Naturally most of the world will be watching the Presidential Elections. At the Vanguard, we also keep our eye on the top, but the bulk of our coverage is on the local.
So what do we have in store for people at the local level? A few races still worth following.
Let us start with the most interesting race locally that will be for State Senate if for no other reason than there are very few open seats in the Senate in competitive districts and this is a competitive district, although I would suggest it leans Democratic.
Four years ago, Incumbent Mike Machado was challenged by Stockton Mayor Gary Podesto and the two combined for nearly $10 million in spending in a race that drew statewide attention.
Despite the competitive nature of the race, Machado ended up winning fairly comfortably at 52.2 to 47.8 percent. The margin was just under 13,000 votes. That’s a close outcome, particularly in California, but not that close.
Some have suggested that the 5th District is now more Democratic than before. In addition, given the economy and concerns about the direction of the country, this figures to be a Democratic year. Democratic Primaries drew record numbers across the nation including in California back in February.
If we look at the results from the Senate District in the primary, you see that Democratic candidate Assemblywoman Lois Wolk despite having an opponent that drew 11,684 votes, still out polled her opponent, colleague, Greg Aghazarian by nearly 13,000. That’s of course in the primary, but it is an indicator of base support. You have to figure that most of her Democratic opponents votes will go to her in the general.
Some can argue that the contested Democratic Assembly primary in the northern part of the district, impacted the turn out.
They may have a point. If you look at the Sacramento and San Joanquin county totals, you see that Aghazarian did in fact narrowly outpoll Wolk in each county. In Sacramento County he outpolled her by 19 votes, but Jennet Stebbins (Dem) had 650 votes. In San Joanquin Aghazarian outpolled Lois Wolk by 1100 votes with Jennet Stebbins receiving 7324.
In other words, in the Southern and more conservative part of the district, the portion where Wolk is not currently the Assemblywoman, Wolk is outpolled by 1100, but Democratic voters outnumbered Republican voters by nearly 7000.
What it all means when the two candidates are waging air wars, is anyone’s guess, but if I had to handicap it, Wolk would have a greater advantage than Machado. Apparently they are going to try to run against Davis as part of the strategy to defeat here. So they are going to run against Toad Tunnels and other eccentricities of Davis. There is great irony there however, as Lois Wolk was not a supporter of those types of policies, in fact, she was on the opposite side on a lot of the issues they will try to pin to her (although she did vote for the Toad Tunnel).
We also have the 8th AD race. This is a heavily democratic district. Mariko Yamada is for most intents and purposes the next Assemblywoman, but she does have a general election challenger in Manuel Cosme. I do not know much about Cosme.
What I do know is that 2002 is the last time there was an open seat for the 8th AD. Lois Wolk ran against former Davis School Board Member John Munn. John Munn would appear on paper to be slightly stronger than Manuel Cosme. On the other hand, Mariko Yamada may be somewhat weaker than Wolk. Nevertheless Wolk won handily 58-42, a margin of 16,000 votes. The other two races she won by 41,000 in 2004 and 38,000 in 2006.
This is a district with a 48 to 31 advantage for Democrats. It may not be a safe district, but it is a strongly Democratic district. Unless the Republicans are bored, it is doubtful they will use their resources in the 8th Assembly District.
That leaves us with an interesting wild card locally and that is whether or not the school district will put another parcel tax on the ballot. As I said before, I just do not see how they cannot do it. But if they do, they will have to run a real and hard fought campaign. They are going to have a 75 to 80 percent turnout in November versus a sub-30 percent turnout last November. They are going to have a very wary and angry electorate to deal with. This will be no slam dunk. So this election will bear watching as well.
A final note on the passing of Tim Russert
You know a person has been influential when everyone has been impacted by them at some level. As a political junkie, he was a guy that I admired and I used to point out as an example to my students as someone to watch. He was the best and toughest interviewer I have ever seen.
Too many interviewers can be tough on people that they disagree with, but they are soft as anything when they agree with. Not Tim Russert. He was always prepared. He always asked the tough questions and if you were weak on your stuff, he would bury you. Republican and Democrat alike.
That is the way it ought to be. It does people no good whether you agree or disagree to ask the easy questions. You do not learn anything and it cannot neutralize your doubters.
Russert was tough, but he was also fair and polite. He is what many in journalism aspire to be. Interestingly he started out as political strategist working for Mario Cuomo and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He was an ardent Democrat and yet one of the fairest and most balanced reporters and analysts around–he criticized everyone and asked Democrat and Republican alike the tough questions.
One of the things that struck me most about people’s accounts of his life, was invariably his love for the Buffalo Bills. Those who know me in my personal life, know of my love and passion for sports, particularly for the St. Louis Cardinals. The identification Russert had with the Bills was something I could relate to. Among all of the things that he accomplished, people also remember the smaller things that give us joy in life.
At 58, Tim Russert was far too young and this country and the Presidential election will sorely miss his presence and his graceful influence.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Tim Russert’s passing deserves appropriate respect and consolation for his family’s loss. Let’s not forget,however, his failure to try and expose the Bush/Cheny propoganda blitz in the build up to the Iraq invasion. I don’t remember his “prosecutorial” skills being much in evidence when Cheny was across the table during that infamous Meet the Press session when Cheny used, as the source for his facts, the article that he had just planted in the NY Times.
Tim Russert’s passing deserves appropriate respect and consolation for his family’s loss. Let’s not forget,however, his failure to try and expose the Bush/Cheny propoganda blitz in the build up to the Iraq invasion. I don’t remember his “prosecutorial” skills being much in evidence when Cheny was across the table during that infamous Meet the Press session when Cheny used, as the source for his facts, the article that he had just planted in the NY Times.
Tim Russert’s passing deserves appropriate respect and consolation for his family’s loss. Let’s not forget,however, his failure to try and expose the Bush/Cheny propoganda blitz in the build up to the Iraq invasion. I don’t remember his “prosecutorial” skills being much in evidence when Cheny was across the table during that infamous Meet the Press session when Cheny used, as the source for his facts, the article that he had just planted in the NY Times.
Tim Russert’s passing deserves appropriate respect and consolation for his family’s loss. Let’s not forget,however, his failure to try and expose the Bush/Cheny propoganda blitz in the build up to the Iraq invasion. I don’t remember his “prosecutorial” skills being much in evidence when Cheny was across the table during that infamous Meet the Press session when Cheny used, as the source for his facts, the article that he had just planted in the NY Times.
re parcel tax. The Valley Oak Elementary closing revealed that while all Davis families are equal in the “eyes” of the School Board and DJUSD, some are “more equal” than others. One parcel tax for everyone should be scrapped and a progressive parcel tax, based upon property/home value instituted.
re parcel tax. The Valley Oak Elementary closing revealed that while all Davis families are equal in the “eyes” of the School Board and DJUSD, some are “more equal” than others. One parcel tax for everyone should be scrapped and a progressive parcel tax, based upon property/home value instituted.
re parcel tax. The Valley Oak Elementary closing revealed that while all Davis families are equal in the “eyes” of the School Board and DJUSD, some are “more equal” than others. One parcel tax for everyone should be scrapped and a progressive parcel tax, based upon property/home value instituted.
re parcel tax. The Valley Oak Elementary closing revealed that while all Davis families are equal in the “eyes” of the School Board and DJUSD, some are “more equal” than others. One parcel tax for everyone should be scrapped and a progressive parcel tax, based upon property/home value instituted.
One factor that hasn’t been considered much in this blog is that the process of community fundraising led by DSF significantly raised awareness of the financial situation of the district. Whether that was positive awareness or not may be speculative.
One of the obvious questions that was raised during this time when it was stated that this was intended to be one-time community-raised money was “what will happen for the following year?”
And one of the common responses was that “there is discussion that the district will propose a parcel tax.” So this event (parcel tax) is probably more heavily anticipated than previous scenarios.
And, although, Davis does have a rather consistent history of passing school parcel taxes, it is hubris to think this is a slam dunk.
But it is a critical aspect of the community discussion for if and how to address local school funding.
anon 8:49 mentions an insteresting idea that I haven’t heard mentioned in school board discussions on a proposed parcel tax — a percentage based on assessed value, at purchase, I would presume.
One factor that hasn’t been considered much in this blog is that the process of community fundraising led by DSF significantly raised awareness of the financial situation of the district. Whether that was positive awareness or not may be speculative.
One of the obvious questions that was raised during this time when it was stated that this was intended to be one-time community-raised money was “what will happen for the following year?”
And one of the common responses was that “there is discussion that the district will propose a parcel tax.” So this event (parcel tax) is probably more heavily anticipated than previous scenarios.
And, although, Davis does have a rather consistent history of passing school parcel taxes, it is hubris to think this is a slam dunk.
But it is a critical aspect of the community discussion for if and how to address local school funding.
anon 8:49 mentions an insteresting idea that I haven’t heard mentioned in school board discussions on a proposed parcel tax — a percentage based on assessed value, at purchase, I would presume.
One factor that hasn’t been considered much in this blog is that the process of community fundraising led by DSF significantly raised awareness of the financial situation of the district. Whether that was positive awareness or not may be speculative.
One of the obvious questions that was raised during this time when it was stated that this was intended to be one-time community-raised money was “what will happen for the following year?”
And one of the common responses was that “there is discussion that the district will propose a parcel tax.” So this event (parcel tax) is probably more heavily anticipated than previous scenarios.
And, although, Davis does have a rather consistent history of passing school parcel taxes, it is hubris to think this is a slam dunk.
But it is a critical aspect of the community discussion for if and how to address local school funding.
anon 8:49 mentions an insteresting idea that I haven’t heard mentioned in school board discussions on a proposed parcel tax — a percentage based on assessed value, at purchase, I would presume.
One factor that hasn’t been considered much in this blog is that the process of community fundraising led by DSF significantly raised awareness of the financial situation of the district. Whether that was positive awareness or not may be speculative.
One of the obvious questions that was raised during this time when it was stated that this was intended to be one-time community-raised money was “what will happen for the following year?”
And one of the common responses was that “there is discussion that the district will propose a parcel tax.” So this event (parcel tax) is probably more heavily anticipated than previous scenarios.
And, although, Davis does have a rather consistent history of passing school parcel taxes, it is hubris to think this is a slam dunk.
But it is a critical aspect of the community discussion for if and how to address local school funding.
anon 8:49 mentions an insteresting idea that I haven’t heard mentioned in school board discussions on a proposed parcel tax — a percentage based on assessed value, at purchase, I would presume.
i don’t think either the state senate or assembly races are going to be all that close, to be honest. if you follow the voting trends and registration numbers in the 8th and 5th, they’re all breaking increasingly democratic. and november’s going to be a tough one for republicans generally to boot, hence the reason why aghazarian’s leaving his party affiliation off his signs; he knows that R’s an albatross. i suspect we’ll see the democratic party helping lois out with the fundraising, and the unions in stockton stepping up bigtime for GOTV, but the playing field is pretty dramatically skewed for her. there’s not much in her assembly record to skewer, or even criticize, really, except from the margins on both sides.
i expect the parcel tax will pass as well, although as always, it’ll be a nailbiter given the absurdly high supermajority we need to pass these things by. davis is pretty good about voting for schools, and is relatively lowly taxed compared to similar communities in the state. while the low turnout primary won’t necessarily map well onto the coming high turnout general, it is worth noting that the vast majority of the school bonds passed statewide, in communities that are hurting way more than davis, economically.
i don’t think either the state senate or assembly races are going to be all that close, to be honest. if you follow the voting trends and registration numbers in the 8th and 5th, they’re all breaking increasingly democratic. and november’s going to be a tough one for republicans generally to boot, hence the reason why aghazarian’s leaving his party affiliation off his signs; he knows that R’s an albatross. i suspect we’ll see the democratic party helping lois out with the fundraising, and the unions in stockton stepping up bigtime for GOTV, but the playing field is pretty dramatically skewed for her. there’s not much in her assembly record to skewer, or even criticize, really, except from the margins on both sides.
i expect the parcel tax will pass as well, although as always, it’ll be a nailbiter given the absurdly high supermajority we need to pass these things by. davis is pretty good about voting for schools, and is relatively lowly taxed compared to similar communities in the state. while the low turnout primary won’t necessarily map well onto the coming high turnout general, it is worth noting that the vast majority of the school bonds passed statewide, in communities that are hurting way more than davis, economically.
i don’t think either the state senate or assembly races are going to be all that close, to be honest. if you follow the voting trends and registration numbers in the 8th and 5th, they’re all breaking increasingly democratic. and november’s going to be a tough one for republicans generally to boot, hence the reason why aghazarian’s leaving his party affiliation off his signs; he knows that R’s an albatross. i suspect we’ll see the democratic party helping lois out with the fundraising, and the unions in stockton stepping up bigtime for GOTV, but the playing field is pretty dramatically skewed for her. there’s not much in her assembly record to skewer, or even criticize, really, except from the margins on both sides.
i expect the parcel tax will pass as well, although as always, it’ll be a nailbiter given the absurdly high supermajority we need to pass these things by. davis is pretty good about voting for schools, and is relatively lowly taxed compared to similar communities in the state. while the low turnout primary won’t necessarily map well onto the coming high turnout general, it is worth noting that the vast majority of the school bonds passed statewide, in communities that are hurting way more than davis, economically.
i don’t think either the state senate or assembly races are going to be all that close, to be honest. if you follow the voting trends and registration numbers in the 8th and 5th, they’re all breaking increasingly democratic. and november’s going to be a tough one for republicans generally to boot, hence the reason why aghazarian’s leaving his party affiliation off his signs; he knows that R’s an albatross. i suspect we’ll see the democratic party helping lois out with the fundraising, and the unions in stockton stepping up bigtime for GOTV, but the playing field is pretty dramatically skewed for her. there’s not much in her assembly record to skewer, or even criticize, really, except from the margins on both sides.
i expect the parcel tax will pass as well, although as always, it’ll be a nailbiter given the absurdly high supermajority we need to pass these things by. davis is pretty good about voting for schools, and is relatively lowly taxed compared to similar communities in the state. while the low turnout primary won’t necessarily map well onto the coming high turnout general, it is worth noting that the vast majority of the school bonds passed statewide, in communities that are hurting way more than davis, economically.
For many years now, I’ve gotten my news from numerous Internet sources, which are far superior to television, hence, the death of Tim Russert has little or no political impact for me.
The self-reverentiality of the stories about his death last night was remarkable for what it revealed about how the cable news media is now primarily an entertainment source instead of an informational one. The cool rationality of people like Murrow, Chronkite, Brinkley and others is clearly a thing of the past.
If the debate that he moderated between Obama and Clinton was any indication, he was a pretty average Beltway journalist.
–Richard Estes
For many years now, I’ve gotten my news from numerous Internet sources, which are far superior to television, hence, the death of Tim Russert has little or no political impact for me.
The self-reverentiality of the stories about his death last night was remarkable for what it revealed about how the cable news media is now primarily an entertainment source instead of an informational one. The cool rationality of people like Murrow, Chronkite, Brinkley and others is clearly a thing of the past.
If the debate that he moderated between Obama and Clinton was any indication, he was a pretty average Beltway journalist.
–Richard Estes
For many years now, I’ve gotten my news from numerous Internet sources, which are far superior to television, hence, the death of Tim Russert has little or no political impact for me.
The self-reverentiality of the stories about his death last night was remarkable for what it revealed about how the cable news media is now primarily an entertainment source instead of an informational one. The cool rationality of people like Murrow, Chronkite, Brinkley and others is clearly a thing of the past.
If the debate that he moderated between Obama and Clinton was any indication, he was a pretty average Beltway journalist.
–Richard Estes
For many years now, I’ve gotten my news from numerous Internet sources, which are far superior to television, hence, the death of Tim Russert has little or no political impact for me.
The self-reverentiality of the stories about his death last night was remarkable for what it revealed about how the cable news media is now primarily an entertainment source instead of an informational one. The cool rationality of people like Murrow, Chronkite, Brinkley and others is clearly a thing of the past.
If the debate that he moderated between Obama and Clinton was any indication, he was a pretty average Beltway journalist.
–Richard Estes
DPD,
I agree with you about Tim Russert. He was a great journalist and media person. I liked his style and his ability to not let his own personal opinions get in the way. He was always straight forward. He did not have all the answers, but he pursued them.
Given that note, and having read this blog now for the past 2 weeks or so, I have a question for you.
What was your and Ceceilia’s involvement in the C.A.R.O.L.E. issue? Who else was involved? Are you going to ignore this request as you did the others? I think you know the truth.
DPD,
I agree with you about Tim Russert. He was a great journalist and media person. I liked his style and his ability to not let his own personal opinions get in the way. He was always straight forward. He did not have all the answers, but he pursued them.
