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]

Another Republican involved said it reflected Bush's isolation. 'Somebody just like her should have told him, "Mr. President, no. This is a mistake." But he picked the picker, so there was no one there to tell him no

Yeah, he is a "Republic" mouthing all the News Media Elites talking points about "Bush the out of touch moron". Amazing how quick "Conservatives" are to embrace the Dinasour Media when they LIKE what they hear. Sorry all this name calling and posturing by the Pundentry is NOT helping them make the Anti-Miers case. Frum sound just like a passed over ex-employee with a sever case of sour grapes. This is nasty and childish critic of why he does NOT like her, it is NOT a rational reasoned account of WHY Miers is unfit.

[Phsstpok]

These conservative elites, like Kristol, seem to be REALLY mad - even pouting.

Kristol has a personal hatred for the Bush family that dates back to being on Dan Quayle's staff. He thinks Bush 41 didn't defend Quayle enough and didn't annoint him as the heir for 2000 over George W.

He's always thought he was smarter than anyone in the Reagan or Bush 41 White Houses, Reagan and Bush included, and has always looked down on W. That's a big part of why he backed McLame so big.

Buchannen's hatred of the Bush family dates back to the Nixon administration and Bush Sr., who he blames, along with others, for him not inheriting the leadership of the conservative wing within the Republicans from Nixon. Add to that their fights in the primaries when both ran for the Presidency and you have at least two talking heads willing to throw the entire conservative movement over for the sake of their personal hatreds.

[malia]

Re: Sandy Berger -- "--And...will 60 minutes ask him anything about all that?"

When I heard this morning that Berger would be on 60 Min. responding to Freeh - and thats weird in itself - I wondered if they tape 60 min early and Berger was fleeing from the taping. You know, reporting back to Big Daddy clinton or maybe Big momma.

[MNJohnnie]

Yeah, interesting how if Miers (Bush pick) was on the Court the Texas anti-Sodomy law would not be overturned but Reagan's choice O'Conner, the product of the elitist Judaical Establishment "Conservatives" suddenly are in lover with, voted for over turning it.

[spokeshave]

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

Could be some long term Strategery unfiolding as we speak.....

So Miers withdraws to avoid further embarassement to her buddy Bush.

Bush then gets to appoint the dims worst nightmare.

Troops rally and implement the nuclear option.

. Game set and match

[Miss Marple]

You know, you guys are really going to need some serious counseling before this is all over. First someone sees something sinister in people who smile after meeting with Harriet Miers, and now you are making it sound like Miers had better remove herself from consideration or the administration will have to do something sinister. Oh, and if she is attacked by liberals, it will be the administration's fault.

I can understand being disappointed, even upset at the nomination. I cannot understand why people are sounding downright loony about it, as you just did.

[MNJohnnie]

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

Not at all what I said. Be careful about misquoting people. What I DID say, was FIND OUT WHO SHE IS". So far all the Meirs critics are complaining because they "Don't know anything" Funny, they do NOT know anything but are flaming out"????? That is the Hysteric Left's behavior, not ours.

[SkyPilot]

It isn't "sour grapes" MNJohnie.

There wasn't a vacancy on the Court for 11 years. Suddenly, Bush gets two appointments in 2 months. His first (Roberts) was accepted because he was moderate to conservative, and he actually had a record that supported this (not as extensive as others, but still tangible). Roberts was also accepted because the man is absolutely brilliant.

Puffing and spitting at conservative commentators and "elites" won't change the fact that Miers is the equivalent of playing a Lottery scratch card for conservatives.

There are certain things that are important to social conservatives and cannot be bargained away. The chance to change the court was one of them.

Bush blew it.

[Seattle Conservative]

"There is no shortage of qualified perons who are just itching for the chance to do what you can only see as being a "sacrificial lamb."

How do you know that?? After being through the battles and/or seeing others go through it are you so sure there are a host of able candidates just waiting breathlessly to be pounded by the Swimmer and Leaky??? I'm not.

