Posted on 11/26/2006 5:18:00 AM PST by 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.
Very good post!
I really wanted to contribute today, just not able to stay focused. But I'm remembering a Chris Matthews comment. He was telling his panel he's certain Guilianni will run in 2008 because Rudy's wife Judith really wants to be First Lady. Matthews offered as proof to the panel, how "Judith has taken to dressing like Nancy Reagan."
Then, laughably, but typically, Matthews ended his Sunday show with a hypocritical rant about media's obsession with "celebrity" harming our culture.
"The point of these investigations, which will be shown extensively on television, is to portray the Republicans as malicious, corrupt, and incompetent.
It is the beginning of the 2008 campaign. We need to figure out how to counter this bogus hearing strategy."
Yep!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15365610/site/newsweek
(snip)
Dingell is careful to say he is not out to get George W. Bush, or the Republicans, and insists he will extend his hand to his GOP colleagues and conduct "oversight thoughtfully and responsibly." He says "there's no list" of things he wants to investigate. But in the next breath, he quickly ticks off a list of things he wants to investigate: The Bush administration's handling of port security and the threat of nuclear smuggling; computer privacy; climate change; concentration of media ownership; the new Medicare Part D program, which he calls a "massive scandal," and the secret meetings of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force. "This is a hardheaded administration," Dingell says. "So we'll probably have lots of hearings."
:-) Thanks!
LLS
:-)
LLS
is this the same as : he's colored?
The jaw bone media (talk radio) hasn't been much help in that matter either. They've spent a lot of time pointing out the shortcomings of the DBM, but they too haven't spent much time on the accomplishments either.
Good one. A lot of people have mentioned Haley Barbour as the nominee but he said he isn't running. I like him too but Hunter is my fave and I'll always see him as the top of the ticket and it would put an honorable Vietnam vet in the presidency. I wonder if Haley would take a VP nomination? But I've always liked Don Nickles very much and how about JC Watts?
Matthews has become a caricature of himself....
I like Haley Barbour very much.
More so for his ability to explain things clearly and convince people of something, than even for his executive performance as Governor, although that's a big plus. I think we desperately need someone who is quick on his feet and a quick reactor, with a great grasp of the issues, who is a clear and convincing speaker. I like both men you mentioned but I don't think they come close to making it on my top criteria.
Some people put down that Haley is from the South and say the country will reject someone from that part of the country at this time. I don't believe it. Depends on many factors as to how they would react. Would he take VP? My guess is he would, IF he believed in and got along with the Presidential nominee.
If not Haley, I am trying to think of someone from the Midwest or Rust Belt...that part of the country we are having such political trouble with now. It needs to be someone who is conservative, a fairly well known name, and someone who is most of all a convincing spokesman for the President (yes they must be qualified to be President, of course). If you think of anyone from there, or get any suggestions from others, leaving out Rick Santorum (sob), who couldn't get re-elected to the Senate so I'm afraid he's out, please ping me to it.
Ok? Thanks.
I suggest you read this piece "The Rumsfeld Interview" from Chris Lynch at A Large Regular. Know only that the last line in the piece was not there the first time I read it.
It still rings 100% true to me.
Well, I will never get insulting with you (hit me if I do), but at this simplistic level, he's right, or at least in so far as you've represented his position. I know that your position has to be much more complex than this, but for me it's not a complex question. Are we at war? If we are then the answer to the question of how many Muslim countries I'm willing to flatten is simple: as many as it takes.
We were at war with fascism and flattened, quite literally, Germany, Italy and much of the rest of Europe to defeat them. We were at war with Imperial Japan and flattened about 80% of their empire, to the point of dropping nuclear devices on two of their major cities.
I think that, thanks to our "allies" in Europe and the "loyal opposition" here that we have passed the tipping point on this question. George W. Bush's policies have been directed at avoiding all out war and he has been undermined to the point that he has failed. We are at war with Islam. Or, more accurately, they have declared war on us and are intent on wiping out or enslaving all of the non-Muslim world. All of it. And they now think they have a chance to pull it off.
Remember, "as many as it takes."
