Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 9 October 2005

Various big media television networks ^ | 9 October 2005 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[Alas Babylon!]

The Talk Shows

Sunday, October 9th, 2005

Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; Texas Supreme Court Judge Nathan Hecht; Gary Bauer, president of the American Values Coalition; Dr. Steven Rosenberg, chief surgeon with the National Institutes of Health.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Pat Buchanan, former presidential candidate; Richard Land, president, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

THIS WEEK (ABC): Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., ranking Democrat of the committee; Mike Leavitt, secretary, Health and Human Services.

LATE EDITION (CNN) : Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Richard Durbin, D-Ill.; Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraqi national security adviser; the Rev. Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition; Dr. David Nabarro, U.N. bird flu envoy.

[MNJohnnie]

But the fact remains, the criticism and concern hasn't just come from the usual critics from the right about the administration. It's from a wider and more respected group

Actually NO it is not. Sorry, but all the critics keep mis quoting people to claim they agree with the Dump Miers crowd. FOR example, Rush Limbaugh, he has stated his position OVER AND OVER. He is NOT anti-Miers, he does think we should have the fight over the court NOW and thinks the choice is bad tactics. On Miers, he said he "Did not know enough" On Bork you are deliberately mis represent what is said. They are NOT trashing Bork, they ARE using Bork as an example to point out how on some issues Meirs out Borks Bork. IT IS this tactic of deliberately misquoting misrepresenting and then CHANGING the argument that is making MOST of us doubt the credibility of the Hate Miers crowd. You all are NOT attempting to debate, you ARE attempting to smear. That is The Left's tactics. The minute we see it most of us real Conservatives get our hackles up. IF you really have factual, important points to bring up MAKE them. DO NOT continue to misrepresent, distort and obfuscate. THAT is why most of us DO not take the Hate Meirs side seriously!

Hard to take seriously someone who says "Rush said this" when the Freeper heard with their OWN ears Rush say something completely different.

The people FREAKING ARE the same collection of Whine all the time clowns. Wills (no nuclear option needed) Coulter (Roberts is a bad choice), Malkin and Ingraham,(pretty much anything Bush does everyday) Buchannan (NEVER been on Bush's side) , Kristol (McCain partisan, still mad about 2000. et al.

Sorry but NO ONE with significant stature is joining in the "Hate Miers" crowd. What IS being done is a lot of the HATE Miers crows is deliberately CLAIMING people support them that DO NOT. It's true there are a LOT of fence sitters but the "Hate Meirs" crowd is pretty limited. I mean when the critics start talking up the Weak Kneed RINO in Chief LOTT as being a "Conservative questioning Miers" we KNOW the critics are grasp-hing for straws

[MNJohnnie]

But the fact remains, the criticism and concern hasn't just come from the usual critics from the right about the administration. It's from a wider and more respected group

Actually NO it is not. Sorry, but all the critics keep mis quoting people to claim they agree with the Dump Miers crowd. FOR example, Rush Limbaugh, he has stated his position OVER AND OVER. He is NOT anti-Miers, he does think we should have the fight over the court NOW and thinks the choice is bad tactics. On Miers, he said he "Did not know enough" On Bork you are deliberately mis represent what is said. They are NOT trashing Bork, they ARE using Bork as an example to point out how on some issues Meirs out Borks Bork. IT IS this tactic of deliberately misquoting misrepresenting and then CHANGING the argument that is making MOST of us doubt the credibility of the Hate Miers crowd. You all are NOT attempting to debate, you ARE attempting to smear. That is The Left's tactics. The minute we see it most of us real Conservatives get our hackles up. IF you really have factual, important points to bring up MAKE them. DO NOT continue to misrepresent, distort and obfuscate. THAT is why most of us DO not take the Hate Meirs side seriously!

Hard to take seriously someone who says "Rush said this" when the Freeper heard with their OWN ears Rush say something completely different.

The people FREAKING ARE the same collection of Whine all the time clowns. Wills (no nuclear option needed) Coulter (Roberts is a bad choice), Malkin and Ingraham,(pretty much anything Bush does everyday) Buchannan (NEVER been on Bush's side) , Kristol (McCain partisan, still mad about 2000. et al.

Sorry but NO ONE with significant stature is joining in the "Hate Miers" crowd. What IS being done is a lot of the HATE Miers crows is deliberately CLAIMING people support them that DO NOT. It's true there are a LOT of fence sitters but the "Hate Meirs" crowd is pretty limited. I mean when the critics start talking up the Weak Kneed RINO in Chief LOTT as being a "Conservative questioning Miers" we KNOW the critics are grasp-hing for straws

[cake_crumb]

The reason nobody knows anything about Miers, beyond the fact that they're too lazy to do any research, is that she did not exist before Karl Rove fabricated her from spare cadaver parts, ordered Halliburton to build incredibly complicated, grossly expensive, natural resource-hogging resurrection equipment and conned the gullible Ken Lay to not only providing the electricity but pulling the critical, life restoring lever, thus animating the monstor AND causing the California blackout in one brilliantly fell masterstroke!

[cardinal4]

Instead, we are asked to trust them, and hope for the best. It is a lousy deal.

I understand eveyones angst over the pick. The way I see it, we either trust GWB, or the Republican half of the gang of 14. Ill take W over the likes of DeWine or McCain anyday.. Just my 2cents..

[Mo1]

You know, I'm beginning to like this debate: this time, instead of watching the liberals selfdestruct, we can watch the final death throes of the extreme right wing of this party go down in flames.

I'm watching the replay of Fox

Does Gary Bauer think that JRB or Luttig or Owen will announce at the hearings they would vote to get rid of Roe like he wants Meirs to do??

[Souled_Out]

"But, I don't agree that all in the Republican party are not ready for and/or are trying to be leaders (as best they can given the little support they receive from others in the party)."

---

You know, I'm going to have to agree with you on that one, I'm probably painting with to wide of a brush.

I guess my conundrum is that, given the circumstances you describe, how long do we support a party that cannot manage to lead when they are in the majority.

The DemonRats do not seem to be having a problem getting their troops to follow at any cost. Yet the RINO's rule the republican party and the "faithful" have no problem dragging you over the coals if you happen to have another point of view.

No one is allowed to disagree with the party line, which is exactly how the Rats handle the "problem". Try posting anything even slightly off of the party line at DU and you see the same kind of posts you see here.

Before you are selected to lead a country, you should be able to lead your own party.

[MNJohnnie]

What about normally strong Bush WH supporters now either strongly saying this was probably a bad idea to geez what were they thinking. I've heard more than one person at church who have been Bush supportive now backing off. One person even said they are tired of stretching the facts regarding the President. They will now let the chips fall where they may (such as your comments to Iw

There you GO again. Source of this claim????? Where Joe? You keep making statements of fact yet NO ONE can actually can find any verification? Source JOE???

Talking about why Rush's number have gone down in the TC market has NOTHING to with what you claim I said. You deliverately took the point out of context. That is the sort of debating tactics which makes NO ONE listen to you here. The point we were discussing that you just misquoted is OTHER reasons why Rush's mnmbers may have went down in the TC Market. So YET AGAIN, you are deliberatly misquoting and misrepresenting. Sorry but until you actually get a FACTUAL verified statement out there I am going to keep laughing at your nonsense. So who all are thse "Bush supporters backing off" As I pointed out to you earlier post, NO ONE you quote has A). Been a Bush Supporter or is B). backing off. Name names Joe. JUST one time. NAME a name and HONESTLY quote them FACTUALLY. Sorry but it is this sheer desperate need of the Meirs critics to repeatedly MISREPRESENT the facts that makes NO ONE take you all seriously.

[cake_crumb]

Then we can have that "fight" everybody's been dying for, only this time we can see the "real" "true" conservatives try to tear this party up.

There've never been a shortage of those. They're as numerous as termites and have the consistancy of herpes outbreaks.

