To Pressure One Person to Repudiate Another Is Despicable

It is to be expected that the American people should want to know the political, social, economic, and moral views of their candidates for President. By the same token, if Presidential candidates have associations with people of disreputable character or noxious views, it is to be expected that we would want to hear an explanation for the association and to what extent the candidate shares those views. It is even reasonable to assume in some cases that we would think it important that the candidate repudiate the noxious views of the person with whom s/he is associated.

But for a journalist to demand that a Presidential candidate (or anyone else) repudiate another person – as opposed to repudiating specific views of that person – is despicable. There can be only one reason for that sort of game: to put the candidate in a lose-lose position, in an attempt to destroy the candidate’s electoral prospects.

If Tim Russert had an honest bone in his body he would be openly working for the Republican Party rather than shilling for them while posing as a neutral journalist. His pressuring of Barack Obama last Sunday to again repudiate Jeremiah Wright was a standard ploy of his and was despicable for its rank hypocrisy. Knowing full well that Obama had already repudiated Wright’s words that many Americans (not including me) found offensive, Russert said:


Russert then played a tape where Obama had some nice things to say about Wright, including “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community”. Russert’s point was that since Obama refused then to “disown” Wright as a person, the fact that he (Obama) had made crystal clear that he did not share Wright’s controversial views counted for nothing.

Obama then described in detail why Wright’s more recent statements elicited a more vigorous response from him (Obama), following which Russert continued on the attack as if he hadn’t heard a word Obama said:


Well, Tim, you despicable idiot: 1) You know damn well Obama clearly expressed his views on this 5 weeks ago; 2) He just explained to you reason for his recent more vigorous rebuttal of Wright, and most important of all; 3) It is not Obama’s responsibility to rebut all of Wright’s controversial remarks or to “disown” him as a person.

This reminded me of something very similar that Russert did to Wes Clark four years ago, when many considered Clark to be the strongest Democratic Presidential candidate.


Russert’s attempt to get Wesley Clark to repudiate Michael Moore

When Wesley Clark announced his bid for the Presidency in 2004, many people (including me) believed that he would be the Democrats’ best chance of taking the White House back from George Bush. When Clark appeared on “Meet the Press”, Russert’s idea of journalism was to try to get him to repudiate Michael Moore for referring to George Bush as a deserter during a Clark rally at which Clark was present:


Clark explained to him that he would not have used those words himself. That should have been enough right there. But the idiot pit bull wouldn’t let up:


Clark reiterated that he wouldn’t have used those words. He added that he doesn’t screen what his supporters say, and that Michael Moore has a right to his opinions. Then Russert tried to get him to offer an opinion on whether or not George Bush was a deserter:


Clark responded that he hadn’t looked into the issue, and then he tried to change the subject to how George Bush had performed his job as President. Then Russert tried to press the issue for a fourth time:


Clark responded by saying that he had not met a single person who thought the issue was important, that he thought Michael Moore was a “man of conscience”, and that he was happy to have his support.

I would add to those words that it was not Wes Clark’s responsibility to determine whether or not George Bush was a deserter. Nor was it his responsibility to defend George Bush against those charges – unless he had knowledge that those charges were false. But of course he did not have any such knowledge. Nor did anyone else.

But while it was not Wes Clark’s responsibility to investigate that issue, one could make a reasonable case that it was Tim Russert’s responsibility to do so. I mean, isn’t Michael Moore charging George Bush with desertion less important than whether George Bush really is a deserter. Let’s take a look at how Russert “investigated” that issue.


Russert’s handling of George Bush and his administration

Shortly after chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay exposed the lie of Iraqi WMDs in February 2004, the White House needed to repair some of the political damage. Bush chose Russert for that purpose. Anthony Lappe, in his book, “True Lies”, describes Russert’s interview of Bush on his February 8th, 2004 edition of Meet the Press:


For example, in response to Russert’s asking if he would authorize the release of his military records to settle the question of whether or not Bush was AWOL from the National Guard, Bush answered “Yes, absolutely. We did so in 2000, by the way.”

Russert, regarded as one of the most well prepared journalists on television, must have known that that was a bald faced lie. Marty Heldt had previously publicly made clear that his efforts to obtain information on Bush’s military records through the Freedom of Information Act had been rejected. But Russert just let Bush’s bald faced lie slide.