Given that note, and having read this blog now for the past 2 weeks or so, I have a question for you.
What was your and Ceceilia’s involvement in the C.A.R.O.L.E. issue? Who else was involved? Are you going to ignore this request as you did the others? I think you know the truth.
DPD,
I agree with you about Tim Russert. He was a great journalist and media person. I liked his style and his ability to not let his own personal opinions get in the way. He was always straight forward. He did not have all the answers, but he pursued them.
Given that note, and having read this blog now for the past 2 weeks or so, I have a question for you.
What was your and Ceceilia’s involvement in the C.A.R.O.L.E. issue? Who else was involved? Are you going to ignore this request as you did the others? I think you know the truth.
DPD,
I agree with you about Tim Russert. He was a great journalist and media person. I liked his style and his ability to not let his own personal opinions get in the way. He was always straight forward. He did not have all the answers, but he pursued them.
Given that note, and having read this blog now for the past 2 weeks or so, I have a question for you.
What was your and Ceceilia’s involvement in the C.A.R.O.L.E. issue? Who else was involved? Are you going to ignore this request as you did the others? I think you know the truth.
Anonymous 8:49 said:
One parcel tax for everyone should be scrapped and a progressive parcel tax, based upon property/home value instituted.
Interesting idea if only the state constitution allowed it: (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13A)
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 13A [TAX LIMITATION]
SECTION 1.
(a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed One percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.
(b) The limitation provided for in subdivision (a) shall not apply to ad valorem taxes or special assessments to pay the interest and redemption charges on any of the following:
(1) Indebtedness approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978.
(2) Bonded indebtedness for the acquisition or improvement of real property approved on or after July 1, 1978, by two-thirds of the votes cast by the voters voting on the proposition.
(3) Bonded indebtedness incurred by a school district, community college district, or county office of education for the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities, approved by 55 percent of the voters of the district or county, as appropriate, voting on the proposition on or after the effective date of the measure adding this paragraph. This paragraph shall apply only if the proposition approved by the voters and resulting in the bonded indebtedness includes all of the following accountability requirements:
(A) A requirement that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds be used only for the purposes specified in Article XIIIA, Section 1(b) (3), and not for any other purpose, including teacher and administrator salaries and other school operating expenses.
(B) A list of the specific school facilities projects to be funded and certification that the school district board, community college board, or county office of education has evaluated safety, class size reduction, and information technology needs in developing that list.
(C) A requirement that the school district board, community college board, or county office of education conduct an annual, independent performance audit to ensure that the funds have been expended only on the specific projects listed.
(D) A requirement that the school district board, community college board, or county office of education conduct an annual, independent financial audit of the proceeds from the sale of the bonds until all of those proceeds have been expended for the school facilities projects.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law or of this Constitution, school districts, community college districts, and county offices of education may levy a 55 percent vote ad valorem tax pursuant to subdivision (b).
Anonymous 8:49 said:
One parcel tax for everyone should be scrapped and a progressive parcel tax, based upon property/home value instituted.
Interesting idea if only the state constitution allowed it: (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13A)
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 13A [TAX LIMITATION]
SECTION 1.
(a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed One percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.
(b) The limitation provided for in subdivision (a) shall not apply to ad valorem taxes or special assessments to pay the interest and redemption charges on any of the following:
(1) Indebtedness approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978.
(2) Bonded indebtedness for the acquisition or improvement of real property approved on or after July 1, 1978, by two-thirds of the votes cast by the voters voting on the proposition.
(3) Bonded indebtedness incurred by a school district, community college district, or county office of education for the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities, approved by 55 percent of the voters of the district or county, as appropriate, voting on the proposition on or after the effective date of the measure adding this paragraph. This paragraph shall apply only if the proposition approved by the voters and resulting in the bonded indebtedness includes all of the following accountability requirements:
(A) A requirement that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds be used only for the purposes specified in Article XIIIA, Section 1(b) (3), and not for any other purpose, including teacher and administrator salaries and other school operating expenses.
(B) A list of the specific school facilities projects to be funded and certification that the school district board, community college board, or county office of education has evaluated safety, class size reduction, and information technology needs in developing that list.
(C) A requirement that the school district board, community college board, or county office of education conduct an annual, independent performance audit to ensure that the funds have been expended only on the specific projects listed.
(D) A requirement that the school district board, community college board, or county office of education conduct an annual, independent financial audit of the proceeds from the sale of the bonds until all of those proceeds have been expended for the school facilities projects.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law or of this Constitution, school districts, community college districts, and county offices of education may levy a 55 percent vote ad valorem tax pursuant to subdivision (b).
Anonymous 8:49 said:
One parcel tax for everyone should be scrapped and a progressive parcel tax, based upon property/home value instituted.
Interesting idea if only the state constitution allowed it: (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13A)
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 13A [TAX LIMITATION]
SECTION 1.
(a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed One percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.
(b) The limitation provided for in subdivision (a) shall not apply to ad valorem taxes or special assessments to pay the interest and redemption charges on any of the following:
(1) Indebtedness approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978.
(2) Bonded indebtedness for the acquisition or improvement of real property approved on or after July 1, 1978, by two-thirds of the votes cast by the voters voting on the proposition.
(3) Bonded indebtedness incurred by a school district, community college district, or county office of education for the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities, approved by 55 percent of the voters of the district or county, as appropriate, voting on the proposition on or after the effective date of the measure adding this paragraph. This paragraph shall apply only if the proposition approved by the voters and resulting in the bonded indebtedness includes all of the following accountability requirements:
(A) A requirement that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds be used only for the purposes specified in Article XIIIA, Section 1(b) (3), and not for any other purpose, including teacher and administrator salaries and other school operating expenses.
(B) A list of the specific school facilities projects to be funded and certification that the school district board, community college board, or county office of education has evaluated safety, class size reduction, and information technology needs in developing that list.
(C) A requirement that the school district board, community college board, or county office of education conduct an annual, independent performance audit to ensure that the funds have been expended only on the specific projects listed.
(D) A requirement that the school district board, community college board, or county office of education conduct an annual, independent financial audit of the proceeds from the sale of the bonds until all of those proceeds have been expended for the school facilities projects.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law or of this Constitution, school districts, community college districts, and county offices of education may levy a 55 percent vote ad valorem tax pursuant to subdivision (b).
Anonymous 8:49 said:
One parcel tax for everyone should be scrapped and a progressive parcel tax, based upon property/home value instituted.
Interesting idea if only the state constitution allowed it: (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13A)
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 13A [TAX LIMITATION]
SECTION 1.
(a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed One percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.
(b) The limitation provided for in subdivision (a) shall not apply to ad valorem taxes or special assessments to pay the interest and redemption charges on any of the following:
(1) Indebtedness approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978.
(2) Bonded indebtedness for the acquisition or improvement of real property approved on or after July 1, 1978, by two-thirds of the votes cast by the voters voting on the proposition.
(3) Bonded indebtedness incurred by a school district, community college district, or county office of education for the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities, approved by 55 percent of the voters of the district or county, as appropriate, voting on the proposition on or after the effective date of the measure adding this paragraph. This paragraph shall apply only if the proposition approved by the voters and resulting in the bonded indebtedness includes all of the following accountability requirements:
(A) A requirement that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds be used only for the purposes specified in Article XIIIA, Section 1(b) (3), and not for any other purpose, including teacher and administrator salaries and other school operating expenses.
(B) A list of the specific school facilities projects to be funded and certification that the school district board, community college board, or county office of education has evaluated safety, class size reduction, and information technology needs in developing that list.
(C) A requirement that the school district board, community college board, or county office of education conduct an annual, independent performance audit to ensure that the funds have been expended only on the specific projects listed.
(D) A requirement that the school district board, community college board, or county office of education conduct an annual, independent financial audit of the proceeds from the sale of the bonds until all of those proceeds have been expended for the school facilities projects.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law or of this Constitution, school districts, community college districts, and county offices of education may levy a 55 percent vote ad valorem tax pursuant to subdivision (b).
To anon 2:46 pm: In reading the statute, I am not following what part says that a parcel tax cannot be assessed on a sliding scale depending on the value of your property, provided it never goes above 1% of the value of the property? Am I missing something? Also, the parcel tax is not a bond, is it? So all the wording following the bond issue is irrelevant to a parcel tax, correct? Just need some clarification here as to your point. Thanks!
I very much doubt another parcel tax will be a slam dunk for approval. My guess is it will be the exact opposite. If Emerson is to be closed anyway, teachers laid off, etc. unless we cough up what amounts to millions of dollars (between 3 and 4.5 million in operating expenses plus 14 million in renovation costs for Emerson), my estimate would be a parcel tax won’t get off the ground.
The School Board/District will have to be more above board (pardon the pun) as to exactly what is at stake, how much needs to be raised to avoid the “inevitable”, along with various scenarios that are more palatable. I know I would not vote for another parcel tax if I figure Emerson is going to be closed anyway, teachers and librarians are going to be laid off, and its going to be business as usual.
What guarantee to we have right now that developers won’t influence too many schools being built yet again, or that school personnel can be hired by an outside consulting agency within months or days of quitting their job at the school district?
Frankly, I applaud the first grade DJUSD teacher shown in the Davis Enterprise who chose to find a job elsewhere in another county, after he received a pink slip, rather than take his chances in a school district that still has not got its budgetary act together.
As for Tim Russert, I hate to criticize the dead, but he was known for “gotcha” politics. He was famous, much as Sam Donaldson, for nitpicking issues to gain a “gotcha” moment from whoever he was interviewing. Sometimes he was less than fairminded in how he asked questions, and who received the more difficult questions. I wish I could remember some precise examples, but unfortunately my memory is not serving me well at the moment. Nevertheless, that was my impression of him.
It is a shame someone so young died of a heart attack, but then he tended to be overweight, something all of us could stand to pay attention to. None of us is immune to the dangers of being somewhat overweight, and its consequences to the strain it puts on our heart.
To anon 2:46 pm: In reading the statute, I am not following what part says that a parcel tax cannot be assessed on a sliding scale depending on the value of your property, provided it never goes above 1% of the value of the property? Am I missing something? Also, the parcel tax is not a bond, is it? So all the wording following the bond issue is irrelevant to a parcel tax, correct? Just need some clarification here as to your point. Thanks!
I very much doubt another parcel tax will be a slam dunk for approval. My guess is it will be the exact opposite. If Emerson is to be closed anyway, teachers laid off, etc. unless we cough up what amounts to millions of dollars (between 3 and 4.5 million in operating expenses plus 14 million in renovation costs for Emerson), my estimate would be a parcel tax won’t get off the ground.
The School Board/District will have to be more above board (pardon the pun) as to exactly what is at stake, how much needs to be raised to avoid the “inevitable”, along with various scenarios that are more palatable. I know I would not vote for another parcel tax if I figure Emerson is going to be closed anyway, teachers and librarians are going to be laid off, and its going to be business as usual.
What guarantee to we have right now that developers won’t influence too many schools being built yet again, or that school personnel can be hired by an outside consulting agency within months or days of quitting their job at the school district?
Frankly, I applaud the first grade DJUSD teacher shown in the Davis Enterprise who chose to find a job elsewhere in another county, after he received a pink slip, rather than take his chances in a school district that still has not got its budgetary act together.
As for Tim Russert, I hate to criticize the dead, but he was known for “gotcha” politics. He was famous, much as Sam Donaldson, for nitpicking issues to gain a “gotcha” moment from whoever he was interviewing. Sometimes he was less than fairminded in how he asked questions, and who received the more difficult questions. I wish I could remember some precise examples, but unfortunately my memory is not serving me well at the moment. Nevertheless, that was my impression of him.
It is a shame someone so young died of a heart attack, but then he tended to be overweight, something all of us could stand to pay attention to. None of us is immune to the dangers of being somewhat overweight, and its consequences to the strain it puts on our heart.
To anon 2:46 pm: In reading the statute, I am not following what part says that a parcel tax cannot be assessed on a sliding scale depending on the value of your property, provided it never goes above 1% of the value of the property? Am I missing something? Also, the parcel tax is not a bond, is it? So all the wording following the bond issue is irrelevant to a parcel tax, correct? Just need some clarification here as to your point. Thanks!
I very much doubt another parcel tax will be a slam dunk for approval. My guess is it will be the exact opposite. If Emerson is to be closed anyway, teachers laid off, etc. unless we cough up what amounts to millions of dollars (between 3 and 4.5 million in operating expenses plus 14 million in renovation costs for Emerson), my estimate would be a parcel tax won’t get off the ground.
The School Board/District will have to be more above board (pardon the pun) as to exactly what is at stake, how much needs to be raised to avoid the “inevitable”, along with various scenarios that are more palatable. I know I would not vote for another parcel tax if I figure Emerson is going to be closed anyway, teachers and librarians are going to be laid off, and its going to be business as usual.
What guarantee to we have right now that developers won’t influence too many schools being built yet again, or that school personnel can be hired by an outside consulting agency within months or days of quitting their job at the school district?
Frankly, I applaud the first grade DJUSD teacher shown in the Davis Enterprise who chose to find a job elsewhere in another county, after he received a pink slip, rather than take his chances in a school district that still has not got its budgetary act together.
As for Tim Russert, I hate to criticize the dead, but he was known for “gotcha” politics. He was famous, much as Sam Donaldson, for nitpicking issues to gain a “gotcha” moment from whoever he was interviewing. Sometimes he was less than fairminded in how he asked questions, and who received the more difficult questions. I wish I could remember some precise examples, but unfortunately my memory is not serving me well at the moment. Nevertheless, that was my impression of him.
It is a shame someone so young died of a heart attack, but then he tended to be overweight, something all of us could stand to pay attention to. None of us is immune to the dangers of being somewhat overweight, and its consequences to the strain it puts on our heart.
To anon 2:46 pm: In reading the statute, I am not following what part says that a parcel tax cannot be assessed on a sliding scale depending on the value of your property, provided it never goes above 1% of the value of the property? Am I missing something? Also, the parcel tax is not a bond, is it? So all the wording following the bond issue is irrelevant to a parcel tax, correct? Just need some clarification here as to your point. Thanks!
I very much doubt another parcel tax will be a slam dunk for approval. My guess is it will be the exact opposite. If Emerson is to be closed anyway, teachers laid off, etc. unless we cough up what amounts to millions of dollars (between 3 and 4.5 million in operating expenses plus 14 million in renovation costs for Emerson), my estimate would be a parcel tax won’t get off the ground.
The School Board/District will have to be more above board (pardon the pun) as to exactly what is at stake, how much needs to be raised to avoid the “inevitable”, along with various scenarios that are more palatable. I know I would not vote for another parcel tax if I figure Emerson is going to be closed anyway, teachers and librarians are going to be laid off, and its going to be business as usual.
What guarantee to we have right now that developers won’t influence too many schools being built yet again, or that school personnel can be hired by an outside consulting agency within months or days of quitting their job at the school district?
Frankly, I applaud the first grade DJUSD teacher shown in the Davis Enterprise who chose to find a job elsewhere in another county, after he received a pink slip, rather than take his chances in a school district that still has not got its budgetary act together.
As for Tim Russert, I hate to criticize the dead, but he was known for “gotcha” politics. He was famous, much as Sam Donaldson, for nitpicking issues to gain a “gotcha” moment from whoever he was interviewing. Sometimes he was less than fairminded in how he asked questions, and who received the more difficult questions. I wish I could remember some precise examples, but unfortunately my memory is not serving me well at the moment. Nevertheless, that was my impression of him.
It is a shame someone so young died of a heart attack, but then he tended to be overweight, something all of us could stand to pay attention to. None of us is immune to the dangers of being somewhat overweight, and its consequences to the strain it puts on our heart.
questions,
To make matters simple: it is illegal (since Prop 13) for a local jurisdiction to raise a property tax based on property value.
Regarding Tim Russert: I’m amazed at the small-mindedness of his critics. Russert was a smart and very fair man who, though in a polite way, asked tough questions of politicians. I can’t think of another television journalist in my lifetime who was better.
He should not be compared to some gold standard that no one has ever reached. He should be compared to others in his field. And there, he compared well. Put against people like Sam Donaldson, who often confused being impolite with being tough, or David Brinkley and Chris Matthews and Britt Hume, who let their own political biases creep into their craft, or Larry King, who often seems poorly prepared to follow up in his interviews, Russert was superior.
He’s probably (based on his work in politics) just as liberal as guys like Charlie Rose or Bill Moyers, but that never came through in his interviews, as it always does in theirs.
I’m sure there have been other interviewers in TV news as good as Russert, but the only ones now on the air who meet his standard and come to mind are the folks on the News Hour (particularly Jim Lehrer, Gwynn Ifill and Rey Suarez) and Brian Lamb on C-SPAN.
