Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 21 January 2007

Various big media television networks ^ | 21 January 2007 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[Alas Babylon!]

The Talk Shows

Sunday, January 21st, 2007

Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sens. Joe Biden, D-Del. and Carl Levin, D-Mich.; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. and John McCain, R-Ariz.

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.

THIS WEEK (ABC): Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

LATE EDITION (CNN) : Iraqi Ambassador to the U.S. Samir Sumaidaie; Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; Reps. Maxine Waters, D-Calif. and Mike Pence, R-Ind.

[Arizona Carolyn]

and we had two cars with odd numbers, my husband's Saturday mornings was spent sitting in a gas line.

[Current Occupant]

I remember it.

I've been going through the mp3's of his shows and isolating all the potty mouth segments.

There are a lot of them and it seems to tend to be toward...I won't say.

Damn, I like Rush but it just seems like when he came to be so obsessed with 24 he changed.

I'm not trying to make a link here but I don't have a more accurate time marker but something has happened that has had a effect on Rush.

JMHO of course.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Maybe instead of acting like Sean and Neal Boortz and a few others he has taken the attitude of "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything." There hasn't been a lot of positives to talk about on our side since 11/7, so he concentrates on more mundance subjects.

Now Hillary and Richardson are in for sure he will have plenty of fodder.

[beyond the sea]

Now Hillary and Richardson are in for sure he will have plenty of fodder.

LOL.... and John Edwards. I sort of think Edwards has a chance though.

Anyhow, I'm getting very sleepy.....

Please be well.

Thom

[MNJohnnie]

If it's worth shooting, it's worth shooting twice.

Two to the chest, one to the head, that way you know your target's dead.

[Arrowhead1952]

***Do we have a source for Hellary's infamous "take things away from you quote?***

Here are two FR thread where that was first posted/

Posted on 06/28/2004 11:38:08 PM CDT by HAL9000
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1162094/posts

Posted on 06/29/2004 8:12:49 AM CDT by kristinn
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1162267/posts

[beyond the sea]

I saw this on another FReeper's profile page:

Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

Yoi.

[MNJohnnie]

I don't like it but here is the idea.

Right now health care is a non taxed benefit. The idea is to make really overly generous benefit plans (i.e. Govt Union plans are an example of really really generous plans that are mostly a way of increasing pay without actually paying more) taxable while creating a tax deduction for people who buy their own health insurance. I would wait and see what actually comes out and where various groups like the Govt Employee Unions and AARP line up on it. My initial reaction is to hate anything that includes a tax increase but that just me.

[CDB]

Thanks a million, Arrowhead1952!

[MNJohnnie]

10. #Old Friend #611 Keep hearing that the osamaObama bio was not as advertised. That some of the characters are now 'composites'. Hope to hear more about this little scam.

9. Laverne #146 I didn't watch the first half of FNS today because I knew it was just going to be a Bush bash, and I'm simply over that. I did watch the panel. Kristol really took on Juan today, big time. Kristol even questioned weather the democrats really want us to win in Iraq; he is really questioning their judgement, and rightly so. This non-binding resolution is a tool to give aide and comfort to our enemy, and they know it, and they don't care. Juan brought up the 20 troops who were killed yesterday -- worst one-day loss in two years. Brit interrupts: Well Juan, just what are the democrats doing to stop that? Democrats are doing nothing to stop the death of our troops, indeed, they are doing everything they can to continue it. It is beyond disgraceful. And....Hagel [in Laverne's opinion not Brit's :-)} should be expelled from the republican caucus.

8.Samantha #747 hate to agree about Rush's behavior at times, but it is true. I have had to turn him off several times in the past year alone because of the Filthy and disgusting topics, Language and him keeping the cruddy story going. When I turn him off that is usually it for the day, I go on to other things and totally forget to turn the Radio back on. He is such a valuable asset, and great Person except in those times when he seems like a different person. I have discussed this with others, both Men and Women and we all do the same thing, we turn off the Radio, and cannot understand why he finds himself compelled to do this.

7. Morgan in Denver #398 I was concentrating on Newt's statement this morning that our bureaucracy is in a terrible state. This is not new and has been a complaint coming from the right for years now. We have complained and commented and yet rarely has anything been done about it. Powell failed to make any great changes in State, Rice is doing better at State now but perception is it has not changed enough. Rumsfeld did change the military quite a bit and we now have the best fighting force in our history even though some of the old guard generals cannot accept the change. Bolton at the UN was fantastic, but constantly under attack by Democrats that made it harder. The FBI and CIA are doing better but there are still too many leaks and people there who want us to lose so the left benefits. In the above, Newt is right on target as to what we believe is still wrong and what has to be done. But, I don't know if anyone can make the changes necessary in the near future. This has been problematic for decades and it may be unrealistic to think it will change quickly.

