I missed what GIngrich had to say about Gonzales, but tuned in just when Wallace said to Schumer something like.....well, no more needs to be said about that then. I’m very disappointed in Gingrich regarding this. I’m not a big fan of Gonzales due to the Sandy Burg(l)er hand slap, and other lax prosecutions. But, the USA issue is NOT one that should cause Gonzales to step down, and Newt shouldn’t be playing into the hands of Chuckie.
Schumer is a low life and he is using/creating issues to get money for his senatorial campaign. Newt should have called him out on this big time.
I don’t appreciate how Chris Wallace tried to change the subject about Pelosi by accusing Newt of doing the same thing. The issue today is Pelosi, not Newt, and shame on Wallace for repeating the dem talking points on this issue.
And, what is up with Brit???? Why does he let Wallace get away with this? FNS is the lowest rated Sunday talk show, and I certainly understand why. I really don’t like Wallace, every week, he shows his democrat colors more and more each time he is on the air.
Listening to the FNS panel today, I got the impression that even they were bored with each other. It was useless blather! I think Brit is feeling short-timers syndrome, and is just counting the days until he takes his pension.
I think Brit is like Bush to the extent that he has respect for the moderator of the show and doesn’t want to use his position to override that person.
Brit is a gentleman among morons.
My reference to Bush is about his having respect for the office of President and refusing to do anything to sully it.
I heard somewhere that Brit is thinking of a radio show. I wish he would stay on TV and that Fox would give him a daily news show to compete with the other 3. I think he would do fabulously well.
“shame on Wallace for repeating the dem talking points on this issue.”
After watching Chris Wallace over the last month or so and commenting on this thread with my observations, here are my conclusions about him.
1. He has a set of questions prepared for him and is stuck to the agenda.
2. He tries to emulate his father’s style on follow up challenges but he does not think well on his feet so that politicians can easily slither away. Take today’s exchange with Schumer and Newt. After asking Schumer about Pelosi’s trip, he allowed Schumer to sidestep the question entirely. Rather than let Newt respond, Wallace comes in with a prepared didn’t you do the same thing? I was extremely disappointed with the lack of exchange allowed between the 2 guests (which is the purpose of having them together). I do not believe that your comment that I quoted was Wallace’s motive. I do believe that he is not competent to generate worthwhile discussions. He therefore is married to agenda questions regardless of how the discussion is curtailed. He thinks that the stature of the guests that are on along with his prepared questions is sufficient in itself to elicit meaningful discussions. I have never heard an effective challenge from Wallace.
3. Wallace is way too enamored with the superficial aspects of the Presidential race. He tries to bring almost any guest onto that topic.
4. I do not believe that Wallace attempts to express the democratic line or espouse positions such as Tim Russert on Iraq. I think his questions are generally reasonable. However, he is imprisoned by them because he is unable to effectively deviate from them based upon the emerging discussion.
Bottom line is that Fox should replace Wallace with a more effective host.