Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 13 May 2007

Various big media television networks ^ | 13 May 2007 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[Alas Babylon!]

The Talk Shows

Sunday, May 13th, 2007

Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.

THIS WEEK (ABC): Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.; actress Brooke Shields.

LATE EDITION (CNN) : Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh; Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C; former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga.

[Phsstpok]

AG is the better choice for Rudy, given his background coupled with his understanding of the realities of the WOT.

And unlike Gonzalez he can usually (but not always) be counted on to put together a coherent argument.

Plus, he’s a New Yorker who won’t put up with the kind of nonsense that the Dhimmi’s have been putting Gonzo through. I’d just love to see Pat Leahy try some of his stunts on Rudy!

[altura]

“no one expects the Spanish Inquisition”

until it’s too late and they’ve been inquisited!

[MNJohnnie]

Well they have the same problem we have. We went to sleep in the 1990s. I mean HEY, History was over and we won right? All the talking heads were saying it. So we let a 12 million person force disintegrate into a....ready for this

1.4 million active duty force. When I read that the other day I was just stunned.

In 1992 we took a marvelous instrument of war and simply threw it in the trash yet again as soon as we thought the war was over! So did all of Europe.

And we are paying the price for that stupidity now. It takes years and lots and lots of $$$ to build up a seriously professional volunteer force.

And it is going to be really a lot tougher this time. The Clintonites were really very clever. By pushing so much of the force into NG and Reserve status, they created a political clientele, outside the Military, who are NOT going to ever give up those fat federal dollars flowing into their states for NG troops while at the same time NEVER want those troops actually USED by the Feds! We are going to have to rebuild a large active duty force while fighting the political Establishment tooth and nail for every single body and dollar.

[Phsstpok]

It is my humble opinion that Rudy can have nothing to do with domestic law enforcement. I like my guns too much. SecDef, SecState, or CIA.

But with a President Fred Thompson (my #1 hope) or most of the others it would be the President's position on the second amendment, not Rudy's, that mattered, even with Rudy as AG.  I don't like him for Defense and think he'd be a disaster at State.  He's a New Yorker, and a "street kid" type New Yorker at that, which would be an asset at AG or CIA, but a big drawback as Secretary of State.

You might be right about him for CIA as that place needs a very strong hand that will muck out the stables.

[altura]

How about Rudy for the United Nations? Maybe he could lop off the top ten floors.

I’d like to see how that nomination would fly in the Senate.

[mountainfolk]

My husband and I watched Rudy and Chris this AM and your last paragraph about Rudy being a NYer who won’t put up with a lot of sh— was my husband’s comment about him. We tend toward Thompson at least until we see him in debates with other candidates, but Rudy’s energy and forcefulness when he talks about implementing what needs to be done in a given situation, i.e. WOT or governing in NYC, is refreshing and reassuring when projecting him as CIC of this country. He puts whatever is his governing responsibility ahead of all else, whether it be NYC then, or the whole of America now. As the saying goes, Rudy will 'get er done'.

[MNJohnnie]

Perhaps you need to take some reading comprehesnion classes since you completely failed to read what I actually said. Try again and this time try actually responding to the point

Here is what YOU said,

Post 157.

Rudy made a fool of himself. He was as bad as Jkerry when waffling. I would vote Mclaim unless Fred runs. Please, Fred, RUN!

Here was my response. So try again and this time actually READ what I said. Learning to do this will keep you from making a total ass of yourself yet again and again and again as you are doing so far.

I figured you must be a newbie. If you think Rudy sucks then McLame should be the LAST person you would vote for. dbacks Since May 2, 2007

See anyone who has actually been around here more the 2 minutes would know that no matter how bad you think Rudy might be, McLame is FAR worse. McLame is Rudy subtracting all Rudy's positive attributes. Rudy at least has SOME staunch views he will not compromise, McLame would sell his mother in a heart beat if he thought it would win him a vote.

[CDB]

** One proposal would not provide additional funds for U.S. troops in Iraq and would require the U.S. to withdraw all its troops by March 2008. Would you favor or oppose that bill?

Favor: 39. Oppose: 60. Unsure: 2.

Well, well...

I just can't get the picture out of my mind that Rush referred to on his show last (Friday?), in which he spoke of a video in Richmond of Barrack Hussein Obama GROSSLY mis-reporting the number on fatalities in the recent Kansas tornado as 10,000 instead of 10 or 12. What really bothered Rush was that many morons in Barrack Hussein Obama's audience nodded their heads. (the REAL mind-numbed robots). What nauseates me about this poll is that 39% of the polling audience nods their heads that defeat is OK with them.

