Free Republic
Browse · Search		 News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Weekend Show *Preview* for 2/25-2/26/06 (not the live thread)
Network and Cable News | 2/25/06 | Network and Cable News Networks

Posted on 02/25/2006 6:08:56 AM PST by Phsstpok

This weekend I've added the Saturday night/Sunday morning Fox/WSJ "Journal Editorial Report" to the mix.  It looks to be a very interesting addition (on "our side," maybe?).

Last weekend I clearly missed the MSM spin on the "White House is being too secretive" meme (though I was on  the right track with the "they're being mean" idea).  When I post a meme it is simply my best guess and I'm desperately reaching out for others to correct or augment anything I post.  That's the purpose of my thread.  Not to declare "this is what is" but to ask "is this close" and beg for the rest of us to add to, fix and extend or reject (but be kind).

As has been pointed out it won't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this weekend will be primarily screaming faces about the port deal.  It looks to me that there is only one White House "friendly" voice from Congress, and that's John Warner.  Any other White House defenders are administration officials, but I think they're being set up for attacks on the "secrets and conspiracies" front.  Richard Gere is on for a gratuitous attack on Bush prior to his trip to India and I haven't got a clue why Joe Gibbs is on.

Journal Editorial Report FNC/Wall Street Journal (Paul Gigot)

Fox News Sunday (Chris Wallace)

NBC Meet The Press (Tim Russert)

CBS Face The Nation (Bob Schieffer)

ABC This Week (George Stephanopoulos)

CNN Late Edition (Wolf Blitzer)

This is NOT intended to be the live Sunday Morning Talk Show thread. I trust AB will do that as usual. This is strictly a preview of who will be on the main shows. The idea is to give folks a chance to muster their resources for that thread.

I would particularly ask that anyone with specific knowledge or resources about the topics / guests announced for these shows post them here so that the rest of us can go into the shows with a heads up on what to look for. For example... well, crap... I don't see any obvious questions for these guests (other than irrelevant Richard Gere questions about hamsters) .... Oh wait!  How long will Hadley be on either Late Edition or Face the Nation before he's asked about White House leaks?

TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 109th; carllevin; charlesschumer; diannefeinstein; ejdionne; facethenation; foxnewssunday; joebiden; joegibbs; johnmccain; johnwarner; kayhutchinson; lateedition; lindseygraham; lineup; meetthepress; mittromney; paulgigot; peterking; preview; schwarzenegger; stephenhadley; sunday; talkshows; thisweek
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-94 next last
These are links to recent articles by or about this weeks guests that I think might give a clue as to why they have been invited on this week's shows

 

1 posted on 02/25/2006 6:08:59 AM PST by Phsstpok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]
To: Bahbah; Txsleuth; MNJohnnie; eeevil conservative; Morgan in Denver; Alas Babylon!; ...
PING

The weekend talk show preview thread is posted

If you would like on or off the ping list for this thread please freepmail me 

2 posted on 02/25/2006 6:11:54 AM PST by Phsstpok (There are lies, damned lies, statistics and presentation graphics, in descending order of truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Phsstpok

Incredible job. The formating, the research, the links -- very, very impressive job.

Along the theme of some conservatives thinking the president is a big spender, we will likely hear discussions about how that and the ports play into the '06 elections and how a recent Rasmussen poll reflects people trust Democrats more with security.

There is plenty of time for that to change and it will change (hopefully) provided the democrats keep sounding like they are half nuts.

I'd like to see one of the commentators ask the democrats how it is that they are opposed to our profiling Arabs in airports but it's okay to profile an entire company.


3 posted on 02/25/2006 6:27:03 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]
To: Peach

Agreed, and I'm waiting for both Bill and Hillary to return the money they've been making of the UAE and Saudi's over the years.

I also see the Democrats overplaying their hand, again, and they'll be back behind the eight ball once it's all over. It's never ending. Democrats create the controversary, gin it up in the press and use that press coverage projecting it to the rest of the country as though it were fact. Then, when it's sorted out, they are back where they began, with more people realizing how dumb and sneaky they were.



4 posted on 02/25/2006 6:34:01 AM PST by Morgan in Denver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: Phsstpok

Just amazing work, Phsstpok, and much appreciated. If you want to read an article posted in your research on Hadley that is chock full of junk, try this one: NSC, Cheney aides conspired to out CIA operative (uruknet.info, Italy)


5 posted on 02/25/2006 6:39:57 AM PST by Bahbah (An admitted Snow Flake and a member of Sam's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]
To: Peach
Incredible job. The formating, the research, the links -- very, very impressive job.

