Posted on 10/09/2005 5:13:45 AM PDT by 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.
All they chose to hear was the Shut Up part.
I heard it all and agreed with him totally.
He's been quite a stand up guy during the Roberts hearings and again now.
Funny how Conservatives decry the Dinosaur Media until they like what they are hearing. Sorry, the idea that "Time" has anyone in the Bush WH that talks to them is rather far fetched.
Then watch the damn show, or google a transcript of it. I am not here to do your homework for you.
Thanks! Barone is who I was thinking of. At least Hume had the good sense to stop the nonsense during the election coverage.
Don't know what to say on FNC's Kartina coverage. Shep Smith went bonkers and sounded like he'd just forgotten to take his Prozak, and Riviera was angling to be the center of attention in each of his segments.
Still, as bad as FNC has been the past couple of months, it's far superior to CNN.
I've began to wonder if she must be removed or asked to step down, how the WH will do it. They can't simply withdraw her or they look weak. And they can't let her simply say I''m stepping down.
They can't let her go before the Senate and she gets stopped by conservative Senators in the judiciary. (Whatever happened to let the full Senate vote up or down.) They can't let her be stopped in the approval process by conservative republicans with liberals voting yes. No they will have to get her to withdraw. If she withdraws without an excuse, then the President looks weak again for making a poor choice. So they will have to somehow get some dirt out. Something that will cause her to have to step down. They will have to find a way to make it look like the libs did it, but in fact, they will have to destroy their own candidate.
The next few weeks will be interesting.
How do we know she will? Sounds pretty far fetched of a 61 Christian Evengelical to suddenly "Change" Sorry, burden of proof rest on the ACCUSER not the ACCUSED. All these "what if" are just more of the "I want to be mad so I am going to rationalize excuses to be mad" noise the Conservative Punditry are putting out. So far all I am hearing is IF IF IF. Doesn't make their case.
MY SENTIMENTS EXACTLY....YOU AND I ARE ON THE
SAME PAGE....BUSH IS MORE HONORABLE AND MORALE
THAN ANYONE OUT THERE ESPECIALLY..KRISTOL, WHO I
THINK IS SWAYED, OF ALL PEOPLE, BY JUAN WMS. ??
THE HELL WITH ALL OF THEM, THEY ARE WASHINGTONIZED
AND SCREWANIZED...Jake
Wow!!! Good for you!!! BTW I agree!!! I could not have said it better and I really mean it - I could not have said like you did!!!
He didn't just take Sununu's and Rudman's word for it. Souter had a "perfect" paper trail of written opinions in State Court, including the supremes in New Hampshire. If you read his opinions before going on the Supreme Court he's better than Scalia or Thomas and miles better than Bork.
Same can be said for Kennedy and O'Connor during the Reagan years. Mark Levin was part of the team that vetted those folks and has admitted that they were led astray by their paper trails. I think I remember reading that Bork also contributed to the vetting of those two, but I can't find the reference, so can't be certain of that.
Anyway, so much for "perfect qualifications."
You posted that to me, and I am not a Miers basher, nor am I a Bush basher. Anybody can clink on the link and read the exchange for themselves.
nice summary of the reasons I want to wait for the hearings.
I agree. More truth some realize. Our side seems to want a conservative activist rather than a strict constructionist.
Pity for the "Conservative Punditry" we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. They don't get a vote here.
If they "Don't know her" why are they so hysteric to flame out? Maybe they should FIND Out instead of just ASSUMING.
The rest of the media not mentioning it so 60 min. doesn't get ratings, I suppose.
Yes, remember how upset he was about that decision? /sarc
Bush is President for three more years. It's hard to believe he won't get at least one more swing at bat.
####
It is also hard to believe that he would nominate someone to the court who will be making many decisions while he is still in office, that would not be the originalist that he promised in his campaigns.
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.