Dan Rather, Still Madder Than a Rattlesnake Trying to Bite a Fencepost

great headline. I'm puzzled by Mr. Rather's behavior. Always a bit vain, he's lost quite a bit of grace in the last few years. I think his reputation would have been better served had he quietly, graciously left CBS and skipped the lawsuit.

At the height of the storm, Maureen Dowd of NY Times came up with the only explanation that made sense. She reasoned (if my memory serves) that Karl Rove, faced with the conclusion that the Air National Guard story wasn't going to go away, cooked up a scheme to tell the truth in a document which would look authentic at first glance, but which would quickly be revealed a forgery. And that our national failure at critical thinking would allow the truth to be flushed away with the false framework. A master stroke if true; I would love to see it debated.

Dan Rather and his "down home witticisms" have grown increasingly tiresome. He is so far to the left in all his reporting that he is not credible as a reporter. You're 75 Danny Boy....time to RETIRE! Rather has a habit I think of not accepting responsiblility for what he himself edits and chooses to air!

This pompous ass has been paid 6 million dollars a year by CBS after 60 minutes II was cancelled...SIX MILLION a year and he was complaining? This man has narcissitic problems....6 million not enough to gently go into retirement but he still wants the #1 chair. I do not watch HDnet at all only because they hired Dan Rather!

@p_luk: Well, maybe they'll contact you now. Lawyers pursuing $70M worth of payback tend to have motivation to be thorough.

I don't know if the case will go in the direction you'd like, however, vis a vis revisiting the question of whether the original report was valid. From my (admittedly quick) read of the suit and the coverage thereof, Rather's focus seems to be much more on establishing that he was not to blame for any failings of the report--not on arguing that the report was solid. The case seems to be more along the lines of arguing that CBS made Rather out to be much more active in the story than he says he was.

"I don't know if the case will go in the direction you'd like, however, vis a vis revisiting the question of whether the original report was valid. From my (admittedly quick) read of the suit and the coverage thereof, Rather's focus seems to be much more on establishing that he was not to blame for any failings of the report--not on arguing that the report was solid. The case seems to be more along the lines of arguing that CBS made Rather out to be much more active in the story than he says he was."

Actually, "the reporting" itself has never really been disputed -- its the sourcing that was the problem (I'm an agnostic on the question of the authenticity of the Killian memos, BTW).

But more interesting to me is the potential for discovery in the case --- I mean, wouldn't you like to get Sumner Redstone under oath? (Not to mention the fact that Rather is likely to try and put Bush himself under oath....)

But my guess is that Redstone will chose to give Rather his big payday than go under oath in this case. With $8.4 billion at his disposal, $70 million is chump change...

@p_luk: oh, who doesn't want to see this go to trial? Other than Viacom/CBS, that is. It's just too potentially delicious. The companies have every incentive to settle, but Rather isn't acting like a guy who wants a settlement, or at least, not a strictly monetary one. Not at this point, anyway.

Regardless, all I meant is that the _main_ thrust of Rather's argument, for now, is "it wasn't me." But that doesn't mean that Dan & Co. won't go all Patty Hewes on their asses in the process.

GOOD JOB DAN.BEST OF LUCK!