“Let’s not forget,however, his failure to try and expose the Bush/Cheny propoganda blitz in the build up to the Iraq invasion.”
This is frankly an idiotic comment. It was not Russert’s job to try to expose a “propaganda blitz”. He asked Dick Cheney the best questions he could at the time, based on what was known.
questions,
To make matters simple: it is illegal (since Prop 13) for a local jurisdiction to raise a property tax based on property value.
Regarding Tim Russert: I’m amazed at the small-mindedness of his critics. Russert was a smart and very fair man who, though in a polite way, asked tough questions of politicians. I can’t think of another television journalist in my lifetime who was better.
He should not be compared to some gold standard that no one has ever reached. He should be compared to others in his field. And there, he compared well. Put against people like Sam Donaldson, who often confused being impolite with being tough, or David Brinkley and Chris Matthews and Britt Hume, who let their own political biases creep into their craft, or Larry King, who often seems poorly prepared to follow up in his interviews, Russert was superior.
He’s probably (based on his work in politics) just as liberal as guys like Charlie Rose or Bill Moyers, but that never came through in his interviews, as it always does in theirs.
I’m sure there have been other interviewers in TV news as good as Russert, but the only ones now on the air who meet his standard and come to mind are the folks on the News Hour (particularly Jim Lehrer, Gwynn Ifill and Rey Suarez) and Brian Lamb on C-SPAN.
“Let’s not forget,however, his failure to try and expose the Bush/Cheny propoganda blitz in the build up to the Iraq invasion.”
This is frankly an idiotic comment. It was not Russert’s job to try to expose a “propaganda blitz”. He asked Dick Cheney the best questions he could at the time, based on what was known.
questions,
To make matters simple: it is illegal (since Prop 13) for a local jurisdiction to raise a property tax based on property value.
Regarding Tim Russert: I’m amazed at the small-mindedness of his critics. Russert was a smart and very fair man who, though in a polite way, asked tough questions of politicians. I can’t think of another television journalist in my lifetime who was better.
He should not be compared to some gold standard that no one has ever reached. He should be compared to others in his field. And there, he compared well. Put against people like Sam Donaldson, who often confused being impolite with being tough, or David Brinkley and Chris Matthews and Britt Hume, who let their own political biases creep into their craft, or Larry King, who often seems poorly prepared to follow up in his interviews, Russert was superior.
He’s probably (based on his work in politics) just as liberal as guys like Charlie Rose or Bill Moyers, but that never came through in his interviews, as it always does in theirs.
I’m sure there have been other interviewers in TV news as good as Russert, but the only ones now on the air who meet his standard and come to mind are the folks on the News Hour (particularly Jim Lehrer, Gwynn Ifill and Rey Suarez) and Brian Lamb on C-SPAN.
“Let’s not forget,however, his failure to try and expose the Bush/Cheny propoganda blitz in the build up to the Iraq invasion.”
This is frankly an idiotic comment. It was not Russert’s job to try to expose a “propaganda blitz”. He asked Dick Cheney the best questions he could at the time, based on what was known.
questions,
To make matters simple: it is illegal (since Prop 13) for a local jurisdiction to raise a property tax based on property value.
Regarding Tim Russert: I’m amazed at the small-mindedness of his critics. Russert was a smart and very fair man who, though in a polite way, asked tough questions of politicians. I can’t think of another television journalist in my lifetime who was better.
He should not be compared to some gold standard that no one has ever reached. He should be compared to others in his field. And there, he compared well. Put against people like Sam Donaldson, who often confused being impolite with being tough, or David Brinkley and Chris Matthews and Britt Hume, who let their own political biases creep into their craft, or Larry King, who often seems poorly prepared to follow up in his interviews, Russert was superior.
He’s probably (based on his work in politics) just as liberal as guys like Charlie Rose or Bill Moyers, but that never came through in his interviews, as it always does in theirs.
I’m sure there have been other interviewers in TV news as good as Russert, but the only ones now on the air who meet his standard and come to mind are the folks on the News Hour (particularly Jim Lehrer, Gwynn Ifill and Rey Suarez) and Brian Lamb on C-SPAN.
“Let’s not forget,however, his failure to try and expose the Bush/Cheny propoganda blitz in the build up to the Iraq invasion.”
This is frankly an idiotic comment. It was not Russert’s job to try to expose a “propaganda blitz”. He asked Dick Cheney the best questions he could at the time, based on what was known.
“It was not Russert’s job to try to expose a “propaganda blitz”.”
That’s a job for a journalist of Russert’s caliber to expose to the best of his ability.
“It was not Russert’s job to try to expose a “propaganda blitz”.”
That’s a job for a journalist of Russert’s caliber to expose to the best of his ability.
“It was not Russert’s job to try to expose a “propaganda blitz”.”
That’s a job for a journalist of Russert’s caliber to expose to the best of his ability.
“It was not Russert’s job to try to expose a “propaganda blitz”.”
That’s a job for a journalist of Russert’s caliber to expose to the best of his ability.
“The self-reverentiality of the stories about his death last night was remarkable for what it revealed about how the cable news media is now primarily an entertainment source instead of an informational one.”
“self-reverentiality” Nice turn of phrase. A synonym is narcissistic.
In many of the articles and blogs about Russert’s career I’ve read, the word “king,” came up tellingly a few times. Edward R. Murrow wherever he is is rolling his eyes. Only inside-the-Beltway clique-courtiers would thus declare their fealty, without ever getting into specifics of any great stories Russert may have investigated.
“The self-reverentiality of the stories about his death last night was remarkable for what it revealed about how the cable news media is now primarily an entertainment source instead of an informational one.”
“self-reverentiality” Nice turn of phrase. A synonym is narcissistic.
In many of the articles and blogs about Russert’s career I’ve read, the word “king,” came up tellingly a few times. Edward R. Murrow wherever he is is rolling his eyes. Only inside-the-Beltway clique-courtiers would thus declare their fealty, without ever getting into specifics of any great stories Russert may have investigated.
“The self-reverentiality of the stories about his death last night was remarkable for what it revealed about how the cable news media is now primarily an entertainment source instead of an informational one.”
“self-reverentiality” Nice turn of phrase. A synonym is narcissistic.
In many of the articles and blogs about Russert’s career I’ve read, the word “king,” came up tellingly a few times. Edward R. Murrow wherever he is is rolling his eyes. Only inside-the-Beltway clique-courtiers would thus declare their fealty, without ever getting into specifics of any great stories Russert may have investigated.
“The self-reverentiality of the stories about his death last night was remarkable for what it revealed about how the cable news media is now primarily an entertainment source instead of an informational one.”
“self-reverentiality” Nice turn of phrase. A synonym is narcissistic.
In many of the articles and blogs about Russert’s career I’ve read, the word “king,” came up tellingly a few times. Edward R. Murrow wherever he is is rolling his eyes. Only inside-the-Beltway clique-courtiers would thus declare their fealty, without ever getting into specifics of any great stories Russert may have investigated.
“I don’t remember his “prosecutorial” skills being much in evidence when Cheny was across the table during that infamous Meet the Press session when Cheney used, as the source for his facts, the article that he had just planted in the NY Times.”
Russert should have checked and rechecked his sources before going on the air. When they were lowly Metro reporters Woodward and Bernstein wouldn’t go with a story on Watergate till they’d checked out their sources with three of four confirmations from other sources.
“I don’t remember his “prosecutorial” skills being much in evidence when Cheny was across the table during that infamous Meet the Press session when Cheney used, as the source for his facts, the article that he had just planted in the NY Times.”
Russert should have checked and rechecked his sources before going on the air. When they were lowly Metro reporters Woodward and Bernstein wouldn’t go with a story on Watergate till they’d checked out their sources with three of four confirmations from other sources.
“I don’t remember his “prosecutorial” skills being much in evidence when Cheny was across the table during that infamous Meet the Press session when Cheney used, as the source for his facts, the article that he had just planted in the NY Times.”
Russert should have checked and rechecked his sources before going on the air. When they were lowly Metro reporters Woodward and Bernstein wouldn’t go with a story on Watergate till they’d checked out their sources with three of four confirmations from other sources.
“I don’t remember his “prosecutorial” skills being much in evidence when Cheny was across the table during that infamous Meet the Press session when Cheney used, as the source for his facts, the article that he had just planted in the NY Times.”
Russert should have checked and rechecked his sources before going on the air. When they were lowly Metro reporters Woodward and Bernstein wouldn’t go with a story on Watergate till they’d checked out their sources with three of four confirmations from other sources.
“That’s a job for a journalist of Russert’s caliber to expose to the best of his ability…”
..and he is lauded as a journalist who really did his “homework” before an interview. He started his career as a political operative and was one of the most knowledgable journalists concerning how this Beltway propaganda “system” works. ….. speaking truth to power.. the perennial ethical challenge.
“That’s a job for a journalist of Russert’s caliber to expose to the best of his ability…”
..and he is lauded as a journalist who really did his “homework” before an interview. He started his career as a political operative and was one of the most knowledgable journalists concerning how this Beltway propaganda “system” works. ….. speaking truth to power.. the perennial ethical challenge.
“That’s a job for a journalist of Russert’s caliber to expose to the best of his ability…”
..and he is lauded as a journalist who really did his “homework” before an interview. He started his career as a political operative and was one of the most knowledgable journalists concerning how this Beltway propaganda “system” works. ….. speaking truth to power.. the perennial ethical challenge.
“That’s a job for a journalist of Russert’s caliber to expose to the best of his ability…”
..and he is lauded as a journalist who really did his “homework” before an interview. He started his career as a political operative and was one of the most knowledgable journalists concerning how this Beltway propaganda “system” works. ….. speaking truth to power.. the perennial ethical challenge.
“Russert should have checked and rechecked his sources before going on the air. When they were lowly Metro reporters Woodward and Bernstein wouldn’t go with a story on Watergate till they’d checked out their sources with three of four confirmations from other sources.”
You should have some idea of what you are talking about before you rip someone in public for not doing something which he in fact did. Even worse, you are too cowardly to give your name when you make this pusillanimous attack on Russert.
If you read this transcript of Russert’s interview with Vice President Cheney on Meet The Press, you would see Russert asked every pertinent question he could in a fair, tough and informed manner.
After reading the interview, please tell me one relevant question Russert could have asked which he eschewed. And tomorrow, when I see you have come up with nothing, I will realize you are just blowing hot air for no good reason.
“Russert should have checked and rechecked his sources before going on the air. When they were lowly Metro reporters Woodward and Bernstein wouldn’t go with a story on Watergate till they’d checked out their sources with three of four confirmations from other sources.”
You should have some idea of what you are talking about before you rip someone in public for not doing something which he in fact did. Even worse, you are too cowardly to give your name when you make this pusillanimous attack on Russert.
If you read this transcript of Russert’s interview with Vice President Cheney on Meet The Press, you would see Russert asked every pertinent question he could in a fair, tough and informed manner.
After reading the interview, please tell me one relevant question Russert could have asked which he eschewed. And tomorrow, when I see you have come up with nothing, I will realize you are just blowing hot air for no good reason.
“Russert should have checked and rechecked his sources before going on the air. When they were lowly Metro reporters Woodward and Bernstein wouldn’t go with a story on Watergate till they’d checked out their sources with three of four confirmations from other sources.”
You should have some idea of what you are talking about before you rip someone in public for not doing something which he in fact did. Even worse, you are too cowardly to give your name when you make this pusillanimous attack on Russert.
If you read this transcript of Russert’s interview with Vice President Cheney on Meet The Press, you would see Russert asked every pertinent question he could in a fair, tough and informed manner.
After reading the interview, please tell me one relevant question Russert could have asked which he eschewed. And tomorrow, when I see you have come up with nothing, I will realize you are just blowing hot air for no good reason.
“Russert should have checked and rechecked his sources before going on the air. When they were lowly Metro reporters Woodward and Bernstein wouldn’t go with a story on Watergate till they’d checked out their sources with three of four confirmations from other sources.”
You should have some idea of what you are talking about before you rip someone in public for not doing something which he in fact did. Even worse, you are too cowardly to give your name when you make this pusillanimous attack on Russert.
If you read this transcript of Russert’s interview with Vice President Cheney on Meet The Press, you would see Russert asked every pertinent question he could in a fair, tough and informed manner.
After reading the interview, please tell me one relevant question Russert could have asked which he eschewed. And tomorrow, when I see you have come up with nothing, I will realize you are just blowing hot air for no good reason.
From the transcript — for those of you too lazy to read the interview — I thought these few Q&As were interesting, particularly in light of how wrong Cheney proved to be.
MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.
…
MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we’ve deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.
….
MR. RUSSERT: And you are convinced the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shiites will come together in a democracy?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: They have so far. One of the things that many people forget is that the Kurds in the north have been operating now for over 10 years under a sort of U.S.-provided umbrella with respect to the no-fly zone, and they have established a very strong, viable society with elements of democracy an important part of it. They’ve had significant successes in that regard and they’re eager to work with the rest of Iraq, that portion of it that still governs Saddam Hussein. And if you look at the opposition, they’ve come together, I think, very effectively, with representatives from Shia, Sunni and Kurdish elements in the population. They understand the importance of preserving and building on an Iraqi national identity.
From the transcript — for those of you too lazy to read the interview — I thought these few Q&As were interesting, particularly in light of how wrong Cheney proved to be.
MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.
…
MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we’ve deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.
….
MR. RUSSERT: And you are convinced the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shiites will come together in a democracy?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: They have so far. One of the things that many people forget is that the Kurds in the north have been operating now for over 10 years under a sort of U.S.-provided umbrella with respect to the no-fly zone, and they have established a very strong, viable society with elements of democracy an important part of it. They’ve had significant successes in that regard and they’re eager to work with the rest of Iraq, that portion of it that still governs Saddam Hussein. And if you look at the opposition, they’ve come together, I think, very effectively, with representatives from Shia, Sunni and Kurdish elements in the population. They understand the importance of preserving and building on an Iraqi national identity.
From the transcript — for those of you too lazy to read the interview — I thought these few Q&As were interesting, particularly in light of how wrong Cheney proved to be.
MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.
…
MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we’ve deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.
….
MR. RUSSERT: And you are convinced the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shiites will come together in a democracy?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: They have so far. One of the things that many people forget is that the Kurds in the north have been operating now for over 10 years under a sort of U.S.-provided umbrella with respect to the no-fly zone, and they have established a very strong, viable society with elements of democracy an important part of it. They’ve had significant successes in that regard and they’re eager to work with the rest of Iraq, that portion of it that still governs Saddam Hussein. And if you look at the opposition, they’ve come together, I think, very effectively, with representatives from Shia, Sunni and Kurdish elements in the population. They understand the importance of preserving and building on an Iraqi national identity.
From the transcript — for those of you too lazy to read the interview — I thought these few Q&As were interesting, particularly in light of how wrong Cheney proved to be.
MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.
…
MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we’ve deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.
….
MR. RUSSERT: And you are convinced the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shiites will come together in a democracy?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: They have so far. One of the things that many people forget is that the Kurds in the north have been operating now for over 10 years under a sort of U.S.-provided umbrella with respect to the no-fly zone, and they have established a very strong, viable society with elements of democracy an important part of it. They’ve had significant successes in that regard and they’re eager to work with the rest of Iraq, that portion of it that still governs Saddam Hussein. And if you look at the opposition, they’ve come together, I think, very effectively, with representatives from Shia, Sunni and Kurdish elements in the population. They understand the importance of preserving and building on an Iraqi national identity.
Lois has not been good to the working people. Not good to labor. No help from one particular group.
Lois has not been good to the working people. Not good to labor. No help from one particular group.
Lois has not been good to the working people. Not good to labor. No help from one particular group.
Lois has not been good to the working people. Not good to labor. No help from one particular group.
anonymous 2:35 pm are you former chief hyde?
we want to know who you are other than just a nameless coward.
are you a right-winger that has still not received the mental health assistance that you are in need of?
anonymous 2:35 pm are you former chief hyde?
we want to know who you are other than just a nameless coward.
are you a right-winger that has still not received the mental health assistance that you are in need of?
anonymous 2:35 pm are you former chief hyde?
we want to know who you are other than just a nameless coward.
are you a right-winger that has still not received the mental health assistance that you are in need of?
anonymous 2:35 pm are you former chief hyde?
we want to know who you are other than just a nameless coward.
are you a right-winger that has still not received the mental health assistance that you are in need of?
….someone is off his meds again!
….someone is off his meds again!
….someone is off his meds again!
….someone is off his meds again!
AN EARLIER POST SAID: That leaves us with an interesting wild card locally and that is whether or not the school district will put another parcel tax on the ballot.. . . They are going to have a very wary and angry electorate to deal with. This will be no slam dunk.
