It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Russert's Out to Lunch Bunch

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 07:33 PM
Last Sunday I tuned in to Tim Russert's show to see who was on and what they were saying. It was even more pathetic than usual. So, I was amused to stumble onto to this take onnit at the Huffington Post. Amen, sister.

On Russert's out to lunch bunch:
Jane Hamsher
Russert Watch: The Out-to-Lunch Bunch (54 comments )

I realize that a New Year's day "Year in Review" roundtable on Meet the
Press is probably devoted to bloviating by design rather than
but it would've been nice if someone had managed to pick up a newspaper
before the cameras started rolling.

In between Jon Meacham's comical assumption of gravitas that seemed
appropriate to a 60's Brylcreem commercial and Doris Kearns Goodwins'
about Harry Truman generally incomprehensible to anyone under the age
of 75,
William Safire's lapse into relevance felt quite unintentional.

posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 08:27 PM
I think the quality of Meet the Press has gone down a lot recently. Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday is much better IMHO.

posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 08:54 PM
The only benefit I ever got from a "Meet the Press" programme was when the head of Forbes Magazine came to Australia last year and, flat out, repeatedly told everyone to invent the next ipod and sell Gold, that at $425.00 was way too high.

I knew then, it was time to leave 'invention' to the 'big boys' and buy Gold like crazy.

[edit on 4-1-2006 by suzy ryan]

posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 09:35 PM
William Safire was on the show. Snoooooze. He is so irrelevant. But he freaked us all out, a little, anyway. He was bitching about a certain president's adiminstration bugging him and his home. He didn't like it. And said so. Kudos for Safire onnat.

The article cracked me up 'cos the writer pointed out all the old jokes and references Noonan and crew were chuckling about. Snooooooooooze. Hello? You havta be 75 to really get that humor!

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 10:24 AM
Russert's on now. They're discussing the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. It'll be interesting to see if the Dems filibuster.

At least the conversation's a bit more stimulating, if not relevant, than last week. Last week's show was awful.

I'd like to see the Dems block Alito. Even though I've been a conservative Republican (most of my voting life), I think he's a bit too extreme. I believe he'd move to strike down Roe v. Wade. Although, I'm a Christian and I abhor abortion, I think it would be a mistake to outlaw them.

If you outlaw abortion, the rich will still be able to pay private doctors to do the procedure, as in the past.

Poor people would not have that option and would seek them anyway, in the back alleys and from qwaks.

Abortion should be an issue between the man, the woman and their God. Just my two cents.

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 10:34 AM
Russert's next segment will feature Kate O'Beirne and Kate Michelman.

They're discussing feminism & abortion. At least Russert had the sense to book women to discuss these issues.

I would love to know if he reads Arianna Huffington's blog. She's on him like stink on X.

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 10:40 AM
I watch Russert along with all the Sunday news comentary shows and while interesting, are as relevant to the real world as Rush and the other conservative entertainers.

For real news and views I go to the WWW.

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 10:49 AM
James Risen, NY Times reporter and "State of War" author, is on now discussing the NSA spy scandal. He sez folks at the NSA were so disturbed by the president's "program," they came to him to blow the whistle.

posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 10:06 AM
Here we are, once again, listening to Tim Russert's Out to Lunch Bunch. They are discussing Bush's statements regarding NSA spying and what exactly those congressional reps were briefed on. Pat Roberts of Kansas, of course, doesn't recall much.

Rockerfeller wrote BushCo. a letter expressing his disapproval of it.

posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 10:09 AM
You gotta love the Bush defense: well.. the Democrats knew about it..

But then, you have Atty Gen. Gonzales testifying that they would and did inform congress of what it was doing. The thing is, inform is different than accepting consent. Gonzales admitted that they're not interested in congress's consent.

posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 10:30 AM
Boy oh boy, Sen. Pat Roberts (Kansas) is just bending over backwards, straining to argue Bush's authority to break the law..

His voice is thinning, folks. He's getting testy.

How I long for the Republican reformer revolution of '94! Did they not come into power to sweep all of that corruption out of congress?

They are worse than the Democrats were in the 40 years before that.

And I had such high hopes.:shk:

posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 10:36 AM

DemocRAT Jane Harmon is no better than Roberts. Lick, lick, slurp, slurp.. She likes that spying. It's vital to Fearless Leedar's protectin us!

This is the essence of why the DemocRATS are and have been so unable to gain/keep support. They are so afraid of this administration they might as well be Republicans.:shk:

This same embrace of Bush foreign policy is why Hillary Clinton will never be president. Rank and file grass roots Democrats see her for what she is: a political whore.

new topics

top topics


log in