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]

My guess is they'll pout, threaten to stay home or vote for some 3rd party group, maybe even a democrat or two and come back to voice their displeasure at not being taken seriously..... jmo.

My guess is they all ready voted 3rd party and are desperate for a chance to say "We told you"

[joesbucks]

Are you saying that Bork is not a Bush supporter. I would say he is. Are you saying that Dobson, who Monday had no qualms was praying by Wednesday he was making the right decisions and asking for God's guideance?

As for the previous paragraph, these are folks i go to church with. Do you personally know Bob Newman and Bobby Gresham that I go to church with?

[Phsstpok]

Not just Bubba flipping the bird, but CBS, as well.

Can you imagine some Bush loyalist like Baker (who's never admitted to treason related to 9/11 as Berger has) being allowed free air time, probably with no critical questions, to rebut the Memogate fraud? CBS wouldn't even tell the Bush people what was coming up, let alone let them review the contents and prepare a rebuttal.

I think this calls for an FCC challenge to all the licenses connected to CBS based on their requirement to serve the community interests. And covering up for Democrats doesn't count as serving the community interests, anymore than covering up for Al Capone would.

[Mo1]

Well ... I guess that throws out the argument that she is gay .. FOFL!!

Yes ... I am laughing .. because many of the arguments I am seeing are nothing but laughable

[cake_crumb]

"I agree with you...we help because we care...just like we helped in Iran last year...KNOWING that it wouldn't help a bit with the government...but the people of Iran, who want to fight the mullahs...won't forget that we helped."

Exactly. In caring enough to help the oppressed only because they suffer, there will always be some who never forget how we helped and pass their opinions on in the privacy of their homes. There is no way the thugs and root them all out, because in Third World countries national tragedies are a normal thing and we just keep on helping. The number of people who remember can only grow. It's a war of attrition between the forces of Good and the forces of Tyranny. Then again, I often am accused of thinking Simple Thoughts ;-)

[joesbucks]

YOU claimed Rush was one of you hate Miers critics.

As one great person once said, 'there you go again'. I never said Rush was one of the hate Miers critics. I've always said he's set himself up to be right no matter how this nomination goes. Good or bad, right choice or wrong, he's got a soundbite that covers his ass.

I've always said Rush's criticism has been this nomination was made from a position of weakness.

As a matter of fact, for the others I don't believe any of the critics hates Miers. I think they believed there were better choices and choices that could have made it .

So you misrepresent my postings. As you say, a debate tactic.

I never said the Bork bashes came from this thread. I did say Bork was being trashed (on the forum) because he Borked Ms. Miers. Those notes came from another thread and were actual posts. You questioned my ascertation that Bork was being trashed. I provided proof. Again, you misrepresent what I posted. Heres the thread http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1499193/posts

[cake_crumb]

"You know, the folks trying to bury Tom DeLay for doing things that were perfectly legal."

Yeah, the fine, upstanding types. While not a Texas resident, half my family have been born and raised there. I remember the Texas lotto scandal while having only been to law school and living nearly a continent away from Texas. Therefore I too suspect ANY native Texans with political and/or legal savvy when they say they are unaware that Miers was the cleanup crew. It wasn't THAT long ago.

"Where did you claim to practice law again?"

I never claimed to practice law. I only went to law school. Though I HAVE practiced law, it is with the express understanding of all parties that I never bothered to take the bar, having been distracted defending my OWN case and then losing any interest in practicing law for a living.

[MNJohnnie]

am starting to become convinced that the Republican party is not much different than the DemonRat party when it comes to people that do not toe the party line

Right. Go to Democrat Underground and find me one pro Bush, Pro Life, Pro Death Penalty, Pro War on Terror, Pro private property and gun rights Democrat activist. I can point out LOTS of people who post here regularly who do NO T agree on those topics. Nonsense that we are "no better then the Democrats. Have yet to hear a single rational argument. MAKE the case. Conservatives are people who THINK. We are NOT impressed with how people "Feel". Funny how the critics all demand the Republican Party has some sort of obligation TO them but can ask nothing OF them. Gee, We should ALL be loyal to the constant critics who actively help the PR campaign of our foes and NEVER do ANYTHING to help move our agenda forward? Respect is EARNED, it cannot be DEMANDED. Constantly complaining about our side with NO serious rational discussion or attempt to support raises serious doubts in MOST of our minds weather the "Republican" is REALLY a Republican AT ALL. Funny how all the critics want our money and our time and our votes and then REFUSE to EVER do anything worthy of that support. Loyalty goes UP AND DOWN the chain. They want OUR loyalty, then they must be loyal to us. Turing around and proving what a "maverick" they are once they get to DC IS NOT returning the loyalty. Most of us our sick of hearing how we have to respect the whiners "feelings". HEY NO problem IF we can count on SOME support for OUR goals. WE will NEVER respect anyone who demands we "Respect their diversity" but refuses to repspect OURS.

