Tim Russert And Race Baiting Questions

Rev,
I've been waiting for one candidate to be asked by one questioner anything about the "wartime" powers being claimed by Bush. Are they justified? Would the candidates continue the Bush practices? You would think they were running for king and queen of the prom.

I think it borders on the bizarre. These media folks have turned their so-called political debates, leading up to choosing the next leader of the most powerful nation in world history, into Entertainment Tonight or Dateline Hollywood or some such vapidity.

I agree the questions were vapid and simplistic. But Obama's candidacy is a good opportunity for the country to learn about African American thought and culture and I worry that Dem nutjobs are going to censure any mention of race.

The empty questions Russert asked, including some baloney about stories widely known to be false (swearing in on a koran, etc.) simply served as a cloak that allowed Russert to avoid the Obama's church/Farrakhan commentary that ran in the Washington Post that day.

The questions implied that anyone who asks Obama about race is a bigoted idiot. What a wasted opportunity this election will be.

I agree in principle that the media does pretty poorly on informing americans about the issues. That debate was a good example of how inane things can get when race becomes the subject, which it should not be. I do think Obama's people hold some of the responsibility here, because they are the ones who made race an issue to begin with. Without that, Russert isn't asking those questions. I think the first question Russert asked Obama about his campaigns list of alleged racial statements by the Clintons was a valid one, though it should have ended there.

My prediction is – This will help Obama in South Carolina, but if it keeps up, it will hurt him later.

Wait, so I'm supposed to believe that NBC, of all places, is hurting the Democratic candidates? NBC should have changed their symbol from a peacock to a donkey during the last election, but now Russert is undermining the Democrats? Give me a break.

Asking racially-charged questions is valid. But the bigger factor here was that none of these candidates have anything substantial to say about the actual issues facing the country. Clinton and Obama have been running campaigns based around "making history" by electing the first woman or black President. It's the only thing they *are* willing to talk about. Russert wasn't hurting these candidates, he was helping them by letting them talk about superficial issues, rather than having to demonstrate that they have no clue how to solve any of the potential problems the country faces. Worse yet, they have no interest in solving the problems, because they think the Republicans will take the blame for anything bad that happens in the next year.

NBC was willing to completely punt their Michigan primary coverage to have a Democrat infomercial, er, debate. The Dems decided that Michigan wouldn't count, and NBC fell right into lock-step with that decision and held the debate, rather than covering the primary that actually counted on the Republican side. But I'm supposed to believe that NBC News Senior Vice President Tim Russert wanted to use that debate to undermine the Democratic frontrunners? Sorry, that dog won't hunt.

larry:This….

"Obama's candidacy is a good opportunity for the country to learn about African American thought and culture"

..is ridiculous. That statement, my friend, is one of your worst.

But then you follow that ridiculous statement up with this….

"….simply served as a cloak that allowed Russert to avoid the Obama's church/Farrakhan commentary that ran in the Washington Post that day."

You act worse than Russert….by implying that Obama is responsible for anything said by anybody he knows. Obama neither had anything to do with what his church wrote nor did he approve it someway.

Shame on thee…."The questions implied that anyone who asks Obama about race is a bigoted idiot."

If shoe fits….and all that.

Mike: Apparently you haven't been paying close attention to the mainstram media. Your mind may already be made up, and that's fine, but facts tell a different story than what you portray.

You say…

" the bigger factor here was that none of these candidates have anything substantial to say about the actual issues facing the country."

So when Obama speaks specifically abut what he would do about Pakistan…what he would do about Social Security, what he would do about health care, Iraq……those don't count as "anything subtantial"?

The debate was scheduled back in March of 2007. Michigan changed their primary after that. And, NBC covered the GOP primary results….before the debate started, Bryan Williams talked about the Michigan results.

Until something changes…..like the media's behavior……my original thesis still stands…..the media, including NBC, benefits more if deregulating, corporate friendly GOP'ers are running the show.

The "journalist" stars, like the detestable Russert, are bitter that their party of choice….Bush's Republicans….have effed everything up so badly that voters don't really like them anymore.

What can an elite group of Knee Padders do? Bash, bash, bash, then lie, lie, lie, then make phony, irrelevant bullsh*t stories up out of whole cloth.

In other words…same old.

You're about as bad as they get, Reverend.

In effect your saying that either Americans don't have anything to learn from the worldview of an ambitious and competent black man, or that since he's competent and ambitious he's not really black and just like the rest of the mainstream politicos?

