Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 4 November 2007

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

[Alas Babylon!]

The Talk Shows

Sunday, November 4th, 2007

Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Former President George H.W. Bush.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn.

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., Mark Penn, chief strategist for Sen. Hillary Clinton campaign.

THIS WEEK (ABC): Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.

LATE EDITION (CNN) : Mideast peace envoy and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair; Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Chris Dodd, D-Conn., Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

[Mr Inviso]

Thanks!!! You’ve just written what I have been searching for the words to express. The very LAST thing we need to do is to look like the guys bearing pitchforks and torches.

[Prokopton]

Thompson royally blew it on the pro-life issue this morning. He said he doesn’t support a constitutional amendment but that the states should deal with it. Fine. But then he said he doesn’t support criminalization of it which I got to understand includes the states. Where does he stand?? I can’t see his ground.

I agree with you. Gay marriage is a states rights issue, abortion, the Constitutionally protected right to life, is not.

People who think that SCOTUS is going to "overturn" Roe v. Wade by ruling that the Court was wrong in taking jurisdiction, and then returning jurisdiction to the states to do as they want, know very little about the Court. If they base their "anti-abortion" policy on this they are spinning their wheels.

In Roe v. Wade, the Court was very careful not to say that life was not Constitutionally protected. Instead, the Court based their decision on the Constitutionally protected right to privacy. The Court is not going to say that they were wrong and that there is not a Constitutionally protected right to privacy. It's not going to happen. Jurisdiction, even if not original jurisdiction, will remain with SCOTUS. The Court could, correctly, rule that in most cases, the enumerated right to life trumps the unenumerated right to privacy when they come into conflict. This would proscribe abortion in most cases.

It was disingenuous for Thompson to say that life begins at conception but that states should be able to allow the taking of this life without due process. Is he saying that life is not protected by the Constitution even if that document states that it is? His position doesn't make any sense. Would he be in favor of states allowing partial birth abortion? This is no greater taking of human life than any other abortion.

I have been a Thompson supporter and contributor from the start. His poor performance today, including his muddled view of the right to life, his weak and uninformed response concerning WMD's, and his general uninspiring affect, leaves me looking for another candidate to consider.

[lesser_satan]

Thompson has been against the Pro-Life plank since 1996, so it’s really no surprise. He is politically agnostic on abortion,

FRED HAS A 100% PRO-LIFE VOTING RECORD. ZERO FROM NARAL OR PLANNED PARENTHOOD.

And what about Precious Willard? Let's take a look, shall we?

[advertising guy]

the wounds Hillary just received were from darts...wait til the arrows, then swords strike.............she will be pieces parts, watch............

.....notice Bill barked about the massage parlor documents and no media coverage...............hehehe

this is Obamama’s to lose

[codercpc]

I am sorry, if he said that today on MTP I missed that part. I only heard the part about him commenting on his weight, then I must have been distracted.

Yes I definitely mean ALL the candidates, although if the dem nominee is sporting a major health problem, they can keep it a secret until after the primaries (HA HA).

If I remember correctly, Bills not releasing his records wasn't a problem because the MSM never made it a problem like I guarantee they will with our candidates. Besides the problems that Freepers seemed to claim he had (STD's etc) would not be a surprise coming from him.

I truly only want this info to become common knowledge now because if it will affect voters opinion, I want to know about it now and not in Nov 2008 when it will be too late.

[trisham]

Good luck with that, since the contenders include Giuliani and Romney. The others haven’t much chance.

[Hostage]

This was discussed ad nauseum on FR after he revealed his NHL.

NHL comes in a variety of forms related to genotype. Some with a certain genotype die miserably even if caught early. Others with a less virulent form will die if not caught in early stages.

Fred Thompson’s NHL is of the form with a good genotype, was caught early and is treatable with an expected survival surpassing his life expectancy. He will die of old age.

[advertising guy]

exactly my point as well

[Morgan in Denver]

I think you have it backwards. This would be a great discussion over a bottle of scotch some evening.

The court can overturn Roe v Wade because it is not a privacy issue, as it previously ruled. At the time Roe was decided there were states poised to pass laws in favor of abortion and no doubt some states would still approve the procedure. Since the US Constitution guarantees “life and liberty” this presents a unique situation/argument. Still, this only affects citizens in each state individually.