At the high school graduation last night I saw that wary electorate in (in)action. The school board was greeted with zero applause when introduced or in other roles on the stage and/or in the ceremony. Myself, I kept thinking that this is the gang of bozos that has bankrupt the district and I suspected similar thoughts in the minds of the non-applauding masses. Dennis — a school-tax supporter who thinks it will be difficult to pass a measure this fall (but, we should try).
AN EARLIER POST SAID: That leaves us with an interesting wild card locally and that is whether or not the school district will put another parcel tax on the ballot.. . . They are going to have a very wary and angry electorate to deal with. This will be no slam dunk.
At the high school graduation last night I saw that wary electorate in (in)action. The school board was greeted with zero applause when introduced or in other roles on the stage and/or in the ceremony. Myself, I kept thinking that this is the gang of bozos that has bankrupt the district and I suspected similar thoughts in the minds of the non-applauding masses. Dennis — a school-tax supporter who thinks it will be difficult to pass a measure this fall (but, we should try).
AN EARLIER POST SAID: That leaves us with an interesting wild card locally and that is whether or not the school district will put another parcel tax on the ballot.. . . They are going to have a very wary and angry electorate to deal with. This will be no slam dunk.
At the high school graduation last night I saw that wary electorate in (in)action. The school board was greeted with zero applause when introduced or in other roles on the stage and/or in the ceremony. Myself, I kept thinking that this is the gang of bozos that has bankrupt the district and I suspected similar thoughts in the minds of the non-applauding masses. Dennis — a school-tax supporter who thinks it will be difficult to pass a measure this fall (but, we should try).
AN EARLIER POST SAID: That leaves us with an interesting wild card locally and that is whether or not the school district will put another parcel tax on the ballot.. . . They are going to have a very wary and angry electorate to deal with. This will be no slam dunk.
At the high school graduation last night I saw that wary electorate in (in)action. The school board was greeted with zero applause when introduced or in other roles on the stage and/or in the ceremony. Myself, I kept thinking that this is the gang of bozos that has bankrupt the district and I suspected similar thoughts in the minds of the non-applauding masses. Dennis — a school-tax supporter who thinks it will be difficult to pass a measure this fall (but, we should try).
Anonymous is the reason we need universal healthcare and universal mental healthcare.
Anonymous is the reason we need universal healthcare and universal mental healthcare.
Anonymous is the reason we need universal healthcare and universal mental healthcare.
Anonymous is the reason we need universal healthcare and universal mental healthcare.
I will not support a school tax without some accountability language included.
I will not support a school tax without some accountability language included.
I will not support a school tax without some accountability language included.
I will not support a school tax without some accountability language included.
“無名 – wu ming said…
it is worth noting that the vast majority of the school bonds passed statewide, in communities that are hurting way more than davis, economically.”
Bonds are technically different from parcel taxes. I have a pdf document that a parent shared with me that summarizes that 8 of 13 proposed parcel taxes statewide passed in the recent June election.
“無名 – wu ming said…
it is worth noting that the vast majority of the school bonds passed statewide, in communities that are hurting way more than davis, economically.”
Bonds are technically different from parcel taxes. I have a pdf document that a parent shared with me that summarizes that 8 of 13 proposed parcel taxes statewide passed in the recent June election.
“無名 – wu ming said…
it is worth noting that the vast majority of the school bonds passed statewide, in communities that are hurting way more than davis, economically.”
Bonds are technically different from parcel taxes. I have a pdf document that a parent shared with me that summarizes that 8 of 13 proposed parcel taxes statewide passed in the recent June election.
“無名 – wu ming said…
it is worth noting that the vast majority of the school bonds passed statewide, in communities that are hurting way more than davis, economically.”
Bonds are technically different from parcel taxes. I have a pdf document that a parent shared with me that summarizes that 8 of 13 proposed parcel taxes statewide passed in the recent June election.
I loved Tim Russert as much as any of you. One of the lessons I am taking from his tragic early death at only 58 is he was an overweight, over stressed, white male professional. I have the same risk factors. Heart attacks kill huge numbers of people with those same factors. If we want to live to 65+, change the lifestyle!!
I loved Tim Russert as much as any of you. One of the lessons I am taking from his tragic early death at only 58 is he was an overweight, over stressed, white male professional. I have the same risk factors. Heart attacks kill huge numbers of people with those same factors. If we want to live to 65+, change the lifestyle!!
I loved Tim Russert as much as any of you. One of the lessons I am taking from his tragic early death at only 58 is he was an overweight, over stressed, white male professional. I have the same risk factors. Heart attacks kill huge numbers of people with those same factors. If we want to live to 65+, change the lifestyle!!
I loved Tim Russert as much as any of you. One of the lessons I am taking from his tragic early death at only 58 is he was an overweight, over stressed, white male professional. I have the same risk factors. Heart attacks kill huge numbers of people with those same factors. If we want to live to 65+, change the lifestyle!!
Tim Russert could’ve dug deeper to find out the truth about the manipulations with which the Bush/Cheney administration engineered the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But Russert had already learned hard lessons about what would fly in mainstream media, and what wouldn’t.
June 16, 2008
On the Campaign
Recalling Russert as Political Operative in New York
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
WASHINGTON — For most of Washington, Tim Russert was known as the successful moderator of “Meet the Press” on NBC and a premier chronicler of the presidential campaign. His accomplishments and status could be measured in the flood of tributes that poured in from his colleagues, competitors and the people he covered.
Yet there was another chapter in Mr. Russert’s career that is less known, and that offers another insight into his personality. And it is one which he arguably thrived at nearly as much as he did sitting behind his desk at NBC News: as a political strategist and operative in one of the most brutal political environments in the country.
Mr. Russert worked in the early 1980s as a counselor to Mario M. Cuomo, the Queens Democrat who had just been elected governor of New York; I was covering the new administration for The Daily News. Albany was a political roughhouse, and all the more so with a hard-driving new administration with big goals for Mr. Cuomo, working in what was a fiercely competitive media atmosphere.
Arguably as a matter of necessity, Mr. Cuomo’s political operation — run by his son, Andrew M. Cuomo, who is today the state’s attorney general — was relentless in its dealings with members of the state Legislature, political foes (and allies), party leaders, lobbyists, and newspaper reporters, editors and publishers.
People who worked for Mr. Cuomo spent a lot of time yelling at, undercutting, manipulating or punishing those who were perceived to be unfriendly to Mr. Cuomo’s interest, and rewarding those who carried their interests. (To be clear, there is nothing wrong about any of this: It is the way the game is played on that side of the line, albeit more intensely in New York than most places).
Mr. Russert, who had previously worked Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York — where a well-timed leak of damaging information by Mr. Russert about a potential Moynihan foe knocked the opponent out of the race — at first seemed taken aback by the ferocity of this battlefield. One of his earliest lessons came when one of Albany’s toughest reporters walked into his refuge of an office — with its 20-foot ceiling and view down State Street toward the Hudson River — and accused Mr. Russert of leaking a story to a competitor as a way of currying favor with a rival newspaper. (Mr. Russert denied doing any such thing, for what that’s worth).
“If you want to play hardball, Russert, we can play hardball,” this reporter said, proceeding to promise, should he do this again, to — well, let us just say to perform a bit of surgery on Mr. Russert that he no doubt would have found unpleasant. In all the years since, I have never seen him look quite so terrified.
But if Mr. Russert was discomfited by that introduction to Albany, he acclimated to it, quickly and well. The Daily News published a story about Mr. Cuomo, during a fight he was having with Republicans in the state Senate, that apparently displeased Mr. Cuomo and Mr. Russert. That morning, there was a message on the answering machine from Mr. Russert, imitating the voice of one of the senior political operatives in the Republican Senate. “Hey, this is Jim Biggane, great work for us today, buddy!” Mr. Russert chortled, with Andrew Cuomo laughing in the background. “Come on down and pick up your check!”
Alison Mitchell, now an editor at The New York Times, covered Albany at the time for Newsday and recalled when Mr. Russert dispatched a state trooper to evict her from outside the governor’s office on the second floor of the State Capitol. She had been staking out Mr. Cuomo there late in the night in hopes of asking him a question as a deadline for a policy decision loomed, a common practice for reporters at the time. She said that years later, after he had crossed to the journalist side of the line, she and Mr. Russert laughed about the incident when she brought it up.
In covering political operatives like Mr. Russert, it is fascinating to observe how they balance what they see as their obligation to the press and public — in terms of providing information and being honest, if not necessarily revealing — versus their obligation to the person for whom they worked. Both Mario and Andrew Cuomo were demanding principals, given to gusts of outrage, and one can only imagine how difficult it was for Mr. Russert to balance those strong competing interests.
Still, it is fair to say that on this score Mr. Russert primarily served Mr. Cuomo, something that a reporter was wise to keep in mind when calling him for help. Mr. Cuomo’s success in positioning himself as a potential presidential candidate was in no small part a tribute to Mr. Russert’s skills and dedication to his cause.
Given that, I was a little skeptical to learn that Mr. Russert would be moving to the news business. But after watching him over the course of four presidential campaigns, it was an adjustment that he made completely and easily. Those tributes pouring into Mr. Russert’s about his diligence and integrity were — if excessive in a Washington sort of way — quite accurate.
Yet ever since we both left Albany, Mr. Russert always seemed a tad uncomfortable when he ran into me, and I always suspected that he worried about impressions left from the life he lived 30 years ago, before NBC and “Meet the Press.” He needn’t have been.
Tim Russert could’ve dug deeper to find out the truth about the manipulations with which the Bush/Cheney administration engineered the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But Russert had already learned hard lessons about what would fly in mainstream media, and what wouldn’t.
June 16, 2008
On the Campaign
Recalling Russert as Political Operative in New York
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
WASHINGTON — For most of Washington, Tim Russert was known as the successful moderator of “Meet the Press” on NBC and a premier chronicler of the presidential campaign. His accomplishments and status could be measured in the flood of tributes that poured in from his colleagues, competitors and the people he covered.
Yet there was another chapter in Mr. Russert’s career that is less known, and that offers another insight into his personality. And it is one which he arguably thrived at nearly as much as he did sitting behind his desk at NBC News: as a political strategist and operative in one of the most brutal political environments in the country.
Mr. Russert worked in the early 1980s as a counselor to Mario M. Cuomo, the Queens Democrat who had just been elected governor of New York; I was covering the new administration for The Daily News. Albany was a political roughhouse, and all the more so with a hard-driving new administration with big goals for Mr. Cuomo, working in what was a fiercely competitive media atmosphere.
Arguably as a matter of necessity, Mr. Cuomo’s political operation — run by his son, Andrew M. Cuomo, who is today the state’s attorney general — was relentless in its dealings with members of the state Legislature, political foes (and allies), party leaders, lobbyists, and newspaper reporters, editors and publishers.
People who worked for Mr. Cuomo spent a lot of time yelling at, undercutting, manipulating or punishing those who were perceived to be unfriendly to Mr. Cuomo’s interest, and rewarding those who carried their interests. (To be clear, there is nothing wrong about any of this: It is the way the game is played on that side of the line, albeit more intensely in New York than most places).
Mr. Russert, who had previously worked Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York — where a well-timed leak of damaging information by Mr. Russert about a potential Moynihan foe knocked the opponent out of the race — at first seemed taken aback by the ferocity of this battlefield. One of his earliest lessons came when one of Albany’s toughest reporters walked into his refuge of an office — with its 20-foot ceiling and view down State Street toward the Hudson River — and accused Mr. Russert of leaking a story to a competitor as a way of currying favor with a rival newspaper. (Mr. Russert denied doing any such thing, for what that’s worth).
“If you want to play hardball, Russert, we can play hardball,” this reporter said, proceeding to promise, should he do this again, to — well, let us just say to perform a bit of surgery on Mr. Russert that he no doubt would have found unpleasant. In all the years since, I have never seen him look quite so terrified.
But if Mr. Russert was discomfited by that introduction to Albany, he acclimated to it, quickly and well. The Daily News published a story about Mr. Cuomo, during a fight he was having with Republicans in the state Senate, that apparently displeased Mr. Cuomo and Mr. Russert. That morning, there was a message on the answering machine from Mr. Russert, imitating the voice of one of the senior political operatives in the Republican Senate. “Hey, this is Jim Biggane, great work for us today, buddy!” Mr. Russert chortled, with Andrew Cuomo laughing in the background. “Come on down and pick up your check!”
Alison Mitchell, now an editor at The New York Times, covered Albany at the time for Newsday and recalled when Mr. Russert dispatched a state trooper to evict her from outside the governor’s office on the second floor of the State Capitol. She had been staking out Mr. Cuomo there late in the night in hopes of asking him a question as a deadline for a policy decision loomed, a common practice for reporters at the time. She said that years later, after he had crossed to the journalist side of the line, she and Mr. Russert laughed about the incident when she brought it up.
In covering political operatives like Mr. Russert, it is fascinating to observe how they balance what they see as their obligation to the press and public — in terms of providing information and being honest, if not necessarily revealing — versus their obligation to the person for whom they worked. Both Mario and Andrew Cuomo were demanding principals, given to gusts of outrage, and one can only imagine how difficult it was for Mr. Russert to balance those strong competing interests.
Still, it is fair to say that on this score Mr. Russert primarily served Mr. Cuomo, something that a reporter was wise to keep in mind when calling him for help. Mr. Cuomo’s success in positioning himself as a potential presidential candidate was in no small part a tribute to Mr. Russert’s skills and dedication to his cause.
Given that, I was a little skeptical to learn that Mr. Russert would be moving to the news business. But after watching him over the course of four presidential campaigns, it was an adjustment that he made completely and easily. Those tributes pouring into Mr. Russert’s about his diligence and integrity were — if excessive in a Washington sort of way — quite accurate.
Yet ever since we both left Albany, Mr. Russert always seemed a tad uncomfortable when he ran into me, and I always suspected that he worried about impressions left from the life he lived 30 years ago, before NBC and “Meet the Press.” He needn’t have been.
Tim Russert could’ve dug deeper to find out the truth about the manipulations with which the Bush/Cheney administration engineered the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But Russert had already learned hard lessons about what would fly in mainstream media, and what wouldn’t.
June 16, 2008
On the Campaign
Recalling Russert as Political Operative in New York
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
WASHINGTON — For most of Washington, Tim Russert was known as the successful moderator of “Meet the Press” on NBC and a premier chronicler of the presidential campaign. His accomplishments and status could be measured in the flood of tributes that poured in from his colleagues, competitors and the people he covered.
Yet there was another chapter in Mr. Russert’s career that is less known, and that offers another insight into his personality. And it is one which he arguably thrived at nearly as much as he did sitting behind his desk at NBC News: as a political strategist and operative in one of the most brutal political environments in the country.
Mr. Russert worked in the early 1980s as a counselor to Mario M. Cuomo, the Queens Democrat who had just been elected governor of New York; I was covering the new administration for The Daily News. Albany was a political roughhouse, and all the more so with a hard-driving new administration with big goals for Mr. Cuomo, working in what was a fiercely competitive media atmosphere.
Arguably as a matter of necessity, Mr. Cuomo’s political operation — run by his son, Andrew M. Cuomo, who is today the state’s attorney general — was relentless in its dealings with members of the state Legislature, political foes (and allies), party leaders, lobbyists, and newspaper reporters, editors and publishers.
People who worked for Mr. Cuomo spent a lot of time yelling at, undercutting, manipulating or punishing those who were perceived to be unfriendly to Mr. Cuomo’s interest, and rewarding those who carried their interests. (To be clear, there is nothing wrong about any of this: It is the way the game is played on that side of the line, albeit more intensely in New York than most places).
Mr. Russert, who had previously worked Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York — where a well-timed leak of damaging information by Mr. Russert about a potential Moynihan foe knocked the opponent out of the race — at first seemed taken aback by the ferocity of this battlefield. One of his earliest lessons came when one of Albany’s toughest reporters walked into his refuge of an office — with its 20-foot ceiling and view down State Street toward the Hudson River — and accused Mr. Russert of leaking a story to a competitor as a way of currying favor with a rival newspaper. (Mr. Russert denied doing any such thing, for what that’s worth).
“If you want to play hardball, Russert, we can play hardball,” this reporter said, proceeding to promise, should he do this again, to — well, let us just say to perform a bit of surgery on Mr. Russert that he no doubt would have found unpleasant. In all the years since, I have never seen him look quite so terrified.
But if Mr. Russert was discomfited by that introduction to Albany, he acclimated to it, quickly and well. The Daily News published a story about Mr. Cuomo, during a fight he was having with Republicans in the state Senate, that apparently displeased Mr. Cuomo and Mr. Russert. That morning, there was a message on the answering machine from Mr. Russert, imitating the voice of one of the senior political operatives in the Republican Senate. “Hey, this is Jim Biggane, great work for us today, buddy!” Mr. Russert chortled, with Andrew Cuomo laughing in the background. “Come on down and pick up your check!”
