In Memoriam: Tim Russert

One of the pre-eminent political analysts, commentators and journalists of our time is dead. Tim Russert, host and moderator of Meet the Press, died of a heart attack at 58 today, and if you liked political discourse at a reasonable level and wanted, say, insights in the campaigns running today, you could tune in and watch Meet the Press or, quite frankly, whatever show on NBC he was asked to speak for two or three minutes on, he should be very sorely missed by you.

If you don't know who he is, click here and then come back when you're done. It's MSNBC's report on his death, and the people speaking about him include President George W. Bush, Tom Brokaw and Harry Reid, current Senate Majority Leader.

His research on the people he interviewed was career-spanning and unspeakably deep, so he knew his politics and was polite, but unrelenting in his pursuit of the truth. But that polite part is incredibly important. Russert made his name by being persistent and civil, and kept Meet the Press afloat, to the point of four million steady viewers on Sunday morning. It wasn't exciting television, mind you, but important television. It didn't have the host or the guests fighting for who'se voice could rise above the others, which usually drives ratings elsewhere. 

Here's an example. Back when Mitt Romney was still a viable Republican candidate, Mr. Romney had been making a bit of backsliding about his views on abortion and women's rights, and he'd been catching some flak for what was a drastic shift in ideological belief, which seemed to coincide neatly with his getting chosen by the Evangelical (which, by the way, sounds a lot better than saying arch-conservative) leaders of the Christian community in America. Now. Russert went one step further and brought in a video clip of Mr. Romney saying in his gubernatorial bid in Massachusetts that he would "preserve and protect a woman's right to choose", was to do so inspired by his mother to be "devoted and dedicated" to his protection of a woman's right to choose. Watch it yourself.

Russert catches Mr. Romney in his run-around game, and does so in a polite, civil manner, without gloating or raising his voice. It's the combination of research and civility that made Tim Russert "the best political journalist in America, not just the best television journalist in America", according to Al Hunt, the former chief of the Washington desk for the Wall Street Journal .

His death leaves a vacancy in American politics the size of which I cannot even outline or fathom. If you want to understand politics, he could speak to you about it in a way that synthesized it and made it understandable for the laypeople and not just political junkies. Insightful barely covers it. He reported the happenings, put the questions to the people who made the happenings and did it all because he loved America and he loved politics. 

For our American readers: Go on YouTube and do a search for Tim Russert and learn about the political landscape around you.

For our international readers: Go on YouTube and do a search for Tim Russert and get insight about American politics from its foremost reporter and treasured son.

His influence is huge. His shadow will loom over American politics, but more heavily over the commentators who don't ask the tough, probing questions. He was pre-eminent because he asked the hard questions, because he stayed civil and polite and because he did the legwork and homework to back it all up with facts and not bluster.

When he said something, those words were given gravity that no one else in the field has. His hard work, insight and politeness were why.

Suffice to say he's missed.

Demos: Mexico 4 Life

Again, a little something stop the bleeding of no posts here. We've got a good theme week coming up, Zach, Catherine and I are just real busy at the moment.

I have recently been reading the accusation that Senator Barack Obama has been throwing down the proverbial gauntlet in his stump speeches since Senator Hillary Clinton has put into circulation her 3 a.m. phone call ad, suggesting that Clinton has the experience on the first day she takes office to answer the dreaded early morning impending doom call that Obama doesn't.

Obama, then, has responded on his stump speeches by questioning Clinton's experience. This, I understand, is proof positive of his "taking the attack to Hillary", as the New York Times said on the sixth of March. For some readers, this counts as dirty politics.

I disagree.

I have seen dirty politics, and this is not it. Obama is asking for the evidence to Clinton's conclusion that she has the experience necessary to lead the country, which, when pushed, appears to be her eight years in the White House as her husband's de facto chief of staff, and her seven years on the Senate Armed Services Committee. That's a reasonable, if pointed question. By comparison, Obama has been on the same committee for two years, and the Republican nominee Senator John McCain has been on the committee since roughly the fall of man.

If you want real dirty politics, then I have a story to tell you. This story starts in South Carolina during the Republican primary in 2000 and stars Senator McCain and then Gov. George W. Bush during their campaign for the Republican nomination. Senator McCain has a lead and has won Iowa and New Hampshire. Anonymous polls begin in neighborhoods where McCain was strong, with a loaded question to the effect of "Would your opinion of Senator McCain change if you knew that he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" (It's important to note at this point that the McCain family had adopted a girl from Bangledesh, which lent a bit of anecdotal evidence to the whisper campaign used to discredit him morally.) Not surprisingly, McCain's numbers dropped in the polls; Bush took South Carolina; leaving McCain shaking and unable to regain the advantage.

Reports from multiple sources including the National Review, the New York Times (years later, of course...) and other reputable outlets could only confirm innuendos, but prevailing wisdom awards the credit to Karl Rove, operating as Bush's chief political strategist.

