Free Republic
Browse · Search		 News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Weekend Talk Show *Preview* for 6/2 - 6/3/07 (not the live thread)
Network and Cable News Networks | 6/2/07 | Network and Cable News

Posted on 06/02/2007 3:52:49 AM PDT by Phsstpok

Preview and Analysis for Weekend of June 2nd and 3rd, 2007

Guest lineup for the Sunday TV news shows:

NBC's "Meet the Press"
  • Bob Shrum
  • James Carville
  • Mary Matalin
  • Mike Murphy

CBS's "Face the Nation"

  • Sen. Ken Salazar, D-CO
  • Rep. Peter King, R-NY

Fox News Sunday

  • Newt Gingrich
  • Ryan Crocker, US Amb. to Iraq
 CNN "Late Edition"
  • Elizabeth Edwards
  • Tagg Romney
  • Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-CA
  • Sen. Richard Shelby, R-AL
  • Bill Schneider, CNN
  • Candy Crowley, CNN
  • John Roberts, CNN
  • Donna Brazile, Democrat Strategist
  • J.C.Watts, Republican Strategist
  • Scott Spradling, Anchor, WMUR-TV
  • Tom Fahey, New Hampshire Union Leader
  • Jennifer Vaughn, Anchor, WMUR-TV

ABC's "This Week"

  • Iraqi President Jalal Talabani
  • Rep. Jack Murtha, D-PA

War, immigration and the Dhimmicrats debate are the themes this week, as is to be expected. 


Actually in the car on the highway right now.  Wife is driving first shift.  Feel free to talk among youselves.

Hope to talk some later.

This probably won't be cross posted to my blog at Wizards.townhall.com as we're getting on the road for the drive to Orlando.  I'll catch up during the week.

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!

I'll link to Mark Kilmer preview of the Sunday shows over at Redstate.COM when I can.

I'll also see if I can post a link to Politico.COM's Sunday Talk Show Tip Sheet.

TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: campaign; immigration; iraq; talkradio
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last

Saturday Shows for June 2nd, 2007

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.


1 posted on 06/02/2007 3:52:52 AM PDT by Phsstpok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]
To: A.Hun; Bahbah; Txsleuth; MNJohnnie; eeevil conservative; Alas Babylon!; Seattle Conservative; ...

Ping

Another abbreviated preview thread. This time I spared you my usual pithy analysis.

I’m actually in a car on my way to Florida as I post this.

Talk later.


2 posted on 06/02/2007 3:58:42 AM PDT by Phsstpok (Often wrong, but never in doubt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Phsstpok
Thanks for your usual great work. Not a lot of “must watch” TV tomorrow!
Interesting that ABC “pairs up” the President of Iraq with Congressman Murtha.
MTP has reached total irrelevance.
3 posted on 06/02/2007 4:25:18 AM PDT by maica (America will be a hyperpower that's all hype and no power -- if we do not prevail in Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Phsstpok

Bob (0-8) Shrum?


4 posted on 06/02/2007 4:30:08 AM PDT by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]
To: Phsstpok
Many thanks, Phsstpok.

I'm not sure that I can take this many dems on the tube tomorrow. Their lust for power at any cost is disgusting....a bunch of hyenas, their fangs dripping w/blood.

This nation deserves better than having dems controlling the reins of power.

5 posted on 06/02/2007 4:37:45 AM PDT by Carolinamom (Every day is a gift; be thankful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]
To: Phsstpok
Nice work as always.

For those interested, you can get streaming audio feeds of most of these shows.

Shows with a • by their names also have alternate streaming times on the Fox News Talk channel (Schedule, Listen Live). Also check for streaming video on demand on the shows' respective Web sites.

I have also indexed this page on the talkradio keyword.