Alison Mitchell, now an editor at The New York Times, covered Albany at the time for Newsday and recalled when Mr. Russert dispatched a state trooper to evict her from outside the governor’s office on the second floor of the State Capitol. She had been staking out Mr. Cuomo there late in the night in hopes of asking him a question as a deadline for a policy decision loomed, a common practice for reporters at the time. She said that years later, after he had crossed to the journalist side of the line, she and Mr. Russert laughed about the incident when she brought it up.
In covering political operatives like Mr. Russert, it is fascinating to observe how they balance what they see as their obligation to the press and public — in terms of providing information and being honest, if not necessarily revealing — versus their obligation to the person for whom they worked. Both Mario and Andrew Cuomo were demanding principals, given to gusts of outrage, and one can only imagine how difficult it was for Mr. Russert to balance those strong competing interests.
Still, it is fair to say that on this score Mr. Russert primarily served Mr. Cuomo, something that a reporter was wise to keep in mind when calling him for help. Mr. Cuomo’s success in positioning himself as a potential presidential candidate was in no small part a tribute to Mr. Russert’s skills and dedication to his cause.
Given that, I was a little skeptical to learn that Mr. Russert would be moving to the news business. But after watching him over the course of four presidential campaigns, it was an adjustment that he made completely and easily. Those tributes pouring into Mr. Russert’s about his diligence and integrity were — if excessive in a Washington sort of way — quite accurate.
Yet ever since we both left Albany, Mr. Russert always seemed a tad uncomfortable when he ran into me, and I always suspected that he worried about impressions left from the life he lived 30 years ago, before NBC and “Meet the Press.” He needn’t have been.
Tim Russert could’ve dug deeper to find out the truth about the manipulations with which the Bush/Cheney administration engineered the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But Russert had already learned hard lessons about what would fly in mainstream media, and what wouldn’t.
June 16, 2008
On the Campaign
Recalling Russert as Political Operative in New York
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
WASHINGTON — For most of Washington, Tim Russert was known as the successful moderator of “Meet the Press” on NBC and a premier chronicler of the presidential campaign. His accomplishments and status could be measured in the flood of tributes that poured in from his colleagues, competitors and the people he covered.
Yet there was another chapter in Mr. Russert’s career that is less known, and that offers another insight into his personality. And it is one which he arguably thrived at nearly as much as he did sitting behind his desk at NBC News: as a political strategist and operative in one of the most brutal political environments in the country.
Mr. Russert worked in the early 1980s as a counselor to Mario M. Cuomo, the Queens Democrat who had just been elected governor of New York; I was covering the new administration for The Daily News. Albany was a political roughhouse, and all the more so with a hard-driving new administration with big goals for Mr. Cuomo, working in what was a fiercely competitive media atmosphere.
Arguably as a matter of necessity, Mr. Cuomo’s political operation — run by his son, Andrew M. Cuomo, who is today the state’s attorney general — was relentless in its dealings with members of the state Legislature, political foes (and allies), party leaders, lobbyists, and newspaper reporters, editors and publishers.
People who worked for Mr. Cuomo spent a lot of time yelling at, undercutting, manipulating or punishing those who were perceived to be unfriendly to Mr. Cuomo’s interest, and rewarding those who carried their interests. (To be clear, there is nothing wrong about any of this: It is the way the game is played on that side of the line, albeit more intensely in New York than most places).
Mr. Russert, who had previously worked Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York — where a well-timed leak of damaging information by Mr. Russert about a potential Moynihan foe knocked the opponent out of the race — at first seemed taken aback by the ferocity of this battlefield. One of his earliest lessons came when one of Albany’s toughest reporters walked into his refuge of an office — with its 20-foot ceiling and view down State Street toward the Hudson River — and accused Mr. Russert of leaking a story to a competitor as a way of currying favor with a rival newspaper. (Mr. Russert denied doing any such thing, for what that’s worth).
“If you want to play hardball, Russert, we can play hardball,” this reporter said, proceeding to promise, should he do this again, to — well, let us just say to perform a bit of surgery on Mr. Russert that he no doubt would have found unpleasant. In all the years since, I have never seen him look quite so terrified.
But if Mr. Russert was discomfited by that introduction to Albany, he acclimated to it, quickly and well. The Daily News published a story about Mr. Cuomo, during a fight he was having with Republicans in the state Senate, that apparently displeased Mr. Cuomo and Mr. Russert. That morning, there was a message on the answering machine from Mr. Russert, imitating the voice of one of the senior political operatives in the Republican Senate. “Hey, this is Jim Biggane, great work for us today, buddy!” Mr. Russert chortled, with Andrew Cuomo laughing in the background. “Come on down and pick up your check!”
Alison Mitchell, now an editor at The New York Times, covered Albany at the time for Newsday and recalled when Mr. Russert dispatched a state trooper to evict her from outside the governor’s office on the second floor of the State Capitol. She had been staking out Mr. Cuomo there late in the night in hopes of asking him a question as a deadline for a policy decision loomed, a common practice for reporters at the time. She said that years later, after he had crossed to the journalist side of the line, she and Mr. Russert laughed about the incident when she brought it up.
In covering political operatives like Mr. Russert, it is fascinating to observe how they balance what they see as their obligation to the press and public — in terms of providing information and being honest, if not necessarily revealing — versus their obligation to the person for whom they worked. Both Mario and Andrew Cuomo were demanding principals, given to gusts of outrage, and one can only imagine how difficult it was for Mr. Russert to balance those strong competing interests.
Still, it is fair to say that on this score Mr. Russert primarily served Mr. Cuomo, something that a reporter was wise to keep in mind when calling him for help. Mr. Cuomo’s success in positioning himself as a potential presidential candidate was in no small part a tribute to Mr. Russert’s skills and dedication to his cause.
Given that, I was a little skeptical to learn that Mr. Russert would be moving to the news business. But after watching him over the course of four presidential campaigns, it was an adjustment that he made completely and easily. Those tributes pouring into Mr. Russert’s about his diligence and integrity were — if excessive in a Washington sort of way — quite accurate.
Yet ever since we both left Albany, Mr. Russert always seemed a tad uncomfortable when he ran into me, and I always suspected that he worried about impressions left from the life he lived 30 years ago, before NBC and “Meet the Press.” He needn’t have been.
“Regarding Tim Russert: I’m amazed at the small-mindedness of his critics. Russert was a smart and very fair man who, though in a polite way, asked tough questions of politicians. I can’t think of another television journalist in my lifetime who was better.”
I’m amazed at the small-mindedness of your criticisms, that don’t allow for the possibility that someone else’s opinions are just as valid as yours. I guess we all can’t be as smart as you are – NOT!
“Regarding Tim Russert: I’m amazed at the small-mindedness of his critics. Russert was a smart and very fair man who, though in a polite way, asked tough questions of politicians. I can’t think of another television journalist in my lifetime who was better.”
I’m amazed at the small-mindedness of your criticisms, that don’t allow for the possibility that someone else’s opinions are just as valid as yours. I guess we all can’t be as smart as you are – NOT!
“Regarding Tim Russert: I’m amazed at the small-mindedness of his critics. Russert was a smart and very fair man who, though in a polite way, asked tough questions of politicians. I can’t think of another television journalist in my lifetime who was better.”
I’m amazed at the small-mindedness of your criticisms, that don’t allow for the possibility that someone else’s opinions are just as valid as yours. I guess we all can’t be as smart as you are – NOT!
“Regarding Tim Russert: I’m amazed at the small-mindedness of his critics. Russert was a smart and very fair man who, though in a polite way, asked tough questions of politicians. I can’t think of another television journalist in my lifetime who was better.”
I’m amazed at the small-mindedness of your criticisms, that don’t allow for the possibility that someone else’s opinions are just as valid as yours. I guess we all can’t be as smart as you are – NOT!
“To make matters simple: it is illegal (since Prop 13) for a local jurisdiction to raise a property tax based on property value.”
Can you point me in the right direction for an actual cite of a specific statute?
“To make matters simple: it is illegal (since Prop 13) for a local jurisdiction to raise a property tax based on property value.”
Can you point me in the right direction for an actual cite of a specific statute?
“To make matters simple: it is illegal (since Prop 13) for a local jurisdiction to raise a property tax based on property value.”
Can you point me in the right direction for an actual cite of a specific statute?
“To make matters simple: it is illegal (since Prop 13) for a local jurisdiction to raise a property tax based on property value.”
Can you point me in the right direction for an actual cite of a specific statute?
“You should have some idea of what you are talking about before you rip someone in public for not doing something which he in fact did. Even worse, you are too cowardly to give your name when you make this pusillanimous attack on Russert.”
“From the transcript — for those of you too lazy to read the interview — “
Rich, take a long deep breath, and for heaven’s sake chill out! In fact, why don’t you take a break from writing anything for a few days. Come back with a calmer attitude, and make a resolution to begin everything you right with the words “In my opinion…”
Then anytime you decide to attack someone personally, by insisting s/he is ‘lazy’,’pusillanimous’,’don’t know what they are talking about’, count slowly to ten, and recite to yourself “if I don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say anything at all”. Obviously someone’s mother forgot to teach him manners!
“You should have some idea of what you are talking about before you rip someone in public for not doing something which he in fact did. Even worse, you are too cowardly to give your name when you make this pusillanimous attack on Russert.”
“From the transcript — for those of you too lazy to read the interview — “
Rich, take a long deep breath, and for heaven’s sake chill out! In fact, why don’t you take a break from writing anything for a few days. Come back with a calmer attitude, and make a resolution to begin everything you right with the words “In my opinion…”
Then anytime you decide to attack someone personally, by insisting s/he is ‘lazy’,’pusillanimous’,’don’t know what they are talking about’, count slowly to ten, and recite to yourself “if I don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say anything at all”. Obviously someone’s mother forgot to teach him manners!
“You should have some idea of what you are talking about before you rip someone in public for not doing something which he in fact did. Even worse, you are too cowardly to give your name when you make this pusillanimous attack on Russert.”
“From the transcript — for those of you too lazy to read the interview — “
Rich, take a long deep breath, and for heaven’s sake chill out! In fact, why don’t you take a break from writing anything for a few days. Come back with a calmer attitude, and make a resolution to begin everything you right with the words “In my opinion…”
Then anytime you decide to attack someone personally, by insisting s/he is ‘lazy’,’pusillanimous’,’don’t know what they are talking about’, count slowly to ten, and recite to yourself “if I don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say anything at all”. Obviously someone’s mother forgot to teach him manners!
“You should have some idea of what you are talking about before you rip someone in public for not doing something which he in fact did. Even worse, you are too cowardly to give your name when you make this pusillanimous attack on Russert.”
“From the transcript — for those of you too lazy to read the interview — “
Rich, take a long deep breath, and for heaven’s sake chill out! In fact, why don’t you take a break from writing anything for a few days. Come back with a calmer attitude, and make a resolution to begin everything you right with the words “In my opinion…”
Then anytime you decide to attack someone personally, by insisting s/he is ‘lazy’,’pusillanimous’,’don’t know what they are talking about’, count slowly to ten, and recite to yourself “if I don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say anything at all”. Obviously someone’s mother forgot to teach him manners!
“From the transcript — for those of you too lazy to read the interview — I thought these few Q&As were interesting, particularly in light of how wrong Cheney proved to be…”
Condescending as your words are, let me say I don’t think Tim Russert’s questions were any more insightful than something a fairly intelligent high school student couldn’t have come up with. In fact, it sounds more like it was taken out of a Democratic Party playbook.
I might have asked some of the following questions:
1. It seems that after WWII we have seen fit to have a permanent military presence in Japan and Germany, our former enemies – for over fifty years. What makes you think Iraq will be any different, especially in light of the fact Japan and Germany were far more technologically developed countries and did not have the internecine warfare that has plagued Iraq for centuries?
2. If Iraq has had a tribal culture for thousands of years, and religion that tends to be antithetical to democracy – treating women as if property, how do you intend to suddenly educate the masses in a few short months that democracy is somehow in their best interest, when there is probably very little understanding of what democracy actually is all about, especially in light of the high illiteracy rate in Iraq?
3. Would it not be logical to assume that Hussein supporters, thugs and bandits would melt into the fabric of Iraqi society until the hot war is over, only to re-emerge when the coast was clear? And if that should happen, what is to stop them from forever melting into the woodwork every time there is a crackdown on their ability to create mayhem, requiring our continual military presence on a permanent basis? After all, more than likely there is a communist influence in the area, continually stirring up the pot, as has been the case for many, many years. How do you put a stop to that disruptive influence?
4. In the past, our country has been seen as a paper tiger, because of its habit of going into warfare with enthusiasm, but not staying the course. In fact, we deserted Iraquis once already, under the Bush Sr/Colin Powell regime. We didn’t stay the course in Viet Nam, nor Korea. The enemy has become faceless, a shadow opponent that uses unconventional warfare to defeat us. Why won’t the same be true of Iraq? Will we have the will to do what is absolutely necessary to win the war, or are our resources limited in some way that could impede our ability to win at all costs?
5. Would a different approach have been better, such as what Ronald Reagen did with Kadafi of Libya? Maybe a well placed bomb on the House of Hussein would work better? It would be a lot less costly than warfare. Or could our Special Forces carry out some covert operations to undermine the Hussein regime in a way that would topple the gov’t on its own, rather than involve our whole country in warfare?
The funny thing is, these are questions I had from the outset of the Iraqi war. I felt we were justified in going in for all the right reasons, but that we would not stay the course as we haven’t in the past. I was against going in unless we were determined to win, whatever it took – which would never happen.
If you are not going in with the determination to win, then don’t go in at all. It has become pretty clear that a unilateral pullout in Iraq is not possible – there would be a blood bath and the oil fields would be taken over by the enemy. So the only option left is a permanent military presence in Iraq – a very unpalatable solution that could banrupt our country.
Remember, the USSR dissolved because it spent too much of its resources on military adventures. The same thing could happen to us. As radical as it sounds, a well placed bunker buster on the House of Iran might work wonders! What is the alternative?
“From the transcript — for those of you too lazy to read the interview — I thought these few Q&As were interesting, particularly in light of how wrong Cheney proved to be…”
Condescending as your words are, let me say I don’t think Tim Russert’s questions were any more insightful than something a fairly intelligent high school student couldn’t have come up with. In fact, it sounds more like it was taken out of a Democratic Party playbook.
I might have asked some of the following questions:
1. It seems that after WWII we have seen fit to have a permanent military presence in Japan and Germany, our former enemies – for over fifty years. What makes you think Iraq will be any different, especially in light of the fact Japan and Germany were far more technologically developed countries and did not have the internecine warfare that has plagued Iraq for centuries?
2. If Iraq has had a tribal culture for thousands of years, and religion that tends to be antithetical to democracy – treating women as if property, how do you intend to suddenly educate the masses in a few short months that democracy is somehow in their best interest, when there is probably very little understanding of what democracy actually is all about, especially in light of the high illiteracy rate in Iraq?
3. Would it not be logical to assume that Hussein supporters, thugs and bandits would melt into the fabric of Iraqi society until the hot war is over, only to re-emerge when the coast was clear? And if that should happen, what is to stop them from forever melting into the woodwork every time there is a crackdown on their ability to create mayhem, requiring our continual military presence on a permanent basis? After all, more than likely there is a communist influence in the area, continually stirring up the pot, as has been the case for many, many years. How do you put a stop to that disruptive influence?
4. In the past, our country has been seen as a paper tiger, because of its habit of going into warfare with enthusiasm, but not staying the course. In fact, we deserted Iraquis once already, under the Bush Sr/Colin Powell regime. We didn’t stay the course in Viet Nam, nor Korea. The enemy has become faceless, a shadow opponent that uses unconventional warfare to defeat us. Why won’t the same be true of Iraq? Will we have the will to do what is absolutely necessary to win the war, or are our resources limited in some way that could impede our ability to win at all costs?
5. Would a different approach have been better, such as what Ronald Reagen did with Kadafi of Libya? Maybe a well placed bomb on the House of Hussein would work better? It would be a lot less costly than warfare. Or could our Special Forces carry out some covert operations to undermine the Hussein regime in a way that would topple the gov’t on its own, rather than involve our whole country in warfare?
The funny thing is, these are questions I had from the outset of the Iraqi war. I felt we were justified in going in for all the right reasons, but that we would not stay the course as we haven’t in the past. I was against going in unless we were determined to win, whatever it took – which would never happen.
If you are not going in with the determination to win, then don’t go in at all. It has become pretty clear that a unilateral pullout in Iraq is not possible – there would be a blood bath and the oil fields would be taken over by the enemy. So the only option left is a permanent military presence in Iraq – a very unpalatable solution that could banrupt our country.
