Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 20 May 2007

Various big media television networks ^ | 20 May 2007 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[Alas Babylon!]

The Talk Shows

Sunday, May 20th, 2007

Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor; Paul Hays, former House reading clerk.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., presidential candidate; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; Douglas Brinkley, editor of President Ronald Reagan's diaries; Michael Deaver, Reagan's deputy chief of staff; Ed Meese, Reagan's attorney general.

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; military historian Fred Kagan; retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton.

THIS WEEK (ABC): House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; talk show host Rachael Ray.

LATE EDITION (CNN) : Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez; Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Mel Martinez, R-Fla.; Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif.; Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, presidential candidate; Shibley Telhami of the Brookings Institution; Vali Nasr of the Council on Foreign Relations.

[txradioguy]

Just misread the post. I thought you were trying to say that there was basis FOR W to be impeached.

My apologies.

[txradioguy]

I’d like to see the studies you’ve read that show that. Everything I read and what I’ve seen with my own two eyes shows that the vast majority of the illegals here get paid cash as day laborers and the like...they TRY to stay off the radar so la Migra doesn’t haul them in and ship them home.

[FreeReign]

Just misread the post. I thought you were trying to say that there was basis FOR W to be impeached. My apologies.

Thanks for the correction on the misread. Apology not required, not even a censure :)

[maica]

I wonder how a map showing states that require ID and states that do not, would match up with the map of red and blue states. My bet would be for a strong correlation of ID requirers and Republican office winners.

[saveliberty]

LOL Charles may listen to Mark.

[Morgan in Denver]

Oh, I do understand what you are saying and would agree with the original intent. Impeachment originally was not meant to punish but to remove from office. What I was commenting on is in the book Presidential Leadership by James Taranto. In it, the writer on President Johnson explains one reason Johnson was not removed from office what he successfully got Senators to agree with the different definition.

This was also used by the Clinton defense team. It’s why we heard “it’s only about sex” over and over. They needed to avoid the charge of lying to a Grand Jury or lying in a deposition, as Clinton had done. The Rehnquist book, Grand Inquisitions, says pretty much the same things but goes further in how cases affected future cases. The interesting thing about the Rehnquist book is it came out prior to the Clinton impeachment, 1993 and reprinted in 1999. Because of demand, I presume. Rehnquist wrote about all the impeachments before Clinton.

Thanks for the link too. I’ll go do some reading. LOL

[maica]

On the other hand, we have to wonder how many people who have addresses in 2 states, have voter registrations in both places. Some people live to cheat any system. Our country, which the media keeps trying to convince us is on the verge of economic despair, has a huge number of boomers with vacation homes in nice places. In fact, I may be the only one of my friends not to have one!

[P-Marlowe]

BTW, where was your call for impeachment because of illegal immigration over the last 40 years?

The massive invasion from the south has only occurred over the last 20 years. You know, after the Congress and the President promised to enforce the immigration laws as part of a limited amnesty. Prior to 1986 if you wanted to clear a room full of illegal aliens all you had to shout was "Immigration!" and the room would empty like cucarachas after you turn on the light.

Not one single president has had the cajones to enforce even a single provision of the last amnesty bill (other than to grant amnesty) and now the answer is to make more promises to enforce the border and to grant amnesty to the 20 million or so illegal aliens who have crossed the border since 1986.

The president is charged with enforcing the laws, and to ignore the laws while we have been invaded for the last 20 year and to offer amnesty to the invaders and to put the invaders ahead of those who are obeying our laws and waiting their turns to enter this country legally is tantamount to Treason and is also a violation of Bush's oath to faithfully execute the duties of President of the United States.

That, my friend, is at the least a Misdemeanor and at the most Treason and High Crimes.

We impeached Bill Clinton because he violated an oath to tell the truth. Bush violated his oath of office. Both are guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

While we may never remove Bush from office, I will support any attempt to have him impeached. If enough Republicans threaten to sign on to a bill of impeachment, Bush may just abandon this silly Amnesty proposal and start enforcing the existing laws.

We don't need comprehensive immigration reform. We just need immigration enforcement. We are not going to ever get it if this bill is passed. It is not "compassionate" to enforce immigration laws. And we have a "compassionate Conservative" as El Presidente.

[greyfoxx39]

We have a Republican who has never fully embraced the Conservative principles completely.

In all fairness, how could President Bush have done any differently in most cases with the spineless Republicans in congress he has had to work with? Not to mention the prima donnas like Specter, Hagel and remember the Gang of 14?

I think after November...the Republicans are scared to death of the Democrat attack and smear machine and will sign on by and large to whatever they need to in order to avoid the attacks and hold onto their office

Nothing new there.

W doesn’t care...he’s not up for re-election next year. He’s trying to build some kind of immediate legacy because the cornerstone of his Presidency...defending this country after 9/11 is having poop slung on it by the Left.

I believe that if President Bush signs the bill AS IT IS PRESENTED AT THIS TIME, it will be a much blacker stain against his legacy than is Iraq. I still have a tough time believing that legacy is the main force driving this. If the theories regarding the effects on the SS system alone are correct, our children and grandchildren will pay the price.

Who is the odd man out? IMHO it will be W and the Republicans backing this lipsticked pig.

I have been a "Bush-bot" since December 2000, but if, in fact Bush signs on to this "lipsticked pig" as I understand it, I will feel betrayed. I still have hopes that the outcry against it will sway some of the Republican Senators. That is, if Reid doesn't overhaul the Senate rules before the vote.

They never expected the opposition to it...just as they misunderestimated the opposition to the last time they tried to sneak this through.

How could they not expect the opposition? There have been posts on FR that suggest there may have been a deal cut on this and the Iraq funding. If so, I wish someone would clue me (and probably countless others) in. I suggest that if Bush thinks he can trust the Swimmer, Reid and Pelosi to keep their part of any bargain, he should have learned better by now.

I have been a "member" of this thread for quite a while now, but today I hesitate to post, wondering which direction the flames are going to be coming from. Is the "infection" spreading over here now?

[ThreePuttinDude]

Of course you don’t play golf since all the groundskeepers are Mexican.

I don't know where you play golf, but in Florida there are very few if any illegal
Greens Keepers. They might hire some on the grounds crew, but they get paid the
same as any other grounds crew worker. There is a lot more involved in keeping a Golf Course
looking good than just cutting grass. Pesticides, fertilizer mixes, seasonal applications etc.

Your argument on this topic is way off...Sorry No Sale

[greyfoxx39]

Kabar, I appreciate the posts you are making today in explanation. Thanks.

[nathanbedford]

THE FIELD NARROWS... AND BROADENS BUT ULTIMATELY IT IS DOWN TO TWO.

This has occurred without any formal announcements with the doings this week have made it clear that the field was narrowed because John McCain has forfeited all hope of nomination by his ill advised press conference in support of an amnesty immigration bill which is anathema to the party base. So the field has narrowed by one as John McCain is dropped, although he has not yet acknowledged this reality and dropped out, as he now inevitably must.

The field broadens as it becomes increasingly clear that Fred Thompson will run. He has advanced his cause greatly by his timely and unqualified announcement of opposition to the amnesty Bill. Similarly, Newt Gingrich is showing a little more leg as he mopped the floor with Chris Dodd on Meet the Press. If Gingrich sees any daylight at all at the end of September, he will opt in.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney is doing his best to deny the rest of the candidates that daylight as Rasmussen reports that he is moving to a double digit lead in New Hampshire and other reports show that he is ahead in Iowa. I predicted that Mitt Romney would be the nominee in August 2006 and I hold to that prediction providing Fred Thompson does not enter the race. Thomson is playing outside game while Romney runs conventionally. At some time that window will be closed and if Thompson procrastinates too long, it will be too late. But so far, Thompson has shown strength in Georgia and elsewhere, and must be considered the front runner, despite his undeclared status. He should have a care though, his weakness might be lack of coherent organization against a man who has demonstrated in every endeavor, demonstrated by earning tens of millions of dollars, that he is the ultimate mechanic. He will find a way to probe and test Thompson.

Rudy Giuliani's reaction to the amnesty Bill is too ambiguous for my taste and I believe he is otherwise disqualified by his views on abortion. The remaining candidates, especially Huckaby, are running in reality for vice president. This includes, alas, Duncan Hunter who is right on every issue there is.

So if we subtract McCain and Giuliani and the second-tier candidates, that leaves us with a fascinating field of three, two of whom were as yet undeclared: Thomson, Romney and Gingrich. I've often posted that Gingrich cannot be elected and will not be nominated, but the party desperately needs him. I believe the party is sleepwalking toward a disaster in 08 and we need to kick over the table and change the rules or we are going to find ourselves in the wilderness for a generation. Newt Gingrich is the kind of bombthrower a party in our situation needs ram-rodding the party or acting as eminence grise backstage, however he cannot be the nominee. But he can save the party.

I would love to see Gingrich in the debates but, if he chooses not to run, I hope someone enlists him in his campaign to somehow change the dynamic so that we have a chance in November 08. A Bush, Rove, Martinez Republican Party is foredoomed to a disaster. Gingrich alone, despite all his liabilities, is the only man known to us with the genius to change the rules of the game. The man, like Churchill, is a walking idea factory and, above all, the Republican Party and the conservative movement needs new ideas about Iraq, the war on terror, globalization, and the emerging threat from Russia.

So the real field is reduced to two: Romney and Thompson. Either one of these two could win the election but not if it is conducted as business as usual.

[Alas Babylon!]

Look at it another way. He sees that the voters have spoken. If the voters didn't want Pelosi as Speaker and Reid as Majority Leader then the Republicans wouldn't have lost.

The election of 2006 had consequences for the whole country. I warned back then that a democrat House would not favor the tougher stand the the Republican House was then taking (not the Senate--a totally different matter) but others argued the Republican House wasn't doing enough, like rounding up all the illegals and sending them home immediately. So just enough democrat supporters voted and just enough republicans supporters didn't vote and now we have a totally different House of Representatives.

The election of 2006 decided which way the country would go on immigration. It went with the dem plan. Our chance to do something was last year. Now it is too late.

[sanjacjake]

Stop them...Build a moat, length of border, stock with
Crocodiles and snakes...build fence other side of the
moat, and you will please all the ones that want Border
Security, except the ones who never agree with anyone? JK

[AliVeritas]

Dems scramble in Florida
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1836805/posts

[CDB]

Thanks, kabar! Fantastic read and should be read by ALL FReepers. An outstanding “quick and dirty” analysis of US demographics, with a zillion implications for illegal—and legal—immigration.

[AliVeritas]

The Immigration Amnesty for Terrorists Act
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/009658.php

[Morgan in Denver]

I meant Grand Inquests. Sorry Thanks again for the link. I found some disagreement with a couple of the parts of his testimony but the overall information was good to read.

[greyfoxx39]

Our chance to do something was last year. Now it is too late.

So, are you saying that there is no stopping the relentless tide? Will the enforcement provisions included in the bill acutally be enforced? Or shall I brush up on my high school Spanish?

I live in New Mexico. This state has a large proportion of Native-born hispanics, and in listening to a local talk show last week, they are incensed at what is coming. We will never know how THEY voted in November, because Bill Richardson and his slavish dem legislature have insured dem control of the voting process for the forseeable future.

So, we are to just sit back and say nothing if Bush signs this into law?