The concept of limited warfare is stupid when you are dealing with someone who is intent on Armageddon. The real answer is not pleasant, nor is it to be courted, but it looks like it is necessary if human civilization is to survive. Either they die or we do. I choose them. Now, that clearly does not mean genocide against Arabs or other Muslims. Japanese and Germans are now some of our closest allies and we have provided for them for 60 years, including absolute freedom, even to the point of betraying us if they wish. But we don't tolerate Nazi's anymore, even here, even if the ACLU defends their rights. Nor can someone carry the banner of the rising sun down the streets of Nanjing and live to tell about it.
Perfect....see, it is possible to have a debate with being personally insulting you pinhead!!! LOL j/k
You have given me a lot to think about...but, since Muslims make up the majority of dozens of countries...you are willing to do whatever it takes to get rid of them??
What about any sleeper cells that are here...that are called to duty, the first time we attack Indonesia or Malaysia or Pakistan, with suicide bombers going into schools and malls??
The difference between the Germans and Japanese...they were ONE country each....and they didn't attack American citizens at their desks in NYC....
Just askin.....love the debate.
National Socialists made up the majority only in formal terms in Italy and Germany, or any of the other countries where that hate filled philosophy took hold. Ask the citizens of Dresden or Berlin what was necessary to break that hold on their nation and those people.
What about any sleeper cells that are here...that are called to duty, the first time we attack Indonesia or Malaysia or Pakistan, with suicide bombers going into schools and malls??
Kill them when we find them, just as we did to German infiltrators in World War 2. We also rounded up and imprisoned people of Japanese and German descent during that conflict. Much is made of how inhumane that action was, but very little time is spent on the question of whether some of them were traitors, spies or "sleeper cells." I don't advocate rounding up Muslims in any country, but I do advocate watching them as we watched members of the American Nazi Party starting in 1941
The difference between the Germans and Japanese...they were ONE country each....and they didn't attack American citizens at their desks in NYC.
I think this is wrong on several counts. First, Germany and Japan were two of the lead nations in a world wide fascist movement. The Soviet Union was also part of this same march towards world slaughter. Leftists will scream bloody murder over this stance, but it is demonstrably true. The meaning of the word "fascist" is derived from the "fasci," or bundle of sticks, that were used in the Roman Senate. Whoever held that bundle of sticks was in charge. They made the rules. That, at it's core, is the philosophy of fascism. Stalin was a fascist. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Tojo were all convinced that they could merely order the world to be as they wanted and kill anyone that stood in their way. Hitler and Stalin started the war in Europe by dividing Poland between them as allies and Stalin only came over to "our side" when Hitler betrayed him with operation Barbarossa.
Beyond that there were fascists in almost all countries of the world, including the United States. Read stories about the prewar work by Walter Winchell to expose this movement and the attacks on him, both verbal, professional and physical, and you'll be amazed how similar it sounds to today's Jihadi response to any critics. And then realize that people like Charles Lindbergh were nearly members and were public supporters of Hitler and his drives in Germany, including his plans for Jews. So was Joe Kennedy and so was King Edward the VIII (who abdicated to marry Wallace Simpson). Much as Prince Charles today reportedly suggests that we could solve the problems in the world if we only followed the teachings of Islam (a questionable report, at best, but he has been known to say really stupid things from time to time).
Also, one of those fascist countries did attack American citizens to trigger our direct involvement in combat in that war. Maybe not office workers in NY, but it had a larger and more long lasting affect.
And now fascism is on the march again, with the same goal, perhaps magnified, and this time they wrap themselves in the mantle of religion. But truly this is not a new conflict. This is really a war that has been going on for 1400 years
I am not in favor of all out war with Islam or wiping out all Muslims. I am a supporter of President Bush's policies and attempts to avoid that all out conflict, but I fear that he has failed. Winston Churchill didn't want war with Germany. He is famous for having said "jaw jaw is better than war war." But he saw that no matter how accommodating the rest of the world was, the fascists were bent on war. When the other fella is determined on a fight to the death, no matter what, you have two options, roll over and die or stand up and stop them, even if it means killing them and their supporters.
