Saturday, June 21, 2008

Why the Russert Hagiography?

I had been listening to almost a week of non-stop "remembrances" of Tim Russert. I believe it to have been overkill (come on, The Kennedy Center???) but so be it. I enjoy seeing his face and hearing his words and listening to the explanation for his adulation from others. There aren't that many American heroes that the leftist media is willing to report on and, if they wish to hold Russert up as one, well at least they're acknowledging that the better does, in fact, exist. It's been good to see Russert and to be reminded of the values that made him special.

Still, this coverage that rivals (and exceeds) the coverage of people whose names are known outside the beltway and whose contributions were more than merely asking good questions of politicians demands explanation.

Clearly self-absorption has a lot to do with it. The insularity and arrogance of the media is well-known and thus they think the passing of one of their own is more significant than the passing of a Pope or a President. But, even that doesn't explain it all. After all, while coverage of Peter Jennings' premature passing was overkill as well, it was nowhere near the hagiography we witnessed last week.

So, what is it about Russert that is engendering this kind of passion amongst the leftists in the media?

I suspect it is their recognition of the passing of the last decent man amongst them. Listening to their eulogies one is struck by how what they single out as the qualities that made Russert great are exactly the one's the rest of them violently reject.

Russert had -- and respected -- his Jesuit roots and Catholic faith. This amongst people to whom faith is the greatest of all evils and whose hatred for Christianity (and specifically Catholicism) is legend.

Russert appreciated the people of small town America. Time and again the story was told this week of Russert making his first call after each program to his father, "Big Russ" of Buffalo, New York, to see if he'd lived up to his standards and values. This in opposition to the leftist news man who holds the people of Buffalo (and all other towns outside what they derisively call "fly-over country") is utter disdain, believing, as their hero Barack Obama believes, that these losers "cling" to their values out of "antipathy for people who aren't like them."

Russert was optimistic and happy -- exactly the opposite traits of the Modern Liberal who is constantly angry, jealous, petty and feeling "victimized." Americans are optimistic and happy. Russert was an American.

What we are witnessing in this unprecedented coverage of Tim Russert is the leftist media mourning the passing of the last decent man amongst them. And it could not come at a worse time for the good people of America as we are left only with people whose values are exactly the opposite of Russert's and whose work shows it. Who is going to ask Barack Obama a tough question now? Will it be Chris Matthews who has admitted on air that Obama sends tingles towards his groin or will it be Keith Olbermann who thinks that the "worst person in the world" isn't Osama Bin Ladin or the butchers in the Sudan, but George Bush?

Tim Russert wasn't blessed with some superhuman powers. He was merely a throwback to a mindset lost to Modern Liberalism. He will be missed.

38 comments:

:-D Shea said...

By all accounts a completely decent guy. The country needs more like him to help clarify what is truth and what is BS, what is good and what is evil. He was not afraid to ask what needed to be asked. :-D

Anonymous said...

Nice blog, shea.

Why do you bother?

FJ said...

I think it's something more sinister than self-absorption. I think the hagiographers of the MSM are trying to disguise themselves under a "cloak" fashioned in the image of Russert and rhetorically transfer some of Russert's redeeming professional qualities upon themselves.

I don't think MORE of the MSM media for this vain effort to retain significance, but rather LESS of them for the attempted deception.

Anonymous said...

You don't transfer something upon someone, you transfer something TO someone.

No wonder the educated elitists of the left hold us in such low esteem.

Please, for all our sakes, up your game.

Anonymous said...

Who is going to ask Barack Obama a tough question now? Will it be Chris Matthews who has admitted on air that Obama sends tingles towards his groin

I know he said words to that effect when he saw President Bush in his flight suit, but did he really say this about Obama?

Please post that quote. It could be very useful against our liberal friends.

Evan Sayet said...

Here's a link with the quote from Matthews and the "thrill" that sent "tingles" up this "newsman's" leg. He also admitted at Harvard University that MSNBC is unofficially in the bag or Obama.

