53414737.

doc Page 1 of 12

MEDIAMATTERS
FOR AMERICA
Fri, Feb 29, 2008 9:30pm ET

Meet Tim Russert

by Jamison Foser

"It's never the question that's the problem, Matt, it's the answer."
-- NBC's Tim Russert
"It's 'never the question that's the problem'? Really?
Spoken like the guy who gets to ask the questions."
-- CJR's Liz Cox Barrett
MSNBC recently began running commercials touting its coverage of "Decision 2008."
One begins with on-screen text asking, "Why do people care about politics?" Viewers
then hear Tim Russert explain: "It's about the war. Our sons and daughters. It's about
the economy. Our jobs. It's about education. Our schools. It's about health care. Our
families' well-being. It's about everything that matters." The ad ends with the on-
screen declaration: "That's why you care. That's why we cover it."
The serious and high-minded approach to political coverage Russert brags about
would be a welcome change from the political coverage for which Russert is
responsible.
During this week's Democratic presidential debate, Russert didn't ask a single
question about global warming, continuing his longstanding habit of all but ignoring
the topic. He didn't ask a single question about the mortgage crisis. (As one
Cleveland resident noted, "We've got the mortgage industry's toxic waste scattered
all over this city, but Mr. Blue-Collar-Buffalo-and-Cleveland-Marshall-Guy Russert
couldn't be bothered with a question about it.") He didn't ask a single question about
executive power, the Constitution, torture, wiretapping, or other civil-liberties
concerns. But that shouldn't come as a surprise; of all the questions he has asked
while moderating presidential debates during this campaign, only one has dealt with
any of those topics.
He has, however, asked Dennis Kucinich what he felt compelled to insist was a
"serious question" -- whether Kucinich has seen a UFO. And he has asked about John
Edwards' expensive haircut.
Funny, Russert doesn't mention UFOs or haircuts in that MSNBC promo.
Russert's performance as a moderator of this week's debate has drawn widespread
criticism. Most appalling was his bizarre fixation on Louis Farrakhan.
Russert asked Barack Obama about Louis Farrakhan's praise for the Illinois senator.
Obama, who had previously denounced Farrakhan, did so again. Then Russert asked
about Farrakhan again. So Obama reiterated his denunciation. Then Russert, (who, I
can only assume, was not bothering to listen to Obama's responses) asked about
Farrakhan again. So Obama again reiterated his denunciation. Russert, plowing
ahead, asked yet another question about Farrakhan, prompting Obama to answer yet
again.
Josh Marshall summed up Russert's behavior nicely: "It was a nationwide, televised,
MSM version of one of those noxious Obama smear emails."
53414737.doc Page 2 of 12

This wasn't the first time Russert made the odd decision to ask Obama about
controversial comments made by a famous African-American. During a 2006
interview, Russert asked Obama about controversial comments Harry Belafonte
made the day before. But Belafonte, as Jane Hamsher noted at the time, had made
similar comments two weeks before, and Russert had never asked any guest about
them. Russert gave no indication of why Obama was uniquely qualified or required to
comment on Belafonte's comments. (The only other time Russert has ever asked
anyone about any comments made by Harry Belafonte, according to Nexis? 2003,
when Russert asked then-Secretary of State Colin Powell about comments Belafonte
made about U.S. actions toward Cuba.)
Given Russert's badgering of Obama about Farrakhan, you might be wondering how
he handles endorsements by controversial figures who have a history of statements
that are widely considered to be anti-Semitic ... when the endorser and the endorsed
are both white Republicans.
Last November, Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Giuliani during a joint event at the
National Press Club where Giuliani praised Robertson as "a person of great, well-
deserved reputation." Robertson has endorsed Jerry Falwell's claims that 9-11 was
the fault of "abortionists," feminists, and the ACLU. He has suggested that the annual
Gay Days event at Disney World would result in "the destruction of your nation. It'll
bring about terrorist bombs, it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a
meteor." He has linked Hurricane Katrina to legalized abortion. He has said "Jewish
people" are "very thrifty" and "very wise in finance."
Robertson wrote a bizarre conspiracy theory book called New World Order that,
Anthony Lewis noted, "relied [so] heavily on a British anti-Semitic writer of the
1920's, Nesta H. Webster ... one sometimes thinks of plagiarism." Lewis concluded of
Robertson: "Perhaps Pat Robertson in his heart is not an anti-Semite. He just thinks a
satanic conspiracy led by Jews has threatened the world for centuries. The best you
can make of such a defense is that he is a plain, ordinary crackpot."
That's who Pat Robertson is; that's who Rudy Giuliani praised as "a person of great,
well-deserved reputation." Now: How did Tim Russert react to Giuliani's enthusiastic
acceptance of Robertson's endorsement? On Today on November 8, 2007, Russert
said it would be "helpful" to Giuliani. In early December, Russert hosted Giuliani on
Meet the Press. Russert didn't ask Giuliani a single question about Robertson. On
January 24, Russert moderated a GOP debate. Russert didn't ask a single question
about Robertson -- even though the debate took place in Florida, which was central to
Giuliani's campaign "strategy" and which is home to a large number of Jewish voters
who might not look kindly on Robertson's theories about a "satanic conspiracy led by
Jews."
So: During this week's Democratic debate, Russert grilled Barack Obama about Louis
Farrakhan, who Obama had repeatedly denounced prior to the debate, whose praise
Obama did not accept, and who Obama reiterated his denunciation of multiple times
during the debate.
Yet Russert never once asked Rudy Giuliani about his enthusiastic acceptance of Pat
Robertson's endorsement or about his praise for Robertson. Not one question. He
never said on NBC or MSNBC a single word about Robertson's history of inflammatory
comments causing problems for Giuliani.
The double standard couldn't be clearer. The only question is, what it is about Barack
Obama and Rudy Giuliani that makes Tim Russert treat them so differently?
Why does Tim Russert think Barack Obama and Colin Powell are uniquely required
and qualified to talk about Harry Belafonte? Why does Tim Russert think Barack
Obama has to explain praise from Louis Farrakhan that he did not accept, but Rudy
53414737.doc Page 3 of 12