My wife is a member of the Baha'i faith. Though it is an offshoot of Islam it is considered blasphemy and heresy of the darkest type by the Jihadis. They will go to paradise and get their virgins a lot more surely by killing a Baha'i than they will by killing a Jew or a Christian. I don't want to wipe out all Muslims. I will, however, do what it takes to keep them from wiping out everyone else.
The question you have to ask is whether we've come to that point. I'm concerned that we have not only come to it but are well past it. I hope I'm wrong. I fear I'm not. If I'm not I'm prepared to do what is necessary to avoid their victory.
If you believe in God and the Devil, good and evil, as real forces at work in the world, then you must know that the Jihadis and their supporters don't represent good and they aren't worshiping God.
If he were identifiably a Republican that would be item #1 in every article about him and this incident.
A hispanic comedian who was there that night said that Richard's problem is that he's an actor, not a stand up comedian, and he didn't know how to handle a heckler. I actually think he was trying to drop into a racist character in order to make fun of and defuse the situation and he simply failed to pull it off.
He's not a really good actor.
November 27, 2006
The Sunday Snapshot: All About IRaq
The war in Iraq dominated the Sunday talk shows:
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA): "What we could do right now before we decide whether we want to increase or decrease or maintain the level of American forces [in Iraq], before you make those decisions, let's take the forces we've already trained, we've already equipped, which are 50 miles away in some cases, move them into the fight, see how they carry that security burden. And after we get a handle on how well they're doing, then we can make adjustments on the American force level" ("Meet the Press," NBC, 11/26).
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS): "We cannot face the public again in 2008 with the current situation still in hand for the United States. We have to get to a political solution in the region. We have to push a political solution in the region, and I think we've really got to start pushing people there on the ground and in the area to come together, to work together because we can't have this same situation 18 months from now facing the United States" ("This Week," ABC, 11/26).
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO): "We all agree on the one thing, and I think the key is getting the Iraqis trained and fully advised" ("Meet the Press," NBC, 11/26).
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): "We are dealing with the worst foreign policy decision that's been made in America since Vietnam. It is a terrible situation, not easily resolved and not quickly resolved. When the Democrats take control, you're not going to see a change overnight. We have to work very carefully with our Republican friends and with the administration to find the best way to bring this to a close" ("This Week," ABC, 11/26).
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), on how many more troops are needed in Iraq: "I would take the advice of our generals on the ground. But I think we're talking about 20 to 50,000 additional troops to embed them with the Iraqis, so that when we clear areas, we can actually secure them" ("Late Edition," CNN, 11/26).
Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI): "I think 20,000 extra troops would probably not be decisive in terms of changing the political dynamic and the security dynamic in Iraq. And indeed, we'd have a very difficult time sustaining an additional 20,000 troops over, say, a year or more. A third of our brigades in the United States are reporting nondeployable because of personnel and equipment shortages. So the prospect of a magic bullet with just more troops, I don't think is there" ("Late Edition," CNN, 11/26).
[EMILY GOODIN]
Incoming Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO): "I think what the vice president did this week, in going to Saudi Arabia, and what the president is doing, in terms of traveling to Jordan, you're beginning to see the commander in chief recognize that we have to do, with Iraq, what they're working very hard to do, right now, with Afghanistan through NATO. And that is to engage other nations, particularly the moderate Arab countries that are in the region. They have a huge stake in what happens in Iraq. And we have to begin to engage them in order to have them weigh in. If we do not do that, what has become a civil war is going to disintegrate and begin to impact other nations besides just Iraq. And then we have really created an incredible mess" ("Face the Nation," CBS, 11/26).
Incoming Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH): "Today marks the day that this war is as long as World War II, and the exit strategy needs to begin immediately and a withdrawal in a year and a half to two years. I don't think the Iraqis are ever going to build their police, their military or police security forces on their own until they know that there is a date that we are leaving. And I think we're beginning to see that coming from the administration with a little more clarity" ("Face the Nation," CBS, 11/26).
Incoming Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN): "I think that all of us understand we're in a really complex situation. We all know it's going to evolve. All of us care about our men and women in uniform in Iraq. And we want to see a solution that causes there to be a secure and accountable government. And I think there will be some bipartisan efforts to cause us to come together around this issue that most Americans care very deeply about" ("Face the Nation," CBS, 11/26).THE VIEW POINT FROM THE MIDDLE EAST
King Abdullah of Jordan, on Iraq: "There needs to be some very strong action taken on the ground there today. Obviously, the indicators are of tremendous concern to all of us, and I don't think we're in a position where we can come back and revisit the problem in early 2007. There needs to be a strategy. There needs to be a plan that brings all the parties together, and bring them today and not tomorrow."
More: "The difficulty that we're tackling with here is, we're juggling with the strong potential of three civil wars in the region, whether it's the Palestinians, that of Lebanon or of Iraq. And I hope that my discussions, at least, with the president will be to provide whatever we can do for the Iraqi people. But at the same time, we do want to concentrate ourselves on the core issues, which we believe are the Palestinians and the Palestinian peace process, because that is a must today, as well as the tremendous concern we've had over the past several days, what's happening in Lebanon. And we could possibly imagine going into 2007 and having three civil wars on our hands. And therefore, it is time that we really take a strong step forward as part of the international community and make sure we avert the Middle East from a tremendous crisis that I fear, and I see could possibly happen in 2007."
Abdullah: "I do believe that there are feelers going to different countries to see if we can come together on the issue of Iraq. But I think, the problem is, is that America needs to look at it in the total picture. It's not just one issue by itself. I keep saying Palestine is the core. It is linked to the extent of what's going on in Iraq. It is linked to what's going on in Lebanon. It is linked to the issues that we find ourselves with the Syrians. So, if you want to do comprehensive -- comprehensive means bringing all the parties of the region together" ("This Week," ABC, 11/26).
GETTING THE HOUSE IN ORDER
Reps. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), John Dingell (D-MI) and Barney Frank (D-MA) stopped by "Fox News Sunday" to discuss various policy issues and what the new Congress will be like:Frank, on the new Congress: "In my own committee, the biggest difference you're going to see is we're going to return to try to help deal with the housing crisis that blights so many parts of our country socially and economically. And again, I think reversing these attacks on housing for the elderly and other forms of affordable housing I think it will really be quite popular."
Asked if Dems will try to drive through liberal policies, Dingell: "I think what we really need to do is understand, Democrats like winning elections. We want to win elections, and we're going to do our best to do so. This doesn't mean to get into any extreme positions on any matter. We'll do what makes good sense on Iraq, what makes good sense on tax policy, what makes good sense on the environment and on energy, and we'll come up with a package that the people will like and that will make good sense in the middle."
Rangel, of course, was asked about the draft: "I want to make it abundantly clear that I have been advocating a draft ever since the president has been talking about war, and none of this comes within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee. But I want to make it abundantly clear, if there's anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq. So anyone who supports the war and is against everyone sharing in the sacrifice is being hypocritical about the whole thing. The record is clear, and once we are able to get hearings on this, everyone will see what they already know, and that is that those who have the least opportunities at this age find themselves in the military, as I did when I was 18 years old."
Frank to FNC's Wallace: "I've just been listening, and every single question you asked -- you said it's to see what the Democrats are going to be like. We were all prepared to talk about a very positive agenda we have in tax fairness, in environmental concerns, in housing, and, of course, all of your questions have been aimed at trying to find points of controversy, which are not going to be high on our agenda" (11/26).Durbin: "The first item of business in this new Senate is going to be ethics reform. ... Overwhelmingly the men and women who serve in the House and the Senate of both political parties are honest, hard-working people. But clearly, the image of Congress is terrible, with people going to prison and all sorts of allegations of misdealing. So we need to move forward first in restoring confidence in the integrity of Congress and then get down to the important work that lies ahead" ("This Week," ABC, 11/26).
HE'S BACK
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) was on "Meet" to talk about why he won:Schwarzenegger: "I think that the key thing is that, you know, if you forget about the Republicans, Democrats, independents and all this, I think that we did the people's work. And we did what the people wanted us to do. And so it doesn't really matter what party you come from."