That's dirty politics. Dirty politics is suggesting that your white opponent had a child with a black woman in a conservative state without putting your own name on the smear. Dirty politics is firing anyone in the Justice Department who isn't a "loyal Bushie". Dirty politics is outing a deep cover CIA agent to get back at her husband for criticizing your basis for starting a war.

Asking for evidence to a debatable conclusion doesn't even come close.

Demos: No, ALL!

This is in response to a column that gave me the impression that the author said that political engagement didn't matter. I disagreed. Some important changes were made, but not to the original thesis. Perhaps the new version is a smidge faster, and maybe hit the proverbial notes more accurately. I don't think anything is lost in the translation, though. In fact, I like the printed version a little better.

I am not too proud to admit that part of this was inspired by Beth, with whom I disagree on a couple issues relating to Obama. Since much of the internet is about pointless feuds, I'd like to note that this doesn't mean I hate her, but simply disagree with her on a fairly important social issue that (hopefully) affects both of us.

Oh, and if you understand why, specifically, the non sequitur title is there, (and not simply as a reference to a praticular band) you win three hundred internet points.

My peers ask why vote and why bother with civic engagement, and it's a good question. Why bother with civic engagement at all when for the last couple decades, youth turnout has been at all time low (recently that has been changing) and voter apathy (why bother with presidents when the differences between candidates are shallow and they're all sponsored by special interests that profit on the status quo…) is fairly high?

I wish I had something better, something that sounded more academic or something that sounded more debonair, but here it is. Why should you bother? Because you've seen what happens when people didn't care. W. If you're enrolled here and fairly liberal, then you know what it's like during your formative years to be shut out of the political process, attacked and called a traitor to your country, all for voicing your opinion. To stave off the inevitable: I make no statements for when Clinton was in office, since I wasn't old enough to render a complex enough judgment for this column.

As for the idea of "keeping your political ideas to yourself", I'd like to respond with "Well, that actually ties into why bother with civic engagement." Let me speak, as I often do, about videogames. As I have previously mentioned, the "debate" on videogames is couched in a framework of "They're the worst things to happen to kids since rap music, don't you agree? You don't? Well, you're wrong, and destroying the innocence of American youth." Why is this? Because this side is the only one speaking up and voting for "the issue". And yes, it also has something to do with the fact that they donate lavishly to the reelection campaigns of Congresspeople. For the most part, there has not been until incredibly recently a coordinated attempt to form another perspective on videogames in the media. Opponents of videogames speak up, so they have the floor, and set the tone of the discussion. To appropriate a Modern Life is War lyric, if no one is speaking to you, speak up.

So, if you want to change the discussion (whether it's videogames or something else entirely), you're going to have to get your metaphorical hands dirty. You're going to have to speak in public about how you feel and you're going to have to take the plunge of expressing yourself about something publicly, or you can keep silently writhing and hope that magically, things will change.

I'm trying to say this without a bunch of rah-rah-rah garbage but, if you want change, you're going to have to raise your voice. I don't want this to end like a Disney teen drama, so I'll leave it like this: We have a mounting national debt (both foreign and domestic), a housing crisis that is squeezing people out of their homes, a war that will cost us over $2 trillion all told, and an international image in tatters.

You're still asking why you should care?

In Which Theme Week is Totally Abandoned for Politics lol

"Well I've got to do something to help these people."
"Don't tell me you're actually developing a conscience."
"God I hope not, it's gonna be a fuckin' nuisance in Congress"
-Eddie Murphy in The Distinguished Gentleman

Ron Paul, y'all.

Sure, the man is arguably crazy, as a bevy of sickeningly low quality Ze Frank imitators also like to point out. But dammit, I like to vote for crazy people. And it's not like we're electing a god-emperor here, just a president - his powers are checked by two other branches of government. Maybe now Congress will have something to do that doesn't involve lobbyists and mistresses and cocaine (sorry, couldn't find a link, but YOU JUST KNOW IT AMIRIGHT?) and secret societies. Or maybe it will give them more than ever before! It's an exciting time to be alive, if only because gross negligence or sexy new diseases may change that fact at any given moment.

Dance with me! Dance the dance of life!

Hey hey, and Mitt Romney just left the race for president. Which is good. He looks like someone's wholesome dad, the kind who jokes with you and slaps you on the back and has good teeth. America wants a nutjob for president, not the dad from 7th Heaven.

It's a total fabrication, really, to assume that any of the candidates are of sound mental health. The election is a grueling process for a thankless job where you are essentially a fulcrum of power between promises you made to get elected (thankfully growing less and less relevant as the years progress) and the promises that you made to massive, faceless corporations, as all the while detractors curse your name, and sometimes shoot you (with varying degrees of success).