[Howlin]

Did you see this? (I just now posted this on another thread)

***As a side note, and to prove how desperate the bashers are, I was just watching the rerun of Fox's Sunday show and Miers' boy friend, if that's what you can call him -- the chief of the Texas Supreme Court -- said that she is pro-life and has been for years.

Gary Bauer, who has never been elected to anything and nothing knowing Miers at all, quickly said to him -- HER BOY FRIEND -- "There's no proof of that at all."

*Rolling my eyes*

[Howlin]

Works for me!

[MNJohnnie]

No one is allowed to disagree with the party line, which is exactly how the Rats handle the "problem". Try posting anything even slightly off of the party line at DU and you see the same kind of posts you see here.

Actually make a rational argument rather then state your feelings as facts and lots of people will listen. So far all you have done is made statements of feeling. Sorry feelings are NOT facts. THAT is what we object too. This habit of the critics of making these thunderous pronouncements with NO facts to back them up. Sorry you are mad cause the party isn't doing ONLY what YOU want. Life is NOT perfect.

[Phsstpok]

You posted:

First of all, I can agree with you on Buchanan and even Kristo. But Limbaugh, Malkin, Krauthammer and others who have staunchly defended this President when mis-steps or things that have been upsetting have been done by this White House, then I get concerned. But Pat simply wants the pitchforks out and the torches lit and a march organized and someone burned at the stake.

Limbaugh is not against Miers, per se, but he is disappointed that Bush did not throw down the gauntlet for THE FIGHT that he's been champing for.  He is also one of the first to say that the "weakness" this nomination comes from is not because of Bush but because the Republicans in the Senate are clearly not reliable.

Malkin has a problem with this White House because they haven't embraced her approach to immigration, legal or illegal.  I support her stance, but I think it's coloring her perceptions of all the things this White House does.  I think much the same of Coulter's recent vehemence against GWB.

I read Krauthammer as talking about tactical political considerations, not the substance of the nomination.  I just think he's wrong, or at least premature.  I'm beginning to think that there may be more to this nomination than the critics OR supporters suspect.  Miers may be the most signification nominee to the Court in 200 years.  Of course, I've been wrong before, but I want to wait and see.

But on the other hand, there was Dr. Land on MTP. First of all, what was he doing in Washington and secondly there were a few questions that even the normally quick to think on his feet Land had to shuck and jive to answer.

What are you implying?  Some sort of "grand conspiracy?  If so, by whom?  Those evil Christians?  Boy, I hope that's not where you're going.

Finally, Miers was being Borked by Bork himself. It's been amazing to see what was once the patron saint of nomination hearings (besides Thomas) suddenly have his bone fides questioned and trashed by unaashed Bush supporters. This has been an unreal spectacle. Prior to his comments, anyone who questioned the great Robert Bork would have been banned.

As I've stated elsewhere, I have several very specific things that bother me about Bork and, one on one, I think Miers may stack up better than him.  I want to wait and see.  As to questioning Borks "bona fides," he lost me with his 2nd amendment stance in Slouching to Gomorrah.  I've not had much use for him since that elitist bull came out (and I did read it).

And of course it give great re-assurance when the Vice President says just wait 5 or ten years.

I don't think that's what he said, but even if that is what he said, literally, my family knows the Cheney's (not well, but well enough) and I, for one, would trust his word.  Do you trust Buchannen, or Kristol?

But the fact remains, the criticism and concern hasn't just come from the usual critics from the right about the administration. It's from a wider and more respected group.

Name them.  I don't have all that much respect for talking heads and columnists, even when I agree with them.  Even less for pointy headed intellectuals lecturing the poor stupid masses, ala Walter Cronkite, about what we're supposed to take their word for.

[cake_crumb]

"You know, I'm beginning to like this debate: this time, instead of watching the liberals selfdestruct, we can watch the final death throes of the extreme right wing of this party go down in flames."