Remember, the USSR dissolved because it spent too much of its resources on military adventures. The same thing could happen to us. As radical as it sounds, a well placed bunker buster on the House of Iran might work wonders! What is the alternative?
“From the transcript — for those of you too lazy to read the interview — I thought these few Q&As were interesting, particularly in light of how wrong Cheney proved to be…”
Condescending as your words are, let me say I don’t think Tim Russert’s questions were any more insightful than something a fairly intelligent high school student couldn’t have come up with. In fact, it sounds more like it was taken out of a Democratic Party playbook.
I might have asked some of the following questions:
1. It seems that after WWII we have seen fit to have a permanent military presence in Japan and Germany, our former enemies – for over fifty years. What makes you think Iraq will be any different, especially in light of the fact Japan and Germany were far more technologically developed countries and did not have the internecine warfare that has plagued Iraq for centuries?
2. If Iraq has had a tribal culture for thousands of years, and religion that tends to be antithetical to democracy – treating women as if property, how do you intend to suddenly educate the masses in a few short months that democracy is somehow in their best interest, when there is probably very little understanding of what democracy actually is all about, especially in light of the high illiteracy rate in Iraq?
3. Would it not be logical to assume that Hussein supporters, thugs and bandits would melt into the fabric of Iraqi society until the hot war is over, only to re-emerge when the coast was clear? And if that should happen, what is to stop them from forever melting into the woodwork every time there is a crackdown on their ability to create mayhem, requiring our continual military presence on a permanent basis? After all, more than likely there is a communist influence in the area, continually stirring up the pot, as has been the case for many, many years. How do you put a stop to that disruptive influence?
4. In the past, our country has been seen as a paper tiger, because of its habit of going into warfare with enthusiasm, but not staying the course. In fact, we deserted Iraquis once already, under the Bush Sr/Colin Powell regime. We didn’t stay the course in Viet Nam, nor Korea. The enemy has become faceless, a shadow opponent that uses unconventional warfare to defeat us. Why won’t the same be true of Iraq? Will we have the will to do what is absolutely necessary to win the war, or are our resources limited in some way that could impede our ability to win at all costs?
5. Would a different approach have been better, such as what Ronald Reagen did with Kadafi of Libya? Maybe a well placed bomb on the House of Hussein would work better? It would be a lot less costly than warfare. Or could our Special Forces carry out some covert operations to undermine the Hussein regime in a way that would topple the gov’t on its own, rather than involve our whole country in warfare?
The funny thing is, these are questions I had from the outset of the Iraqi war. I felt we were justified in going in for all the right reasons, but that we would not stay the course as we haven’t in the past. I was against going in unless we were determined to win, whatever it took – which would never happen.
If you are not going in with the determination to win, then don’t go in at all. It has become pretty clear that a unilateral pullout in Iraq is not possible – there would be a blood bath and the oil fields would be taken over by the enemy. So the only option left is a permanent military presence in Iraq – a very unpalatable solution that could banrupt our country.
Remember, the USSR dissolved because it spent too much of its resources on military adventures. The same thing could happen to us. As radical as it sounds, a well placed bunker buster on the House of Iran might work wonders! What is the alternative?
“From the transcript — for those of you too lazy to read the interview — I thought these few Q&As were interesting, particularly in light of how wrong Cheney proved to be…”
Condescending as your words are, let me say I don’t think Tim Russert’s questions were any more insightful than something a fairly intelligent high school student couldn’t have come up with. In fact, it sounds more like it was taken out of a Democratic Party playbook.
I might have asked some of the following questions:
1. It seems that after WWII we have seen fit to have a permanent military presence in Japan and Germany, our former enemies – for over fifty years. What makes you think Iraq will be any different, especially in light of the fact Japan and Germany were far more technologically developed countries and did not have the internecine warfare that has plagued Iraq for centuries?
2. If Iraq has had a tribal culture for thousands of years, and religion that tends to be antithetical to democracy – treating women as if property, how do you intend to suddenly educate the masses in a few short months that democracy is somehow in their best interest, when there is probably very little understanding of what democracy actually is all about, especially in light of the high illiteracy rate in Iraq?
3. Would it not be logical to assume that Hussein supporters, thugs and bandits would melt into the fabric of Iraqi society until the hot war is over, only to re-emerge when the coast was clear? And if that should happen, what is to stop them from forever melting into the woodwork every time there is a crackdown on their ability to create mayhem, requiring our continual military presence on a permanent basis? After all, more than likely there is a communist influence in the area, continually stirring up the pot, as has been the case for many, many years. How do you put a stop to that disruptive influence?
4. In the past, our country has been seen as a paper tiger, because of its habit of going into warfare with enthusiasm, but not staying the course. In fact, we deserted Iraquis once already, under the Bush Sr/Colin Powell regime. We didn’t stay the course in Viet Nam, nor Korea. The enemy has become faceless, a shadow opponent that uses unconventional warfare to defeat us. Why won’t the same be true of Iraq? Will we have the will to do what is absolutely necessary to win the war, or are our resources limited in some way that could impede our ability to win at all costs?
5. Would a different approach have been better, such as what Ronald Reagen did with Kadafi of Libya? Maybe a well placed bomb on the House of Hussein would work better? It would be a lot less costly than warfare. Or could our Special Forces carry out some covert operations to undermine the Hussein regime in a way that would topple the gov’t on its own, rather than involve our whole country in warfare?
The funny thing is, these are questions I had from the outset of the Iraqi war. I felt we were justified in going in for all the right reasons, but that we would not stay the course as we haven’t in the past. I was against going in unless we were determined to win, whatever it took – which would never happen.
If you are not going in with the determination to win, then don’t go in at all. It has become pretty clear that a unilateral pullout in Iraq is not possible – there would be a blood bath and the oil fields would be taken over by the enemy. So the only option left is a permanent military presence in Iraq – a very unpalatable solution that could banrupt our country.
Remember, the USSR dissolved because it spent too much of its resources on military adventures. The same thing could happen to us. As radical as it sounds, a well placed bunker buster on the House of Iran might work wonders! What is the alternative?
“I guess we all can’t be as smart as you are.”
True.
“I guess we all can’t be as smart as you are.”
True.
“I guess we all can’t be as smart as you are.”
True.
“I guess we all can’t be as smart as you are.”
True.
“Condescending as your words are, let me say I don’t think Tim Russert’s questions were any more insightful than something a fairly intelligent high school student couldn’t have come up with.”
His questions were excellent. If a brilliant high schooler could have done as well, then good for him.
“In fact, it sounds more like it was taken out of a Democratic Party playbook.”
Russert saw his job — and I think he was completely right to do so — as studying his interview subject very thoroughly and taking the other side in a tough but polite manner. You see that as reading from the Democratic Party playbook. I see that as being fair. He was equally tough and thorough when he interviewed Democrats or independents who were politically controversial.
“I might have asked some of the following questions:
1. It seems that after WWII we have seen fit to have a permanent military presence in Japan and Germany, our former enemies – for over fifty years. What makes you think Iraq will be any different, especially in light of the fact Japan and Germany were far more technologically developed countries and did not have the internecine warfare that has plagued Iraq for centuries?”
The question about long-term presence was asked.
“2. If Iraq has had a tribal culture for thousands of years, and religion that tends to be antithetical to democracy…”
It’s a bad idea to presume facts which are untrue into the body of your question. By doing so you are exposing your own bias and ignorance, rather than elucidating an answer. If you had a better high school education you would understand that.
“3. Would it not be logical to assume that Hussein supporters, thugs and bandits would melt into the fabric of Iraqi society until the hot war is over, only to re-emerge when the coast was clear?”
This is not a terrible question. However, if you read the transcript, you will see that Cheney essentially answers this — though his answer has proved wrong.
“After all, more than likely there is a communist influence in the area, continually stirring up the pot, as has been the case for many, many years. How do you put a stop to that disruptive influence?”
A communist influence in the area? What seperated Russert from so many interviewers was that he was prepared to ask insightful questions. When you expose your ignorance talking about “communist influence” in Iraq or that region, when there is none, you show your dire lack of preparation.
“4. In the past, our country has been seen as a paper tiger, because of its habit of going into warfare with enthusiasm, but not staying the course. In fact, we deserted Iraquis once already, under the Bush Sr/Colin Powell regime.”
Russert thoroughly went over this territory. It’s amazing how critical you are of Russert, when you failed to read the interview.
“We didn’t stay the course in Viet Nam, nor Korea.”
Now you are showing your biases and ignorance, not asking a pertinent question. We fought to a draw in Korea, and as you stated above, have remained on the peninsula ever since. I can’t see how that is not “staying the course.”
In Vietnam, we fought a hot war there for 12 years and failed that whole time to ever create a popular regime in Sount Vietnam. It’s folly to say we failed “to stay the course.” Rather, we took the wrong course and it ended in failure.
“The enemy has become faceless, a shadow opponent that uses unconventional warfare to defeat us. Why won’t the same be true of Iraq?”
Cheney answered this. You should read the transcript.
“Will we have the will to do what is absolutely necessary to win the war, or are our resources limited in some way that could impede our ability to win at all costs?”
You are not asking questions so much as making an argument. Again, you just don’t understand the job of an interviewer.
He asked this question. You clearly did not read the transcript.
“5. Would a different approach have been better, such as what Ronald Reagen did with Kadafi of Libya? Maybe a well placed bomb on the House of Hussein would work better? It would be a lot less costly than warfare. Or could our Special Forces carry out some covert operations to undermine the Hussein regime in a way that would topple the gov’t on its own, rather than involve our whole country in warfare?”
This line of questioning was posed endlessly by other questioners in the time leading up to the war.
“As radical as it sounds, a well placed bunker buster on the House of Iran might work wonders! What is the alternative?”
You could use a good high school education.
“Condescending as your words are, let me say I don’t think Tim Russert’s questions were any more insightful than something a fairly intelligent high school student couldn’t have come up with.”
His questions were excellent. If a brilliant high schooler could have done as well, then good for him.
“In fact, it sounds more like it was taken out of a Democratic Party playbook.”
Russert saw his job — and I think he was completely right to do so — as studying his interview subject very thoroughly and taking the other side in a tough but polite manner. You see that as reading from the Democratic Party playbook. I see that as being fair. He was equally tough and thorough when he interviewed Democrats or independents who were politically controversial.
“I might have asked some of the following questions:
1. It seems that after WWII we have seen fit to have a permanent military presence in Japan and Germany, our former enemies – for over fifty years. What makes you think Iraq will be any different, especially in light of the fact Japan and Germany were far more technologically developed countries and did not have the internecine warfare that has plagued Iraq for centuries?”
The question about long-term presence was asked.
“2. If Iraq has had a tribal culture for thousands of years, and religion that tends to be antithetical to democracy…”
It’s a bad idea to presume facts which are untrue into the body of your question. By doing so you are exposing your own bias and ignorance, rather than elucidating an answer. If you had a better high school education you would understand that.
“3. Would it not be logical to assume that Hussein supporters, thugs and bandits would melt into the fabric of Iraqi society until the hot war is over, only to re-emerge when the coast was clear?”
This is not a terrible question. However, if you read the transcript, you will see that Cheney essentially answers this — though his answer has proved wrong.
“After all, more than likely there is a communist influence in the area, continually stirring up the pot, as has been the case for many, many years. How do you put a stop to that disruptive influence?”
A communist influence in the area? What seperated Russert from so many interviewers was that he was prepared to ask insightful questions. When you expose your ignorance talking about “communist influence” in Iraq or that region, when there is none, you show your dire lack of preparation.
“4. In the past, our country has been seen as a paper tiger, because of its habit of going into warfare with enthusiasm, but not staying the course. In fact, we deserted Iraquis once already, under the Bush Sr/Colin Powell regime.”
Russert thoroughly went over this territory. It’s amazing how critical you are of Russert, when you failed to read the interview.
“We didn’t stay the course in Viet Nam, nor Korea.”
Now you are showing your biases and ignorance, not asking a pertinent question. We fought to a draw in Korea, and as you stated above, have remained on the peninsula ever since. I can’t see how that is not “staying the course.”
In Vietnam, we fought a hot war there for 12 years and failed that whole time to ever create a popular regime in Sount Vietnam. It’s folly to say we failed “to stay the course.” Rather, we took the wrong course and it ended in failure.
“The enemy has become faceless, a shadow opponent that uses unconventional warfare to defeat us. Why won’t the same be true of Iraq?”
Cheney answered this. You should read the transcript.
“Will we have the will to do what is absolutely necessary to win the war, or are our resources limited in some way that could impede our ability to win at all costs?”
You are not asking questions so much as making an argument. Again, you just don’t understand the job of an interviewer.
He asked this question. You clearly did not read the transcript.
“5. Would a different approach have been better, such as what Ronald Reagen did with Kadafi of Libya? Maybe a well placed bomb on the House of Hussein would work better? It would be a lot less costly than warfare. Or could our Special Forces carry out some covert operations to undermine the Hussein regime in a way that would topple the gov’t on its own, rather than involve our whole country in warfare?”
This line of questioning was posed endlessly by other questioners in the time leading up to the war.
“As radical as it sounds, a well placed bunker buster on the House of Iran might work wonders! What is the alternative?”
You could use a good high school education.
“Condescending as your words are, let me say I don’t think Tim Russert’s questions were any more insightful than something a fairly intelligent high school student couldn’t have come up with.”
His questions were excellent. If a brilliant high schooler could have done as well, then good for him.
“In fact, it sounds more like it was taken out of a Democratic Party playbook.”
Russert saw his job — and I think he was completely right to do so — as studying his interview subject very thoroughly and taking the other side in a tough but polite manner. You see that as reading from the Democratic Party playbook. I see that as being fair. He was equally tough and thorough when he interviewed Democrats or independents who were politically controversial.
“I might have asked some of the following questions:
1. It seems that after WWII we have seen fit to have a permanent military presence in Japan and Germany, our former enemies – for over fifty years. What makes you think Iraq will be any different, especially in light of the fact Japan and Germany were far more technologically developed countries and did not have the internecine warfare that has plagued Iraq for centuries?”
The question about long-term presence was asked.
“2. If Iraq has had a tribal culture for thousands of years, and religion that tends to be antithetical to democracy…”
It’s a bad idea to presume facts which are untrue into the body of your question. By doing so you are exposing your own bias and ignorance, rather than elucidating an answer. If you had a better high school education you would understand that.
“3. Would it not be logical to assume that Hussein supporters, thugs and bandits would melt into the fabric of Iraqi society until the hot war is over, only to re-emerge when the coast was clear?”
This is not a terrible question. However, if you read the transcript, you will see that Cheney essentially answers this — though his answer has proved wrong.
“After all, more than likely there is a communist influence in the area, continually stirring up the pot, as has been the case for many, many years. How do you put a stop to that disruptive influence?”
A communist influence in the area? What seperated Russert from so many interviewers was that he was prepared to ask insightful questions. When you expose your ignorance talking about “communist influence” in Iraq or that region, when there is none, you show your dire lack of preparation.
“4. In the past, our country has been seen as a paper tiger, because of its habit of going into warfare with enthusiasm, but not staying the course. In fact, we deserted Iraquis once already, under the Bush Sr/Colin Powell regime.”
Russert thoroughly went over this territory. It’s amazing how critical you are of Russert, when you failed to read the interview.
“We didn’t stay the course in Viet Nam, nor Korea.”
Now you are showing your biases and ignorance, not asking a pertinent question. We fought to a draw in Korea, and as you stated above, have remained on the peninsula ever since. I can’t see how that is not “staying the course.”
In Vietnam, we fought a hot war there for 12 years and failed that whole time to ever create a popular regime in Sount Vietnam. It’s folly to say we failed “to stay the course.” Rather, we took the wrong course and it ended in failure.
“The enemy has become faceless, a shadow opponent that uses unconventional warfare to defeat us. Why won’t the same be true of Iraq?”
Cheney answered this. You should read the transcript.
“Will we have the will to do what is absolutely necessary to win the war, or are our resources limited in some way that could impede our ability to win at all costs?”
You are not asking questions so much as making an argument. Again, you just don’t understand the job of an interviewer.
He asked this question. You clearly did not read the transcript.
“5. Would a different approach have been better, such as what Ronald Reagen did with Kadafi of Libya? Maybe a well placed bomb on the House of Hussein would work better? It would be a lot less costly than warfare. Or could our Special Forces carry out some covert operations to undermine the Hussein regime in a way that would topple the gov’t on its own, rather than involve our whole country in warfare?”
This line of questioning was posed endlessly by other questioners in the time leading up to the war.
“As radical as it sounds, a well placed bunker buster on the House of Iran might work wonders! What is the alternative?”