Giuliani doesn't have to explain an endorsement from Pat Robertson that he did
accept?
Glenn Greenwald has more.
Given the intensity with which Russert questioned Obama about Louis Farrakhan -- a
person whom Obama has nothing to do with -- two of Russert's own associations may
be of interest:
• At the beginning of Russert's June 2004 appearance on Rush Limbaugh's radio
show, Limbaugh noted: "We don't have guests on this program, but we made
an exception here for our friend Tim Russert of NBC News." Russert replied,
"It's an honor to be here, Rush. Thank you very much. " Later, the two
reminisced about sharing a steak dinner. Although the appearance came just
weeks after Limbaugh's comparison of the torture at Abu Ghraib to a
fraternity prank, Russert politely chose not to ask his host about the
comments, or about any of Limbaugh's countless inflammatory statements
about women and minorities.
• Russert was a frequent guest on Don Imus' radio show and appeared just two
days after Imus' comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team that
ultimately led to his firing. Russert didn't say anything to Imus about the
comments, nor did he comment on the Imus controversy in any other forum.
Phil Noble noted in the Columbia Journalism Review in 2000 that at least one
of Russert's appearances on Imus' radio show featured the two men engaging
in what Noble described as "kidding" about homosexuality. Noting Imus'
lengthy history of anti-gay rhetoric, Noble concluded: "Russert's kidding was
the equivalent of sharing a watermelon joke with David Duke."
Back to this week's debate. Russert asked Obama a question about "keeping your
word." When Russert sets up a question by announcing that it is about the
candidate's character, there's a pretty good chance that he is about to reveal
something about his own. (Last fall, Russert began a question to Hillary Clinton by
announcing that the question "goes to the issue of credibility." He was right; the
question went to his credibility: Everything he said after that was false. More on that
below.) In this case, Russert asked about Obama's position on accepting public
financing in for the general election if he is the Democratic nominee:
RUSSERT: Senator Obama, let me ask you about motivating, inspiring,
keeping your word. Nothing more important. Last year you said if you
were the nominee you would opt for public financing in the general
election of the campaign; try to get some of the money out. You
checked "Yes" on a questionnaire. And now Senator McCain has said,
calling your bluff, let's do it. You seem to be waffling, saying, well, if we
can work on an arrangement here. Why won't you keep your word in
writing that you made to abide by public financing of the fall election?
This is horribly misleading. In fact, in response to the questionnaire Russert referred
to, Obama wrote: "Yes. ... If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue
an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general
election."
So when Obama now says, as Russert puts it, "if we can work on an arrangement,"
that isn't "waffling," that is entirely consistent with his response to the questionnaire.
Russert mischaracterized Obama's response to the questionnaire in order to accuse
him of "waffling" and not "keep[ing] your word."
In response, Obama correctly noted that what he had previously said was that if he is
the nominee, he will "sit down with John McCain" to pursue an agreement. Russert
53414737.doc Page 4 of 12