On what it means to be a "Schwarzenegger Republican": "It's basically being fiscally conservative, being socially moderate and you know, being environmentally progressive."
Asked if he feels he should be able to run for POTUS: "I think that it will never happen in my lifetime. I think that it's something that the people of America can debate over in the future. And this is a debate worth happening. You know, let the debate go on, but I mean, it's not for me. I'm happy where I am; I'm happy to be a public servant and to serve the people of California."
Asked who he'll support in '08: "I don't know yet."
Asked if he would challenge Sen. Boxer in '10: "I'm not really thinking about what I'm doing in 2010. I'm not ruling anything out, but I'm not really thinking about any of that" (NBC, 11/26).
ANOTHER COMEBACK KID
Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) was on "Fox News Sunday":On Iraq: "We need to do this in a coordinated way, with Republicans and Democrats and independents working with the president, listening to our best experts that we can possibly find, working with the more moderate elements in the region to deal with this problem. Because if we don't contain the situation in Iraq, it will get outside those borders. It will spread. And I still believe that if we were not fighting them there, if we didn't have them tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq, they'd be, you know, somewhere else, in England or even right here."
On his comeback: "We all learn from our mistakes, hopefully. And you can do one of two things. You can just quit and go away, or you can go back and try to do your job, to make amends and to focus on the issues that really affect people's lives."
Asked about calling for Karl Rove to resign: "I've been in sort of a liberated mode. Some people say that they hope, in my new leadership position, I won't give that up. I do believe in trying to be honest and respectful. I've had problems with some of the conduct of Karl Rove. But I have a good relationship with the president and most of the people around him. I think Josh Bolton is doing a great job as his chief of staff. You know, the president and I can communicate. And I want to see him succeed, because he is the president" (11/26).ANNOUNCEMENT TIME IS COMING
Brownback, asked about a WH run: "We're very close with announcements. My wife and I and our family have spent a lot of time thinking about this, praying about it, and really considering whether we could bring a message to the country that needs to be discussed. I think there is room, on the Republican side, for somebody that's a full-scale conservative, that's an economic and fiscal and social conservative. And I think there's room on our side, and need on our side, to develop some new plays, particularly on the compassionate conservative agenda. So we'll be making some announcements, soon, about that" ("This Week," ABC, 11/26).ROUNDTABLE ROUNDUP
The "Fox News Sunday" roundtable discussed the situation in Iraq and WH '08.NPR's Liasson, on Romney: "We're in this extraordinary situation where there is no natural conservative candidate in the Republican field. There is not even a Southern candidate. And this in a party that just got a lot more Southern after the 2006 elections. So it's very unusual that you've got this situation. And, of course, he wants to run as the most conservative candidate."
Weekly Standard's Kristol: "There's always a surprise or two in the field. I just think in a post-9/11 environment, with war going on in Iraq, whatever our current stance will be a year from now in Iraq, it will not be safe and happy. The Middle East will not be a peaceful place. Putin will not be a cooperative leader of Russia, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Voters are going to want to nominate and elect someone, I think, who can be commander-in-chief on day one. And with all due respect to Senator Obama, just two years in the Senate is not going to be a sufficient qualification. And that's why McCain and Giuliani and Gingrich can be nominated. That's why Romney could be if he can cross the foreign policy hurdle over the next year" (11/26).The "This Week" roundtable discussed the situation in Iraq, the new Congress, and WH '08.
Washington Post's Dionne: "What's striking is the thinness of the crop on the conservative side of the Republican Party, which is why I think Sam Brownback is perfectly smart to try to fill that void. There are really only two candidates there that I can see right now, one Brownback, the other is Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, very interesting candidate. People are talking about will evangelicals support a Mormon candidate, a discussion by the way we didn't have when his father a Mormon ran many, many in 1968" (ABC, 11/26).
Posted at 09:15 AM
They said on the news a while ago that the owner of the comedy club is demanding that Richards pay a half a million $$$ for every N___ word that he said, to him...and that half of what he makes on the Seinfeld DVD be given to charity.
LOL...boy, everyone is a shakedown artist these days..
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.