6 posted on 06/02/2007 4:40:41 AM PDT by jmyrlefuller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]
To: jmyrlefuller
Corrected: (Listen Live to Fox News Talk)
7 posted on 06/02/2007 4:41:46 AM PDT by jmyrlefuller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

This is such a thoughtful and outstanding post that I am reposting it here so that more will see it. nathanbedford has compiled a number of his previous posts which he has italicized. The original post is here. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1843572/posts?page=8#8

Conservative epiphany or Bush’s jump the shark moment?
Judging from the posts since Bush’s intransigent support for the immigration amnesty bill, Bush, wittingly or not, has severed himself from his conservative base. His speech is probably one of the most inept ever made by a modern American president, it rivals Jimmy Carter’s malaise speech for sheer artlessness. It might even prove more self-destructive.

This this is an odd position for a President in the midst of an unpopular war, who is treading water with a 30% approval rating. Nonetheless, Bush must govern and, more critically, he must wage war for the balance of his term. How can he do so now that he has finally, I say irretrievably, cut his base legs out from under his administration? why would any president so isolate himself, especially as he and his wife and Barney, and what’s left of his base, are the only ones who support the war in Iraq?

I have long been posting that Bush is no conservative but rather a Christian. I think that is half the answer. Here are some of my comments made before the 2006 election:

The problem with George Bush is that he is not primarily a conservative, he is primarily a Christian, and he does not have a calculus that is congruent with yours or mine, even though both of us might be Christians.

George Bush sees partisan politics as petty and ultimately meaningless. We see partisanship as the indispensable stuff of freedom. At election time the Bushes will hold their nose and dip into partisanship. But it is not in their essential nature to wage war for tactical political advantage.

George Bush wants what Bill Clinton wanted: To fashion a legacy. He does not want to be remembered as the man who cut a few percentage points from an appropriation bill but as the man who reshaped Social Security. I’ve come to the conclusion that the Bushes see politics as squirmy, fetid. It must be indulged in if one is to practice statesmanship but it is statesmanship alone that that is worthy as a calling.

They are honest, they are loyal, they are patrician. There would’ve been admired and respected if had lived among the founding fathers. But it is Laura Bush and Momma Bush who really and truly speak for the family and who tell us what they are thinking and who they are. There’s not a Bush woman who does not believe in abortion. They believe in family, they live in loyalty, they believe in the tribe, but they do not believe in partisan politics.

I believe it is time for us to decide no longer to be used by the Bush family as useful idiots and instead to begin to use the Bushes as our useful idiots . I say this with the utmost admiration and respect for everything the Bushes stand for. Who would not be proud beyond description to have a father or an uncle who was among the first and youngest of naval aviators to fight in the Pacific and to be twice shot down. Not a stain or blemish of corruption or personal peccadillo has touched the family(except for the brother whom I believe was cleared of bank charges). They are the living embodiment of all that is good and noble in the American tradition.

But they are not conservative.

I think that constitutes half the answer but what is the other half? At the time of the Harriet Myers nomination I posted this:

As a result of the policies of the Bush administration, Republicans have forfeited their formerly kryptonite hundred year claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility. Contrary to what Rush Limbaugh says, the Democrats do have an affirmative program, it is to be the party of fiscal responsibility by raising taxes and cutting spending. They will point out that the Republicans are the party of fiscal irresponsibility because they have cut taxes and increased spending. Because Bush and the Congressional Republicans have sought to buy votes with federal spending rather than cut spending in all areas apart from national defense, it is now the Democrats who can plausibly say that it is they who are fiscally responsible.

Their argument will not convince us but it will be persuasive enough, especially when supported by a full-court press from the whole of the mainstream media, to blur the fundamental distinction between the parties and perhaps gain the next election by confusing a fair portion of the electorate.

Thus we have wantonly kicked away one of the legs of our stool. Another leg of the stool was comprised of our ability to go to the electorate, as George Bush did successfully in the last two elections, and persuasively argue that we were the party of judicial integrity. That we were the party which manned the threshold to the Constitution like the Patriots at Thermopylae to check the ravening horde of liberals who would sack the Constitution like a city which had succumbed to a siege.

The Harriet Meir nomination in a stroke has needlessly compromised our ability plausibly to appeal to the electorate as of the party which stands on constitutional principle and eschews judicial opportunism.