And in an interview with Dick Cheney shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks on our country, Cheney tried to explain the pitiful response of his administration to the attacks:


Again, Russert must have known that Cheney’s contention that “the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft” was a lie, since fighter jets routinely intercept commercial aircraft under certain designated circumstances (such as hijacked aircraft) without requiring or asking for approval from the White House. But again, Russert made no challenge of that ridiculous assertion by Cheney, and did not even follow up on it.

So Tim, rather than ask Wes Clark if he thought George Bush is a deserter, why didn’t you shed some light for us on that subject yourself?


Jeremiah Wright in perspective

The biggest rap against Wright is that he has made some very passionately critical statements against his/our country. Most of all, he is very upset not only about the many atrocities that our country has committed in the past, but that by not fully owning up to those atrocities we make it likely that they will be repeated over and over again. From his recent interview with Bill Moyers:


Tim Russert accused him last Sunday of “hate speech”. Does Jeremiah Wright hate it that his country has done the things noted above, and continues to do them? Of course he does. So do I. And so do most of us at DU.

What about Wright’s statement about “chickens coming home to roost” after we were attacked on 9-11-01? Did he mean to imply that those who were killed or otherwise suffered from those attacks individually deserved it or brought it on themselves? I doubt that very much. Rather, he was commenting upon the utter ignorance or arrogance of those who were so indignant over those attacks, who see nothing that our country did to bring them on, and who are now so set on revenge that the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians means nothing to them. Again from the interview with Bill Moyers:


Is that hate? I doubt it. Obama has criticized Wright for his “divisive” speech. My own personal opinion of the matter is that sometimes the truth is divisive, but that it is often necessary to talk about the truth despite its divisiveness.

So I differ from Obama on that issue. But he’s running for President, and I’m not running for anything. In fairness to him, if he were to embrace Wright’s criticism of our country his candidacy would be dead in the water, John McCain would be elected to carry on George Bush’s legacy, and we would likely be heading towards WW III.

That Obama was able to handle this situation without allowing his candidacy to blow up is truly amazing when one considers that much of our corporate news media is doing all it can to destroy him.


Concluding thoughts on the attempt to destroy Barack Obama with Jeremiah Wright

We all know why this is the big hot issue of the day. Our corporate news media is afraid that Barack Obama might upset the status quo. What could be scarier to corporate America than a presidential candidate who can raise record setting amounts of cash while receiving most of his donations from small donors?

So this was their great opportunity to bring him down. They’ve pursued this opportunity by appealing to the basest of American instincts: hyper-nationalism disguised as patriotism and racism. They are hoping that many Americans will be so incensed over Wright’s criticisms of their country that they will blame Obama for his association with Wright. And they are hoping that racism that may have thus far remained latent in many Americans contemplating voting for Obama will be stirred up by the spectre of an angry, hateful, revengeful black man.

But few Americans are taking the bait, and our corporate media’s characterization of Wright is way off the mark. Obama previously characterized Wright in this way:


There was no decent reason for so-called journalists to pressure Obama to denounce Wright. Obama had made perfectly clear to the world that he did not share the controversial views of Wright that sparked the controversy. That should have been enough.

I am not just saying that because I support Obama’s candidacy. I would say the same thing about the situation with John McCain regarding his endorsement by John Hagee, although Obama’s relationship to Wright is much more personal and less political than McCain’s relationship to Hagee. Hagee has made some very bigoted statements that I find repugnant. All I would ask of McCain is that he reject those statements. Whether or not he rejects Hagee as a person is a personal matter that is not of interest to me.

Well thought out, well researched, well put post. Russert is a GOP tool.

:kick: & recommend

an incident related by Al Gore to Anthony Lappe, which took place shortly before the 2000 election at the Al Smith dinner, attended by Gore and Bush. Here is Lappe’s description from his book:

:puke:

ew ew ew. Russert = shite.

It shows every time Russert gives an "interview." There's no reason ... he'll slant it the way he wants.

*insert expletive here*

Your post is wonderful ammunition against the MSM influence.

Prior to Bush’s being awarded the presidency, as described by Eric Alterman in “What Liberal Media?”, Russert referred to Bush’s “future presidency” nineteen times, and he referred to Bush himself as “President Elect Bush”. On NBC Nightly News on November 8th, Russert said that Gore “can’t extend it too long, nor can he become a whiner about Florida”. He asked Dick Cheney if he thought that Gore was being a “sore loser”. And when Bush’s Florida campaign chairman, Katherine Harris, announced George Bush as the winner of the Florida election, based on the fact that the uncounted ballots hadn’t been counted by what she interpreted as the deadline date, Russert announced on his November 26th edition of Meet the Press, “He (Bush) has now been declared the official winner of the Florida election … and therefore is the forty-third president of the United States.”

