Posted on 06/03/2007 3:55:06 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, June 3rd, 2007
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Democratic strategists Bob Shrum and James Carville; Republican strategists Mary Matalin and Mike Murphy.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo.; Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Iraqi President Jalal Talabani; Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.; NASCAR driver Kyle Petty.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Richard Shelby, R-Ala.; Elizabeth Edwards, wife of presidential candidate John Edwards; Tagg Romney, son of presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
Since you mentioned “blue marlin” anyone see my buddy Jose fighting that 400 lb. blue on spinning gear earlier this morning on espn2.
Also another buddy of mine caught and released a 200 lb. blue earlier this week on 30 lb. line, took one hour 10 minutes.
Oh I do understand the difference, but you did not illustrate how he failed to uphold the laws of the land any differently than did Ronald W. Reagan, George HW Bush or William J. Clinton.
I still can not get over how shabbily LT. Col. Tony Shaffer has been and continues to be treated for trying to serve his country as best he could. It is a true disgrace and it continues to this day.
He has been relieved of a command because he did not have the required security clearance because it was taken from him during a retaliatory measure by the higher ups.!!
Too bad no one can give those bozos a message they will not forget.
Anyway you will find it here:
http://www.abledangerblog.com/
By the way we all know the thanks Kurt Weldon got for trying to help the Col. his name was destroyed and lost an election by the worst deception the rats could come up with, another true disaster of another great American IMHO. Sorry, but I just can not forget some of these things.
Thanks for the link, rodguy!
Did you read that Chris Shays did help him at one point to get his security clearance back so that he could get repaid?
That’s two for Chris Shays, the first being the slam at Kennedy for posing as Mr. Moral in Chris Shays’ own election. LOL
I keep hoping Shaffer can run for election some day,wow would that ever be cool.
[The way the networks were portraying this event was comical at best.]
I loook at Versace to be an earlier version of Phil Spector. But that’s just me!
True about Schaffer.
LOL Don’t get too attached to Shays. Sometimes he’s with us, sometimes not, but I like him very much when he votes with us.
It is hard to believe that there are many real R’s in New England.
Eric is one at Viking Pundit.
Dean Barnett at Hugh Hewitt.
Ace of Ace of Spades.
Some but not many
I made the mistake of typing 17 "million" vice "states." I don't view that analogy as being an "absurd demagogic argument" or stirring up "irrational fear." It is a way of communicating a number in understandable terms. It is not much different than describing the geographical size of Iraq as the size of California. If that incites fear, then it must mean that someone understands the significance of the number, i.e., we are adding the equivalent of 17 states to the legal population of the US.
Demagogy is still demagoguery even when it comes from those the “correct” ideological affiliation.
You are the one guilty of "demagoguery" and hyperbole. It reminds me of the reaction of the proponnents of the Senate bill when it is called amnesty. They get red in the face, start stammering, and then vehemently deny that it is the "A" word knowing full well that it is. Adding up to 20 millon more legal residents to the US plus their relatives under chain migration should give everyone a moment of pause and maybe fear. Once that is done, there is no turning back or reversing the decision.
So what, if anything, are the Ultras willing to compromise on in order to get some serious border enforcement passed? So far everything I have read around here the answer is NOTHING. Very well make peace with the fact then that NOTHING is what you will get.
Why should there be any compromise in order to get serious border enforcement passed? This is a matter of national security that should transcend partisan politics. The idea that the other side uses border security as a negotiating chip to get us to "compromise" on other issues is despicable and outrageous. If we get NOTHING, who is the bigger loser, the "Ultras" or this nation?
So sad for you all there are not enough of you 100%ers to elect either a President or a Congress who will pass your fantasy legislate that will magically turn the clock back to 1952 for you.
There are some things that are not negotiable. The future of this nation is one of them. Win or lose, I for one am not going to let nation go down without a fight. I will be up on the Hill next week trying to defeat this bill, which will destroy this nation if passed.
Because it is not relevant. Previous neglect of duty by officials does not excuse subsequent neglect of duty by officials. During those previous administrations this issue was simply a problem - today it is an existential threat to our survival. We can't change the past - we can and must deal with the present.
Why? I suspect the urban poor (gone through the 12th grade but functionally illiterate) including many 18-35 year old males who are in prison or have trouble gaining legitimate employment because of having a prison record or who just won't work account for millions of potential replacements for illegal immigrant workers. Further our society is the first in history to now have an ownership and wealth transition phenomenon giving millions of Americans, well under retirement age, the option of not having to work to live and live very well. It is not uncommon to have neighbors in middle income and above communities who have school age children and whose main source of income are trust funds on one or both sides. Thus those on the food chain are often upgraded not on merit but on a 'space available' basis. And the low wage jobs are hard to fill absent a new source of bodies.
Waiting for what?? Waiting for you to take the challenge of interviewing people that actually hire Mexicans?? Waiting to understand the need for low cost labor? Waiting for you to stop vilifying businesses? I won’t hold my breath.
I talk to them all the time and understand exactly why they hire them, how bout you?? Dare you to give the other side on you radio program. Your callers will crucify you.
As for not knowing your tag team tactics, I called you out first for your Jorge insult. But go ahead and ignore the labor shortage and spread your cliches.
As for your grow up insult, you actually mean; walk lockstep with us.
BTW is there anything about the bill you do like??
Pray for W and Our Troops
I just heard Newt on FNSunday with Mike err... make that Chris Wallace(is there a difference)
Newt very predictable. 80/20 again much of what he said sheer brilliance and the rest just makes you want to hide under the coffee table, turn the sound down real low, so the neighbors don't hear and turn your head so you can't see who is really saying all those bad things about GW.
Typical Newt.
It’s not that easy to find workers who work hard and show up on time. I talk to owners all day long and that is my bias.
^^^^^
In Baltimore we have the dichotomy of churches feeding thousands of meals a day to unemployed (nativeborn) men and women, while our Senator Mikulski begs for more guest workers to go to the Eastern Shore to pick crabs or shuck oysters.
What is wrong with this setup!!!! /rhet. ?
I am not calling my fellow citizens crackheads. That is litterally what my friends have to choose from. Mexicans or crackheads/alcoholics, which would you hire??
Do you even have a concept how hard it is to find low skilled quality labor to do the manual labor in rural areas??
Pray for W and Our Troops
Oh good, we have another “conservative” comparing low wages to slave ownership.
Another example of why the conservative movement is flying off the cliff of history!
Pray for W and Our Troops
Gingrich, on the other hand, is a “designated conservative”. His job is to play one on TV...
&&&&&
Gingrich was good for the conservative cause in the nineties because he could nitpick, challenge and powertalk on TV, any issue that the Dems had on the table. He helped win the majority in Congress, but he was lousy as a leader.
Now he is nitpicking, challenging and powertalking against Republicans. How does he think that is helpful to regaining Republican majorities? He doesn’t care, he is just thinking about Newt!
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.