Posted on 11/04/2006 2:53:44 PM PST by Phsstpok
Preview and Analysis of the Weekend Talk Shows for November 4 and 5, 2006
It's the last weekend shows before we change over from campaign mode to litigation mode in this election cycle and the Dhimmicrats and the DBM are in full on hysterics. This is particularly true of the "experts" like Sabato and Cook, who both have been predicting huge wins for their political masters as part of the psyops campaign being waged by Soros and company. Cook is now as much as 10 points off of polls like Rasmussen in some races where the trend is clearly for the Republican but he doesn't want to let it go. But he's also reduced to making these increasingly bizarre claims on shows like Chris Matthews as old media types scramble to save what's left of their reputations. I've got a surprise for you fellas, it's too late. Even NPR's (and Fox News') Juan Williams admits the the old media types like CNN '(are) in the tank' for the Democrats.
With the exception of CNN the line ups this week are arguably reasonable, but that doesn't count the relentless propaganda campaign that has been waged against some of the Republican guests and the outrageous cover ups being perpetrated to protect all Dhims all the time. I don't think that Henry Waxman admitting that he was a serial killer in a speech on the floor of the House would make the DBM's top news right now. And all you need to do is search for stories on Libby Dole to find a constant stream of criticism and denigration. CNN's line up is simply obscene. There are only two Republicans (one of them questionable) and eleven folks with severe BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome), twelve if understand Lindsey's true nature. Hoekstra is undoubtedly on to answer why he put Saddam's nuclear weapons blueprints on the internet for all to see (a charge I think he ought to be able to knock out of the park, mind you) while Lindsey Graham was no doubt invited to comment on Dick Cheney's endorsement of water boarding.
Anyway, enough preliminaries, on to the shows.
NBC Meet The Press brings together the two traveling road shows of the respective chairs of the Senate and House campaign committees for both parties. Chucky and Liddy have been making the rounds of TV shows and college campuses for some time now. They're very "collegial," in the old fashioned way where the Dhim is vicious and nasty but still expects the Republican to be nice at all times. Unfortunately Liddy, like her husband, is that kind of Republican. She's taken a beating this entire electin cycle and is clearly set up as the "fall guy" (other than Bush) if the Republicans don't do well in the Senate. Chuck, on the other hand, is almost universally disliked in the Senate by members of both parties, but he is being set up as the "king maker" and power broker, ala Lyndon Johnson. On the House side Tom Reynolds is one of the DBM targets in the Foley cross hairs while Rahm Emanuel is being talked about as some sort of Zen master. With cooperation from their print allies in old media NBC has set this up as a pre-race victory lap for the Dhimmicrats and a pre-mortem for the Republicans. I will look closely for any hedging by lil' Timmah, along with what his body language is (hunch or no hunch when questioning Dole and Reynolds?) to give me a clue about what he really believes will happen on Tuesday.
CBS Face The Nation offers up Bill Frist as a symbol of the (soon to be) departing Republicans and Joe Biden as the emblem of the coming Dhimmicrat golden age of dominance. Bob Schieffer is joined by Stuart Rothenberg, another of the "political gurus" predicting massive losses for the Republicans. This is the left wing "preaching to the choir" and expecting all of us to sing along to their imaginary tune. I'm betting Shieffer's closing comment will be one of the most smarmy and insulting ever. Who knows? If my predictions are right it may just be old Bob's last such commentary.
Fox News Sunday Has Boehner, Steele and McCaskill as the guests, plus a "classic" Sunday panel. Boehner is being targeted as the Republican antidote to Kerry's Freudian slip. So far the attempts to make hay out of his comments about Rumsfeld and the generals on the ground just don't have the same ring nor does he have a history of treason as John F'n does. Steele is definitely on the move and, IMHO, likely to defeat Cardin. He may be destined for national office in the coming years. McCaskill, on the other hand, isn't ready for prime time. The more face time she has the worse she comes across. Chris Wallace is a reliable predictor of the inside the beltway "smart set" sentiment and is likely to be totally captured by the drum beat of "Republicans lose, Democrats win." If so he may completely embarrass himself this week.
ABC This Week repeats their stunt of a taped interview with an administration official, this time Dick Cheney, followed by "equal time," live, for the Democrats, this time represented by Howard "the scream" Dean. ABC World News already pulled out some "juicy" tidbits last night so it's evident that Howard and company will have ample time to work on their sound bites and attacks on "the second most hated man on Earth" (George Bush being the first in their minds). I find this tactic to be totally transparent and reprehensible. I find it worse that no one is commenting on it outside of FReepers and a few conservative blogs. The old media will have a lot to answer for over their increasingly destructive and dishonest tactics and outrageous bias. And once again the Bush Derangement Syndrome panel will be in full swing. I really want to see these people next week if things don't go as they're predicting. They are way too invested in this to survive anything less than total victory for the Dhims.