Worst of all are celebrity endorsements. And there are plenty of them. Celebrities are not well known for even keeping their own lives in check - why then should we listen to them over anyone else? I'm certain that will.i.am feels really strongly or something about Barack Obama. Could he manifest this enthusiasm in a less embarrass ing format? Obviously not.

Really, I just can't handle someone who I have hope in. Give me the Ron Pauls and Mike Gravels and whoever else, anyone who promises to slash and burn the government, to vivisect it's infected organs, a chirurgeon to either fix it or kill it, but just change it already. To have hope in the government is more and more a fool's errand, and worst of all, to overpraise the hucksters who would abuse our need for change for their own advancement (not to imply Obama is a huckster - just that he might be). I cannot handle any more dishonesty in office (well, I can, but I just really really don't want to), but I (hope I) can handle all of the anarchy that actual change might bring.

Lies we Tell to Children: America is a Model Democracy

Welcome to Super Tuesday, what was supposed the be the season-defining superbowl moment of American politics, the middle turning point in the ongoing slow-motion car crash that is Fuckup 2008.

Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards have dropped out, leaving Mike Gravel as the self-proclaimed only real progressive left in the race. Regardless of whether or not Obama plans on honoring any of his promises to make a change for the better, Hillary Clinton is a preprogrammed robotic timebomb serving a cabal of military industrialists oil czars and hedge fund managers, or Mike Gravel is actually still in the race in any real sense, tonight has decided nothing.

In fact, it is appearing more and more likely that the race is going to be won by the most terrifyingly antidemocratic feature of our democratic system: superdelegates.

Superdelegates, unlike lake sharks, are not part of the lies we tell to children. Also unlike like sharks, they are things that do exist and should not. However, they are exactly like lake sharks in their supernatural ability to glide silently over the morning dew. Don't go down to the lake until the sun has been up long enough to dry up all the grass, or an ex-president will leap from the brush to tear open your jugular and elect a delegate you never voted for. (Thanks, Jeremy Hoople's father. Second best lie told to a child ever. The first may end up as another post.)

As you have probably not been able to glean from that extended whimsical comparison, superdelegates are members of the Democratic National Convention who, by virtue of having held positions of power in the past, hold a position of power in the present: they can participate in the selection process of the Democratic Nominee, voting just as other delegates do, and, unlike other delegates, they are not required to vote according to the votes of any group of normal citizens. This is why, of the 2,025 delegates needed for the nomination, Hillary Clinton had over a hundred before the first state primary had been held.

As of the time I'm writing this, the New York Times is displaying the A.P. delegate count for Clinton and Obama at 626 to 531. Of those, 204 and 99 are superdelegates. And while I'm sure those numbers will have changed by the time I finish this post, the deciding factor in the race right now is the fact that more cronyistic holdovers from bygone eras are supporting Hillary than Obama. As the state-by-state, county-by-county battle for supremacy continues, it seems more and more likely that the swing factor in the race to 2,025 will be the more than five hundred superdelegates who have yet to decide which factory-assembled candidate best represents their personal agendas.

I apologize for the dryness of this post, and the overproliferation of numbers. I apologize if you heard this somewhere else first.

You should still be angry. Somewhere, someone is making all this effort, all this organizing and arguing and aggregate motion of the human element, meaningless. The party will pick who best represents the party's interests, not the people's.

This, as Mike Gravel would say, is politics as usual.

Je Voudre un Croissant

A thousand apologies, saheb. There was no update on my part yesterday, due to homelessness and Project Runway heartbreak. In response, maybe two updates today? Maybe not (already I no longer pine for the days when my prevarications alone dominated these pages). I am in the city of Pittsburgh today, a town built on the bones a hundred thousand steelworkers and coke forges, now known for having a lot of hospitals and robots. Also, terrifying mill-towns! Crystal meth says Hello I Will Rot Your Teeth Out But At Least You Don't Have To Sleep! It's certainly a strange place - old dead billionaires who called in Pinkertons to bloody the noses of nascent labor movements were also responsible for libraries, symphonies, and a seemingly infinite crop of tiny theaters (as well as Andy Warhol's haunted tomb).

Also, ketchup!

Tourism aside, it's a place that you kind of feel guilty for being in, because a million disapproving Polish ghosts are singing Sondheim-esque songs of working in steel mills and in the mines and you're like "I just want to play my gameboy in peace!" Also, everyone here is kind of sarcastic. That may just be because it's cold, or because they're all from somewhere else and had to come here because of their job - you'll recall my previous statements about the damned basically just getting on with their lives.

Right, wait, what? Bridges everywhere?

Rejoice, liberal schweinhunds, for Giuliani has dropped out of the race for president! So did John Edwards, who seemed to be genuinely kind of good hearted, but can't compete with Obama and Clinton's celebrity. Like any good reality TV show, the time has come in the race when the Bradley Baumkirschners of politics are tossed to the wind and allowed to come to rest outside of our purview. Which is always sad. I don't know why the producers always let the biggest jerks stay until the end, y'know?