Posted on 06/16/2008 11:06:37 PM PDT by devere
Only with Tim Russert's sudden death at the age of 58 has his true stature as a landmark journalist become as widely recognized as it has long deserved to be.
To ask who will replace him as host of "Meet the Press" is to confront the reality that there is no one comparable on the horizon. Those of us who have followed "Meet the Press" since the long ago days of Lawrence Spivak know that Russert was the best of some very good hosts.
What made Tim Russert special was not some trademark catchword or contrived persona. What you saw was what you got-- a down to earth guy who came on the air having thoroughly researched the subject and having a keen insight into politics and politicians.
He didn't flaunt his knowledge. He was one of the few very smart people who seemed to feel no need to impress others that he was smart. But, if you knew the subject that he was talking about, you realized that he had really done his homework.
There was something else that set Tim Russert apart from many other journalists, whether print journalists or broadcast journalists: His agenda was bringing out the facts.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Certainly, also, if he were to be in government, he couldn't turn out three books a year.
Three books per year. All good ones, too, I’m sure. I haven’t been able to read a lot of them, but I sure have learned from the ones I have read. My older children have read them for school (we home school) since 1983. My eldest son could discuss Sowell from age 13. I’ve been meaning to ask him (now 30) if he still reads Sowell.
So, his books are potent for the future of our nation. I wonder what we can do to promote his books more.
However, honestly, one of the reasons he doesn't get more "press" is that he tends to write synthesis and analysis, rather than actually do new research. For example, he looks at countries' race policies and says, "these countries do this, those countries do that." But he doesn't conduct a traditional "academic" study where he gets a sample group and performs an actual study of the data. He has chosen to write for a "general public" rather than to do smaller, data-laden studies. That's good, but it's the one-shot studies that get you attention on CNN or Fox news.
I've largely gotten into this type of writing. My first 10 or so books were all specific academic studies---"Banking in the American South," or the Trident submarine program. Now I'm into making money.
The only reason for any mention of our fallen warriors by the DBM is to gin up anti war fever.
Bingo! People are whining and moaning about all the coverage of Russert’s passing. Every single bit of that coverage was well deserved.
bttt
Well, great... Certainly obviates my whole point, doesn't it?
Guess you enjoyed the coverage and judged it appropriate.
Exactly. These people have no decency.
Especially significant was this one (which bears repeating):
My outrage was that not one of our fallen warriors gets a tenth the coverage that Russert has received; the acquitted Hadith Marines have not received a tenth the coverage he received---yet who in the long run has performed a more valuable service to our country?
And another one-—Chessani-—had charges dismissed today!!
Yes!
Military justice is normally very, very good. We are seeing it properly applied.
Probably deserved, maybe not. Were it only so that the typical American Warrior who died protecting his/her country could get the same. Russert was a liberal, a very smart covert liberal who knew just how to attain his goals and get what he wanted. He’s had his 15 minutes, let him be now.....we don’t need to deify a liberal.
I guess if you read someone you admire long enough, you will eventually find something you disagree with him on.
It takes an honest good man to know one - Sowell knows.
I would vote him into office if given the chance, and I'm sure so would most Freepers.
As would I.
But the underlying problem is with the system.
A Thomas Sowell, appointed to the highest Education office in the land, would be unable to accomplish zilch.
Because the Dept of Education bureaucracy would fight him every step of the way. And, after them, the public education bureaucracy would fight him every step of the way.
The only help he would likely get would come from the teachers in the class room (some of them, by no means all of them) and the students.
There is only one solution for public education in the USA: blow it up. Start all over again.
On second thought, this might be exactly the solution that a Thomas Sowell sponsors...
We're back to what Reagan said: Government is not a solution to our problem; government is the problem.
I hope Thomas isn’t going to vote for Obama too ... I’m so tired of hearing about Russert.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.