Skip to comments.Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 1 April 2012
Posted on 04/01/2012 5:09:42 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
April 1st, 2012
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum; former Govs. Haley Barbour, R-Miss., and Howard Dean, D-Vt.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Santorum; Sen. Chuck U. Schumer, D-N.Y.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Vice President Joe Biden; Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul; Kevin Madden, adviser to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Reps. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.
STATE OF THE UNION (CNN): Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich.; Ryan.
Which brings up, does white Hispanic imply there is a black Hispanic? I’d bet if your liberal, half Caucasian and half Hispanic your just called Hispanic. White Hispanic is being used as the Saul Alinsky rule for ridicule against conservative white folks.
Van Jones however is a true conman. He puts on the smiley face all the time pretending to be just like the rest of us when he's really about as far left a commie as there is. No surprise DNC shill snuffulufagus has him on the show.
“I am hoping Romney shows the same degree of ruthlessness going after Obama that he has shown in the primaries.”
You and me both!
“If you think that those delegates, most of whom will be Romney delegates, are going to suddenly give the nomination to Santorum or Palin or Newt, you are living in a dream world.”
I think its pretty clear that the regime is fully invested in playing the race card whenever wherever,it just backfired on them this time.They had to demonize Zimmerman somehow. But it turned out to be too much of a stretch to go with black, brown and white Hispanics. Just does not fly.
I’ll Agree, it may be blasphemy here, but I’ll take Romney over Santorum, because Santorum doesn’t understand conservative economic solutions such as a flat tax(like the Republican budget, a progressive income tax disappointment), nor does his vote buying tripling the dependent child tax credit impress me.
Self defense laws, be they statutory or common law, work at a very individual level and look at conduct. It's the feds who bring up attitude with the hate crime baloney, but that's another story.
Usually, when the law of self defense is being twisted into a pretzel, it is a liberal doing the twisting, in order to win a single case. A close parallel to the Martin/Zimmerman saga, is the Bradley/Prosser saga in Wisconsin. Bradley is the physical aggressor, then she makes a false claim of "he choked me" when Prosser defended himself. Turn the tables at the outset (be the aggressor toward them) and they suddenly apply the law the correct way.
Funny how that works.
The Gingrich significance is the conservative argument gets exposure, otherwise it’s lost on Romney or Sainthuckabee.
Of course everyone here is committed to stopping Obama. But please don’t be so naive as to think that we know everything that there is to know about Romney.
Do you really think that the Democrats don’t already have a plan to go after Romney? We’ll find out as soon as he wraps up the nomination.
In the meantime, it would do you well not to stick your head in the sand and pretend that this is going to be a cakewalk.
Unfortunately, it's not a case of idiocy - it's deliberate calculation and strategy. The Left has always understood the power of the entertainment media to shape people's attitudes and the culture. The deconstruction and rewriting of history is a fundamental component of their "creativity" and "art".
Conservatives are wrong to laugh at or dismiss this stuff because no matter how inaccurate, distorted or dishonest their product may be, once it's out there it infects and metastasizes throughout the cultural consciousness. Despite what you or I think, people watch it, and they believe it. They'll rent the DVDs, it will be mentioned in articles and discussed on television, cited by "experts" and pundits and recycled on cable and satellite networks.
Just like Tom Hanks' recent HBO smear of Sarah Palin, "Game Change", they don't really care who sees them or expect these things to be commercial successes. It's about planting the progressive flag and laying first claim to an issue in order to define it, or to deconstruct and rewrite it if it's something from past history.
Hanks is a particular disappointment. I want to like him and I've enjoyed many of his movies, yet his use of his talent to further an agenda that I know is evil and destructive puts him right in there with Leni Riefenstahl. He truly exemplifies the concept of "useful idiot" (I honestly don't believe he understands the issues sufficiently to merit the "fellow traveler" designation). In his case it really is "stupid is as stupid does".
I would almost bet that Obama had people at DOJ or on his campaign combing through arrest records, looking for a situation where a white guy shot a black and wasn’t charged. (Remember, this happened over a month ago.)
So, the researchers finally came up with Zimmerman. Yay! Father a Republican! Sounds Jewish to us! Two-fer!
So, they gin up all of the race hatred, call in their buds from the NAACP, unions, and Black Muslims.
And THEN, when it was too late, they discover he is Hispanic and a democrat, who tutored black kids and has black friends.
Well, too bad for George. They will simply portray him as what they thought he was (I expect a story about how he was intending to convert to Judaism any day now).
However, all this is doing is making a whole lot of people angry, and after looking at Sharpton and Jackson and their mob, most of them are going to conclude that they way to get them all to shut up is to vote against Obama.
The caucuses were also stacked with many volunteer delegates for Ron Paul, imagine them giving Ron Paul the Republican nomination?
