Tim Russert is an Idiot 41


OK.  That may seem a little harsh, I know, but what else makes the least bit of sense?  Either that or he’s a traitor.  Which is it Tim?  Stupid or sinister?  Chuck Todd, too.  There is simply no way these seemingly intelligent men with years of experience can possibly believe anything that is coming out of their mouths.  You can see it in some of their faces before the camera cuts away.  It is a transparent illusion with a manufactured narrative that is designed to change our perception of reality.  It is the start of the next Big Lie.

Both them, plus David Gregory and some red-headed chick I can’t name right now and a couple of other dip-shits were on Meet the Press this morning playing electoral college games with assumptions based on stupidity and lack of context.  Why are these assumptions stupid?  They basically pluck John Kerry out of his 2004 race and insert Barack Obama. They do the same with Bush and McCain.  Now, the “board” is all nicely split into red and blue states, along with pink and light blue states.  Don’t forget those yellow “swing” states Virginia and Iowa.

This brain trust then starts to discuss how Barack will have a hard time beating McCain in certain places and go on about how close this race is as if the 2008 primary never happened.  As if Barack didn’t get more votes by himself in Virginia than ALL the republicans combined.  He also got more than ALL republicans combined in Texas.  He got more votes than the top two republicans combined in Georgia and democrats have enjoyed a more than two-to-one turnout advantage in most states.  Three-to-one in many.

Now these states considered shoe-ins for McCain because Bush “won” them in 2004?  That doesn’t come close to astute or intelligent observation about facts and trends from this campaign season so far.  These clowns couldn’t analyse the consistency of dog poo, let alone anticipate the trends of the general election at so far a remove if they didn’t even understand the changing demographics of this primary season.  Whatever the case may be, they are some of the stupidest people we have ever put on TV (with Russert & Todd I am willing to stipulate that) and the mouthpieces for a widespread disinformation campaign as dictated by their corporate pimps.

This silly little people actually think we won’t notice that they are once again trying to paint this race as much closer than it really is.  They don’t think we’ll notice that they did it with the democratic primary as well.  They think the Internet is “neat” and a great way to research without getting your hands dirty.  <a href=”http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/politics-30.php”>Otherwise, they don’t get it and never will.  Barack gets it.</a>  They don’t understand why this awesome tool is the reasons their efforts will fail this year as we put Barack Obama in the White House with margins in the 10 to 15 percent area in most, if not all, of the states and a turnout in the 70 to 75-percent range.

That is what the primary numbers are telling us.  Between lackluster republican turnout and an excited and energized democratic party, the electoral map is looking to be rewritten for the first time since Ronald Reagan did it in 1984’s re-election campaign.  Any intelligent observer would realize that this is a very real possibility given what we have seen so far in 2008.  Hell, an observer with an 80 IQ could see that this year.  So what is Russert et al’s excuse?

I submit that there isn’t one.

They are the Goebbels and Hearst’s of our time. They have zero integrity and only seek to serve their corporate pimps.  They are so bought and paid for that the CEO of GE could call Timmy up and tell him to dance naked on his desk on live TV Sunday morning and Timmy would only ask, “What kind of dance?”

Where does that leave us?  Same place as before.  We need to be extra loud and extra talkative with our friends and family though.  Every time they say, “You know, the media says this is a really close race.” you need to explain why that isn’t necessarily so.  You need to mention the primary results from both parties and turnout percentages and historical presidents between primary turnout (low) and general turnout (high) and why that benefits the democratic party this year.

You need to counter the myth that this election will be anything other than a complete and total landslide if the people don’t let the media and polls dictate their reality again this year.

<a href=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTN3s2iVKKI&feature=related”>We have to recognize that they are the illusion.  We are what is real.  Let’s prove to them this year that the era of corporate propaganda is over.  We dictate reality, not the idiots on the tube.</a>

IT'S EASY TO SHARE

Facebooktwitterredditmail

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

41 thoughts on “Tim Russert is an Idiot

  • DW

    I like Chuck Todd. He also said this was likely to be a landslide election. He was trying to be fair by saying it could go either way. But he’s said before he sees this year like 1980. Tight race until the end when everyone breaks for change. This time, our party is on the side of change.