then followed up: "So you may opt out of public financing. You may break your word."
But as Obama had just explained (and as his answer to the very questionnaire
Russert cited confirms) the "word" Obama had given was that he would pursue an
agreement with the Republican nominee -- exactly the position he holds now. Russert
was dishonest in saying that Obama would be breaking his word if he opts out of
public financing.
As bad as his performance this week was, it wasn't as bad as his handling of last fall's
Democratic debate in Philadelphia. That may have been the all-time worst
performance by a debate moderator. To cite just two examples: Annenberg's
FactCheck.org agreed that Russert's question about the Clinton archives was
"breathtakingly misleading." Another question misrepresented previous questions
Hillary Clinton had been asked (including one of Russert's own questions),
misrepresented her answers, quoted her saying things she did not say, then
concluded by suggesting that Clinton is a liar. Somebody was lying, all right, but it
wasn't Hillary Clinton. I explained Russert's stunningly bad performance in greater
detail at the time.
It takes a special kind of dishonesty to falsely describe someone's previous
comments in order to accuse them of lying and breaking their word. There should be
a word for that kind of behavior. In light of Russert's question to Clinton last fall and
to Obama this week, perhaps it should be called "pulling a Russert."
After Russert was blasted by FactCheck.org for a "breathtakingly misleading"
question to Clinton about the archives, you'd think he would be extra careful to get it
right next time, wouldn't you? In this week's debate, Russert again asked Clinton
about the archives -- and Russert again got the facts wrong.
Russert's mishandling of the influence that comes with his lofty perch atop the
political media food chain is by no means limited to his conduct during presidential
debates.
Last year, Russert was interviewed for a Bill Moyers report about how the Bush
administration "misled the country" into the Iraq war with the help of a "compliant
press ... [that] pass[ed] on their propaganda as news and cheer[ed] them on." During
the interview, Russert famously complained that, during the run-up to the war,
nobody called him to tell him they had concerns about the administration's case for
war: "My concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government
officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them."
Though the image of one of the nation's most influential reporters staring at the
phone, waiting for it to ring rather than actively seeking out the news might strike
you as appallingly poor journalism, it isn't the most self-damning thing Russert said
during the interview.
When Moyers asked him about the three networks' reliance on the Bush
administration for their Iraq stories, Russert responded: "It's important that you have
an opposition party. That's our system of government" -- suggesting that the reason
the media relied on the Bush administration for Iraq reporting was the lack of an
opposition party. The notion that the media shouldn't challenge the government
unless the political party out of power does so first is self-evidently wrong. But
Russert was also wrong about the lack of an opposition party, as I explained last
year:
There was an "opposition party" during the run-up to the Iraq war. The
majority of congressional Democrats opposed invading Iraq and voted
against the law authorizing the use of force. Among the Democrats
who voted against the authorization were some of the party's most
prominent and powerful members, including Sens. Ted Kennedy,
53414737.doc Page 5 of 12

