Posted on 05/26/2007 2:24:53 PM PDT by Phsstpok
Guest lineup for the Sunday TV news shows:
NBC's "Meet the Press"
CBS's "Face the Nation"
Fox News Sunday
|
CNN "Late Edition"
ABC's "This Week"
|
War and immigration are the themes this week, as is to be expected.
On immigration, the odd convergence of the DBM/Dhimmicrat message with the White House's regarding the current compromise bill lends a bizarre Lewis Carroll feel to the arguments being put forward. If anything the demagoguery of the White House and their Republican Senate allies when describing any and all critics of the current immigration bill is far harsher and more vituperative than anything the traditional DBM or other Dhimmicrat shills have come up with. If we don't bow down before the shamnesty bill we are racist bigot homophope neanderthals. Yep, that's a persuasive argument to put before the conservative Republican base, name calling. Did Karl Rove have a stroke, or something?
On the war and specifically the supplemental spending bill it appears the emphasis is all about the Dhimmicrats recovering from self inflicted wounds. Their rush to placate the Cindy Sheehan cabal on their far left flank has cemented in the minds of the entire country that you just can't trust the Dhimmicrats with the number one issue of the day, national defense. Nothing they did short of immediate surrender (not withdrawal or "redeployment) and the impeachment and execution of both Bush and Cheney would satisfy the moonbats and that was becoming obvious even to Nazi Pelosi, Okinawa Jack and Dingy Harry Reed (a less competent incarnation of the three stooges has never been seen in Washington, IMHO). They needed to retreat from the retreat, at least on the surface, in order to avoid a complete destruction of any chances they have to retain the House and Senate or take the White House in 2008. At the same time they have been successful in preserving their options with their moonbat base but hiding that fact from the sheeple. This "big victory" for the President in funding the troops only goes through September. Then we get to go through this joyful process yet again. I think their plan is to keep up the propaganda (and for their terrorist allies to keep blowing up civlians) so that they can justify cutting off all funds during the fall session.
Each show has set up their portion of the Dhimmicrat argument in their own way. On to the shows.
NBC Meet The Press offers us another in their continuing series introducing the "unknown" candidates for president to us poor ignorant sheeple. This time it's Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico, experienced diplomat and friend to America's enemies everywhere. Wait, ignore that last. Lil Timmah won't go near any questions about Kim Jung Il's nuclear program or Damascus' diplomacy by car bomb fiascos that Richardson aided and abetted during his tenure in the Clinton administration. Those years will merely be referred to generically as "vast experience." Well, I guess we learn from our mistakes, so Bill Richardson should be one of the most knowledgeable folks around.
CBS Face The Nation provides potentially the most interesting combination of the day with Levin and Sessions facing off on the war and immigration. Levin is one of the big disappointments to the moonbats in his refusal to countenance cutting of funds for the troops while Sessions is one of the harsher critics of the Iraqi government's progress (or lack thereof) so there's no telling where that discussion will go. Expect it to be universally unfavorable of the current situation and for an early fall deadline to be emphasized. On the immigration question Sessions has been one of the leading voices against the bill, while Levin has divided loyalties between labor interests who oppose the guest worker section of the bill and the interests of his constituents in Dearbornistan, you know, people from "nations of interest," those illegals listed as "other than Mexicans" by INS. It should be an interesting argument, but watch out for attempts to paint Sessions as some form of racist for his opposition to the shamnesty bill.
