Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 1 October 2006

Various big media television networks ^ | 1 October 2006 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[Alas Babylon!]

The Talk Shows

Sunday, October 1st, 2006

Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif.; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf; Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, and his Democratic opponent, Rep. Sherrod Brown.

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Presidential counselor Dan Bartlett; Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del.

THIS WEEK (ABC): Bartlett; Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.; poet laureate Donald Hall.

LATE EDITION (CNN) : Bartlett; U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad; Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.; former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

[Phsstpok]

#401........I didn't know THAT!

Your posts prompted the question "who are Stan Greenberg and Rosa Delauro?"  That, in turn, prompted me to do some quick internet searching:

Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, D, Connecticut 

Stanley Greenberg is " a leading Democratic pollster and political strategist who has advised the campaigns of the Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry..."

The two of them are big buds of Daniel Ortega, Fidel Castro and, by extension, Hugo Chavez.

[samantha]

Pelosi is not very bright, and living in Sanfrancisco rea, you would think that she would know better. People are not what they seem, and some of the activist Gays are always trying to make their sick Pedophilia legitimate. She does not have a leg to stand on,there was nothing more that Hastert could have done under those circumstances without violating rights,and they made the human mistake of thinking that he would not go around them to continue this behavior,which at the time was innocuous. You cannot condemn someone for asking a Teenager for their Picture or when their Birthday is, they need to get real. If someone had told them about the IM,and they did nothing they could be faulted for that,but that was not the case.

[Txsleuth]

Foley is probably with Armitage and Powell....away from where any MSM will look.

[Phsstpok]

Provocative post, and very well put.

Now, please tell me that your screen name has more to do with Stonewall Jackson than The Stonewall in New York.

[penelopesire]

If I posted something logical today..could you please point it out to me?....LOL
At this point, I feel like a disjointed mess and am certain that my posts come across that way!

[A.Hun]

Great! I think each election from now on will see a drop in RINOs welcome in the party.

[Arizona Carolyn]

It hasn't taken long for this to get very ugly -- look at this:

http://www.armchairsubversive.com/

[A.Hun]

Don't worry about that....they didn't have enough bandwidth to list all the Democrat pervs.

[Phsstpok]

TomGuy, you're wrong on this one and are getting further and further into inane drivel with your arguments. You are usually one of the better posters here but you seem to be lost in the weeds here for some reason.

Some real basic definitions here so that we are all talking about the same thing. Moral relativism is saying it's OK that Foley did what he did because Barney or Studds did it. That is NOT the argument. Foley, Franks and Studds are all scum. The Republicans say so and Foley is history. Studds was reelected several times and retired on a full (taxpayer funded) pension to live with his significant other (not the underage Page he slept with). Barney let a male prostitute run a callboy ring out of his home and he's still there.

That's not moral relativism. That's pointing out sheer hypocrisy on their part.

OK, you hate gays. You think that the Republican leadership should have burned him at the stake, even though they had no evidence that they could act on at the time (don't play games, that's a fact). I guess you expect them to be omniscient. Too damned bad. Get off your high horse and pay attention to what's really going on. This is a play by the Democrats to damage Republicans and you're helping them.

End of discussion.

I will not respond to any more posts on this subject. It has now gotten too stupid to continue.

[Arizona Carolyn]

No, but it's interesting, Howard Dean must have wasted no time in getting this on the websites and blogs for everyone running against a GOP incumbent in November, I'm seeing virtually the same information all over the web.

I had to laugh at a snippit on the Huffington Post from Townhall where someone wrote on Townhall that the Democrats are way out on a limb here, because to condem pedophilia they would also have to condem Abortions, Adultry, lesbionism and homosexuality, all things liberals love -- they can't have it both ways.

[Phsstpok]

Stephanopolus (ms?) has some folks trying to spin the Foley thing to hurt the WHOLE republican party right now. I can't watch this....

You did misspell his name

It's Steponallofus

Please say it out loud, slowly, pausing between syllables

(side note: FreeRepublic's spell check accepted my spelling of his name)
 

[Phsstpok]

For the record, as much as I dislike Hillary and I do, I have to hand it to her for sticking by him. It could not have been easy.