We are now left with only one issue which separates us from the Democrats, national security. Like it or not, ever since there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, we’ve been on the run on this issue. Yes I know we won the last election on this issue but the tide has clearly turned. Watch Hillary contrive to present herself as a plausible candidate who is strong on defense.

Why did we saw off two of our three legs? On the issue of spending some would say it is because Bush was never a conservative. Others would say that it was the war that did it but that would not be the whole truth, at least that would not be the whole explanation. Others would say that it is simply the nature of a politician to buy votes with other people’s money and the temptation, even to Republicans, is irresistible.

My own view is that our present dilemma is the product of a little bit of each of the above. For years now I’ve been posting my view the George Bush is not essentially a movement conservative but a committed Christian. Here’s what I’ve been saying recently:

The truth is straightforward, as usual. Bush is first a committed Christian, then a devoted family man who values personal loyalty to an extreme, and third, a conservative when that philosophy does not conflict with the first two. In this appointment, Bush believes he has satisfied all three legs of the stool. This is what I posted yesterday:

On the limited evidence available, I do positively believe Bush appointed her because she has been reborn. I mean that quite respectfully. I mean that he is counting on her being a new person. Most of the time it means she will vote conservative. But I honestly do not think Bush appointed her to vote conservative. I think he appointed he to vote in the SPIRIT.

The sad thing for us conservatives is to contemplate just how unnecessary the debacle over Harriet Meir really was. One can understand the fear in the legislative heart of retribution from constituents as their snouts are pulled away from the trough. One can even understand Bush’s, or perhaps more accurately Rove’s, trepidations in dealing with immigration arising out of fear that they will be called racists and out of the desire to pander to portions of the business community. But the whole nomination fiasco is almost uniquely unrelated to identifiable political or policy considerations. In the absence of such temporal explanations, I am left with the conclusion that Bush has a selected her because she’s Christian.

I have quoted these previous post extensively to demonstrate that I have not come lately or opportunistically to this point of view. I’ve been saying this about George Bush for years now.

It remains now only to say what I tried to articulate in my “about” page: that Tip O’Neil had it wrong, all politics is not local, but racial. That is to say that the modern American political landscape is dominated by race and especially the abhorrence of any politician to be stripped of power like Trent Lott or to be stripped in Orwellian fashion of his very personhood like Don Imus.

The last refuge for scoundrels of the left is to play the race card.

I believe the George Bush’s Christian faith sincerely compels him toward an abhorrence of racism, or sexism, or religious bigotry. Hence, he extols the Muslim religion as having a faith on equal value with Christianity. He appoints Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court. He joins in the Inquisition of Trent Lott. He squanders billions in Africa to fight AIDS. He cannot see the immigration issue as anything except No- Nothing Nativists seeking to work their prejudices against brown people.

Because this is more than a philosophical but rather a religious conviction with George Bush, his position on immigration (as well as on Iraq) will prove to be utterly intractable. He is immune to blandishments, threat,, or argument because it is a matter of faith.

We conservatives have better decide what we are going to do with the our movement. My preliminary conclusion: the sooner we conservatives divorce George Bush, the better for America.

8 posted on 06/02/2007 5:38:22 AM CDT by nathanbedford (”I like to legislate. I feel I’ve done a lot of good.” Sen. Robert Byrd)


8 posted on 06/02/2007 4:47:50 AM PDT by Bahbah (Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]
To: Phsstpok
Thanks, as always, for posting this!


9 posted on 06/02/2007 5:15:09 AM PDT by pookie18 ([Hillary Rotten] Clinton Happens...as does Dr. Demento Dean, Bela Pelosi & Benedick Durbin!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: ken5050

LOL

I thought that he was 0-9, but I be blonde


10 posted on 06/02/2007 5:21:37 AM PDT by saveliberty (Prayer blizzard for Tony and Jill Snow and their family.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]
To: saveliberty
You could be correct..I lost count..However, if Shrum is once again dipping his toe into Dem presidential politics, I may still feel a faint stir of optimism about 2008...

BTW..blonde is good...