6. The Shrew #362 Wonder where this clinton/obama ticket leaves Bill Richardson...he announced yesterday, but seems to have been ignored by the media other than in NM...couldn't happen to a "nicer" guy. Bad as obama is, I think richardson is worse, he's a clinton tool. Where this leaves Bill Richardson is as the 2008 Vice-Presidential Candidate for the democrat party. Obama is SOL. In political spin tone, here's ten reasons: 1. Richardson is a member of the up and coming minority - Hispanics. 2. Richardson is a Clinton Insider. 3. Richardson is a Clinton Insider. 4. Richardson is a Clinton Insider. 5. Richardson is a Clinton Insider. 6. Richardson is a Clinton Insider. 7. Richardson is a Clinton Insider. 8. Richardson is a Clinton Insider. 9. Richardson is a Clinton Insider. 10. Richardson is a Western Governor which will fit in perfectly with the dem strategy to remove the Independent Western US from the GOP side of the ledger. It's a potentially winning strategy. The Western US has all but been ignored by both parties since 1860. The dems know that they haven't played well in the south since peanut boy became president. They can't break the Evangelical Christian/Gun owning South. But, they can play well in the California dominated, sparsely populated, environmentally concerned, and increasingly secular humanist Western US. Regards, TS

5. Macia #481. eddy wants to use diplomatic means to deal with Iraq and to cover a withdrawal. And, my goodness, Massachusetts Fats thinks that the Bush administration has made things worse in Iran! %%%%%% This must be classic libspeak on websites and shows that we do not frequent. I heard a revealing discussion on a Jewish hour radio show this morning - several Jewish Democrats were debating a Jewish Republican. The Democrats blamed Republicans for making Israel a wedge issue within the Jewish community. As he was challenged on his statement that Jewish Democrats also support Israel, he noted that Iran became a problem after Bush invaded Iraq. It is my firm conviction that Democrats lie to themselves. They make up stuff, repeat it often and then believe it. The Republican ended with a clincher, (from my perspective) by saying which party is for a strong United States, and which party favors a strong United Nations.

4. Carolinamom #405 I like him too...and wish we could see and hear him more. I am so weary of all the "former" clinton administration's talkers....we had 8 years of hearing them and 6 years (and counting) of "former" preceding their names. FOURTEEN years of the same d*** faces and voices is TOO much. It IS 'time for a change'.

[beyond the sea]

I was just waiting to see when Rush would take the bait on the Beastiality (sex with animals) story. Well, of course, he has.

He has just promised his honored listeners that after the top of the hour break, he will fill them in on the Beastiality movie that Robert Redford will be putting out there at The Sundance Festival.

Well... who could possibly say that Rush is not at least consistent (perverse).

LOL!

[samantha]

Sadly, I turned off the radio, and it won't go back on today. He is trying to sound like Howard Stern, and maybe it is a Coincidence but they were both Born on January 12, possibly the same Year.

[samantha]

No, on the same Year. Rush 1-12-51 and Stern 1-12-53.

[samantha]

Oh my, that was fast and a good sized thread to contend with yesterday. Congrats to all the winners so far... Talent thrives on the thread, and vice versa.

[beyond the sea]

Same date, January 12th ......... Rush born in 1951 and Stern in 1954.

No matter........ two of similar cloth.

By the way, you are fortunate to have turned off your radio, samantha. You missed his laughing up a storm about public masturbation in Atlanta.

Rush Limbaugh ....... what a great role model.

(not)

[Current Occupant]

I heard the story yesterday and the first thing I thought was "Rush will be all over this story tomorrow".

[Bernard]

Your post #47 - How does Mrs. Clinton get away with announcing her candidacy on her website? Is she so very sure that the MSM will do such a good job for her that she no longer feels the need to even show up?

During the week before, Dick Morris made a comment on a talk show that Hillary would have a problem running an old campaign - just like the Bill Clinton campaign from 1992. That had led to problems in the past, like Ted Kennedy's campaign from 1980 having John Kennedy advisers trying to run a 1960 campaign in 1980.

So posting the announcement on her website could have been in response to that comment by Dick Morris. The announcement itself may have been the best rehearsal so far, which would explain the out of season foliage.

