Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 16 October 2005

Various big media television networks ^ | 16 October 2005 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[Alas Babylon!]

The Talk Shows

Sunday, October 16th, 2005

Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.; and former FBI Director Louis Freeh.

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. Joseph Biden, D-Del., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.

THIS WEEK (ABC): U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad; Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I.; former Watergate prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste; and former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova.

LATE EDITION (CNN) : Khalilzad; Sen. John Warner, R-Va.; Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari; and Dr. Irwin Redlener of the Columbia University National Center for Disaster Preparedness and Children's Health Fund.

[snugs]

P.S. My "A measure or trust" should be "A measure of trust."

A pity that the anti Miers posters did not adhere to this premise originally but screamed betrayal. This was until they realised that they were getting nowhere with their arguments so change the terminology slightly to try to pretend they are the ones that are obejective whereas they supposed Bush supporters (Bushbots) are blinkered and ever trusting not questioning.

Total spin and not what the majority of pro Bush Miers supporters are or were saying. They just wanted to hear more before judging which now seems that many of the anti Miers people are trying to say/inferring just because they got nowhere with their original argument.

You cannot have your cake and eat it but you will try.

[chgomac]

It is great! Morgan, I copied Mort's quote to use as letterhead when writing to my loved but left wing kids & friends! hehe It will pull them right to the edge of sanity!!!

[p23185]

>>I remember well that X42 had no time for the head of the CIA or the FBI.<<

Gary Aldrich in his "Unlimited Access" shed light on how The Clintons hated the FBI. Half of the WH staff could not pass the FBI vetting process for clearances, so they worked on "Temp" basis.

[rodguy911]

Thanks I appreciate that.

[snugs]

Bravo

[Cboldt]

I simply cannot let this pass. The Anti-Miers had no intention of "Finding out" for the 1st two weeks. The immediate intention for the Antis was to "Bork her",it was PRECISELY because the Miers supporters made a point that a greater level of "trust us" was being demanded by the Anti-Miers for their Hate Harriet position that suddenly caused the Anti-miers to advocate we "Find out" about her.

You best not lump me in with that tar, bub. Because my posting record does not reflect that arrangement.

The very fact that the Anti-Miers arguments are so frequently shifting

Check this out ...

Cboldt: I'm inclined to believe that Miers would render opinins that are acceptable to my sense of how SCOTUS should rule. But I am very unhappy with the pick.

Then I'm confused.

I prefer an open discussion of Constitutional principle; correct the overreaching by SCOTUS and other courts into hot-button social issues, the balance of powers between the Senate and the President, etc. But instead of a discussion on principle, we are having a discussion on "qualifications," "cronyism," and "stealth."

I don't like that conservaitism is reduced to stealth. It feels like being ashamed of conservatism, or being afraid that conservatism will lose in the marketplace of ideas. It comes off as "chicken" and "conflict avoidance," not just on the President's part, but also on the part of the GOP-lead Senate.

77 posted on 10/07/2005 3:16:23 PM EDT by Cboldt

---

I'm also unhappy that the pick is a divisive diversion within the ranks of the GOP. I don't know if the division is deep or durable, but I don't like it, and it's GWB's fault for making this pick.

And while I believe Ms. Miers would rule according to my sense of constitutional principle, her bona fides and world view do not clearly show that to me. Not like the world view openly expressed by Janice ROgers Brown, for example, in her A Whiter Shade of Pale speech.

I've thought about the nomination enough to have fairly well cemented my objections - and I have always been open-minded as to predictions of Ms. Miers performance as a Justice.

Meanwhile, I'd like to see the GOP-lead Senate take up the debate and confirmation of Myers (9th Circuit), Boyle, Haynes, Kavanaugh and Saad. Myers has been out of commitee for 6 months. Why the delay?

79 posted on 10/07/2005 3:27:39 PM EDT by Cboldt

---

I'm sure the President and other have fully rationalized and justified this pick in their own minds.

But it cannot be disputed that "stealth" comes with a cost. It is not a free pass, and it does not energize all of the conservatives.

This nomination has cause me to have doubts about President Bush that I never expected to have. I dislike it for that reason too. I really really want to trust him. He is making that hard.

80 posted on 10/07/2005 3:31:18 PM EDT by Cboldt

---

Oh, I also don't like that the pick can be spun as cronyism. President Bush and Ms. Miers have a long enough personal working relationship that it is not incredible to charge cronysim. That is another argumen that does nothing to advance the conservative cause, and defending a charge of cronyism has no upside. Bush loses ground even if he beats the charge. That's not a reflection on Ms. Miers, it is a reflection on President Bush.

I give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, that this pick has absolutely -zero- basis in cronyism. My beef is that the pick admits the charge.