Of course, even an admission from the man himself won't move the leftists any more than Obama's affiliation with terrorists, hate-mongers and gangsters will. They are, as David Mamet said about them, brain-dead liberals.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/02/13/matthews-obama-speech-caused-thrill-going-my-leg?q=blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/02/13/matthews-obama-speech-caused-thrill-going-my-leg

Anonymous said...

Matthews is a grotesque. Are you saying you really haven't noticed that lefties hate him even more than Republicans do?

They all call him Tweety and mock him mercilessly.

We've got to be careful about making a big deal of someone having once been a liberal.

After all, we may be running against a former Repub, Webb, in the veep slot. People are going to notice that a LOT more than some guy like Mamet that most never heard of.

Then you've got a whole raft of former GOP critics of the administration who they say with a lot to back it up that it has destroyed the movement.

Anonymous said...

I only hope that the remaing 10,000 liberal "commentators" on television will follow suit.

Anonymous said...

Growing Right-Wing Chorus Backs Impeachment. When Will Pelosi?

By Marc McDonald

By MARC MCDONALD

When Lou Dobbs recently called for the impeachment of George W. Bush, he became only the latest in a growing number of Right-Wingers who are harshly criticizing the White House these days. Dobbs joined Conservatives like Pat Buchanan and Chuck Hagel in slamming Bush and raising the prospect of impeachment.

On June 21, no less a Conservative figure than Paul Craig Roberts, the "Father of Reaganomics," bitterly blasted the Bush Administration, calling it one of the most "lawless regimes" of the 21st Century. Last year, Roberts (who in 2006 called Bush supporters "Brownshirts") urged the immediate impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

Note that we're not talking about Noam Chomsky or Ward Churchill here. We're talking about Roberts (a man who served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration).

These days, the growing chorus of Right-Wingers calling for Bush's impeachment range from articulate writers like Roberts all the way over to Right-Wing radio hate spewers like Michael Savage.

With all these Conservatives raising the issue of impeachment, it's all the more baffling as to why Nancy Pelosi continues to insist that "impeachment is off the table."

Not only that, but the Democrats continue to be bullied by a deeply unpopular president who has approval ratings that are in the toilet. Just in the past week, the Dems meekly caved in on FISA, as well as the massive, no-strings war-funding bill.

When former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan recently added his voice to the anti-Bush chorus, the White House quickly sought to portray him as a lone disgruntled employee, with an ax to grind.

What they didn't address, though, was why so many Right-Wingers are now criticizing Bush in the harshest possible language these days. One thing that is certain, though, is that if the shoe was on the other foot, does anyone think that GOP would hesitate one second in launching impeachment proceedings?



Authors Website: http://www.beggarscanbechoosers.com

Anonymous said...

It bears repetition: Those liberal commentators need to go the way of Russert.

Anonymous said...

We should really be concerned when Michael Savage--along with many others--is deserting our cause; and it's a silly liberal holdiing it together for our side.

John said...

"Growing chorus?"

The "right-wingers" you listed can be counted on one hand.

I'm sure if there 100, or even a 1,000, each and everyone would be named.

John said...

Welcome back, Mr. Sayet.

Anonymous said...

Ass kissing little toady wimp says:

John said...
Welcome back, Mr. Sayet.


Oh, he's a john alright.

:-D Shea said...

Got to love folks taking chickenshit cheap shots while remaining "anonymous" I guess if you have nothing useful to say that's all you can do.
Mr Sayet is back and that's good, Mr Russert is dead and that's a bad thing. We have two presidential candidates who seem to be decent people, one of them is truly qualified and has a record, the other is not and does not. It's an opinion, feel free to disagree but actually say something worth reading or don't bother.

Anonymous said...

This idiot thinks Russert was a liberal?!!

brettmcs said...

fj probably has it right. Lavishing praise on someone can be a way of signaling a kinship (that may not be deserved).

FJ said...

You don't transfer something upon someone, you transfer something TO someone.

Not if it's a group and they're hiding under something.

In other words, don't attempt to correct someone UNLESS you're actually correct yourself. Otherwise you reveal yourself a fool. Fool.

FJ said...

btw - Feel free to point out and correct any typo's and other mispellings I might make. I could use a good secretary. ;-)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
This idiot thinks Russert was a liberal?!!


