of the many things Keith is; liberal democrat is not one

He holds many conservative and fundamentalist views

From  http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2007/12/06/matt-lauer-presses-widow-slain-officer-about-mumia-abu-jamals-guil.

The first two comments and most of the last two comments from Lauer are courtesies of civil conversation.  The remainder inbetween is the actual interview.  Lauer uses the "sandwhich" method of interviewing - say something nice at either end of the conversation, best if admiring or pointing out positive attributes, with the real content delivered inbetween.  Criticisms or bad news is always best accepted (or observed from our perspective) when a little sugar is applied to either end. 

LAUER: And, and in some ways it seems the debate over guilt or innocence or racism or injustice has somehow left Danny out. And, and, at times when I hear this debate I don't hear people remembering that a police officer was murdered by someone.

Lauer introduces the concept of plausibility and misdirection in his third comment during the interview.  "Someone" is not the same as "Mumia" who actually confessed and was convicted.  This is redirection, a manipulation to avert attention from one topic to another, in this case for sympathy and away from guilt.  Lauer shamelessly introduces the Hail Mary 'Plan B' from Boston Legal - blame it on "Someone" else whether it's true or not.  Maybe Lauer was making the point that the protestors of Mumia's guilt and incarceration are simply anti-police Leftists regardless of whomever is convicted.  Does Lauer really think he's original in his propaganda?

LAUER: I want to show people a live shot outside our studio right now and show them that there is a fairly substantial protest right across the street from our studio. These people got up early in the morning, came from some place to express their views that this man is innocent. How do you feel, why do you think they're here, if they don't truly believe that?

While I agree that conflict adds to a dramatic presentation,  Lauer imbues the rabble-rousing protestors with sympathy and near mythological (Davey vs Goliath) context in his fourth comment.  Afterall, their just regular, plain everyday folk that travel at someone's expense (now wouldn't that be interesting to know if someone else paid for their appearance) to stand in the cold and (self) righteously plea for the victim's release.  Kind of like the Deadheads but for confessed and convicted murderers.  It just feels good to them.  Besides, if they get up early in the morning to do all this, then their sacrifice must mean something, right?  Yeah, and Hitler loved his dog too.

LAUER: Michael, Abu-Jamal's attorney since 2003 is a guy named Robert Bryan. He says that when the conviction and sentence came down in 1982 there were constitutional issues, there was racism, there was injustice, there was evidence tampering. He also says, by the way, that you're a guy who's involved in this for your own personal gain because you didn't try this case, you're not a lawyer. Why, why are you involved in this?

LAUER: Maybe he's not talking about financial personal gain. Maybe he's talking about for status and, and, and attention.

Lauer then uses his fifth and sixth comments to attack the credibility of the author of the book against Mumia.  This is a play that seems right out of the Clinton book of dirty tricks.  Matty, being a loyal follower of Hilary, attacks not once but twice.  Interestingly, no similar commentary about the Mumia's attorney from Lauer who has been riding the coattails of publicity and Hollywood B-List party invitations since 2003.  While Lauer says "by the way" as if the subsequent clause were an afterthought or a less important issue to his truely intended question (of which none was broached), make no mistake, his entire point of attack was all about the "by the way".  Read these quotes again.  Lauer asks no other question.  The preceding verbiage is misdirect and obfuscation.  Lauer even hammers home his message by rephrasing the question.  There is no other question and no other message than unilateral character assassination.  (Do you think he'd ask Hilary twice if Bill might have raped all those women?)