You could use a good high school education.
“Condescending as your words are, let me say I don’t think Tim Russert’s questions were any more insightful than something a fairly intelligent high school student couldn’t have come up with.”
His questions were excellent. If a brilliant high schooler could have done as well, then good for him.
“In fact, it sounds more like it was taken out of a Democratic Party playbook.”
Russert saw his job — and I think he was completely right to do so — as studying his interview subject very thoroughly and taking the other side in a tough but polite manner. You see that as reading from the Democratic Party playbook. I see that as being fair. He was equally tough and thorough when he interviewed Democrats or independents who were politically controversial.
“I might have asked some of the following questions:
1. It seems that after WWII we have seen fit to have a permanent military presence in Japan and Germany, our former enemies – for over fifty years. What makes you think Iraq will be any different, especially in light of the fact Japan and Germany were far more technologically developed countries and did not have the internecine warfare that has plagued Iraq for centuries?”
The question about long-term presence was asked.
“2. If Iraq has had a tribal culture for thousands of years, and religion that tends to be antithetical to democracy…”
It’s a bad idea to presume facts which are untrue into the body of your question. By doing so you are exposing your own bias and ignorance, rather than elucidating an answer. If you had a better high school education you would understand that.
“3. Would it not be logical to assume that Hussein supporters, thugs and bandits would melt into the fabric of Iraqi society until the hot war is over, only to re-emerge when the coast was clear?”
This is not a terrible question. However, if you read the transcript, you will see that Cheney essentially answers this — though his answer has proved wrong.
“After all, more than likely there is a communist influence in the area, continually stirring up the pot, as has been the case for many, many years. How do you put a stop to that disruptive influence?”
A communist influence in the area? What seperated Russert from so many interviewers was that he was prepared to ask insightful questions. When you expose your ignorance talking about “communist influence” in Iraq or that region, when there is none, you show your dire lack of preparation.
“4. In the past, our country has been seen as a paper tiger, because of its habit of going into warfare with enthusiasm, but not staying the course. In fact, we deserted Iraquis once already, under the Bush Sr/Colin Powell regime.”
Russert thoroughly went over this territory. It’s amazing how critical you are of Russert, when you failed to read the interview.
“We didn’t stay the course in Viet Nam, nor Korea.”
Now you are showing your biases and ignorance, not asking a pertinent question. We fought to a draw in Korea, and as you stated above, have remained on the peninsula ever since. I can’t see how that is not “staying the course.”
In Vietnam, we fought a hot war there for 12 years and failed that whole time to ever create a popular regime in Sount Vietnam. It’s folly to say we failed “to stay the course.” Rather, we took the wrong course and it ended in failure.
“The enemy has become faceless, a shadow opponent that uses unconventional warfare to defeat us. Why won’t the same be true of Iraq?”
Cheney answered this. You should read the transcript.
“Will we have the will to do what is absolutely necessary to win the war, or are our resources limited in some way that could impede our ability to win at all costs?”
You are not asking questions so much as making an argument. Again, you just don’t understand the job of an interviewer.
He asked this question. You clearly did not read the transcript.
“5. Would a different approach have been better, such as what Ronald Reagen did with Kadafi of Libya? Maybe a well placed bomb on the House of Hussein would work better? It would be a lot less costly than warfare. Or could our Special Forces carry out some covert operations to undermine the Hussein regime in a way that would topple the gov’t on its own, rather than involve our whole country in warfare?”
This line of questioning was posed endlessly by other questioners in the time leading up to the war.
“As radical as it sounds, a well placed bunker buster on the House of Iran might work wonders! What is the alternative?”
You could use a good high school education.
d.greenwald,
It appears you let some people call others names and not others. Can you explain?
d.greenwald,
It appears you let some people call others names and not others. Can you explain?
d.greenwald,
It appears you let some people call others names and not others. Can you explain?
d.greenwald,
It appears you let some people call others names and not others. Can you explain?
I’m not the only moderator. No one is supposed to call names. Note the terms and conditions of this blog:
“any posts that use profanity or engage in name-calling or other potentially slanderous attacks will be subject to deletion.”
And also:
“Please keep your posts on topic to the extent possible.”
We tend to grant a bit more leeway.
In the future if you feel you have been called a name, draw attention to it, and we will remove the post. Sometimes we do not catch it. Words like “idiot” or profanity tend to draw immediate attention.
I’m not the only moderator. No one is supposed to call names. Note the terms and conditions of this blog:
“any posts that use profanity or engage in name-calling or other potentially slanderous attacks will be subject to deletion.”
And also:
“Please keep your posts on topic to the extent possible.”
We tend to grant a bit more leeway.
In the future if you feel you have been called a name, draw attention to it, and we will remove the post. Sometimes we do not catch it. Words like “idiot” or profanity tend to draw immediate attention.
I’m not the only moderator. No one is supposed to call names. Note the terms and conditions of this blog:
“any posts that use profanity or engage in name-calling or other potentially slanderous attacks will be subject to deletion.”
And also:
“Please keep your posts on topic to the extent possible.”
We tend to grant a bit more leeway.
In the future if you feel you have been called a name, draw attention to it, and we will remove the post. Sometimes we do not catch it. Words like “idiot” or profanity tend to draw immediate attention.
I’m not the only moderator. No one is supposed to call names. Note the terms and conditions of this blog:
“any posts that use profanity or engage in name-calling or other potentially slanderous attacks will be subject to deletion.”
And also:
“Please keep your posts on topic to the extent possible.”
We tend to grant a bit more leeway.
In the future if you feel you have been called a name, draw attention to it, and we will remove the post. Sometimes we do not catch it. Words like “idiot” or profanity tend to draw immediate attention.
I find amusing this individual who attacks Russert on the basis of a single interview when it’s obvious he hasn’t reviewed the facts. I’d also point out that hindsight is 20-20, and we all know what questions we should have asked then.
Was Tim Russert perfect? No. He was, however, the best TV political journalist of his generation.
I find amusing this individual who attacks Russert on the basis of a single interview when it’s obvious he hasn’t reviewed the facts. I’d also point out that hindsight is 20-20, and we all know what questions we should have asked then.
Was Tim Russert perfect? No. He was, however, the best TV political journalist of his generation.
I find amusing this individual who attacks Russert on the basis of a single interview when it’s obvious he hasn’t reviewed the facts. I’d also point out that hindsight is 20-20, and we all know what questions we should have asked then.
Was Tim Russert perfect? No. He was, however, the best TV political journalist of his generation.
I find amusing this individual who attacks Russert on the basis of a single interview when it’s obvious he hasn’t reviewed the facts. I’d also point out that hindsight is 20-20, and we all know what questions we should have asked then.
Was Tim Russert perfect? No. He was, however, the best TV political journalist of his generation.
I think the comparison of Wolk’s votes and Aghazarian’s votes in the primary is a specious argument.
First, as was pointed out, on the Democratic side there was a contested primary in a meaningful election. That wasn’t the case on the GOP side. Democratic voters had an incentive to show up for this election, and Republicans didn’t.
Second, the registration advantage for Democrats is such that there will naturally be more Democrats voting than Republicans when you compare two primary elections. It’s a meaningless statistical artifact.
The real questions going forward to November are: 1) how many Dems stay home because Obama is ahead by a landslide, 2) how many Dems defect to Aghazarian, and 3)which way do the independents break? Given Aghazarian’s $$$ edge, it’s not a sure bet for Wolk.
I think the comparison of Wolk’s votes and Aghazarian’s votes in the primary is a specious argument.
First, as was pointed out, on the Democratic side there was a contested primary in a meaningful election. That wasn’t the case on the GOP side. Democratic voters had an incentive to show up for this election, and Republicans didn’t.
Second, the registration advantage for Democrats is such that there will naturally be more Democrats voting than Republicans when you compare two primary elections. It’s a meaningless statistical artifact.
The real questions going forward to November are: 1) how many Dems stay home because Obama is ahead by a landslide, 2) how many Dems defect to Aghazarian, and 3)which way do the independents break? Given Aghazarian’s $$$ edge, it’s not a sure bet for Wolk.
I think the comparison of Wolk’s votes and Aghazarian’s votes in the primary is a specious argument.
First, as was pointed out, on the Democratic side there was a contested primary in a meaningful election. That wasn’t the case on the GOP side. Democratic voters had an incentive to show up for this election, and Republicans didn’t.
Second, the registration advantage for Democrats is such that there will naturally be more Democrats voting than Republicans when you compare two primary elections. It’s a meaningless statistical artifact.
The real questions going forward to November are: 1) how many Dems stay home because Obama is ahead by a landslide, 2) how many Dems defect to Aghazarian, and 3)which way do the independents break? Given Aghazarian’s $$$ edge, it’s not a sure bet for Wolk.
I think the comparison of Wolk’s votes and Aghazarian’s votes in the primary is a specious argument.
First, as was pointed out, on the Democratic side there was a contested primary in a meaningful election. That wasn’t the case on the GOP side. Democratic voters had an incentive to show up for this election, and Republicans didn’t.
Second, the registration advantage for Democrats is such that there will naturally be more Democrats voting than Republicans when you compare two primary elections. It’s a meaningless statistical artifact.
The real questions going forward to November are: 1) how many Dems stay home because Obama is ahead by a landslide, 2) how many Dems defect to Aghazarian, and 3)which way do the independents break? Given Aghazarian’s $$$ edge, it’s not a sure bet for Wolk.
I’m glad you are making the argument, but it is not specious. In fact, it is one of the prime things you look at as a consultant when handicapping a race.
“First, as was pointed out, on the Democratic side there was a contested primary in a meaningful election. That wasn’t the case on the GOP side.”
That is correct, which is why I looked less at the the part of the district with the contested primary and looked at the part of the district where no such primary occurred.
“the registration advantage for Democrats is such that there will naturally be more Democrats voting than Republicans”
And what does that tell you? If you look at the core voting population and see that there are more democrats than republicans, that means that all else being equal the democrat has the advantage. That means that Aghazarian will have to negate that through his campaign. Possible, but a difficult task. You actually negated your own argument.
“The real questions going forward to November are: 1) how many Dems stay home because Obama is ahead by a landslide, 2) how many Dems defect to Aghazarian, and 3)which way do the independents break? Given Aghazarian’s $$$ edge, it’s not a sure bet for Wolk.”
Those are all questions, but the starting point is still how many people voted in the primary–a very low turnout primary. Traditionally those low turnout primaries have favored Republican turnout over Democratic turnout.
You do not consider a fourth key point–will voters come out as they did in February, because the number of Democratic primary voters was at record levels.
This only measured the base of this district, and the base appears to be solidly democratic. Aghazarian is going to need to change it, I think it’s an uphill battle that he do so.
I’m glad you are making the argument, but it is not specious. In fact, it is one of the prime things you look at as a consultant when handicapping a race.
“First, as was pointed out, on the Democratic side there was a contested primary in a meaningful election. That wasn’t the case on the GOP side.”
That is correct, which is why I looked less at the the part of the district with the contested primary and looked at the part of the district where no such primary occurred.
“the registration advantage for Democrats is such that there will naturally be more Democrats voting than Republicans”
And what does that tell you? If you look at the core voting population and see that there are more democrats than republicans, that means that all else being equal the democrat has the advantage. That means that Aghazarian will have to negate that through his campaign. Possible, but a difficult task. You actually negated your own argument.
“The real questions going forward to November are: 1) how many Dems stay home because Obama is ahead by a landslide, 2) how many Dems defect to Aghazarian, and 3)which way do the independents break? Given Aghazarian’s $$$ edge, it’s not a sure bet for Wolk.”
Those are all questions, but the starting point is still how many people voted in the primary–a very low turnout primary. Traditionally those low turnout primaries have favored Republican turnout over Democratic turnout.
You do not consider a fourth key point–will voters come out as they did in February, because the number of Democratic primary voters was at record levels.
This only measured the base of this district, and the base appears to be solidly democratic. Aghazarian is going to need to change it, I think it’s an uphill battle that he do so.
I’m glad you are making the argument, but it is not specious. In fact, it is one of the prime things you look at as a consultant when handicapping a race.
“First, as was pointed out, on the Democratic side there was a contested primary in a meaningful election. That wasn’t the case on the GOP side.”
That is correct, which is why I looked less at the the part of the district with the contested primary and looked at the part of the district where no such primary occurred.
“the registration advantage for Democrats is such that there will naturally be more Democrats voting than Republicans”
And what does that tell you? If you look at the core voting population and see that there are more democrats than republicans, that means that all else being equal the democrat has the advantage. That means that Aghazarian will have to negate that through his campaign. Possible, but a difficult task. You actually negated your own argument.
“The real questions going forward to November are: 1) how many Dems stay home because Obama is ahead by a landslide, 2) how many Dems defect to Aghazarian, and 3)which way do the independents break? Given Aghazarian’s $$$ edge, it’s not a sure bet for Wolk.”
Those are all questions, but the starting point is still how many people voted in the primary–a very low turnout primary. Traditionally those low turnout primaries have favored Republican turnout over Democratic turnout.
You do not consider a fourth key point–will voters come out as they did in February, because the number of Democratic primary voters was at record levels.
This only measured the base of this district, and the base appears to be solidly democratic. Aghazarian is going to need to change it, I think it’s an uphill battle that he do so.
I’m glad you are making the argument, but it is not specious. In fact, it is one of the prime things you look at as a consultant when handicapping a race.
“First, as was pointed out, on the Democratic side there was a contested primary in a meaningful election. That wasn’t the case on the GOP side.”
That is correct, which is why I looked less at the the part of the district with the contested primary and looked at the part of the district where no such primary occurred.
“the registration advantage for Democrats is such that there will naturally be more Democrats voting than Republicans”
And what does that tell you? If you look at the core voting population and see that there are more democrats than republicans, that means that all else being equal the democrat has the advantage. That means that Aghazarian will have to negate that through his campaign. Possible, but a difficult task. You actually negated your own argument.
“The real questions going forward to November are: 1) how many Dems stay home because Obama is ahead by a landslide, 2) how many Dems defect to Aghazarian, and 3)which way do the independents break? Given Aghazarian’s $$$ edge, it’s not a sure bet for Wolk.”
Those are all questions, but the starting point is still how many people voted in the primary–a very low turnout primary. Traditionally those low turnout primaries have favored Republican turnout over Democratic turnout.
You do not consider a fourth key point–will voters come out as they did in February, because the number of Democratic primary voters was at record levels.
This only measured the base of this district, and the base appears to be solidly democratic. Aghazarian is going to need to change it, I think it’s an uphill battle that he do so.
“A communist influence in the area? What seperated Russert from so many interviewers was that he was prepared to ask insightful questions. When you expose your ignorance talking about “communist influence” in Iraq or that region, when there is none, you show your dire lack of preparation.”
Here is where your ignorance shows Rich. Russian soldiers were televised leaving Irag just a few days prior to our invasion. They had been supplying the Iraquis with various technology to fight our soldiers, such as night vision goggles. France and Germany, both of whom have strong communist influences, sold helicopters and other sorts of weaponry to Iraq. If you honestly believe the cold war is over, then you believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny!
“A communist influence in the area? What seperated Russert from so many interviewers was that he was prepared to ask insightful questions. When you expose your ignorance talking about “communist influence” in Iraq or that region, when there is none, you show your dire lack of preparation.”
Here is where your ignorance shows Rich. Russian soldiers were televised leaving Irag just a few days prior to our invasion. They had been supplying the Iraquis with various technology to fight our soldiers, such as night vision goggles. France and Germany, both of whom have strong communist influences, sold helicopters and other sorts of weaponry to Iraq. If you honestly believe the cold war is over, then you believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny!
“A communist influence in the area? What seperated Russert from so many interviewers was that he was prepared to ask insightful questions. When you expose your ignorance talking about “communist influence” in Iraq or that region, when there is none, you show your dire lack of preparation.”
Here is where your ignorance shows Rich. Russian soldiers were televised leaving Irag just a few days prior to our invasion. They had been supplying the Iraquis with various technology to fight our soldiers, such as night vision goggles. France and Germany, both of whom have strong communist influences, sold helicopters and other sorts of weaponry to Iraq. If you honestly believe the cold war is over, then you believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny!
“A communist influence in the area? What seperated Russert from so many interviewers was that he was prepared to ask insightful questions. When you expose your ignorance talking about “communist influence” in Iraq or that region, when there is none, you show your dire lack of preparation.”
Here is where your ignorance shows Rich. Russian soldiers were televised leaving Irag just a few days prior to our invasion. They had been supplying the Iraquis with various technology to fight our soldiers, such as night vision goggles. France and Germany, both of whom have strong communist influences, sold helicopters and other sorts of weaponry to Iraq. If you honestly believe the cold war is over, then you believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny!