I've seen this preacher depicted as Barak's spiritual advisor a few times, but don't know if its true. I've also seen this church's mission statement, which I know is a little separatist. What's the harm in asking Barak about it? If separatism makes sense to him, or Farrakhan makes sense to him, maybe there's good reason. What are the Dems afraid of?

I think one thing the Dems fear is the unmasking of their patently absurd claim to being the only party for African Americans. This election might test some cracks in that mask.

larry: Your comment was based entirely on the color of Obama's skin. And this…."In effect your saying that either Americans don't have anything to learn from the worldview of an ambitious and competent black man"….is also a skin color based comment. No color-blindness there.

The fact that Obama is black has NOTHING to do with anything…..except to those who want to make it so.

Do you want to know all about Romney's nutty denomination? I don't see you calling for an airing of Mormon beliefs. Ditto Huckabee's theo-con beliefs.

Are you calling for a full discussion of what the worldview of a female is…..because of her female-ness? You know, are you calling for questions like, "Because you are ambitious and competent, what unique perspective about the world can you share with Americans, Hillary, because you have a vagina.?"

And you're Farrakhan nonsense is just more of the same. You make Rush smile when you drop names lke that.

I'm "about as bad as they get" but you are the one wanting to single out a black church as being exclusive when exclusivity is a feature of many, if not all, churches and religions. Talk about "separatists"….Jesus, could the GOP get any more separatist?

What you want to do is get down in the race mud with Rush and Ghost. Your last sentence confirms that.

Rather than allowing blacks to simply speak and vote for themselves…..you would rather attempt to smear racial comments around in order to "unmask" some imaginary "claim" you say Democrats make.

Don't forget….despite the Ghost's silly ancient history run-down….the GOP is the party of the "southern strategy"….Republican's bait southern state's racist leanings with the wink wink, nod, nod….coded phrases and words they use. You lay down with dogs and all that.

Why don't you list the black GOP members in Congress? Huh? Why would Republicans not have ANY black representatives? Huh?

And you state, ridiculously, that the Dems have a mask on with regard to this subject.

There's a reason why blacks vote Democratic….it's because the Democratic Party supports tolerance and equal rights for all minorities…..the Republican Party does not.

Yes, you, as well as other conservatives, may think that you can be the catalysts for some internal divisive dispute within the Dem Party over race…..but it ain't gonna' happen.

What's more…..I already know you don't cotton to the religious freakshow…..you have said as much…..so why would you be all interested in what Obama's church has to say about anything? Unless, of course, there are other motivations.

I have no problem with religious questions posed to Huckabee and Romney and wish the media would ask more.

But I think it would be particularly healthy for Americans to find out more about the African American perspective and the election is an opportune time to do so.

I said his church's mission statement is separatist, not exclusive. It's been a while since college but I believe it's a term having to do with a strain of African American thought and social strategy in this country, dating at least back to DuBois.

It's unfortunate that some folks do the racist fingerpointing stuff any time the topic comes up. It results in tokenism.

Alright, fair enough. I think you're being candid with me and I appreciate that…honestly I do.

I would like to know, however, when you say, "African American perspective"……what are you saying?

Personally, I think the hyphenated American thing is misguided. You may agree. We are all Americans….not hyphenated Americans.

Although Obama spent 4-5 years as a child in Indonesia….he is an American.

Would it be appropriate or necessary to hear what Hillary has to say about her caucasian woman perspective?

On the separtist issue….I know what you are getting at….but really, is their any speck of evidence that Obama has separtist leanings? I don't see it.

There is a reason why there are no blacks representing the GOP. If America needs to learn of perspectives and whatnot….the first place to start would be in asking why it is that blacks are not represented in the Republican Party.

Have you heard even one Knee Padder ask any GOP candidate about that very issue?

Sorry for the crustiness of my comments…..I'm a bit worn out this week…..I appreciate the time you take to go back and forth on what both of us can agree is important stuff.

If I knew my ancestors had been slaves, and maybe a great uncle or two had been lynched, and my grandparents weren't allowed in restaurants, and my parents marched on Washington for civil rights, I imagine I'd have a different view of the U.S. government and its constitution than I do now.

I'm not sure exactly how it might make me think about economics, foreign policy, social services, etc., etc., but I'll bet it would affect all of that.

I know Obama's personal ancestry differs from what I've outlined, but it's still part of an African American perspective that I'm sure he understands better than I do.

Well said.