[snugs]

3. PerConPat#324
Just listened to Brit, and he is on target, again. President Bush must have results, and soon, in Iraq or this phase of the WOT will come to a bad pass. Most of the American public does not have the stomach for the hard work, at present. Retreat is preferable to many. Why make trouble, maybe the Iranians etc. will come around- maybe I'll win the lottery. Years of ease and neglect of the serious issues confronting our nation have taken their toll. I'm past the point of blaming the cowardly opposition to the WOT. The weakened majority is probably going to get what it wants in the short term and probably what will shake them to their core in the long run.

Newt also did a great job of summing up the Iraq effort today; he is correct in terming the situation there as one campaign in the larger struggle. But the US majority is no longer into struggle and sacrifice for a secure future. Even the Right is more and more drifting into a passion for debate as opposed to seeing the Leftist threat and uniting against it. No, there is now very likely only division and turmoil ahead for some time whilst our enemies grow stronger. This country is badly broken, as Newt pointed out. And no Pub leader on the scene now has much of a chance to draw the Right together.

Brit nailed it; President Bush's new plan had best work; or, IMHO, we are headed for one party control of the government, the wrong party.

2. Poinq. #303
Republicans need to lay back. If you have nothing to say then sit back and let others play it out. Right now you have to be on Bushes side or not. Either way is hard and gives the dems a target. They need to target each other.

[snugs]

1. Ali Veritas. #586
H, An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. Sure you know all this already... it's for the gang. Hil's College Thesis Reveals Her Mind By BARBARA OLSON "He who fears corruption fears life." — Saul Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals" This quote immediately came to mind after my reading of Hillary Rodham's Wellesley College senior thesis — a document kept under lock and key since the 1992 elections. Back then, when researchers and journalists were searching for information on the newly elected First Couple, Wellesley suddenly declared that it would seal the thesis of any graduate who became President or First Lady. A few weeks ago, however, I came into possession of Hillary's suppressed thesis. In those 75 pages, the future First Lady reveals herself as someone steeped in the political lore and history of one of America's most political cities. No, not New York — Chicago. There she began her political journey from Goldwater girl to leftist icon. The thesis' title, "There is Only the Fight ... An Analysis of the Alinsky Model," exposes Clinton's strong ideological attachment to her most influential mentor, Saul Alinsky. Reading this work makes it clear why she had to remove it from public view, for Alinsky, who died in 1972, was a radical social activist who preached grass-roots organizing and intense, confrontational politics. While Clinton was studying under Alinsky, he was preparing what would be his final and most important book: "Rules for Radicals," published less than two years after Hillary graduated from Wellesley and only one year before his death. Alinsky's hold on Hillary is astonishingly evident in her thesis, which is replete with his yet-unpublished political tactics. The thesis reveals that he was moving from local organizing efforts to a new arena — the national stage. She wrote: "His [Alinsky's] new aspect, national planning, derives from the necessity of entrusting social change to institutions, specifically the United States government." Alinsky, we can now see, taught Hillary the political tactics that she successfully deployed in Arkansas and the White House and is now beginning to use in New York. What were his lessons? Alinsky defined "obtaining power" as a key tactic of organizing his "mass jujitsu." His formula for attack: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." This principle has become the essence of the Clinton rapid-response tactic and a key aspect of Hillary's attacks on what she has dubbed "a vast right-wing conspiracy." The Clinton White House has adhered to Alinsky's rule that "ridicule is man's most potent weapon" and followed his advice to "let nothing get you off your target." Hillary discusses another Alinsky rule — "power is the very essence, the dynamo of life" — in her thesis. Clearly, she had absorbed his lesson that one must first obtain power to achieve real change. But nowhere in her thesis — or in her later life — does she seem to recognize the classical liberal critique that the relentless pursuit of power is antithetical to democracy. Perhaps the most prescient part of the thesis is a quote from a profile of Alinsky in The Economist: "His charm lies in his ability to commit himself completely to the people in the room with him. In a shrewd though subtle way, he often manipulates them while speaking directly to their experience." Although her thesis was written several years before she cornered Bill Clinton in the Yale Law School library, Hillary had come to recognize the potential power of a man of exceptional charm. Alinsky recognized the potential of his student and offered her a paying job to develop organizers for "mass power-based organizations." Hillary's thesis confirmed the offer and called it "tempting." But she decided law school was a better place to develop the skills necessary to effect the changes in government she has spent so much of her life trying to achieve. Hillary's thesis received an A. So far, her political acumen in New York has yielded her at best a C-.

