Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 19 February 2006

Various big media television networks ^ | 19 February 2006 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[Alas Babylon!]

The Talk Shows

Sunday, February 19th, 2006

Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Evan Bayh, D-Ind.; former Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

THIS WEEK (ABC): Chertoff; Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va.; basketball player Shaquille O'Neal.

LATE EDITION (CNN) : Chertoff; British ambassador to the United States David Manning, German ambassador to the U.S. Wolfgang Ischinger and French ambassador to the U.S. Jean-David Levitte; retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, formerly in charge of Iraqi army training.

[snugs]

Obviuously you do not have a written test or if you do, do they do it in Spanish as well?

[eeevil conservative]

I think we came up with MALE and PIG......

need to find a helmet before the big THWAP.....

[beyond the sea]

Bob Scheiffer is just media scum..... older media scum.

[anita]

Another reason for press' angryness: Republicans happier than rivals

Conservative Republicans are among the most joyous, according to a survey released yesterday by the Pew Research Center for the Public and the Press.

Ever seen a dem or reporter happier on TV these days?

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[CedarDave]

Welcome to the Sunday Morning Talk Show thread. Haven't seen you here before. What got you out of bed before noon? No late Saturday night??

[johnny7]

I wouldn't allow her within 500 yds. of the White House.

[tioga]

Pink ties remind me of the "pink tie tirade" of Tom Daschle fame.

[rodguy911]

Fox and Friends spent less than 5 mins. this morning on this story, I doubt others will mention it at all. Great catch McGruff. Not only was the WMD story glossed over for several months by the msm(Gen Sada is almost a memory only a few weeks later) but another important blurb on the Barrett Report was ignored where we learned that any congress critter at all who has the cajones can post the entire report, should he or she have the cajones to do it. But the biggest fiasco of the week was how we let the MSM set the agenda on Able Danger. Will someone please tell me how Dick Cheney's hunting accident(cold blooded drunken killer that Dick is)could possibly be of more import to the nation than what Col. Shaffer is currently going through?(Shaffer is being ravaged by the DOD and was not fired only because Curt Weldon threatened to quit) and What's more important than the hearings on Able Danger in congress(that c-spam "forgot" to air live)last Wednesday?. Answer-we let the msm/old/antiuqe/lamestream,left wing/ media set the agenda for the country one more time. Quite frankly when Britt Hume did his sterling interview with VP Cheney(anyone surprised FNC was picked) and Dick said more or less "I shot him I take full responsibility, the story ended and the msm knew it. But they just couldn't stand it that our guy was so straight forward(while the cowards on the left never admit anything anytime, anywhere) and up front and fearless they had to drag it out for the foreseeable future. We fell into the trap of responding to everyone of their lame attempts to get bush (in this case get Dick Cheney>/i>). We let the ususals set the agenda by responding all the time to every stooopid little comment made by the rabid Matthew's,Neanderthal Dave, and the rest of the left wing DNC/ swilling groupies on the left. Guess you can tell I am a bit pissed. Earlier in the week I believe Peach(if memory serves) said we do need to respond to msm claims about Cheney and to counter with the truth and of course she is right. But to what degree? We should not constantly let them set the agenda, and we did once more time. The guiltiest of parties were in talk radio where the usual suspects from Rush down constantly responded to claims of "Dick Cheney the mad hunter" all week long while key aspects of Able Danger(where we now know that we had 13 photos of Mohammed Atta months before 911 in a terrorist cell in NYC and the 911 commission never even mentioned it or was even briefed on AD)) were left basically untouched except for a few noble attempts by, of all media, CNX, with Lou Dobbs(who gets it) and a scant few others. If you will notice Dobbs (love him or hate him) lets no one set his agenda < a key thing we need to learn, Lou is all border agenda all the time and is fast becoming a huge patriot on what should be common sense issues. Does CNX have to do so to regain any audience at all? Probably, but at least it is being done. If you would like to get updated on what is going on with Able Danger, even listen to some of the PDF files recordings of the House Wed. hearings et cet. it's all right her for you on FR, as usual FR always get the job done. Here are a few links you can check out. Able Danger had two live threads, part I and part III right her on fr. In addition I urge all freedom loving Americans/Freepers to check out the Able Danger Blog and take a special note of the right hand corner where it's now possible to help out Col Shaffer financially. The Able Danger Blog is located at http://www.abledangerbloglcom/ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1578997/posts will get you to the hearings and the above plus 1580931/posts will get you to part III. Let's set our own agendas we don't need the msm to tell us what the news is anymore.

