I would disagree with you there. Russert was poorly prepared factually quite often. He got the Social Security debate wrong, his facts about FISA were wrong, and in fact, on any major issue he tackled he could be counted on to be wrong. What made him seem like he was prepared was in his gotcha-style of journalism. Even there he pulled his punches when it came to people like Bush and Cheney, and he threw lots of punches towards both Clintons, Gore and any democratic woman he interviewed. That discredits notions that he was equally aggressive with politicians.

I would agree that he was probably better than most on television, certainly better than Chris Matthews or Brian Williams, but that's setting the bar awfully low.

The job of the media should be to ask tough questions, and insist on getting answers from those in power. He only did that with democrats he didn't like. He, and most journalists, that is. Grilling the Clintons and Gore was probably fun for him and his compatriots, but the fact that they didn't do that with Bush/Cheney has resulted in lots of deaths and injuries around the world. Most people don't have time to do real research about what they're being sold on TV, and so with the media doing such a poor job, our country has really gone way off track, to say the least, and we're all paying the price in one way or the other.

--Ron Robertson

<<Russert was well-prepared, smart and engaging and his show made for great mini-theatre. Would I call him a Hersh? Even a well-attenuated Bernstein? Or Woodward? NO, NO and NO (although, in Woodward's case it is--of course--now a very close call). Still, I'd choose him over the usual cable dreck, and the Stephanopoulis's, Gibsons and Schieffers. Let's be real, here, the man got paid for drawing in people who'd normally drop off mid way through the first paragraph of a Hersh piece.>>

I commend you on your comments. I think my views correspond with JasonG's, and I wasn't directly involved with your commentary, but it takes a lot of integrity to write what you did. If only more people could disagree so thoughtfully.

--Ron

It's always a shock when someone dies so young. I feel badly for his family and friends.

I won't go on saying dishonest or hateful things about him, but I think it is equally important not to make up stuff to make him sound like a saint, either. He was not. He was just a man in a profession that deservedly does not have a good reputation. He was responsible for a portion of that reputation.

I will say that his performance with Brian Williams in that debate certainly didn't do a thing to enhance my memories of him.

--Ron

I'm no fan of the death penalty either, I think it's wrong. There can never be an infallible justice system, therefore, there should be no punishment that can't be reversed. Finding out someone is innocent after they've been killed by the State does that person no good, nor is it justice.

I don't know if it can be appealed, it should be. I don't know why it wasn't appealed at the time (if it wasn't, perhaps it was, but now they have evidence of official misconduct). An improperly influenced trial does not prove guilt or innocence, that's the problem with improper influence, in my mind. A retrial might be appropriate, I don't know.

--Ron

<<Being that I'm no fan of the death penalty, I'd favor staying the execution indefinitely, or better still dismissing it completely. But what is the procedural resolution for this kind of problem?

The case is ancient. Can it be appealed? And if it could, why wasn't it at the time? Did the trial, even though it may have been improperly influenced, prove the guilt of the defendant?

Does anyone want to call for a retrial of the guy?>>

The relevance is because the judge was romantically involved with the prosecutor, then she was unlikely to rule against any objections the prosecutor made toward the defense, and unlikely to honor objections made by the defense toward the prosecutor. That alone taints the case because the jury would have heard a biased presentation on the guilt of the defendant. Any manner of things could have been weighted differently because of this conflict of interest, including intangibles. That they took this further and recommended the death penalty when there's a clear conflict of interest is beyond the pale. They should be disbarred.

--Ron

Unless it's Joe Lieberman. Now there's a pair!

Anyway, any politician who'd take advice from Camille Paglia deserves whatever happens to them.

I still don't see why her shoddy musings finds paid space on salon (I'm assuming she's being paid to write her junk).

--Ron

Actually, I haven't seen any so-called "libs" complaining that democrats and republicans are not working together. And, in any case, that is beside the point. Do you believe the supreme court was correct to uphold habeas corpus or not? If not, why not? I suspect you "cons" are not for habeas corpus or anything if it's not approved by your worship, Chimpy, that sits in the white house.

--Ron

<<You libs have been whining about Republicans and Democrats not working together, and when they do, you cannot even recognize it. Goofy!!!!!!!!!!!!!>>

I've wondered why he bought so much land there, too. Also, right after he bought it, Jenna Bush was down there promoting something (it was innocuous sounding, and may have been), which made me wonder, too. Has any sitting president ever bought land like that before in a foreign country? I think they do not have extradition with us, not sure, but I do know they're still ruled by the military.

--Ron

<<Or what about the reported purchase By Evil Bush of over 100,000 acres in, I think it is, Bolivia in case the scoundrel is brought in front of the World Court. Blogette or whatever the fuck her name is reported on it last year.>>

A review of McCain's career probably would remove your doubts, he says whatever to fit the moment, and always has. He holds no greater principle than getting elected, which makes it so appropriate that Lieberman endorses him.

--Ron

<<I would tend to agree with you that the Shia/Sunni 'mistake' could also be a way of saying, 'oh by the way, we need to bomb Iran now'. But now he's denying voting against Katrina investigations. Is he losing it, or is he just used to saying whatever he wants as he goes along? I guess we will find out.

>>

I'm not sure if this is what you're suggesting, but I don't think it's feeblemindedness that is causing these "gaffes." I think it's lying and incompetence. He's purposely trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, and conflate as many things as possible into the "war on terrorism" as he can, and make all arabs the enemy. I think it's all intentional, and part of a strategy. A stupid strategy, but strategy nonetheless. And stupid strategies have worked before, look at the crap we've suffered through for nearly 8 years now. I don't think Rove is a genius, he's just a strategist, and with the help of a complicit media and criminal supreme court, his mentally incompetent employer got installed. His strategy got it close enough to steal. I think (or at least hope!) that stupid strategies won't work this time.

--Ron

<<We've gotten a little hypersensitive about concern trolling here, perhaps with reason, but I'm already worried about the 08 version of McCain. At what point do you say that the Sunni/Shia and Katrina gaffes are part of a pattern? He's either lying or worse. I don't see the need to whisper about it.

>>