Meet the Press

[sterlingice]

Not that we didn't already know I wasn't quite right in the head. But then again, few people here are Along with being one of the four people in this country that watches CSPAN occasionally (I watched something like 4 straight hours of Alito hearings on fuzzy static channel 96- I don't think that's healthy for a person), one of my favorite things in the week is watching Meet the Press replay at 1am Sunday night/Monday morning.

I love it- it feels like real journalism should, to me. Russert gets people from both sides of the aisle and actually asks tough questions to each. No one really cares because they know no one else is watching on Sunday morning when it airs. But, it's a good place to see what people are actually thinking because they tend to float ideas there that you don't hear anywhere else or at least aren't covered in any other news.

Anyone else watch this with regularity?

SI

[ThunderingHERD]

I usually watch it at 3AM(it's on now) if I'm up.

[oykib]

I just realized I can watch Washington Journal online. I've blown seven hours since last night.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I record Meet the Press and watch it usually when I get up on Sunday. If I oversleep Sunday, I watch it Monday.

I just finished watching his interview of Barack Obama. I had the absolute worst thought about Obama. I wasn't even watching the screen, but listening while making breakfast, but I thought "He's well spoken." I then thought about how just saying that I would be crucified, even though the thought had to do with how boring and well thought out his noncommital answers were compared with some other Senators. I mean, there are people in the senate who you can barely understand, and tend to fly off the handle on the stupidest tangents... Those guys are more fun than someone like Obama who always have a prepared answer to each question, yet never quite answer the question. Obama could be used as a sleep aid... and it's almost a damn shame Pat Robertson doesn't have a seat in the Senate!

[sterlingice]

Ok, I dunno, but all those who say this partisanship is just as it always has been and as it always will be, I keep seeing too many examples to the contrary. It's almost impossible today to see any 2 people from opposite sides of the aisle get along. But, yet again, this week on Meet The Press, there were two more former Senators getting along (Kemp, Edwards) and having a great civilized debate with no contempt for each other. But, put 2 current ones in a room, and it's nothing but bickering.

I know being out of office is a huge difference but it's more than that- there just is a downright nasty tone but it seems like something has changed. In the past, they look like they were all part of one "good ol boys club" regardless of party- sure they squabble but at the end of the day, they all sat around and drank $100 bottles of scotch and lit cigars with $100 bills from kickbacks in the same places and were able to leave work mostly behind. (or at least that's how I see it in my mind). But, now, it's just vile hatred for the most part. It feels like brainwashing, similar to like when you put players and owners for baseball in the same room- "he's an owner/player rep, he's inherently bad"- I can't remember the term for it, but basically choosing a side without even understanding why it is right or wrong.

SI

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I know being out of office is a huge difference but it's more than that- there just is a downright nasty tone but it seems like something has changed. In the past, they look like they were all part of one "good ol boys club" regardless of party- sure they squabble but at the end of the day, they all sat around and drank $100 bottles of scotch and lit cigars with $100 bills from kickbacks in the same places and were able to leave work mostly behind. (or at least that's how I see it in my mind). But, now, it's just vile hatred for the most part. It feels like brainwashing, similar to like when you put players and owners for baseball in the same room- "he's an owner/player rep, he's inherently bad"- I can't remember the term for it, but basically choosing a side without even understanding why it is right or wrong.

SI

I mostly agree with this statement. I think there are a couple exceptions to the rule, but for the most part, the "with us or against us" mentality seems to be as strong on both sides of the aisle as I can remember.

[Toddzilla]

While MTP does have guests from "both sides of the aisle", I would posit that a majority of them, especially recently, have been more conservative in nature:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...3.waldman.html

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Ok, I dunno, but all those who say this partisanship is just as it always has been and as it always will be, I keep seeing too many examples to the contrary. It's almost impossible today to see any 2 people from opposite sides of the aisle get along. But, yet again, this week on Meet The Press, there were two more former Senators getting along (Kemp, Edwards) and having a great civilized debate with no contempt for each other. But, put 2 current ones in a room, and it's nothing but bickering.

I have a different take on this. I think the type of person in the Senate has changed drastically in the past 15 years or so.

I do speak from experience... to an extent. In the early 90s I did time as an intern in Washington for then-Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME).

