Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 18 September 2005

Various big media television networks ^ | 18 September 2005 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[Alas Babylon!]

The Talk Shows

Sunday, September 18th, 2005

Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Russian President Vladimir Putin; Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad Allen.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Former President Bill Clinton; Allen.

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; Allen.

THIS WEEK (ABC): Clinton; Sen. David Vitter, R-La.; Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.; Caroline Kennedy, editor, "A Family of Poems."

LATE EDITION (CNN) : Sens. Joseph Biden, D-Del., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.; Allen; Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Miami Mayor Manuel Diaz.

[maica]

Unlike others on the panel, she suggested that Bush will become more popular after all this. Dick Morris said the same on Fox.
#####

CSPAN callers this morning had a decidedly pro-Bush, anti-Blanco and Nagin perspective.

[MNJohnnie]

Not only that. Funny how everyone forgets who was running the SENATE after 9-11. Funny how all the Bush bashers just skip over that 20 month period of a Democrat Senate Majority Bush had to work with.

[Gipper08]

Pence and Delay have a tangled history.In 2000 Delay was Pence's mentor and offered him the world(leadership position,and committee sub chair as a freshman)When it was time for Pence to sell out and vote for big Government,Pence "betrayed" Delay and gave it all up for his principles.With Pence, Word and Deed are one and the same,and he ALWAYS remembers why he went to DC in the first place.Whenever pence and Delay go head to head DeLay always loses his mind and says stupid things.Pence is perhaps the only "politician" to have beaten Delay on something politically important.(Pence still LOVES Delay BTW,and they worked closely together on fighting the stem cell bill.)
http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/031705/gop.html
Lacking votes to pass the budget, House Republican leaders struck a deal yesterday with conservative members who had demanded reforms to the spending process.

The deal is a major win for the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC) and signaled a rare concession from powerful GOP leaders.

Republican leaders had charged that the reform demanded by members of the RSC would tie the leadership’s hands and empower House Democrats. But realizing that they would otherwise lack the votes to pass the budget this week, the GOP leaders yesterday agreed to conservatives’ demand that waiving budget rules for future spending bills require approval by a majority of the House.

The conflict reached full intensity yesterday morning at a closed-door meeting of the House Republican Conference.

After RSC Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.), one of the key lawmakers involved in the contentious push for budget reform, addressed the conference, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) angrily demanded of the conservative rebels how they planned to pass the budget, an implication that reform would make it more difficult to pass budget and appropriations legislation, said a lawmaker who attended the meeting.

“DeLay got into it with some members on the budget,” another GOP lawmaker said.

Conservative proponents of reform responded that they liked the budget Republicans passed out of committee and that they simply want to enforce it, the reason they have cited for pushing budget reform.

“Our ambition was that members of the majority have an opportunity to defend the budget of the majority on the House floor,” Pence said yesterday, announcing the agreement along with conservative Reps. Paul Ryan (Wis.), Jeb Hensarling (Texas) and Jeff Flake (Ariz.). “If any one of the 10 appropriations bills exceeds the budget, any member of Congress would be able to raise a point of order and that would be subject to debate and vote.”

“I believe this is a significant step forward,” Pence said.

Ryan explained that a lawmaker would have an opportunity to raise a procedural objection against a budget-breaking spending bill after it had been amended on the House floor but before final passage.

Pence was 30 minutes late for an early-afternoon RSC meeting because he was putting the finishing touches on the deal. He outlined the deal to RSC members with Neil Bradley, an aide to House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). It was mentioned in the meeting that Hastert and Blunt helped craft the compromise, suggesting that DeLay was not involved.

A DeLay aide said that DeLay was talking with RSC members yesterday.

The so-called point-of-order protection would not apply to bills produced by conferences with the Senate. It is usually in those negotiations that spending bills are swelled beyond the levels called for in the budget resolution, making yesterday’s agreed-to reform modest in terms of its impact on discretionary spending. In the past five years, the House appropriations panel has seldom sent a bill to the floor out of committee that exceeded the budget, a GOP leadership aide noted.

But the political impact is likely much greater, as it is one of the few times that a faction of Republican House members has battled with the party’s leaders and won. It is all the more significant because the leadership conceded to give up some of its power, perhaps the reason that GOP leaders fought conservatives so hard on the issue.

One Republican RSC aide said, “This is the first time the RSC did anything,” alluding to the group’s previous reputation of buckling under pressure.

The victory belongs primarily to the RSC and its new leader, Pence, who replaced Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) at the beginning of the year. In yesterday’s meeting, Pence was “stoic” and adamant that the deal should not be portrayed as an RSC win, according to a source in the room.

Pence, who fended off numerous direct and indirect attacks from leadership and budget officials this past week, said that the past several days have been tiring and emotional, the source added. He also said Hensarling, who was Pence’s right-hand man on the budget reforms, deserves the bulk of the credit.