And he tried, ultimately successfully, to get Gore’s running mate, Joe Lieberman to make concessions. On Meet the Press during the height of the controversy, as related in Robert Shogan’s book “Bad News”:


When Lieberman refused to agree, Russert persisted:


Of course, the Florida Supreme Court, in a losing effort to preserve democracy in our country, did NOT rule that the hand recount should not be counted, as Russert was so fervently hoping for.

But then there was the issue of 680 controversial, illegal and probably phony overseas military ballots, which went heavily for Bush. As Eric Alterman describes this situation in his book:


Eventually, the efforts of the Bush campaign, Russert, and other “journalists” paid off, as Lieberman announced directly to Russert on Meet the Press that the Gore/Lieberman campaign would not dispute the counting of those 680 questionable ballots.

He still has that special comment posted prominently on his site so that it is the first thing that you see, even though as he was making the comment, Hillary Clinton was offering a public apology and rejection and repudiation of Ferraro's remarks and also an apology for her husband's "Jesse Jackson" remark.

I believe that KO was right when he accepted Obama's explanation two days later that he would not reject Wright as a human being because it was not right to reject another human being, just their words or actions. Therefore, I do not understand why he still has that Special Comment with its demand that Clinton reject another person displayed so prominently as if he is still espousing the same view.

Dualism is a dangerous thing. The ultimate act of evil is to label another person evil or unnecessary and tell that person "I reject you. This world would be a better place without you." That kind of thinking lead to the witch hunts and the Inquisition and the genocides.

We must all respect other people. Even if we do not agree with their actions, human beings have certain rights, and one of them is the right to exist and to be treated with dignity. They also have the right to free speech. We have the right not to agree with them or to associate with them. But once we start labeling them "evil" we move into dangerous territory--like suspending civil liberties.

is that Ferraro was speaking as a representative of the Clinton Campaign. Wright was not. In fact Ferraro's words were directed at Obama during the campaign, whereas Wrights sermons were taken from a time that BHO was not running for office.

just sayin'...

:shrug:

I still feel that Keith chose his words wrong when he said at the end of his special comment that Clinton should "repudiate" Ferraro. But as Keith pointed out, the kind of comments that Ferraro made had been made by others in her campaign, and so the main focus of his special comment was that Hillary should strongly repudiate the message that her campaign was putting out.

I have great admiration for KO, though I don't agree with some of the things that he said in this particular special comment. In particular, I don't agree with his demand at the end of the special comment that Clinton denounce Ferraro. Saying that she should denounce Ferraro's words (in more explicit terms than she already had) would have been a much better statement IMO.

The great bulk of this special comment was not about denouncing Ferraro as a person. Rather, it was about a pattern of what Keith interprets as racism in Clinton's campaign. He made the point that many similar things (to what Ferraro had recently said) had been said in the Clinton campaign, including by Hillary's own husband. He brought up the point that Hillary had recently said that McCain would make a more experienced Commander-in-Chief than Obama. And he brought up the point that the Clinton campaign manager had tried to imply that Ferraro's remarks were Obama's fault, and that Hillary didn't distance herself from those remarks either.

I categorically reject any serious comparison between KO and Russert. Keith is one of the most courageous journalists our country has or has ever had. Unlike Russert, who pretends to be perfectly neutral and always disguises his attempts to destroy Democratic candidates by hiding behind words like "some say", or "critics say", when Keith has an opinion he always owns up to it. That is a big difference. Keith's rants about the Bush administration are always based on a ton of facts and solid reasoning. They are well founded and deserved. The main thing that one could say about him is that when it comes to powerful public figures he will tell it like it is -- or at least like the way he sees it after giving it very serious thought.

Keith's main objection to Senator Clinton in this special comment had to do with the way that she has been running her campaign. That is very different than the Wright-Obama thing. Obama made it clear a long time ago that he didn't want Wright to play a role in his campaign.