Fox News Sunday has their "me too" interview with a presidential candidate, this time it's Mike Huckabee. The former Arkansas governor has been trying desperately to break through into the "top tier" and he made some headway in the last debate, but it appears that he (and Richardson, for that matter) are being diverted to the "potential Vice President" roster. We'll see how that plays out. He wouldn't be a good match for a Fred Thompson (my first choice for president) and he's already indicating a reluctance to consider running with a pro-choice candidate like Giuliani, but that tells me he's thinking about the possibility himself. Besides Huckabee they also have a debate between Kaye Bailey Hutchison (against) and Snarlin Arlen Specter (for) on the shamnesty bill. I doubt it will happen, but I'd love to see her gut him like a fish and leave him stunned and humiliated. Unfortunately Kaye's not that kind of politician (she's too much the Texas lady) and she also may be trying to cover her own base in the Texas business community, who are desperate to convince her to support the immigration deal. I'm afraid it won't be pretty... and I doubt the discussion of the immigration "compromise" will be either fair or balanced.
CNN Late Edition concentrates on the war in Iraq and the surrounding Middle East. No doubt they will try to emphasize the current state of affairs and how "obvious" it is that everything would be peaceful and secure for everyone if only we hadn't invaded Iraq. The CYA CIA bureaucrats and their Dhimmicrat allies have cooperated by leaking yet another top secret report, this time touting their analysis that chaos would follow the invasion and that sectarian violence would inevitably follow. Oh, and they also expected Al Qaeda, who had never been in Iraq and never would have considered allying with the secular Baathists, to all of a sudden develop strong ties to Saddam's followers. Of course, the fact that they have contradictory position papers covering every possible position on any issue it's not surprising that they can haul out an analysis after the fact to prove their prescience. Pay no attention to the 9,999 reports that say exactly the opposite, you know, the ones they actually presented to anyone else. This is the CYA CIA, after all. Wolfie also offers up Charlie Rangel, no doubt to do some Bush bashing and not to discuss the just completed trade deal worked out with the help of the White House. And CNN has not one but two potential Commander in Chiefs, Biden and Hunter. I'd love to see Biden reconcile his argument that we must leave Iraq because it's a civil war and we shouldn't interfere with his own demand that we invade Darfur to interfere in... wait for it... the civil war there. Wasn't it Emerson who told us "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
ABC This Week should be the most consistent conservative bashing session of the weekend, with Commerce Secretary Guitierrez and Senate Dhimmicrat Menendez providing a duet of Anglo bashing racist rhetoric. They're Hispanics and it's really their country to begin with so everyone else just has to roll over and take it or else be branded a racist bigot homophobe neanderthal. Never mind about concerns over folks like the Fort Dix Six who are from Albania and that a few of them were smuggled across our Southern border. Any concerns about immigration are, on their face, racist. Neven mind the milions of African's, Chinese, Phillipino or any other peoples who would like to come here but can't and who feel that the Mexican's are stealing their opportunities to survive by breaking the rules and taking advantage. Never mind that so called "immigrant rights" groups are almost exclusively Hispanic and are mostly tightly aligned with the avowedly racist Azatlan movement. Ignore all of that and just pay attention to their charges of racism. After all, folks like Michelle Malkin are just white Anglo Saxon protestant racists, right? Wait... ABC also offers us a "me too" presidential candidate interview, though they seem to have a special niche in mind by seeming to regularly select those about to leave the race. I've dubbed this their "irrelevant candidates farewell tour." This week it's Jim Gilmore. You know, Gilmore, G-I-L-M-O-R-E. Former governor of Virginia. That's what I thought.
The Saturday shows are pretty typical fair. The Beltway Boys and Fox News Watch both attempt to force feed the media elites conventional wisdom to us (which is ironic coming from these guys, to say the least) while desperately ignoring issues that they should be discussing. In other words, exactly what they've been doing for years. CNBC's Tim Russert Show doesn't even think their show is important enough to update last weeks listing. For once I agree with them. No doubt they've found some leftist author to bash some conservative and they'll be pushing their latest "great masterpiece" (in time for Father's Day if you order from Amazon today). The Journal Editorial Report has what should be an interesting (and TIVO worthy) debate on the immigration and Middle East situations, featuring four very interesting thinkers.