The is NO reason for us to take seriously anyone who claims to be "on our side" then spend all their time speaking DNC talking points. Are they with us or are they against us? MOST of the critics are NOT and have NEVER been with us. Pat Buchannan is a PERFECT example. Not a SINGLE positive.

[Phsstpok]

I did name them. You gave your opinion of their comments. Some I agree with or portions of, others I will wait and see.

Then we're on the same page

As for Rush, well it's easy to pass this off on the Senate RINO's. They besides Hillary and Ted Kennedy and the media, they are his favorite boogey men. Something backfires, Rush will blame one of the above. But I say not so fast. The conservatives and moderates embraced Roberts with no problem. Matter of fact, several dems too. Even Hillary, though she did not support, did not trash him in her PR announcement.

Yes and no. I remember some of the same "usual suspects" challenging Roberts prior to the hearings. I don't accept the notion that there was "no problem" from those you describe as "conservatives and moderates" if by that you mean the people complaining about Miers. The bash Miers crowd was also a bash Roberts crowd, primarily as a way to bash Bush. Roberts handling of the committee hearings put a stop to that and the bitching about him is being shoved down the memory hole.

But I don't think the problem comes from the moderate Republicans. THis time it will come from the right.

I don't buy that the folks bashing Bush and Miers are "the right." At least not in the traditional sense. I think the majority of those oppposed to Miers are Perotistas and Buchanenbots. They're not "right." They're just crazy.

I know that's cheap and not worth much, but it's the impression I've gotten from the threads today. I need to take a couple of days to digest this before I really have it figured out, at least to my satisfaction. That's lame, but it's where I am right now.

I will say this, I feel a lot better about the situation with Harriet Miers after this weekend than I did before. Lots of bits and pieces are falling into place for me. I'm not done yet, and I still want to hear her, but I've got a lot better comfort level than I did, even this morning.

And I think a positive consensus is emerging here on FR, as well. Not a blind support, but a healthy willingness to wait and see without jumping to conclusions. It's what I was hoping for in my challenge to do as much digging and validating with Miers as we did with Memogate. Lots of crap has been thrown about, both pro and con. I think the BS has been effectively burned away and we're beginning to get down to a place where we can actually start learning something.

This is an interesting process.

[SkyPilot]

Howlin,

The hearings will tell us nothing. She will refuse to answer questions on cases she says may come before the court. She will give long answers to questions that were not asked. The Senators will huff and puff before the cameras. That process has never, ever been about finding out what the candidate believes, nor it is a review of qualifications.

Before I go on...

Since people are on the attack mode around here in a way I have never seen before, I have to do this little dance with post right now and say this: This is my opinion. There, hope you all can sleep tonight now.

To continue, the hearings do serve a purpose in that they gives us a sense of the candidate, how well they hold up to public scrutiny, and how well they communicate. Judge Bork showed he was 10 times smarter than everyone else in the room, but the media was after him, and there was no alternate media in 1987. In Clarence Thomas case, it was a hideous spectacle that in the end made his accusers look like the monsters they were. Judge Roberts was simply brilliant and could out think every blow hard with one hand tied behind his back. But we learned nothing of their philosophy. It was a political exercise.

But we should not delude ourselves that anything will be learned from the hearings. No, the time for vetting was before the announcement. If the nominee had been Janice Rogers Brown, then we would have know what we were getting. We would have know her view from cases such as the American Academy of Pediatrics vs. Lungren concerning parental consent for abortions in the case of minors. We would have known liability from the case of Loder vs. City of Glendale. Affirmative action, family rights, etc were all laid out. I can already hear the retorts to me even bringing her up as an example: "You are just WHINNING 'cause he didn't pick her, huh!" No, her, or any number of dozens of better candidates. Miers has never been loyal to Conservatism. She has been loyal to Bush. In 3 years, Bush will be granted a much deserved retirement, and Miers will be with us for 25 years.

Now the critics will argue that because of this "paper trail" good judges like Brown, Griffith, Owen, etc shouldn't have been nominated, and she wasn't. So, we give up the fight with 55 Senators before we even enter the ring. We act like the French and wear a white flag around our necks.

Is this the message we send to all Conservative judges and lawyers from now on? "Hey, don't ever have an opinion on anything. NEVER fight for what you believe in, cause it will leave a paper trail, and we won't nominate you for the the high courts."

