Response from Meet the Press, re: 5-7-06

[Catchawave]

Subj: RE: Question for Meet the Press (re: Meet the Press mailbox - Mee t the Press, online at MSNBC - MSNBC.com -- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6 872152/)
Date: 5/8/2006 4:31:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent from the Internet (Details)




Dear Ms. xxxxxx,


Thank you for your email and your interest in "Meet the Press."


You might be interested in knowing that we had Mr. Colbert booked on "Meet the Press" last weekend but he canceled his appearance.


Most sincerely,


The Meet the Press staff

-----Original Message-----
From:xxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 6:01 PM
To: +NBC News Meet the Press Questions
Subject: Question for Meet the Press (re: Meet the Press mailbox - Meet the Press, online at MSNBC - MSNBC.com -- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6872152/)


Name: xxxxx
Hometown: xxxxxxx, VA

Comments:

Dear Tim, As a fan of Meet the Press since the 50's, I was a little disappointed in the incredible bully tactics you pressed Rep. Pelosi on today (5/7/06). Holding her to 2-year-old quotes about her position on Iraq was simply un-professional, and disturbing. Stephen Colbert was right and he's won this republican family's heart and soul with his truthiness.

[Catchawave]

1. So, did anyone else get a response ?

Or proofiness that Colbert was scheduled ?

[gkhouston]

4. if Colbert was scheduled and he canceled

you can be sure he'll allude to that tonight. Could be that he got sick or had a family emergency or something, but I'm doubtful.

[Catchawave]

6. Maybe they wanted him to debate the faux Bush guy?

:rofl:

:hi: gk and :loveya:

[gkhouston]

10. he could have trampled the faux Bush

and the real one, too, and had Russert as a snack afterwards... which makes me wonder about this cancellation. Can't wait for tonight's Colbert Report. :hi:

[drbtg1]

16. Maybe not

Was his cancellation in the MSM? If not, why address it?

[jayfish]

2. Interesting That They Responded.

to the secondary topic of the email rather than the primary one.

Jay

[Catchawave]

5. Yep, my concern too.....Colbert ?

but I always respond to MSM as a "republican" since that's who pays the bills in this family. Maybe I touched an MSM nerve?

[MadMaddie]

3. Yea...the second response to how he pushed Pelosi is right

on ...Russert was an asshole....he would never have done that to the * cabal members...

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. Being the cynic I am...I don't believe them, but that's just me.

;)

[DainBramaged]

8. And IF she had been a little quicker responding that

Libby and DeLay indicted, David Safavian arrested, Frist, Rove and Ney being investigated, Abramoff and Cunningham convicted maybe we'd be praising her appearance rather than crying to the GE Butt Plug.

[keopeli]

9. I thought Nancy did fine. No quick-wit, but thoughtful answers. n/t

[DainBramaged]

11. Watch her on Crooks and Liars, or on the repeat of MTP

She was hesitant, unsure, and was completely overrun by Butt Plug. I am so tried of our leaders not having facts at their fingertips or on their lips. If I can repeat those who were indicted to buffer Butt Plug's attacks, why couldn't Pelosi, who KNOWS better.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10386260/

[Reciprocity]

12. I agree, Nancy did hold her own.

His use of pop-up old news articles, was propaganda in opinion. He never let her finish a thought. All the while as she was trying to answer one old news quote he would interrupt her with another one. So all the viewer was left with was an amalgamation of old news pieces which only showed how partisan he was.

[tishaLA]

13. Honestly, I don't think using 2 year old quotations

from Rep. Pelosi is unprofessional or disturbing; Ms. Pelosi knows what to expect on MTP, as surely as McCain did when he showed up and had his quotations about Falwell et al from 2000 re-run. McCain wasn't particularly adroit at handling Russert's questions, and Rep. Pelosi fared only slightly better. Is it so hard to say, "Tim, things have changed since 2004. We need to have a dynamic response to a dynamic situation. This is something anyone in the military or the business community will tell you." I can't imagine why she didn't have a great answer prepared and rehearsed, but I suspect YET AGAIN that we are not getting our talking points in order before we send people out for these shows. It's a sure way to make what should be a clean sweep this November into something less than a resounding success.

I do, however, think Russert's tone with Rep. Pelosi--he was nearly growling at her during the latter half of the interview--was completely out of bounds.

[redqueen]

14. Yes, the RNC is very efficient at preparing their talking points...

and disseminating them to the press / pols / pundits.

Dean, you listening?

[linazelle]

15. Here's my "response"

A joke.



Thank you for sending your comments to Meet the Press with Tim Russert.

We appreciate the time you took to send us your thoughts and comments. It is very important that we receive feedback from our viewers.

We read the e-mail. We discuss the e-mail. Unfortunately, we are unable to respond to each writer individually. We hope you will continue to share your opinions with us.

[Catrina]

17. Apparently they work for the Republican party, and only respond to

Republicans.

The RNC has told us what their talking points are. All Democrats should be prepared for the MSM employees of the RNC to do what Tim Russert did yesterday. They should have been prepared.

The talking points are supposed to be 'Dems are as corrupt as Republicans' and 'if we let the Dems win, all they will do is spend their time impeaching the president'. That's it!

The second one is to scare the disgruntled base into rallying around a president they have lost faith in, just because they hate the Dems more. That's Rove's tactic, he's already said so.

So, all the Dems need is to have a list of Republicans who have been convicted, indicted and are currently under investigation, a list that grows daily. I made one up, why can't they? And when Russert tries the 'Dems have ethics problems' and lists them, but neglects to talk about the almost daily indictments being handed down to Republicans, Dems have their list ready. Like Pavlov's dog, after a while they'll be afraid to use this stupid tactic.

But Nancy Pelosi missed a golden opportunity yesterday and actually agreed with Russert that 'Dems DO have ethics problems (like fender benders eg) but never followed up with the actual crimes against the people committed by an overwhelming number of Republicans as the record now shows.

Just a list of the scandals would have sufficed.

As far as his Impeachment question, all she had to do was to say that 'there have to be grounds for Impeachment Tim, and if the president has done nothing wrong, he has nothing to worry about'.

One thing we know for certain now is that Tim Russert works for the Republicans. He was practically frothing at the mouth yesterday trying to get the RNC talking points across. What IS he afraid of, I wonder?