has become a disgrace to public service, putting himself above all else.
So why is this race closer than it should be. Enter the panel of David Broder, Michelle Norris, Chuck Todd, and David Gregory. A bit refreshingly, they began by exposing any semblance of what is left of the elephant in the proverbial room by addressing the root cause of the closeness - race. The simple sad fact is that many in the electorate (and calling the people of the U.S. an 'electorate' seemingly does them a dignity that not all deserve) are not willing to vote for a black man.
Chuck Todd said something very hopeful, but that this column thinks is still a bit naive, which is that Senator Obama may over perform with Southern Whites. The reason is that the south has openly dealt with race for much longer and therefore have a better understanding. Hmmmm..... interesting, but I believe that is still wishful thinking unfortunately.
Finishing up the campaign, both candidates will end their respective campaigns in Virginia, a critical state that will serve as the barometer of change, not since 1964 has Virginia gone to a Democrat. However, the most critical is Pennsylvania where Senator Obama has a solid lead but that the people feel is still winnable. Democrats have consistently carried the day in this state, but it still gives them pause because of the socially conservative western part of the state.
What does help Republicans here is something that David Broder mentioned in that the conservative suburbs of Philadelphia are buying the Palin pick. Being from this particular area, I can say that this constituency has a significant influence and if it were not for the Palin choice, Pennsylvania would be a dead heat. Again, take caution Democrats, Pennsylvania is still close and wasn't it Tim Russert who said back in March (or some time around then) that it would come down to Pennsylvania? Even he could have foreseen the Republican VP candidate coming.
Go out and vote!!!!!
Fred Thompson is an unreliable Republican. So few people take him seriously, especially after that half-assed Presidential run... yeah, remember that - it seems like a forever ago. He's unreliable because his self-agenda trumps party. When he was not a Senator, he was employed by a right to choose lobbying firm - not a republican platform. And his whole-hearted endorsement of Sarah Palin as vice-president reeks of wantonness for a cabinet position. And by the way, he was a mediocre Senator, at best.
Mr. Thompson talked about unprecedented headwinds facing McCain, and this column must admit that this race is closer than it really should be. More about that later. Mr. Thompson came off as a bit of a John McCain shill, not necessarily a Republican one. Mr. Brokaw asked a good question about principles and Mr. Thompson's response was telling. He said it's not the principles that are the problem but the deviation from those principles, referring to Republican principles. Well, you can see the problem with that answer. Two words - Ted Stevens. Republican principles in this election center around keeping power. Little else outside of the major motivation is considered.
One last thing, Mr. Thompson also talked about courage on the Senate floor. I'm sorry (not really), but this is a sham - that's not real courage.
Go to this link for real courage: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/world/asia/01afghan.html?scp=2&sq=afghan&st=cse
With that said, John Kerry still carries a huge chip on his shoulder from the '04 race with a long saber slash across his back for good measure. It's still raw and still visible. But Senator Kerry hammered a good point that Fred Thompson, or any Republican, does not mention the middle class. They have no answer or strategy or tactic even when it comes to working families in this country.
And I am tired of hearing about how Sarah Palin is getting beaten up in the press. Mr. Kerry is right when he said that zero foreign policy experience disqualifies here for the office she's seeking. Ms. Palin has not held one national press conference where national reporters are in a room asking questions. She deserves what she gets. You don't answers questions and we'll start digging... deep.
Where I disagree with Mr. Kerry is that he said that he wants Joe Lieberman as a Democrat. However, no effing way! Lieberman has effectively ceded his say within the Democratic caucus. Joe Lieberman has become a disgrace to public service, putting himself above all else.
So why is this race closer than it should be. Enter the panel of David Broder, Michelle Norris, Chuck Todd, and David Gregory. A bit refreshingly, they began by exposing any semblance of what is left of the elephant in the proverbial room by addressing the root cause of the closeness - race. The simple sad fact is that many in the electorate (and calling the people of the U.S. an 'electorate' seemingly does them a dignity that not all deserve) are not willing to vote for a black man.
Chuck Todd said something very hopeful, but that this column thinks is still a bit naive, which is that Senator Obama may over perform with Southern Whites. The reason is that the south has openly dealt with race for much longer and therefore have a better understanding. Hmmmm..... interesting, but I believe that is still wishful thinking unfortunately.
Finishing up the campaign, both candidates will end their respective campaigns in Virginia, a critical state that will serve as the barometer of change, not since 1964 has Virginia gone to a Democrat. However, the most critical is Pennsylvania where Senator Obama has a solid lead but that the people feel is still winnable. Democrats have consistently carried the day in this state, but it still gives them pause because of the socially conservative western part of the state.
What does help Republicans here is something that David Broder mentioned in that the conservative suburbs of Philadelphia are buying the Palin pick. Being from this particular area, I can say that this constituency has a significant influence and if it were not for the Palin choice, Pennsylvania would be a dead heat. Again, take caution Democrats, Pennsylvania is still close and wasn't it Tim Russert who said back in March (or some time around then) that it would come down to Pennsylvania? Even he could have foreseen the Republican VP candidate coming.
Go out and vote!!!!!
11.2.08: Yesterday's New York Times
Here's an article for yesterday's New York Times with regard to Tim Russert's Replacement.... my comments after....
Meet Russert’s Replacement? Not Yet
By JACQUES STEINBERG
It is probably the second-most-pressing question circulating in the salons of Washington’s media elite: Who will be the permanent host, or hosts, of the NBC program “Meet the Press”?
It could be Chuck Todd, whose profile as political director of NBC News has risen noticeably during the network’s coverage of the presidential campaign, but whose low-key, conversational style doesn’t quite “crack the screen,” as one television executive put it this week. It could be David Gregory, a correspondent who has long been familiar to NBC viewers, but who has had trouble attracting viewers to his own program, “Race for the White House,” on MSNBC.
It could be both, as part of an ensemble, or it could be neither. Gwen Ifill, a former NBC correspondent who went on to PBS, has been approached by the president of NBC News to gauge her interest. And some at NBC still pine for Katie Couric, who, if many planets were somehow to align, could be back on a top-rated NBC morning show, albeit one that is broadcast just once a week.
Meanwhile, the names of the candidates’ backers and antagonists are as intriguing as those of the potential hosts themselves. Tom Brokaw has told some colleagues that he has been impressed with Mr. Todd. Mr. Gregory has struggled to get critical air time on “NBC Nightly News With Brian Williams” — in part, some colleagues say, because he can be as combative off camera as he can be at a White House press briefing.
NBC is expected to announce its decision sometime between Election Day and the end of the year, when Mr. Brokaw is scheduled to end his tour as interim host, a role he has played since shortly after the death of the program’s longtime moderator Tim Russert in June. The network has said little publicly about its deliberations, which have been set against the backdrop of the election — with the stock of some potential hosts rising, and others falling.
Those inside and outside the network who have been briefed on portions of the process said this week that it had been understandably difficult, given the oversize shoes being filled. As of yet, no obvious candidate has emerged from what in effect has been an unwieldy bake-off, with some of the leading candidates playing prominent roles in the network’s political coverage.
A spokeswoman for NBC News, Allison Gollust, said on Friday, “No decision has been made about the future of ‘Meet the Press,’ and any speculation by alleged insiders is nothing more than idle chitchat.”
The rough list of journalists who are receiving scrutiny within NBC emerged from conversations this week with people who would speak only on condition of anonymity, because not one was a direct decision maker. Among the other names being bandied about the hallways and suites of NBC’s headquarters at 30 Rockefeller Plaza in Manhattan, and its Washington bureau on Nebraska Avenue, are those of Andrea Mitchell, a longtime reporter who could play a supporting role, and a dark horse, Chris Matthews, the outspoken MSNBC host whose ratings have climbed during the final weeks of the presidential campaign.
Some NBC executives are intrigued by the possibility of hiring an established star to replace Mr. Russert. Near the top of that short list is Ms. Couric, the former “Today” co-host, who has had at times an unhappy experience as anchor of the “CBS Evening News.” And there is always Ted Koppel, who would bring the heft of more than two decades spent hosting “Nightline.”
That the decision to replace Mr. Russert has been protracted is not just a reflection of the degree to which he made “Meet the Press” his own. The program, which has its 61st anniversary on Thursday, is a tremendously important showcase for NBC. With an average weekly audience of nearly four million, according to Nielsen Media Research, it has actually increased its viewership and its margin of victory over its two main competitors — “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” on ABC, and “Face the Nation” on CBS — in the months since Mr. Russert’s death.
The program also generates millions of dollars in annual advertising revenue for NBC. While Betsy Fischer, the longtime executive producer of “Meet the Press,” and Steve Capus, the president of NBC News, will have much to say about the next moderator, the ultimate decision will most likely rest with Jeff Zucker, the president and chief executive of NBC Universal, in consultation with Jeffrey R. Immelt, the chairman and chief executive of General Electric, the network’s parent company.
NBC has drawn some criticism for not having more minority journalists in prominent roles. Ms. Ifill, the host of “Washington Week” on PBS and a regular on “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer,” is black. She also has a résumé long on jobs covering Washington politics, not just over the last nine years at PBS but also before that at NBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post.
Reached this week, Ms. Ifill would neither confirm nor deny any contact with NBC executives. “I have one of the best jobs in journalism right now,” she said, “but I never rule anything out.”
Asked how long she was committed to PBS, Ms. Ifill said, “I’m still under contract.”
Of the inside candidates, Mr. Todd has drawn praise for his sober election analysis. And yet he has logged far more time as a print journalist than as a television host, including six years as the editor of The Hotline, a publication of National Journal. Moreover, the job of presiding over “Meet the Press” in an election year, which plays to Mr. Todd’s strengths as a political analyst, is different from what it will be during the early months of a new administration, in which the topics will hopscotch from the economy to international affairs.
For these reasons the network has thought seriously about placing Mr. Todd at the helm of an ensemble, perhaps a rotating one, that could include Mr. Gregory. Mr. Gregory still might get the “Meet the Press” job outright.
Then there is Ms. Couric, whose widely seen conversations with Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, were fresh reminders of her interviewing skills. Even if Ms. Couric were interested, which is not clear, she would have to be let out of her contract with CBS, which is to run for more than two more years.
On the other hand, CBS executives acknowledged earlier this year that Ms. Couric and the network had discussed the possibility of her leaving, perhaps between the election and the inauguration in January.
Asked in an interview last month if the attention she received for her Palin interview had her thinking about what it would be like to lead the “CBS Evening News” in a new administration, Ms. Couric demurred, saying, “I haven’t really been able to look beyond Nov. 4, in terms of how things are going to shake out.”
As for Mr. Koppel, he declined an opportunity to take over “This Week” when he concluded his tenure on “Nightline” in 2005. At the time it was noted that he had done an interview program of his own for 26 years and was loath to interrupt time with his family to lash himself to an anchor desk in Washington each Sunday.
And yet when asked this week about whether Mr. Koppel might have changed his mind in the intervening years, someone close to him emphasized that his three-year contract with the Discovery Channel was winding down, and that Mr. Koppel was open to a new challenge. As of yet, though, no one from NBC is believed to have called.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/arts/television/01meet.html?ref=television
The names thrown around in the article are all viable with the exception of Katie Couric. That's not intended to be a dig, but the reason Ms. Couric does so well with political interviews is that she doesn't do them often. She has a wide range when it comes to interviews and stories. It's this wide range that keeps the odd political interview fresh. And limiting her to political topics only takes away from her greatest strength as a journalist - her ability to switch gears.
This column has discussed the strengths and weaknesses of both Mr. Todd and Mr. Gregory respectively and the better choice here is Mr. Todd. However, we've never seen Mr. Todd hit a power broker over the head with a tough question. And hosting by committee, as mentioned in the article, is a bad idea. The essential element with Mr. Russert was that we trusted him in his consistency. This is something that grows over time and establishing a long-running host is the way to create the trust. Therefore, Mr. Todd could grow nicely into the position. He was Mr. Russert's protege, without question.
The other outsider names mentioned - Gwen Ifill and Ted Kopple - are stacked with viable experience. However, with Mr. Kopple, you create the same situation in three years that you have now... who is the replacement? Gwen Ifill, on the other hand, is very well respected and could take over for some time. She is a candidate that this column will consider more. Her substantive questions would due a true service to the longest running television program in history.
More to come....
Meet Russert’s Replacement? Not Yet
By JACQUES STEINBERG
It is probably the second-most-pressing question circulating in the salons of Washington’s media elite: Who will be the permanent host, or hosts, of the NBC program “Meet the Press”?