In that case I will know that the Mayans were right after all.
There will be enough support you vote won’t matter so you have my permission to sit out, but do consider your local candidates may need some support.
Take away emotional responses, BS, lies, distortions and you have no democrat party.
If I gave you that impression I am truly sorry and did a miserable job of conveying our/my dilemma.
IMHO, for me,I have the job of helping a candidate I am harfly in love with,who was not my first, second or third choice,get elected for the good of the country.That's my perspective on getting Mitt elected.
In my situation I have children,relatives, friends who have offspring who will be stuck with the horrible residue of four years of obamville.
My worst nightmare is to see them stuck with yet another four years that the country probably cannot survive.
Below the dashed lines some of the text of an email sent out by an influential local politico here in Sussex County.
From the hundreds of e-mails that I received concerning the Sussex County Sheriff’s issue—there were two that I decided to forward—one from local blogger Pat Fish (R) who supports the Sheriff’s position and believes he should have arrest powers as per the Delaware constitution and the other is from Sussex County Council Woman Joan Deaver(D) who voted to strip the Sheriff of any Constitutional powers he might have and is opposed to the Sheriff having arrest powers-touting two Attorney General opinions.. Deaver who is up for re-election in 2012 enclosed some cartoons with her e-mail. Both communications are below for your review. Your comments are welcome and subject to being forwarded.
JUDSON Bennett-Coastal Network
I agree. The point I was trying to make, though, was that self defense is one of the few areas of law that at bottom, really isn't political. That the DEMs use it as a political argument (Trayvon's death is related to "stand your ground") is typical - but any individual one of them would be very quick to defend the right to use self defense, if they were under physical attack.
As them if they promise not to react to an attack. If they say yes, slap them across the face, HARD.
And dear Lord you should have seen the one from the elected council woman. Y’all will fall over with the shock of it.
No clues these people.
Good catch. Ironically most of the crime that goes on is going the other way. Its black on black, black on Hispanic or black on white. “White Hispanic” on black is apparently rare.
I agree with you.
Talk about dems trying to distort! Fat Candy (sure has that mob nickname about it)trying to convince Sen. Mitch McConnell that the dems have all the answers and that oil companies are fat and ruthless make to much in profits and that the obama economy is so good we can’t run against it. Mitch disagrees.Candy is sad that Mitch catches her using DNC chatting points.NOt much new here...
You speak for many on the dilemma. We have to back the GOP nominee no matter what. The hardest part of that seems to be mustering the troops. There is so much division. That used to be said of Democrats. Will Rogers: “I don’t belong to an organized political party, I’m a Democrat.” I do not see any desertion from Obama. Many on the Left are mad at him for war still going on, Gitmo still open, all drilling not stopped, some coal-fired electric plants and refineries still operating, some Christian churches still open, etc. But no defections. They are holding solid. We must also.
As I told another gentleman on another blog, do not come around me whispering words of poisonous defeatism like Wormwood in Lord of the Rings.
Romney can win this. Santorum cannot. Period.
It seems a lot of posters on the right (or who are purporting to be on the right) are more concerned that Romney loses so that they can say “I told you so.” Hence the continuing effort to depress support.
I have a lot of swing voters and democrats in my extended family. The swing voters will go to Romney but if it’s Santorum they stay home. The dem relatives will go to the polls and vote democrat even if they substitute an avocado for Obama.
You guys who think that somehow Santorum or some other perfect consrvative is going to show up are living in a fool’s paradise. Santorum is as much a waffler as Romney, even more so. And he is HATED by a good chunk of women who think his home-schooling and stand on birth control is a way to keep his wife subjugated. This is what people in the non-political world think. I am a Catholic convert, so don’t be coming at me about religion, as I wouldn’t have joined the Church if I didn’t accept her teachings. A lot of people dono’t understand it, though, and Santorum has only made the suspicion worse.
By the way, has anyone seen him photographed coming out of mass? I guess I could have missed it.
I’m thinking you’re right about Rick Perry. He entered the race right in the midst of the frenzy for Herman Cain. If he had held back until that madness had passed and until Michele Bachmann departed, he would have seemed like a savior at that point.
He would have been fought bitterly by the Party hacks though because he wanted to change Washington too much to suit them.
Oh, yes. It’s everywhere. Not just in movies but in tv series. I gave up Murphy’s Law after one-half an episode when she was defending a drug dealer and said that Rush Limbaugh was an addict. Click.
I put up with it unless it’s blatant because I love TV. But my antenna are out (is that plural or should it be antennae?) anyway, they are out but too many people let it seep into their subconscious.
I try not to find out too much about movie stars because they are all stupid and liberal with a few exceptions.
Unless they throw it in my face, I ignore it. Tom Hanks is a huge disappointment as he is a great actor.