Maybe it's just the rose-colored glasses of hindsight, but it seems to me that at that point in time there was a lot more decorum in the Senate. Senators would disagree, often completely, with each other, but they'd let each other speak, and they'd try to argue based on the facts and/or merits of their positions. They also seemed much less likely to use personal or purely political attacks on their peers.

I think in the 90s this started to change, and it's almost wholly changed now. The Senate has become more like the House - everything is partisan, every word is carefully chosen, soundbites are more important than honest debate, etc....

And now for a personal anecdote....

There's a tram that runs underground from the Senate office buildings to the Capitol building. Obviously it exists for a whole bunch of different reasons, but that's not really the point. On my first day, when the staffers in Mitchell's office were giving me the ground rules, one of the things they told me was that if I wanted to take the tram (and one often did, because it sped things up), but a Senator was already sitting in the car, one had to wait for the next one. Likewise, if you were sitting in the tram and it hadn't left yet, and a Senator showed up, you surrendered your set to them.

Yeah, privilege and all that....

Anyway, one day I'm in the Capitol, in the Majority Leader's office, and I'm given some documents to run back to Senator Bradley's office, which is way the heck back in the Hart building, about as far away as one can get. I run down to the tunnel, planning to get a tram (you can walk through the tunnel too, which you'd do for the Russell building, but not so much for Hart, especially if you're in a hurry).

Well, I'm about to jump on the tram when I notice that Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Sen. Nancy Kassebaum (R-NE) were already on it. So I stop short, back up and get ready to wait for the next tram.

Well, they both noticed, and broke off their conversation to invite me to sit with them. On the trip over they asked for whom I was working. But one thing Senator Kassebaum said which has stayed with me was this: "Senator Mitchell is a good man. We certainly have different philosophies, but I do enjoy working with him." Senator Kassebaum retired in 1997. I should also add that Senator Hatch told me how lucky I was to be working for Mitchell, for whom he had great respect.

Anyway, it may not mean a lot, but that's how I picture things back then, and I think it's quite a bit different now.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

While MTP does have guests from "both sides of the aisle", I would posit that a majority of them, especially recently, have been more conservative in nature:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...3.waldman.html

Unfortunetly I think the study is decidedly flawed, when looking at the methodology page:

In designing the methodology for this study, Media Matters sought to employ rules for classifying guests that would be simple, easy to apply, and acceptable to readers from across the ideological spectrum. We did not attempt to ascertain whether what a particular guest said on a particular show adhered to his or her ideological profile or was critical or supportive of one party or administration. Instead, we simply coded guests by their affiliation and history. Current and former elected and administration officials, candidates, and party officials were classified as Democrat or Republican; all others were Conservative, Progressive, or a neutral category including centrists and those to whom ideology was not applicable. Rules were established for certain classes of guests that appeared frequently; for instance, active duty military personnel were coded as representing the administration in power at the time of the appearance, but retired military personnel, since they are nearly always brought on only to offer military analysis, were coded as neutral. Given that Media Matters is a progressive organization and we hypothesized (correctly, as it turned out) that conservatives have an advantage on the Sunday shows, we understood that criticism of our conclusions would be likely to come from the right. Therefore, in the few close calls we encountered, we erred on the side of classifying guests to the left. Further details on the methodology and results of the study can be found at www.mediamatters.org.

In a 'wartime' atmosphere, there are obviously going to be far more active duty military personnel than otherwise. If all of those are classified as "conservative", the numbers are bound to end up the way MediaMatters hypothesized.

[flere-imsaho]

Virtually all American TV "debate" shows are utterly useless, due completely to time constraints. Since they participants know they've only got a few minutes between commercial breaks, the impetus for them is to fill those minutes full of soundbites which will look good in Monday's papers and on Monday's newscasts.

Again, I entreat a few of you to, even once watch something like PBS' Jim Lehrer News Hour for something different. No commercial breaks, and substantive discussion of the issues, where the participants have to go beyond sound bites.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

While MTP does have guests from "both sides of the aisle", I would posit that a majority of them, especially recently, have been more conservative in nature:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...3.waldman.html

My favorite part of MTP is the spin afterwards when one partisan hack tries to spin Russert as being a liberal or a conservative. I've seen it spun both ways from the same interview. That's impressive.

I think Russert comes really close to being an ideal broadcast journalist in an interviewer in that he is tough but fair. The only criticism I have of Russert is that I think he tries a bit too hard to trap people than he does to get the answers. But not always -- I think it's revealing when he gets an insightful question and refuses to let the interviewee off the hook like a lot of journalists do.

[clintl]

It's definitely gotten more partisan. Mitchell and Bob Dole, when they were their party's Senate leaders, knew what statesmanship was, and when to act like statesmen. I don't think the same could be said for any of the four leaders we've had since (Daschle, Lott, Frist, and Reid).

[JonInMiddleGA]

re: Senate relations (for lack of a better descriptive) -- I still maintain that the elected officials et al are simply reflecting the reality of the public at large. And I think it's kinda hard to blame them for that.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

re: Senate relations (for lack of a better descriptive) -- I still maintain that the elected officials et al are simply reflecting the reality of the public at large. And I think it's kinda hard to blame them for that.

I'm not so sure. Out here in California, Arnold's approval ratings took a huge beating last year when he decided to be a partisan Republican. This year, after his four initiatives all got trounced, he's moving back to the center and working to build bipartisan consensus around a completely different agenda, and his approval ratings have started rising again.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Clint, I'm not sure that Cali is a good basis for determining much of anything in the way of trends in the rest of the country.

I really don't mean that as a shot toward Californians or anything, it's just that it generally seems pretty detached from the state of mind of the other 49. If anything, you pose an interesting possibility though: basically that over the next 20 years, what you describe might possibly become the norm elsewhere (since trends seem to start there and then spread eastward). Of course, by the time everyone else is in the same place, if it follows the usual pattern, everyone in California will then be back to highly partisan

[clintl]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Clint, I'm not sure that Cali is a good basis for determining much of anything in the way of trends in the rest of the country.

I really don't mean that as a shot toward Californians or anything, it's just that it generally seems pretty detached from the state of mind of the other 49. If anything, you pose an interesting possibility though: basically that over the next 20 years, what you describe might possibly become the norm elsewhere (since trends seem to start there and then spread eastward). Of course, by the time everyone else is in the same place, if it follows the usual pattern, everyone in California will then be back to highly partisan

In certain respects, yes, it is different. For instance, religion plays almost no role in California politics (and I believe that's true in Oregon and Washington, too - the Pacific Coast is the least religious region in the nation). However, the politicians in California's legislature [/i]are[i] highly partisan, and have very low approval ratings. Just like Congress and its approval ratings on a national level. And, at the national level, who right now is probably the most popular politician in the country? John McCain, who has been playing a centrist role on many issues.

[biological warrior]

I like Tim Russert, but I wish they would have other journalists in there to doing the commentating, just like the old days of Meet the Press. Now its just Meet Tim Russert.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

While MTP does have guests from "both sides of the aisle", I would posit that a majority of them, especially recently, have been more conservative in nature:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...3.waldman.html

Yeah, I think that's a fairly biased quote. I think MTP runs slightly liberal but I think they do a good job of trying to get both sides of the aisle. I would say guests skew slightly Republican but not by much and I think that's on the grounds that there are more of them in power.

The military does have some active schills for the GOP and I have yet to see one who is strongly liberal but that comes with the terroritory. However, I think a lot are pretty even handed. Last night, tho, there was a guy who was on the first half of last night (a general who was basically a General Casey yes man).

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I think Russert comes really close to being an ideal broadcast journalist in an interviewer in that he is tough but fair. The only criticism I have of Russert is that I think he tries a bit too hard to trap people than he does to get the answers. But not always -- I think it's revealing when he gets an insightful question and refuses to let the interviewee off the hook like a lot of journalists do.

Exactly- I think he's a bit more intent on pushing hard for the "hard question" rather than trapping one side or the other. To him, getting a good question answered seems to be a lot more important than bashing from the left or right.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by clintl

And, at the national level, who right now is probably the most popular politician in the country? John McCain, who has been playing a centrist role on many issues.

I would seriously consider arguing that assessment of McCain, and for reasons beyond the fact that I probably wouldn't piss on him if he caught fire.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Ok, I dunno, but all those who say this partisanship is just as it always has been and as it always will be, I keep seeing too many examples to the contrary. It's almost impossible today to see any 2 people from opposite sides of the aisle get along. But, yet again, this week on Meet The Press, there were two more former Senators getting along (Kemp, Edwards) and having a great civilized debate with no contempt for each other. But, put 2 current ones in a room, and it's nothing but bickering.

I know being out of office is a huge difference but it's more than that- there just is a downright nasty tone but it seems like something has changed. In the past, they look like they were all part of one "good ol boys club" regardless of party- sure they squabble but at the end of the day, they all sat around and drank $100 bottles of scotch and lit cigars with $100 bills from kickbacks in the same places and were able to leave work mostly behind. (or at least that's how I see it in my mind). But, now, it's just vile hatred for the most part. It feels like brainwashing, similar to like when you put players and owners for baseball in the same room- "he's an owner/player rep, he's inherently bad"- I can't remember the term for it, but basically choosing a side without even understanding why it is right or wrong.

SI

To be fair SI, they are FORMER senators.

The former senators don't have to worry about reelection. They don't have to worry about who did or didn't give them money and how that will impact their comments. They don't have to worry about being thrown from their party if they go against it on a couple of big decisions. Nor do they have anything to negotiate for. (I'll go ahead and pass that energy bill, but the army base in my state STAYS OPEN!!!)

These guys have nothing to lose or gain in this. They are just two guys giving their opinions on topics.

The current guys have a ton to lose everytime they appear on one of these shows. They may very well be friends outside of the spotlight, but there is no way in hell they'll show it on the air.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I would seriously consider arguing that assessment of McCain, and for reasons beyond the fact that I probably wouldn't piss on him if he caught fire.

Please... aside from McCain, who else is the most popular politician out there today?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Please... aside from McCain, who else is the most popular politician out there today?

Well, first we'd have to define "popular".

No, seriously. I mean is it "approval rating"? Or "Q Rating"?
Or "Very favorable/somewhat favorable/no opinion/somewhat negative/very negative"? Or something else?

I mean, we're talking about a guy who can't win the nomination of his own party and couldn't get much in the way of votes from the other party by virtue of the (R) behind his name if nothing else. I'd say there's a better chance that, to pick a name, Hillary Clinton is "more popular" than McCain, simply by virtue of her strength within her core constituency. In other words, 50% of a smaller number is often more than 20% of a larger number (fictitious number just to illustrate what I mean) Of course this also discounts the incredible "negative popularity" that she would carry, but that takes us right back to the problem of defining "popular".

I suspect the truth is that none of them (at least on the national scene) are particularly "popular". Depending upon the methodology, I suspect a number of lower profile politicos (say Governors or other state level figures) could outscore any of those at the Federal level.

[ISiddiqui]

I mean, we're talking about a guy who can't win the nomination of his own party

But would get a SCORE of moderate and Democrat votes. McCain is probably the only person around now who could run as an independant and reasonably challenge for the Presidency. Well, him and Colin Powell.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well, first we'd have to define "popular".

No, seriously. I mean is it "approval rating"? Or "Q Rating"?
Or "Very favorable/somewhat favorable/no opinion/somewhat negative/very negative"? Or something else?

I was basing my remark on two things. One, a news report from last week on the low approval ratings for both the president and Congress that mentioned McCain's approval rating at about 65%. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the report said his rating was the highest of those measured in the poll. I tried to find a link, but couldn't. Second, his support does cut across party lines to an extent like no one else right now.

I myself have mixed opinions about him, and doubt that I could vote him.

Powell, on the other hand, I could see myself supporting.

[clintl]

OK, so I'm wrong. McCain is only the third most popular politician in the US.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

re: Senate relations (for lack of a better descriptive) -- I still maintain that the elected officials et al are simply reflecting the reality of the public at large. And I think it's kinda hard to blame them for that.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. I really don't understand the constant complaints of the partisanship that engulfs Washington DC. How many people in Tom Delay's district want him to cooperate with Ted Kennedy? How about those people who voted for Hillary Clinton in New York? You think they want her being buddy buddy with Rick Santorum? The politicians today are sent to Washington with a mandate to be against the opposite party no matter what. When the voters send people who are really interested in making a compromise to D.C. then the tone in D.C. will change.

P.S. I am using the following definition of compromise

settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions

[Senator]

I like Russert. I think he is fair and good at what he does.