94 posted on 10/07/2005 4:20:59 PM EDT by Cboldt

Now. I know you disagree with my position. I am just laying it's early form out, in one nugget. I don't ask that you accept my rationale, or my conclusion. All I ask is that they be taken in as consideration. I had another exchange that related to the ramifications of an argument, wehre one side plays the "trust" card. Reproduced here, typos and all, recipient will go unnamed.

Time will tell. As for my opinion, and you ake this personally please, there is no reasoning with blind trust. I have given up trying to convince you of anything - but aim to conclude our relationship on a civil note.

To say that tehre is no reasoning with blind trust is not an attack. Blind trust, or "faith" as it is sometimes called, is just not amenable to reason. That is the nature of faith. I have faith that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. That he suffered and was killed to attone for my failure to live up to God's Commandments. That all I need it faith in him and his promise, and I will have the undeserved gift of everlasting life, given by the grace of God, who is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving.

No amount of reasoning with me will cause me to lose my faith in Jesus Christ. And no amount of reasoning with you will cause you to lose your faith in George Bush.

I am not saying that you see George Bush as a god. Don't go there. I am saying that it is literally impossible to mount a reasoned argument against "trust." And you have erected that barrier to reasoned discussion.

I'll give you the last word.

[snugs]

yes

[Cboldt]

You cannot have your cake and eat it but you will try.

I don't know whether to laugh, cry or be angry at that.

[rodguy911]

Sad but true.

[snugs]

Try looking at some of what you have said today from what I have read today that is my conclusion I apologise if I am wrong but what I see as in particular unwarranted attacks on MNJohnnie lead me to this conclusion.

I have to admit that I have only browsed some of the Miers threads so I do not know what you were saying originally but the tone of what you were saying today lead me to that conclusion.

As I say if I am wrong I apologise.

[Morgan in Denver]

One thing I'd like to point out.

Conservatives arguing is harder and more thought provoking than liberals. I've noticed each side of the Miers nomination issue has more resources and logic than any liberal arguing their illogical positions.

No wonder Democrats are watching our infighting. It may be because they perceive we are hurting our cause and each other, but in reality they cannot compete. When it's all said and done, I believe we will still come together on issues we agree on to the astonishment of the left.

[Morgan in Denver]

Yep, that's how I use it too. ROFLOL

[chgomac]

>>I remember well that X42 had no time for the head of the CIA or the FBI.<<

X42 didn't like the CIA/FBI. Didn't trust them. Didn't fund them. Didn't meet with them much if at all. Didn't let them talk to him or each other. Didn't respond to their requests. He was pretty smarmy on the military too.

So basically, he was distrustful and antagonistic to everyone whose job was to keep we the people safe from enemies, foriegn and domestic.

[Bush 100 Percent]

I guess the key question is, then, would you have taken the same approach to one of the "known" nominees? It's easy to say you would (and Cboldt might) but I still think that the reason we ended up with Souter and Kennedy may be because conservatives were fooled by a nominee's "known" conservative paper trail and rulings, and\or their "trust" of the conservative legal and media circles who trusted those records.

[snugs]

I hope you are right but I fear that some divisions may be too wide to easily breach especially where people have got personal. Maybe not in the actual political world because in the end they have to work together but I am afraid many on this forum may not gel again that easily.

[SkyPilot]

Thank you for #726. A very reasoned discussion. I am sorry to say it won't have any affect on the Pro-Harriet crowd.

When I hear statements like this on this saying people want to "lynch her without a trial" I cringe. Trial? I didn't know she was on trial?

When they exaggerate their claims to try to accuse anyone who opposes this pick as an attempt to thwart someone due process (which everyone knows isn't the case) then it is obvious no amount of logic and reason will help them.

[snugs]

There is no need to result to foul language which incidentally is banned on this forum not just this thread.

In fact I am tempted to ask for your last post to be removed because of the language but I will not I leave it up to the mods to decide that. Also the longer it stays there others will see what happens when someone cannot win through a reasoned argument they have to resort to bad language without the courtesy of the usual symbols.

[roses of sharon]

I have vowed to not vote for any candidate who demeans themselves by going on Sunday morning's "we rule the world" shows.

They should be in church or having brunch with constituents and voters throughout the nation, answering questions, explaining positions, ect.

(Of course, I'll probably have no one to vote for then)

[Cboldt]

I guess the key question is, then, would you have taken the same approach to one of the "known" nominees?

I definitely would. I'm a bit of an independent thinker, and have found great benefit in independent research. I'm enjoy the "verify" part of the equation.

I still think that the reason we ended up with Souter and Kennedy may be because conservatives were fooled by a nominee's "known" conservative paper trail and rulings ...

The reason we got them is because the process has been watered down in order to avoid accountability by the legislators and the President.

The more uncertainty in the nominee, the less accountable the legislator for the result. After all, they just made an educated guess, and rolled the dice. It's not morally correct to hold a person to account for the result of a game of chance.