    • JasonEverettMiller

      I didn’t hear that this morning, but I don’t even think it is close at all, so a break at the end will only mean bigger margins than are already likely.

      I guess my main point is that this year isn’t 1980 or 19804 or 2004. They need to quite basing assumptions on false analogies and then pretending like their prognostications actually mean anything.

    • TIKITEMBO

      I like Chuck Todd too. I was seriously thinking of making a shirt that proclaimed it.

      But Timr Russert is an idiot. Todd however did a really great job with helping me get my delegate breakdown fix.

  • Humanity_Critic

    I feel you Jason, the fact that these talking heads are using John Kerry as their election template is just downright clumsy. That being said, though I agree with everything you said – I kind of like the idea that these idiot pundits have it so monumentally wrong. I mean, if the McCain people can get a false sense of security come November, it just spells a bigger presidential victory for Barack Obama. Just my two cents.

    • JasonEverettMiller

      I have been waiting for that for a long time. We saw a taste of it in new Hampshire. I am hoping the general election will be just like New Hampshire writ large across the entire country. If any year made that possible, this is the year.

    • JasonEverettMiller

      That’s a good site. I think he leaves out a couple of possible upsets based on turnout for the primaries, but this seems pretty close based on what we have seen so far. I can’t tell where his numbers come from. Is a compilation of polls or just certain ones?

      • clearthinker

        It’s a compilation on a huge number polls which he subscribes to. His site is highly mathematical and the predictions are based on data, not “gut feel”.

        Spread the word on that site — it’s a good one!

    • TM

      NBC is treating us like friggin Russerts with this BS.

      The media conglomerates are going to skew things. They have to protect their investment in the GOP and protect all the monopolies that Bush’s administration Ok’ed.

    • JasonEverettMiller

      Ha! Can we get “Don’t be a Russert.” inserted into the lexicon? Same thing as saying, “Don’t be a stupid asshole.”

  • jpwolf

    Hey Jason, I don’t disagree with you a bit that the electoral map stands a good chance of getting shaken up in this election, owing not only to Obama’s “purple” appeal, but just as significantly owing to McCain’s “purple” appeal.

    A quibble with your post’s main thesis, though. Electoral maps on TV that give matchups between Obama and McCain aren’t based on John Kerry’s performance. They’re based on current state-by-state polling. That IS Obama’s map, as it looks now. Don’t blame the messenger for not showing you the electoral sea change you are hoping for … it’s not there in the polls yet, so let it come, if it’s to come.

    • JasonEverettMiller

      Actually, when they ran through their numbers this morning, they drew the map based on 2004 election results. They may reflect polling as it stands, but polling has already shown to use flawed and varied methodology. Which poll do we believe? Do we instead believe the actual election returns and turnout numbers from the primaries? I submit that the actual results are more a reflection of reality than polls.

      • Lamont

        Er, hello, not everyone that votes in presidential elections votes in primaries. And many of those that do vote on whim, thinking that they can learn more for their final decision later.

        Sorry, no link, see a gazillion studies, papers and reports on that which is called the ever growing independent, swing and blue dog vote in like the last 8 presidential elections.

        Your flippant belief in an assured landslide, with many months to go, and many things you can’t even envision bound to happen, with many low infornmation voters knowing little of Obama, is quite dangerous. Everyone said McCain was out of the race only a few months ago.

        • Lamont

          Ya know, I just reread your post and I think your arrogant manner in writing is like the worst of Tim Russert et. al. times 10. You know absolutely everything, how its all going to turn out; he at least tries to present a narrative of some unknowns.

          • JasonEverettMiller

            I guess you didn’t read close enough, because what I am saying is that there is no way for anyone to know anything for certain, but if one was going to make predictions then using the actual primary results as a measure makes more sense than using polls.

            General elections, by and large, have twice the turnout that primaries do. General elections includes primary voters plus everyone else who isn’t a political junkie. The turnout this year is many magnitudes higher than it has ever been. This means a higher general election turnout than years past, if we are going to use precedent as the measure.

            A “gazillion” studies profiling past elections is useless this year given what we have already seen. Democratic turnout is breaking all records from the last 40 years. Republican turnout has been depressed like no time in the past 40 years as well. Seems a pretty common sense conclusion that indicators from past elections won’t be of much use this year.