On the other hand, because states are required to support other states laws, a gay marriage would cause major problems in a state that had laws against the practice. So, this would certainly be a federal issue.

I can see (see, not necessarily agree with) both sides, which is why this is such a great discussion. If you have read what Justice Scalia has to say on this issue, you would see the logic originalist justices would use. I believe four on the court would overturn Roe v Wade if a case comes up, all logically and constitutionally based. On the gay marriage issue, the conservative justices seem to agree there as well, that without a national law individual states would be required to recognize homosexual marriages.

[JennysCool]

it has been rumoured that after several days campaigning etc that Thompson has taken time off.

I don't see this as a problem at all. It's the media that wants us to believe Presidents have to be as frenetic as day-traders, always whooshing around and constantly making pronouncements, as if all that rushing is a good thing.

This is the illusion they crafted around Bill Clinton, like he was some sort of superhuman working machine. I'm sure the reality is that Bill was just as leisurely as anyone else without the image-making apparatus going for him.

I'm guessing Americans could easily adapt to -- and even decide they like -- a steadier, more relaxed hand at the wheel. In fact, I think we need that.

[snugs]

I did not pick on his family I simply said that in some quarters a man of his age with a young family does not fit well.

Like it or not the religious right do have more sway in American politics than any other country so that is one anti which the MSM will pick on.

The other I was pointing out was that they make him look for grandfatherly than fatherly and that emphasis his age and gives the MSM another form of attack.

I am not anti Fred or politics or his family read my posts today and previous posts then you will see that I would not be anti Fred for the reasons you seem to think I am.

[rodguy911]

You know I think the same things. I just hope we are both wrong.

But as you say we have to keep Hillary out at any and all costs and we are so close in the Senate,I would like to think we could recapture the House but not real sure.

[snugs]

Romney in fact looses on health because of his wife not doubt that will touted loud and clear should he get the nomination that she would not be fit to be the First Lady since she is currently in remission with MS which of course could flare up again at any time.

[Alas Babylon!]

OK, guys, ENOUGH. All y'all just drop it, please.

[Freee-dame]

This is 2007 and people expect their leader to jump on a plane at a minute notice and go to the other side of the world, give a speech, meet a few people come straight back and resume their normal daily schedule of meetings, touring the country photo ops etc. I worry that Thompson is giving the impression he would not be able to do this.

This is what President Bush has done. Unfortunately, he also has a reputation of being lazy, going to bed early, etc., except with us who read the dose and know better. The MSM is still a gatekeeper for most people.

[jmyrlefuller]

The first lady’s health is, more or less, irrelevant to the President’s ability to do his job. I don’t really think that will factor into this at all.

[altura]

Fred can handle Hillary. He certainly handled Tim.

Which brings me to a point that the Pakistan thing Tim opened with revealed that Tim is not that smart and he doesn’t have an understanding of the issues.

Beyond his cute little things he posts for candidates to respond to, how much does he know.

As Fred went through the problems with Pakistan and the various ramifications, Tim was clueless.

All he wanted was to get on to the next subject that he had a cue card on.

I was really impressed with Fred and even the domestic partner agreed.

[Freee-dame]

What percentage of voters know that he is battling this disease?

Thompson said that he put out a press release after Sept. tests, saying that he was 100% free of cancer. I guess the MSM didn't feel it was newsworthy.

He should get a mild eye bag tuck. This is the media age and lots of people vote on looks.

How did you like the corner picture MTP chose? It shows Thompson with the fish-mouth look, saying "who." Of course, a Dem never says words like that.

[Reagan Man]

LOL Stop already.

You said:

>>>>>I hope people do not think I knocking or am anti Thompson this is not the case .....

I took issue with this remark. Why? Obviously, you were knocking Fred. How? By telling us how the media will handle things. If you're that concerned that the media is giving the wrong impression of Fred, defend the man. Instead, you made remarks that gave the impression, you believed them. Contrary to your denials, which don't sound convincing.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

Of course!

What would a major appearance by Fred be without an opus from you right after it?