Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 26 November 2006

Various big media television networks ^ | 26 November 2006 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[Alas Babylon!]

The Talk Shows

Sunday, November 26th, 2006

Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Reps. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., Barney Frank, D-Mass., and John Dingell, D-Mich.; Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss.; Joseph E. Robert Jr., chairman of Fight for Children.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger; Reps. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and Ike Skelton, D-Mo., retired Gens. Wayne Downing and Barry McCaffrey.

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens.-elect Bob Corker, R-Tenn., Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.

THIS WEEK (ABC): Jordan's King Abdullah II; Sens. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; supermodel Maggie Rizer.

LATE EDITION (CNN) : I Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Jack Reed, D-R.I.; Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie; former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger; former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski; Maryland Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele; Democratic strategist Donna Brazile.

[rodguy911]

It's scary, if you look around the world and see who is reproducing at alarming rates,many who will be instantly brainwashed, the future does look bleak.

[snugs]

Another take on the Rumsfeld so called firing. I suspect this was agree ahead of time between the President and Rumsfeld.

If the Republicans had not lost the house and senate in all probability even if they had retained just the Senate Rumsfeld would have remained.

The Republicans lost so Rumsfeld had to go not as the scape goat but image hearing after hearing, enquiry after enquiry, appearing before this committee and that committee when the heck would he have been able to do his actual job. He would have spent every waking hour justifying the smallest details of everything in Iraq, Afganistan or wherever the US have troops. What message of stability would that project to the serving men and women. How would he be available for overseas visits whether they be goodwill ones or NATO conferences etc. and to oversee things on a day to day basis at the Pentagon. He may still have to appear before these enquries and committees but not as the current Secretary of Defense.

Unfortunately both the President and Don Rumsfeld knew with the Republicans loosing the house and the Senate it was time for him to go.

[snugs]

Jealousy

[Morgan in Denver]

I don’t have an answer for Iraq.  Nor do I believe any of the reporters, pundits or anyone else has one.  If people think freedom, democracy and free markets happen overnight, they are in for a rude awakening.  The future of Iraq is being written as we watch and we’ll know how well it turns out far into the future, not now.

I DO remember reading that President Bush and the military had a flexible timetable of this taking ten years, at minimum, to stabilize Iraq and that our force presence would gradually diminish over time as the Iraqis themselves took more control. I also read we would have some military there even longer, if tensions in the Middle East remained the same as they’ve been for generations.  Considering our problems with Iran and Syria, this makes a lot of sense to me.  Add in the problems in Lebanon and Palestine, and the region is volatile enough that we need to have troops there.

It would be funny were it not so sad to see the Democrats struggle to create some relevance for their party.  These ideas are the same ones we’ve been discussing for four years now, and they still don’t have a clue for how to proceed. The media is having a ball with the “go big” versus “go long” versus “go home” strategies.  Interesting in that go big is simply a rehash of more troops on the ground to enforce our will on the Iraqis, go long is the current strategy, and go home is the same Democrat Party line of cut and run.  Nothing new here except for the packaging. It appears we have to break things down into short sound bites so the Democrats will understand what the discussion is all about.

[rodguy911]

Thanks I will, can't wait.

[Alas Babylon!]

Email addresses of the Talk Show hosts:

Meet the Press: use mtp@nbc.com

Face The Nation: use ftn@cbsnews.com

FOX News Sunday: use FNS@foxnews.com

This Week: use thisweek@abc.com

Late Edition: uses a web page--no email address can be found--must fill out html form Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer

Hardball with Chris Matthews: use hardball@msnbc.com

[rodguy911]

Jack Bauer rules!!!!

[Fishtalk]

Another take on the Rumsfeld so called firing. I suspect this was agree ahead of time between the President and Rumsfeld.

I suspect you're right.

Still, I will, with the right provided to me by our military who died to defend my right to free speech, state that the TIMING of this announcement was bad, bad, bad.

I also suspect you're right about the hearings and all that but damn, the day AFTER the election? It was just so defeatest.

Can I be the only one in America that consider firing, or terminating or whatever and however it happened, the day after that election was really bad PR? I'm not afraid to be wrong here. But I do know how it affected ME.

[mathluv]

Truth to dims is like light to cockroackes - they run for cover.

[FreeReign]

What a disgrace that the GOP blew their time in the majority and lost to them!

What a disgrace that the voters threw out 25 individually good conservative seats in the House.

BTW, I thought we vote for or against individual candidates and not for or against party.

Why do you defend that practice of voting against party when the individuals who lost were good conservatives?

[snugs]

The timing of Rumsfeld quitting may have looked bad but here the only thing IMHO you can fault the President on is loyalty. He hoped it would not come to Rumsfeld having to go because he hoped that the Republicans would keep the Senate.

Unfortunately they did not because Republicans like you decided not to vote a straight Republican ticket and the DBM sucked in the swing voters and unfortunately the Republican Candidates for whatever reason in each area had not appealed to that category.

[rodguy911]

Wow,it's working.
I have had Thanksgiving dinner 22 times since Thursday, I may set a record!

[snugs]

The President may not have seen it as defeatist but more a message to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as you are not having it all your own way the butt of your attack is not longer going to be there.

You can attack him and his policies but he is no longer Secretary of Defense or will not be probably before you come to power.

I see it as an attack not the reverse.

[rodguy911]

Great post.

[rodguy911]

Congratulations on your promotion, we all appreciate your service to the country.

[FreeReign]

The timing of the announcement was BAD and I'll never change my thought on this.

If he quit before the election the timing would have been considered "bad".

The media has been criticising Rummey weekly for years. So I guess if Rummey quit any time over the last few years, the timing would have been "bad", right?

[DTogo]

Guilt by association: the good lost alongside the bad because the party as a whole has lost its Conservative bearings, and its leadership has let the MSM/DNC drive the media agenda for years now.

[txradioguy]

What time would have been a "good time"?

IMHO Rummy took it upon himself to resign.

The reasoning being that if he stayed...which he should have...that the Libtards would make him their whipping boy in an effort to embarrass the President.

I think if the Republicans had held on to even the House, Rummy would still be there.

[txradioguy]

Well said Morgan!

[txradioguy]

Thanks rg!