11 posted on 06/02/2007 5:56:22 AM PDT by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]
To: ken5050

LOL Thanks


12 posted on 06/02/2007 5:57:46 AM PDT by saveliberty (Prayer blizzard for Tony and Jill Snow and their family.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]
To: Bahbah
NB longs for the days of his name sake Nathan Bedford. You do know Bedford was the founder of the KKK right?

He is one of the the hyper hysteric Buchannites. IF Conservatives want to be nothing but a political finger wacko group no one pays any attention to, they should listen to NB.

Like it or not, ALL political movements are coalitions of interests. Screaming, as NB has for the last 7 years, for dogmatic purity is the siren song of complete political idiots. It makes the screamers feel all macho and tough but it gets NOTHING of their agenda advanced. 70% of something is FAR better then 100% of NOTHING.

On Judges alone GW Bush has done far more good for the Conservative Movement’s future then all the “Conservative Media” screamers with their “Dogma uber alles” mindset have, or ever will, do. This “divorce Bush” ranting is a song sung by idiots full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

13 posted on 06/02/2007 6:29:07 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (If you will try being smarter, I will try being nicer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]
To: Bahbah
Also moronic on claiming the Democrats are the party of “Fiscal responsibility.

Guess the screaming Bush haters like NB haven’t bothered to notice that DESPITE being at War the Deficit has been cut in half in the last 2 years and was on a path to being eliminated?

Meanwhile the current Democrat Congress has ALL ready increased spending without ANY new taxes being raised.

Tax cuts raise revenues by unceasing economic growth. For a “Conservative” to argue that the Democrats are “fiscally responsible” for wanting to raise taxes and cut spending (which they have not at all done) indicates a complete ignorance of all political reality.

But then it is not at all about reality. It about the Freeper Dinocons finding their daily excuse to vent their angst because the political world that existed 35 years ago has vanished and they are too arrogant conviced of their own infallibility to evolve their dogmas to fit the new political realities. Conservative spend all their time for 7 years shooting their own in the back and THEN wonder why the President has finally said "screw you losers"?

14 posted on 06/02/2007 6:35:58 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (If you will try being smarter, I will try being nicer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]
To: MNJohnnie
Screaming, as NB has for the last 7 years, for dogmatic purity is the siren song of complete political idiots.

I can be quite dense, but I did not detect that in his comments.

15 posted on 06/02/2007 6:58:27 AM PDT by Bahbah (Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]
To: Bahbah
From NB's post:

I have long been posting that Bush is no conservative but rather a Christian. I think that is half the answer. Here are some of my comments made before the 2006 election:

16 posted on 06/02/2007 7:00:26 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (If you will try being smarter, I will try being nicer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]
To: MNJohnnie

Well, he may just have a point there. And there is nothing wrong with wanting to help the poor and downtrodden of the world, but a President should adhere to his oath of office as his primary duty.

This immigration bill just brings us to a point where we have to start asking some hard questions and finding some good answers.


17 posted on 06/02/2007 7:07:36 AM PDT by Bahbah (Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]
To: Phsstpok
The shows could have some potential tomorrow especially Newt.
Be careful driving you picked a tough day to drive to the not so sunshiney state.
18 posted on 06/02/2007 12:08:32 PM PDT by rodguy911 (Support The New media, Ticket the Drive-bys, --America-The land of the Free because of the Brave-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]
To: Bahbah
GW does put us in a truly tough position as Conservatives. In my case “conservative” Republican. I want to support a sitting pubbie pres. but can’t support his policies. Tough place to be.
19 posted on 06/02/2007 12:14:52 PM PDT by rodguy911 (Support The New media, Ticket the Drive-bys, --America-The land of the Free because of the Brave-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]
To: rodguy911

At least we have arrived at a time (although earlier than usual) where we are beginning to look for a new standard bearer to define the policies we can support. I’m with the President on the war anyway, but we’ve just had to avert our eyes on so many things. Well, it’s new day.


20 posted on 06/02/2007 12:34:16 PM PDT by Bahbah (Regev, Goldwasser & Shalit, we are praying for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search		 News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson