Tim Russert Oozes Enthusiasm For Entire Dem Field, Singles Out Bush As 'Big Loser'

Photo of Tim Graham.
  • Bookmark and Share

Just like David Broder's analysis in the Washington Post news section today, NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert offered praise all around for the Democratic field after the Orangeburg debate. The Democratic field are not "pygmies," and everyone, including Mike Gravel, cheered on by Sam Seder on Air America radio this morning for "making Dennis Kucinich look moderate," earned stars on his forehead from NBC:

RUSSERT: Democrats overwhelmingly are very happy with the field. Almost 75 percent of the party members say we like this group. Only 50 percent of Republicans like their group. So I think that if you are stepping back and looking at the 2008 field, it’s not, in past years people say, well, it’s pygmies, they can't possibly step up. I think people can envision several of these people sitting in the Oval Office.

VIEIRA: Well, there are eight candidates and three are sort of the front runners: Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, five others. Did any of the others emerge from the pack or are some of them perhaps packing their bags today, knowing it’s probably going to be over soon?

RUSSERT: I think that Joe Biden realized that a moment of silence is worth 1,000 words with his response to Brian Williams and he has to be taken seriously on foreign policy matters, and I think his answer was clever, and funny and smart. Bill Richardson kept hammering away at his resume as a governor, as a Secretary of Energy, because everybody else is a legislator and I think that’s an asset for him. Chris Dodd trying to suggest he can bring civility and common purpose. And Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel played their roles. Mike Gravel was there to tip over chairs and be the uncle who came down from the attic.

VIEIRA: And he did that very well, I must say, he was excellent.

RUSSERT: Here comes Uncle Mike.

VIEIRA: But did any emerge? Did you see any one of that group and say ‘know what, they are really part of the top tier'?

RUSSERT: No, because it takes a lot more than just one appearance. It takes a lot of money to do that. If they do it in several series of debates, sure they’ll start edging up in the polls, I don't, I don’t think anyone broke out of the mid pack.

VIEIRA: Alright, Tim Russert, as usual, thanks very much.

RUSSERT: What a campaign.

VIEIRA: What a campaign, It's only started.

Russert was also enthusiastic in identifying President Bush as the obvious loser in this debate, and Hillary was..."professorial." Here's how the segment started:

VIEIRA: Tim, whenever there is a debate we like to anoint winners and losers. Any winners or losers last night?

RUSSERT: Well, I think the big loser is George W. Bush, because the Democrats were able to stay united in theme and message against him and you need a unified party to be successful. The big winner? I don't think any one candidate won the debate as such. They all were able to demonstrate their conviction and several I think projected themselves as people that you could see in the oval office which is a net win for the party."

VIEIRA: You know you said yesterday that Senator Clinton had to come off as more likeable in this debate. And after this debate, her advisors said that she was more Presidential than the others. How would you describe her tone last night?

RUSSERT: Professorial in some ways. Attempts to be obviously presidential. It did not try to rise above her competitors and say this is my nomination; I have this locked; it’s inevitable; I’m going to be the nominee. She actually stated in the fray and offered her views. The interesting thing Meredith is how all of these Democrats now have come to the same place on Iraq in essence. It has been an interesting evolution over the last 4 years.

VIEIRA: But she still didn’t say I made a mistake?

RUSSERT: The only one who will not say I made a mistake, because she is afraid that if she acknowledges a mistake it will show a lack of sure footedness in national security and foreign policy. And for a woman candidate, that can be a real detriment.

VIEIRA: What about Senator Obama? Many believe he had the most to gain or to lose in last night’s debate. You felt that the biggest issue with him, with him was that he wasn’t specific enough when it came to his positions. You said where is the beef? He had to answer that question. Did he successfully answer it?

RUSSERT: It was interesting. He said those of us who have health care plans and other energy plans suggesting that he had put those forward. He has not yet done that. I understand that, that is coming rather quickly. He acted and presented himself as if those plans already existed.

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

So all the candidates don't l

So all the candidates don't like Bush.

Did anyone bother to tell them that Bush is not running in '08?

They are all "cut and run" (and if they aren't, they are afraid to admit they aren't).

RUSSERT: "What a campaign."  actually should be RUSSERT: What an idiot.

Besides, the reason "on

Besides, the reason "only 50% of Republicans like their group" compared to 75% for Dems is because Republicans have higher standards.

Ask most of the "75% of

Ask most of the "75% of Democrats like their group" to name the candidatews in the group, and they can't get past Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.  How many of them know that Dodd and Gravel are even running, not to mention Biden and Kucinich?

Russert was on NBC news with

Russert was on NBC news with Brian Williams just a bit ago, and both were carrying on along the same line. It really does sound like they think they're running against GWB in '08.

That's exactly who the Dems w

That's exactly who the Dems will be running against.  Bush's favorable ratings are low, and probably won't improve as the Dem-MSM colluders continue to attack his lame duck administration.

I believe the DNC-MSM strategy is to beat down Bush's reputation and challenge the GOP candidates to defend Bush.  By promising to be little more than "not-Bush," they hope to be swept into office much the same way they grabbed majorities in the Senate in House in '08.

This strategy avoids the uncomfortable positions of having to stake out specific policies that will alien one or more of the constituent groups.  They have to look Left to the Left and centrist to the moderates and Independents, and that will be difficult if they turn their six-shooters off Bush and onto each other.

If They Had A Candidate

If they had a viable candidate, such an approach might work.  At the end of the day, I have to believe that the majority of the people in this country will see the multitude of  problems with putting Hillary, Obama or Edwards in the White House.

Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"

Dumbacrats

Has anyone ever heard a democrat ever actually spell out specifically what their plan for change is?? OTHER, than cut and run. Their plan for the war, the economy, social security, any plan that they insist the republicans have wrong. You won't because they know they don't have to. They hide behind a complicit media and say the most ridiculous things knowing that nothing they say no matter how stupid will ever be brought to the attention of the people. Its ignored, passed over, buried. So the libs say stupid things and think we are fools.

Only a true "Dumbacrat" who speaks the liberal mantra, and agrees to the rants with nothing of substance walks through life in a "Utopian liberal fog", and the media bows its head and accepts it, only because they have an agenda that cares nothing for the good of the country or its security. It is truly sickning to listen to. 

Russert was also enthusiast

Russert was also enthusiastic in identifying President Bush as the obvious loser in this debate,

I think these kinds of statements are pointless. How can anyone honestly tell if Russert was enthusiastic in his statement because he hates Bush or because he's simply doing his job?

The answer is:Yes and No.

The answer is:

Yes and No.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Yes, but that response shows

Yes, but that response shows as much bias as the claim.

Guilty! "There are tw

Guilty!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Depends

I think your statement and your question's answer depends entirely on this: Is Bush running, and was he debating last night?

The answer to both of those questions if no. As such, what was the reasoning for injecting Bush's name into the debate issue, as the "big loser". You can only be the "big loser" in a debate, if you are involved in the debate. Bush was not, so he cannot be the "big loser" in the debate.


"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" -
Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"

But if Matthews feels there

But if Matthews feels there's no "big loser" among those debating, then he moves on to who could be hurt by the performance of the democrats. One answer, really: Bush. If the democrats had been divisive, comabative, all over the place, then Bush wins because the Dems don't look like they're united in policy positions v. the White House.

I think you're really, reall

I think you're really, really stretching it. If the Dems had been devisive, Russert would have talked about how lively and rich the Dem field is and would still call Bush the loser....  It's the way MSM Bush/GOP Haters operate.

Wrong

Simply put balboa, you're wrong on this. Bush cannot possibly be hurt by the debates that took place. Here's the dirty little secret: he's not running again. As such, the debates that took place, cannot possibly hurt him!

The only "big loser" in these debates were the people who watched them. That argument can be made. It could also be made, that the "big loser" in the debates were the Republican Party (whether or not I could agree with it, is another matter), that could be said since they are running against a Democrat in 2008. Matthews could have even singled out actual opponents in 2008 for the GOP: McCain, Guiliani, Romney -- but he chose to say Bush, a man who is not running for anything in 2008. That makes what Matthews said, as merely taking an enthusiastic jab at a man he doesn't like: Bush -- who, as I already pointed out, is not running, so cannot lose.


"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" -
Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"

Here's the dirty little secr

Here's the dirty little secret: he's not running again. As such, the debates that took place, cannot possibly hurt him!

You're missing the point. It's not going to hurt Bush in terms of running for re-election, obviously. But it could mean trouble for Bush in terms of policy BEFORE the 2008 election that the democrats are a united front.

And I'm not saying he's right; I'm just explaining. And I still say it's pointless for Tim to say "enthusiastically."

It can't

The debate that took place last night, will have absolutely no bearing on any policy that Bush tries to impliment before 2008. How could it possibly? His ability to impliment policy was affected last year, when the Democrats won the elections (notice, I say won... not steal, as Democrats do about Bush). As such, the debates are a non-issue on the subject of Bush or his policy. Taking this into account, as I said previously, there is no need to mention Bush as a result of these debates -- so any mention of him was due to his urge to "stick it to" Bush... for whatever his reasons. This is what makes it enthusiasm -- the lack of need to mention someone's name in regards to a debate that he had absolutely nothing to do with, regarding an election that he has even less to do with.


