Posted on 06/26/2011 5:15:32 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
June 26th, 2011
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): 2012 presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.; Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J.; Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Jim Webb, D-Va.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C.
STATE OF THE UNION (CNN): Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.; House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich.
I’m sorry but where is your evidence that Bachmann hired Rollins to trash Palin? And why are polls only considered “lamestream” when Palin isn’t first or second?
I am glad it wasn't asked. It has nothing to do with policy issues. Such a question is just part of the MSM to pit one Rep against another. Bachmann would have given the same answer whether it was Perry or Palin. The more the merrier.
A ‘lamestream’ poll at this point would choose to exclude Palin as an option, even though she and Romney have polled #1 and #2, whichever the order, any time they’ve both been included over the past month.
1.Jobs & the economy
2. The debt
3.ObamaCare
We need to hammer him hard on those things. Obama is very beatable. The focus needs to be on his policies. Getting dragged into the 'Obama is Anti-American' stuff isn't going to win our side the election.
I didn’t see Rick Perry in that poll and I’ve seen him in others. Same with Giuliani. I believe in one CNN poll he came in 2nd or 3rd. I’m not suggesting this poll has more/less meaning than others. However this poll does tell me that unless Pawlenty really steps it up he’s toast. He’s been in Iowa for over a month now and can’t register more than 6% in a poll.
Very late to the show, AB, because of sleeping late and church but looking forward to the thread.
Thanks from one of the grannies. I do pray for America.
The pension benefit is calculated on indexed earnings, not total contributions. Check here for the details on how the pension benefits are calculated.
Once you receive the pension, annual COLAS are figured based on the CPI-W caculations. COLA Estimates
Looks like Michele wants to jump start her campaign and get it firmly established before Sarah declares. Will have to read thread or watch repeats to see how she did.
You can do both.
If she would have made that statement the establishmedia would have been outraged and we would have been loving her and would have vaulted her into the lead. She had a meatball served up and watched it go by. Rather she gave the same old tired ain’t he great lines that lost the election last time.
The reason she is in the lead is because she is a firebrand and her advisers turning her into a politician aint’ going to work.
Give the people a reason to vote for you rather than agaist whoever.
From what I’m reading here, going on with Chris Wallace was just as bad.
It will be interesting to see if the Feminists jump in on this, since the ‘flake’ is a Republican.
Whatcha think, Tony Snow?
Perry, Giuliani and even TPaw have all been inconsequential blips in the polls. Palin is #1 or #2, with no close #3, whenever she is included now—and she hasn’t even declared. Any poll that doesn’t include her is of minimal, contingent value. And it has probably been designed for anti-Palin propaganda reasons.
By traditional standards (that is, regularly polling in the teens with all major prospective candidates included at this stage in the race) it is a two-person contest between Romney and Palin.
Oh, that makes sense. Eff up with Jon Stewart and take it out on the girl.
Some musings about the Bachman interviews:
Having watched the Wallace and Schieffer interviews, Wallace is hands down the clear loser with respect to quality of the interviewer.
I have watched Wallace for a long time and have a consistent assessment. His approach is formulaic and he wants to make sure he covers his planned questions almost ignoring what responses are given. He will occasionally challenge guests, but he is poor at following up. I am consistently unimpressed at the quality of his interviews and am sometimes angered. Today I felt outraged at the poor quality of the interview which I think reached a new low with the way he asked the flake question.
I strongly disagree with the fact that he is shilling for Romney. I fully believe that he is trying to be fair and balanced. Sure is he influenced by liberal reporting, and in fact that may his leanings, but he is not trying to influence a liberal agenda. I think his formula is off and he doesn’t listen well and that is what makes him a horrible interviewer. The # 1 obsession with Wallace is polls and the horse race. Trying to elicit comments about the other candidates is part of this. As Romney is the clear frontrunner according to polls, most of questions were about Romney. His goal was to try and make news with fighting comments. Next comes some of the controversial items. Of course the NY gay marriage law and her strong conservative views make this a fair question for now. Wallace’s 1st challenge asking how she reconciles the NY and the Federal Constitution was appropriate. Bachman gave a perfect answer that was consistent. Wallace felt the need to challenge her as it didn’t mesh with his preconceived notion that there would be some fruit for him in proving inconsistency with her positions. Wallace consistently shows limited ability to listen, assess quickly and adjust. The most egregious part of the interview for me is when Bachman spoke about the number one goal is to create jobs and she has the solutions. Everyone agrees the # 1 issue is jobs. Bachman’s comment screamed out for a follow question on what her solutions are. (Of course, it would be appropriate to put her answers to tough scrutiny – that is what interviewers should do). As is always the case, Wallace’s agenda was more important. In short, almost all of what Wallace asked about was irrelevant. Finally, we come to the flake question. As Bachman is controversial (through the mainstream point of view), it would have been appropriate to ask a tough question or two along those lines. Wallace’s approach was inappropriate and rude. While Wallace was trying to make news with addressing the question that Bachman will have to successfully answer (particularly to fend off misreporting of the LSM and to be fair addressing some of her past quotes), I do not think that he will be pleased with the way he addressed his question. I believe that next week, you will hear his apology or explanation.
I hardly watch Schieffer’s Face the Nation. Clearly, Schieffer comes from a liberal point and his questions and responses reflect that. It is evident that Bachman is one of the last candidates that Schieffer would want. Nevertheless, he seems to give his guests respect in questioning and I saw no overt condensation or hostility on his part. One thing that I noted in the poll shown was that he did not list Cain at 10% while showing the Pawlenty, Gingrich, and Paul – all at around 7%. The highlight of the interview was Schieffer’s asking Bachman what she would do to create jobs (not when she first mentioned jobs but several questions later). He even asked the question about letting the debt ceiling lapse and the consequences. I was fine with his challenge to Bachman about the logistics of paying just the interest. Of course, there were several times in the interview that Schieffer felt the need to explain Obama’s point of view. I was amused about the God question. Schieffer tried to elicit an answer that God literally answered her as she heard actual words from God. That would have been the proof of flake he was looking for. While the question itself was condescending, showing respect, Schieffer said at least twice that Bachman didn’t have to answer it. Finally, Schieffer brought up comments that Bachman said as not truthful. I did not like his approach addressing some conclusion by some organization as fact then asking her to comment on one item. I would rather him be more confrontational with comments and then get a response. Having said that I did not mind Schieffer’s comment and agree that Bachman did not answer the question. By asking about specifics about jobs and the debt ceiling, Schieffer blew Wallace out of the water and won the better interview.
A final comment about Bachman who I would be very happy to see as President. Bachman will have to do a better job about answering her past comments as they will be shown by the LSM. She needs to be very prepared for this onslaught. I would suggest that she address them directly and not BS the people. Bachman’s strength is that she has been truthful and says what she means. This is a different stage and it will be exposed. I suggest that she answer with honest and humility sometimes noting that she may have been wrong or had a poor choice of words. Of there are a number of things where should stand up proud as having said them. Also if she has to backtrack or show some humility she should come back with an attack on Obama.
Don’t worry, bray. Most all of us know you can do no wrong!!
Excellent advice. If she were capable of doing so, she would have already done it.
Some good, insightful analysis, Bray. Your efforts are very useful and much appreciated.
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.