          • Fran

            One thing that interests me about turnout is that, historically, the general reverses the trend of the primary in that men turn out more than women.

            I’m fascinated to see if that’s going to hold this year.

          • JasonEverettMiller

            I’d love to see all demographics turnout in ways that have never seen. This could be an historic year when we finally make good on a national mandate for change from all quarters.

  • Caringthinkingperson

    Jason, I love ya, but maybe you woke up on the wrong side of the bed? I heard them say twice that this was most likely going to be a landslide, and that going by the old electoral college numbers was not taking any of Obama’s work into account. What they do say is that he makes claims that he can change the map. That is not untrue. Until he does makes good on that claim, it is only a proposal.

    Additionally they were very clear that the conventional wisdom is a two pronged attack on McCain – registering new voters, and depending on exhausting his resources defending supposedly red states. It won’t matter how many states are red if he has to financially defend them all. He doesn’t have the money for it. Then when he is broke, they will be able to pick off the states where being identified as red is more in question. That’s why they said landslide. They were using the fact that many of these states were only considered red after Gore and Kerry, and that this was not neccessarily a permanent distinction.

    Did we see the same broadcast? Although, I can consistently find something idiotic coming out of David Gregory’s mouth. The red head was Kelli O’Donnell. NBC correspondant covering the McCain campaign – been with him on the road from the beginning.

    • JasonEverettMiller

      I woke up to them discussing the electoral map based on 2004’s results. I heard very little mention of landslides during the ten minutes I watched them manipulate their map colors.

      What I heard was how close this election is and how the math is such and such. The swing states will be this and that. The electoral college math has this race too close to call.

      Of course, they don’t source anything and don’t outline the methodology by which they draw their conclusions, which seems counter to what we have seen so far on the ground. In open primaries in “red states” he is getting two and three times all the republicans combined. They may be able to make up a little of that in a general, but I think the new voters that come to the fold will negate any gains they make in increased general election turnout.

      What it comes down to for me is the irritating tendency of the media to paint everything as a neck and neck contest and then seek to prove their assumptions using polls that are subjective and misleading. Also, these polls use flawed methodology to reach conclusions that don’t match a lot of people’s day-to-day view of the country. So, we get this cognitive dissonance were the media narrative doesn’t match our common narrative. That’s why we are all here discussing stuff, because of that disconnect.

      I refuse to give them an ounce of credibility until they apologize for Iraq and the 200/2004 presidential elections and their warmongering and dividing us up into little chunks that can be pitted against one another by unscrupulous politicians.

      I consider every single member of the corporate media to be practitioners of propaganda to one extent or another. This morning was just another moment of confirmation for me. It’s nothing I haven’t thought before. These so-called political “analysts” are not using methods that I consider reasonable. Really they are only offering their opinions, which I find to be flawed in fundamental ways.

      Until they offer better opinions, they will remain a cast of clowns to me.

      • JasonEverettMiller

        PS: Having said that, I don’t disagree that I could have woken up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

        • Caringthinkingperson

          this is so accurate, even when you like what they say…

          These so-called political “analysts” are not using methods that I consider reasonable. Really they are only offering their opinions, which I find to be flawed in fundamental ways.

          Really, they are no more verifiable in their opinions than anyone on the internet – they just have big camera’s in HD.

          • JasonEverettMiller

            Exactly. The bully pulpit doesn’t necessarily make one right. That’s why the web is such a great equalizer this year. Many of these tools didn’t exist four years ago and are the main thing giving me hope this year, beyond having a great candidate to support.

  • bluebell

    I didn’t see MTP today, but I thought Russert gave Obama a fair shot when he had him for the hour a couple of weeks ago.

    Just be glad we aren’t nominating Hillary. The MSM can’t stand her. The media wants to see this as a genuine horse race between two different visions of the future. I think that it is. I expect that Obama will be treated more fairly than Kerry or Gore.

    • JasonEverettMiller

      I agree that Russert did a good job on that interview. That is their shtick. They project just enough objectivity to keep the masses convinced of their credibility.

      The way they try to mold the race is subtle. It is done by shaping the narrative rather than coming right out and writing it. They guide public opinion by making it seem that everyone is thinking such and such, whether there is real evidence of that or not.

