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]

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

Statement of opinion not fact. Maggie Thatcher's career demonstrates the nonsense of the opinion. Anyone who "makes it" had someone to bring them along. The idea that it is different for a woman then a man is nonsense.

[Seattle Conservative]

Thank you.
No, I've not read those blogs, but will check them out - thanks for the info.

[joesbucks]

I'm just watching the damage this nomination is inflicting. Some is justifiable. Some isn't. But there really hasn't been any unification since the first voices of dissent began.

I've read ad nausem that Bush didn't want to risk the 7 Rinos. But now he many not want to risk the hard line conservatives. How, if that is the case and if he can't change minds, does he do that without withdrawl?

[SkyPilot]

I gather the contrarian view is your opinion as well.

[snugs]

Another great post

[MNJohnnie]

re 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

So instead we should just trust a bunch of whiny Conservative pundits with hurt feelings INSTEAD? Funny how all the people screaming "Don't trust Bush" assume we have ANY reason to Trust them. Let's see, proven W's track record on judcial picks Reason for Bush.

Reason to trust the anti-Meirs crowds opinions????????

Anyone?????

[Miss Marple]

Are you trying to tie with joesbucks for silly post of the day?

I am just a little bit younger than Harriet Miers, and came up professionally in a science field. You don't get ahead by "making nice" with everyone. The first thing you discover is that men assume you are weak and can be steamrolled, so you learn pretty quickly how to stand up for yourself.

If ever I read something that was 100% sexist, it was that ridiculous post you just made. I cannot take you seriously about anything after reading that. In fact, I think my IQ just dropped from trying to process it.

[Cboldt]

I think you are mean spirited.

[MNJohnnie]

How come we keep hearing assumptions from the Anti-Meirs crowd and never hear any FACTS? It's always "why did, or what if, or Why doesn't". You people are making the accusation, YOU prove your case. We have Bush's track record on judicial picks. Why should we trust YOUR opinions?

[Iwo Jima]

So, what you're saying is that our side just is not up to the fight and so we shouldn't even try.

I disagree. I know that we are better than that.

[snugs]

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

Exactly saying what you mean rare quality in politics but I believe that GWB does this or at least aims to do so. The main reason I think that conservatives have nothing to fear over this nomination.

[sgtyork]

But the supreme law of the land says this.....

Amendment V

No person shall be ....; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

"use" not benefit

Kelo was a green light for takings.

[Iwo Jima]

I said that you didn't say it. Lindsey Graham did. It's a direct quote which you chose to quote.

[Cboldt]

I think you are mean spirited.

I also see that you misrepresent my words and sentiment. Doesn't mean you never post something thought provoking or true, but deliberate misrepresntation and deliberate obtuseness is juvenile.

[GOPJ]

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.

Then we will know for sure...

And it will be too late.

[Seattle Conservative]

Hmm, are you referring to Clinton? How about JFK nominating Bobby for AG?

You may choose to believe that GWB nominated HM because she's from Texas and/or is insignificant and pliant, therefore an 'instrument of his pleasure'. Unless proven otherwise in the next month, I believe he chose her because she is intelligent, capable, a strict constituionalist, conservative, and will do a great job on the SC.

[snugs]

Yes but at least some of the time I have the good grace to say in my opinion not once in any of your posts have I seen this.

You state your opinion as if it is fact.

[CedarDave]

I'm still waiting for the Senate hearings, but I have to admit I'm leaning more towards supporting Harriet Miers than before. The various posts and links here today, for one, the tone of opposition, for a second, and the people who are against her, for a third.

Miers is in pretty good company for her detractors.

Bush keeps coming out smelling like a rose compared to his opponents, and the probability of it happening again is greater than the opposite.

Your views completely echo mine. I was going to post and make those points, but you have done it for me. I, too will wait for the hearings, but I'm liking more and more what I see, and getting more disgusted with the conservative ankle-biting detractors who bray louder as time goes on. Their believed self-importance, as shown by the tone and volume of their vitriol, has lowered my opinion of them and will make it harder for me to take them seriously in the future.

[snugs]

Well said

[disraeligears]

To all who say why shouldn't we trust W given his record of past judicial nominees:

how many, before Miers, did W nominate to the Supreme Court who did not have a proven, conservative originalist, strict construction background (none, of course we are just talking about Roberts);

how many, before Miers, did W name to the Court of Appeals that did not have a proven conservative background (can't think of any, CAN ANY OF YOU?);

how many, before Miers, did W name that were his personal attorney, therefore clouding W's objective judgment and creating some really interesting conflict of interests (can't think of any, CAN ANY OF YOU?); and,

how many, before Miers, did W name that so many, many, many conservatives, not just the ELITE conservatives, have whole heartedly opposed (can't think of any, CAN ANY OF YOU?).

I am having nightmares of Arabian horses.