I have held this same unpopular opinion of Tim Russert all along...he was a tool - a well-informed tool - who was at least well-prepared to skewer the very meme out of every person who he interviewed...but he never, ever, ever went that far, except once. On that one occasion alone can I remember that Tim was a journalist. You memorialized it very well, here:

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/using-christian-conservatives-for-fun.html

Monday, January 09, 2006

Using Christian conservatives for fun and profit

Jane Hamsher zeros right in on an exchange of monumental importance which took place on Meet the Press yesterday, involving accusations of wrongdoing exchanged between close Bush ally Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, and top Bush campaign official Ralph Reed. In addition to sweeping some of the most prominent pro-Bush faces into the center of the Abramoff corruption net, this episode powerfully illustrates how the Republican Party has long exploited, with total cynicism and dishonesty, the Christian conservatives who constitutes [sic] such a critical and loyal part of its base. The significance of this part of the Abramoff scandal could be huge if used properly. For that reason, it’s worthwhile to review the basic facts.

As part of the federal investigation into Jack Abramoff, e-mails from 2001 surfaced which were written to Abramoff by Ralph Reed, longtime Republican operative and the Bush ‘04 campaign’s Southeast Regional Director. Abramoff at the time was working on behalf of casinos owned by Louisiana Indian tribes, which were concerned that Texas tribes were beginning to open casinos which would compete with them and drain away their gamblers. They wanted government action taken against the Texas casinos -- in sum, they wanted the Texas Government to shut down their competition -- and so they hired Abramoff to use his unparalleled influence with Republicans, especially Texas Republicans, in order to engineer the State Government action that they wanted.

In thinking about how to induce the Texas government to act against the Texas casinos, Abramoff realized that he could cynically exploit Christian conservatives in Texas -- who strongly oppose gambling on religious and moral grounds -- and use that religious opposition to gambling in order to help the Louisiana casinos who were paying him. The Christian conservatives both in Texas and nationally would be the dupes. They would think that they were crusading against gambling by demanding that the Texas casinos be shut down. In reality, the entire spectacle was a grand deceit which was about nothing other than working to serve the interests of the Louisiana casinos by attacking their competitors.

This is McCain's Achilles heel: McCain's 'judgment' as chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee's Abramoff Investigation in which he sequestered over 90 per cent of the incriminating documents.

Today, most people are completely confused about McCain's position on any issue, and this is simply because McCain drapes both sides of every issue on each side of his toothsome grin, every-ready to confuse any argument against him. He lies about Obama's tax plan with just as much brio. It is outrageous, and I can only hope that you continue to tell truth to power in your very incisive way, Glenn.

But Jack Cafferty said it best: "...a cold chill..."

Thank you so much for your work!

I'm sorry, but I'm kind of curious if you actually read the piece or just skimmed it. Glenn wrote a whole paragraph that spoke you your main objection:

There's nothing wrong per se with civil interaction, even with those over whom one is supposed to be exerting adversarial scrutiny. Good relationships with government sources can assist a reporter in obtaining otherwise unavailable information that the Government wants to conceal. But Abramowitz, after hailing these White House press officials as good friends, then goes out of his way to emphasize, admiringly, how "extremely discreet" they are, how they don't actually give him any information about the President that they're not authorized or directed to give him.

It's hard not to see your response as merely a journalist being thin-skinned about an "outsider" criticizing his profession, which we kind of see a lot these days. But I could be misreading you.

the relationship of the media to other administrations, like Clintons may not be helpful in analysing the media relationship with the Bush administration and the neo-cons.

If I understand what is going on, unless some kind of "retro-active immunity" is granted some of the media could be in a position of actually bearing liability or even criminal responsibility, were persistent efforts made to fix blame .

The upshot is that the media and the Administration have become, literally, "thick as thieves". When you look at the other components of the corps. that own the media, the picture gets even more invidious.

(And don't tell me a picture can't be invidious. You should see the picture of me my wife keeps at her desk at work. I never looked worse, sunburnt and totally baked. I mean baked! Taken on a boating weekend, you know.

It almost screams "Do this woman a favor and get rid of me!")

Anyway, by now I think the administration and the media know they stand or fall together. Makes them very dangerous, not just liars.

"[Joel Kaplan] has an interesting life story -- he joined the Marines after graduating from Harvard, then became a lawyer and is basically the top aide to Chief of Staff Josh Bolten."

That is interesting. Someone in the Bush White House actually served in the military.

As far as a writer for Pravda being a clueless sycophant is concerned, that's no surprise. Still Glenn, keep documenting it.

Ho hum. Another post of protest by someone who doesn't actually have to produce anything newsworthy, just bash the people that do.

Meanwhile back in Georgia, it seems that Gorbachev should have been factchecked as well. But that's OK, he's a communist, and they're above needing that kind of thing here.

From McClatchy....
Tour of Tskhinvali undercuts Russian claim of genocide
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/48860.html

For those that watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann, you will know that Rachel Maddow is getting her own show. She'll be replacing Dan Abrams at 9 pm Eastern in September. Now for those that have listened to Rachel on her air america show, she is great in exposing how the right-wing lie machine operates. Exposing how they play the media to get their messages out. But watch her when she's on Countdown, she's definetly tempers her criticisms of the MSM. So while I look forward to her new show, I just wonder how critical she will be in her treatment of the MSM. Will she bite the hand that feeds her?

One last thing, I was watching Olbermann last night when he was announcing Rachel getting her new show. He actually said something I know to be a lie. He said that the reason Phil Donahue's MSNBC show was cancelled was because he had a live audience. Live audiences are very expensive and that was the reason he got the axe, according to Olbermann. As most people know, the reason was because Phil Donahue was critical of the case for war and executives didn't want to be perceived as the "anti-war" network. Anyone else catch that last night? While I respect Olbermann, it's clear he isn't going to tell any embarassing truths about MSNBC either.