LAUER: If, if there is something new in this case and for so many years there really hasn't been an awful lot new, there's just been heated debate but there are some photographs that have been released by supporters of Mumia and, and they were taken by a freelancer named Pedro Polokoff. They say, the supporters say, these photos show a policeman holding two guns in his bare hand, contradicting what officers trial testimony was that he had preserved, ballistics evidence. Another shows Faulkner's hat, your husband's hat on top of a car, not on the sidewalk, as in the official police photo of the crime scene. And the third shows a blood-stained sidewalk where the shooting took place but does not show any signs of marks in the concrete that might have occurred if, if your husband had been shot from above as prosecutors contended. The defense attorney says he can have a field day with these photographs if a new trial is-

In his seventh comment, Lauer now carries the flag for the Mumia supporters but does make the weakest attempt at trying to appear unbiased by using the qualifier "if" twice in a row - "if, if" - and twice in the same comment.  Lauer is near his zenith of Mumiaism bliss in blatantly shilling for the confessed and convicted killer.  Playing Devil's Advocate only has credibility when you don't actually believe what you say.  Matty is just entering into public record more errata/propaganda for Mumia to make the likelihood of his release greater.  Shameless and disgusting shilling.

LAUER: Maureen, when you're ever, when you're alone, when you're alone with your thoughts at night, when you even see pictures of the protest like the one we have across the street, does it ever cross your mind that perhaps they're right? Do you ever allow yourself to consider the fact that perhaps he didn't do this?

In Lauer's eighth comment, he reaches the Operating Thetan Levels of Tom Cruise in Scientology, attempting to manipulate, discount and advance doubt in the widow of the murdered police officer.  Lauer says "the fact that perhaps he didn't do this" which is a syntactical and contextual pretzel on the level of Bill Clinton's "Whatever is is".  Lauer either manipulatively or unconsciously sets up the premise that Mumia is innocent and that the widow is mistaken and needs to be shown the right path.  Instead of "fact", Lauer should have said "possibility" if he indeed meant that there "might" be a chance Mumia is innocent.  Instead, Lauer says "fact" (a Freudian slip?) which predicates the statement upon the assumption that Mumia is truely innocent.  Next, Lauer gives credibility to the protestors as if their delusions were justification for Mumia's innocence and a reason why the widow should have doubt.  Like some wacko that joins a protest because it feels good is more cerdible than hard evidence and actual persons intimately involved in the case at that time of it's occurrence/investigation.  (Silly me.  I thought we did not decide justice based on mob rule in America.)  Oh, and that nothing has surfaced that has changed Mumia's guilt in 25 years.  And that these alledged "new" photos stink to high Hell like the Rathergate scandal of phony Bush military records.  (I can just hear Lauer equally treating Hilary:  "Hilary, when you're alone with your thoughts at night, do you ever wonder that Bill really did rape all those women?")

LAUER: The emotions of this case run very high and, and I'm sure we're not gonna have an answer today, that's for sure.

Lauer's ninth comment continues the pro-Mumia cause of raising doubt and keeping that neverending doubt front and center.  Lauer has spoken with finality and absolutism on the issues of Anthropogenic Global Warming, gay marriage and Scooter Libby.  Yet he can't seem to say that Mumia confessed and was convicted of murder and the issue is over despite the deniers protesting outside their studio.

Having re-read the transcript of Lauer's questions, in which nearly everything out of Lauer's mouth was devisive, pejorative or belittling towards his guests in the studio, while humanizing and giving credibility to the near-professional protestors outside the studio, almost sanctifying them, do you still think this was a balanced interview?

Now go back and read the transcripts of Lauer's interviews with the Democrat primary candidates and tell me if he approached them with the same "journalistic" effort.  More comparable, did Lauer treat the Goldberg's in this fashion even after OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder?

You posited "Is it "liberal" to say that the Mumia guy is innocent?".  Please read up on the case and then get back to me on that.

You stated:  "Would she expect him to not bother to talk about some of the reasons why she wrote the book and giver her a chance to answer those claims and back her own claims up?"  When did Mrs Faulkner bring up points in her book?  Lauer manipulated the conversation to his talking points for which she and Mr. Smerconish only had time to respond.  When did Lauer specifically reference points in Mrs. Faulkner's book?  I only heard and read the talking points from the pro-Mumia side coming out of Lauer's piehole.

Lauer has yet to learn that "one can not pick up a turd by it's 'clean' end".  It was a shameful interview.

Killing them with kindness isn't working.  Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.