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.>>

You might have a point, if they had been enabler and abetters of thousands of people dying in a pointless war. You might have a point if you'd made one, like they did, about Mr. Russert's actual work and the effect he did have on this country. Mr. Russert was probably not watched by that huge of a market, but he was the leader of the opinion makers in the media. I do not think the people you are calling out made an unfair assessment of Russert's work, and from what I can see, they did not attack him personally, unlike you, who are attacking others personally for nothing more than making a fair, and fact-based assessment.

As I've already said myself, I feel for Mr. Russert's family and friends. And certainly, one shouldn't go overboard by attacking him now that he is dead, and can't defend himself. That also means that one shouldn't go overboard praising him for something he was not, particularly in this venue. If we were obituary writers, then different rules would apply.

--Ron

<<You may not be public figures like Russert - but it is my firm conviction that you are all assholes. I say this now as you are living...

And I will be happy to say this again the moment I learn you are dead. I will blog & write on Internet forums about it; I will write in to your local area newspapers about it. And, depending on how rapidly they post the obits online, I will try to do all of this as close to your actual time of death as is possible.>>

Actually, that's the problem most of us here had with him. He did NOT hold republicans, particularly Bush & Cheney to anything like the scrutiny he put to either Clinton, Gore, Pelosi and other democrats. Cheney lied numerous times on his program, and he was never once called down for it. Many people are dead because of the Cheney/Bush lies. So, no, people that actually dared to scrutinize his work, rather than accept his own spin of what he did, wouldn't agree he was such a stand-up guy in his work. He was probably wonderful in person, but that's not the discussion here. Your disgust is sadly misplaced.

--Ron

<<Compared to what passes for journalism these days -- for example, on many political blogs or cable news diatribes -- he had a passion for journalism as a means of holding all politicians (Democrats and Republicans) accountable for what they say and do. And by all accounts he was a truly stand-up guy. >>

That's what I used to call them way back when, when I used to use AOL to chat with others. So many men had profiles saying they had 9 inches that I came up with that joke that they were "AOL inches." As to whether gay men or straight have more inches, AOL or not, well, there may only be one way to tell, unless the conventional wisdom about men who buy corvettes is true, then you could simply compare how many corvette owners are gay or straight...

--Ron

A rout would be the best thing that could happen to the republicans. They need to lose so badly that they basically start over from scratch, purge themselves of all the idiocy we've suffered through for years at their behest. So, let the republicans lose, and let them lose so badly they can't save face in any way.

--Ron

if Lieberman resigns the Senate to run. That way, when (hopefully) McCain loses, he can get rid of another gasbag with him. He'll be doing the country a huge favor, everyone will thank him for his service to the country!

--Ron

Why do we allow ourselves to use faulty language that benefits these jerks? They like to call themselves "pro-life" (as if anyone isn't), instead of what they are: anti-choice, you know, the opposite of "pro-choice"?

Besides, how many of them are pro death penalty? Nearly all of them.

I'd love to see more right-wing language inversion being stopped. Truth in language would go a long way towards eliminating their nonsense.

--Ron

He's good at stringing words together, but we're under constitutional assault right now by other democrats in trying to push through FISA. Obama is supporting one (at least) of the worst enablers of this.

Although I plan to vote for Obama this fall, I've never been a big fan of him, and thought all the praise he was getting was unjustifiable hype. It'd be nice to find that I'm wrong on that, and a firm, unequivocal stand (plus action) would go a long way towards justifying the praise he's been getting.

--Ron

That comment about if they pass this, to name ONE thing the democratic majority has accomplished since taking control of the House & Senate. This will take the one thing they did accomplish, stopping this immunity foolishness, and change it to ZERO accomplishments.

And, where the hell is Obama? Where's Mr. Change? Will he vote "present" on this, too? Sorry, but I'm so angry with this, and his lack of leadership, I can hardly stand it. I have this sickening feeling that an Obama presidency will be full of such moments.

I'll still, reluctantly, vote for him this Autumn. He was not my first choice, but, oh well, oh hell.

--Ron