Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 4 February 2007

Various big media television networks ^ | 4 February 2007 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[Alas Babylon!]

p>The Talk Shows

Sunday, February 4th, 2007

Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sens. Jim Webb, D-Va., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.

FACE THE NATION (CBS): NFL commissioner Roger Goodell.

THIS WEEK (ABC): Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.; Sarah Ferguson, the duchess of York.

LATE EDITION (CNN) : White House budget director Rob Portman; former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack; former Lebanese President Amin Gemayel; Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind.; consumer advocate Ralph Nader.

[Txsleuth]

Interesting...I don't recall Wolfie asking him about this today....wonder why??

[samantha]

Ugh!!!!!!!! What do you think he has been chumming up for the last two or three years? He has been Mccain's worker bee (boy did I clean that one up) consistently for Years. When he is not chumming for VP for John Mccain he is trashing this Administration and everything they do. He has taken over for Chuck Hagel who used to be Mccain's "go to Guy" (loose translation) until he sounded more anti War and Anti Military and anti Bush than any of the worst America Hating Rats. Whereas Graham would constantly talk about his Jag credentials, Hagel would brag about being in VietNam.

[Txsleuth]

I think Lynne Cheney is clean, also.

[Morgan in Denver]

Hagel is the Biden of the GOP. I like that. LOL

[Mo1]

Why do they think that McCain would have a better chance at beating Hillary than Newt? Can someone PLEASE explain this to me?

Because the independents will be the deciding factor in this election

Not the base

[eeevil conservative]

I get that....but how is he worse than McCain?

That is what I don't get....I mean, I m liking Duncan Hunter and Mitt the best so far...

but why on earth does the Republican Leadership think that McCain is better than Newt? At least with Newt you won't have half the Republican base voting third party or staying home.....strictly speaking numbers, here...What makes them think that McCain would muster more votes than Newt in a General Election against Hillary? THAT is where I am lost.....

They seem to really under-estimate the hatred for McCain...

[daisyscarlett]

Jim Webb named his new kiddo GEORGIA...interesting...

And for the record, I, too, think Webb is weirdo. I noticed when he gave the rebuttal to SOTU, he had that strange look on his face and then about half way through, he began to smile, almost like he had been prompted to do so.

I guess his beautiful, educated wife never read his books...strange couple, very strange...

[AliVeritas]

I went to Real Virginians for Webb site (pretty bare), but noticed they had a Viet lang tag on the side bar, underneath said Arab Americans. Clicked, just an endorsement header re: WaPo and a few reason to vote Webb, nothing specific. Strange. So I looked around a tad, then I came to this (scroll to VA race):

http://ampolitics.ghazali.net/html/cair_mas_report.html

I may have some digging to do.

[eeevil conservative]

LOL!! Too funny you say that...this is a point made by us GA folks....When Newt talks, he comes off too Academic- over the heads- of real folks....and we just don't like that or trust that....President Bush says things like "strategery" for a reason....

[Night Hides Not]

Mo1, your comments are spot on! We are headed down a very dangerous path. I guess the world was a safer place when there were two superpowers, instead of one. What makes it more dangerous is that the Flower Children of the 60's and 70's have their hands on the levers of power. Here's a recent post of mine:

I can't comment on Mr. Arkin because the language I would use wouldn't be allowed on the Free Republic.

Allow me to help: leopards never change their spots. If you look at all the gray-hairs that participated in these protests, they are the same people that were protesting in the 60's & 70's. They went underground for a couple of decades, and reaped great bounty from the land they so despise, while our armed forces (whom they secretly loathe, ala Bill Clinton) protected their asses from the real Communists.

They wouldn't know the truth if it smacked them between the eyes. They live in their world of reductio ad Hitlerum (Bush = Hitler) while trying to cozy up to the likes of Ahmadinejad, and saying "the Iraqis really preferred to have Saddam back in power.

I have never forgotten these leopards who marvelled at each other's $250 Reader's Digest scholarships, while castigating me as a sell out for earning a 4 year ride to an academic powerhouse (Gonzaga Univ.), thanks to an ROTC scholarship.

I shall never forget, nor will I turn my back to their seditious activities.

[eeevil conservative]

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

so think the independents would rather have Hillary?

wow...