“You could use a good high school education.”
The questions were what I would have asked, if I had the chance. But then I don’t profess to be a journalist, nor profess to be smarter than anyone else. I actually believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, and another’s may be just as valid as mine.
Many on the blog did not see Tim Russert the same way you did. Like me, they felt he was too much of a “gotcha” artist at times, and not necessarily as fairminded as he professed to be. We will just have to agree to disagree.
Seems to me I remember at one time you professed to not engaging in personal attacks. You could have fooled me!
“You could use a good high school education.”
The questions were what I would have asked, if I had the chance. But then I don’t profess to be a journalist, nor profess to be smarter than anyone else. I actually believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, and another’s may be just as valid as mine.
Many on the blog did not see Tim Russert the same way you did. Like me, they felt he was too much of a “gotcha” artist at times, and not necessarily as fairminded as he professed to be. We will just have to agree to disagree.
Seems to me I remember at one time you professed to not engaging in personal attacks. You could have fooled me!
“You could use a good high school education.”
The questions were what I would have asked, if I had the chance. But then I don’t profess to be a journalist, nor profess to be smarter than anyone else. I actually believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, and another’s may be just as valid as mine.
Many on the blog did not see Tim Russert the same way you did. Like me, they felt he was too much of a “gotcha” artist at times, and not necessarily as fairminded as he professed to be. We will just have to agree to disagree.
Seems to me I remember at one time you professed to not engaging in personal attacks. You could have fooled me!
“You could use a good high school education.”
The questions were what I would have asked, if I had the chance. But then I don’t profess to be a journalist, nor profess to be smarter than anyone else. I actually believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, and another’s may be just as valid as mine.
Many on the blog did not see Tim Russert the same way you did. Like me, they felt he was too much of a “gotcha” artist at times, and not necessarily as fairminded as he professed to be. We will just have to agree to disagree.
Seems to me I remember at one time you professed to not engaging in personal attacks. You could have fooled me!
….a description that I think hits the Russert nail right on the head..
from the Washington Post, Kurtz blog:
Noam Scheiber in the New Republic:
” ‘Meet the Press’ consistently made news, a rare and precious accomplishment for an interview program–for all of television news, in fact.
“Of course, the real trick is figuring out Russert’s secret news-making sauce, which is slightly more complicated. A show like “Meet the Press” hinges on a delicate equilibrium: Prominent guests show up to impress its important viewers. But the important people only watch if the guests say semi-interesting things. Without the opportunity to impress all those viewers, the guests wouldn’t show (at least not with the same frequency). Without the chance at some drama, the viewers wouldn’t tune in (at least not in the same numbers).
“Russert’s ingenious solution to this problem: The gotcha. The delicious possibility of seeing a secretary of state or joint chiefs chairman get that shifty-eyed, busted-for-filching-the-homeroom-
Jolly-Rancher-stash look when they contradicted an earlier pronouncement kept us watching week after week.(My emphasis)BUT THE QUESTIONING WAS RARELY SO PROBING OR AGRESSIVE OR UNPREDICTABLE THAT A REASONABLY AGILE GUEST COULDN’T STUDY HIS WAY TO A PASSING GRADE.
….a description that I think hits the Russert nail right on the head..
from the Washington Post, Kurtz blog:
Noam Scheiber in the New Republic:
” ‘Meet the Press’ consistently made news, a rare and precious accomplishment for an interview program–for all of television news, in fact.
“Of course, the real trick is figuring out Russert’s secret news-making sauce, which is slightly more complicated. A show like “Meet the Press” hinges on a delicate equilibrium: Prominent guests show up to impress its important viewers. But the important people only watch if the guests say semi-interesting things. Without the opportunity to impress all those viewers, the guests wouldn’t show (at least not with the same frequency). Without the chance at some drama, the viewers wouldn’t tune in (at least not in the same numbers).
“Russert’s ingenious solution to this problem: The gotcha. The delicious possibility of seeing a secretary of state or joint chiefs chairman get that shifty-eyed, busted-for-filching-the-homeroom-
Jolly-Rancher-stash look when they contradicted an earlier pronouncement kept us watching week after week.(My emphasis)BUT THE QUESTIONING WAS RARELY SO PROBING OR AGRESSIVE OR UNPREDICTABLE THAT A REASONABLY AGILE GUEST COULDN’T STUDY HIS WAY TO A PASSING GRADE.
….a description that I think hits the Russert nail right on the head..
from the Washington Post, Kurtz blog:
Noam Scheiber in the New Republic:
” ‘Meet the Press’ consistently made news, a rare and precious accomplishment for an interview program–for all of television news, in fact.
“Of course, the real trick is figuring out Russert’s secret news-making sauce, which is slightly more complicated. A show like “Meet the Press” hinges on a delicate equilibrium: Prominent guests show up to impress its important viewers. But the important people only watch if the guests say semi-interesting things. Without the opportunity to impress all those viewers, the guests wouldn’t show (at least not with the same frequency). Without the chance at some drama, the viewers wouldn’t tune in (at least not in the same numbers).
“Russert’s ingenious solution to this problem: The gotcha. The delicious possibility of seeing a secretary of state or joint chiefs chairman get that shifty-eyed, busted-for-filching-the-homeroom-
Jolly-Rancher-stash look when they contradicted an earlier pronouncement kept us watching week after week.(My emphasis)BUT THE QUESTIONING WAS RARELY SO PROBING OR AGRESSIVE OR UNPREDICTABLE THAT A REASONABLY AGILE GUEST COULDN’T STUDY HIS WAY TO A PASSING GRADE.
….a description that I think hits the Russert nail right on the head..
from the Washington Post, Kurtz blog:
Noam Scheiber in the New Republic:
” ‘Meet the Press’ consistently made news, a rare and precious accomplishment for an interview program–for all of television news, in fact.
“Of course, the real trick is figuring out Russert’s secret news-making sauce, which is slightly more complicated. A show like “Meet the Press” hinges on a delicate equilibrium: Prominent guests show up to impress its important viewers. But the important people only watch if the guests say semi-interesting things. Without the opportunity to impress all those viewers, the guests wouldn’t show (at least not with the same frequency). Without the chance at some drama, the viewers wouldn’t tune in (at least not in the same numbers).
“Russert’s ingenious solution to this problem: The gotcha. The delicious possibility of seeing a secretary of state or joint chiefs chairman get that shifty-eyed, busted-for-filching-the-homeroom-
Jolly-Rancher-stash look when they contradicted an earlier pronouncement kept us watching week after week.(My emphasis)BUT THE QUESTIONING WAS RARELY SO PROBING OR AGRESSIVE OR UNPREDICTABLE THAT A REASONABLY AGILE GUEST COULDN’T STUDY HIS WAY TO A PASSING GRADE.
“Here is where your ignorance shows Rich. Russian soldiers were televised leaving Irag just a few days prior to our invasion. They had been supplying the Iraquis with various technology to fight our soldiers, such as night vision goggles. France and Germany, both of whom have strong communist influences, sold helicopters and other sorts of weaponry to Iraq. If you honestly believe the cold war is over, then you believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny!”
Russian = communist? I didn’t know the Russians were still spreading communism.
France and Germany are also spreading communism? I must not be reading the right newspapers! No wonder I struggled so much in trying to learn French!
I guess I’ll be waiting for Santa Claus this Christmas.
“Here is where your ignorance shows Rich. Russian soldiers were televised leaving Irag just a few days prior to our invasion. They had been supplying the Iraquis with various technology to fight our soldiers, such as night vision goggles. France and Germany, both of whom have strong communist influences, sold helicopters and other sorts of weaponry to Iraq. If you honestly believe the cold war is over, then you believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny!”
Russian = communist? I didn’t know the Russians were still spreading communism.
France and Germany are also spreading communism? I must not be reading the right newspapers! No wonder I struggled so much in trying to learn French!
I guess I’ll be waiting for Santa Claus this Christmas.
“Here is where your ignorance shows Rich. Russian soldiers were televised leaving Irag just a few days prior to our invasion. They had been supplying the Iraquis with various technology to fight our soldiers, such as night vision goggles. France and Germany, both of whom have strong communist influences, sold helicopters and other sorts of weaponry to Iraq. If you honestly believe the cold war is over, then you believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny!”
Russian = communist? I didn’t know the Russians were still spreading communism.
France and Germany are also spreading communism? I must not be reading the right newspapers! No wonder I struggled so much in trying to learn French!
I guess I’ll be waiting for Santa Claus this Christmas.
“Here is where your ignorance shows Rich. Russian soldiers were televised leaving Irag just a few days prior to our invasion. They had been supplying the Iraquis with various technology to fight our soldiers, such as night vision goggles. France and Germany, both of whom have strong communist influences, sold helicopters and other sorts of weaponry to Iraq. If you honestly believe the cold war is over, then you believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny!”
Russian = communist? I didn’t know the Russians were still spreading communism.
France and Germany are also spreading communism? I must not be reading the right newspapers! No wonder I struggled so much in trying to learn French!
I guess I’ll be waiting for Santa Claus this Christmas.
“Here is where your ignorance shows Rich. Russian soldiers were televised leaving Irag just a few days prior to our invasion.”
We invaded Iraq roughly 10 years after the Communist Party was banned in Russia and the Soviet Union broke up.
Your calling me ignorant is quite astounding.
“They had been supplying the Iraquis (sic) with various technology to fight our soldiers, such as night vision goggles.”
Your conflation of Russia in the 21st Century with “communism” is painfully ignorant, brother. Yet it is true that Russia, post -Yeltsin, has been trying to reassert itself as a great power. And Russia has done this by taking the side of our enemies wherever it is not too costly to them. As such, Russia has recently aided Iran and Venezuela and some other rogue regimes. (They don’t, however, aid parties like Al-Qaeda, because Islamic radicals have been fighting against Russia in Chechnya.)
“France and Germany, both of whom have strong communist influences, sold helicopters and other sorts of weaponry to Iraq.”
Neither has a significant “communist party.” You are simply ignorant. However, it is true that our good friend, France, armed Saddam beginning in the late 1970s and was always his principal arms supplier, along with the Russians. (Notably, some American firms armed Saddam as well, though in much smaller ways than France or Russia did.) Germany is a slightly different case. They never sold arms to Iraq. However, when the sanctions regime was in place, German companies illegally sold chemicals and other products to Saddam.
“Here is where your ignorance shows Rich. Russian soldiers were televised leaving Irag just a few days prior to our invasion.”
We invaded Iraq roughly 10 years after the Communist Party was banned in Russia and the Soviet Union broke up.
Your calling me ignorant is quite astounding.
“They had been supplying the Iraquis (sic) with various technology to fight our soldiers, such as night vision goggles.”
Your conflation of Russia in the 21st Century with “communism” is painfully ignorant, brother. Yet it is true that Russia, post -Yeltsin, has been trying to reassert itself as a great power. And Russia has done this by taking the side of our enemies wherever it is not too costly to them. As such, Russia has recently aided Iran and Venezuela and some other rogue regimes. (They don’t, however, aid parties like Al-Qaeda, because Islamic radicals have been fighting against Russia in Chechnya.)
“France and Germany, both of whom have strong communist influences, sold helicopters and other sorts of weaponry to Iraq.”
Neither has a significant “communist party.” You are simply ignorant. However, it is true that our good friend, France, armed Saddam beginning in the late 1970s and was always his principal arms supplier, along with the Russians. (Notably, some American firms armed Saddam as well, though in much smaller ways than France or Russia did.) Germany is a slightly different case. They never sold arms to Iraq. However, when the sanctions regime was in place, German companies illegally sold chemicals and other products to Saddam.
“Here is where your ignorance shows Rich. Russian soldiers were televised leaving Irag just a few days prior to our invasion.”
We invaded Iraq roughly 10 years after the Communist Party was banned in Russia and the Soviet Union broke up.
Your calling me ignorant is quite astounding.
“They had been supplying the Iraquis (sic) with various technology to fight our soldiers, such as night vision goggles.”
Your conflation of Russia in the 21st Century with “communism” is painfully ignorant, brother. Yet it is true that Russia, post -Yeltsin, has been trying to reassert itself as a great power. And Russia has done this by taking the side of our enemies wherever it is not too costly to them. As such, Russia has recently aided Iran and Venezuela and some other rogue regimes. (They don’t, however, aid parties like Al-Qaeda, because Islamic radicals have been fighting against Russia in Chechnya.)
“France and Germany, both of whom have strong communist influences, sold helicopters and other sorts of weaponry to Iraq.”
Neither has a significant “communist party.” You are simply ignorant. However, it is true that our good friend, France, armed Saddam beginning in the late 1970s and was always his principal arms supplier, along with the Russians. (Notably, some American firms armed Saddam as well, though in much smaller ways than France or Russia did.) Germany is a slightly different case. They never sold arms to Iraq. However, when the sanctions regime was in place, German companies illegally sold chemicals and other products to Saddam.
“Here is where your ignorance shows Rich. Russian soldiers were televised leaving Irag just a few days prior to our invasion.”
We invaded Iraq roughly 10 years after the Communist Party was banned in Russia and the Soviet Union broke up.
Your calling me ignorant is quite astounding.
“They had been supplying the Iraquis (sic) with various technology to fight our soldiers, such as night vision goggles.”
Your conflation of Russia in the 21st Century with “communism” is painfully ignorant, brother. Yet it is true that Russia, post -Yeltsin, has been trying to reassert itself as a great power. And Russia has done this by taking the side of our enemies wherever it is not too costly to them. As such, Russia has recently aided Iran and Venezuela and some other rogue regimes. (They don’t, however, aid parties like Al-Qaeda, because Islamic radicals have been fighting against Russia in Chechnya.)
“France and Germany, both of whom have strong communist influences, sold helicopters and other sorts of weaponry to Iraq.”
Neither has a significant “communist party.” You are simply ignorant. However, it is true that our good friend, France, armed Saddam beginning in the late 1970s and was always his principal arms supplier, along with the Russians. (Notably, some American firms armed Saddam as well, though in much smaller ways than France or Russia did.) Germany is a slightly different case. They never sold arms to Iraq. However, when the sanctions regime was in place, German companies illegally sold chemicals and other products to Saddam.
One amendment on my comments on Germany: some German arms suppliers may have sold small weapons, such as Luger handguns or other implements, to Iraq, but as far as I know, none sold large weaponry systems, the way the French did.
One amendment on my comments on Germany: some German arms suppliers may have sold small weapons, such as Luger handguns or other implements, to Iraq, but as far as I know, none sold large weaponry systems, the way the French did.
One amendment on my comments on Germany: some German arms suppliers may have sold small weapons, such as Luger handguns or other implements, to Iraq, but as far as I know, none sold large weaponry systems, the way the French did.
One amendment on my comments on Germany: some German arms suppliers may have sold small weapons, such as Luger handguns or other implements, to Iraq, but as far as I know, none sold large weaponry systems, the way the French did.
“After reading the interview, please tell me one relevant question Russert could have asked which he eschewed.”
Questions and sources are like
apples and oranges, Rich. If Russert really had dug deep, he’d’a found all kinds of juicy stuff. Wilson’s trip around that time to Niger comes to mind. But he’s not an investigator given free rein like Woodstein were. We live in very different times now.
“After reading the interview, please tell me one relevant question Russert could have asked which he eschewed.”
Questions and sources are like
apples and oranges, Rich. If Russert really had dug deep, he’d’a found all kinds of juicy stuff. Wilson’s trip around that time to Niger comes to mind. But he’s not an investigator given free rein like Woodstein were. We live in very different times now.
“After reading the interview, please tell me one relevant question Russert could have asked which he eschewed.”
Questions and sources are like
apples and oranges, Rich. If Russert really had dug deep, he’d’a found all kinds of juicy stuff. Wilson’s trip around that time to Niger comes to mind. But he’s not an investigator given free rein like Woodstein were. We live in very different times now.
“After reading the interview, please tell me one relevant question Russert could have asked which he eschewed.”
Questions and sources are like
apples and oranges, Rich. If Russert really had dug deep, he’d’a found all kinds of juicy stuff. Wilson’s trip around that time to Niger comes to mind. But he’s not an investigator given free rein like Woodstein were. We live in very different times now.
Dpd,
Who is the other moderator? And who is “JIM SAID”talking to? Is this blog always fragmented like this?
Dpd,
Who is the other moderator? And who is “JIM SAID”talking to? Is this blog always fragmented like this?
Dpd,
Who is the other moderator? And who is “JIM SAID”talking to? Is this blog always fragmented like this?
Dpd,
Who is the other moderator? And who is “JIM SAID”talking to? Is this blog always fragmented like this?
Communism by any other name is still communism.
Communism by any other name is still communism.
Communism by any other name is still communism.
Communism by any other name is still communism.