Barbara Boxer, and Dick Durbin, and Reps. John Conyers, Nancy Pelosi
and Charlie Rangel.
Given that the majority of congressional Democrats voted against the
authorization, including such household names as Ted Kennedy and
Barbara Boxer, how could Tim Russert suggest there was no
"opposition party" during the Iraq debate?
Maybe because there was scant evidence of an opposition party on
Russert's Meet the Press during the run-up to the Iraq war. On his
personal blog earlier this year, Media Matters for America Senior Fellow
Duncan Black examined five months of Meet the Press guest lists,
starting on the day Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq to
the day coalition forces actually invaded. Of the appearances by
Democrats that involved a discussion of Iraq, eight appearances were
by Democrats who voted for the authorization, and only three were by
Democrats who voted against it.
Remember, a majority of Democrats voted against the authorization;
but on Russert's Meet the Press, there were nearly three times as
many Democratic supporters of the authorization as opponents.
Is it any wonder that Russert said there wasn't an "opposition party"
during the Iraq debate?
In November 2006, Russert demonstrated that he still didn't have room for the
"opposition party" on his television show: The first broadcast of Meet the Press after
Democrats won control of both houses of Congress, due in large part to their
opposition to the Iraq war, featured two guests: John McCain and Joe Lieberman.
Neither was elected as a Democrat. Both are among the staunchest supporters of the
Iraq war.
Over the years, Russert has regularly smeared Democrats and progressives over
issues large and small:
• Last year, John McCain launched a petty attack on Barack Obama over an
Obama press release that spelled "flack jacket" with a "c" in the word "flack."
You might think that a United States senator treating a debate over war as
though it was a spelling bee would be mocked by the media for trivializing
questions of life and death. Not when the senator is John McCain; not when
the media figure is Tim Russert.
Here's how Russert reported the flap: "Senator Obama talked about
Senator McCain going to an Iraqi marketplace warring a flak jacket and
surrounded and protected by American troops, but misspelled the word
flak. And Senator McCain seized on that, suggesting that Senator
Obama doesn't have the necessary experience in military and security
affairs."
Other than the inanity of repeating McCain's attempt to correct
Obama's spelling, Russert made another mistake: He didn't bother to
check to see if McCain was right. In fact, Webster's, NBC congressional
correspondent Mike Viqueira, and several U.S. military websites all
agree that "flack" is an acceptable spelling of the word. So Russert's
repetition of McCain's attempt to spell-check Obama's press releases
was not only inane, it was also fundamentally false.
• During a January interview with Hillary Clinton, Russert aired a truncated
quote by former President Bill Clinton to falsely suggest that Bill Clinton had
been talking about Obama's presidential campaign when he said, "This whole
53414737.doc Page 6 of 12

thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." In fact, Bill Clinton's "fairy tale"
comment had been about Obama's record of opposition to the Iraq war, not
about his bid for the presidency. Before airing a clip of Bill Clinton's remarks,
Russert told viewers: "This is exactly what President Clinton said in
Dartmouth. Here is the tape." But the clip showed Clinton saying only 15
words, and omitted the sentences immediately prior, which make clear that
Clinton was talking about Obama's position on Iraq. Russert's use of the video
clip was beyond misleading and well into dishonest -- the whole dispute was
about the context of the "fairy tale"; the transcript shows Russert was clearly
wrong, and he played a video clip that omitted any of that context and acted
as though it proved he was correct.
• Russert blamed Bill Clinton for the fact that North Korea had purportedly
expanded its nuclear weapons program from having the ability to build two
nuclear devices in 1993 to 13 in 2006: "When President Clinton said that, the
North Koreans probably had the potential to build two nuclear devices. It's
now up to 13. And if nothing is done, when George Bush leaves office, it could
reach 17. It seems as though the United States talks tough with North Korea,
but allows the program to go forward." Russert omitted the rather important
detail that, as Media Matters noted, "North Korea did not produce any
plutonium, nor build or test any nuclear bombs, during Clinton's eight years in
office."
• Five months after Democrats won control of both houses of Congress in a
campaign in which the Iraq war was a central issue, Russert announced that
"Democrats have always had a difficulty being competitive with the
Republicans in the public voters' mind on national security and foreign policy
issues." Not only was Russert's claim contradicted by the results of the most
recent elections, it was contradicted by contemporaneous polling.
• In June 2006, Russert asked a guest if same-sex marriage was an issue "that
the Republicans used successfully to demonstrate that the Democrats were
out of sync on cultural -- and values." But, as Media Matters noted, polling
leading up to the 2004 election "found that the public was split equally on
which party better represented their values," and that "[m]ore recent polling
indicates that more people think Democrats better represent their values than
do Republicans."
• Immediately following the January 15, 2008, Democratic presidential debate
he moderated, Russert misrepresented statements by Barack Obama, Hillary
Clinton, and John Edwards in order to suggest that their positions had shifted
since a September 2007 debate Russert moderated. (Russert, in other words,
"pulled a Russert.")
• In October 2006, Russert falsely claimed that "one-third of [convicted lobbyist
Jack] Abramoff's money went to Democrats." In fact, Abramoff, a powerful
Republican activist, never gave a dime to any Democrat. This is not an
obscure fact; the false GOP talking point that Abramoff had contributed to
Democrats had been debunked long (and often) before Russert made the
claim. Earlier in the year, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell faced
a barrage of public criticism for repeating the false claim.
• In November 2006, Russert suggested that Senate Democratic Leader Harry
Reid (NV) opposed lobbying reform and the creation of the Office of Public
Integrity. In fact, Reid had introduced lobbying-reform legislation calling for
the creation of that office.
53414737.doc Page 7 of 12