[Darth Republican]

"I'll hunt with Dick Cheney any day!"

[Seattle Conservative]

""We need to do whatever it takes to protect this country", says Bayh. (How's that for safe comment?)"

The Dims know that the American people trust the Pubbies w Nat'l Sec more than the Dims, so, the Dims will be all over Nat'l Sec in the next elections. Of course, they'll say that something needs to be done, we can do it better, we can do it smarter, we have a plan, blah, blah, blah. Sounds good in soundbites, but they never say how they'll do it smarter or better, what needs to be done, and/or show they're 'plans'. The few times they have mentioned what their plan is, it was basically what the President was already doing (Iraq comes to mind).

Some other examples of Bayh's comments on Nat'l Sec:

"Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Bayh's Thoughts on "The State of the Union"

Senator Bayh appeared on The Charlie Rose Show tonight to give his thoughts on the president's "State of the Union" speech. The opening of the interview:

"What really matters to the American people is not what a politician says in Washington, but what we do. How we transfer words into results. And all too often, Washington has been broken and not capable of delivering the kind of results the American people have come to expect. So the real question tonight is...Will the president follow through on what he said?"

Senator Bayh also opined on several other main points that the president spoke about tonight.

On Iran:

Bayh reminds us that the President labeled Iran as a part of the "Axis of Evil" four years ago, yet there has been practically nothing put forward to solve this looming threat. He says that something needs to be done to solve this problem.

---

posted by Steve R. | 5:13 PM | 0 comments

Thursday, February 02, 2006
The True Beginnings

Wow. This speech is the one I’ve been waiting for. Senator Bayh gave a rousing commentary today on national security. Hopefully it can serve to stimulate a party where some members desire to shy away from any debate on national security.

Bayh focused in on the incompetent, ill-advised, and irresponsible policies which George Bush has plagued America with. Bayh not only showed that he can be the prescription for an America which has been weakened by the current administration in Washington, but also that it IS possible for Democrats to express a coherent message on national security. Let me start by giving you some of my favorite passages:


"George W. Bush’s saying he wants the 2006 election to be about national security is like Herbert Hoover proudly claiming that the 1930 election should be a referendum on the economy."

“To be blunt, Karl Rove and George W. Bush have been much better at national security politics than national security policy. They may have won some elections, but the American people have lost valuable ground.”

“There is no greater responsibility for a President than conducting a war, and on that measure this President has failed. The cardinal rule in any war is that you plan for the worst and hope for the best, but this Administration hoped for the best and the American people have tragically reaped the worst.”

“To my party, I urge that we do not change the subject or attempt to avoid this fight. It is our chance, and responsibility, to show the American people that we are tough enough and smart enough to protect this great country in perilous and uncertain times.

"And to Mr. Rove, I say we are ready. Ready to have this debate any time, any place, you’d like to have it. Ready to expose the severe failings of this Administration’s stewardship of America’s security. Ready to show the nation that there is a better way, that we can be tough AND smart.”

This speech is one of the most powerful orations I’ve seen out of a Democrat for some time. Evan Bayh is making his goal clear – to personify the CEO of the great marketplace of ideas. To show everyone the correct course, and to embody the strength that true leadership must show in this dangerous world.

This speech is just the opening phase of the re-education of America.

---

posted by Steve R. | 8:55 PM | 0 comments

Response to a Bayh Article

Here is a response I wrote to an article by a guy named David Sirota. It was originally posted here at Huffington Post.