Maybe some here need to step back and refresh their memories about the fight that some they wanted appointed to the SCOTUS have already been through and/or seen their fellow judges go through:

Source: Excerpts from The Washington Times, May 12, 2005. http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050511-085134-2511r.htm

"Throughout the latter part of this period, beginning in early 2003, the Democratic minority party in the U.S. Senate has been waging an unprecedented filibuster campaign to deprive up-or-down votes for 10 judicial nominees who would otherwise be easily confirmed by majority vote to the federal circuit courts of appeal.

The Democrats' judicial-filibuster campaign has been unprecedented in scope, intensity and duration. Not surprisingly, therefore, it has achieved its primary goal, which has been to eviscerate President Bush's electorally transmitted constitutional prerogative to shape the federal courts. Indeed, during their first terms in office, not one of all the other post-World War II presidents has been comparably constrained from fulfilling this constitutional mandate at the circuit-court level. Never before has the White House's opposition party in the Senate systematically deprived up-or-down votes for circuit-court nominees in the manner that the Democrats have throughout the first term of George W. Bush, particularly through their unprecedented use of the filibuster since early 2003.

Thus, for the first complete two-year Congresses of the 10 postwar presidencies preceding George W. Bush's, the circuit-court confirmation rate averaged 91.2 percent. For Mr. Bush, it was 53.1 percent. Moreover, before George W. Bush, no president's confirmation rate during his first complete Congress fell below 77 percent, which is nearly 50 percent (and 24 percentage points) higher than Mr. Bush's confirmation rate. It is also worth noting that the three nominees returned by Mr. Clinton's first Congress were confirmed during his second, effectively raising his first-Congress rate to 100 percent. And if we exclude Mr. Bush's two circuit-court nominees who were appointed to the federal judiciary by Mr. Clinton and nominated for the circuit-court bench by Mr. Bush as an unrequited, magnanimous gesture to the Democrats, then Mr. Bush's first-Congress confirmation rate falls to 50 percent (15/30), which is half Mr. Clinton's first-Congress effective rate.

Thus, since World War II, for the nine four-year, first-term presidencies that preceded George W. Bush's, the circuit-court confirmation rate averaged 85.5 percent. For Mr. Bush's first term, the rate was a relatively dismal 53 percent.

Finally, throughout the same nine postwar, first-term, four-year presidencies that preceded George W. Bush's, Congress returned a total of 46 circuit-court nominations to the president upon adjournment. Those 46 averaged five per four-year term over 36 years. During Mr. Bush's first four-year term, 30 circuit-court nominations were returned by Congress.

This is a record of unprecedented obstructionism that simply cannot be permitted to continue through systematic filibustering."

And, to your second point: "That's why there has been such an ourcry. We Were Ready!!!"

Maybe the President wasn't. Maybe he just knows a little more than you do about

1. what battles he should choose
2. who in the Senate was willing to go into battle with him (there are at least 7 that probably were not)
3. what potential appointees were willing to do the battle at this time (whether YOU think they should or not).
4. upcoming court cases in which he wants and needs someone on OUR side in their to vote on (rather than SDOC)- -I believe there is one coming up towards the end of Nov.
5. that HM has been and will continue to be one who will do the good and right fight for our rights and not legislating from the bench.

He said he would nominate strict constitutionalists to the bench and I have no reason to believe he would not be true to his word on that.

[snugs]

Well put he is just another heresay poster.

[Morgan in Denver]

I thought the complaint was Miers not creating the need for the nuclear or constitutional option and Republicans spoiling for the fight. Yet, one aspect of her opposition is doing just that.

Too many guesses. I believe any Bush strategy is simply to get Miers on the court. Further speculation is just speculation.

[snugs]

Conservative Establishment all screams they want a "Strict Cosntrutionist" everything I have found out about her suggest she WOULD be. I suspect though is what most of the loudest voice in the punditry are NOT interested in a "Strict Constructions", what they want is a Conservative Judaical Activist.

I think you have nailed it

[MNJohnnie]

ony Snow recently touting the Bush poll numbers being low without mentioning that the poll was overweighted with democrats.

Amazing how they never quote Rassmussen that does the same poll every day the same way every day. Funny how only the Dinosaur Media polls which play games with their sampling criteria ever get quoted.