      I expect Barack to be treated more fairly because of the environment where they operate and the way the public is a little less acquiescent this year. More people tend to speak up these days when the media gets too far out of line. The blogging community is providing a vital piece of that puzzle as well. The corporate media seems to be more likely to shape its own efforts based on the how the narrative shapes up on-line.

      It is a much different playing field this year and an exciting time for progressives if we can keep our eye on the ball.

  • Fran

    What fascinates me is how polls work now. I don’t know how it works in America, but most young people here who live in group houses or flats only have mobiles: no landline. My friends in the UK say it’s the same there, so I’m assuming it’s reasonable to expect that it’s the same way in America.

    How is that effecting the polls, anyone know?

    • JasonEverettMiller

      That’s a great point.

      I thought the polls would be off big time this year, but they have actually been fairly accurate despite many Americans under a certain age not having land-lines. I wonder if the lower turnout in primaries keeps the numbers more or less accurate. Despite bigger numbers, we are still only talking 35- or 40-percent in most places.

      Low turnout allows for a lot of manipulation by various players, many not in the public eye at all. The media, to me, are merely the mouthpieces for the real power making the strategic decision behind the scenes. It all seems odd to me how they quote these small samplings as if they are the word of God. It doesn’t seem credible that there wouldn’t be at least a bit of skepticism or context offered when polls are used to bolster opinion-based coverage of politics.

      These guys commission polls (the corporate media are the paying customers in these transactions) to help them justify their narrative that is crafted in the boardroom. The newsroom was downsized years ago.

      The movie Network that I linked to above was done in 1976 and won tons of Oscars. This is not a new tale. It is the same tale, repackaged to the point that we are in complete thrall. The Internet threw that plan off and they still haven’t recovered. They certainly haven’t figured out a way to counter the grassroots movement that we represent.

      Otherwise, there is no way Barack is the democratic nominee this year.

  • sassi2j

    I read your post. Yes, it’s called “drama.” These pundits are out of a job if there is no drama in the election, and thus they opt to keep it “close.”
    I actually don’t think it’s much of a contest at this point, and as it progresses, will become less of one. I’m thinking it may even be a 38/62 election in Barack Obama’s favor, and that’s huge!!!

    The whole pundit industry is akin to whoring. But that’s what it is. I definitely agree that the Internet has changed things substantially.

    As a Wisconsinite, I was shocked to see my state placed in the “questionable” category, when I know it’s going to go for Obama, hands down. but, again, they have to keep the drama . . .

    • JasonEverettMiller

      It is totally about the drama factor. That’s why I try to ascribe sinister motives. I think it is all about the dollars and the eye balls.

      What I find kind of funny and ironic is that such a landslide is an even bigger story with more potential than some supposed horse race between Barack and McCain.

      I like your numbers. That is what I will be envisioning when I think about November – a ten or fifteen point blowout across the entire country. Now that would make for some good television!

      • JasonEverettMiller

        I try not to ascribe sinister motives to the media beyond selfishness is what I meant to say. My kingdom for an edit feature!

  • nmcvaugh

    Is Tim Russert an idiot? OK. That may seem a little harsh, I know, but what else makes the least bit of sense? Either that or he’s a traitor. Which is it Tim? Stupid or sinister?

    There’s a quote, I can’t remember the originator, but someone will not doubt chip in:

    “Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.”

    • JasonEverettMiller

      I have heard that one as well, and you’re right, Tim has been cheerfully stupid for years now. It’s the unseen hand behind the curtain that pisses me off and where the malice truly lies.

    • JasonEverettMiller

      It’s not really about Russert, but rather the nature of corporate manipulation of reality.

      I submit that the Internet allows many of us to understand that Russert is an idiot far in advance of those citizens who sit at home and gobble up his prognostications like candy. To many Americans, the guy is the brightest of the bright.

      That’s what a multi-billion dollar propaganda machine can do for someone – 15 minutes of fame become 5 years. I blame Bill Clinton for the Tim Russerts of the world. His 1996 Telecommunications Act was a freaking huge coup by big business, most notably General Electric.

      This country really needs to read more books or play with Google for a couple hours a day.