Sirota claimed that Evan Bayh is creating straw men in the Democratic Party who are weak on security. He doesn’t see that every Democrat who advocates talking points around domestic issues are his missing strawmen. By ignoring the security issue, Democrats are telling the Republicans to keep national security as the main focus in national debate, and that Democrats are going to shy away from extensive debate on the issue. If Democrats could produce a clear and coherent counter-argument to this Republican brainwashing, then it would takeaway their fallback position and produce more fruitful and comprehensive debates on domestic issues. Sirota is just mad because Bayh is not following the route Sirota wants him to. He mentions Bayh's recent Charlie Rose appearance. On the show Bayh said it is appropriate to monitor Al Qaeda calls, but to do so in a way that protects civil liberties. Sirota claims this statement attacks Democrats and is taking the issue away from lawbreaking. People like Sirota never see how using his approach harms Democrats. With an issue like this, the American people see the wire tapping as an appropriate means of attack against Al Qaeda. When they hear Democrats saying laws were broken and rights were violated, this leads many in the American public think Democrats want the wiretaps stopped because they are violating civil liberties. It can even lead some to think that we value the rights of terrorists more than protecting the States. This issue is about law breaking, but the American people won’t see that if they think Democrats are just obstructing reasonable measures to secure the country. Democrats should have first stressed that the laws need to be changed to make it legal, then attack Bush for breaking the law. Many just jump at the chance to attack Bush without thinking about the issue clearly. People like Sirota only see what they want to, and that is evident to any informed viewer. He calls Evan Bayh a wimp for the CSIS speech. Most Americans and most level-headed Democrats who have read the spech, saw it as someone stepping up to challenge the Bush administration in the area where Democrats are the weakest. Ignoring the perception that Democrats are weak on security only works when the party talks strongly about security as one of their main concerns. Most in the party aren’t. Evan Bayh is starting to fill the vaccum. Sirota's ideas are not based on the realities of the world. Bayh has the right methods on how to approach various issues. All David Sirota's article exposed is his own intellectual dishonesty. He spends the second half of his article mentioning various Bush policies in an attempt to create the impression that these are "tough and smart" policies that Bayh agrees with. Knowing what Bayh said in his CSIS speech clearly exposes the intellectual dishonesty of David Sirota and his weak attempts at discrediting those who he disagrees with by any means necessary. The End

http://bayh08.blogspot.com/

[snugs]

It it has been said on FR by many that the hatred of Bush/Cheney is more like the forces of good and evil clashing and I think that there is more than an element of truth in this.

[eeevil conservative]

LOL! I showed up just to harrass you....

:-)

[Miss Marple]

Old hairstyle:

I can't find a picture of the new haircut yet, but it is decidedly different and very reminiscent of the 1930's....

[beyond the sea]

Thanks for the picture.

I hate what the media continues to do TO Dick Cheney.

****

David Letterman even stooped so low that TWO nights this week he "joked" on his show:

Cheney shot Whittington in the face because he was tired of Whittington's jokes about his lesbian daughter. ---

Now, THAT is sick.

[eeevil conservative]

ROFLLLL!!!

GREAT PIC AND AWESOME CAPTION!!!

[Phsstpok]

maybe as phsstpok suggested, these shows are reading FR more and more.

Thankyou, thankyou.  No applause necessaary, just throw money.

I'll be here all week.  Remember to try the buffet. <g> 

Seriously, it's because of folks like you that this has become a place that they need to stop by.  Some come here to get ammo against us.  Some come here to figure out what's really going on (few, but I think that list is growing).  And some come here to decide what memes they have to try and crush or spin their way.

I think the Saddam tapes may be one such instance, for example.  I think they saw us and others paying attention to them and they decided they had to get out in front and do all they could to undermine them.

[Laverne]

Schieffer's closing comments, were as they always are, enough to make you vomit. He really is slimey. Old media's constant repetition of the DNC talking points just furthers the impression that they are the propaganda arm of the democrat party. Schieffer focused on Rummy's comments on losing the media war to the terrorists, yet he fails to even mention Al Gore's outrageous remarks made in Saudi Arabia, paid for by the Saudi's. Instead he focuses on Abu Graib. What a dumb clymer. Schieffer focuses on the "too secretive" talking point...he is just so transparent. Tries to present himself as serious, and instead makes himself look idiotic. TYpical. Think I'll send him an email.

[beyond the sea]

I assume because they are plain speakers...... tell it like it is.

[snugs]

She is still close to him and often acts as an unoffiial spokesman for him. She was also with him when he came out of the interview with Brit Hume.

Vice President Dick Cheney, center, walks back to his office in the White House after doing a television interview, Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2006, in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. At right is Mary Matalin, Cheney's former communication director.