Kennedy Kerry Cheney Russert Bruno [rant]

[Loon]

Here’s another reason critical thinking is so important:

I turned on MSNBC the other day for a few moments and Meet the Press was on. Tim Russert was interviewing Teddy Kennedy. The transcript can be found here: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4573986/

The senator spent the entire time dodging the issues.

MR. RUSSERT: You say, Senator, "This thing was a fraud." Do you believe that 573 Americans gave their lives for a fraud?

The senator’s answer was, paraphrasing, “No. I pray for the boys that died in Vietnam. I took my grandchildren to Gettysburg. Servicemen and women are important. Bush lies about stuff. Kerry is good.”

Does this answer the question to you?

And it just got worse.

Russert asked about Kerry’s “foreign leaders” comment, saying that Kerry has yet to name a leader.

The senator’s response? Summarized: “Dick Cheney said that. He won’t say who’s on his evil energy commission. The White House won’t say who leaked the name of that CIA agent. But they can go to the UN and see who supports Kerry. The CIA can tell you.”

Not only does this avoid the question, it shifts the burden of proof. “They can go find out, we don’t have to say anything.” (ignoring that the senator’s response conflates leaders, UN reps and populations). And ignores several perfectly good answers. (i.e., * It’s important information. And the press often uses anonymous sources. You can imaging the diplomatic damage done if the names of these leaders were revealed.)

Now if I were a swing voter (Full disclosure: I am not. Kerry would have to kill my parents for me to vote for Bush), I would be persuaded to vote for Bush. Are they trying to alienate the intelligent vote? This would not sway an intelligent swing voter.

I almost want to propose a new TV show. “Meet the Press with Tim Russert and Bruno.” At the beginning of each show, Russert will explain that Bruno is there to make sure the questions get answered, because weaseling out of questions is not good for the public or the government.

It would go more like this:

Russert: How about the war in Iraq? Did we waste lives?
Kennedy: I love our armed forces.
Bruno; That is your first and only warning Senator Kennedy. Answer the question.
Kennedy: Ugh. Yes those brave men and women could have contributed so much to this country and the president pissed their lives away. (Or maybe: It’s a tragic loss for the country but good will come of it.)
Russert: Thank you. What about the foreign leaders?
Kennedy: Dick Cheney is evil.
Bruno: I’m sorry Senator you dodged the question. I have to hit you now.
Kennedy: Oooof. Um. [Insert germane response here]


I don’t mean to pick on Kennedy; I know others do this and I know Russert should have pressed him harder, but the evasions pissed me off. So did the fact that the senator thought that people wouldn’t notice. And even more aggravating, he may be right...

/rant.

 

[davefoc]

Loon,
I sympathize with your sentiments about politicians that answer direct questions with barely related non-answer statements.

There are times that I find this so annoying that I just curse at the guy being interviewed and change the channel.

However, in this case, I sympathized a bit with Ted Kennedy.

Suppose that you believed the war was a mistake, and you were asked whether the hundreds of American soldiers had died for a fraud.

It is a tough question when you take in to account that you are a US Senator and need to make an answer which is respectful towards the American soldiers and their families who have made great sacrifices in the cause of this war.

 

[shuize]

I agree, Loon.

Typical of politicians. They should just answer every question with the line, "Before I answer that question, I'd first like to say something bad about my opponent...."

I'm not a huge Bush fan, but rather than just the "vote for me because Bush sucks" rhetoric, I'd like to hear what Kerry is going to do differently. Interviews like the one you posted don't convince me of any substance on the left to change my vote.

edited to add:

I notice from your profile you are in Tokyo. I like living in Japan but one thing that gets me about living here is having to rely on CNN and all of its manufactured controversy disguised as news.

CNN anouncer: "Now we have two experts from different side of the political fence and we're going to let them speak on this very important political issue for a full 20 seconds each ... but no shouting sound bites gentlemen ..."

"Okay ... now that we've thoroughly addressed that issue, let's move on to 12 seconds of news ... But first, the results of our stupid poll unrelated to anything: Kissing on the first date, yes or no? ... Oh, it looks like we're out of time ... But stay tuned for more of our around the clock crap ..."

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I don’t mean to pick on Kennedy; I know others do this and I know Russert should have pressed him harder, but the evasions pissed me off. So did the fact that the senator thought that people wouldn’t notice. And even more aggravating, he may be right...

Mr. Russert, contrary to conventional wisdom, will let pols yank him around:

Bush was asked why he dragged his feet on setting up a probe. His answer? Terrorists are people who hide in caves. Bush’s languorous “answer,” by the way, lasted a minute and 32 seconds. That was 92 seconds the slow-talking guest had managed to take off the clock.

But readers, you know that ol’ bulldog, Tim Russert! Surely he got in Bush’s face with a tough-talking follow-up question, a question designed to force his guest to get himself back on the mark! After all, Russert is the toughest pundit in all punditdom, pundits say. He’s just “like a prosecutor,” they like to say. You can run—but you can’t hide from Russert.

But no, Russert didn’t follow up when Bush gave a speech to avoid his first question. As he did throughout the hour, he simply moved on to Question 2 when Bush failed to answer Question 1. What happened to that frightening bulldog—the one the press has talked up for years? You saw it—that bulldog turned to a puddy-tat, coughed a hairball and died. What became of Bulldog Tim? That “dog” didn’t bark, hunt or slobber.

Irrelevant “answers” went without follow-up. Blatant misstatements by Bush went unchallenged. Bush was allowed to give long, windy speeches—speeches so long and so slow that it sometimes seemed that Russert must have left the building. And where, on where were those film clips Tim loves—the clips where he highlights his target’s past statements? Such clips had been sent down the memory-hole, along with the “bulldog” your fake pundits love. “No no no no no no no?” Russert loved lecturing Dean last June. This Sunday, the phrase wasn’t heard.

From The Daily Howler.

 

[corplinx]

Kennedy/Kerry have a great system.

Kerry gets to play "above the fray" and Kennedy goes out and does the big mudslinging. They did this during the primary season when being "above the fray" was popularized by John Edwards.

Kennedy would go out and rouse up the ex-Deaniaks with his vitriol. Then Kerry would take the stage and be Mr. Positive.

I'm just waiting for Kerry to hire OJ Simpson to work the west coast while Kennedy does the east.

 

[Brown]

I first saw Ted Kennedy in 1980. He was trying to challenge Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination. Other candidates that I saw or met that year included Jerry Brown, Howard Baker, George Bush, and John Anderson. Kennedy was the worst of the lot.

By far.

The man was nearly incoherent. Almost none of what he said made any sense at all. I was astonished at how disorganized he was and how much hot air he emitted. (Newsweek magazine even included a story about how miserable Kennedy's speech was... and included some "details" in the story that suggested that the reporter was not actually present at the speech!)

Again, this was in 1980. Kennedy has not improved. He's still as incoherent in 2004 as he was in 1980. If not for his name and his family, it would be difficult for me to see how he could attain the office of Senator. I cannot believe that he attained that office on merit.

There are other Kennedys in public service that could have attained their offices by merit. But Ted is not one of them.