Thank you for the kind words.  It really helps me to understand my own point of view on what's going on to do this, so this is yet another case of "enlightened self interest." <g>

Along the theme of some conservatives thinking the president is a big spender, we will likely hear discussions about how that and the ports play into the '06 elections and how a recent Rasmussen poll reflects people trust Democrats more with security.

I'm betting that poll will be trotted out today, next weekend and almost every chance they get, even long after it's been proven totally wrong.  And just how often have we heard of all of the previous polls that showed the opposite?

There is plenty of time for that to change and it will change (hopefully) provided the democrats keep sounding like they are half nuts.

Half nuts? <g>

I'd like to see one of the commentators ask the democrats how it is that they are opposed to our profiling Arabs in airports but it's okay to profile an entire company.

I would love to see that, but I'll give odds that it'll never happen (except on Fox).  Now, they might ask a Republican who is likewise contradictory about profiling... 

6 posted on 02/25/2006 6:44:06 AM PST by Phsstpok (There are lies, damned lies, statistics and presentation graphics, in descending order of truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: Phsstpok

Thanks for the "Early Warning System" thread. I see the McBiden Express will be on tomorrow, so I will opt for Church instead.

Plugs Biden was at UT in Austin this past Thursday, blasting the Administration on national security. I guess that is his/RATs latest talking point.

He told an "inspired crowd" (not by the pictures in the paper or on the tube), that he was running for president in '08. DUH... He better watch his back, or there may be another case of Arkancide.


7 posted on 02/25/2006 6:46:31 AM PST by Arrowhead1952 (Change tagline as needed,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Bahbah
If you want to read an article posted in your research on Hadley that is chock full of junk, try this one: NSC, Cheney aides conspired to out CIA operative (uruknet.info, Italy)

Yeah, that one is out there.  I posted it because I'm expecting the MSM to "launder" the charges and try to give them legitimacy as part of the "criminal Bush White House" campaign.  They're just following the plan Hillary laid out when she explained the VRWC technique:

  1. evil conservatives plant stories on the internet
  2. get them picked up in right wing papers overseas
  3. get them picked up from overseas and printed in right wing tabloids in the US
  4. then get the biased right wing corporate controlled media giants to report those stories
  5. resulting in a sneak attack on good, upstanding Democrats.

It works something like this:


8 posted on 02/25/2006 6:56:45 AM PST by Phsstpok (There are lies, damned lies, statistics and presentation graphics, in descending order of truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]
To: Phsstpok

I've gotten two whacko notes from Democrats this week. If anyone questions the left going off the deep end, they are not paying attention. These guys are seeing conspiracy everywhere.

First Note:
If that isn't enough, put 'US concentration camps' into your browser, and pass it around.\

Check this out: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/camps.htm

Second Note (in part):

White House 'Discovers’ 250 Emails Related to Plame Leak
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Friday 24 February 2006

The White House turned over last week 250 pages of emails from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office. Senior aides had sent the emails in the spring of 2003 related to the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald revealed during a federal court hearing Friday.

The emails are said to be explosive, and may prove that Cheney played an active role in the effort to discredit Plame Wilson’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a vocal critic of the Bush administration’s prewar Iraq intelligence, sources close to the investigation said.


9 posted on 02/25/2006 7:06:23 AM PST by Morgan in Denver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]
To: Arrowhead1952
'Plugs Biden was at UT in Austin'

And they found ricin in one of the dorms. Coincidence?

10 posted on 02/25/2006 7:07:40 AM PST by mathluv (Bushbot, Snowflake, Dittohead ---- Bring it on!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]
To: Morgan in Denver; governsleastgovernsbest
I also see the Democrats overplaying their hand, again

To me that's going to be the most interesting thing this weekend.  I think they already know that they've overplayed this, but they don't know where to go now.  Their loyal minions in the MSM got the first set of talking points and invited all of the "designated hitters" to push them for the shows, but then the ground started to shift under them.  Lots of very reasonable sounding voices on both the right and left started to say "wait a minute."  And that started to take hold.

The discussion on this thread about this morning's Fox & Friends may mark an attempt by the dims to adjust their arguments:

Ratner's Anti-Globalization Rant: No Foreigners Should Own Ports

So how will lil' Timmy, old Bob, boy George and the rest of the little rascals play this tomorrow?  Do they continue with the original xenophobic (and frankly racist) Pat Buchannan like attacks, shift to the more general anti-globalization theme (though that catches up Billary as bad guys) or fall back on the more reliable "this wouldn't have happened if Bush weren't so secret and criminal" campaign?