IMO, they're ERINOS (Extreme Right Wing in Name Only) because most often they sound EXACTLY like Democrats. It's endlessly amazing how "both sides" of the aisle exchange and assimilate the exact same talking points. Hard to believe the far left and far right can find ANY common ground, while us supposed neocon Bushbots are the only ones who disagree with both sides for the exact same reasons: cause they're wrong.

[Phsstpok]

for informed and apparently well researched information about Harriet Miers Texas law experience check out beldar.blogs.com

[Lady In Blue]

THANKS! I'll be sure to watch that show. I'll have to get the time from TV GUIDEONLINE.

[Howlin]

I have been asking all week who ARE the real "Republicans In Name Only."

[Miss Marple]

joesbucks, you have alredy set up your scenario wher any attck by the left is orchestrated by the White House. Since you are in this weirdo reality, I am not making any sort of bet with you.

Howlin, if by some remote chance Miers withdraws, please do not consider it a Bush move.

Frankly, I don't believe she will withdraw, and I don't believe that the Bush administration is having second thoughts.

[MNJohnnie]

such as your comments to Iwo Jima about Bush having made some misteps

Another deliberate misrepresentation. I have NEVER said Bush "had made missteps" I may, OR MAY NOT, think that. I will NEVER have said it. Bashing Bush does NOT advance the agenda. IF the price of getting Social Security Reform,a Conservative dominated Supreme court, complete the mission in Iraq and all the other Conservative agenda items mean not bashing Specter Lott Buchannan, and Hagel, et al. I WILL not say one bad word about any of them. However, when people who SHOULD be on our side go mental, start spending all their time shooting at THEIR side, I AM going to call them to account. I do NOT criticize the people on my side. EVER. So ONCE again, you are misrepresenting what I said. Sorry but when you are ready to FACTUALLY debate, come back. Until then, quit wasting my time.

[joesbucks]

First of all, Rush would never say anything Bush does was wrong or dumb. It's always worded in a more sophisticated way. But saying the nomination was made from a "position of weakness" is not saying this was a strong, or the correct or the best choice. Rush has never said that Harriet Miers is the best choice of all from the supposed short list. He did say that about Thomas. As a matter of fact he's been inferring a better choice may have been made if Bush wasn't afraid of the 7 RINO's. Excuse me. Is that leadership? No, that's weakness. He won't say Miers was the wrong choice, but he won't say she was the right choice. He's not even cloaking it in 'as far as I can tell, she's the best choice".

As for Bork

The Honorable Robert H. Bork, RINO

4 posted on 10/08/2005 9:05:24 PM EDT by msnimje (If you suspect this post might need a sarcasm tag..... it does!)

To: arnoldpalmerfan Robert Bork is right on target with his comments about Harriet Miers.

Robert Bork has been an angry old grump for a number of years. There's not much dignity or gravitas in him just plenty of ego.

6 posted on 10/08/2005 9:07:19 PM EDT by bkepley

To: bkepley

Robert Bork has been an angry old grump for a number of years. There's not much dignity or gravitas in him just plenty of ego. ------

Sour grapes. Bork should maintain his dignity by just being a quiet spectator. It would do wonders for the situation and him.

12 posted on 10/08/2005 9:11:18 PM EDT by EagleUSA

To: EagleUSA

Bork is a miserable failure.

14 posted on 10/08/2005 9:12:44 PM EDT by nwrep

To: bkepley

Funny how the name calling comes out, aimed at people who have been conservative icons for years, just because they disagree with the Miers pick.

If the name callers weren't calling these people these names before they came out against the Miers pick, then it's simply not credible.

24 posted on 10/08/2005 9:20:03 PM EDT by Acts 2:38 (Serving on a Meals-on-Wheels program is NOT a qualification for a SC nominee. Call your Senators!)

No ones trashing Bork? That was only through the first 24 posts on that thread.

[MNJohnnie]

Frankly, I don't believe she will withdraw, and I don't believe that the Bush administration is having second thoughts.

I doubt it too. The critics are too desperate for it. Funny how so many are critical of "Bush appears to be acting from weakness" and then demand he do something to prove their point by withdrawling the nominee.