It could be Chuck Todd, whose profile as political director of NBC News has risen noticeably during the network’s coverage of the presidential campaign, but whose low-key, conversational style doesn’t quite “crack the screen,” as one television executive put it this week. It could be David Gregory, a correspondent who has long been familiar to NBC viewers, but who has had trouble attracting viewers to his own program, “Race for the White House,” on MSNBC.
It could be both, as part of an ensemble, or it could be neither. Gwen Ifill, a former NBC correspondent who went on to PBS, has been approached by the president of NBC News to gauge her interest. And some at NBC still pine for Katie Couric, who, if many planets were somehow to align, could be back on a top-rated NBC morning show, albeit one that is broadcast just once a week.
Meanwhile, the names of the candidates’ backers and antagonists are as intriguing as those of the potential hosts themselves. Tom Brokaw has told some colleagues that he has been impressed with Mr. Todd. Mr. Gregory has struggled to get critical air time on “NBC Nightly News With Brian Williams” — in part, some colleagues say, because he can be as combative off camera as he can be at a White House press briefing.
NBC is expected to announce its decision sometime between Election Day and the end of the year, when Mr. Brokaw is scheduled to end his tour as interim host, a role he has played since shortly after the death of the program’s longtime moderator Tim Russert in June. The network has said little publicly about its deliberations, which have been set against the backdrop of the election — with the stock of some potential hosts rising, and others falling.
Those inside and outside the network who have been briefed on portions of the process said this week that it had been understandably difficult, given the oversize shoes being filled. As of yet, no obvious candidate has emerged from what in effect has been an unwieldy bake-off, with some of the leading candidates playing prominent roles in the network’s political coverage.
A spokeswoman for NBC News, Allison Gollust, said on Friday, “No decision has been made about the future of ‘Meet the Press,’ and any speculation by alleged insiders is nothing more than idle chitchat.”
The rough list of journalists who are receiving scrutiny within NBC emerged from conversations this week with people who would speak only on condition of anonymity, because not one was a direct decision maker. Among the other names being bandied about the hallways and suites of NBC’s headquarters at 30 Rockefeller Plaza in Manhattan, and its Washington bureau on Nebraska Avenue, are those of Andrea Mitchell, a longtime reporter who could play a supporting role, and a dark horse, Chris Matthews, the outspoken MSNBC host whose ratings have climbed during the final weeks of the presidential campaign.
Some NBC executives are intrigued by the possibility of hiring an established star to replace Mr. Russert. Near the top of that short list is Ms. Couric, the former “Today” co-host, who has had at times an unhappy experience as anchor of the “CBS Evening News.” And there is always Ted Koppel, who would bring the heft of more than two decades spent hosting “Nightline.”
That the decision to replace Mr. Russert has been protracted is not just a reflection of the degree to which he made “Meet the Press” his own. The program, which has its 61st anniversary on Thursday, is a tremendously important showcase for NBC. With an average weekly audience of nearly four million, according to Nielsen Media Research, it has actually increased its viewership and its margin of victory over its two main competitors — “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” on ABC, and “Face the Nation” on CBS — in the months since Mr. Russert’s death.
The program also generates millions of dollars in annual advertising revenue for NBC. While Betsy Fischer, the longtime executive producer of “Meet the Press,” and Steve Capus, the president of NBC News, will have much to say about the next moderator, the ultimate decision will most likely rest with Jeff Zucker, the president and chief executive of NBC Universal, in consultation with Jeffrey R. Immelt, the chairman and chief executive of General Electric, the network’s parent company.
NBC has drawn some criticism for not having more minority journalists in prominent roles. Ms. Ifill, the host of “Washington Week” on PBS and a regular on “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer,” is black. She also has a résumé long on jobs covering Washington politics, not just over the last nine years at PBS but also before that at NBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post.
Reached this week, Ms. Ifill would neither confirm nor deny any contact with NBC executives. “I have one of the best jobs in journalism right now,” she said, “but I never rule anything out.”
Asked how long she was committed to PBS, Ms. Ifill said, “I’m still under contract.”
Of the inside candidates, Mr. Todd has drawn praise for his sober election analysis. And yet he has logged far more time as a print journalist than as a television host, including six years as the editor of The Hotline, a publication of National Journal. Moreover, the job of presiding over “Meet the Press” in an election year, which plays to Mr. Todd’s strengths as a political analyst, is different from what it will be during the early months of a new administration, in which the topics will hopscotch from the economy to international affairs.
For these reasons the network has thought seriously about placing Mr. Todd at the helm of an ensemble, perhaps a rotating one, that could include Mr. Gregory. Mr. Gregory still might get the “Meet the Press” job outright.
Then there is Ms. Couric, whose widely seen conversations with Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, were fresh reminders of her interviewing skills. Even if Ms. Couric were interested, which is not clear, she would have to be let out of her contract with CBS, which is to run for more than two more years.
On the other hand, CBS executives acknowledged earlier this year that Ms. Couric and the network had discussed the possibility of her leaving, perhaps between the election and the inauguration in January.
Asked in an interview last month if the attention she received for her Palin interview had her thinking about what it would be like to lead the “CBS Evening News” in a new administration, Ms. Couric demurred, saying, “I haven’t really been able to look beyond Nov. 4, in terms of how things are going to shake out.”
As for Mr. Koppel, he declined an opportunity to take over “This Week” when he concluded his tenure on “Nightline” in 2005. At the time it was noted that he had done an interview program of his own for 26 years and was loath to interrupt time with his family to lash himself to an anchor desk in Washington each Sunday.
And yet when asked this week about whether Mr. Koppel might have changed his mind in the intervening years, someone close to him emphasized that his three-year contract with the Discovery Channel was winding down, and that Mr. Koppel was open to a new challenge. As of yet, though, no one from NBC is believed to have called.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/arts/television/01meet.html?ref=television
The names thrown around in the article are all viable with the exception of Katie Couric. That's not intended to be a dig, but the reason Ms. Couric does so well with political interviews is that she doesn't do them often. She has a wide range when it comes to interviews and stories. It's this wide range that keeps the odd political interview fresh. And limiting her to political topics only takes away from her greatest strength as a journalist - her ability to switch gears.
This column has discussed the strengths and weaknesses of both Mr. Todd and Mr. Gregory respectively and the better choice here is Mr. Todd. However, we've never seen Mr. Todd hit a power broker over the head with a tough question. And hosting by committee, as mentioned in the article, is a bad idea. The essential element with Mr. Russert was that we trusted him in his consistency. This is something that grows over time and establishing a long-running host is the way to create the trust. Therefore, Mr. Todd could grow nicely into the position. He was Mr. Russert's protege, without question.
The other outsider names mentioned - Gwen Ifill and Ted Kopple - are stacked with viable experience. However, with Mr. Kopple, you create the same situation in three years that you have now... who is the replacement? Gwen Ifill, on the other hand, is very well respected and could take over for some time. She is a candidate that this column will consider more. Her substantive questions would due a true service to the longest running television program in history.
More to come....
Friday, October 10, 2008
10.10.08: Dan Balz's Washington Post Article
From an article entitled McCain's Risky Turn
Here are some excerpts:
Frank Keating, the former governor of Oklahoma and a McCain surrogate went on television this week and played the race card, saying Obama should own up to the fact that he was once a "guy of the street" who used cocaine...
Keating's comments were inexplicable, though the former governor has had a reputation for popping off. Whether he was freelancing or had been encouraged by the McCain campaign to raise Obama's drug use -- which the Illinois senator wrote about in his autobiography -- isn't known. Injecting this into the campaign now seems designed to add to the GOP portrait of Obama as a sinister figure who does not share the values of middle America...
Beside the former Governor playing the race card, despicable, the comments are, as Mr. Balz says "designed to add to the GOP portrait of Obama as a sinister figure who does not share the values of middle America," but what is ironic is that middle America thrives on meth labs (42 in Wasilla, Alaska by the way) so anyone in the crowd who has ever known anyone who has done drugs and is still a friend is essentially hypocritical.
The drug argument is tired and has no bearing. President Bush was a full blown alcoholic, in recovery. Bill Clinton, obviously, had a problem with sex, and Senator John McCain certainly has a problem when he gambles.
This do anything to win on the part of the GOP, if successful, will be a sad day for the United States and not because Senator Obama didn't win. What does it tell the people of this country, the children of this country? If you say enough bad things about a person, no matter how untrue, you'll always win. A sad message stemming from a supposed man of honor.
This campaign won't be over soon enough.
Here are some excerpts:
Frank Keating, the former governor of Oklahoma and a McCain surrogate went on television this week and played the race card, saying Obama should own up to the fact that he was once a "guy of the street" who used cocaine...
Keating's comments were inexplicable, though the former governor has had a reputation for popping off. Whether he was freelancing or had been encouraged by the McCain campaign to raise Obama's drug use -- which the Illinois senator wrote about in his autobiography -- isn't known. Injecting this into the campaign now seems designed to add to the GOP portrait of Obama as a sinister figure who does not share the values of middle America...
Beside the former Governor playing the race card, despicable, the comments are, as Mr. Balz says "designed to add to the GOP portrait of Obama as a sinister figure who does not share the values of middle America," but what is ironic is that middle America thrives on meth labs (42 in Wasilla, Alaska by the way) so anyone in the crowd who has ever known anyone who has done drugs and is still a friend is essentially hypocritical.
The drug argument is tired and has no bearing. President Bush was a full blown alcoholic, in recovery. Bill Clinton, obviously, had a problem with sex, and Senator John McCain certainly has a problem when he gambles.
This do anything to win on the part of the GOP, if successful, will be a sad day for the United States and not because Senator Obama didn't win. What does it tell the people of this country, the children of this country? If you say enough bad things about a person, no matter how untrue, you'll always win. A sad message stemming from a supposed man of honor.
This campaign won't be over soon enough.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
9.30.08: From the New York Times
The article led off with the news that NBC is considering an ensemble of hosts for "Meet the Press," led by Chuck Todd:
[The network] is leaning toward an ensemble of hosts that would be led by Chuck Todd, NBC's political director, and include David Gregory, a correspondent and MSNBC anchor, according to a person who had been briefed on the proposal but was not authorized to comment, partly because the plans were not set. Like the turnover of anchors at all three network newscasts, the process of choosing a successor for Mr. Russert has been closely watched in media and political circles.
This column has been saying for months now that it would be Chuck Todd, Tim Russert's protege, that would take over the show. The only deficiency we see with the choice is that Mr. Todd has really ever interviewed on air, something in which Mr. Gregory has done a ton.
[The network] is leaning toward an ensemble of hosts that would be led by Chuck Todd, NBC's political director, and include David Gregory, a correspondent and MSNBC anchor, according to a person who had been briefed on the proposal but was not authorized to comment, partly because the plans were not set. Like the turnover of anchors at all three network newscasts, the process of choosing a successor for Mr. Russert has been closely watched in media and political circles.
This column has been saying for months now that it would be Chuck Todd, Tim Russert's protege, that would take over the show. The only deficiency we see with the choice is that Mr. Todd has really ever interviewed on air, something in which Mr. Gregory has done a ton.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
9.28.08: Who Can Claim Victory?
I am not sure why it is exactly, but lately on MTP they have been booking guests for 3 and sometimes 4 different segments in the hour. The guests have all been good but obviously the content of these interviews has suffered. Since Mr. Russert passed there have been subtle little changes like these and it is the opinion of this column that they are the result of Tom Brokaw being a poor moderator.
Again, credit goes to Betsy Fischer, the executive producer, of MTP for securing David Axelrod (chief strategist for Sen. Obama) and Steve Schmidt (chief strategist for Sen. McCain) for their first joint appearance. In a surrogate discussion such as this, the attacks come in hard and pointed, but it ends up being a zero-sum gain for both sides. "John McCain never said 'middle class' in the debate," from Mr. Axelrod. "Senator Obama never used the word 'victory' once," countered Mr. Schmidt. The two men went back and forth this way through out and Mr. Brokaw's contribution were as follows: Gen. Petraeus would use the word 'victory' to describe Iraq's end game. Also, he showed a poll that had Senator McCain leading in the 'who is more ready to be commander-in-chief."