Bottom line, the DBM shows are covering the hot topics of the week (for a change) with an unusually monolithic spin that likely will leave our point of view out of the discussion. This week our work may be more important than normal and the need for us to correct and comment on these shows, particularly getting corrections out to media outlets and our own Senators and Representatives may be critical to what actually happens on these issues. Take what I have done as a starting point and learn all you can about these issues and these people and then lets tear apart these shows like we've not done in quite some time. It's time for the Jedi Council of FreeRepublic to get back to what we do best.
This should be cross posted to my blog at Wizards.townhall.com later today. I have finally caught up over their and I hope to keep up to date from now on. In fact I'm going to change the format just a bit when posting this in light of the success of the technique I used to get caught up. This analysis will still be first but then I'm going to try putting all of the show by show posts into one big Post number 1. If I end up falling back to separate posts you'll know that I found an upper limit to the length of FR posts.
This thread exists primarily as a heads up for who is on the weekend talks shows, what they've been invited on to push (based on their recent pronouncements) and the spin (meme) the DBM is likely trying to push based on that information. All of this is prep work for the weekly Sunday Morning Talk Show thread posted by Alas Babylon!. That thread provides a live commentary and analysis of the Sunday talking head shows, with valuable insight and exceptional fact checking. we are the Jedi Council of FreeRepublic, at least in regards to these DBM gabfests. You wanna know what was said and what it meant, as well as where they messed up? Read that thread!
Mark Kilmer has posted his excellent preview of the Sunday shows over at Redstate.COM.
Politico.COM has their Sunday Talk Show Tip Sheet
Below are the topics and guests announced for these programs, along with my take on the "memes" that the shows are trying to push. With each guest's name are a series of links that I found in a web search that helped me get a handle on who they are and what their likely positions will be when they are interviewed.
The Beltway Boys (Mort Kondrake, Fred Barnes)
CNBC's Tim Russert Show (Tim Russert)
Fox News Watch (Eric Burns)
Journal Editorial Report (Paul Gigot) - FNC show page
NBC Meet The Press (Tim Russert)
Below are the topics and guests announced for this program, along with my take on the "memes" that the show is trying to push. With each guest's name are a series of links that I found in a web search that helped me get a handle on who they are and what their likely positions will be when they are interviewed.
CBS Face The Nation (Bob Schieffer)
Below are the topics and guests announced for this program, along with my take on the "memes" that the show is trying to push. With each guest's name are a series of links that I found in a web search that helped me get a handle on who they are and what their likely positions will be when they are interviewed.
Fox News Sunday (Chris Wallace)
Below are the topics and guests announced for this program, along with my take on the "memes" that the show is trying to push. With each guest's name are a series of links that I found in a web search that helped me get a handle on who they are and what their likely positions will be when they are interviewed.
CNN Late Edition (Wolf Blitzer)
Below are the topics and guests announced for this program, along with my take on the "memes" that the show is trying to push. With each guest's name are a series of links that I found in a web search that helped me get a handle on who they are and what their likely positions will be when they are interviewed.
ABC This Week (George Stephanopoulos)
Below are the topics and guests announced for this program, along with my take on the "memes" that the show is trying to push. With each guest's name are a series of links that I found in a web search that helped me get a handle on who they are and what their likely positions will be when they are interviewed.
The Weekend Talk Show Preview Thread is up
It will also be cross posted to my blog at
Here's a sample of my usually witty commentary...
... If we don't bow down before the shamnesty bill we are racist bigot homophope neanderthals. Yep, that's a persuasive argument to put before the conservative Republican base, name calling. Did Karl Rove have a stroke, or something? ...
... Bottom line, the DBM shows are covering the hot topics of the week (for a change) with an unusually monolithic spin that likely will leave our point of view out of the discussion. This week our work may be more important than normal and the need for us to correct and comment on these shows, particularly getting corrections out to media outlets and our own Senators and Representatives may be critical to what actually happens on these issues ...
Back from Hawaii. Great trip, though it felt a little rushed. Now, of course, I have nothing to look forward to for a long time... except for that trip to DisneyWorld next weekend... (it's business, give me a break!)