CNN Late Edition is, as stated earlier, an amazing example of CNN being "in the tank" for the Dhimmicrats. The amount of hate directed at George Bush from this one program would be dangerous for most normal people, but our President is made of stronger stuff. Thank goodness. I expect particularly insane rants from Maxine (millions for the Crips and Bloods but not a dime for defense) Waters and Max (blown up by his own dropped grenade while drinking beer with his buddies) Cleland. Lou Dobbs is reportedly thinking of running for President, so he could either play this as a statesman or be in full Jack Cafferty melt down mode. I'm betting on the latter. Boxer and Frank are undoubtedly on a charm offensive and will talk about mom and apple pie till we all want to barf. Hoekstra is in for a fierce attack over the Iraqi document dump, but he's got the perfect rebuttal in that the documents in question prove that Saddam had active WMD programs just as we said before the war. That could be a fiery and very interesting exchange. The media types have one last chance to sell their snake oil and sound wise before they have to begin back tracking and eating crow. When these drones get confronted with what they've done and said during this campaign (if ever) it won't be pretty.
The Saturday shows follow their usual pattern and are watch able to the same degree as they always are (definitely for JER, maybe, maybe not for the others). There is one addition to the mix this weekend, though. Fox is showing an edited version of the documentary "Obsession," about how the US is presented in the Arab media, schools and popular culture (Saturday at 7 PM CST, Sunday at 9 PM CST, Fox News Channel). This is perhaps the most significant program of the entire election cycle. I wish they'd shown it weeks ago and unedited.
Bottom line, all restraints are off and all logic or ethical guidelines are out the window. This is all or nothing for the DBM and Dhimmicrats and I think they see a very bleak future starting on Wednesday morning. Needless to say I'll be watching closely.
This will be cross posted to my blog at Wizards.townhall.com. This post exists primarily as a heads up for who is on the weekend talks shows, what they've been invited on to push (based on their recent pronouncements) and the spin (meme) the DBM is likely trying to push based on that information. All of this is prep work for the weekly Sunday Morning Talk Show thread posted by Alas Babylon!. That thread provides a live commentary and analysis of the Sunday talking head shows, with rare insight and exceptional fact checking. we are the Jedi Council of FreeRepublic, at least in regards to these DBM gabfests. You wanna know what was said and what it meant, as well as where they messed up? Read that thread!
Here's a link to Mark Kilmer's excellent preview of the Sunday shows over at RedState.COM. He beat me again this week. Of course, the fact that I was out of state the last two weeks, so I don't feel too bad, but I'll try to do better starting next weekend.
I'll also post a link to this Sunday's live thread here when it is up.
have at it.
Jane Hall has become a regular on Bill O'Reilly's show..and she has gone more and more wacko left lately...ugh.
For some reason, it took me forever to figure out the acronym DBM. Too many acronyms in the world, but there is no excuse for not knowing that one, as I am a Rush fan.
Thanks for this report. The work you put into it is incredible!
David Frum's rebuttle:
There has been a lot of talk this season about deceptive campaign ads, but the most dishonest document I have seen is this press release from Vanity Fair, highlighted on the Drudge Report. Headlined "Now They Tell Us," it purports to offer an "exclusive" access to "remorseful" former supporters of the Iraq war who will now "play the blame game" with "shocking frankness."
It cites not only myself as one of these remorseful supporters, but also Richard Perle, Ken Adelman, and others.
I can speak only for myself. Obviously I wish the war had gone better. It's true I fear that there is a real danger that the US will lose in Iraq. And yes I do blame a lot that has gone wrong on failures of US policy.
I have made these points literally thousands of times since 2004, beginning in An End to Evil and most recently in my 22-part commentary on Bob Woodward's State of Denial (start here and find the remainder here .) I have argued them on radio and on television and on public lectern, usually in exactly the same words that are quoted in the press release.
"[T]he insurgency has proven it can kill anyone who cooperates, and the United States and its friends have failed to prove that it can protect them."
"I always believed as a speechwriter that if you could persuade the president to commit himself to certain words, he would feel himself committed to the ideas that underlay those words. And the big shock to me has been that although the president said the words, he just did not absorb the ideas. And that is the root of, maybe, everything."
And finally that the errors in Iraq are explained by "failures at the center."
Nothing exclusive there, nothing shocking, and believe me, nothing remorseful.