First, Mr. Schmidt's own demeanor and presentation was eerily similar to that of Senator McCain's - stiff and defensive. With Mr. Schmidt as his top advisor, it is no wonder that Senator McCain's answers are detached and veer away from what the public actually knows the truth to be. This says a lot about the entire tone of their campaign. For the Republicans, it should be all about tone because given the current political climate (meltdowns in domestic AND foreign policy), substance is not something that the McCain campaign can claim as their own.
With regard to 'victory' in Iraq, this concept is a myth in terms how this conflict will end. What does victory mean? The Republican definition consists of our troops returning home, leaving behind a fledgling democracy in peace. But does this include a payment stoppage to the Sunnis in Anbar Province? Does this mean leaving a government that is elected by Iraqis or one the most suits the U.S. Administration? Then there is the essential point that this is no longer a war in Iraq, it's an occupation, and in all occupations there will be insurgent elements. Why not consider that if U.S. Troops were to re-deploy to the borders, insurgent elements may subside. Most cynically, victory could be defined, in like of our financial crisis, as to stop spending $10 Billion per month in a country half way around the world.
And speaking of victory being hazy, the first installment of the Senate Debate Series took place today between Mark Udall (D) and Bob Schaffer (R) for the seat in Colorado. The predictable (not necessarily a bad thing) topic is the $700 Billion Bail. The general, correct consensus is that no one wants to do it, but it's absolutely necessary, which instantly switches the argument as to who is to blame. Simply, years and years of curtailing trading regulations eventually stripped all these institutions of real capital, beginning from the Reagan years. De-regulation has been a pillar of Republican financial philosophy since those days. However, even given this indefensible position, Mr. Schaffer won the debate by excusing himself from the last six years (he left Congress in 2002) and then blaming his opponent's party (in power for the last two years) for our current situation. Astounding... but what's more astounding is that I can sit here with my little blog and have a counter argument at the ready, and these politicians do not.
Case in point: Shouldn't Sarah Palin have known that she was going to be asked by Katie Couric about how Alaska being next to Russia gives her foreign policy experience. She should! But she was like a moose in the headlights and all she could do was spew gibberish.
By the way, in the past two years, the Democratically controlled Congress has had to hold an untold number of hearings to unravel all the unethical doings of the Republicans and their lobbyists while trying to implement new regulations.
Also, the question needs to be asked why did President Bush wait on this bail out plan when he had the proposal on his desk two months ago? The answer is simple: He didn't want to give congress any time to react and he foolishly thought that everyone would just OK $700 Billion to the Treasury Secretary without any oversight in place. 'Shrewd' is another adjective forever taken off the table when describing President Bush.
However, that word can most certainly be applied to the week's last guest - Bill Clinton, who choses his words very carefully. Mr. Brokaw, in another typical baiting question, asked President Clinton if he would give the same praise to Barack Obama that he gives to John McCain. Clinton is too savvy to fall into a pothole like that. They're two different men and President Clinton has the vocabulary and state of reason to give each man is distinct due. There are still people out there who feel that President Clinton will try to subtly derail Senator Obama's campaign so that Hillary Clinton can pick up four years from now where she recently left off. But just know that on all levels, you can surmise that Bill Clinton is a party guy and should be taken at his word that he is going to do everything asked of him by the Obama campaign.
As for this week's post, I will leave you with this: It's not important who won the debate, even though most pundits give it to Obama. What is important is which candidate has the best 360 degree knowledge of the challenges that face this country and what they do with that knowledge. With that in mind, Senator McCain presented to the country on Friday that he is set in his ways and is going to carry out a pre-determined agenda in spite a potentially changing circumstances. The world moves and changes too quickly to be dogmatic. Senator McCain still prides himself on being a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution. Well, frankly, he's dead and all the army's guns blew up in their collective faces this week.
Again, credit goes to Betsy Fischer, the executive producer, of MTP for securing David Axelrod (chief strategist for Sen. Obama) and Steve Schmidt (chief strategist for Sen. McCain) for their first joint appearance. In a surrogate discussion such as this, the attacks come in hard and pointed, but it ends up being a zero-sum gain for both sides. "John McCain never said 'middle class' in the debate," from Mr. Axelrod. "Senator Obama never used the word 'victory' once," countered Mr. Schmidt. The two men went back and forth this way through out and Mr. Brokaw's contribution were as follows: Gen. Petraeus would use the word 'victory' to describe Iraq's end game. Also, he showed a poll that had Senator McCain leading in the 'who is more ready to be commander-in-chief."
First, Mr. Schmidt's own demeanor and presentation was eerily similar to that of Senator McCain's - stiff and defensive. With Mr. Schmidt as his top advisor, it is no wonder that Senator McCain's answers are detached and veer away from what the public actually knows the truth to be. This says a lot about the entire tone of their campaign. For the Republicans, it should be all about tone because given the current political climate (meltdowns in domestic AND foreign policy), substance is not something that the McCain campaign can claim as their own.
With regard to 'victory' in Iraq, this concept is a myth in terms how this conflict will end. What does victory mean? The Republican definition consists of our troops returning home, leaving behind a fledgling democracy in peace. But does this include a payment stoppage to the Sunnis in Anbar Province? Does this mean leaving a government that is elected by Iraqis or one the most suits the U.S. Administration? Then there is the essential point that this is no longer a war in Iraq, it's an occupation, and in all occupations there will be insurgent elements. Why not consider that if U.S. Troops were to re-deploy to the borders, insurgent elements may subside. Most cynically, victory could be defined, in like of our financial crisis, as to stop spending $10 Billion per month in a country half way around the world.
And speaking of victory being hazy, the first installment of the Senate Debate Series took place today between Mark Udall (D) and Bob Schaffer (R) for the seat in Colorado. The predictable (not necessarily a bad thing) topic is the $700 Billion Bail. The general, correct consensus is that no one wants to do it, but it's absolutely necessary, which instantly switches the argument as to who is to blame. Simply, years and years of curtailing trading regulations eventually stripped all these institutions of real capital, beginning from the Reagan years. De-regulation has been a pillar of Republican financial philosophy since those days. However, even given this indefensible position, Mr. Schaffer won the debate by excusing himself from the last six years (he left Congress in 2002) and then blaming his opponent's party (in power for the last two years) for our current situation. Astounding... but what's more astounding is that I can sit here with my little blog and have a counter argument at the ready, and these politicians do not.
Case in point: Shouldn't Sarah Palin have known that she was going to be asked by Katie Couric about how Alaska being next to Russia gives her foreign policy experience. She should! But she was like a moose in the headlights and all she could do was spew gibberish.
By the way, in the past two years, the Democratically controlled Congress has had to hold an untold number of hearings to unravel all the unethical doings of the Republicans and their lobbyists while trying to implement new regulations.
Also, the question needs to be asked why did President Bush wait on this bail out plan when he had the proposal on his desk two months ago? The answer is simple: He didn't want to give congress any time to react and he foolishly thought that everyone would just OK $700 Billion to the Treasury Secretary without any oversight in place. 'Shrewd' is another adjective forever taken off the table when describing President Bush.
However, that word can most certainly be applied to the week's last guest - Bill Clinton, who choses his words very carefully. Mr. Brokaw, in another typical baiting question, asked President Clinton if he would give the same praise to Barack Obama that he gives to John McCain. Clinton is too savvy to fall into a pothole like that. They're two different men and President Clinton has the vocabulary and state of reason to give each man is distinct due. There are still people out there who feel that President Clinton will try to subtly derail Senator Obama's campaign so that Hillary Clinton can pick up four years from now where she recently left off. But just know that on all levels, you can surmise that Bill Clinton is a party guy and should be taken at his word that he is going to do everything asked of him by the Obama campaign.
As for this week's post, I will leave you with this: It's not important who won the debate, even though most pundits give it to Obama. What is important is which candidate has the best 360 degree knowledge of the challenges that face this country and what they do with that knowledge. With that in mind, Senator McCain presented to the country on Friday that he is set in his ways and is going to carry out a pre-determined agenda in spite a potentially changing circumstances. The world moves and changes too quickly to be dogmatic. Senator McCain still prides himself on being a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution. Well, frankly, he's dead and all the army's guns blew up in their collective faces this week.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
9.3.08: Turpentine, the Joe Biden Interview
Not surprisingly, Joe Biden was the first of the four candidates to appear on MTP post conventions. What was also not surprising is how Senator Biden schooled Tom Brokaw in the interview. As it has been made known, this column is not Mr. Brokaw's biggest fan. Mr. Brokaw's initial questions to Senator Biden were only a more dignified type of 'gotcha' questions, but 'gotcha' questions nonetheless. "Who did you call after Sarah Palin's speech?" What kind of question is that? "Is it tougher to debate Sarah Palin because she is a woman? Is it a problem for your campaign that women feel familiar with her and call her Sarah?" Talk about elitist positions... Meet the Press is a serious program to deal with serious issues and thankfully, Senator Joe Biden has more experience on the show than Mr. Brokaw.
The senator kept bringing it back to discussing issues and what Sarah Palin didn't say about so many things troubling the country - from healthcare to job losses to foreign policy. Topics, which this column frankly feels, are above her pay grade. Joe Biden washed the off-color paint that Mr. Brokaw was slinging... with turpentine.
With regard to the 'surge' in Iraq, it was perfectly clear that Senator Biden had a much better grasp of all the dynamics between Iraqi Sunnis and Shia respectively. In fact, Senator Biden continually corrected Mr. Brokaw. See below transcript.
MR. BROKAW: ...But it's a process, and it's beginning, and the surge made that possible, did it not?
SEN. BIDEN: No. The surge helped make that--what made is possible in Anbar province is they did what I'd suggested two and a half years ago: gave local control. They turned over and they said to the Sunnis in Anbar province, "We promise you, don't worry, you're not going to have any Shia in here. There's going to be no national forces in here. We're going to train your forces to help you fight al-Qaeda." And that you--what you had was the awakening. The awakening was not an awakening by us, it was an awakening of the Sunnis in Anbar province willing to fight.
MR. BROKAW: Cooperating with the Shia.
SEN. BIDEN: Willing to fight. Cooperating with--no, they weren't cooperating with Shiite. They didn't cooperate with the Shiites.
MR. BROKAW: Once the awakening got under way.
SEN. BIDEN: No, no, no. No, they didn't cooperate with the Shiites. It's still--it's a big problem, Tom. You got--we're paying 300 bucks a month to each of those guys. Now the problem has been and the, and the promise was made by Maliki that they would be integrated into the overall military. That's a process that is beginning in fits and starts now, but it's far from over. Far from--look, the bottom line here is that it's--let's--the surge is over. Here's the real point. Whether or not the surge worked is almost irrelevant now. We're in a new deal. What is the administration doing? They're doing what Barack Obama has suggested over 14 months ago, turn responsibility over and draw down our troops.
And what is also clear is that Mr. Brokaw's rudimentary knowledge about the occupation in Iraq is also Senator McCain's view. Let's also not forget that the current administration is now signing an agreement to set a timetable for troop withdrawals as Senator Obama has already called for. It almost seemed like lecturing but Mr. Brokaw needed it. He misrepresented what Mr. Biden understood and had to be corrected.
Then, yet again, Mr. Brokaw disappointed with his questions about faith and actually saying that Senator Biden frequently talked about his faith. First, Senator Biden instantly corrected him, stating he rarely talked about his faith and with his answer to the abortion question, he outlined exactly how the American Government should function - as a separation of church and state. Being Catholic, Sen. Biden feels that life starts at conception, but that belief is based on his faith, to which he said he would not introduce and advocate legislation based on a religious belief. As he accurately stated, we are a pluralistic society.
And when there is real straight talk, it is more likely to come from Joe Biden, and Barack Obama, for that matter than John McCain.
In the second segment with Tom Friedman, NYTimes columnist and author, talked about his new book entitled "Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution and How It Can Renew America," With that, he is the most important quote by Mr. Friedman on today's program.
MR. FRIEDMAN: No, there's no question this has been a bipartisan effort to get us into this alley, dead end, that we're in right now, Tom. But when I hear, drill, drill, drill, or drill, baby, drill, I try to imagine--Tom, you were at the convention, I wasn't, what would happen if the Saudi, Venezuelan, Russian and Nigeria observers were up in a sky box in that Xcel Center listening to the crowd chant, "drill, drill, drill"? What would they be doing? They'd be up there leading the chant. They'd be saying this is great. America isn't sitting there saying, "Invent, invent, invent new, renewable energy," they're saying, "drill, drill, drill." And you know, for me, yes, we do need to exploit our domestic resource. I'm actually not against drilling. What I'm against is making that the center of our focus, because we are on the eve of a new revolution, the energy technology revolution. It would be, Tom, as if on the eve of the IT revolution, the revolution of PCs and the Internet, someone was up there standing and demanding, "IBM Selectric typewriters, IBM Selectric typewriters." That's what drill, drill, drill, is the equivalent of today.