[Phsstpok]

How about Rudy for the United Nations? Maybe he could lop off the top ten floors.

I’d like to see how that nomination would fly in the Senate.

LOL, that's brilliant.

"Hey, UN!  You thought you had it bad with Bolton?  You ain't seen nothing yet."

And Rudy already has ample experience in dealing with them from his years as mayor.  He might not be an experienced international diplomat in the traditional sense, but he has loads of practical knowledge on dealing with people from all over the world, whether in the UN or not.  Plus, he can recognize when an NGO is actually a criminal organization and will act accordingly.

And, assuming the Dhimmicrats are still in charge in the Senate (unfortunately better than even money on that) the hearings would really put them on the spot.  The downside is they wouldn't go after him on any policy issues that might expose their lack of loyalty to American interests but would simply attack him on character grounds.  Of course the image of Teddy K hectoring Rudy on morality and the prospect of Rudy's reply to the wet one would be worth it.

This is perhaps the best suggestion yet. 

[tarheelswamprat]

he came home on his 80th birthday - I made this cake for his return home.

Best wishes to your dad on his return home! Glad you can have him there with you!

[mtnwmn]

I’m afraid that I will have to respectfully disagree. Under Clinton’s leadership we got 9/11....and that was with a Republican Congress!

[snugs]

Thank you - just back from eating dinner and catching up on posts

[mtnwmn]

This I can agree with....I was thinking that today myself.

[mtnwmn]

I think the UN Headquarters should be turned into condos....what a view!

[MNJohnnie]

I am not saying it works on the domestic front. There is would be a disaster just in their Judicial appointments alone.

[Phsstpok]

The Big E doesn't go anywhere alone. Your buddies must have been very near or inside the "bubble" our carriers try to maintain. I wonder how long they had been tracked, whether they were locked up by any weapons systems and if anybody came over to check them out.

What with the folks up at Fort Dix and the threat to US bases in Germany it's not too far fetched to imagine some Jihadis taking out a fishing boat, or a cigarette boat, loaded up with explosives, ala the Cole.

More frightening is the fact that Crazy Hugo is spending his petro dollars on a military buildup including Russian Submarines, specifically for use against us "in any conflict." 

[mtnwmn]

I came to many of the same conclusions. Us mtn (mountain) folks have to stick together.

[kabar]

In 1992 we took a marvelous instrument of war and simply threw it in the trash yet again as soon as we thought the war was over! So did all of Europe.

It was part of the "Peace Dividend" with the fall of the Soviet Union. Europe has had to choose between guns and butter and has decided upon butter. With declining, aging populations trying to support generous social welfare systems, the Europeans don't have money for both, which is why they are spending less and less on defense. The British Navy will be down to 25 capital ships. Europe has been fortunate that the US has provided the security umbrella for them, but it has warped their view of the real world.

The US is heading down the same road as our population ages and the entitlement programs consume more and more of our budget. Social Security pays more than $450 billion in benefits each year. If nothing is done, by 2060, the combination of Social Security and Medicare will account for more than 71 percent of the federal budget. By 2030, there will be 70 million Americans of retirement age--twice as many as today.

And it is going to be really a lot tougher this time. The Clintonites were really very clever. By pushing so much of the force into NG and Reserve status, they created a political clientele, outside the Military, who are NOT going to ever give up those fat federal dollars flowing into their states for NG troops while at the same time NEVER want those troops actually USED by the Feds! We are going to have to rebuild a large active duty force while fighting the political Establishment tooth and nail for every single body and dollar..

I don't believe we will ever return to the active duty force strengths we had in the 1960s or the early 1990s. Some of it has to do with technology and force multipliers that give today's military far more firepower with less manpower. And a lot has to do with money and competing demands for it. The entitlement programs are on automatic pilot and will go belly up in 10 years if nothing is done. More than likely, there will be increased taxes and lower benefits to save failed systems rather than reform them. In 1950, there were 16 workers paying Social Security taxes for every retired person receiving benefits. Today there are 3.3. By 2030, there will be only 2.

Finally, the size of our force will also be affected by the perceived threat and what is needed to counter it. The US already spends more on defense than almost the rest of the world combined. What size military do we need? Or can afford? Under our budget system, defense spending is considered to be a discretionary item.

[snugs]

That is exactly why the President wanted to reform social security but the dems and left leaning Republicans would not support him.

[MNJohnnie]

Oh yeah, I agree we neither want nor need even a 1980s size force. But remember, the original point was about NATO struggling to find a 2500 person force to send to Afghanistan! I would suggest that despite our over whelming technological edge over every possible combination of foes, when we cannot come up with even a single brigade on short notice to deploy we have a serious manpower issue that needs to be addressed!