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

Skip to comments.

Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 12 November 2006
Various big media television networks ^ | 12 November 2006 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

Posted on 11/12/2006 4:58:59 AM PST by Alas Babylon!

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 1,041-1,056 next last
To: mcmuffin
"Coulda' Woulda' Club".

That must be related to my "Shoulda', Coulda', Woulda Club"

341 posted on 11/12/2006 8:01:28 AM PST by evad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: advertising guy
The MSM is so predictable. Reagan, dumb movie star, Quayle, just plain dumb. President George W....just plain dumb.

They're all so much smarter than we morons.

342 posted on 11/12/2006 8:01:50 AM PST by OldFriend (Run and Hide, Tax and Spend for the next two years. Everyone happy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: johnny7
You have just hit on another reason in the perfect storm for the Rats. Karl Rove was tied up by a Democrat Prosecutor for a Year at least,and maybe two with the lies of a Former Druggie with delusions of Grandeur,and rather Wacky former CIA Operative Wife that never stopped telling lies. I cannot imagine a nutburger like that in our CIA allegedly protecting us. YIKES!!!!! Then you have a serious menace of a Criminal Prosecutor(Earle) in Austin Texas abusing his Power to go after Tom Delay for violating laws that were not even on the Books. couple these false charges with Duke Cunningham,and Bob Ney,what's his face from Montana and a very few others and the DBM 24-7 with their lies about tainted Republicans pushed the envelope to turn off the law Abiding Conservatives. The DBm made sure that they kept Jefferson,and the WV ethics Committee DemRat that was really unethical,Harry Reid's ethical problems,and all the other Rats that had really serious ethical lapses out of the News. They instead pushed any hint of scandal real or imagined out there frothing at the mouth like they were worse than Al Qaeda. We need to end the DBM reign of Terror. Cancel your Subscriptions people. Download your morning paper from The Internet,this is War!!!!!! Get rid of that Umbilical to the Leftist Media Newspapers............Most Men only want the paper for the Comics,and sports pages anyway,and that is easily gotten on line. If you know an elderly person in your neighborhood that cannot give up the paper because of three or four sections, download the stuff for them and print it out and staple it together and throw it on their porch. They will save 35 dollars every three months,and no ads,and no ink on their hands. They could use $140.00 a year on two new tires for their car to just name one thing that the money could be better spent on..
343 posted on 11/12/2006 8:02:00 AM PST by samantha (Cheer up,the Adults are in charge,but need reinforcements very soon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

Conservative causes just got trashed. Border enforcement is done...stick a fork in it. The most conservative plan we can hope for is the one GWB backs.

Maybe you don't realize yet that you have to appeal to a MAJORITY of Americans to get anything done politically.

The President and most Republicans are deeply conservative compared to the Democrats. Sorry that wasn't conservative enough for you. The fact that the conservative agenda moved forward steadily apparently wasn't good enough.

For the first four years I defended the President from moonbats. The last two, I have had to defend him from "conservatives". That was the difference this election.


344 posted on 11/12/2006 8:04:17 AM PST by A.Hun (Common sense is no longer common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

Carl Levin says he wants to begin withdrawal in 4 to 6 months.


345 posted on 11/12/2006 8:04:32 AM PST by Bahbah (Regev, Goldwasser and Shalit, we are praying for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: CaptSkip
"I don't know what those words mean anymore." (Dean)

Notice he just gives an example of conservative and skips right past any example of liberal.

346 posted on 11/12/2006 8:04:41 AM PST by noexcuses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: Morgan in Denver

My pleasure, Morgan.


347 posted on 11/12/2006 8:05:48 AM PST by anita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
How do we explain the conservatives saying that we lost because the President didn't do it their way. We have the independents saying they voted d because the President didn't do it their way. We have the evangelicals saying we lost because the President didn't do it there way.

President Bush defended his agenda, we rejected him and our troops. Turned over the country to crazy appeasers who want us out of Iraq so they can buy universal health care and free college for all.

348 posted on 11/12/2006 8:05:56 AM PST by OldFriend (Run and Hide, Tax and Spend for the next two years. Everyone happy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: From The Deer Stand

Evidently Sandy Burglar and William Jefferson are republicans, who knew!