And what Mr. Friedman advocates is that it is America who leads the E.T. (energy technology revolution as he calls it) in the world. From the above excerpt, it is clear that Mr. Friedman does not believe that this agenda is coming from the Republican party. And the American people know this! Even most Republicans...
Lastly, this week, [as a small tidbit that is worthy of knowing] Senator McCain's top campaign strategist said that this election is not going to be about issues, but about the personalities running for office. This type of cynicism is never beneficial to the American people, period.
The senator kept bringing it back to discussing issues and what Sarah Palin didn't say about so many things troubling the country - from healthcare to job losses to foreign policy. Topics, which this column frankly feels, are above her pay grade. Joe Biden washed the off-color paint that Mr. Brokaw was slinging... with turpentine.
With regard to the 'surge' in Iraq, it was perfectly clear that Senator Biden had a much better grasp of all the dynamics between Iraqi Sunnis and Shia respectively. In fact, Senator Biden continually corrected Mr. Brokaw. See below transcript.
MR. BROKAW: ...But it's a process, and it's beginning, and the surge made that possible, did it not?
SEN. BIDEN: No. The surge helped make that--what made is possible in Anbar province is they did what I'd suggested two and a half years ago: gave local control. They turned over and they said to the Sunnis in Anbar province, "We promise you, don't worry, you're not going to have any Shia in here. There's going to be no national forces in here. We're going to train your forces to help you fight al-Qaeda." And that you--what you had was the awakening. The awakening was not an awakening by us, it was an awakening of the Sunnis in Anbar province willing to fight.
MR. BROKAW: Cooperating with the Shia.
SEN. BIDEN: Willing to fight. Cooperating with--no, they weren't cooperating with Shiite. They didn't cooperate with the Shiites.
MR. BROKAW: Once the awakening got under way.
SEN. BIDEN: No, no, no. No, they didn't cooperate with the Shiites. It's still--it's a big problem, Tom. You got--we're paying 300 bucks a month to each of those guys. Now the problem has been and the, and the promise was made by Maliki that they would be integrated into the overall military. That's a process that is beginning in fits and starts now, but it's far from over. Far from--look, the bottom line here is that it's--let's--the surge is over. Here's the real point. Whether or not the surge worked is almost irrelevant now. We're in a new deal. What is the administration doing? They're doing what Barack Obama has suggested over 14 months ago, turn responsibility over and draw down our troops.
And what is also clear is that Mr. Brokaw's rudimentary knowledge about the occupation in Iraq is also Senator McCain's view. Let's also not forget that the current administration is now signing an agreement to set a timetable for troop withdrawals as Senator Obama has already called for. It almost seemed like lecturing but Mr. Brokaw needed it. He misrepresented what Mr. Biden understood and had to be corrected.
Then, yet again, Mr. Brokaw disappointed with his questions about faith and actually saying that Senator Biden frequently talked about his faith. First, Senator Biden instantly corrected him, stating he rarely talked about his faith and with his answer to the abortion question, he outlined exactly how the American Government should function - as a separation of church and state. Being Catholic, Sen. Biden feels that life starts at conception, but that belief is based on his faith, to which he said he would not introduce and advocate legislation based on a religious belief. As he accurately stated, we are a pluralistic society.
And when there is real straight talk, it is more likely to come from Joe Biden, and Barack Obama, for that matter than John McCain.
In the second segment with Tom Friedman, NYTimes columnist and author, talked about his new book entitled "Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution and How It Can Renew America," With that, he is the most important quote by Mr. Friedman on today's program.
MR. FRIEDMAN: No, there's no question this has been a bipartisan effort to get us into this alley, dead end, that we're in right now, Tom. But when I hear, drill, drill, drill, or drill, baby, drill, I try to imagine--Tom, you were at the convention, I wasn't, what would happen if the Saudi, Venezuelan, Russian and Nigeria observers were up in a sky box in that Xcel Center listening to the crowd chant, "drill, drill, drill"? What would they be doing? They'd be up there leading the chant. They'd be saying this is great. America isn't sitting there saying, "Invent, invent, invent new, renewable energy," they're saying, "drill, drill, drill." And you know, for me, yes, we do need to exploit our domestic resource. I'm actually not against drilling. What I'm against is making that the center of our focus, because we are on the eve of a new revolution, the energy technology revolution. It would be, Tom, as if on the eve of the IT revolution, the revolution of PCs and the Internet, someone was up there standing and demanding, "IBM Selectric typewriters, IBM Selectric typewriters." That's what drill, drill, drill, is the equivalent of today.
And what Mr. Friedman advocates is that it is America who leads the E.T. (energy technology revolution as he calls it) in the world. From the above excerpt, it is clear that Mr. Friedman does not believe that this agenda is coming from the Republican party. And the American people know this! Even most Republicans...
Lastly, this week, [as a small tidbit that is worthy of knowing] Senator McCain's top campaign strategist said that this election is not going to be about issues, but about the personalities running for office. This type of cynicism is never beneficial to the American people, period.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
8.10.08: On The Other Hand
Contradiction seems to be the operative word of the day for today’s Meet The Press. In Tom Brokaw’s interview with Secretary Paulson from Beijing, Mr. Paulson said that there is a need for better regulation of the U.S. financial system – he called it outdated. This comes from an administration that has championed deregulation and has let Wall Street run amok over the years.
The journalists in the second half refuted almost every point that Sec. Paulson made in the first half of the program. Mr. Paulson said that the economic stimulus checks are still kicking in and we haven’t seen the full benefit yet. In the second half, Paul Gigot declared this round of stimulus checks a failure at lifting up the economy.
Sec. Paulson stated that China would suffer political backlash for not taking a harder line with the Khartoum government in Sudan. China keeps that country’s government afloat with it’s refinement and purchase of Sudan’s oil. In turn, the government uses those monies to strengthen its torturous hand over the people of Darfur. However, as Erin Burnett pointed out, the U.S. is hamstrung to do anything to force China, or Russia for that matter, to change their behavior because of all the debt the United States owes to China. And President Bush’s misjudgment of Vladimir Putin came to complete fruition this week with Russia’s aggression/invasion in Georgia.
Lastly, Sec. Paulson, as evidenced by today’s interview, is not a good spokesperson when it comes to calming U.S. citizens about the economy – constantly stuttering through is answers after Mr. Brokaw’s softball questions and speaking in generalities providing no real substance at all. To this end, Mr. Brokaw mentioned that there has been talk of Mr. Paulson staying on as Treasury Secretary to provide stable transition to the next administration. Mr. Paulson said that he was looking forward to doing other things come the next year. This column’s retort to that answer – GOOD.
A few program notes: One, the dual hosts – Brokaw in China and David Gregory in the studio doesn’t measure up. This column still contends that if MTP is left to either Mr. Brokaw or Mr. Gregory as host, the clout of the program will most certainly be diminished (farther than it has already). If Mr. Gregory is, in fact, going to take the desk, lots of polish is needed. (At the end of the program, he thanked ‘everyone at the table.’ Everyone at the table? That’s not acceptable.)
Also, we never mention commercials but between the first and second half, there was a GE commercial. The main point of the commercial was that through wind power, GE is helping to power Beijing during the Olympics. Can they make that boast here in the United States? That they are using wind to power... .anything? No, and given the energy crisis that we face, it left a slightly bad taste in the mouth.
Lastly, a couple of tidbits [read: Politicians of the 90’s] to cover. It seems that Bill Clinton doesn’t think that Barack Obama can win the election – the Clintons remain the insidious factor in this race. This column believes that the Clintons will play a decisive role in who wins in November and that they will not necessarily tip the scale to the Democrats. Suffice for now that it is a dark cloud looming. The other little bit is the John Edwards news story. This column was aware of this rumor some 5 months ago, but refused to give credence to it – that’s not the function of this column. But what we will say is that we completely agree with David Broder (congrats! On the the 400th appear) that it just deepens the cynicism that the American public has for its politicians. For such as high-profile political figure to deceive and blatantly lie, without any tact, is an extreme disappointment – to understate it. The affair and love-child is incidental. It’s the subsequent deception and flouting of public trust that can not be excused. But… we’ve unfortunately seen this too many times before.
The journalists in the second half refuted almost every point that Sec. Paulson made in the first half of the program. Mr. Paulson said that the economic stimulus checks are still kicking in and we haven’t seen the full benefit yet. In the second half, Paul Gigot declared this round of stimulus checks a failure at lifting up the economy.
Sec. Paulson stated that China would suffer political backlash for not taking a harder line with the Khartoum government in Sudan. China keeps that country’s government afloat with it’s refinement and purchase of Sudan’s oil. In turn, the government uses those monies to strengthen its torturous hand over the people of Darfur. However, as Erin Burnett pointed out, the U.S. is hamstrung to do anything to force China, or Russia for that matter, to change their behavior because of all the debt the United States owes to China. And President Bush’s misjudgment of Vladimir Putin came to complete fruition this week with Russia’s aggression/invasion in Georgia.
Lastly, Sec. Paulson, as evidenced by today’s interview, is not a good spokesperson when it comes to calming U.S. citizens about the economy – constantly stuttering through is answers after Mr. Brokaw’s softball questions and speaking in generalities providing no real substance at all. To this end, Mr. Brokaw mentioned that there has been talk of Mr. Paulson staying on as Treasury Secretary to provide stable transition to the next administration. Mr. Paulson said that he was looking forward to doing other things come the next year. This column’s retort to that answer – GOOD.
A few program notes: One, the dual hosts – Brokaw in China and David Gregory in the studio doesn’t measure up. This column still contends that if MTP is left to either Mr. Brokaw or Mr. Gregory as host, the clout of the program will most certainly be diminished (farther than it has already). If Mr. Gregory is, in fact, going to take the desk, lots of polish is needed. (At the end of the program, he thanked ‘everyone at the table.’ Everyone at the table? That’s not acceptable.)
Also, we never mention commercials but between the first and second half, there was a GE commercial. The main point of the commercial was that through wind power, GE is helping to power Beijing during the Olympics. Can they make that boast here in the United States? That they are using wind to power... .anything? No, and given the energy crisis that we face, it left a slightly bad taste in the mouth.
Lastly, a couple of tidbits [read: Politicians of the 90’s] to cover. It seems that Bill Clinton doesn’t think that Barack Obama can win the election – the Clintons remain the insidious factor in this race. This column believes that the Clintons will play a decisive role in who wins in November and that they will not necessarily tip the scale to the Democrats. Suffice for now that it is a dark cloud looming. The other little bit is the John Edwards news story. This column was aware of this rumor some 5 months ago, but refused to give credence to it – that’s not the function of this column. But what we will say is that we completely agree with David Broder (congrats! On the the 400th appear) that it just deepens the cynicism that the American public has for its politicians. For such as high-profile political figure to deceive and blatantly lie, without any tact, is an extreme disappointment – to understate it. The affair and love-child is incidental. It’s the subsequent deception and flouting of public trust that can not be excused. But… we’ve unfortunately seen this too many times before.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
8.3.08: Talking Out of Your Depth
Senator Joe Lieberman is a tool. That may seem like a shallow low blow, but let's take a moment to think about. A 'tool' in this case is a person who is acting stupid because of stubbornness and who in fact have lost his usefulness. This is an accurate description of Sen. Lieberman's behavior based around his endorsement of John McCain for President and his reason for that endorsement - that John McCain is more ready to lead this country based on experience. Let's face it, Lieberman is an establishment Senator who would not benefit from a change in the status quo of how business is done in Washington. An Obama Presidency leaves Sen. Lieberman on a desert island of politics - without power. As shown from the Connecticut Senate Race, holding onto power and self-preservation are what Mr. Lieberman is most concerned about. And Sen. Lieberman is spreading inaccurate facts about Sen. Obama's Iraq position in that there wouldn't be any consideration of conditions on the ground, but that's not Senator Obama's position.
There should be no more allowance for Lieberman to caucus with the Democrats in Senate.