Republican centrists who had joined conservatives in their opposition to a budget resolution not linked to budget reform did not withstand pressure from GOP leaders to fall back into line. The centrists “caved,” in the words of one conservative.

Rep. Mark Kirk (Ill.), the co-chairman of the Tuesday Group, acknowledged that it was the RSC that forced leadership to compromise on budget reform.

“The RSC had the bulk of the troops. The centrists helped,” said Kirk, who after being asked twice whether centrists had in fact caved to leadership’s pressure, cocked his head from one side to another before answering, “We wanted to make sure we didn’t come out with nothing, and we didn’t. The leadership had a serious offer.”

Pence and his conservative allies initially demanded a two-thirds vote of the House be required to waive rules for legislation that violated the budget. They later scaled down their demand, ultimately asking for only a majority vote to waive the rules for spending bills that violated the budget.

The leadership also moderated its counteroffers. Aides familiar with the negotiations said that Blunt initially offered Pence his choice of several compromise measures. The proposals included allowing Republican lawmakers to call a conference meeting on any bill that exceeded the budget and requiring the Rules Committee to explain why it had waived a budget rule on legislation in violation of the budget.

While the budget reforms, by themselves, do little to reduce government spending significantly, RSC members are hopeful other structural changes will be implemented. Pence told the RSC yesterday that GOP leadership indicated it wants more substantive reforms, adding that he believes that commitment is “genuine.”

Pence said the budget reform would be a part of the House rules. Kirk said reform would be initially implemented as a standing order of the House, something that has the power of a rule, and formally made a part of the House rules at a later date.

[samantha]

We are honest, we just don't harp on The President, if we have a disagreement we let it be known. We do not go off on a DU type unsubstantiated tangent. What would you have as leader a King, or some third world type dictator? This is a Conservative web site, but we are compassionate conservatives, much more compassionate than these left wing nutcases have ever been. Some of the most destructive Posters on these threads are the wacky Pat Buchanan "go pat go" types. They are so hard @ssed Strident and rigid that they never bend and they eventually break, and start posting really filthy language and horrible peronal attacks with cursing. We are not blind, but just because we do not agree with 100 percent of what the President's policies are does not mean that we are not mature enough to voice our disagreement in an thoughful adult manner.

[Cboldt]

I cannot wait for the congressional hearings on this. It is eye opening already.

I expect the usual backstabbing and preening, and the public to come out no better for the show and tell. Oh, and for there to be a call and agreement for "more government."

[Morgan in Denver]

Among conservative complainers, few realize Bush has consistently taken the issues Democrats have used against us for years and eliminated them. The bulk of Democrat complaints today revolve around nothing. Watching Bush continually out-think and out-perform the conventional Democrat wisdom is like watching your team destroy their opponent. And the media is like the disbelieving announcer in the booth gasping over his team losing. In hindsight, I believe these past years are going to be well remembered as we realize how well Bush & Co have really done.

[Txsleuth]

I saw an interview with Sen. Landrieu shortly after the hurricane, and she already had a map of the greater NO area, and was pointing out NEW areas for business and this and that...

I was shocked...it was like a presentation that had been planned for MONTHS...not just hours...

I am thinking you may be on to something...that the corruption in this state is so pervasive, that they will USE this disaster to "price out" even the middle class, as well as the lower class (btw, I HATE the phrases "middle CLASS, and lower CLASS")...

[Pusterfuss]

Making outlandish assertions without being properly informed makes you look out of touch.

I have read this entire thread, and you seem to me to be the one who is out of touch.

What should Bush and the GOP be doing about the Hurricane Recovery?

[MNJohnnie]

CSPAN callers this morning had a decidedly pro-Bush, anti-Blanco and Nagin perspective.

Did you see what happned Thursday Night on ABC "Nightline" I am still smiling about how their Bush Bash blew up in their face when all these people ABC had rounded up bashed Blanco and Nagin instead.

[Gipper08]

Right now I have us losing 7 seats in the House,we could easily get to 14(and minority status)if we do not get some fiscal discipline.For example Delay got 55%in 04,06 will be a down year,if a Blue DOG DemocrAT runs,Delay could be in serious trouble.

[Txsleuth]

I reread my post....and I was dismayed that it came off sounding like I was angry with you...and I do apologize.

I never meant it that way---I guess I was just ranting at the "they" out there....LOL

I was SURE he would veto the Transportation bill...and I don't know why he didn't...but hopefully, now, some of that pork might get trimmed.

I may be wrong...but I am thinking that the Homeland Security appropriations bill hasn't passed out of conference yet....this would be a GREAT time to go back through IT, and and perhaps make changes.

[MNJohnnie]

I expect the usual backstabbing and preening, and the public to come out no better for the show and tell. Oh, and for there to be a call and agreement for "more government."