I do vigorously disagree with your statement that "The ultimate act of evil is to label another person evil or unnecessary and tell that person "I reject you...." In my very considered opinion, there ARE evil people in the world, and saying so is not a bad thing. In fact, it is very important to recognize evil people for who they are IMO. I have often said that Bush and Cheney are evil. I have said that Hitler is evil. Do you honestly believe that in doing that I have committed the "ultimate act of evil".

is an illusion. Hilter from 1940 still exists in a very real sense. And Hitler the small child who is being beaten and mocked by his father also exists in a very real sense if you understand the true nature of the universe as Einstein so brilliantly described it. When you call Hitler "evil" you are also calling the small brutalized child evil.

When I was 14, reading "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" I read a passage about how Hitler did not drink, smoke, consume meat and how he was faithful to Eva Braun and the only reason he did not marry her was to prevent her from becoming a target for assassination. And I realized that he did not set out to become a cartoon "villain." He thought of himself as a "hero" who was ridding the world of "evil" people.

Kill a villain, become a villain. Name a villain, become a villain. Hate a villain, become a villain. Why do you think that Dr. King and Gandhi and the Dali Lama and Christ and Buddha were always going o about love and compassion and ending hatred? It is impossible to harbor feelings of hatred towards another human being without hated oneself. Absolutely impossible.

I know that the years I have spent as a physician have made it easier for me to love people whom some of you at DU would blow off. When people hurt or are afraid or are dying, they all become lovable and deserving of respect and care. It is sad that we can not afford others this degree of compassion when they are just living their day to day lives.

Journalists are supposed to have that same experience. But KOs "journalism" nowadays seems to be all sports and then reading stories that someone else hands him. Maybe if he got out and did some news reporting he could get back in touch with his humanity. I used to think he could become the next Walter Cronkite. But I was watching the way that Cronkite did the Dr. King assassination and there is no way that KO could do that moment in his current state of mind. He would be looking for angles and conspiracies instead of helping to deal with the grief.

If he could criticize Clinton with love the way that he criticizes Obama with love it would be different. But he resorts to the hate speech of the right wing when he talks about her. He has denied her humanity. That means he has cut himself from his own humanity--which is why he is less than he used to be. I keep watching the show, because I used to like the program and I hope that he will get back to normal once Wolffe and the others who are using him lay off.

I think I knew something was wrong when he had Lawrence O'Donnell on the show a few days after "John Edwards is a Loser" to criticize John Edwards for criticize Obama for saying some nice things about Reagan. KO claimed the next day that he did not know about "John Edwards is a Loser". If so, that means that he is politically uninformed and very naive---and it means that someone got him to put O'Donnell on the show and use him to discredit Edwards and pump up Obama, even after that awful article, even knowing that it would earn KO tons of grief from Democrats. It showed that KO was vulnerable to being manipulated in a way that no national news journalist with his clout should be. Can you imagine someone pulling something like that on Stephen Colbert or John Stewart? (I love Stephen Colbert. I wish all real journalists were as smart as him.)

I judge people by their actions, not their words. The fact that Hitler didn't smoke or drink and claimed to be faithful to Eva Braun means nothing to me. Compare that against his death camps that killed tens of millions of people, and I say he was evil. In order to be convinced otherwise I would have to see a lot more evidence than that he didn't smoke or drink, etc.

If MLK, Gandhi, the Dali Lama, Christ and Buddha would not consider Hitler evil (and I'm not convinced that they wouldn't), then so be it. I can't see it that way. If that makes me a "villain", as you say, then that's what I am.

With regard to KO, I don't see it as you see it. I'm not happy that he has expended a lot of energy in denouncing Clinton. I don't like a lot of what she has done, but I would rather not talk about it because, compared to the need to beat John McCain this fall, it is not important to me. And every time we denounce her we impair party unity. But I don't expect KO to be perfect. If he sometimes does something that I disagree with, that doesn't take much away from the great courage that he showed by taking on the Bush administration, when so few others in his position were willing to do it.

Absolutely fantastic!

:kick: :kick: :kick:

"If Tim Russert had an honest bone in his body ..."

He doesn't - and you've described his lack of honesty and integrity all too well!

Can't watch him too often, because he's programmed and, of course, he's Bad To The Bones

Now there's a visual I will never get out of my head!

:rofl:

Pulling out a highly partisan analysis of Dean’s tax plan, Russert asked Dean, “Can you honestly go across the country and say, “I’m going to raise your taxes 4,000 percent or 107 percent and be elected?”. Then Russert erroneously informed his viewers that Dean’s teenage son had been indicted for steeling beer.

And the fatal trap came when Russert asked how many men and women were serving in the U.S. military. When Dean said he didn’t know the exact number Russert lectured him, saying that “As commander in Chief, you should know that.”

