Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 6 January 2008
Various big media television networks ^ | 6 January 2008 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

Posted on 01/06/2008 4:13:42 AM PST by Alas Babylon!

The Talk Shows

Sunday, January 6th, 2008

Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass.; former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

THIS WEEK (ABC): Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark.; former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass.; former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.

LATE EDITION (CNN) : Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M.; former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn.; Mahmud Ali Durrani, Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S.

TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: edwards; fredthompson; guests; huckabee; lineup; mccain; news; nh2008; pakistan; romney; ronpaul; sunday; talkshows
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480481-500501-520 ... 561 next last
To: Sunnyflorida

I think you are right. McCain and Huck cannot win for President. Only Romney, Thompson or Rudy can beat Obama.
Do not think Ron Paul could beat Obama either.

481 posted on 01/06/2008 11:10:29 AM PST by FreedBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: SW6906

“And Huckabee looked like a teen-ager at a grown-up party, trying to be part of the conversation but not knowing what any of it was really about.”

Huckabee did look bewildered at times. Especially when his folksy one-liners failed to get a laugh. The congregation is supposed to laugh at the preacher’s jokes. It’s in the by-laws.

482 posted on 01/06/2008 11:13:23 AM PST by altura (Go, Fred!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: altura

and the blacks will now abandon Hillary after knowing whites will vote for Obama. Especially younger voters will be motivated to vote Obama.

483 posted on 01/06/2008 11:13:32 AM PST by FreedBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 478 | View Replies]

To: FreedBird

Ron Paul would make Barry Goldwater look like FDR!

484 posted on 01/06/2008 11:15:29 AM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: Sunnyflorida

Dole had his face lifted. Hillary just wears a mask; an inch of painted make-up! Strip the make-up off and she looks as old as Dole without his face lift.

485 posted on 01/06/2008 11:17:01 AM PST by FreedBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: FreedBird

But that shouldn’t be any worry to Republicans as any Dem will get the majority of the Black vote.

Idle wonder: would the Black vote go to Bill Clinton or Obama if that choice were available?

(after all Bill has dated more Black women than Obama)

486 posted on 01/06/2008 11:18:16 AM PST by altura (Go, Fred!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 483 | View Replies]

To: Cedric

Ron Paul normally says the opposite of what many conservatives think. Isn’t he a Medical Doctor in gynecology? Not too many politicians have Paul’s experience in that area!

487 posted on 01/06/2008 11:20:57 AM PST by FreedBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 484 | View Replies]

To: altura

I think if black’s believe Obama is electable, they will be motivated to vote for him. Bill Clinton is starting to look like a worn out old man. He has aged in the past 10 years after his heart operation. Obama has a very good looking wife!

488 posted on 01/06/2008 11:24:04 AM PST by FreedBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 486 | View Replies]

To: PerConPat

I caught it, but graciously refrained from chastising you, based on my certain knowledge that you, yourself realized your grievous error, literally, one nanosecond after your index finger abated its pressure on the mouse button* and, hence, you were already suffering a vile, albeit, self-infilcted torture.

* Ask me how I know this.

489 posted on 01/06/2008 11:27:00 AM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: FreedBird

I meant only that he would be the GOP’s Walter Mondale, electorally.

490 posted on 01/06/2008 11:28:58 AM PST by Cedric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
"A lot of his appeal is due to his being his supporters' co-religionist. That would be like my supporting Rudy or Sen. Kerry because I want a Catholic in the Whitehouse. I don't vote that way and I find such emoting to be short-sighted. I would vote for an atheist if he were a solid conservative leader. We're voting for President, not for pastor."

Ditto that!

491 posted on 01/06/2008 11:46:38 AM PST by SW6906 (6 things you can't have too much of: sex, money, firewood, horsepower, guns and ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
* Ask me how I know this.

I don't have the temerity to suggest that your knowledge stems from your own brutal experience with the vicious and unforgiving FR "sudden death" posting feature. So, I must ask you how you know this...

By the way, I was quite sure that you had refrained, in your graciousness, from calling attention to my grammatical faux pas. LOL!
492 posted on 01/06/2008 11:51:40 AM PST by PerConPat (A politician is an animal which can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground.-- Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies]

To: rodguy911
I've been working on something I thought I might post on my blog (I haven't done anything there in about a month). This seems as good a time and place as any to post it

Read the news and the net. The election is already decided.

It’s the end for Romney (unless something drastic happens)!

Hillary is on the ropes and Obama is the certain nominee!

Fred Thompson never had a chance and this proves it!

Howard Dean is not only going to New Hampshire, he’s going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and he’s going to California and Texas and New York … And he’s going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan, and then he’s going to Washington, D.C., to take back the White House! Yeaararh!!!

Wait, what was that last one?

One of the smallest states in the nation has just held one of the most unrepresentative contests in this election cycle and the talking heads in the old media (and the self appointed experts in the blogosphere) are making definitive pronouncements about who is in and who is out.


Ron Paul is still within the uncollapsed Quantum uncertainty state of this election, for goodness sake!

