Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 19 February 2006

Various big media television networks ^ | 19 February 2006 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[Alas Babylon!]

The Talk Shows

Sunday, February 19th, 2006

Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Evan Bayh, D-Ind.; former Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

THIS WEEK (ABC): Chertoff; Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va.; basketball player Shaquille O'Neal.

LATE EDITION (CNN) : Chertoff; British ambassador to the United States David Manning, German ambassador to the U.S. Wolfgang Ischinger and French ambassador to the U.S. Jean-David Levitte; retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, formerly in charge of Iraqi army training.

[Cboldt]

I want to thank you for your great post yesterday on the Hamdan case.

My pleasure. If you haven't checked it recently, I posted links to a handful of outstanding articles at ScotusBlog. They point out that the issue is now on two separate legal tracks, one involving the Hamdan case, and the other involving lots of cases in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1581198/posts?page=6#6

That is more than enough to keep a person busy for a couple days.

[Bahbah]

That is more than enough to keep a person busy for a couple days.

I appreciate it. I am quite interested in the outcome and in all the politics swirling around the case and you have covered all of the bases.

[snugs]

He may well feel that he does not need to put his wife and children through the worry of going there and if this is the case I would support him.

Also FNC have had several in bedded reporters in Iraq plus Oliver North who frequently reports on the H & C show when he is there so the producers may well feel that they do not want or need Hannity to go there as well.

[OldFriend]

Legislation regarding foreign investment in the US was signed in 1988 by Ronald Reagan.

[OldFriend]

Great Britain currently has the contract to operate those ports.

[Peach]

I've probably missed you, Christian, but your posts was not only spot on, but made me laugh. Have a safe trip.

[OldFriend]

Oh, I remember that taping the interview little to do with the reporter.......LOLOL....Oh, Rummy was not born yesterday.

[Positive]

"FNC showing Harry Reid saying this administration is the most secretive administration ever..."

Since a secret isn't known, by definition it can't be quauntified... So I wonder how harry knows this...

[beyond the sea]

Thank you, M. M., for the explanation. You had me confused because......... if you look at that picture of Evan Bayh, bayh the way, if you could imagine a younger Alan Simpson .................. Alan may have looked much like that picture of Evan Bayh (in black and white of course).

;-)

[OldFriend]

Frankly, if I were married to Hannity I'd be begging to go to Iraq myself.

[Seattle Conservative]

I'll admit I haven't given this issue a lot of thought yet. While I can see the side of those that argue against this purchase from a security standpoint, I was having a difficult time undestanding on what grounds Congress could getinvolved (I may be missing something, but don't see how they fit in, except if they pass a law that no foreign companies can operate US ports).

This angle makes more sense to me - it appears it could be a breach of contract. I suspect there is non-assignment language in their agreement that specifically spells out that the contract cannot be assigned without their express written approval and/or that it cannot be assigned to certain governments or companies under certain governments. Based on the last sentence below, there is also probably language in it wrt strict security regulations with which they don't feel they comply and thus they would be in breach of contract.

"The Miami company, a subsidiary of Eller & Co. Inc., currently is a business partner with London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which Dubai Ports World purchased last week.

In a lawsuit in Florida circuit court, the Miami subsidiary said that under the sale it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government and it may seek more than $10 million in damages.

The Miami subsidiary, Continental Stevedoring & Terminals Inc., said the sale to Dubai was prohibited under its partnership agreement with the British firm and "may endanger the national security of the United States." It asked a judge to block the takeover and said it does not believe the company, Florida or the U.S. government can ensure Dubai Ports World's compliance with American security rules."

[rodguy911]

Sorry, I am not buying it. Ollie North would go more than out of his way to see to it that Hannity was better protected than any journalist that ever tried to go over there. Sean is not at the local level any more where he can say, yeah I support the troops but can't be go to Iraq. That doesn't cut it. When you are # 2 with 13 1/2 million listeners and # 1 --Rush has already gone as has all his other talk show brethren from Laura Ingraham to most all of the rest. You gotta make the hard calls and you have to do things that are not always popular with everyone in your life, that's the way it is. Sean is in the super big leagues, he is either a player there or he isn't. It's that simple.

[Seattle Conservative]

Thanks snugs. That makes sense as I believe that Britain and most European countries have fairly strict anti-trust laws.

[eeevil conservative]

I PRAY SO!

You never did send me a link to listen to YOUR SHOW!

(not sure if I should pout about it this point.....yes- I think I should.....pouting ensues......)

[Cboldt]

I was having a difficult time undestanding on what grounds Congress could getinvolved (I may be missing something, but don't see how they fit in, except if they pass a law that no foreign companies can operate US ports)

There are many ways, and most of them short of a law of the nature you describe.

In a lawsuit in Florida circuit court, the Miami subsidiary said that under the sale it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government and it may seek more than $10 million in damages.

10 million bucks in a 6.8 billion dollar sale agreement - sparrow sneeze in a whirlwind.

[rodguy911]

When Sean set up camp in ST.Pete for a week during the Terri Schiavo ordeal he resurrected his career and I didn't have to defend him nearly so much here on FR. It totally rejuvenated his show/personna etc. It was the right thing to do. So is going to Iraq.

[eeevil conservative]

several in bedded reporters

the words "in bed" and "reporters" should never be seen in the same sentence.....could cause nutritional reverse cycle....

:-)

[rodguy911]

You have freepmail

[Seattle Conservative]

I think you're right in that Splash still pulls a lot of weight (pun intended) in the Dim party. He's not Hitlery's only worry though. In addition to the ones mentioned I posted in the other article, here are some additional ones:


Columns Hillary's hurdles
Feb 17, 2006
by Nathan L. Gonzales ( bio | archive | contact )

There is no question Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is running for president in 2008. Senators don’t normally raise $33 million to run for reelection against a nominal opponent. But there are a number of large hurdles Clinton must jump before she can be elected. Too often the focus is on just one of her challenges, instead of a coalition of all of them.

While Sen. Clinton must be viewed as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, there is still plenty of time for other candidates from within her party to emerge as viable alternatives. Whether it’s former Gov. Mark Warner (D-VA), Sen. Evan Bayh (IN), or others, a handful of other 2008 contenders will likely make the general election electability case against Clinton.

The Clinton Name. The first, and most obvious, vulnerability for Sen. Clinton is her name. President Bush’s job approval numbers continue to sag, and voters could very well be looking for a change after eight years of a Republican White House. But if there is one candidate who can unify a fractured Republican Party, it’s probably Hillary Clinton. From her own failed health care proposal in the early 1990s to being married to one of the most polarizing political figures of the day, Clinton may have the ability to draw Republicans to the polls in November 2008 that no GOP nominee could effectively have himself.

Being a Senator. Americans haven’t elected a U.S. Senator to the presidency in almost half a century, with John F. Kennedy (D) being the last one in 1960. Like Kennedy, Clinton will have eight years of Senate experience under her belt by the time 2008 rolls around, but her task is significant. As John Kerry knows, having a voting record for opponents to exploit is a formidable task.

Geography. Clinton also has the geography factor working against her. Kennedy was the last president elected from the Northeast, and the region has lost population since 1960 (108 House seats then, compared to 83 now). Over the last 45 years, the country has chosen leaders from Texas (George W. Bush & George H.W. Bush), Arkansas (Bill Clinton), California (Ronald Reagan & Richard Nixon), and Georgia (Jimmy Carter). The Northeast’s reputation for liberal views is a problem for any presidential hopeful from the region. In some ways, Sen. Clinton’s reputation transcends geography, and she will do well in a more liberal state like California, but that reputation cuts both ways.

She’s a woman. Lest anyone forget, the United States has never elected a woman for president. Neither of the major political parties has even nominated a woman for president. And only once (Democrat Geraldine Ferraro in 1984) has a party even nominated a woman for vice-president. So, is the country ready for a woman president? That’s a topic for columns, theses, and dissertations far longer than this. But one thing is for sure: it would be a huge and historic step.

Keep in mind that polls showing that Americans are “ready” or “willing” to vote for a woman for president may not be that accurate. There are likely a group of respondents who won’t answer in the negative to those questions, because it’s not the politically correct thing to say (similar to polling involving a minority candidate). And also, Clinton, or any other woman candidate, will not be running in a vacuum. She will have an opponent with his own strengths and weaknesses. In a time of international conflict and a war on terrorism, Clinton will have to show extreme competence on foreign affairs and military issues to gain credibility with a majority of voters.

Overall, clearing just a couple of these hurdles would be a significant challenge for any candidate. But pulling off all four simultaneously in 2008, as Clinton is attempting, would have to be regarded as one of the most significant political feats in history. And that would make the loss even more difficult for Republicans to swallow.

But for the country to jump from not even nominating a woman for president to electing one, especially if we are still at war, Clinton has serious obstacles to face. Many Americans already distrust the Democratic Party on issues of national security, let alone a female Democrat.


Nathan Gonzales is political editor of The Rothenberg Political Report, a non-partisan newsletter that handicaps U.S. House, Senate, and gubernatorial elections.

Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/NathanLGonzales/2006/02/17/186842.html

[Seattle Conservative]

Did you see the end of Wolfie's show in which he showed the MTP clip? He let Maureen get out all the DNC talking points and didn't show Mary's clip slapping her down - showed another briefer clip of Mary - no media bias, nah!