• Speaking about Hillary Clinton earlier this year, Russert suggested that there
is irony in a "self-avowed feminist" having shown "some emotion," as though
feminists are the dour, humorless beings Rush Limbaugh and Tucker Carlson
think they are. At least Russert stopped short of using the term "feminazis."
• In February 2007, Russert said: "My ear heard something that I had not heard
from Democratic candidates in some time. Up front, Senator Obama began his
speech with references to his faith, and then came back to that same issue in
the speech. ... What's that about?" This is abject nonsense. It is a Republican
lie to say that Democrats do not discuss their faith.
Just the week before -- seven short days -- Democratic presidential
candidate John Edwards had talked about his religious upbringing.
Where? In an interview on Meet the Press. Tim Russert's Meet the
Press. How did the topic come up? Russert read Edwards a quote of
Edwards saying, "I was raised in the Southern Baptist church and so I
have a belief system that arises from that. It's part of who I am. I can't
make it disappear." Edwards responded in part: "I grew up in the
Southern Baptist church, I was baptized in the Southern Baptist church,
my dad was a deacon. In fact, I was there just a couple weeks ago to
see my father get an award. It's, it's just part of who I am."
So: On February 4, 2007, Tim Russert read John Edwards a quote of
Edwards talking about his faith. Tim Russert then (presumably)
listened as Edwards spoke of his faith, of having been baptized, of his
father being a deacon. Seven short days later, Tim Russert told
America that it had been "some time" since he last heard a Democratic
candidate talk about faith.
Other examples of Democrats discussing their faith abound: Hillary
Clinton. Bill Clinton. John Kerry (including in his speech accepting the
2004 Democratic presidential nomination, which, presumably, Russert
listened to at some point). Name a significant Democrat; it's a near
certainty he or she has discussed his or her faith. It is simply false to
suggest otherwise, as Russert did. Russert wasn't telling the truth; he
was peddling a right-wing smear of Democrats.
• In 2006, as Democrats were criticizing the Bush administration's decision to
allow a company owned by the government of Dubai to run terminals at six
U.S. ports, Russert suggested that Democrats were criticizing the deal in order
to exploit it for political gain. "Here's the situation," Russert told viewers.
"Democrats believe they can look tough on national security." Russert made
no mention of the other possibility: that Democrats were talking about port
security because they had been talking about port security for years.
The most prominent Democrats in the country -- Bill and Hillary
Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards among them -- had been
discussing port security for years. They had been doing so in the most
high-profile ways available to them: in speeches at the 2004
Democratic convention, during presidential debates. Even on Tim
Russert's Meet the Press, where, presumably, Russert was listening to
them.
Yet, in 2006, Russert suggested Democrats had just discovered and
were cynically exploiting the issue. (A few weeks later, Democratic
Sen. Joe Biden appeared on Meet the Press and told Russert: "I heard
you on another show with [Today host] Katie Couric, Tim, saying
something, in effect that the Congress hadn't done much either. Back
53414737.doc Page 8 of 12

in 2001, we introduced legislation for port security and rail security;

2002, 2003, 2004, 2005. It's been repeatedly spurned by the
administration.")
• Last year, during congressional debate over Iraq, Russert said that "the
Democratic leadership realizes to vote against funding for the troops would be
seen in a general election as not supporting the troops." Russert said nothing
similar about Republicans who had voted against a previous version of the bill.
To Tim Russert, Democrats who vote against a war-spending bill are voting
"against funding for the troops" and will be seen as "not supporting the
troops." But when Republicans vote against a war spending bill ... no problem.
Russert is also a serial misinformer about Social Security, frequently parroting bogus
talking points produced by conservatives who want to privatize the program:
• In questioning guests about Social Security, Russert uses a pro-privatization
talking point about the declining ratio of workers per retiree to join the
privatizers in suggesting that the system is in crisis: "When Social Security
was created there were ... 42 workers for every retiree. There are now going
to be, soon, two workers per retiree."
But economists Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot explained in their book
Social Security: The Phony Crisis that this statistic is grossly
misleading: "[T]he decline in this ratio has actually been considerably
steeper in the past. ... These figures also neglect to take into account
the reduced costs faced by the working population from having a
smaller proportion of children to support. A more accurate measure of
the actual burden faced by the employed labor force would be the total
dependency ratio, which includes both retirees and children relative to
the number of workers."
In using the alarmist pro-privatization rhetoric, Russert neglected to
mention that the decline in the worker-to-retiree ratio has been
steeper in the past. Nor does he mention that the total dependency
ratio is, and is projected to remain, considerably lower than it was in
the past.
• Contrary to his carefully cultivated reputation as a tough interviewer who
won't let guests get away with anything, Russert allows advocates of Social
Security privatization to spin and mislead with impunity.
• Russert employs crisis rhetoric favored by the privatization lobby and frowned
upon by those who prefer to discuss Social Security accurately. He does so in
part by trumpeting a decade-old quotation of Bill Clinton talking about the
Social Security trust fund (and by attempting to use the quotation as a gotcha
when interviewing Democrats). Clinton's comments were based on projections
that were accurate at the time, but more recent projections show the trust
fund to be in much better shape. Russert's use of Clinton's 1998 comments
based on 1998 projections to argue that Social Security is in crisis now is like
a child going to her parents in the dead of winter and citing a weather report
from the previous July to argue that she should be able to wear shorts to
school.
Along with his carefully cultivated image as a blue-collar son of South Buffalo, the
thing everybody knows about Tim Russert is what a tough questioner he is. Like his
regular-guy shtick, everybody knows this in large part because Russert himself keeps
telling us it's true. He told Time magazine, for example, "I just don't let any kind of
personal feelings interfere with my professional job, with my professional mission of
trying to elicit information and ask questions. I believe very deeply, particularly about
53414737.doc Page 9 of 12