I think (hope) that most of the people who are inflamed against George (whitey)Zimmerman would be Obama voters anyway.
But I think the wild enthusiasm that was there last time will be missing, cuz nobody has got their ‘obama money’ yet.
I still like the guy. I would like to see him run in the future or be a VP (although that is unlikely since he has bad feelings against Romney and endorsed Newt).
The thing is, he was NOT going to run and then some of those people like James Dobson and Richard Viguerie talked him into it. I actually think this might be why Palin opted out.
But he was just terrible in the early debates, and as I said, nut cases like Michelle Malkin went after him like he was the devil incarnate.
Well, we will just have to soldier on and help get Romney elected. I refuse to accept another 4 years of Obama. At least Romney likes the country and his wife isn’t embarrassing.
I think we all know the answer to that--he's the one they fear the least and they want to repeat their successful set-up and shoot-down of McCain.
Apparently McCain was shocked when his good friends in the media turned on him. I wonder how long until Mitt will be shocked the same way. We thought we were going to pick our candidate, but we didn't.
I will vote for him if I must (and even work on GOTV) but I will be gagging the whole time and I will NOT do anything for him until he's nominee!
The only hope we have is that Obama is so horrible. I don't think for a minute they don't have a devastating attack ready for him--they've had a loooonnnnng time to get it ready and they do their homework in that capacity.
I wish Cain hadn't imploded.
Losing zerocare will hurt as well. They had plans to buy almost an unlimited amount of votes through zero care.that now looks doubtful at best.
Bearing in mind the regime has declared all out war on the Catholic Church you gotta wonder how many Catholics still plan to vote for the regime?
They built him up somewhat (but not to the degree you assume) because they thought that they could manipulate us into dumping him during the primaries and leave us with someone like Newt or Santorum.
Why do you take democrats at their word? When they say “Oh, we hope the nominee is Romney!” do you think they are telling the truth? I don’t.
The fact is that ALL of these candidates have an opposition research file a mile thick, and the dems will use it. If it’s Newt, it will be his marriages, the Tiffany’s account, and global warming. If it’s Rick, it will be birth control, religious orthodoxy, home-schooling, and his taking home-schooling credits from Pennsylvania while he lived in that 3-million dollar house in Falls Church, Va.
The dems play a deep game involving counter-intuitive strategy, fake conservatives, unfounded rumors (Nikki Haley, for example). They like to yank the chains of unsuspecting conservatives. I do not know how many times during the Bush campaign the NYT would print an unsourced rumor and Freepers would accept it as fact and go ballistic.
Mitt Romney is more conservative than much of the population, but not as conservative as pepople here. Well, guess what - none of the Freepers are running for office.
One other thing, the reason the dems think they want to run against Romney is because they think he is a lightweight. They would be wrong.
If you will remember, they also expected George Bush to concede when they started all of the recount noise in Florida. They were wrong about him as well.
” By the way, has anyone seen him photographed coming out of mass? I guess I could have missed it. “
Sure - have seen pics of him IN church - being prayed over ! Lovely - so reverent +
I posted this GOOD news yeaterday:
Why Rick Santorum’s once-generous lead in Wisconsin is eroding
Saturday, March 31, 2012 5:27:40 PM · 72 of 174
PraiseTheLord to PSYCHO-FREEP
The GOOD news I heard by Rick Santorum in interview on EWTN WorldOver Thursday PM is that by their calculations, he is only a hundred some points behind.
Somewhere I saw how the calculations and apportioning the delegates look in an actual real valid distribution to have them come out this way.
To see how Santorum numbers are that CLOSE to bishop willard
Go here >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
to read it here >>>>>>>>>>
The Examiner ^ | 28 Mar 12 | Byron York
Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:03:37 PM by
Here is a bit from it:
“ ... Those counts, Santorum says, are not taking into account Republican party rules, as well as the state-level meetings that actually determine how many delegates go to each candidate.
” . . . Now, the Santorum campaign is providing some numbers to flesh out the candidate’s claims. In a long conversation Wednesday evening, John Yob, the campaign’s national and state convention director, pointed out that many high-profile primaries have been little more than beauty contests,
I did not see any shows except the bit end on FNS but I noticed that Ann Coulter is on This Week and that surprised me. Did anyone see her. Is it worth going to the ABC webpage and watching it?
Did you know, and I was doing this thread even back then, that when Tony Snow was the host, many FReepers didn’t like him and called him “The Giggler”?
He was perceived as a RINO, and not with us. The thing about Fox is, they really try to be Fair and Balanced, even when the rest of the networks are not.
It was only AFTER he left FNS and then became the White House press secretary that so many here professed their admiration.
Chris Wallace does have his moments, but he is constrained the same way Tony was.
Please explain. You lost me.