My most fundamental views on the war in Iraq remain as they were in 2003: The war was right, victory is essential, and defeat would be calamitous.
And that to my knowledge is the view of everybody quoted in the release and the piece: Adelman, Cohen, Ledeen, Perle, Pletka, Rubin, and all the others.
(Not that it matters, but this fight is very personal for many of those people. Cohen and Ledeen have both had children serve in Iraq, Cohen's in the Tenth Mountain Division, Ledeen's daughter in the civil administration and his elder son in the Marines. As a civilian adviser in Iraq, Rubin displayed impressive personal courage living solo for long periods of time in the Shiite zones of east Baghdad.)
Vanity Fair then set my words in its own context in its press release. They added words outside the quote marks to change the plain meaning of quotations.
When I talk in the third quotation above about failures "at the center," for example, I did not mean the president. If I had, I would have said so. At that point in the conversation, I was discussing the National Security Council, whose counter-productive interactions produced bad results.
And when I talked in the second quotation about "persuading the president," I was repeating this point, advanced here last month. In past administrations, the battle for the president's words was a battle for administration policy. But because Bush's National Security Council malfunctioned so badly, the president could say things without action following - because the mechanism for enforcing his words upon the bureaucracy had broken.
In short, Vanity Fair transformed a Washington debate over "how to correct course and win the war" to advance obsessions all their own.
How was this done?
The author of the piece touted by the press release is David Rose, a British journalist well known as a critic of the Saddam Hussein regime and supporter of the Iraq war. (See here and here for just two instances out of a lengthy bibliography.)
Rose has earned a reputation as a truth teller. The same unfortunately cannot be said for the editors and publicists at Vanity Fair. They have repackaged truths that a war-fighting country needs to hear into lies intended to achieve a shabby partisan purpose.
http://frum.nationalreview.com/
He told me he stopped listening to John Kerry 2 years ago. He said he knows Kerry hates the troops.
Ledeen has always fretted that we are not being agressive enough with Iran, so that's nothing new and Frum has certainly had his sour grapes complaints, but both of their comments were twisted horribly to give completely different meanings. And of course they should never have believed VF.
Perle and these other guys should well know the DBM by now. Why in the heck didn't they keep their mouths shut until AFTER the election, if not permanently. I can't believe they can be so idiotic. If I were a suspicious person, I'd say they did it on purpose, knowing it would get out, promises or not by the media.
I think they believe they can and should be able to actually shape policy, and when that fails, they feel some sort of deep and personal rejection of who they are. Hubris.
I can't believe their "reasoning" for the enormous discrepancy between positive/negative liberal and conservative stories....That it's refecting the way the country is now?!? According to what information? They can't just admit it, they're biased. They probably don't even see it. Idiots.
Bah...I agree with Seattle...they should have kept their mouths shut.
I just finished reading Frum's "rebuttal" on this thread...and some of the things he says in his "rebuttal" are down right insulting to President Bush..
AND, he DOES say he is worried we will "lose the war"...
The ONLY way we will "lose" is for people like him, and Perle, and others to play to the "anti-war" crowd and create a Vietnam scenario all over again.
Your son is SO very smart...how DID he get into the military...I thought they are all DUMB...LOL
LOL! Oh, to be single and young again!
I think the night that BOR had on Jane this week was to point out that some statistics show that in the last month or so...77% of the news about the dems candidates has been POSITIVE ...and only 20% of the GOP candidates' news was positive...
YIKES..that sure doesn't play into the thoughts on tonight's panel...it just illustrates that the MEDIA has an enormous discrepancy in the way THEY are.
Yes...it sounds like he has a lot of choices...I just hope as he matures, no matter what he ends up doing employment wise, he turns right....we need good leaders...we just don't want them to be leading "the wrong way"...LOL
He definately has the potential of being an excellent leader.
Frum has been a problem since he got canned. And don't some people just come to think they are way smarter than they actually are.
Great point! Add Peggy Noonan to the list. While she wasn't fired per se, she took a sabatical to campaign for Pres Bush and Pubbies and I think she thought she'd be speechwriter for the President. I used to look forward to her articles; however, after the last election I slowly quit reading them. It's obvious she felt she was going to get and job in the Admin and didn't and has ceased to be a team player, as you said.
Yes, he has.....I have never like him....but Sissy Chrissy loves him.
BTW...Tony was a speechwriter...and I don't remember him being hateful....(although I did get a touch angry when he would pick apart Pres. Bush's speeches)...in criticizing the POLICY of the Pres.
Excellent points Sleuth!
Stupid Dhimmicrats.
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.