Phsstpok, you are just another one of those jet setters.
The Beltway Boys just played the clip of the President saluting the Tuskeegee Airmen. Gets me every time.
The White House is not handling the PR on the immigration bill well at all...what else is new.
From Power Line:
Conservatives demonized by unlikely source
The White House communications operation is in overdrive promoting its immigration reform proposal. I’m getting three or more emails per day on the subject. I feel frustrated that the White House failed, in my view, to push this hard for initiatives I favor, or when it came to defending itself on Iraq.
I’m also frustrated that the White House fails to treat seriously the concerns conservatives have about its immigration package. The tendency instead is to misrepresent or demean our concerns and, to some extent, demonize us.
We see some of this in the latest column by Michael Gerson, who until recently was a key aide to President Bush. The title of Gerson’s piece is “Letting Fear Rule”; the subtitle is “Nativism Is a Recipe for Long-Term GOP Losses.” So before Gerson even gets to his analysis, conservatives with whom he disagrees stand accused of nativism and being ruled by fear.
It doesn’t get any better once Gerson starts arguing. He begins by comparing the thinking of opponents of immigration reform to that of the Congress that passed the “Chinese Exclusion Act.” But opponents of the administration’s package aren’t taking a position on how many immigrants should be allowed lawfully to enter the country; only on how those who have entered unlawfully should be treated. Thus, Gerson is unfair to mainstream conservative opponents of the reform package when he asserts that “anti-immigrant sentiment” is driving our opposition.
Indeed, many conservative opponents are not even stridently anti-illegal immigrant. John and I have said that amnesty (or whatever one wants to call the forgiveness advocated by the administration) should be on the table if the government proves it can secure our borders. It is our skepticism that the government can, or even seriously wants to do so that drives our opposition to amnesty-like proposals at this time.
Nor do most mainstream conservative opponents of the administration’s plan call for harsh measures against the illegals who are here, even in the absence of effective enforcement. John McCain and Michael Chertoff attack a straw man when they talk about the impossibility of deporting 12 million illegals. To my knowledge, very few conservatives are calling for mass deportations. We simply don’t want to make those who have entered the U.S. illegally more comfortable than are today until we are fully confident that doing so won’t result in increased illegal immigration, as occurred after the last amnesty deal.
Gerson next argues that Republicans shouldn’t worry about being voted into irrelevance by Hispanic voters if immigration reform passes; they should instead worry about this unhappy outcome if they block such reform. Again, my view is that if we secure our borders illegals who are already here eventually can be permitted to become citizens, and the political chips can fall where they may. But I think Gerson is wrong to discount the potential adverse political consequences associated with this. The issue isn’t really how Republicans will fare — modern parties probably can adjust to demographic changes. The issue is how conservatives will fare. I find it difficult to believe that the infusion of millions of low-skilled, poorly educated individuals into the electorate will be good for the conservative cause. It has never before been good for American conservatives, and I doubt things will work out better for conservatives in our modern entitlement-oriented, group victim mentality society.
This leads to Gerson’s final argument — that conservatives should not fear that American identity will be diluted by Latino immigration. As my last paragraph suggests, the real concern about Latino immigration may stem from the fact that the American identity has already been diluted, and not because of immigration. In any case, Gerson’s analysis once again is too facile. He bases his cultural optimism on the fact that Hispanics as a group are quite religious.
Now I’m as good a “Christianist” as the next Jewish Republican conservative, but I suspect Gerson is placing too much weight on religion here. The belief that matters most for purposes of this debate is not religious belief, but civic belief — not belief in God but belief in our institutions and love for our country. It is the latter kind of thinking, and only such thinking, that will result in successful assimilation. I’m not fully competent to assess the prospects here, but the anecdotal evidence doesn’t seem too favorable. In any case, Gerson’s argument from religion is unpersuasive.