349 posted on 11/12/2006 8:07:10 AM PST by OldFriend (Run and Hide, Tax and Spend for the next two years. Everyone happy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!; rodguy911
So let's concentrate on straight up stories that are biased. And of course, The Sunday shows, when their questions are biased, wrong, misleading, or plainly lies, need our most carefull scrutiny!

When they venture an opinion we should still challenge the premise of those opinions when we think that they're wrong.  We also need to point out how holding biased opinions is likely to distort their straight reporting, or at least give a reasonable person the impression that their reporting is biased. 

When they state a "fact" that is flat out wrong we need to call them on it.  Every damn time.

When they ask a question that contains a prejudiced assumption (e.g. "warrant less domestic wiretaps") we need to call them on it.

As important, when "our own" guys and gals concede those types of points (usually because they've got another point they care more about) we need to call them on it, too.  I love Newt Gingrich, but I want to pick him up and shake him almost every time he's on one of these shows because he does that consistently.  He'll let Colmes or Russert or one of the clearly biased DBM questioners get away with some horrible slander in their question so that he can rush on to his "brilliant point."  No more.  We need to challenge all of them all the time. 

One of the favorite techniques of the left is to continue to use false terms to define an issue their way.  Our side has a bad habit of only challenging them on it the first hundred or thousand times they do it then getting tired of the effort.  We need to cut them off mid-sentance if necessary and argue that point and nothing else each and every time.  Don't let them finish their biased question without challenging the biased premise.  If we let them establish something like "warrant less domestic wiretaps" as the premise of a question then we've already lost the argument.  It's NOT domestic wiretaps.  It's international communications with our enemy in time of war, which we've always had and still have the right, in fact the duty, to intercept, and no judge has any constitutional basis for interfering.

To accomplish that we have to get to our side and convince them that it's important to challenge them every time.  Tony Snow, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have been the only ones in this administration to consistently do this and now Rummy is on his way out.  The media didn't like him specifically because he caught them and corrected them when they tried this on him and he was effective at it. 

Of course, even if our folks do this, the DBM gets to edit the tape or selectively pull quotes and present only the things they wanted us to see.  That's where web based clips and transcripts can come in handy.  Often more complete versions of things like press conferences or congressional hearings will offer up a different version of events than what the DBM presents.  Yet another area for us to develop skills and exercise our oversight responsibilities.

I'll start looking for contact information for the quests and adding it to my preview thread, as well.  We should be in a position to comment on their work as well as the DBMs.  As importantly we should be able to send them info before they do these shows to give them the ammunition they need to get it right. 

350 posted on 11/12/2006 8:07:30 AM PST by Phsstpok (Often wrong, but never in doubt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Timeout
Sorry I am late to answer, Timeout. I had to let my husband have the computer for a while. Why he chooses Sunday morning I do not know...LOL!

The reason you don't see them is the same reason we hardly ever see Jeff Sessions or Jim Inhofe on TV....they aren't invited. Why would you think that the media would be interested in letting someone who is accomplishing something on TV?

I know that we have had cabinet secretaries occasionally appearing here and it gets covered locally, but as far as the national media, we aren't going to get a break.

351 posted on 11/12/2006 8:08:00 AM PST by Miss Marple (Lord, thank you for Mozart Lover's son's safe return, and look after Jemian's son, please!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: snugs
IMHO Rumsfeld would have remained if the Republicans had not lost control.

Interesting wording - it could refer to the election results, or the behavior that led to the election results. And, I did support the President prior to the election. I cannot support his actions concerning Mr. Rumsfeld, and if I had known about this little deal before the election, I would have criticized then too.

352 posted on 11/12/2006 8:08:47 AM PST by Bernard (Going without a tagline to see how it feels.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: Fury
LIEberman using a bit of extortion to make sure he gets what he wants from the dems.

LIEberman has flip flopped more time in his career than even Jon Carry.

He was conservative on social issues until he was the Veep candidate. Before that he stood on the senate floor and read a statement against slick willie, only to end the speech with an endorsement of slick willie.

LIEberman was an orthodox jew until he became an observant jew. Campaigned on Saturdays this time too.

He'll no more caucus with the repubs than the man in the moon.

353 posted on 11/12/2006 8:10:12 AM PST by OldFriend (Run and Hide, Tax and Spend for the next two years. Everyone happy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!
In any case, you know who I blame…The drive by media.

God bless you! That was one thing about which I really disagreed with Rush and other commentators, when they kept saying, "We only have ourselves to blame." That's true to a degree, but I think it's also like trying to roll a boulder uphill. No matter what "we" do, the deck is stacked for the opposition in a very big way because of media bias. Fortunately, that is slowly changing. I can only hope it changes quickly enough to save disaster.

Had the major news outlets reported in a balanced way about the war, the economy, and political corruption, many people would have voted much differently.

354 posted on 11/12/2006 8:10:41 AM PST by Finny (God continue to Bless President G.W. Bush with wisdom, popularity, safety and success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!

AB, I suggested the very same thing as post one; In addition, thought we should have teams by states/counties/districts with dossiers of possible candidates, the incumbent, their financials, voting records, where they speak, boards they sit on and who's in their pockets... things that could come up for our guys (just in case), and previous misreportings/rumors debunked before they come to the table (obviously, if true... that's different). Kudos, i'm in.

U.S. must prove it's a staying power
Mark Steyn

On the radio a couple of weeks ago, Hugh Hewitt suggested to me the terrorists might try to pull a Spain on the U.S. elections. You'll recall (though evidently many Americans don't) that in 2004 hundreds of commuters were slaughtered in multiple train bombings in Madrid. The Spaniards responded with a huge street demonstration of supposed solidarity with the dead, all teary passivity and signs saying "Basta!" -- "Enough!" By which they meant not "enough!" of these murderers but "enough!" of the government of Prime Minister Aznar, and of Bush and Blair, and troops in Iraq. A couple of days later, they voted in a socialist government, which immediately withdrew Spanish forces from the Middle East. A profitable couple of hours' work for the jihad.
I said to Hugh I didn't think that would happen this time round. The enemy aren't a bunch of simpleton Pushtun yakherds, but relatively sophisticated at least in their understanding of us. We're all infidels, but not all infidels crack the same way. If they'd done a Spain -- blown up a bunch of subway cars in New York or vaporized the Empire State Building -- they'd have re-awoken the primal anger of September 2001. With another mound of corpses piled sky-high, the electorate would have stampeded into the Republican column and demanded the U.S. fly somewhere and bomb someone.

The jihad crowd know that. So instead they employed a craftier strategy. Their view of America is roughly that of the British historian Niall Ferguson -- that the Great Satan is the first superpower with ADHD. They reasoned that if you could subject Americans to the drip-drip-drip of remorseless water torture in the deserts of Mesopotamia -- a couple of deaths here, a market bombing there, cars burning, smoke over the city on the evening news, day after day after day, and ratcheted up a notch or two for the weeks before the election -- you could grind down enough of the electorate and persuade them to vote like Spaniards, without even realizing it. And it worked. You can rationalize what happened on Tuesday in the context of previous sixth-year elections -- 1986, 1958, 1938, yada yada -- but that's not how it was seen around the world, either in the chancelleries of Europe, where they're dancing conga lines, or in the caves of the Hindu Kush, where they would also be dancing conga lines if Mullah Omar hadn't made it a beheading offense. And, as if to confirm that Tuesday wasn't merely 1986 or 1938, the president responded to the results by firing the Cabinet officer most closely identified with the prosecution of the war and replacing him with a man associated with James Baker, Brent Scowcroft and the other "stability" fetishists of the unreal realpolitik crowd.

Whether or not Rumsfeld should have been tossed overboard long ago, he certainly shouldn't have been tossed on Wednesday morning. For one thing, it's a startlingly brazen confirmation of the politicization of the war, and a particularly unworthy one: It's difficult to conceive of any more public diminution of a noble cause than to make its leadership contingent on Lincoln Chafee's Senate seat. The president's firing of Rumsfeld was small and graceless.