"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" -
Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"

Balboa - swing and a miss

“….that the democrats are a united front.”

I don’t think we needed the debates to learn that the Democrats are united in their hatred of the President, and united in their desire to cut and run.  None of it hurts the President any more than their sedisious behavior has hurt him already and has hurt this country already.

Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"

Shouldn't the Dems be gettin

Shouldn't the Dems be getting together for agreements rather than debates?  Aren't 'debates' a way to distinguish differences so that proper choices can be made?  So what's being said is they got together to debate and didn't really debate and that is good. 

You know Im beginning to thin

You know Im beginning to think President Bush won't win the 2008 elections. 

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.

I know I'm not votin for hi

I know I'm not votin for him again.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

All I know is that I'm writing in "Elvis"

MightyMouth, all I know is that I'm writing in "Elvis" in 2008.  I am pretty confident he is still alive and we will be seeing him soon, and he and "The Colonel" will be the ticket for 2008.

"I'm just a hunk a hunk of burnin love"  Elvis

Elvis isn't in Mr. Potatohead

Unfortunately, Elvis isn't in Mr. Potatohead.

"And Elvis is in Joan Rivers
but he's trying to get out, man!
He's trying to get out!
Listen up Joanie Baby!"  'Elvis is Everywhere'

No no no its bubba ho-tep the

No no no its bubba ho-tep the king meets the king, reported by Russet potatohead

Tim Russert should be fired.

Tim Russert should be fired for his radically insenstive racist "pygmy" remark. Tim Russert needs to apologize to the people of Rwanda, Burundi , the Congos, Cameroon, Gabon and Uganda.

Debate

I keep hearing about these "debates". There was no debate. Just the typical love fest full of softball answers and setup questions designed to allow the "debaters" to slam the President. Someone in here said it best...Politics is show biz for ugly people.

Doug that's because the left wing MSM loves the Dems

Doug, you have to remember the left wing MSM loves the Dem candidates, and wants to bear their children.

"I've always been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane"  Waylon Jennings

I wonder who the Losers will

I wonder who the Losers will be, when Bush Vetoes the "Spending Bill"  ?   Russert can Report on that one.

Russet needs to go to Pelosi's home town, and see what a Man Date looks/feels like  !!

What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ?   David Foote  GoE

The Democrats are mostly happ

The Democrats are mostly happy with their candidates, and the Republicans are unhappy with theirs, therefore the Democrats are ahead ... this is competely apples and oranges. The conservative base would prefer a reliable conservative, but there aren't any in the race yet; thus the poll results. But that certainly doesn't indicate that any of the conservatives would vote for any of the Democrats. Second, whereas the Democrats as a whole might like their candidates, the high approval number is clearly pumped up by the Loony Left, which works against them in the general election.

These analyses are simply media double-talk, intended to sway any undecided voters to go along with the crowd. It's just killing network time.

When you have a field of demo

When you have a field of democrats only you obviously can't pick one of them as the loser in the debate.  It's too bad that democrats are immune to criticism because it would sure be nice if they would finally get rid of some of their more incompetent politicians like.... well, pick one.   

Let's Give Them All an "A"

I'm sure Timmy wouldn't want any Democrat to feel badly.  To paraphrase the Rush Limbaugh parody  "There all getting A's here" Feel good.

Grades and the SC State College.

Everyone knows that the debates took place in Orangeburg SC at the SC State College. In case you didn't know SC State is a predominantly black college. What I'm about to tell you has nothing to do with the debates, just FYI.

My first wife was a teacher in SC. She and another colleague took an extra credit course at SC State back in the year 1988. They were taking some sort of introductory course to computers. The two of them took the course for a full semester and never missed a class (they had to drive 40 miles twice a week after working a full day at teaching). Both of them did all assignments, never missed a class, and were what most professors would consider model students. Their final grades were failing, and were the only two in the class that failed. They were also the only white students in the class.

Most of the students that passed almost never attended the classes, and when they were there, they would ask my wife for help. Yet the whole class passed, all except my wife and her friend.

The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.

Hillery only looks good in a

Hillery only looks good in a lesser of two evils comparison.  Put her up against a viable presidential candidate and her luster diminishes rapidly to 'vote for me because I'm a woman'. 

Hillary

...or vote for me or I'll sick my winged monkeys on you.....

Russert wrote of his Dad, Big

Russert wrote of his Dad, Big Russ.

Maybe Timmy's kid could write of their Dad, Little Douche.

Rochester, Minnesota: A Fem_Leftist City!