Alas, my insular, fellow conservatives do indeed believe that Russert was a liberal, a "decent" one no less. Evan, you should check out the liberal blogs or have a younger conservative do some research for you. Russert is hated almost as much as Chris "Tweety" Matthews among the liberals.

Anonymous said...

FJ said...
btw - Feel free to point out and correct any typo's and other mispellings I might make. I could use a good secretary. ;-)


So, you are now reversing yourself and admitting that you are wrong, fj? I will have to make a note of this new development. Your mistake was a grammatical one, not a typo or misspelling. However, you did misspell misspelling above.

spel said...

Feel free to point out and correct any typo's and other mispellings (sic) I might make.

thair wood bee to menny

FJ said...

btw - Feel free to point out and correct any typo's and other mispellings I might make.

So, you are now reversing yourself and admitting that you are wrong, fj?

An illiterate AND stupid FOOL.

Anonymous said...

While we're on the subject of stupid and illiterate FOOLS...

Barack Obama's first general election ad says about 46 seconds in that the Illinois senator passed laws that "extended health care for wounded troops who'd been neglected."

The ad "Country I Love", which was released Friday, provides a citation at the bottom of the screen which reads "Public Law 110 - 181."

The problem is Senator Obama never voted for that legislation. Public Law 110 - 181 is part of the defense authorization bill which passed the Senate in January by a vote of 91 to three with six senators not voting. Barack Obama was among those six absent senators.

Anonymous said...

FJ said...
btw - Feel free to point out and correct any typo's and other mispellings I might make.


Btw, the plural of typo is typos, silly.

Anonymous said...

p.s. you also misspelled misspellings again. You just never learn, do you?

John said...

Why do liberals pretend they're conservatives while attacking conservatives?

Anonymous said...

John said...
Why do liberals pretend they're conservatives while attacking conservatives?



How is correcting a person's grammar or spelling attacking him? Poor communicators are rightfully disdained by the more educated, liberal elitist snobs.

FJ said...

Thanks anon. Glad to see you've finally found something useful to do here!

Anonymous said...

He was merely a throwback to a mindset lost to Modern Liberalism.

Thank god. You mean they don't believe in being Jack Welch's little, fat whore?

John said...

"How is correcting a person's grammar or spelling attacking him? Poor communicators are rightfully disdained by the more educated, liberal elitist snobs."

I wasn't responding to your preceding comment. I was just making a general observation.

btw, nitpicking careless misspellings and typos doesn't detract from the point being communicated.

And being "elitist" is not the same as being truly elite.

Anonymous said...

Of course, you are wrong:

From online Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: elit·ism
1: leadership or rule by an elite
2: the selectivity of the elite
3: consciousness of being or belonging to an elite
— elit·ist \-ˈlē-tist\ noun or adjective

John said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

Au contraire, of course, you're wrong.

To call someone an "elitist" in a political context is derogatory and you should know that since you leftISTS love to add the suffix "ist" at the end of words to make them derogatory, like corparitIST and militarIST.

Is philanthropist Bill Gates a "corporatist?"

Why not? What's the definition of corporation?

Is General Wesley Clark a "militarist"?

Why not? Look up the definition of military.

So being an "elitist" does not refer to one who is truly elite/ excellent, and is indeed derogatory and nothing to own up to.

But lefty elitists are idiots and think they're turning the tables by doing just that.

Furthermore, apart from political lingo, the American Heritage dictionary defines "elitist" thusly:

"e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism (ĭ-lē'tĭz'əm, ā-lē'-)
n.
The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources."

Still want to own up to that?

It was just yesterday that you accused the GOP of being just that.

FJ said...

The hoi kokoi are an 'elite' of a sort... ;-)

Anonymous said...

I think you're on the right track - these people are so busy being too smart for religion, too sophisticated, etc, but they admired it in Russert. It's because they don't have it, but they liked the fact that he had the gumption to have faith, which they're afraid of.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/06/sally-quinns-ignorance-or-arro.html
Other points of view;
http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/06/27/sally-quinn-a-tribute-too-far/

Anonymous said...

the best piece I've seen written on Russert. thanks. z

John said...

"Hoi kakoi."

I like that very much.