An argument then ensued between Dean and Russert on this subject. Though I felt that Dean did a fine job of handling this, I tried to view the exchange through the eyes of a typical undecided American voter, and my conclusion was (later verified, I believe) that Dean was hurt badly by this episode. Indeed, the conventional wisdom was that Dean “failed” Russert’s test, and that Russert “cleaned Dean’s clock”. And I do believe that if not for this interview Howard Dean would be President today.

By that I don’t mean to criticize Dean. To put it bluntly, he was put in an untenable position. Here was “the ultimate unbiased nonpartisan” journalist telling him that he was unfit to be president. If he argued too strenuously with Russert about this he might appear to viewers to be belittling the responsibilities of the Presidency. If he argued not strenuously enough he might appear to be conceding that Russert was correct about his unfitness for the Presidency. Russert is a master of putting people in untenable positions like that.

I'm afraid that he was just warming up against Obama last Sunday. Obama handled it very well. But I shudder to think what Russert will have in store for him next time. That will be a titanic battle, and if Obama handles it without losing any ground that will prove him one of the most masterful politicians we've ever had IMO.

Don't go defending CNN, now, when they say "this sort of thing is no
longer relevant, it's been done to death and it's not appropriate to
bring it up with ANY candidate" when Obama supporters attempt to
bring up other religious leaders such as Hagee or Coe.

when they're being attacked about the Obama-Wright relationship.

Nevertheless, if McCain makes clear that he rejects Hagee's bigoted statements (and I believe he has), I accept that. That doesn't mean, of course, that I would ever consider voting for him. He is a war monger. He would nominate justices for the USSC that would make it a radical right wing court for decades to come and could destroy our Constitution. He would continue the tremendously toxic wealth divide in our country. There are a multitude of reasons to vote for Obama over McCain. But with regard to Hagee's endorsement I don't feel that it's necessary or worth while to demand that McCain go beyond denouncing Hagee's bigoted comments.

Did CNN really say "this sort of thing is no longer relevant, it's been done to death and it's not appropriate to bring it up with ANY candidate"? (I rarely watch CNN any more). And if they did, do they still continue to harp on the Obama-Wright thing? That would be terribly hypocritical if they did that.

And his Special Comment demanding Clinton repudiate Ferraro.

Of course I didn't expect you too. Fairness is not in your vocabulary.

And like most hangovers, it's a real pain in the brain.

and deliberately posing as a "journalist" during an INTERVIEW and shilling directly for a political position or agenda. The main issue for me, at this point in the election process, is that the people who should be asking questions about conduct is the PUBLIC - and those questions should be directed at the so-called "journalists" who are hired by private corporations to function as alleged professionals on the public airwaves.

I don't have a problem with editorializing when it is placed in a compartment of a program dedicated TO editorial opinion. When editorializing becomes part of the questioning, however, I have a major issue with the "journalist." There is simply no excuse for the bullsh*t "some people think" or "critics say" routine - every one of us know that the Wright nonsense brewed around the right-wing blogs for months and that is where the "mainstream" media picked it up. They don't attribute where they got their information because the bias will be even more obvious. Instead, they pull out the vague "some people believe" and "many people say" and expect the public to swallow the crap. Well, there are over 300 million people in this country, and every damn one of us has a NAME, and the media has no problem representing a viewpoint using a direct source when they want to - those vague terms are used often to disguise political bias on the media's part.

It doesn't matter to me if you are a Clinton supporter or an Obama supporter - but I do think the public needs to find a way to confront the media and demand a more professional product. And I'm not talking about boycotting, though I suspect ABC is feeling some pain from that joke of a debate a couple of weeks ago - I mean, putting these people (and these companies) in a position where they need to answer some questions about their professional conduct and training.

Imagine someone from the public interviewing George Steph or Russert or O'Reilly and asking them some of this line of questioning? Shouldn't they, as employees of networks being licensed to use the public airwaves, be held to some kind of accountability? Shouldn't we be able to play them a tape of their OWN work, where they are using the "some people say" routine and then ask them "Who ARE some people, Tim? We'd like to know who those people are? How did you determine that they are "some"? What critics, Tim? Can you give us a couple of familiar names?"

No doubt, journalists should be held accountable for their performance. If doctors require licenses to practice medicine, why shouldn't journalists, who have the privilege of using the public airwaves to reach millions of Americans with their message, be held accountable in that manner?

I would love to see Russert and others like him publicly interviewed over their many mis-uses of their privileges. Russert has no right to have the platform that he does IMO.

I don't think so....

But I've changed my mind over time as I watch him speak. Someone who breaks all sorts of records for fund raising by getting so many small donations that he doesn't need money from the big donors is not someone who has a mandate to maintain the status quo.

has been in the tank for the GOP since Jack Welch took him and Tweety Matthews aside and told them they'd be rich if they'd use their positions a journalists to get Republicans elected so as to allow media consolidation.
Both Russert and Tweety were disgusting in their blue dress coverage back in 98. It was then that I realized the corporate media was in league with those paragons of Soviet journalism, TAAS, Pravda and Izvestia.
The Internet has changed the political landscape, and Barack Obama has done a better job of understanding and using its power than his rivals in politics and the old media.
Those who have been successful with the old political campaign model (Terry McAullife) are doing everything in their power to resist the change and remain behind the curve. They will try every thing and any thing to maintain the status quo. Soon they will join buggy whip salesmen in History's dust bin.
Things change, and those who've made a comfortable living under the old model cling to what's worked for them in the past. Expect them to give up power when we tear it from their cold dead fingers.

It is quite evident that they both do everything they can to destroy Democrats, yet put on a good show of being neutral, that seems to fool a lot of people, though I don't know why. I heard that Tweety plans to run for the U.S. Senate in PA -- as a Dem!!!

Do you have any good evidence of what went on between Welch and the two of them? I would be very interested in seeing that. Or is it mostly speculation, based on their actions over the past 10 years?

Their behavior indicates that something happened as both were Democrats. I don't know if Tweety will run as a Democrat or Republican, but his brother ran for office as a Republican, and while being interviewed by Stephen Colbert, Tweety stated that he was a Republican.

If he gets the Democratic nomination, we lose either way.

If so, and your intentions are just, pls provide a link.

:shrug:

It's post # 18:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5833813#5836307

Which we all seem to want... but have failed to consider the consequences.

To be honest... there are many things about any of or candidates that are simply nobody's business. But.. we have made them our business and, in so doing, have turned politics into a veritable circus.

Here's what I don't want to know:

*I do not want to see the candidate's family member's tax returns.

*I do not want to hear about the candidate's beliefs about god.

*I am not interested in the sexual affairs or orientations of our candidates.

All of these things are nothing more than distractions from the important question of "can the candidate do the job we need him or her to do?"

I remember a time when we did not know who JFK was sleeping with. When we did not ask whether WJC ate arugula or lettuce. When we really didn't give a damn about how much Jimmy Carter earned before he entered public service. And, to be honest, I think we were better off.

Our obsessions with the details of our candidates private lives can be traced to one thing: the GOP playbook. As Democrats, we need to quit getting our panties knotted over this sh**. It is ruining our party.

Which was their plan all along, doncha know?

That book frames a great need to know about the details of the lives of Democrats, but the lives of Republicans are almost totally out of bounds. Does anyone think that Obama would be a viable candidate if he had left his semi-invalid wife, as McCain did? I doubt very much that he would. Yet, the Wright issue will not die away as long as the campaign goes on, while McCain's divorce will hardly be mentioned.

I once read a biography of JFK called "A question of character". The whole theme of the book dealt with his sex life and how that might have affected his presidency. Yet when the book was all done, the author had to grudgingly admit that JFK grew a great deal while in office, and in fact hardly came up with any personal thing that affected his presidency. The worst he came up with was that there could have been a dire national emergency in the midst of one of JFK's sexual episodes. When I was done with the book I had a higher opinion of him than when I started, thinking, "If that's the best that a historian who has contempt for him can come up with..."

All over this board, for instance.... "When will we see so and so's tax returns?" Or "when will so and so tell us about their relationship with (insert name.)" Or "why did so and so buy a new plane?"

The questions really is: "Who gives a flying f*** about any of that?"

Can the person in question do the job of P.O.T.U.S.? Or not? Period.

Doesn't opening them up to public inspection help to decrease the likelihood of widespread corruption?

you're too reasonable and polite for a nation full of cowboy wannabes, phoney puritans and assorted mixed nuts.

But maybe... the Time for change has finally come? :*

But, even this simple data... which should be but one of many indicators... has garnered ridiculous levels of scrutiny in recent years. And is rapidly on it's way to being a huge distraction in the coming election...

Just MHO.

a fucking bornagainmoran.

I hate him.