I'm leaning towards the later being the take away, though I think they'll throw some of all of them against the White House wall and see what sticks.

11 posted on 02/25/2006 7:10:51 AM PST by Phsstpok (There are lies, damned lies, statistics and presentation graphics, in descending order of truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]
To: Phsstpok

This post is really one of the highlights of the FR week. Great job!


12 posted on 02/25/2006 7:14:26 AM PST by Friend of the Friendless (R-Illinois)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Phsstpok

LOL.


13 posted on 02/25/2006 7:15:19 AM PST by Bahbah (An admitted Snow Flake and a member of Sam's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]
To: Phsstpok

Keep in mind, the Democrats want it both ways. So, they will continue to blame Bush and give the Democrats a pass on whatever mistakes they made. In other words, just like the failed intelligence concerning Iraq, the Democrats were mislead about the ports because of Bush.

Glad it was you who made the connection to Buchanan, and not me. I was thinking the same thing, Pat Buchanan protectionism, but didn't want to be the first to mention it. Hannity seemed to be catching on to that too this past week.


14 posted on 02/25/2006 7:22:19 AM PST by Morgan in Denver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]
To: Phsstpok
or fall back on the more reliable "this wouldn't have happened if Bush weren't so secret and criminal" campaign? I'm leaning towards the later being the take away

I'm leaning there with you. It is certainly the case that the approvals of these foreign investment deals is done under the radar, but there are some pretty solid reasons for this, and to top that off, it is a creation of the very bunch that is now complaining about its "secrecy." It still amazes me, however, that someone working on this was not astute enough politically to realize that putting the words Arab and ports together was at least going to create a problem of perception. The President was ill served in this as he was with the Abu Graib mess.

15 posted on 02/25/2006 7:27:15 AM PST by Bahbah (An admitted Snow Flake and a member of Sam's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]
To: Phsstpok

Great job again Phsstpok! Hope you are feeling well.

One other voice besides Warner that has come out for the port deal is John McCain

Fran Townsend is on FNC, with the release of the new Katrina report ('Lessons Learned'), I think they'll discuss what went wrong. I suspect that Chris will ask a few tough questions, but don't expect as much Bush-bashing as if she were on Timmy's show. Since she's from HS, I suspect she'll also discuss the port deal.

MTP: Arnold may discuss how the Chinese are running ports in CA, but depends if he gets off the 'how great I am' kick. May also touch on border security/immigration

CNN: Kay BH - saw her briefly on FNC yesterday. She didn't exactly come out against the port deal (though, IIRC she mentioned she wanted to hear/learn more about it). She was more concerned w overall port security, so I suspect that will be discussed.

Iraq: most of the hosts will be screeching about how bad things are and how Iraq is on the brink of a civil war. While there is certainly unrest there, I think the MSM is mis-characterizing it and somewhat disengenuous about a civil war.

WSJ: I would hope there would be discussion of how GOOD the economy really is, even though the word isn't getting out very well.

I agree w Peach about discussion of the Rasmussen poll and how for the 1st time folks 'trust' Dims w Nat'l Security more. Wonder if they'll bring out the other parts of the poll, such as a majority of the respondents weren't sure if foreign countries were currently running ops at our ports or thought US companies now were and that a lot of them weren't really following the issue. The fact that Dims are even showing this high is a little disturbing (though, I think that will change when more of the truth comes out). Many of us saw through them and discussed this last week and that their outcry over this issue was just to take the Nat'l Security issue out of favoring Bush.

Survey of 1,000 Adults

February 22-23, 2006

Should Dubai Ports World Be Allowed to Buy Port Operating Rights?

Yes 17%
No 64%
RasmussenReports.com

Are Port Operating Rights Currently Owned by U.S. Firm?

Yes 15%
No 39%
Not Sure 46%
RasmussenReports.com

Trust More on National Security

President Bush 41%
Democrats in Congress 43%
RasmussenReports.com

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/February%20Dailies/Dubai%20Ports.htm


16 posted on 02/25/2006 7:29:12 AM PST by Seattle Conservative (God bless and protect our troops and their CIC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Phsstpok

I'm not sure how this fits in but it looks to me the spin from the Democrats is going to be to shut the Port talk down now that the political damage is done to Bush. I think you will see the spin be how "Everyone knows Bush blew the Port deal" style talking points trying to make the Democrat spin lies accepted "facts" and shut out any attempt to actually get the facts out about the Democrat's Propaganda. Democrats want to shut down debate now before the facts we have been getting out bit them hard. Considering the Me Too Republicans they have picked to be on the shows, do not think there will be much defense of the truth tomorrow.