Still, we are all Spaniards now. The incoming speaker says Iraq is not a war to be won but a problem to be solved. The incoming defense secretary belongs to a commission charged with doing just that. A nostalgic boomer columnist in the Boston Globe argues that honor requires the United States to "accept defeat," as it did in Vietnam. Didn't work out so swell for the natives, but to hell with them.

What does it mean when the world's hyperpower, responsible for 40 percent of the planet's military spending, decides that it cannot withstand a guerrilla war with historically low casualties against a ragbag of local insurgents and imported terrorists? You can call it "redeployment" or "exit strategy" or "peace with honor" but, by the time it's announced on al-Jazeera, you can pretty much bet that whatever official euphemism was agreed on back in Washington will have been lost in translation. Likewise, when it's announced on "Good Morning Pyongyang" and the Khartoum Network and, come to that, the BBC.

For the rest of the world, the Iraq war isn't about Iraq; it's about America, and American will. I'm told that deep in the bowels of the Pentagon there are strategists wargaming for the big showdown with China circa 2030/2040. Well, it's steady work, I guess. But, as things stand, by the time China's powerful enough to challenge the United States it won't need to. Meanwhile, the guys who are challenging us right now -- in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea and elsewhere -- are regarded by the American electorate like a reality show we're bored with. Sorry, we don't want to stick around to see if we win; we'd rather vote ourselves off the island.

Two weeks ago, you may remember, I reported on a meeting with the president, in which I'd asked him the following: "You say you need to be on the offense all the time and stay on the offense. Isn't the problem that the American people were solidly behind this when you went in and you toppled the Taliban, when you go in and you topple Saddam. But when it just seems to be a kind of thankless semi-colonial policing defensive operation with no end . . . I mean, where is the offense in this?"

On Tuesday, the national security vote evaporated, and, without it, what's left for the GOP? Congressional Republicans wound up running on the worst of all worlds -- big bloated porked-up entitlements-a-go-go government at home and a fainthearted tentative policing operation abroad. As it happens, my new book argues for the opposite: small lean efficient government at home and muscular assertiveness abroad. It does a superb job, if I do say so myself, of connecting war and foreign policy with the domestic issues. Of course, it doesn't have to be that superb if the GOP's incoherent inversion is the only alternative on offer.

As it is, we're in a very dark place right now. It has been a long time since America unambiguously won a war, and to choose to lose Iraq would be an act of such parochial self-indulgence that the American moment would not endure, and would not deserve to. Europe is becoming semi-Muslim, Third World basket-case states are going nuclear, and, for all that 40 percent of planetary military spending, America can't muster the will to take on pipsqueak enemies. We think we can just call off the game early, and go back home and watch TV.

It doesn't work like that. Whatever it started out as, Iraq is a test of American seriousness. And, if the Great Satan can't win in Vietnam or Iraq, where can it win? That's how China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Venezuela and a whole lot of others look at it. "These Colors Don't Run" is a fine T-shirt slogan, but in reality these colors have spent 40 years running from the jungles of Southeast Asia, the helicopters in the Persian desert, the streets of Mogadishu. ... To add the sands of Mesopotamia to the list will be an act of weakness from which America will never recover.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/132340,CST-EDT-steyn12.article




Pacifists are cowards and deluded morons

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Robinson_Ian/2006/11/12/2326533.html

Yesterday was Remembrance Day and I am grateful I did not encounter someone wearing a white poppy.

Because the urge to backhand the wearer across the face and tear the symbol of disrespect from that individual's lapel would, I fear, be almost overpowering.

I try to be a civilized man, but when I hear of those profaning one of the most sacred symbols of our culture, it makes me a little crazy.

The red poppy symbolizes those who have been slain in the defence of our country and culture.

It sprang from the poem written by Canadian military physician Lt.-Col. John McCrae, In Flanders Fields during the First World War.

"In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses row on row

That mark our place"

Apparently, poppies grow very well in ground torn by artillery and fertilized with human corpses.

The simple, powerful verses urge us to remember those who died defending freedom. It commands that we never forget those sacrifices. It demands we remain forever vigilant in the defence of liberty.

Canadian men and women fighting in Afghanistan are the direct inheritors of that tradition of sacrifice that extends from Lt.-Col. McCrae's time through those who fought in the Second World War and Korea and I am proud of them, as all Canadians should be.