someone running for president, that if you can't answer tough questions then you
can't make tough decisions. And so I apply that standard to all candidates from all
parties."
In a piece headlined "How to beat Tim Russert," Slate.com's Jack Shafer wrote,
"Plotting his interviews out like chess matches, he deploys aggressive openings,
subtle feints, artfully constructed traps, and lightning offenses to crack the
politicians' phony veneer and reveal the genuine veneer beneath. ... If you've
switched your position on anything, or if your views on, say, the balanced budget
clash with your advocacy of new tax cuts, expect Russert to grill you."
But this popular (and Russert-approved) view of Russert isn't quite right. There are a
variety of ways you can avoid such tough questioning.
You could, for example, advocate Social Security privatization. If you do that, you can
not only use a variety of phony arguments and bogus claims to buttress your
position, you can do so with the confidence that if you need a moment to catch your
breath, Russert himself will fill in for you.
Or you could be a Republican senator and presidential candidate talking about the
decision to go to war in Iraq. Important Safety Tip: Do not skip the part about being a
Republican.
In the first few months of 2007, Russert interviewed John McCain, John Edwards, and
Joe Biden. All were running for president. All had been in the Senate for the 2002 vote
authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Russert asked all of them about the decision to
go to war. Russert asked Biden and Edwards why they voted to authorize the use of
force despite the "caveats" in the 2002 NIE that cast doubt on the notion that Iraq
was a threat to the U.S. But when Russert interviewed McCain a few weeks after
interviewing Biden, he let McCain assert that the invasion of Iraq "was certainly
justified" because "[e]very intelligence agency in the world, not just U.S., believed
that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."
Oddly, Russert -- the notoriously tough questioner who won't let anyone get away
with anything and who brags he applies the same "standard to all candidates from all
parties" -- didn't challenge McCain about the doubts expressed by American
intelligence agencies in the NIE. (A year earlier, McCain had claimed on Meet the
Press that "every intelligence agency in the world believed that he [Hussein] had
weapons of mass destruction." Russert didn't challenge McCain that time, either. He
does keep asking Democrats about the NIE, though.)
Media Matters has documented many other examples of Russert lobbing softballs to
conservatives and letting them get away with misleading spin and false claims:
• Russert allowed former Reagan adviser Ken Adelman to claim that "no one
knew" that intelligence indicating Iraq had WMD "wasn't true." In fact, many,
people had challenged the accuracy of that intelligence. The "no one knew"
claim has long been the GOP's defense against criticisms of its decision to go
to war, but Russert was either unprepared to challenge it or uninterested in
doing so (just as he would later give McCain a pass on the same.)
• On the May 20, 2007, edition of Meet the Press, guest Newt Gingrich asserted
that an alleged plot to carry out an armed attack on Fort Dix was evidence
that terrorists "don't plan to stop in Baghdad. They are coming here as soon
as they can get here." This is a common right-wing talking point, but it has
been repeatedly disputed by experts. In the weeks prior to Gingrich's
appearance, The Washington Post, McClatchy, and NPR had all run reports
that included intelligence officials and other experts disputing the claim. NPR
cited, among others, retired Army Lt. Col. James Carafano, a research fellow at
53414737.doc Page 10 of 12

the conservative Heritage Foundation. According to NPR, "calls asserting that

terrorists will follow U.S. troops home naive and poor rhetoric." The NPR report
also featured a clip of Carafano saying, "There's no national security analyst
that's really credible who thinks that people are going to come from Iraq and
attack the United States -- that that's a credible scenario." But rather than
challenging Gingrich's claim, Russert turned to his Democratic guest and
instructed him to respond to Gingrich's far-fetched assertions.
• In early 2006, Russert hosted Gen. Peter Pace, then-chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, and failed to challenge a series of dubious assertions Pace
made in support of his claim that the Iraq war was "going very, very well."
• In 2004, Russert asked Jerry Falwell about his comments that abortion rights
advocates, feminists, and homosexuals, among others, were responsible for
the September 11 terrorist attacks. Falwell falsely claimed that he "likewise"
held responsible "a sleeping church, a lethargic church." Falwell wasn't telling
the truth, but Russert let him get away with it. Russert also asked Falwell
about a study that showed that "[t]he states with the highest level [of divorce]
are the so-called Bible Belt, in the South." In response, Falwell asserted that
"born-again, Bible-believing Christians who take the Bible as the word of God,"
the divorce rate is lower. That wasn't true, either -- but again, Russert failed to
challenge Falwell. Keep in mind: Russert brought both of these topics up. He
presumably had Falwell's 9-11 quote handy; after all, he read it to Falwell. But
when Falwell falsely described his comments, Russert let him get away with it.
• Interviewing Sens. John Warner, a Republican, and Joe Biden, a Democrat,
Russert asked Warner about whether the Bush administration distorted or
withheld evidence that the aluminum tubes sought by Saddam Hussein didn't
have anything to do with WMD. When Warner dodged the question, not saying
anything about the aluminum tubes but instead simply asserting that Bush
"would not intentionally take any facts and try and mislead the American
public," Russert did not press Warner either on that dubious assertion or on
his failure to answer the question. Instead, he turned to Biden and grilled him
on his vote to authorize the use of force, asking Biden about the 2002 NIE that
contained caveats about the WMD intelligence. Russert didn't ask Warner why
he voted to authorize force despite the NIE caveats.
• Russert allowed Richard Perle to suggest that former Vice President Al Gore
supported the invasion of Iraq in a 2002 speech. In fact, during that speech
Gore opposed the invasion.
• Russert repeatedly failed to challenge false and dubious claims by Vice
President Cheney during a September 2006 interview.
• In 2005, amid speculation that the investigation into the Bush administration's
outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame would yield indictments on perjury and
obstruction of justice charges, conservatives were frantically trying to
downplay the seriousness of those charges. Appearing on Meet the Press,
Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison did so by claiming "there were charges
against former President Bill Clinton besides perjury and obstruction of
justice" during his 1999 Senate trial on impeachment charges. In fact, there
were not, as Russert should have known; the impeachment trial was a fairly
high-profile event. Nevertheless, Russert let Hutchison's false claim go
uncorrected.
• In 2005, Russert hosted RNC chair Ken Mehlman, who claimed that the 9-11
Commission had "totally discredited" the notion that the Bush administration
manipulated prewar intelligence. Given that the 9-11 Commission didn't even
53414737.doc Page 11 of 12