17 posted on 02/25/2006 7:31:01 AM PST by MNJohnnie ("Good men don't wait for the polls. They stand on principle and fight."-Soul Seeker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: Phsstpok

It depends on if Timmy, et al have the new DNC talking points. I agree w you that the latter will be brought out. I also think they'll be some shifting to port security in general (Kerry brought it up in the last campaign and her Shrillness was talking about it this week). Since they don't want to be seen as racist, even though they are, I think they'll shift to we need to learn more about this to make sure the American people are safe, Congress needs to exercise their oversight duties on this issue, and Bush hasn't done anything to make our ports safer, regardless of who is running them.


18 posted on 02/25/2006 7:34:55 AM PST by Seattle Conservative (God bless and protect our troops and their CIC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]
To: Seattle Conservative
Letter to Meet the Irrelevent:

Representative King,

Earlier this week you admitted your understanding of the Port Deal was wholly based on the phone calls you were receiving at your office. Given the large amount of misinformation and disinformation that the Establishment Media has been forced to backtrack on this week regarding the FACTS of the Port Deal, don't you think you owe President Bush an apology for jumping to such erroneous conclusions?

19 posted on 02/25/2006 7:39:55 AM PST by MNJohnnie ("Good men don't wait for the polls. They stand on principle and fight."-Soul Seeker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]
To: Morgan in Denver
Those are good (if distrubing) catches.  They're totally off in their own world, aren't they?

I don't think this particular idea will make it out this weekend, but it's starting to bubble out there.

Bush Neocons: Going After Fifth Columnists (uruknet.info, Italy)

... Nonetheless, paranoids such as David Horowitz have managed to infect influential Congress critters such as Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina, heir apparent of the reactionary reptile Strom Thurmond, and member of the Armed Services and Judiciary committees in the Senate. Earlier this month, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing "on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency’s Surveillance Authority," Graham, in an exchange with AG Alberto Gonzales, declared "the administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my opinion, to pursue fifth column movements" and "I stand by this president’s ability, inherent to being commander in chief, to find out about fifth column movements, and I don’t think you need a warrant to do that." ...

The same theme is covered in Bush's Mysterious 'New Programs'

I bumped into a slew of news and blog posts that are casting Stephen Hadley as a central character in some very bizarre plots. Here are some examples:

Gonzales Withholding Plame Emails (OpEdNews.com) (the site pushes the idea that the WTC collapse was a "controlled explosion")

Sources close to the investigation into the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson have revealed this week that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has not turned over emails to the special prosecutor's office that may incriminate Vice President Dick Cheney, his aides, and other White House officials who allegedly played an active role in unmasking Plame Wilson's identity to reporters....

Cheney Spearheaded Effort To Discredit Wilson (CounterCurrents.org, India)

Vice President Dick Cheney and then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley led a campaign beginning in March 2003 to discredit former Ambassador ...

Fitzgerald Probes Niger Forgeries (CounterPunch, CA)

... to federal investigators, perjury, and obstruction of justice related to his role in the Plame leak - National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, and Cheney had ...

Dick Cheney Is Not Above The Law (Yahoo! News)

... Stephen Hadley and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove to determine what information the White House should leak to the press in order to gain support ...

White House e-mails missing in CIA name case (MSNBC)

According to Newsweek, Rove wrote Hadley in the e-mail that Cooper pushed him on whether President Bush was being hurt by the Niger controversy. “I didn't take the bait,” Rove wrote, adding that he told Cooper not to get “far out in front on this.” ... Why didn't the Rove e-mail surface earlier? It’s not clear. But Luskin tells NBC News that “any suggestion that what Fitzgerald is identifying has any relation to the Hadley e-mail is speculation.”

That last is an oldie but a goodie, dating back to the Libby indictment, but it sets the stage for all the rest.  That's why I think Hadley will be the subject of some direct, personal, attacks.  They'll try to get past any questions about the details of the port deal and launch directly into "when will you stop illegal leaks and illegal wiretapping and endangering our security you reckless evil martinet?"

20 posted on 02/25/2006 7:40:26 AM PST by Phsstpok (There are lies, damned lies, statistics and presentation graphics, in descending order of truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-94 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search		 News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson