Posts Tagged ‘brokaw’

Brokaw Lobbied for Olbermann Anchor Removal

Tom Brokaw, who ‘retired’ in October of 2004, doesn’t seem to go away. NBC, who lists Brokaw as a special correspondent, apparently still listens to Mr. Brokaw carefully. In recent weeks, Brokaw was said to lobby NBC to remove Keith Olbermann from his anchor position at MSNBC during the debates. Apparently, for reasons of personal commentary, Brokaw thought Olbermann should not be placed in the Anchor chair. According to the NY Times, Brokaw stated:

“Keith is an articulate guy who writes well and doesn’t make his arguments in a ‘So’s your old mother’ kind of way,” Mr. Brokaw said. “The mistake was to think he could fill both roles. The other mistake was to think he wouldn’t be tempted to use the anchor position to engage in commentary. That’s who he is.”

Unfortunately, Brokaw is just as guilty of the same kind of commentary of which he accuses Olbermann. During the Democratic Convention – as mentioned previously on this blog – Brokaw said of Bill Clinton:

Well, look, for Bill Clinton, and for anyone in the Democratic Party for that matter, it’s a very tricky case taking on John McCain and trying to rough him up. When John McCain was sitting in a prison in Hanoi, Bill Clinton was writing letters to his ROTC commander and trying to get out of the draft, which he did successfully.

Seems like ‘commentary’ there to me Mr. Brokaw. But that is not what is going on here. There were rumors that Olbermann was a serious candidate to replace Tim Russert on Meet the Press. It has also been rumored that others – including Tom Brokaw – were potential replacements for Tim Russert.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again

  1. Shame on you NBC.
  2. Please retire Mr. Brokaw. Hypocrisy doesn’t suit you.

Who Invited Tom Brokaw, Anyway?

Is it just me, or is Brokaw finding any excuse to criticize Democrats and specifically in this case, Bill Clinton? After Clinton’s Dem Convention speech, Brokaw was quoted as saying:

Well, look, for Bill Clinton, and for anyone in the Democratic Party for that matter, it’s a very tricky case taking on John McCain and trying to rough him up. When John McCain was sitting in a prison in Hanoi, Bill Clinton was writing letters to his ROTC commander and trying to get out of the draft, which he did successfully.

Draft dodging? Geesh Tom. I think you failed to mention the five deferments that Vice President Dick Cheney had during the Vietnam War, or the lackluster service record of President George Bush whom by all accounts went AWOL from the Air National Guard only to have his father bail him out.

More importantly, Clinton was not criticizing McCain’s military service as Brokaw’s reaction would have you think. Clinton said very clearly that McCain served heroically:

The choice is clear. The Republicans will nominate a good man who served our country heroically and suffered terribly in Vietnam. He loves our country every bit as much as we all do. As a Senator, he has shown his independence on several issues. But on the two great questions of this election, how to rebuild the American Dream and how to restore America’s leadership in the world, he still embraces the extreme philosophy which has defined his party for more than 25 years, a philosophy we never had a real chance to see in action until 2001, when the Republicans finally gained control of both the White House and Congress. Then we saw what would happen to America if the policies they had talked about for decades were implemented.

They took us from record surpluses to an exploding national debt; from over 22 million new jobs down to 5 million; from an increase in working family incomes of $7,500 to a decline of more than $2,000; from almost 8 million Americans moving out of poverty to more than 5 and a half million falling into poverty – and millions more losing their health insurance.

Now, in spite of all the evidence, their candidate is promising more of the same: More tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that will swell the deficit, increase inequality, and weaken the economy. More band-aids for health care that will enrich insurance companies, impoverish families and increase the number of uninsured. More going it alone in the world, instead of building the shared responsibilities and shared opportunities necessary to advance our security and restore our influence.

Yet, even with this respectful list of differences between McCain and Obama and in general, the Republican and Democratic parties, Brokaw still insists on attacking President Clinton in a nonsensical attempt to tie a completely unrelated story to the election.

And now that Brokaw seems to be the semi-official replacement for Tim Russert on Meet the Nation, we get to hear more of Brokaw’s nonsense on a weekly basis.

Didn’t Brokaw retire? I think many readers would be clearly much happier if he stayed ‘retired’.