The white poppy was first introduced in England when Great Britain wasn't so great, in 1933. That nation was in the thrall of the morally bankrupt creed of pacifism -- that weakness was one of the root causes of the Second World War -- and designed as an anti-war symbol to "honour" civilian dead.

It is one thing to honour civilian dead of wars. It is another to attach that to the current anti-war movement whose website -- just Google "White Poppy" and click on the first thing that pops up -- boasts the motto: "War is a crime against humanity. I renounce war, and am therefore determined not to support any kind of war. I am also determined to work for the removal of all kinds of war."

So fighting Kaiser Wilhem in 1914 was evil. Never mind that the Germans waged aggressive war against the West, conquered Belgium and huge chunks of France.

So fighting Adolf Hitler in 1939 was wrong. We should have sat upon our hands and waited for him to finish off the Jews and enslave all of Europe and Russia.

Fighting the Empire of Japan, according to these fools, was also wrong. We should have stood idly by while the Japanese Army raped and pillaged its way across China and the the Far East and enslaved millions.

When the totalitarian North Koreans and Chinese swept across an internationally recognized border, we should have engaged them in spirited debate. After all, all war is a "crime against humanity."

And when Islamic fascists decided to declare war on the Western world because our values don't include draping our women beneath barbecue tarps to protect men from lustful thoughts, we should have just shrugged our shoulders and let them kill us.

Every war fought by Western nations over the last century can be declared a moral war. We didn't start them. But we finished them and as a nation and as individuals, we are are better for it.

The only true crime against humanity is the morally bankrupt creed of pacifism.

Pacifists are cowards.

All of them.

Any human who refuses to act in defence of his person, his family, his nation, his culture, is a deluded moron. A dangerous deluded moron.

The white poppy shouldn't be white.

It should be yellow.

That way it would match the stripe up the backs of those who wear it.

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Robinson_Ian/2006/11/12/2326533.html



For Conservatives, It’s Back to Basics
(Advice from the NYTs? I don't think so)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/weekinreview/12kirkpatrick.html?_r=1&ref=weekinreview&oref=slogin
-------

Since MSNBC decided to tell us how Rummy feels (yeah right, hence no link), I took a cue from a commenter to go see Rummy in person instead (video). Most excellent.

Landon Lecture Series Page (KSU)
(Rummy starts at 16:00
http://ome.ksu.edu/lectures/landon/past.html#2006

The Donald Rumsfeld I Know That You Don't Know
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737301/posts


355 posted on 11/12/2006 8:11:05 AM PST by AliVeritas (In Victory, Be magnanimous, in Defeat, Defiant!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sgtyork

Bush was the first president to spend federal money on embryonic stem cell research. I don't know why the Reps didn't mention that fact more rather than being so defensive. Private research is not banned. It is all about who funds it, not whether the research will be conducted.


356 posted on 11/12/2006 8:13:14 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

Doesn't an Arab sheik also own part of the parent company of FNC?


357 posted on 11/12/2006 8:13:20 AM PST by OldFriend (Run and Hide, Tax and Spend for the next two years. Everyone happy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: A.Hun
Sorry that wasn't conservative enough for you.

It's as if they all decided walking the 30 miles to work... beat driving in. If it wasn't so horrific... it'd be hilarious.

358 posted on 11/12/2006 8:13:47 AM PST by johnny7 ("We took a hell of a beating." -'Vinegar Joe' Stilwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: chiller
"On the other side of the aisle, they elected as many as 60 blue dog Dems who are either pro-military, ex-GOP, ex-military, pro-life, and/or pro-gun"

Each of these Democrats has to be held accountable to voters in two years.  IF they do not vote as they claimed they would, that information needs to be put out there over and over. 

359 posted on 11/12/2006 8:15:03 AM PST by Morgan in Denver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Morgan in Denver
Good morning, sir!

Wonder if MRC would allow us to forward selected articles from their website.

With a warning to people with high blood pressure, oF course.

360 posted on 11/12/2006 8:15:16 AM PST by OldFriend (Run and Hide, Tax and Spend for the next two years. Everyone happy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 1,041-1,056 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