I’ve been torn about Tim Russert for a long time. While I know many libs who consider him a useless GOP shill, I go back and forth on whether he has biased or just overcompensating for the fact he used to be involved with Dem politics in the ’60s.<\/p>\n
During the 2000 campaign, Russert interviewed Bush and it was a disaster, at least for those of us hoping to see Russert ask tough questions. As an objective matter, Russert didn’t lay a glove on the guy.<\/p>\n
Tim, now’s your chance to set things right. We don’t need ferocity; all we ask is for fairness. (Though ferocity would certainly be welcome, if you were so inclined…)<\/p>\n
The American Prospect’s Nick Confessore<\/a> seemed to be doing his very best to provoke Russert yesterday.<\/p>\n Karl Rove believes that Bush can take Russert — and that if Russert punts on the tough questions, the rest of the media will give Bush a pass, and they can put this behind them. <\/p>\n This should really get Russert’s goat, if it hasn’t already. For President Bush — a man famously bad on his feet, who has created problems for himself at virtually every single one of the few press conferences he has given — to put himself in Russert’s hands for a full hour, when a few simple questions are all that are needed to break this story wide open, would seem to be a real risk. Unless you believe, as some folks do, that Russert’s reputation for toughness is at best lived up to erratically, and at worse undeserved. Will Russert prove his critics right, or will he prove them wrong?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It’s not an unfair question. Russert has relished his role of trying to tear apart the Dem presidential candidates. Fine, that’s his job. But I’m anxious to see if he’s willing to be equally tough with Bush, especially after going so easy on him four years ago.<\/p>\n If you were interested, The Note<\/a>, Joe Conason<\/a>, and Brad DeLong<\/a> each go through a series of questions they believe Russert should<\/i> ask Bush. Take a look; they’re all excellent.<\/p>\n