But her story continues to unfold. Olson is the author of "Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton." ---- Alan Schecter, her thesis advisor at Wellesley also had Diane Sawyer and Cokie Roberts as students. Behold, there's a pic out today with Di and Hill, and Cokie dug on Hill's anger... even though see said she raises more money than God and is all things wonderful. That's at newsbusters as well. God bless her, Barbara Olsen didn't get a chance to show it to us... but this commencement speech should hold you. Wellesley College 1969 Student Commencement Speech Hillary D. Rodham May 31, 1969 Ruth M. Adams, ninth president of Wellesley College, introduced Hillary D. Rodham, '69, at the 91st commencement exercises, as follows: In addition to inviting Senator Brooke to speak to them this morning, the Class of '69 has expressed a desire to speak to them and for them at this morning's commencement. There was no debate so far as I could ascertain as to who their spokesman was to be -- Miss Hillary Rodham. Member of this graduating class, she is a major in political science and a candidate for the degree with honors. In four years she has combined academic ability with active service to the College, her junior year having served as a Vil Junior, and then as a member of Senate and during the past year as President of College Government and presiding officer of College Senate. She is also cheerful, good humored, good company, and a good friend to all of us and it is a great pleasure to present to this audience Miss Hillary Rodham. Remarks of Hillary D. Rodham, President of the Wellesley College Government Association and member of the Class of 1969, on the occasion of Wellesley's 91st Commencement, May 31, 1969: I am very glad that Miss Adams made it clear that what I am speaking for today is all of us -- the 400 of us -- and I find myself in a familiar position, that of reacting, something that our generation has been doing for quite a while now. We're not in the positions yet of leadership and power, but we do have that indispensable task of criticizing and constructive protest and I find myself reacting just briefly to some of the things that Senator Brooke said. This has to be brief because I do have a little speech to give. Part of the problem with empathy with professed goals is that empathy doesn't do us anything. We've had lots of empathy; we've had lots of sympathy, but we feel that for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible. What does it mean to hear that 13.3% of the people in this country are below the poverty line? That's a percentage. We're not interested in social reconstruction; it's human reconstruction. How can we talk about percentages and trends? The complexities are not lost in our analyses, but perhaps they're just put into what we consider a more human and eventually a more progressive perspective. The question about possible and impossible was one that we brought with us to Wellesley four years ago. We arrived not yet knowing what was not possible. Consequently, we expected a lot. Our attitudes are easily understood having grown up, having come to consciousness in the first five years of this decade -- years dominated by men with dreams, men in the civil rights movement, the Peace Corps, the space program -- so we arrived at Wellesley and we found, as all of us have found, that there was a gap between expectation and realities. But it wasn't a discouraging gap and it didn't turn us into cynical, bitter old women at the age of 18. It just inspired us to do something about that gap. What we did is often difficult for some people to understand. They ask us quite often: "Why, if you're dissatisfied, do you stay in a place?" Well, if you didn't care a lot about it you wouldn't stay. It's almost as though my mother used to say, "I'll always love you but there are times when I certainly won't like you." Our love for this place, this particular place, Wellesley College, coupled with our freedom from the burden of an inauthentic reality allowed us to question basic assumptions underlying our education. Before the days of the media orchestrated demonstrations, we had our own gathering over in Founder's parking lot. We protested against the rigid academic distribution requirement. We worked for a pass-fail system. We worked for a say in some of the process of academic decision making. And luckily we were in a place where, when we questioned the meaning of a liberal arts education there were people with enough imagination to respond to that questioning. So we have made progress. We have achieved some of the things that initially saw as lacking in that gap between expectation and reality. Our concerns were not, of course, solely academic as all of us know. We worried about inside Wellesley questions of admissions, the kind of people that should be coming to Wellesley, the process for getting them here. We questioned about what responsibility we should have both for our lives as individuals and for our lives as members of a collective group. Coupled with our concerns for the Wellesley inside here in the community were our concerns for what happened beyond Hathaway House. We wanted to know what relationship Wellesley was going to have to the outer world. We were lucky in that one of the first things Miss Adams did was to set up a cross-registration with MIT because everyone knows that education just can't have any parochial bounds any more. One of the other things that we did was the Upward Bound program. There are so many other things that we could talk about; so many attempts, at least the way we saw it, to pull ourselves into the world outside. And I think we've succeeded. There will be an Upward Bound program, just for one example, on the campus this summer. Many of the issues that I've mentioned -- those of sharing power and responsibility, those of assuming power and responsibility have been general concerns on campuses throughout the world. But underlying those concerns there is a theme, a theme which is so