The doubts about Harriet Miers are already there. They won't be altered by the hearings. Yes, I'll read the news synopsis', but I already feel betrayed, and so do many, many other people.

I can see this debate is going nowhere fast. It has been going on all day and I am sure the posts will continue into the night. From my standpoint, we lost an golden opportunity to change the court, and now we will pay the price. I am not confident Miers will be on the side I support. I just am not.

Thanks for listening Howlin. You should know how much I respect and appreciate you here on FR. Thanks again, and good night.

Sky

[Phsstpok]

"Where did you claim to practice law again?"

I never claimed to practice law.

that wasn't directed at you. That post went to Iwo Jima and I copied you, since I was reacting to a post between the two of you. That question was for him.

Now, directly to cake_crumb, which direction half a continent away did you go, East or West? Or could it be North or South?

[maica]

been there days ago and referred other Freepers to go there. ;*)

I really appreciate his logical interpretation of her prowess as a lawyer.

[MNJohnnie]

Again, you misrepresent what I posted.

NO Joe. I pointed out how your claim that all the Meirs supporters were "Bashing Bork" I pointed that was untrue. NOW you are claiming I "misreperesent you in yet ANOTHER attempt to duck the question. By redirecting MY own "there you go again" point back at me you are proving you really DO not have any point. As long as you keep ducking and refusing to ACCURATELY and FACTUALLY answer the question, Game over and you lost. NOW answer MY question. NO more ducking.

So NOW Joe. Here is your chance. NO adaptations. NO name calling. No Character Assassinations. No misquotes, misstatements and misrepresentations. No assumptions. No logical fallacies. MAKE the FACTUAL case. WHY should Miers be rejected?

[McGavin999]

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.

They've never been a member of the party Howlin. Most probably never even voted for Bush in the first place.

[alnick]

I don't understand. It's obvious to me that those making this accusation know nothing at all about Miers, so what are the dissentors apprehensions about her exactly??

I asked someone yesterday to share his evidence that Miers is an intellectual lightweight. His response? The evidence is the fact that she's a hack. I then asked for his evidence that she's a hack. I haven't gotten a response yet.

[gpapa]

The ones in the ivory tower.

[Phsstpok]

Rehnquist was not a Judge when he got on the Court.

I believe he was a corporate attorney before he worked for a President.

Findlaw bio:

Law Practice: Private practice of law, Phoenix, Arizona, 1953-1969. Engaged in a general practice of law with primary emphasis on civil litigation.

Government Service: Served in the United States Army Air Corps in this country and overseas from 1943 to 1946. He was discharged with the rank of sergeant. Appointed Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel, by President Nixon in January 1969.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/rehnquist.html

[OldFriend]

Thanks, funny things, facts.

[MNJohnnie]

this the message we send to all Conservative judges and lawyers from now on? "Hey, don't ever have an opinion on anything. NEVER fight for what you believe in, cause it will leave a paper trail, and we won't nominate you for the the high courts."

Are the critics REALLY trying to argue that Conservative Judge make their decisions based on how they think the Conservative Establishment will REWARD them???? That they do not do their duty for what is right and just and the Law but out of the hopes of appeasing the Conservative Establishment?

If that is the case, they should be impeached tomorrow right next to the Liberal Clinton Judges who do this to appease the Liberal Machine!

Sorry when most of us say we want a STRICT Constructionists we mean it. We are NOT looking for a Judicial activist who will be activist in OUR favor!

Simply unbelievable. Feel like I must be in the twilight zone. This argument doesn't work, switch to that, that ones does work try that other thing. NO good? How about this, or this, or this. Do the Miers critics ever bother LISTENING to themselves? This is sheer lunacy.

"We must reward the Conservative Judges or they will be demoralized" Demoralized from doing their duty? Because they were not picked? Doesn't sound like Scalia or Thomas think so. Funny how they all scream "Miers is not tough enough to face the pressure of the court" then turn around and tell us the Conservative Judges are a bunch of squishy prima donnas whose feeling are hurt by all this and unless we appease them that will make them lose all their principals and quit being Conservatives!!!!

So which is it are the "tough enough for the court" are a bunch of squichy eqo maniacs?

UGGGGGGGGG! It's over. Simply cannot take the rabid unwillingness to think any more. What the HECK happened to Ronald Reagan's Conservatives?

Mr President Reagan, I miss you very much today. For just 5 minutes of your wit and sanity what I would not give.

[Mister Baredog]

You're either with Harriet, or you're with the terrorists. LOL!

ROTFL

The more Kristol talks the more I like her. {:>)