Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 4 November 2007

Various big media television networks ^ | 4 November 2007 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[Alas Babylon!]

The Talk Shows

Sunday, November 4th, 2007

Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Former President George H.W. Bush.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn.

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., Mark Penn, chief strategist for Sen. Hillary Clinton campaign.

THIS WEEK (ABC): Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.

LATE EDITION (CNN) : Mideast peace envoy and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair; Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Chris Dodd, D-Conn., Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

[Norman Bates]

Yeah but he also skated the states issue saying he doesn’t see it right having laws that criminalize abortion. What exactly does he stand for besides some abstract constitutional principle??

[rodguy911]

NO question good catch!Kabar.
FOX NEWS ALERT—HILLARY’S CAMPAIGN WOES COMING UP NEXT ON FNC—BE THERE

[Bahbah]

Steffie has gone into full I’m for Hillary mode in this session with John Edwards.

He gets Edwards to say that, no, he doesn’t think Hillary is corrupt, which she patently is.

[trisham]

I thought Fred was really, really good. I’m very pleased.

[chiller]

Russert saved this question til near the end, which tells us what weight it has. None. Fred handled it well, as he did everything else, imho. He showed he understands the issues very well, and all the nuances of those issues.

He did not show much fire, which would have been nice to see, but he sounded extremely reasoned.

What say the rest of you.

[codercpc]

Rudy is “cured”, he is past the 5 year mark without recurrence, while Fred is still has the active disease while he is in remission. McCain also has been cured, although his disease does have late effects that tend to swell up his cheek (where the melanoma was removed).
A 5 year Prostate cancer survival rate is 99 %

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_2_6x_Prostate_Cancer_Survival_Rates.asp?sitearea=

while NHL that Fred has is only 50-60% with the median life span of 10 years.
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/non-hodgkins-lymphoma/tc/non-hodgkins-lymphoma/tc/lymphoma-non-hodgkins-adult-treatment-health-professional-information-nci-pdq-general

These are starkly different diseases and outcomes.

For all of our candidates I would like to see them discuss and disclose their medical records, and I would like it done now, rather than after the MSM disclose it for them.

One last question, what percentage of voters know about Freds
cancer? Also do you think this info will change any general
election voters minds?

[snugs]

While we are on the subject on buying the MSM line on things as you believe I am on Thompson what about you and GWB as regarding delivering speeches etc.

Yes there have been a few malapropism but the majority of the time he takes the crowd with him and they respond.

[Clara Lou]

but I fear they are photos that are not going to do him any favours.
Seems to me that you mean but I fear hope they are photos that are not going to do him any favours.

[Bahbah]

I agree with what you said, chiller.

Fred Thompson is clearly someone I could vote for.

[The Pack Knight]

One of the reasons Fred Thompson has won me over is that you can tell that he actually thinks about the questions and gives an honest answer. Unlike some other candidates who shall remain unnamed, he doesn't have a sound bite in his holster for each issue.

On abortion, he has a 100% pro-life voting record, and the safest thing he could do is just leave it at that. Fred Thompson, however, actually takes the time to explain his position, including parts that might not be entirely popular.

Some people think he doesn't want to be President enough. I just think he's putting himself out there and saying "Take it or leave it." If he's going to be elected, he wants to be elected as Fred Thompson the man, and not Fred Thompson the artificial campaign persona.

Some of the other candidates could stand to take a cue.

[donnab]

IMHO, Fred’s style kept the control of this interview. He did well and kept Tim at an even keel. He shot down the attempts to sink him with reasoned response and reasoned counter points.

[snugs]

My point is that I am not sure whether it really makes sense for a Presidential candidate to dwell on an issue he really can't resolve, or to argue that he is the strongest pro-life candidate when there is really little he can do to deliver on the matter. I am sure this won't make some people happy, but I think it's important for a Presidential candidate to be realistic.

Personally and as you say some will not be happy with this but I totally agree with you.

[Michael A. Velli]

No, he doesn’t look well. Look at the sickly pallor of his hand in the first shot.

You FredHeads need to take off the blinders.

[Morgan in Denver]

You are way off base. Snugs is a reliable conservative and what she points out is usually something that needs to be addressed or dealt with.

[advertising guy]

of let me humbly disagree. a Thompson/Hunter ticket
will be the best one/two punch card in recent presidential politics......most especially in a public debate.

Socialism as a defense on the war on terror is what the stalinists offer....Even a frog could dissect that.

[Bahbah]

Clara Lou, you are completely wrong about snugs. Completely.

[Petronski]

I hope people do not think I knocking or am anti Thompson this is not the case...

Nooooo, not at all.

</sarc>

[Norman Bates]

The difference between McCain and a lightweight on the ballot may be 2-3% enough to swing it.

[kabar]

It is unfortunate that you have that erroneous impression, which is a product of the MSM. The question you should ask is if this guy is so "lazy" and has no "fire in his belly," why would anyone subject himself and his family to such scrutiny during the primary and, if nominated, the general election process?

Thompson is financiall well off, has had a successful career in the Senate and in his acting career, and a young family. He doesn't need to be President ala Hillary who has made politics her life serving as a "camp follower" to hubby Bill. Her political success has been tied directly to her husband. Rather than question Fred's "fire in the belly," you should be questioning the hubris and ambition of Hillary who has scant qualifications for the office and has never directed anything larger than the WH domestice staff as first lady and a small senate staff.

[rodguy911]

Thanks,just watched the FNC coverage of the Peter Paul campaign finance debacle with Hillary and I was less than impressed with their coverage.