Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 27 November 2005

Various big media television networks ^ | 27 November 2005 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[snugs]

Off to eat dinner will return later at ribbon awarding time.

[chgomac]

Biden is a peacock, full of poppycock!!!

He quotes himself. He's sure he is so brilliant that we hang on every word. Thank goodness he's limited to five minute spurts on the senate floor!
Besides abolishing slavery, the biggest blessing we overcame in our civil war was the tradition of listening to senator's three, four & five hour speaches.....gag, can you imagine so many hours of Biden, Kennedy, Reid & Clinton?

[samantha]

After Tom Delay was indicted he could have had his pick of any show to be on in the mSM, and the reason would be to beat him up verbally from pillar to Post and to throw insults about the president in with the onslaught. The MSM invites their Guests on not vice versa. Do you think that Trent Lott would be on any of those shows if he did not have a huge vendetta against President Bush, and look like a bloody fool half the time? Lott has his agenda and the MSM have theirs and that is why he is on, they use the guy, and he foolishly thinks they are helping him. This is the type of Guy that gets invited on the MSM shows. I would love to see Dick Cheney,John Cornyn, Delay, Etc on more often, but they do not run the MSM. Unless there is some controversy you will not see these people on because the MSM knows that if they start asking the inappropriate questions not pertaining to the reason that they are there that the Pubbies or White House Representative will call them on it. Sometimes the Pubbies will not get beaten up because they force them to stick to the subject matter, but you cannot guarantee this will be the case.

[MNJohnnie]

Yeah, they should have Meet The Freepers or Face the Informed and clean house on all the other Sunday shows. A round table with Me, Reagan Man and Doughty One sure would be a lot more interesting (not to mention funny as heck to watch) then the current "sit-around-and-pat-each-other-on-the-back-for-being-so-politically-enlighted" collection of used up Dinosaur Hacks.

Plus our host could bee eeevil conservative. That way our show would start out" Today on Meet the Freepers Joe Biden gets gang wegeed by Reagan Man, Doughtyone and cardinal4, and now here is your host......eeeeeeevvvvvvvvviiiiiilllll conservative.

[MNJohnnie]

OH OH. I think Rodguy has another unhealthy low number fetish again this week. So do you have any brilliantly insightful, totally devastating comments left, you better get them posted quick.

[samantha]

It seems the more useless the Senator is the more he is on the MSM. Look at "the swimmer", and Biden, Rockefeller. Are there three more useless Senators in the entire US Senate? Oops, I forgot Mikulsky,Boxer,Jeffords,Murray. Oh Forget it, there is too much competition for Useless.

[rodguy911]

Excellent post!! I especially loved the part where you said;
"now they(the rats) are in the position of claiming they were too dumb to read the intelligence correctly, so dim they leg GWB lie us into war, or negligent in their duty by not vetting the intelligence correctly"

damned either way, terrific!

[cardinal4]

How many letters to the Editor, calls to Talk Radio or email exchanges with "Journalists" posting them links to the facts on what Dems said then and are saying now have the Constant Complainers made this week?

More than you. I call at least three Senators a week. Im on a first name basis with two of the staffers in Jim Talents office, and Im recognized by voice in Harry Reids office. I have the STLPost Dispatch email in my favorites, and I have written more emails to the WAPO than I can remember.To have my efforts questioned by the likes of you is very insulting. I think you are all talk and no action. It is typical of people like you to question what others are doing knowing full well you havent done it yourself. I think you have done this thread and FR a great disservice the last two weeks. Hopefully, others will start calling you on it, too, as Im sure I wont be welcome on this thread anymore..

[rodguy911]

Excellent comparisons of the two wars SC.

[chgomac]

"I don't know about your point about waging war by polling for best strategy..."
My point is that the constant critisism of the current strategy is all the libs have to offer. If a politician really believes s/he has a better battle strategy, then share it with the administration.

"I think that is what Clinton did...in both Iraq, and in Kosovo...."
Didn't Clinton use polls for everything? He based his foriegn & domestic policy on how the poll winds blew...polls told him where to take his vacations......what a mess he was & is!

[Pusterfuss]

Dickie toe sucker actually did a poll to see where the klinton's should vacation.

Didn't it involve finding some sycophant with luxurious digs who would put them up gratis?

[rodguy911]

Ladies and Gentlemen--"he's back"--bad men do bad things--almost as good as "make my day"!!More brilliance at work.

[samantha]

I think one of the reasons that Condi is not on the talk shows more, not just because she is a real working SOS, but because there are so many career creeps in the State Department that are democrats that are in positions where they may be able to undermine her Statements if she is somewhat off the cuff appearing with The Viperous Russert. I believe that a lot of the cautiousness that we are seeing recently has to do with the White House knowing about all the snitches and anti Americans that are still embedded in the Defense Dept, State Dept, and CIA, and trying to work around them. Colin Powell is on the outside making trouble.

[greyfoxx39]

Placemarker

[Seattle Conservative]

Hi Snugs,
It is indeed a worthwhile visit to that thread to see all of the beautiful photos. I'm very appreciative of you and the others that work so hard each day to bring all of those pictures to the rest of us.

p.s. sorry for the 'drive-by' posts earlier. I only had time to dip in for a little while before I had to get ready for Mass and to help my step-dad. I'm trying to catch up now (never an easy task on this thread ;-)

[rodguy911]

Way to go maggief, as I like to say the truth will out, only 6 read the intel. That says it all. Time for a new topic for the rats to grill GW on, this one is over.

[samantha]

Thanks...

[DoughtyOne]

Nope. Both of you have had your credibility completely nuked today. You claimed Bush's job approval was down to 27%.

When people are asked if they approve of the job Bush is doing as president, the numbers are very dismal.  The left and the right have reasons to answer in the negative and many do.

I would vote for him over a leftist democrat, but I am very unhappy with his performance as president.  Leftists are angry with him over Iraq.  Some people on the right are upset with him over his spending and lack of immigration policies.  As I stated once before, you are quite welcome to express the opinion that 72% of the public approves of the job Bush is doing.  I wish it were true.

It was in one of your very first posts. I asked you to prove it by providing a link to the poll. You had to admit you had no link to back up your claim.

Yes I admitted I didn't have a link.  I also explained that this figure was presented in a live broadcast and there was no way for me to provide a link.  If it makes you feel comfy to claim this as proof that I was wrong, I can live with it.  I'd think it was a childish observation, but as I said, I could live with it.

I then presented you with the data that showed even the correct claims of Bush's JA in the upper 30% range bogus since they were based on polls that had switched to anyone over 18 polling this summer in place of Likely Voters and had reweighted their data sample to reduce Republican polled and significantly increase the Democrat and "Independents" sample. That is information anyone who actually read the poll rather then just the head line would know.

You still refused to admit your argument was based on error. Once you admitted that it was clear everything you were basing your argument on was your own feelings. Your credibility on this thread is GONE. Sorry you are nuked. Trying to spin your way out of it by going into rabid attack mode does NOT help you. You are wrong. You are prove wrong. Every continuing post shows just how wrong you are.

The emphasis of my posts was to promote having competent people from the right appear in televised public discussion groups.  You have consistantly tried to turn this into a bickering mealt-down focusing on whose polling figures are the most accurate.  As I stated to another forum participant, if that poll were falsified, it would only increase the validity of my promoting the right have competent people on these shows to shoot down inaccurate information.  It would not lessen the validity of my arguement. <>Give you another bit of data that shows you are not a serious commentators.

Well I'm not a commentator.  I'm another member of the public who comes to this forum to express his views.

"Millions, if not tens of millions" of US Citizens watch these Sunday shows".

Don't they just wish. NOPE. The Sunday shows draw NO WHERE near those sort of ratings.

Here's some information and a link that I provided to you several posts back.  Evidently you didn't read it.

The Sunday Shows

Another franchise of network news that deserves note is the Sunday morning talk show. In recent years, "Meet the Press" on NBC, whose host is Tim Russert, has established itself as the dominant ratings leader. At the end of the 2002-2003 season, it led its nearest competitor, CBS's "Face the Nation," with its host, Bob Schieffer, by 1.8 million viewers (4.7 million versus 2.9 million). Since the 1997-1998 season, it has led consistently. ABC has changed the format of "This Week," with George Stephanopoulos as host, under producer Tom Bettag and a team from Nightline. This is worth watching. At the end of the 2002-2003 season "This Week" averaged 2.75 million viewers.

http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/narrative_networktv_audience.asp?cat=3&media=4


Perhaps you can tell me what 4.7 + 2.9 + 2.75 total up to.  Just to make it easier for you, that's 10.35 million households.  So to be accurate, over ten million households, and perhaps as many as 15 to 20 million individual people watch these shows. 

That is certainly millions, and perhaps tens of millions.

The entire Nightly News audience(their highest market shares) for all the broadcast networks combined is under 25,000,000.

That's nice.  We weren't talking about them.

The Sunday shows do not even draw 1/3 of that.

Point me to someone who said they did.

So perhaps less angst and hand wringing in the future and more factual accuracy from you two.

Well there's no angst or handwringing going on here, so if there's any hand wringing going on at all it would have to be at your house.

The Sunday thread is a serious thread for thoughtful commentary, not the usual Freeper bluster and chest pounding.  If you want to be taken seriously here, you better have the facts cause you ARE going to be challenged to back up your claims.

I doubt many people consider the comments here to be well crafted commentaries.  A lot of people come here to express their opinions.  As for wing-nuts, a few of those show up as well.

As for who is taken serious and who isn't, that's up for folks to deicide for themselves.  I offer up my thoughts and am willing to let folks think what they will.

Thanks for the comments.

[Morgan in Denver]

You are probably right and I hate to admit it. I would rather be more idealistic.

[samantha]

Thanks, it takes my mind off the pain.