I don't believe that she "stuck by him" out of loyalty to him, concern for their daughter or simply because she thought it was right.  Instead I am convinced that she did it because if she had turned on him he would have turned on her and he has as much dirt on her as she has on him. 

She has ambitions and failing to support him, no matter what, will end those plans.  He's a shark, she's a remora feeding off of the shark.  He goes down, she goes down with him, no matter what.

[Seattle Conservative]

They're firing w all guns now:


GOP Staff Warned Pages About Foley in 2001
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2514259&page=1 ^

Posted on 10/01/2006 2:03:41 PM PDT by lauriehelds
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1711776/posts

From Hastert:
INTERNAL REVIEW REGARDING THE CONGRESSMAN MARK FOLEY MATTER (Hastert Press release)
NRO ^

Posted on 10/01/2006 12:48:07 PM PDT by Republican Red
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: 202-225-2800
September 30, 2006 Ron Bonjean or Lisa C. Miller

Pubbies need to keep bringing this (last paragraph out):

No one in the Speaker’s Office was made aware of the sexually explicit text messages which press reports suggest had been directed to another individual until they were revealed in the press and on the internet this week. In fact, no one was ever made aware of any sexually explicit email or text messages at any time.

I heard on the TV that Reid (and I think Stretch Pelosi) have asked the DOJ to conduct an investigation -- -I don't think they called for this w others - Again, while I think what Foley did is wrong (and I'm so disappointed in him) I hope this comes back to bite the Dims in their posteriors - BIG TIME (to quote my favorite VP)

[Txsleuth]

Reid and Pelosi want an investigation...and the Rep. leadership to be put under oath.

I wonder if they would "mind" if the GOP leadership in the House "fibbed" like Clinton did under oath???

I mean after all...this is just a "personal thing"...not national security....(isn't that their rationalization about why Clinton should NOT have been impeached, but Bush should?)

[libbylu]

I think scheuer is frustrated by the the lies he cited, knowing clinton etal will call him a liar and worse to discredit him. I believe Scheuer. I saw him say bin laden's innards should have been splattered all over afghanistan and i believe him. Clinton has a ton of people rewriting and they will probably get it done.

[penelopesire]

FR has a spell check? I am still a newbie ya know and am prone to long absences and horrible spelling. So you thought his show was well reasoned? I didn't watch it...lol

[TomGuy]

Foley, Franks and Studds

That shows you either misread or misinterpreted or are smoking some weed yourself. I never in any post originated any statement about Franks or Studds. Other posters did that. My contention has been, and continues to be, that they should not be lumped together.

I have not posted any defense of Foley, Franks or Studds. So I don't get how you imply that I did that. Others on here brought Franks into the discussions when the news first broke. My contention has been, and continues to be, that this is not about Franks, nor about Studds. Point your wiggly finger at someone else.

OK, you hate gays.

I have no idea where you concluded that. It sure was not from anything I wrote.

You think that the Republican leadership should have burned him at the stake, even though they had no evidence that they could act on at the time (don't play games, that's a fact). I guess you expect them to be omniscient. Too damned bad. Get off your high horse and pay attention to what's really going on. This is a play by the Democrats to damage Republicans and you're helping them.

That rant goes off the deep end. Half of it doesn't make sense -- if you are implying that I wrote anything about burning someone at the stake. High horse? What are you talking about? This is a play by the Democrats.... That is the only part of your paragraph that makes any sense at all. Now, read what I wrote in post #548. Well, golly, gee, darn, whizzlesticks. We both said basically the same thing -- the Dems are playing this up bigtime and loving it.

What did you say you were smoking?

[TomGuy]

I will not respond to any more posts on this subject.

You write a lengthy diatribe.
You cast all kinds of unfounded allegations.
You bow out by saying you won't respond to any more posts.

Ok. I think Rush refers to that kind of action as the drive-by media. I think it is more like hit and run.

It might have been interesting to read a response, but ... you will not respond to any more posts on this subject. Thank goodness. And don't break your promise.

[Phsstpok]

So you thought his show was well reasoned?

Oh, I never said THAT! 

[Barset]

Thanks for the on the scene reporting on this. The journos make one quite ill with their breathy news blasts on this sad affair. It is good to hear what is real and how the events are affecting the people in Foley's district.