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.”
Monday, December 08, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)