[Txsleuth]

Newt also pushed back his date to decide if he is going to run.

At first he was saying September...and the other night I heard him say it would be October before he would decide.

I am not a Newt fan particularly...I have seen him act like he has had his finger in the wind too many times.

He is an "idea guy" someone that I would hire in an instant if I owned a company...to find out the best way to market my product....but, his thought processes seem so helter skelter sometimes...I am not sure I want him trusted with this whole nation.

[Morgan in Denver]

I'm not hitting anyone nor am I biting any heads off.

If you get the chance to read Dr. Frank Luntz's new book on Words That Work, he explains that President Bush may not be the most articulate speaker but the people who are listening to him know exactly what he's saying, and love his passion and honesty. That cannot be said about any of the Democrats, nor Kerry or Gore.

So, I agree with you. I would love to see someone as capable and smart as President Bush to appear. Democrats may be dancing with glee today but history is going to show the Democrats remain stuck on stupid, to quote one famous army general.

[edpc]

From what we do know .. some WMD were found .. but not the stock piles that we were told

Rick Santorum helped bring out the report that around 500 chemical munitions were found between 2003 and 2006. At the time, the "no WMDs" leftist mantra was changed to "no stockpiles" instead.

I always like to remind the doubters of "stockpiles" that a drop of Sarin is enough to kill you. Many drops are contained within a chemical shell. It was also dismissed, since many of these weapons were "degraded" from being stored for so long. Leftists who make this argument also whined when our significantly older chemical stockpiles were reportedly leaking in a much ballyhooed 60 Minutes story (before 9/11 or Iraq). I'd challenge these "degraded weapons" skeptics: Travel to my state of Maryland and stroll around the chemical weapons storage bunkers in Edgewood Arsenal without protective gear.

If any of Saddam's chemical shells were of the binary type, the components would not mix until the shell spun after being fired. Those contents would be quite stable, even now. The homemade nerve agent made by the Aum Cult in Japan in 1995 killed about a dozen and injured/hospitalized hundreds of others. Imagine the contents of one 155mm shell released in...oh, let's say Grand Central Station. A sophisticated, professionally manufactured chemical weapon would wreak havoc in a confined place like that.

[AliVeritas]

http://northernvirginiastan.blogspot.com/2006/10/mobilizing-muslim-vote.html


Please see the two links at the end.

[snugs]

She will fight though especially if anyone attacks her family in fact the VP was accused of saying things that in fact were first said during the election campaign by Lynne he may have used them afterwards but she said it first. Lipstick on a pig is just one example.

She was in many ways his attack dog as she could get away with saying them because she did not have an official position.

[freeperfromnj]

I'll admit, I don't really follow Graham that closely. I just happened to catch his interview with Chris Wallace this morning, he appeared to be sincere and I was basing my comments on that. From what I've read here this morning, he's not a good prospect based on his past actions.

[Txsleuth]

I heard Mitch McConnell on with Hugh Hewitt on Friday.

Hugh has this pledge drive going...to have people say they won't give money to the NRCC or the RNC so that the money could be used for candidates that sign on to the iraq resolution.

When asked about that pledge drive, McConnell said it saddened him that Hugh was doing that...because they will back ALL Republican incumbents in their next election anyway.

When Hugh asked why....McConnell said something interesting.

He said that even though all of the GOP Senators are Republicans...their constituents in different areas of the country have different ideas and needs from their GOP Senators.

What this tells me is that McCain the the GOP leaders probably aren't as concerned with the hardcore base of the Republican party as much as they are in the more moderate middle of the road constituents that MIGHT either stay home..or vote independent or, heaven forbid, vote for a Dem....if the hard core right is TOO overly reflected in the candidate.

[snugs]

I think because Newt is a more polarizing figure eg Contract with America as far as the Independents are concerned and many conservatives/religious right will be iffy about him with 3 marriages. I know McCain has 2 but Newt's as some see it dirty washing is newer.

[Peach]

Edwards just used his wife's cancer as a reason that he said in 2004 that it was a good vote to go to war!!!

The war started in March 2003; I don't think Elizabeth was diagnosed until a considerable period of time after that.

And I think the vote came in late 2002.