Which is why the New media need to stay on top of this. Time we quit surrending before the battle even starts and fight this stupidity. We were in a PR loser position after 9-11 when there was all this pressure to "Get along". By making this partisan from the word go, the Dems have done us a favor. There is no pressure to be "bipartisan" this time. Time to actually point out WHY and WHERE the system failed not just slap another layer of bureaucracy on top of it and pat ourselves on the back for "Fixing" the problem.

[samantha]

I found Laura Ingraham last year when Hurricane Jeanne hit, and we had no power for 4 days. I could not get much on the radio, and since there was a wide swath of terrific damage, I could only get Stations far away. I picked her up at night, and I felt like she was so boring and giddy sounding I was ready to read a book by flashlight instead. I tried her three times, and was extremely upset because so many freepers had high praise for her. She was good when she was on MSNBC or CNBC, I cannot remember which one, but her radio show is terrible.

[Mo1]

and it would be a good idea since he makes so much money to have the Dinner at his house all expenses on him. LOL!

Oh that is a great idea!! .. and since he lives in another state, I'll tell him to send me 5 plane tickets for my family :0)

[jveritas]

He has no solution and none of the minority of barking freepers about President Bush plan to rebuild the Gulf cost states effected by Katrina have any solution. They are like liberals, bitter, defeated, wrong on every subject, wrong on every prediction, wrong on every analysis, hateful, point fingers, play the blame game, whine, they have no solutions, and they have no visions.

[Morgan in Denver]

You must have seen something I didn't. I was not upset and you didn't come across as overly angry. Passionate, but not angry. LOL

[samantha]

Very good bottom line. We cannot win with Pat Buchanan standing right next to us. We do not think like he does, he is radical, we are pragmatic. We will get there eventually, and out ideas will win out, we just cannot be strident and pushy people need time to understand what we are attempting to do. If they will not listen, nothing can change their minds.

[Reagan Man]

Miss Marple, with all due respect, you're one of the head cheerleaders for Bush on FR and have always been. You never discuss the downside to the GOP/Bush led policy agenda that has expanded the government bureaucracy for welfare and entitlement programs. Never. My original remarks on this thread had to do with the out of control spending by the the majority party. My party. The Republican Party. I voted for Bush and if I want to engage in my right to free speech and express my opinions on political and policy matters, I will do so.

>>>>I personally thought that his proposals were good ones...

Outside of national defense and national security, expanding the federal bureaucracy is never a good option. And promising to pay whatever its takes isn't conservative policy.

If you really read through my posts you'd clearly understand that throwing money at problems is a liberal device and not consistent with a conservative policy agenda.

>>>>So, put up or shut up. What is your solution to this disaster?

Put up what? I'm not the POTUS, Bush is. That's what we have Bush and the GOP Congress for. To analyze, evaluate and make decisions. Bush won the election, he gets to set policy. The feds make the decisions, we either agree or disagree. That's the way it works in America. I've sent quite a few emails to the WH over the last few years about no vetoes from the President on spending legislation. I contact my Congressman and my Senators too. That's how our representative consstitutional republic works.

The WH has concluded that throwing money at this problem will solve the problem. I disagree. We've spent roughly $8-trillion over the last 40 years to fight poverty and other societal ills. Very little of it has worked. Welfare and entitlement is out of control.

One more time. Bush gave a good speech. His LBJ rhetortic was fine. But promising to rebuild the gulf coast at all costs, is fiscally irresponsible. By the time this is over we'll be looking at a price tag well in excess of $150-billion and maybe topping $200-billion. You think giving a blank check to the local and state governments is just fine. Conservatives don't think that's the right thing to do. If Bush can cut spending to pay for the Gulf Coast reconstruction effort, that would be a correct decision to make.

Btw. As I've been telling some the other Bush cheerleaders on this thread, Ronald Reagan has nothing to do with this issue. On the thread that we discussed the "greatness" issue of Bush and Reagan, that was the appropriate thread for such a debate.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Why anyone would fork over 1.2 billion to that man puzzles me... but, my question is WHO is going to watch over how it's spent? I agree this will find it's way into a Swiss Bank somewhere and Hillary's campaign.

The man is shameless for I believe President Bush covered for him after taking office and could have unleashed a tide that would've taken down the Clinton's once and for all. For that, he should be on his knees thanking the President.

Right now, he's making his move to empower the UN and, in turn, himself. Can't be President again, so what better next step in his grandiose thinking -- run the world!

[Txsleuth]

I have no clue why this polling stuff is so important to you...you seem to be the only one that is worried about Bush's poll numbers...

As far as holding congresscritter's feet to the fire...I am on the Senate (and House ) thread every day they are in session...and I watch them at work on C-span...AND...

I write e-mails, and phone Washington on a regular basis..but do you know what? I sometimes even write and call to PRAISE them when they do something I like...

BTW, I do get letters in return that aren't form letters.

Now you know what I have done ---- what specific changes to what President Bush has proposed would YOU MAKE? and what have YOU done to try and effect those changes???