This column has pointed out the many deficiencies in Senator McCain's reasoning on several points, but we will revisit two. First, with regard to off-shore drilling, as it was a topic of today's program, and whether we should do it. Senator Kerry, as Sen. Obama's surrogate, makes a correct point that if we started drilling today, we wouldn't see the results until after 2020. However, Senator Kerry's problem on today's program as was also his problem when he was a Presidential candidate, is even when he makes a points that's correct, he sounds as if he is wrong. It's uncanny how he does this. Now, we're forgetting one huge fact with regard to this particular oil gleaned from our coastline. Everyone's saying it will be America's oil, but it won't be! It will become the ExxonMobil's oil and it doesn't necessarily mean that they'll sell it all to American citizens. The oil companies are making more profit then ever before and they are exporting more oil to countries, that aren't the United States, than ever before. This will not change by drilling off the United States coast.
However, with that said, Sen. Obama did say that he would consider, not prefer, some off-shore drilling as part of a compromise. The senator should stand on his initial opinion and NOT soften. That sends a signal that when pressure comes from the other side, you'll bend to the point where you don't quite break but it almost looks that way. Again, this column does not endorse off-shore drilling in anyway.
The second, as also addressed on today's program, was the surge. Again with the surge. Yes, the argument can be made that it worked, but is it really a surge. No, it's an escalation. A surge implies an flow and eventual ebb. The escalation has worked because in saving soldiers because there are more guys to watch each others backs. When are we going to get out of there? And lastly - the Anbar Awakening - all that means is we started paying Sunnis not to shoot at us.
And a note on the panelists, every time, we make the argument for Chuck Todd as the next host, the water starts dripping from behind his ears. He is truly a numbers/polls wonk but today he showed the green tint of his skin. He was correct when discussing Hillary Clinton voters going over to Obama. He said that lifetime polls show that they're already there and that 10% cross the aisle anyway. However, when discussing potential VP picks, referenced the 1988 election - Bush/Quayle vs. Dukakis/Benson. He made the point that the candidates picked two extremes of experience and this plays in the choice. However, he was out of his depth on this. He wasn't even of voting age at the time and he's sitting with people who were all personally there. They collectively blew his point out of the water, noting the Benson kicked the snot out of Quayle in the debate, highlighted by Benson's famous Kennedy line, but that it eventually didn't move the needle in the end. Ah Chuck... know when to quit while you're ahead.
Lastly, another observation about Mr. Mike Murphy. He is certainly not the Republican version of Bob Shrum. The difference between these two men is that Bob Shrum was on the losing side of elections due to his ineptness and poor decision-making and not the candidate's. Mr. Murphy, on the other, was also on the losing side but for that exact opposite reason. His judgement was sound, but not his candidate's.
There should be no more allowance for Lieberman to caucus with the Democrats in Senate.
This column has pointed out the many deficiencies in Senator McCain's reasoning on several points, but we will revisit two. First, with regard to off-shore drilling, as it was a topic of today's program, and whether we should do it. Senator Kerry, as Sen. Obama's surrogate, makes a correct point that if we started drilling today, we wouldn't see the results until after 2020. However, Senator Kerry's problem on today's program as was also his problem when he was a Presidential candidate, is even when he makes a points that's correct, he sounds as if he is wrong. It's uncanny how he does this. Now, we're forgetting one huge fact with regard to this particular oil gleaned from our coastline. Everyone's saying it will be America's oil, but it won't be! It will become the ExxonMobil's oil and it doesn't necessarily mean that they'll sell it all to American citizens. The oil companies are making more profit then ever before and they are exporting more oil to countries, that aren't the United States, than ever before. This will not change by drilling off the United States coast.
However, with that said, Sen. Obama did say that he would consider, not prefer, some off-shore drilling as part of a compromise. The senator should stand on his initial opinion and NOT soften. That sends a signal that when pressure comes from the other side, you'll bend to the point where you don't quite break but it almost looks that way. Again, this column does not endorse off-shore drilling in anyway.
The second, as also addressed on today's program, was the surge. Again with the surge. Yes, the argument can be made that it worked, but is it really a surge. No, it's an escalation. A surge implies an flow and eventual ebb. The escalation has worked because in saving soldiers because there are more guys to watch each others backs. When are we going to get out of there? And lastly - the Anbar Awakening - all that means is we started paying Sunnis not to shoot at us.
And a note on the panelists, every time, we make the argument for Chuck Todd as the next host, the water starts dripping from behind his ears. He is truly a numbers/polls wonk but today he showed the green tint of his skin. He was correct when discussing Hillary Clinton voters going over to Obama. He said that lifetime polls show that they're already there and that 10% cross the aisle anyway. However, when discussing potential VP picks, referenced the 1988 election - Bush/Quayle vs. Dukakis/Benson. He made the point that the candidates picked two extremes of experience and this plays in the choice. However, he was out of his depth on this. He wasn't even of voting age at the time and he's sitting with people who were all personally there. They collectively blew his point out of the water, noting the Benson kicked the snot out of Quayle in the debate, highlighted by Benson's famous Kennedy line, but that it eventually didn't move the needle in the end. Ah Chuck... know when to quit while you're ahead.
Lastly, another observation about Mr. Mike Murphy. He is certainly not the Republican version of Bob Shrum. The difference between these two men is that Bob Shrum was on the losing side of elections due to his ineptness and poor decision-making and not the candidate's. Mr. Murphy, on the other, was also on the losing side but for that exact opposite reason. His judgement was sound, but not his candidate's.
Monday, July 28, 2008
7.28.08: Mark Whitaker (from Huff Post)
Mark Whitaker will replace Tim Russert as Washington Bureau chief. We're thinking that it won't be for MTP as well.
Mark Whitaker Named NBC News Washington Bureau Chief
stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust
Huffington Post | July 28, 2008 02:18 PM
Mark Whitaker, currently Senior Vice President at NBC News, has been named chief of the network's Washington, D.C. bureau, a spot that has remained vacant since Tim Russert died on June 13.
Last month, the New York Observer's Felix Gillette wrote that insiders were speculating that Whitaker — who formerly held the top job at Newsweek — would succeed Russert as the head of NBC's D.C. bureau:
Over the past year, according to NBC News sources, Mr. Whitaker has become a popular and well-respected presence at 30 Rockefeller Center. Fellow executives are said to value his judgment, and he is often called in to help out with touchy editorial conflicts--a fairly common occurrence these days as executives have wrestled to merge the just-the-facts culture of NBC News with the more freewheeling sensibilities of MSNBC. Along the way, Mr. Whitaker has earned a reputation as a conscientious manager with a deft touch for diplomacy.
That said, his specific responsibilities at NBC News remain opaque to outsiders and insiders alike. "He sits in on a lot of meetings," said one staffer. "But no one seems to know quite what it is he does."
"He knows how to run a news-gathering operation," one former NBC News senior staffer added. "But he's basically a vice president without a portfolio. He's kind of been floating around."
Assigning him to oversee the Washington bureau, goes the theory, would pin down Mr. Whitaker's talents to a specific challenge. Moreover, it wouldn't cost the news division any additional money at a time when NBC Universal chief Jeff Zucker has been clamping down on costs across the board.
Interestingly, when Russert was appointed Washington bureau chief in 1988, he was also the New York-based #2 executive at NBC News with no television experience — just like Whitaker.
"The enormity of filling this position was by no means lost on any of us, given the significance this job holds, particularly on the eve of an extraordinary presidential election," said NBC News President Steve Capus. "But the truth is, he is the ideal candidate for the job, and that was evident the minute we took stock of potential replacements. Mark's got all of the components that will assure his success - a commitment to journalistic integrity, political savvy, a keen eye for the future, and a management style that is inclusive and fair. He is exactly what the bureau needs."
"I am honored and humbled to succeed Tim, whose commitment to journalism without fear or favor is a beacon for us all," Whitaker said. "And I am thrilled to get to work with our unparalleled team of NBC reporters and producers in Washington."
As Washington bureau chief, Whitaker will oversee both the network's political content — namely "Meet the Press" and NBC News' entire network election and political coverage — and the day-to-day operations of the Washington bureau, where he will oversee management and administration. He will also make occasional appearances as an on-air analyst.
Full press release below:
MARK WHITAKER NAMED NBC NEWS D.C. BUREAU CHIEF
Position Includes Executive Oversight of "Meet the Press" and Network Election and Political Coverage
NEW YORK - July 28, 2008 - NBC News announced today that Mark Whitaker has been named Chief of the network's Washington, D.C. bureau. His appointment fills a vacancy left by the untimely death of Tim Russert in June. Whitaker, a veteran, award-winning journalist who is currently a Senior Vice President at NBC News, will assume his duties immediately. The announcement was made by NBC News President Steve Capus, to whom Whitaker will report.
"The enormity of filling this position was by no means lost on any of us, given the significance this job holds, particularly on the eve of an extraordinary presidential election," said Capus. "But the truth is, he is the ideal candidate for the job, and that was evident the minute we took stock of potential replacements. Mark's got all of the components that will assure his success - a commitment to journalistic integrity, political savvy, a keen eye for the future, and a management style that is inclusive and fair. He is exactly what the bureau needs."
Story continues below
advertisement
Whitaker will continue in his role as SVP at NBC News. His day-to-day responsibilities will include executive oversight of "Meet the Press," as well as of all of NBC News' network election and political coverage. As D.C. Bureau Chief, he will oversee all bureau management and administration, as well as work closely with NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd, and Deputy Bureau Chiefs Wendy Wilkinson and Brady Daniels. Whitaker will also make occasional appearances as an on-air analyst.
"I am looking forward to keeping our coverage of politics and government the best in the business," said Whitaker. "I am honored and humbled to succeed Tim, whose commitment to journalism without fear or favor is a beacon for us all. And I am thrilled to get to work with our unparalleled team of NBC reporters and producers in Washington."
Prior to joining NBC News, Whitaker served as Editor of Newsweek from 1998-2006. During his tenure with the magazine, the newsweekly published its best-selling issues of all time and had years of record profitability. It also received more editorial awards than at any other time in its history. Among these were the National Magazine Award for General Excellence, the industry's highest prize, in 2002 for coverage of 9/11, and in 2004 for coverage of the Iraq war.
Whitaker also oversaw the growth of Newsweek's web site, which is affiliated with NBC News' MSNBC.com. Its awards included Editor & Publisher's "EPpy" award for best newsmagazine web site and the MIN "Best of the Web Award" for Best National Magazine-Affiliated Web Site.
From 2006 until 2007, Whitaker served as Vice President and Editor-in-Chief of New Ventures at Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, creating new online ventures and multimedia for Newsweek's parent, The Washington Post Company.
Widely respected in the journalism community, Whitaker served as President of the American Society of Magazine Editors from 2004 - 2006. He is a current board member of the Committee to Protect Journalists
Before becoming top editor, Whitaker served as a reporter, writer and editor for Newsweek for two decades. He started his career reporting for Newsweek as a summer intern and stringer in San Francisco, Boston, Washington, London and Paris while in college and graduate school. He became business editor in 1987. As an assistant managing editor and then managing editor from 1991 to 1998, Whitaker helped oversee coverage that included the first Gulf War and the presidential elections of 1992 and 1996.
Whitaker graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College in 1979 and studied international relations at Oxford University's Balliol College as a Marshall Scholar. He is married to Alexis Gelber, Newsweek's director of special projects. They have two children.
Mark Whitaker Named NBC News Washington Bureau Chief
stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust
Huffington Post | July 28, 2008 02:18 PM
Mark Whitaker, currently Senior Vice President at NBC News, has been named chief of the network's Washington, D.C. bureau, a spot that has remained vacant since Tim Russert died on June 13.
Last month, the New York Observer's Felix Gillette wrote that insiders were speculating that Whitaker — who formerly held the top job at Newsweek — would succeed Russert as the head of NBC's D.C. bureau:
Over the past year, according to NBC News sources, Mr. Whitaker has become a popular and well-respected presence at 30 Rockefeller Center. Fellow executives are said to value his judgment, and he is often called in to help out with touchy editorial conflicts--a fairly common occurrence these days as executives have wrestled to merge the just-the-facts culture of NBC News with the more freewheeling sensibilities of MSNBC. Along the way, Mr. Whitaker has earned a reputation as a conscientious manager with a deft touch for diplomacy.
That said, his specific responsibilities at NBC News remain opaque to outsiders and insiders alike. "He sits in on a lot of meetings," said one staffer. "But no one seems to know quite what it is he does."
"He knows how to run a news-gathering operation," one former NBC News senior staffer added. "But he's basically a vice president without a portfolio. He's kind of been floating around."
Assigning him to oversee the Washington bureau, goes the theory, would pin down Mr. Whitaker's talents to a specific challenge. Moreover, it wouldn't cost the news division any additional money at a time when NBC Universal chief Jeff Zucker has been clamping down on costs across the board.
Interestingly, when Russert was appointed Washington bureau chief in 1988, he was also the New York-based #2 executive at NBC News with no television experience — just like Whitaker.
"The enormity of filling this position was by no means lost on any of us, given the significance this job holds, particularly on the eve of an extraordinary presidential election," said NBC News President Steve Capus. "But the truth is, he is the ideal candidate for the job, and that was evident the minute we took stock of potential replacements. Mark's got all of the components that will assure his success - a commitment to journalistic integrity, political savvy, a keen eye for the future, and a management style that is inclusive and fair. He is exactly what the bureau needs."
"I am honored and humbled to succeed Tim, whose commitment to journalism without fear or favor is a beacon for us all," Whitaker said. "And I am thrilled to get to work with our unparalleled team of NBC reporters and producers in Washington."
As Washington bureau chief, Whitaker will oversee both the network's political content — namely "Meet the Press" and NBC News' entire network election and political coverage — and the day-to-day operations of the Washington bureau, where he will oversee management and administration. He will also make occasional appearances as an on-air analyst.
Full press release below:
MARK WHITAKER NAMED NBC NEWS D.C. BUREAU CHIEF
Position Includes Executive Oversight of "Meet the Press" and Network Election and Political Coverage
NEW YORK - July 28, 2008 - NBC News announced today that Mark Whitaker has been named Chief of the network's Washington, D.C. bureau. His appointment fills a vacancy left by the untimely death of Tim Russert in June. Whitaker, a veteran, award-winning journalist who is currently a Senior Vice President at NBC News, will assume his duties immediately. The announcement was made by NBC News President Steve Capus, to whom Whitaker will report.
"The enormity of filling this position was by no means lost on any of us, given the significance this job holds, particularly on the eve of an extraordinary presidential election," said Capus. "But the truth is, he is the ideal candidate for the job, and that was evident the minute we took stock of potential replacements. Mark's got all of the components that will assure his success - a commitment to journalistic integrity, political savvy, a keen eye for the future, and a management style that is inclusive and fair. He is exactly what the bureau needs."
Story continues below
advertisement
Whitaker will continue in his role as SVP at NBC News. His day-to-day responsibilities will include executive oversight of "Meet the Press," as well as of all of NBC News' network election and political coverage. As D.C. Bureau Chief, he will oversee all bureau management and administration, as well as work closely with NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd, and Deputy Bureau Chiefs Wendy Wilkinson and Brady Daniels. Whitaker will also make occasional appearances as an on-air analyst.
"I am looking forward to keeping our coverage of politics and government the best in the business," said Whitaker. "I am honored and humbled to succeed Tim, whose commitment to journalism without fear or favor is a beacon for us all. And I am thrilled to get to work with our unparalleled team of NBC reporters and producers in Washington."
Prior to joining NBC News, Whitaker served as Editor of Newsweek from 1998-2006. During his tenure with the magazine, the newsweekly published its best-selling issues of all time and had years of record profitability. It also received more editorial awards than at any other time in its history. Among these were the National Magazine Award for General Excellence, the industry's highest prize, in 2002 for coverage of 9/11, and in 2004 for coverage of the Iraq war.
Whitaker also oversaw the growth of Newsweek's web site, which is affiliated with NBC News' MSNBC.com. Its awards included Editor & Publisher's "EPpy" award for best newsmagazine web site and the MIN "Best of the Web Award" for Best National Magazine-Affiliated Web Site.
From 2006 until 2007, Whitaker served as Vice President and Editor-in-Chief of New Ventures at Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, creating new online ventures and multimedia for Newsweek's parent, The Washington Post Company.
Widely respected in the journalism community, Whitaker served as President of the American Society of Magazine Editors from 2004 - 2006. He is a current board member of the Committee to Protect Journalists
Before becoming top editor, Whitaker served as a reporter, writer and editor for Newsweek for two decades. He started his career reporting for Newsweek as a summer intern and stringer in San Francisco, Boston, Washington, London and Paris while in college and graduate school. He became business editor in 1987. As an assistant managing editor and then managing editor from 1991 to 1998, Whitaker helped oversee coverage that included the first Gulf War and the presidential elections of 1992 and 1996.
Whitaker graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College in 1979 and studied international relations at Oxford University's Balliol College as a Marshall Scholar. He is married to Alexis Gelber, Newsweek's director of special projects. They have two children.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
7.26.08: Barack Obama in London
Let's first start with an overarching point: This interview was conducted at the tail end of a trip, in which Senator Obama was in a different country everyday having multiples meetings with various political leaders. Off the plane to the Middle East continuing on to the heart of Europe, the man didn't stop. Throw in a speech in front of 200,000 Germans and all that would wear on anyone. However, what I noticed about this interview was that Senator Obama didn't make one gaffe or misstatement where he confused facts.
The above statement IS a poorly veiled anecdote about age and whether or not John McCain is too old to be President. It is the feeling of this column that age should not be an issue in a Presidential race. However, John McCain himself has made it an issue with his various misstatements, i.e. "Czechoslovakia" and the "Iraq/Pakistan border." Too many confused statements should be worrisome.
Conceding the fact that Senator Obama was sharp in the interview despite the fatigue, what sort of interview was it? As previously stated, our confidence in Tom Brokaw as moderator is not great by any means. This interview was as hard as you'll receive from Mr. Brokaw. His questions with regard to foreign policy and diplomacy all took the tact of looking through the lens of the opposition, giving Senator Obama the opportunity to rebut.
The questions are passive aggressive, which is Mr. Brokaw's style, along with a waits-to-talk sensibility as he sometimes finishes answers for the guest. Despite this, the discussion hit a solid array of topics, with the exception of the VP questions, which we know Sen. Obama was not going to answer (but that's television).
One such example during the program was the issue of the 'surge' and Senator Obama's opposition to it, despite that the consensus is it's working. The USA Today (put up on the screen) stated that by not acknowledging that, Mr. Obama was being stubborn and what does that say about how he would lead the country. Solely judging on what was presenting on MTP, this opinion resides in a bubble of ignorance. Stubbornness has been continually defined and redefined the past seven and half years.
But the senator correctly stated that hindsight is what it is, but that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. To phrase it conservatively, it goes back to that moment of conception. The day the war and ensuing occupation was launched. Should it have been launched? Or should the Bush Administration kept its collective dick in its pants?
Over a trillion dollar bill coming and over four thousand deaths.
Also, Mr. Brokaw and Sen. Obama discussed some polls, namely who the riskier choice was between McCain and Obama, but remember, polls means very little at this point. However, in addressing that one specifically, that particular poll sees Obama as the riskier choice. He's not, it's just that he's black and people can not get beyond that. What's hopeful is that people who have gotten beyond it are growing in majority.
And then there was the speech in Berlin this week, for which Obama received some backlash from the usual suspects - Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post and David Brooks from the NYTimes. This column has clearly stated its disdain for Mr. Brooks opinions and this is another example of why. It comes off as the spoiled kid who picks something apart because he didn't get his way. He compared what Kennedy and Reagan had done with what Obama had done and that the speech was also presumptive. It's an unfair comparison as both those men were President at the time and could speak to specific policy, which Mr. Obama is at a stage in which he can not employ it. What they do have in common is that the three all spoke in Berlin at a moment of critical importance for the United States and the rest of the world.
It's presumptuous if you invite 200,000 people and then turn and say - Can you believe all these people? It's another thing if they just all show up. We, the people of this country, should take a lesson.
Side Note:
Here's an article from the New York Observer Online this week. Talks about David Gregory and his prospects for his own show. Backs up what we were saying earlier this month.
http://www.observer.com/2008/media/david-gregory-nbc-s-lame-duck
David Gregory: NBC's Lame-Duck?
BY FELIX GILLETTE | JULY 22, 2008 | TAGS: MEDIADAVID GREGORYNBC NEWS
The above statement IS a poorly veiled anecdote about age and whether or not John McCain is too old to be President. It is the feeling of this column that age should not be an issue in a Presidential race. However, John McCain himself has made it an issue with his various misstatements, i.e. "Czechoslovakia" and the "Iraq/Pakistan border." Too many confused statements should be worrisome.
Conceding the fact that Senator Obama was sharp in the interview despite the fatigue, what sort of interview was it? As previously stated, our confidence in Tom Brokaw as moderator is not great by any means. This interview was as hard as you'll receive from Mr. Brokaw. His questions with regard to foreign policy and diplomacy all took the tact of looking through the lens of the opposition, giving Senator Obama the opportunity to rebut.
The questions are passive aggressive, which is Mr. Brokaw's style, along with a waits-to-talk sensibility as he sometimes finishes answers for the guest. Despite this, the discussion hit a solid array of topics, with the exception of the VP questions, which we know Sen. Obama was not going to answer (but that's television).
One such example during the program was the issue of the 'surge' and Senator Obama's opposition to it, despite that the consensus is it's working. The USA Today (put up on the screen) stated that by not acknowledging that, Mr. Obama was being stubborn and what does that say about how he would lead the country. Solely judging on what was presenting on MTP, this opinion resides in a bubble of ignorance. Stubbornness has been continually defined and redefined the past seven and half years.
But the senator correctly stated that hindsight is what it is, but that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. To phrase it conservatively, it goes back to that moment of conception. The day the war and ensuing occupation was launched. Should it have been launched? Or should the Bush Administration kept its collective dick in its pants?
Over a trillion dollar bill coming and over four thousand deaths.
Also, Mr. Brokaw and Sen. Obama discussed some polls, namely who the riskier choice was between McCain and Obama, but remember, polls means very little at this point. However, in addressing that one specifically, that particular poll sees Obama as the riskier choice. He's not, it's just that he's black and people can not get beyond that. What's hopeful is that people who have gotten beyond it are growing in majority.
And then there was the speech in Berlin this week, for which Obama received some backlash from the usual suspects - Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post and David Brooks from the NYTimes. This column has clearly stated its disdain for Mr. Brooks opinions and this is another example of why. It comes off as the spoiled kid who picks something apart because he didn't get his way. He compared what Kennedy and Reagan had done with what Obama had done and that the speech was also presumptive. It's an unfair comparison as both those men were President at the time and could speak to specific policy, which Mr. Obama is at a stage in which he can not employ it. What they do have in common is that the three all spoke in Berlin at a moment of critical importance for the United States and the rest of the world.
It's presumptuous if you invite 200,000 people and then turn and say - Can you believe all these people? It's another thing if they just all show up. We, the people of this country, should take a lesson.
Side Note:
Here's an article from the New York Observer Online this week. Talks about David Gregory and his prospects for his own show. Backs up what we were saying earlier this month.
http://www.observer.com/2008/media/david-gregory-nbc-s-lame-duck
David Gregory: NBC's Lame-Duck?
BY FELIX GILLETTE | JULY 22, 2008 | TAGS: MEDIADAVID GREGORYNBC NEWS
Sunday, July 20, 2008
7.20.08: Al Gore's Time Has Passed
He's still a bit pompous, but he's still right when it comes to energy and the environment. Mr. Gore can rattle off frightening statement after another and they simply get brushed aside for a reason that David Gregory and Chuck Todd both agreed with, which was that since Vice President Gore is still such a polarizing figure to the right, that his barking shouldn't be taken seriously. 'Look how much energy this man personally uses...' But when you know that for every degree increase in temperature, lightning strikes become ten times as likely, and when you know that the northern polar ice cap is shrinking at an alarming rate and could be 75% gone in five years, then aren't you inclined to speak at the top of your lungs?
Al Gore, on spearheading the discussion of our energy future and global warming, is the right man at the right time. We need a person of his stature on this issue to create real change. Talking to Mr. Gore about being Vice President again or in a top cabinet post would be putting him in the wrong place. There are so many who are keen on this notion, but it is misguided. The time has passed for an Al Gore Presidency, we can not go back, nor should we. Our politics need to move from the names of Gore, Bush, and Clinton because when those names are mentioned, think about it, one's opinion is cemented toward a certain way. It's time to move on.
But there is life after politics and Al Gore has found it. On the other hand, Bill Clinton has not, but needs to desperately. Right now even Democrats are mad at President Clinton. Al Gore has moved on so Democrats (Americans) need to as well.
Additionally, when Mr. Gore said that politics today requires a tolerance for triviality, and that his tolerance for this is in short supply, Mr. Brokaw disappoints as host with a moralizing question about how this could discourage young people from getting into politics. Tack like this does not belong on Meet The Press. Mr. Brokaw is a legendary news man, but that doesn't mean he's doing a good job here. Not to mention that you could tell that the Al Gore interview was edited (and not well), which defeats the urgency that MTP brings to the political discourse - throwing people into the spotlight.
Which brings us to the roundtable segment featuring David Gregory and Chuck Todd, one of these two men will be the next host. Chuck Todd is a political wonk - a geek of sorts - whose facts always trump everyone else's, but he has to speak with more authority. On the other hand, Mr. Gregory does this quite well but let's you know that he does it well. If Chuck Todd grows a pair, then he'll have the desk.
And lastly, again the conversation veered to speculating VP picks by the candidates, but as Mr. Todd pointed out - Senator Obama's pick is coming in the next two weeks, which is significant. Also, this column finds it interesting that after so much Democratic hoping for an Obama-Clinton ticket (a mending of the fence if you will), it is certainly not going to happen. Where this is going to happen is on the Republican side with McCain and Romney. These two men will come together to form what they think is a winning ticket. It will not win - simply. Political discourse is constantly filling itself with nuance, but it doesn't have to. Again, a McCain-Romney ticket will not win. McCain has trust issues as it is. The only person coming out of the primary season with more is Mr. Romney.
With Senator Obama, it is a trickier call, but there are some compelling reasons why Senator Chuck Hagel could be the pick. He's not running for the Senate again (disenchanted we would suspect after these last 7+ years), a war hero who arrived in the war as a grunt not a senator or admiral's son, foreign policy credibility, and he's from Nebraska - the heartland where Obama needs the votes.
It's a long summer for Meet The Press. We're just trying to keep it interesting. Looking forward to Senator Obama next week.
Al Gore, on spearheading the discussion of our energy future and global warming, is the right man at the right time. We need a person of his stature on this issue to create real change. Talking to Mr. Gore about being Vice President again or in a top cabinet post would be putting him in the wrong place. There are so many who are keen on this notion, but it is misguided. The time has passed for an Al Gore Presidency, we can not go back, nor should we. Our politics need to move from the names of Gore, Bush, and Clinton because when those names are mentioned, think about it, one's opinion is cemented toward a certain way. It's time to move on.
But there is life after politics and Al Gore has found it. On the other hand, Bill Clinton has not, but needs to desperately. Right now even Democrats are mad at President Clinton. Al Gore has moved on so Democrats (Americans) need to as well.
Additionally, when Mr. Gore said that politics today requires a tolerance for triviality, and that his tolerance for this is in short supply, Mr. Brokaw disappoints as host with a moralizing question about how this could discourage young people from getting into politics. Tack like this does not belong on Meet The Press. Mr. Brokaw is a legendary news man, but that doesn't mean he's doing a good job here. Not to mention that you could tell that the Al Gore interview was edited (and not well), which defeats the urgency that MTP brings to the political discourse - throwing people into the spotlight.
Which brings us to the roundtable segment featuring David Gregory and Chuck Todd, one of these two men will be the next host. Chuck Todd is a political wonk - a geek of sorts - whose facts always trump everyone else's, but he has to speak with more authority. On the other hand, Mr. Gregory does this quite well but let's you know that he does it well. If Chuck Todd grows a pair, then he'll have the desk.
And lastly, again the conversation veered to speculating VP picks by the candidates, but as Mr. Todd pointed out - Senator Obama's pick is coming in the next two weeks, which is significant. Also, this column finds it interesting that after so much Democratic hoping for an Obama-Clinton ticket (a mending of the fence if you will), it is certainly not going to happen. Where this is going to happen is on the Republican side with McCain and Romney. These two men will come together to form what they think is a winning ticket. It will not win - simply. Political discourse is constantly filling itself with nuance, but it doesn't have to. Again, a McCain-Romney ticket will not win. McCain has trust issues as it is. The only person coming out of the primary season with more is Mr. Romney.
With Senator Obama, it is a trickier call, but there are some compelling reasons why Senator Chuck Hagel could be the pick. He's not running for the Senate again (disenchanted we would suspect after these last 7+ years), a war hero who arrived in the war as a grunt not a senator or admiral's son, foreign policy credibility, and he's from Nebraska - the heartland where Obama needs the votes.
It's a long summer for Meet The Press. We're just trying to keep it interesting. Looking forward to Senator Obama next week.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
7.13.08: The Dog Days
The first thing that should be said of this week's show is that Carly Fiorina, chair of the McCain/RNC Victory campaign, is not ready for prime time. Her name has been thrown around a bit as a possible Vice Presidential candidate, but judging by today's performance on MTP, she would be eaten alive by in a debate with anyone who has a name like Biden, Richardson, Clinton, Edwards, et al. Tom Brokaw posed a hypothetical Democratic campaign ad containing a laundry list of problems for McCain and she really just sat there and took it. (A hypothetical campaign ad-type question would have never been asked by Mr. Russert. Additionally, questions like this are leading and lower the MTP standard. Mr. Brokaw should embrace his more conversational style without lowering the standard so arduously set by the late Mr. Russert.) She does not have a tone that she speaks with authority. After all, Ms. Fiorina is a deposed CEO of Hewlett Packard. Which brings up a question: What was her compensation package upon her firing? Answer: Mostly likely 5 times more than I (an average American) will make in a lifetime.
Another question that Ms. Fiorina brought up, vis a vis the Iraq Occupation, involves troop presence. She stated that we have troops in places where we have to protect our interests and that we've had troops in Japan for over 60 years. So the question is: In a time when our troops levels around the world are stretched beyond their limit and we need to prioritize, why do we still have troops in Japan? Is this ally of our still under military threat? Ms. Fiorina stated that no one objects to this. This column objects to troops in Japan and permanent bases in Iraq. Some would dismiss that statement as naive, but this column would argue that military presence is not our best tool in wielding influence, our economic and innovative might (what fuels the military strength anyway) is the most effective way to gain leverage around the world. However, what we've done during the Bush Administration is put military first and now we can see the result.
And speaking of innovation, that brings us to the brief debate on education. Senator McCaskill smartly stated that Ms. Fiorina's statement about giving choice to parents in the children's education was code for school vouchers.
As a former teacher, this is what I can tell you:
No Child Left Behind does not work. One size does not fit all as both guests stated. But why? Because people learn in different ways. Some are better auditory learners, some better with visual aids, some need strict construction and instruction - dictation if you will, and some need a combination of all of the above. By that rationale alone, you can not expect the same results from individuals teaching all the same way.
School Vouchers would cripple public education into ineffectiveness. Remember, something, anything, is only as strong as its weakest link. If we diminish public education, all the links get weaker. We're putting the funds for public education in the hands of parents, who are supposed to do the best thing for their kids. This column guarantees that when this is the case, you'll hear stories of adults being irresponsible and/or selfish with those funds ultimately depriving their children. What we don't put any importance is that public education is a pillar of this country and we should work to strengthen and expand, not diminish.
Fun Fact: Cuba has public education and also has 99% national literacy.
Lastly, having been a Union Representative for the UFT, I believe that the union should be held in tact, but needs to be overhauled greatly. I fundamental problem with the way the union is set at present is that ultimately it rewards loyalty of its teachers much more than the ability of its teachers. There are other issues of course, but this one is a fundamental easily digestible distinction.
As for the panel of Rep. Ford, Mr. Mike Murphy, and Andrea Mitchell, they seemed to all agree that Presidential polls means little right now and this is no more true right now. It's the deepest part of summer and most of the public is concerned with their finances so to the average American, there are other things taking priority over who is saying what in the campaign. That's why you can have an incredible amount of politically foolish statements in one week and get away with it. If this past week were to have occurred in September, heads would truly be rolling.
Another question that Ms. Fiorina brought up, vis a vis the Iraq Occupation, involves troop presence. She stated that we have troops in places where we have to protect our interests and that we've had troops in Japan for over 60 years. So the question is: In a time when our troops levels around the world are stretched beyond their limit and we need to prioritize, why do we still have troops in Japan? Is this ally of our still under military threat? Ms. Fiorina stated that no one objects to this. This column objects to troops in Japan and permanent bases in Iraq. Some would dismiss that statement as naive, but this column would argue that military presence is not our best tool in wielding influence, our economic and innovative might (what fuels the military strength anyway) is the most effective way to gain leverage around the world. However, what we've done during the Bush Administration is put military first and now we can see the result.
And speaking of innovation, that brings us to the brief debate on education. Senator McCaskill smartly stated that Ms. Fiorina's statement about giving choice to parents in the children's education was code for school vouchers.
As a former teacher, this is what I can tell you:
No Child Left Behind does not work. One size does not fit all as both guests stated. But why? Because people learn in different ways. Some are better auditory learners, some better with visual aids, some need strict construction and instruction - dictation if you will, and some need a combination of all of the above. By that rationale alone, you can not expect the same results from individuals teaching all the same way.
School Vouchers would cripple public education into ineffectiveness. Remember, something, anything, is only as strong as its weakest link. If we diminish public education, all the links get weaker. We're putting the funds for public education in the hands of parents, who are supposed to do the best thing for their kids. This column guarantees that when this is the case, you'll hear stories of adults being irresponsible and/or selfish with those funds ultimately depriving their children. What we don't put any importance is that public education is a pillar of this country and we should work to strengthen and expand, not diminish.
Fun Fact: Cuba has public education and also has 99% national literacy.
Lastly, having been a Union Representative for the UFT, I believe that the union should be held in tact, but needs to be overhauled greatly. I fundamental problem with the way the union is set at present is that ultimately it rewards loyalty of its teachers much more than the ability of its teachers. There are other issues of course, but this one is a fundamental easily digestible distinction.
As for the panel of Rep. Ford, Mr. Mike Murphy, and Andrea Mitchell, they seemed to all agree that Presidential polls means little right now and this is no more true right now. It's the deepest part of summer and most of the public is concerned with their finances so to the average American, there are other things taking priority over who is saying what in the campaign. That's why you can have an incredible amount of politically foolish statements in one week and get away with it. If this past week were to have occurred in September, heads would truly be rolling.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
6.29.08: Tom Brokaw Steering the Ship
The decision to initially keep Tom Brokaw away from the desk is a good idea for a few reasons. One, Mr. Brokaw is not at his best as an interviewer when in a setting that would be considered 'the traditional MTP setting,' in other words. It would just be too powerful on a reminder that Mr. Russert is no longer there. Three, Mr. Brokaw can not, in fact, hold the chair even despite his legendary resume. This week's interviews with western-state governors was a safe transition.... Interviewing western governors IN THE WEST! The glaring issue with this decision is that there isn't that urgency or spontaneity of the live interview, which was a key reason why you watched Mr. Russert and MTP in the first place.
And before we get into a look at the statements by these governors, there is one more thing that should be stated. Chuck Todd, after the November election, actually after the new year, will take over the chair of Meet The Press. Yes, you heard it here first. Mr. Todd is still sometimes a little too sure of his own opinions, but but it's not overbearing. Mr. Todd is the logical choice because, one, he's a Russert disciple. Mr. Russert brought him in. Two, unlike the other prospective NBC News anchors for the permanent spot, Mr. Todd accumulated any baggage of opinion with viewers. I.E. Chris Matthews is a blowhard - some people would argue... etc. Lastly, at first, ratings won't be great with Mr. Todd, but eventually that will turn around and the commitment to him taking over the show will create stability. He's young enough to have a long run at the desk, which is exactly what has to happen.
[Last week, Brian Williams was not up to the task. Every good point that he made, he delivered in a fast rambling mumble so no, it won't be Mr. Williams. However, last week he did get a great quote (opinion) from Senator Joe Biden of Delaware about running as Vice President. If you watch the show, you know the quote - see link below:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25314965#25314965]
Now, onto the substance....
The reorganization of western state gubernatorial leader is quite stunning - more Democratic governors in the west than I have ever seen in my lifetime. The reason for this is that the Bush Administration, from the outset, has left states to fend for themselves and financially cope on their own. Without necessarily articulating it, the American people realize this and elected Democratic governors who are more prone to consider the overall financial safety of the state and its individuals.
By most standards, all three governors interviewed today are conservative. However, Governors Bill Ritter (D-Colorado) and Dave Freudenthal (D-Wyoming) are social conservatives. Arnold Schwarzenegger, on the otherhand, is a Republican, but is socially liberal. If there is one thing for sure, President Bush has really shaken up the playing field. Everything that seems straight, is bent. And everything that is bent is actually straight - meaning that where people should be in lock step with the President and the party's national agenda, it's just not happening. Officials are striking out with their own opinions with the White House unable to employ any persuasion.
Both Governors, who were interviewed in Wyoming, illustrated on key point respectively and that they are so solely focused on their own states, that while they can opine about the Presidential contest, the plight of the state is a grave concern, with energy being at the top of the list. Mr. Bush's sole solution of drilling more holes in the ground is simply not flying with anyone and seems transparently pathetic in the face of a one-thought agenda - more oil.
In Arnold's defense, California has been saddled with incredible debt so if in fact, he is paying down the debt, it is a great thing and will only be recognized until after he leaves office. It's the most thankless, but vital thing a Governor can do for his/her state - alleviate the debt. But of course as soon as Gov. Schwarzenegger says something that makes sense, he digresses into an anecdote that makes you reconsider the wisdom of him in office. Those dinner table conversations he was recanting were.... let's just say 'worrisome.' Mr. Schwarzenegger, even if the amendment were not in place, should never be considered an option for the office of the President.
So we have begun the new age of Meet The Press and no matter what, this column will be watching.
And before we get into a look at the statements by these governors, there is one more thing that should be stated. Chuck Todd, after the November election, actually after the new year, will take over the chair of Meet The Press. Yes, you heard it here first. Mr. Todd is still sometimes a little too sure of his own opinions, but but it's not overbearing. Mr. Todd is the logical choice because, one, he's a Russert disciple. Mr. Russert brought him in. Two, unlike the other prospective NBC News anchors for the permanent spot, Mr. Todd accumulated any baggage of opinion with viewers. I.E. Chris Matthews is a blowhard - some people would argue... etc. Lastly, at first, ratings won't be great with Mr. Todd, but eventually that will turn around and the commitment to him taking over the show will create stability. He's young enough to have a long run at the desk, which is exactly what has to happen.
[Last week, Brian Williams was not up to the task. Every good point that he made, he delivered in a fast rambling mumble so no, it won't be Mr. Williams. However, last week he did get a great quote (opinion) from Senator Joe Biden of Delaware about running as Vice President. If you watch the show, you know the quote - see link below:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25314965#25314965]
Now, onto the substance....
The reorganization of western state gubernatorial leader is quite stunning - more Democratic governors in the west than I have ever seen in my lifetime. The reason for this is that the Bush Administration, from the outset, has left states to fend for themselves and financially cope on their own. Without necessarily articulating it, the American people realize this and elected Democratic governors who are more prone to consider the overall financial safety of the state and its individuals.
By most standards, all three governors interviewed today are conservative. However, Governors Bill Ritter (D-Colorado) and Dave Freudenthal (D-Wyoming) are social conservatives. Arnold Schwarzenegger, on the otherhand, is a Republican, but is socially liberal. If there is one thing for sure, President Bush has really shaken up the playing field. Everything that seems straight, is bent. And everything that is bent is actually straight - meaning that where people should be in lock step with the President and the party's national agenda, it's just not happening. Officials are striking out with their own opinions with the White House unable to employ any persuasion.
Both Governors, who were interviewed in Wyoming, illustrated on key point respectively and that they are so solely focused on their own states, that while they can opine about the Presidential contest, the plight of the state is a grave concern, with energy being at the top of the list. Mr. Bush's sole solution of drilling more holes in the ground is simply not flying with anyone and seems transparently pathetic in the face of a one-thought agenda - more oil.
In Arnold's defense, California has been saddled with incredible debt so if in fact, he is paying down the debt, it is a great thing and will only be recognized until after he leaves office. It's the most thankless, but vital thing a Governor can do for his/her state - alleviate the debt. But of course as soon as Gov. Schwarzenegger says something that makes sense, he digresses into an anecdote that makes you reconsider the wisdom of him in office. Those dinner table conversations he was recanting were.... let's just say 'worrisome.' Mr. Schwarzenegger, even if the amendment were not in place, should never be considered an option for the office of the President.
So we have begun the new age of Meet The Press and no matter what, this column will be watching.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
6.19.08: Sometimes, We're All Like One Another
This column is posting this picture to illustrate a little point that in politics is often forgotten. That no matter what side of the aisle you prefer and/or oppose, however vehemently, we all grieve as one people, as the collective America. It's the culture of this country, unfortunately, that we're so ready to kick the other side when it's down. Maybe for once we should pick each other up and fix the clear and terribly present ills that face this nation.
See you on Sunday.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
6.17.08: Eugene Robinson's Russert Column
This column considers Eugene Robinson one of the foremost common sense makers in journalism. His insights never seem forced and the continually reek of sensibility, always begging the question - why didn't I think of that.
The Outsider's Insider
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, June 17, 2008; A17
Tim Russert knew he was a big deal -- he had a healthy ego and an accurate sense of his accomplishments. But I'm confident that he would be stunned at the magnitude of the reaction to his death, especially among people who never met him. There's a sense that something more than the man has been lost.
I've appeared occasionally on "Meet the Press," and this year I often worked with Russert on MSNBC's election coverage. Since last Friday, when Russert suffered a heart attack while preparing for Sunday's show, I've been stopped a number of times by people I don't know -- in the street, in the supermarket, at a restaurant -- who extended condolences as if a member of my own family had passed away. I've gotten e-mails from both friends and strangers saying they were touched by Russert's passing in a way that surprised them.
The temptation is to chalk this up to Russert's great skill as a broadcaster -- effortlessly projecting his personality through the screen. As friends, colleagues and the subjects (or victims) of his interviews have attested, he was a great guy. At this point, after a weekend of nonstop tributes, it would be self-indulgent for me to add my own litany of personal recollections and unadulterated hosannas. Suffice it to say that he deserved it all.
But why such a huge reaction? I think it's not just because of who Russert was, but also because of the role he carved out for himself as a kind of ombudsman -- the mediator not only of a television show but of a weekly dialogue between the public and the political establishment.
In an age of postmodern irony, there was nothing remotely postmodern or ironic about Russert -- or for that matter about his television show. His "Meet the Press" presented the nation's political discourse as we would like it to be: sober yet good-natured, always civil, scrupulously informed. The show flattered guests and their subject matter by taking them seriously and, by extension, flattered the millions of viewers who reliably tuned in every Sunday morning by taking them seriously as well.
Much has been made of Russert's "everyman" persona -- the blue-collar kid from Buffalo who never lost sight of his roots. It's true that Russert didn't put on airs, but he never pretended to be a regular guy and I doubt many people saw him that way. In fact, he was the insider's insider, with connections and access -- and also wealth and influence -- that no one would remotely consider ordinary. If there is a Washington "bubble," Russert lived at its center.
What he did so effectively was confront his fellow insiders with the questions and concerns of those living outside. This was not a unique gift -- other great journalists do the same thing. But Russert did it so well, and gradually aggregated such a large audience, that he came to occupy a unique position in the nation's political life. He made "Meet the Press" a rite of passage for anyone seeking high office, a confessional for politicians who had sinned, a briefing room where generals could defend their strategies.
"Meet the Press" has been on the air for an incredible six decades -- Russert was the longest-running host, at 17 years -- and the show clings to some charming traditions. After each segment, a photographer comes out to take a picture for the archives. When the taping is done, snacks are brought to the set and the guests linger for a while, chatting with the host -- about their families, about baseball, about the news of the day and about what's likely to be the news of tomorrow. It's all so civilized that it feels almost anachronistic.
Tim Russert wasn't an anachronism, though. Journalism is going through a phase of traumatic transition -- newspapers are losing circulation, the broadcast networks are losing viewers, the Internet is changing everything. The temptation is to think of Russert as a throwback. But actually he was the state of the art because he did what any journalist, in any era, needs to do in order to thrive: He made himself essential.
That, I think, is why there is such an outpouring of sympathy over his death. He is so desperately missed because he was so necessary.
The Outsider's Insider
By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, June 17, 2008; A17
Tim Russert knew he was a big deal -- he had a healthy ego and an accurate sense of his accomplishments. But I'm confident that he would be stunned at the magnitude of the reaction to his death, especially among people who never met him. There's a sense that something more than the man has been lost.
I've appeared occasionally on "Meet the Press," and this year I often worked with Russert on MSNBC's election coverage. Since last Friday, when Russert suffered a heart attack while preparing for Sunday's show, I've been stopped a number of times by people I don't know -- in the street, in the supermarket, at a restaurant -- who extended condolences as if a member of my own family had passed away. I've gotten e-mails from both friends and strangers saying they were touched by Russert's passing in a way that surprised them.
The temptation is to chalk this up to Russert's great skill as a broadcaster -- effortlessly projecting his personality through the screen. As friends, colleagues and the subjects (or victims) of his interviews have attested, he was a great guy. At this point, after a weekend of nonstop tributes, it would be self-indulgent for me to add my own litany of personal recollections and unadulterated hosannas. Suffice it to say that he deserved it all.
But why such a huge reaction? I think it's not just because of who Russert was, but also because of the role he carved out for himself as a kind of ombudsman -- the mediator not only of a television show but of a weekly dialogue between the public and the political establishment.
In an age of postmodern irony, there was nothing remotely postmodern or ironic about Russert -- or for that matter about his television show. His "Meet the Press" presented the nation's political discourse as we would like it to be: sober yet good-natured, always civil, scrupulously informed. The show flattered guests and their subject matter by taking them seriously and, by extension, flattered the millions of viewers who reliably tuned in every Sunday morning by taking them seriously as well.
Much has been made of Russert's "everyman" persona -- the blue-collar kid from Buffalo who never lost sight of his roots. It's true that Russert didn't put on airs, but he never pretended to be a regular guy and I doubt many people saw him that way. In fact, he was the insider's insider, with connections and access -- and also wealth and influence -- that no one would remotely consider ordinary. If there is a Washington "bubble," Russert lived at its center.
What he did so effectively was confront his fellow insiders with the questions and concerns of those living outside. This was not a unique gift -- other great journalists do the same thing. But Russert did it so well, and gradually aggregated such a large audience, that he came to occupy a unique position in the nation's political life. He made "Meet the Press" a rite of passage for anyone seeking high office, a confessional for politicians who had sinned, a briefing room where generals could defend their strategies.
"Meet the Press" has been on the air for an incredible six decades -- Russert was the longest-running host, at 17 years -- and the show clings to some charming traditions. After each segment, a photographer comes out to take a picture for the archives. When the taping is done, snacks are brought to the set and the guests linger for a while, chatting with the host -- about their families, about baseball, about the news of the day and about what's likely to be the news of tomorrow. It's all so civilized that it feels almost anachronistic.
Tim Russert wasn't an anachronism, though. Journalism is going through a phase of traumatic transition -- newspapers are losing circulation, the broadcast networks are losing viewers, the Internet is changing everything. The temptation is to think of Russert as a throwback. But actually he was the state of the art because he did what any journalist, in any era, needs to do in order to thrive: He made himself essential.
That, I think, is why there is such an outpouring of sympathy over his death. He is so desperately missed because he was so necessary.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
6.15.08: Farewell Father Tim
It is most important to include the word 'father' in the title of today's column. Literally and figuratively, Tim Russert was a great father. It seems like a statement that could only be made by someone who knew the man personally and not some anonymous writer of some blog. But from listening to the testimonials of today's guests and knowing what we already know, the man loved his son and his family, mentored and set the standard for so many journalists, represented us in the face of power, and educated everyone who knew his name. To that point, Mr. Russert was one of this individual's political fathers. He provided a young idealistic man, fresh from the Peace Corps a reason to stay engaged in what what happening in the world; that what the leaders of this country said mattered to all of us as individuals; that people from 'little' places can do the most amazing things.
I underestimated the difficulty of writing this column because I miss my Sunday Morning Teacher - more than I ever thought. Right now, this column has no more words. I anticipated today's column about the show to be more analytical, reflective, but it just didn't work out that way as often happening that things seldom do.
We'll continue in your spirit, it's the gift you've given us.
I underestimated the difficulty of writing this column because I miss my Sunday Morning Teacher - more than I ever thought. Right now, this column has no more words. I anticipated today's column about the show to be more analytical, reflective, but it just didn't work out that way as often happening that things seldom do.
We'll continue in your spirit, it's the gift you've given us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)