Posted on 02/11/2007 5:15:41 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, February 11th, 2007
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; actor Sean Penn.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, former U.S. commander in Afghanistan; Qubad Talabany, representative to the U.S. of the Iraqi Kurdistan regional government; Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and John Cornyn, R-Texas; Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.; Terry McAuliffe, former Democratic National Committee chairman; retired Army Col. Patrick Lang; Ray Takeyh, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
They show some backbone almost as often as the Detroit Lions win a post season game.
One disagreement. Lincoln was a compromiser as President, at least so far as slavery was concerned, until well into the War. He didn't offer to let the South keep Fort Sumter, but he did offer to let the South keep slavery, so long as Slavery was not allowed to spread to any new territories. The South knew that if their "institutions" and economic approach didn't spread into new territories then Northern industrial practices would spread there instead, further adding to the power of the North and weakening their own power, thus dooming their "peculiar institutions" and eventually ending their way of life.
Except when forced Lincoln was a gradualist. He believed in holding what he could hold and gaining what he could gain short of forcing a show down. His hand was weak unless he went to the all out warfare that he knew would cost us so much in both blood and treasure. He was desperate to avoid that warfare if he could, even if it meant leaving the slaves in the South alone (at least officially). His fight was at the margins and to keep the Union together, trusting in his understanding of economic reality and human nature to make the changes he wanted without a war, eventually.
I happen to think that he was willing to go too far in backing off as I detest the very notion of slavery. Therefore I don't disagree with your characterization of Obama and his view of the current situation. What's amazing, given your spot on analysis, is how few people who do have ancestors who were slaves see the analogy as you express it.
I say all of the above as a proud son of the South. Though my direct ancestors never owned slaves I know that relatives did and were made wealthy by that horrible practice. My own namesake, my grandfather, was Sheriff of a county in southern Mississippi during the depression... for one term. That's because of one thing, he "had no truck with the Klan." He wouldn't let them operate openly while he was sheriff. They voted him out next election. I never knew him as he died before I was born, but I'm proud to bear his name, and also proud of the things about my region of the country that are good and honorable. But I'm not blind to the past.
Of course, I could tell you about my direct knowledge of race issues in the North....
Wallace is awful. I hardly ever watch anymore.
We will have traded one NE Rino (Chaffee) for another...
He'd still look better wearing them than she would.
Feith ate Wallace's lunch for breakfast.
Someone needs to pose a serious question to Wallace, Timmah, and all the other MSN interviewers; is your purpose to promote understanding of an issue? Or simply to engage in adversarial fisticuffs? Then make 'em answer it.
I guess you could always say a horse is in "stable" condition....? They may have a point: Dead is about as stable as it gets.....it's permanent.
Not really. I think Hillary's pants suit could stand on its own.
Notice the soft tone of voice and lack of interrupting follow-up questions to Reed. Wow.
This show should be studied by folks in communications schools.
see my post 119
That would be a great question.
Thanks. I did manage to get a few hours this morning and have now got myself a giant mug of hazelnut cream coffee with a cinnamon and raisin bagel.
Whatever Olympia does Collins will follow suit.
I noticed that as well; must less confrontation with the dem than the pubbies he had on. Very much in the same way that Russert does his interviews.
Or simply to engage in adversarial fisticuffs?
^^^^
It seems to me that Wallace's questions to Reed were like coaching him into voicing the proper rebuttal to McConnell.
Oh yeah--I should have added "with Republicans" to the end of my question.
"proper" as in the "truth" Democrat style
Wallace thinks he's being fair & balanced by pushing Dem talking points. Instead, he comes across as not fully understanding the issues. His programs are often poll-driven when it is far to early for that sentiment tool to dominate. And, most disturbing, he wraps his questions in that stomach-wrenching smug-faced expression of his.
.
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.