[Iwo Jima]

My concern with Harriet Miers is a fear she's telling everyone what they want to hear.

I share that concern. No one - especially a woman who came up through the times Ms. Miers did -- gets to be managing partner, president of the state bar, etc., if she has strong opinions, at least not if she voices any opinions. Those posts require definite political and administrative skills which basically means never alienating anyone and making everyone you meet think that you agree with him/her and think they're the smartest person on the planet.

Ms. Miers has been described by her friends as being highly ambitious (not a bad thing, per se). She has always had the "next big thing" to move on to, so she could never really let her own views be known, especially if they contradicted the opinions of those who would further her next career move on to bigger things.

Once you're on the Supreme Court, there is no "next big thing." She will then be free to let her own views come out. Only then will we know for sure.

[Phsstpok]

Yep, first time I posted it I was joking, and made that clear by starting the next paragraph "Seriously."

Second time I posted it it was because it was clear, despite your protestations of being open minded, that you had no interest in waiting for the hearings. You had made up your mind because there was no evidence to prove to you, before the fact, that she was "your kind of nominee."

I call that bashing, and ignorant.

Review your post, particularly here and here, and try and convince anyone that you're open to evidence

[OldFriend]

Kind of discouraging when FNC is at the front of the pack touting flawed polls.

[MNJohnnie]

would also disappoint me greatly if he came out against her before the hearings

I said it would influence me but it will not, by itself, change my mind. Like you said, let's find OUT some things rather then just ASSUME. Funny how all they people whining "Bush is telling us to trust him" are assuming we should TRUST them. Sorry don't have much reason to trust the Media elite these days. Even the "Conservatives" have shown more intrest in whining then in actually getting the truth out.

[snugs]

In your opinion

[disraeligears]

Let's Assume: Supreme Court Justices serve on average 16 to years.

Given: Each Justice represents 1/9 of a 1/3 branch of government, logic would hold that each Supreme Court Justice would have, for about 16 years, the comparative power of:

9 U.S Senators ALONG WITH approximately 48 U.S. Representatives; and,

11% of the Executive Branch.

Since 1/9 times 1/3 = 1/27, logic would further hold that each Supreme Court Justice would have, for about 16 years, the power of:

approximately 4% of the TOTAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

MOREOVER!!!! If the Court is evenly divided 4 to 4, and if there is not an incoming Justice for 2 to 3 years after Miers, then Miers will effectively and most likely hold for that time period as the latest "swing" justice, the power of 1/3 of the Federal Government; as much power as the entire Congress and the Presidency.

Does any rationale Freeper really want to support the nomination by W of a person who we really don't know anything about other than:

her alleged religious views (who really knows what lurks in the hearts of men!, besides our Father, Son and the Holy Ghost);

her functioning as the head of the Dallas Bar, Texas Bar and managing partner of a Texas law firm;

her actions as W's personal attorney and White House counsel.

What lawyer would turn down the opportunity to represent a global, major, mainstream, political dynasty. This would be an attorney's opportunity of a lifetime, even if that attorney did NOT agree with 100, 90, 80, 70, 60, or even 10% of his/her client's political opinions? LAWYERS ARE TRAINED TO ZEALOUSLY REPRESENT THEIR CLIENTS EVEN IF THEY ARE THE SCUM OF THE EARTH, AND TO SUBMERGE, WHERE POSSIBLE THEIR PERSONAL VIEWPOINTS.

Are we just going to trust W, and if the news reports are correct, Andy Card, that the relatively unknown Ms. Miers is the right choice?

W is NOT perfect. Although I have whole heartedly supported him on most issues, he has made
plenty of mistakes. I don't think anyone on this forum will disagree with that.

This whole thing strains believability.

IMHO

[malia]

"But within minutes, I saw every anchor on Fox discussing this as if it were true. This, even as DHS was trying to downplay it."

Goes to show me!! when I listen while multitasking --

My impression was FoxNews was downplaying the subways also. And that really disturbed me - so very happy to hear they did not! At all times we have to be alert and aware and report any unusual thing. Even if this a hoax so what!!! Better to respond to a hoax than ignore a truth. Let us pray it will be just a practice.