Forgive me, then, if I tune out much of the White House propaganda on this issue. I don’t like having my intelligence or my character insulted.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017749.php
Thank you, Phsstpok....you usual wonderful thread.
I am glad you had a good time, albeit too short, I am sure.
Say HI to Mickey Mouse for me next week...LOL
Thank you for posting that, Bahbah.
I keep thinking that the White House must be so much smarter than I am...and I am just not “getting” their strategy when putting out their “public relations”...
I thought it would be clearer to me once Tony Snow came on board...
But, alas, I am still not getting “it”.
I think Tony has done a wonderful job in lots of ways, but, as Powerline points out, they should have been working the war the way they are working immigration, and they weren’t.
And then they call people on their side who find substantive problems with the bill stupid, or mean, or both. Who can figure that out?
I don’t base my opinion on what the WH says or doesn’t say, but gee, there was no reason to be insulting.
Oh lord, I should never listen to Neal Gabler. “Those who support the troops want to get them out of harm’s way.”
Does anyone understand what the military does? Why we have one? Who is supposed to be in harm’s way...Aunt Tillie? They are our defenders...thank God.
FINALLY!!!
I wondered when ONE person on the Fox News network would remark that there is something very wrong with talking about the WAR as a dem vs. GOP fight.
I just saw Cal Thomas actually mention that that is what is happening.
Even that ditz Jane Hall mentioned that IF that is the only way that it IS being regarded, then “someone” needs to do an expose of the votes made by Congress to find out WHY they vote/voted as they do!!!
It makes me SICK when I see Fred Barnes and Juan talking about who will “own” this war....now I realize these are “political” shows...but it is very distasteful...especially this weekend.
end of rant
The tone didn’t start out too well when Chertoff began the week saying those of us opposed to The Bill either want a) to deport all immigrants and/or b) have them executed.
Today I read a piece by Eleanor Clift- she says we’re all bigots and Linda Chavez agrees with her judging by the piece she wrote this week..
I don’t think (going out on a limb here) either of them have READ the bill.
I also heard Neal Gabler say that...and it what set me off...and then when Cal actually brought up what I posted about..I forgot about Gabler’s very telling opinion.
However, Bah, as you and I know, from watching the House and Senate...his opinion is echoed by Congresscritters that should know how ridiculous that is...and some are even “veterans”...which goes back to my point about how this WAR is only being attended to by out politicians as a political “obstacle” or “opportunity” ...whichever side you are on...
Hi rodguy...good to see you!!
Hope you and your family are doing well...
Excellent rant, sleuthie. I cheered Cal for that. What in the world have we become? Well, not us per se.
But rodguy, we do have Senator Sessions!!!
LOL. I see you have picked up on the plan here. Keep touting what a vast CV Richardson has, but never mention what a bungle he made of all of his high positions.
Thanks Phsstpok!
I’m sorry but I have to yawn over the guest lineup. Maybe a few confrontations but bland for the most part, IMHO. I hope I’m wrong.
I must be blind or deft as to what Bush & Co are doing with their illegal immigration plan and I certainly am not thrilled with the line up this weekend.
I cannot look at the weekend lineup without the portion of Bernie Goldberg’s book, And Whimps To The Right Of Me, standing out.
Morgan
Thanks Phsstpok. Glad you’re back from the vacation.
I’m sure you had a blast and deservedly so.
Daughter and new SIL got back from Hawaii last Saturday and have completed move from NYC to Atlanta.
Settling right in like old married folks. Ahh, to be young again.
:)
Saddam had provoked two regional war, had directly attacked a third nation (Israel during the Gulf War) used WMDS against both the Iranians and his own people, was an open sponsor of Islamic terrorist groups, was under UN Economic Sanctions that required an open ended US/British Military commitment to "contain" him.
Iraq NOW is FAR more stable then it was under Saddam, the problems that are so hyped and exaggerated by the "News" media are IN Iraq were Saddam's Iraq was a regional threat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.