address the administration's use of prewar intelligence, this was a pretty big
falsehood. But Russert let Mehlman get away with it.
• In early 2007, Russert let John McCain make a series of wild claims without
challenging them. McCain claimed Joe Lieberman's re-election in Connecticut
was evidence that it was not "clear-cut" that the public opposed the Iraq war.
Russert failed to note that exit polls showed that Lieberman was re-elected in
spite of his support for the war, not because of it. Nor did Russert note that
Lieberman spent the bulk of the campaign frantically pretending to be a war
critic and trying to convince voters that he intended to end the war and bring
the troops home.
McCain also claimed that at the time of the first Gulf War, "only 15
percent of the American people thought we ought to go to Kuwait and
get rid of Saddam Hussein there." In fact, a Gallup poll taken the day
before the launch of Operation Desert Storm found 79 percent of
Americans supported going to war in the Gulf. McCain could hardly
have been more wrong, yet Russert didn't correct the glaring
falsehood.
• Interviewing Republican California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Russert
asked such hard-hitting questions as whether or not Schwarzenegger agreed
with the assessment that he had a "mastery of the state's rising independent
center"; whether Schwarzenegger thought a description of him as a
"moderate" was "fair," the open-ended "What is an Arnold Republican?" and,
best of all: "You're a Republican winning in California, a Blue State, in a
Democratic year. People would have you on the short list for the Republican
nomination in 2008. But they can't for one reason: You were not born in the
United States. Is that fair?" Russert had a follow-up to that one: "You've been
a citizen for 23 years, shouldn't you have an opportunity to run for president?"
In between tossing Schwarzenegger softballs, Russert let him get away with
whoppers like his claim that "we have the lowest unemployment rate in 30
years or so." That was true -- if by "30 years or so" Schwarzenegger meant
"six years."
Russert doesn't just toss softballs to conservatives when he interviews them. He
carries their water in other ways, too.
• As Media Matters' Eric Boehlert has explained, during the 2004 election,
Russert apparently knew that then-Cheney aide Scooter Libby had given false
testimony to the special counsel investigating the Bush administration's
outing of Valerie Plame -- but Russert kept this information secret.
• President Bush and his press secretary indicated during the Plame leak
investigation that anyone who had anything to do with the leak would be
fired. When it was clear that Karl Rove had participated in the leak, Russert
helped the Bush administration move the goalposts, describing Bush as
having "said early on in this [investigation] that if anyone broke the law, that
he would deal with it." Since Rove was never convicted of anything, under this
standard, Bush wouldn't have to fire him.
• Russert adopted the GOP's inflammatory description of a Democratic Iraq
proposal as "slow-bleed."
• Russert falsely claimed there was "no evidence" that former head of the Iraqi
National Congress Ahmed Chalabi "was associated with Curveball," a relative
of a top Chalabi aide who became the most influential source for U.S.
intelligence on Iraq's biological weapons program. In fact, independent
53414737.doc Page 12 of 12

reporting and the then-recently released Robb-Silberman report on

intelligence regarding WMDs (to which Russert referred) indicated a clear
connection between Chalabi and Curveball.
• During the fight over President Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito to the
Supreme Court, Russert twice claimed that when former President Bill Clinton
nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the Supreme Court,
Senate Republicans voted for them despite ideological differences with the
"two liberal jurists." Russert also claimed that Alito's judicial philosophy is "no
more conservative than Ginsburg and Breyer's were liberal." Russert wasn't
telling the truth. Ginsburg and Breyer were seen as moderate nominees, not
liberal, and had in fact been recommended for nomination by Republican Sen.
Orrin Hatch of Utah.
• Immediately after the 2004 vice presidential debate between John Edwards
and Dick Cheney, Russert repeated Cheney's claim during the debate that he
had previously never met Edwards until moments before the debate started --
a claim Cheney made in order to suggest that Edwards didn't show up for
work at the Senate. The next morning, Russert noted that in fact the two had
met multiple times before, including one morning in 2001 when they were
both on Meet the Press and, according to Russert, "they stopped and shook
hands." Russert said that, during the debate, he "thought that John Edwards
would call him on it right at that very moment." So -- according to his own
statements -- Russert knew while watching the debate that Cheney had lied.
Yet after the debate, he repeated Cheney's lie, without giving viewers any
indication that it wasn't true.
Is it any wonder that Cheney's staff believes they can control the message on Meet
the Press? The Washington Post's Dana Milbank reported during the Scooter Libby
trial:
Memo to Tim Russert: Dick Cheney thinks he controls you.
This delicious morsel about the "Meet the Press" host and the vice
president was part of the extensive dish Cathie Martin served up
yesterday when the former Cheney communications director took the
stand in the perjury trial of former Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis
"Scooter" Libby.
Flashed on the courtroom computer screens were her notes from 2004
about how Cheney could respond to allegations that the Bush
administration had played fast and loose with evidence of Iraq's
nuclear ambitions. Option 1: "MTP-VP," she wrote, then listed the pros
and cons of a vice presidential appearance on the Sunday show. Under
"pro," she wrote: "control message."
"I suggested we put the vice president on 'Meet the Press,' which was a
tactic we often used," Martin testified. "It's our best format."
If you still aren't persuaded that on Meet the Press, it is often the question -- and the
questioner -- that is the problem, spend a few hours poking around Bob Somerby's
Daily Howler archives. Be sure to seek out his analysis of Russert's interviews with Al
Gore, Howard Dean, and George W. Bush.