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.

[Liberty Valance]

We put up with abuse from friends, overlooked Republican lapses like immigration, all because Judges was Job 1. Whatever else happened if we could righten the course of the judiciary all could be well in the future. What in the hell did we fight for?

I have more faith in the President's pick than I do for our so called "Republican controlled Senate" to confirm any of the other firebrand, paper trail laden conservatives suggested. Yes, I wanted Janice Rogers Brown too. I also wanted John Bolton confirmed but all I got was this lousy T-shirt from the Senate majority.

[OldFriend]

I heard Graham say that and was not surprised that so many here chose to ignore the entire statement and blast Graham.

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.

[MNJohnnie]

If TIME is to be believed

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.

[SkyPilot]

I might agree, I might not, but I won't take your unsupported word for it.

Then watch the damn show, or google a transcript of it. I am not here to do your homework for you.

[Morgan in Denver]

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.

[joesbucks]

No matter how you slice, even if Miers is a qualified candidate, her nomination has severely crippled much of the momentum of the social conservative movement. It may not be permanently damaged, but it has been severely hurt by its devisiveness.

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.

[MNJohnnie]

ak, C Wallace says Miers changed her party and her religion so how do we know she won't change on the Court

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.

[sanjacjake]

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

[snugs]

I do not see how withdrawing a nominee equates to winning big

[malia]

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!!!

[Phsstpok]

Unfortunately, GHWB took their word for it and the rest is history.

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."

[Cboldt]

As posted to another Miers/Bush basher
"So, all the facts that people need to trash Harriet Miers are that there are no facts? ... Wow. How Clintonian"

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.

[Phsstpok]

nice summary of the reasons I want to wait for the hearings.

[Morgan in Denver]

I agree. More truth some realize. Our side seems to want a conservative activist rather than a strict constructionist.

[MNJohnnie]

Bauer says Mier is (in effect) a pig in a poke.

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.

[OldFriend]

On reflection, if clintonoids hadn't come out defending him no one would even know about this book or Freeh's appearance on 60 min.

The rest of the media not mentioning it so 60 min. doesn't get ratings, I suppose.

[Iwo Jima]

...just give the lady a chance to find out who she is.

The lady is 60 years old and she needs time to "find herself"?!?!

I know that you did not say this but were quoting Lindsey Graham. But, sheesh, the time to find out who someone is, is before the nomination, not after. After the nomination it's too late to realize that you have made a mistake without major damage.

[Graymatter]

I can't imagine W nominating a justice who would vote for the confiscation of private land for distribution to another private party, or who would not vote to undo Kelo.

Yes, remember how upset he was about that decision? /sarc

[maica]

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.

[Iwo Jima]

Well, she very calmly but with great seriousness explained why this nomination has hit the conservative movement so hard. I'd rather someone find the transcript than try to state any more detail, as I was trying to do 3-4 things at once!