trite and so old because the words are so familiar. It talks about integrity and trust and respect. Words have a funny way of trapping our minds on the way to our tongues but there are necessary means even in this multi-media age for attempting to come to grasps with some of the inarticulate maybe even inarticulable things that we're feeling. We are, all of us, exploring a world that none of us even understands and attempting to create within that uncertainty. But there are some things we feel, feelings that our prevailing, acquisitive, and competitive corporate life, including tragically the universities, is not the way of life for us. We're searching for more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living. And so our questions, our questions about our institutions, about our colleges, about our churches, about our government continue. The questions about those institutions are familiar to all of us. We have seen heralded across the newspapers. Senator Brooke has suggested some of them this morning. But along with using these words -- integrity, trust, and respect -- in regard to institutions and leaders we're perhaps harshest with them in regard to ourselves. Every protest, every dissent, whether it's an individual academic paper, Founder's parking lot demonstration, is unabashedly an attempt to forge an identity in this particular age. That attempt at forging for many of us over the past four years has meant coming to terms with our humanness. Within the context of a society that we perceive -- now we can talk about reality, and I would like to talk about reality sometime, authentic reality, inauthentic reality, and what we have to accept of what we see -- but our perception of it is that it hovers often between the possibility of disaster and the potentiality for imaginatively responding to men's needs. There's a very strange conservative strain that goes through a lot of New Left, collegiate protests that I find very intriguing because it harkens back to a lot of the old virtues, to the fulfillment of original ideas. And it's also a very unique American experience. It's such a great adventure. If the experiment in human living doesn't work in this country, in this age, it's not going to work anywhere. But we also know that to be educated, the goal of it must be human liberation. A liberation enabling each of us to fulfill our capacity so as to be free to create within and around ourselves. To be educated to freedom must be evidenced in action, and here again is where we ask ourselves, as we have asked our parents and our teachers, questions about integrity, trust, and respect. Those three words mean different things to all of us. Some of the things they can mean, for instance: Integrity, the courage to be whole, to try to mold an entire person in this particular context, living in relation to one another in the full poetry of existence. If the only tool we have ultimately to use is our lives, so we use it in the way we can by choosing a way to live that will demonstrate the way we feel and the way we know. Integrity -- a man like Paul Santmire. Trust. This is one word that when I asked the class at our rehearsal what it was they wanted me to say for them, everyone came up to me and said "Talk about trust, talk about the lack of trust both for us and the way we feel about others. Talk about the trust bust." What can you say about it? What can you say about a feeling that permeates a generation and that perhaps is not even understood by those who are distrusted? All they can do is keep trying again and again and again. There's that wonderful line in East Coker by Eliot about there's only the trying, again and again and again; to win again what we've lost before. And then respect. There's that mutuality of respect between people where you don't see people as percentage points. Where you don't manipulate people. Where you're not interested in social engineering for people. The struggle for an integrated life existing in an atmosphere of communal trust and respect is one with desperately important political and social consequences. And the word "consequences" of course catapults us into the future. One of the most tragic things that happened yesterday, a beautiful day, was that I was talking to woman who said that she wouldn't want to be me for anything in the world. She wouldn't want to live today and look ahead to what it is she sees because she's afraid. Fear is always with us but we just don't have time for it. Not now.

There are two people that I would like to thank before concluding. That's Ellie Acheson, who is the spearhead for this, and also Nancy Scheibner who wrote this poem which is the last thing that I would like to read: My entrance into the world of so-called "social problems" Must be with quiet laughter, or not at all. The hollow men of anger and bitterness The bountiful ladies of righteous degradation All must be left to a bygone age. And the purpose of history is to provide a receptacle For all those myths and oddments Which oddly we have acquired And from which we would become unburdened To create a newer world To transform the future into the present. We have no need of false revolutions In a world where categories tend to tyrannize our minds And hang our wills up on narrow pegs. It is well at every given moment to seek the limits in our lives. And once those limits are understood To understand that limitations no longer exist. Earth could be fair. And you and I must be free Not to save the world in a glorious crusade Not to kill ourselves with a nameless gnawing pain But to practice with all the skill of our being The art of making possible. The art of making possible.

Hillary's Biggest coverups

Hillary Rodham Clinton as Feminist Heroine (a discussion panel)

[HelloooClareece]

The collective posts in this thread, week after week, have meant the WORLD to this very blessed FReeper.

I am honored to have had such wonderful company through this miraculous journey of mine.

I am FOREVER in your debt.

THANK YOU!!!!