Rather than coming on this thread and insulting other FReepers, or spamming us with anti-Romney images, explain to us how you think another candidate can win, and just who that candidate is?
No one here has really been all out for Romney. Almost everyone here was for Sarah Palin, or Cain, or Perry or Gingrich, or even Santorum.
But those candidates aren’t running or winning like we want them to do.
What do you propose we do?
I would love to agree with you that Romney is not a light weight and I hope you prove right if he's the nominee! I also agree with you that if we get an open election, there's a danger that Jeb Bush pops up as the nominee and I would hate that about as much as Romney.
I heard Romney state sometime back that we don't have to treat our president with disrespect. that's not a direct quote and I can't remember where/when he said it.
Now if he thinks treating "our president" with respect means treating him like he treated Gingrich, that's okay. Trouble is I remember McCain being so careful to be respectful of Obama that he wouldn't even allow mention of his middle name or his domestic terrorist pals and that's not okay. It probably wouldn't have stopped Obama last time, but more people are disappointed and aware that there's something wrong with him now. That MUST be pursued and pursued HARD!
I think we all agree that if Sarah Palin hadn't been in the picture, McCain wouldn't even have come close and would have passed Mondale in humiliation.
You're right about all of them having thick files. The sad thing is that everybody already knows about Gingrich's baggage and so you've got the "old news, whaddaya got now" thing going there, plus he's admitted it and repented.
I don't like Santorum and I agree that they'll follow the line against him that you describe. Worse, he doesn't defend himself anywhere near as well as Gingrich who turns it back on the accuser rather than being defensive.
I have very little to hope for as people seem to be following directions very well from the establishment of both parties that are so afraid of Gingrich.
I couldn't believe that people believed McCain's lies about J.D. Hayworth who would have been a strong conservative force in the Senate, but even here in AZ where people know both of them McCain easily won because they were led to believe that McCain had the better chance of winning. (Where have I heard that before?) That was backed up for me by people extremely active in AZ Republican politics.
You are also correct that the 'Rats will make things up about our nominee and the Progressive enemedia will carry the ball for them. We are so going to need a fighter.
I don't regard Romney as conservative at all with the one exception that he does support capitalism. That's why I'll work for him (GAG!) if he does prevail. Sorry about the long reply, but it's somewhat cathartic and better than going to a shrink. Be well.
Amen. Dittos from me!
Then there is a whole herd who profess Catholicism but never go to Mass because the Church is too restrictive and unfair to women. There are a lot of these. They're not religious but belong to a religion; who knows why. I call them DEMOCRATS.
Good one AB,I get the picture.
Here’s another on I just noticed don’t know if anyone here on FR is chatting about this yet.
Seems the fur may fly this Tuesday morning as Sarah Palin goes up against the perky one on nbc’s morning show. NBC reportedly hired Palin as a fill in host for the day! Could be the only DBM produced show I watch this year!!
Fantastic post!! Thank you both!
I apologized to you personally 2 weeks ago in Freepmail and you accepted my apology....thank you
to those here....I was ignorant in 2 responses to Bray in the past but my attcack bothered me badly...I went back and re read a lot of Bray’s work....
It was me who was ignorant and I aplogize for my actions
We had a year and a half of Wall Street meltdown, fueled mostly by bad USG policy but PR’ed by the media as all Wall Street greed. (And yes I don't deny there was a lot of that!) So what are our GOP elite election geniuses doing, promoting a guy who on day one will be painted as Gordon Gekko! The OWS’ers will come out of the woodwork in mass and their “outrage” will now look plausible to mostly nonpolitical John and Jane Q Public! Now add in his nonstandard religious background. (I am not a religious bigot on this. I am saying what the Rat counterattack will do!) The attack on his religious background will consist of, endless yapping by panels of “beautiful people”, numerous made-for-TV movies, reruns of Sister Wives and probably another FLDS crack down. Opposition historical research will force Romney to have to answer questions regarding some half-baked bleating by some 1880s Mormon leader. Also given the fact that the LDS didn't regularize their relationships with blacks until 1976, Romney will have endless questions regarding that! Where will there be any time for Zero's failures to be discussed? Romney is an election PR disaster of epic proportions! Notice I haven't even gotten into Romney's liberalism! ( And yes I know this never comes up with Reid, the Udalls and probably others!)
Ronmey’s liberalism will suppress conservative turnout. Ronmey’s business career as a investment guy couple that with how the Rat's and their media minions will paint his religious beliefs will depress the independent turn out. (Which negates the whole argument for him!) .
What were this guys thinking? (Were they thinking?)
Ann Coulter on This Week Without David Brinkley killed it on the ‘stand your ground law’ and made Jake Tapper look like an idiot.
I may forgive her for supporting Mittens.
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.