(do a Google search on Schrödinger’s Cat if you don’t know what I’m talking about)

No one, I repeat, NO ONE, can tell you that anyone is a sure thing or that anyone is definitely finished. Anyone who does, even if they preface it as a “let’s assume” exercise, should be immediately shot and thrown on the trash heap of punditry as a self aggrandizing maroon (hat tip to Bugs).

Having made such a sweeping declaration I am now required to offer an alternative. Well, guess what? I’ve got one! So here it is:

I propose that all credible “pundits” be required to attach a probability scale to their dinosaur media articles or blog posts and if they don’t do this those pontifications should be dismissed from serious consideration, at least in regards to this election.

This type of scoring is a concept that is well established in the IT field (information technology, or “computers” for the great unwashed). I’ve been an IT professional, specifically PCs, for 31 years, literally from day one of factory built PCs.

The Gartner Group, one of the big IT consulting firms, has one of the best methodologies and their explanation of this is probably the easiest way to get the idea across. I don’t propose that we adopt Gartner’s methodology, but it’s a good example of the technique.

What I propose is that a two step statement be required for every article or post making predictions or pronouncements in order for it to be taken seriously. The first step is the author’s estimate of their being right. The second step is their estimate of the probability of the prediction holding up over time.

Let me provide a practical example based on my reading of the reporting on the results from the Iowa Caucus.
If you read the dinosaur media the results for the Republican presidential nomination coming out of Iowa are:

Under my plan they would have to list it this way:

OK, that’s enough, you either get the idea or you don’t.

If you allow for the probabilities you come out with this as the odds on result for the Republican nomination:

From now until the election I’ll try to add a comment anywhere I find a pundits statement that boils down to “what the truth is” in this election on who is going to win. I’m not suggesting that anyone should take my “score” as the “truth.” I’m suggesting that if we can come up with this sort of short hand for scoring posts and articles on the “horse race” that is screwing up this election then readers can judge the quality of a post based on a consensus of scores, particularly on scores from those they’ve learned to trust.

I hope that others will get in the same habit of scoring posts in the MSM and on the net in some consistent fashion. I guess this is “the poor man’s DIGG.” It’s like whenever I see a thumbs up from Roger Ebert I know I will likely hate the film and vice versa.

I'm pretty sure I got my math wrong in some of the above, but the actual scores aren't the point.  The Dean scream reference made more sense before Howard repeated his scream and Obama repeated almost exactly the same litany of states, but I hope you get the idea.

On a related subject, I’m working on a post about my ratings for the various talking heads and their statements. To give you an idea, I’m giving Rush Limbaugh a score of 80 (I get an 81, best of the best), Ann Coulter a score of 60 (not reduced for being wrong, but on being ”counter productive” in my opinion by providing ammunition to our enemies when she is right but not “careful” in her wording), a score of 10 to Charlie Gibson and negative several million to both Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews.

But that’s just the opinion of one thinking human being. Others may differ.

493 posted on 01/06/2008 12:07:22 PM PST by Phsstpok (When you don't know where you are, but you don't care, you're not lost, you're exploring!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: guitarist
don’t think fred will come in the top 2 in more than a state or two in the whole race

You may be right.  IMO the possibility of your being right is about 2%.  The likelyhood of your being wrong is therefore 98%

494 posted on 01/06/2008 12:22:48 PM PST by Phsstpok (When you don't know where you are, but you don't care, you're not lost, you're exploring!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Phsstpok

I didn’t understand it at all, but even so, it makes more sense than the media ever makes!

495 posted on 01/06/2008 12:40:45 PM PST by altura (Go, Fred!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: snugs
... the correct way to refer to each other either as friend or member both of which in this day and age seem false pseudo politeness as then proceed to rip that person apart.

Yeah.  I always get that feeling when someone starts talking to someone (or about someone) and uses the phrase "with all due respect."  It originally was supposed to indicate that the object of the comment deserved respect and that they speaker recognized it.  It's now almost universally clear that the person speaking holds the object of his comments in contempt. 

496 posted on 01/06/2008 12:43:20 PM PST by Phsstpok (When you don't know where you are, but you don't care, you're not lost, you're exploring!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Cedric
Bonus Comment: Proper grammar supersedes trite rhymes.

Who poured sour milk in your cereal this morning?

497 posted on 01/06/2008 12:43:54 PM PST by NautiNurse (Plants are people too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: rodguy911

Thank you RodGuy911.

The articles we do come across are interesting — a lot different on most days than watching the standard “news” shows.

498 posted on 01/06/2008 12:45:12 PM PST by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: snugs; Phsstpok

Wow! Thanks, I just got home, logged on and saw a big blue ribbon. Much appreciated, as I really enjoy this thread so much every week - for conversation in great company.

499 posted on 01/06/2008 12:46:41 PM PST by maica (Leftists have faith in government; conservatives believe in people as individuals. Romney '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Hillary Clinton proposes joint oversight of Pakistan nukes

Great idea. Why would Pakistan, a sovereign country, allow such oversight over its strategic weaponry by another country? I haven't checked the news lately, but I am sure that Musharraf will quickly kill that ridiculous notion.

500 posted on 01/06/2008 12:48:27 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 461-480481-500501-520 ... 561 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson