Weekend Show *Preview* for 9/30 - 10/1/06 (not the live thread)

It's week four (or 297, depending on how you figure it) of the WOB (war on Bush) and all things "Republi-fascist," as the drive by media might style what they're doing. We've had a week of spin like we haven't seen since... well, since Clinton was in office. All the old hateful and hate filled faces were back on the screaming head shows pulling their electrically powered rapid fire mouths back out of storage and plugging them in for one more go around of lies, screaming lies and videotape. And the technique seems to be bringing out a bizarre nostalgic sense of warmth and well being in the heart of old media. They remember the glory days of press hegemony, with visions of them bringing down presidents like lions taking down prey on the veldt. Their blood lust is up and they want to KILL SOMEONE! The surprise self immolation of Florida's Mark Foley appears to be whipping up the feeding frenzy to a fever pitch, with accusations flying about foreknowledge and cover ups "at the highest levels." Don't be a bit surprised to see guests bumped or topics changed for the discussions on the Sunday shows as they try to figure out how to exploit the situation.

NBC Meet The Press has their next installment in their Senate debate series. This time it's Ohio, with Mike DeWine and Sherrod Brown. This is shaping up as the featured bout for those who want to prove that Bush is bad for the Republicans. The now dominant moonbat wing of the Dhimmicrat party has made Ohio their prime battle ground since 2004, concentrating their conspiracy theories of stolen elections in the Buckeye State, the very home of the evil Diebold itself. So part one of NBCs Sunday show will be structured to burden DeWine with as much Bush baggage as possible while simultaneously offering both DeWine and Brown as many opportunities to criticize Bush and his policies as lil Timmah can think up. For the Dhimmicrats that's a win-win. If DeWine defends Bush they think he'll be hurt by Bush's unpopularity and if he takes the bait and bashes Bush it's more fuel for the sacrificial bonfire. They will follow up the debate with an interview with Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, talking about his new memoir, In the Line of Fire. They already know he's willing to slip in juicy details (true or not) that make the Bush administration look bad. I'm sure they've got an understanding with ol' Prevez about how this interview is going to go. They will paint a picture of George W. Bush, the original Ugly American, in all his ignominy. And if Prevez dares to stray from lil Timmah's script, he undoubtedly has some accusations to lay against the "Little Muslim General" that will both hurt book sales and perhaps add impetus to any coup plotters who might be watching back home. Might he remind Musharraf of what happened to the PM of Thailand when he visited NY for the UN General Assembly meeting?

CBS Face The Nation gives us plugs Biden, trying out for the road show of the "Bush Derangement Syndrome Path To the Presidency" (music and lyrics by Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan). It's actually fun to watch this man's mouth run away from him. I hope he's on first, otherwise he's likely to say some truly outrageous things about Dan Bartlett, a great professional and a (hopefully) truly excellent choice to represent the White House this week. The stated topics demand serious legal analysis and the comparison between plugs demagoguery and Bartlett's reasoned professionalism should be instructive.

I'm running late this weekend and this worked to my advantage in a great way regarding Fox News Sunday. I had all of the shows guest lineups written up from their web sites by late Friday night but didn't get this analysis written. I had to go to my eye doctor first thing this morning and, by the time I got back from that, Fox had finally posted their extended essay Coming Up on FOX News Sunday. Originally all I had from their listings was Harman and Gingrich, even though the discussion topics were centered on the Clinton interview. Oh well, more arguing opinions, I surmised, spinning about motives and impact, but not examining what was actually said. But just now reading the essay they made it clear that they intend to actually discuss the substance of Clinton's claims in his tirade. Huzzah!! I've been screaming for this all week! They've added three voices to actually look at what Clinton claimed and compare it to reality. Two of the three are hard to discredit voices, Lawrence Wright and Michael Sheuer, who criticize both Bush and Clinton, but recognize the reality of 8 years of Clinton vs. 8 months of Bush and what that means for whose policies were at work prior to 9/11. And the other appears to be a typical Clinton sycophant, Dan Benjamin. He's been trotted out recently to give chapter and verse of the gospel according to billary, kneepads at the ready. I think Benjamin's performance might offer as much damage to the Clinton's reputations as anything else said if he holds to the party line he's been pushing, particularly in the face of what the other two are likely to say. Watch for a shrill melt down (maybe not till after the show), filled with accusations about right wing conspiracies, if things don't go well for him. And finally we have the promise of multiple smack downs of Juan and / or Mara, with the normal panel in place. I think Brit will have heard the disappointment from our side of the swamp over last weeks panel and may be willing to give us a tour de force.

ABC This Week is in full DNC shill mode. Clinton singled out ABC for their "right wing hit job" drama, The Path to 9/11 and they must redeem themselves. George Steponallofus has heard his mistresses' voice and has stacked his line up accordingly to please the junior (senior) Senator from New York. Representing the White House we have Fran Townsend, subject of a Time hit piece (The Terror Consigliere) making her out to be a female Tom Hagen to George W. Bush's Sonny Corleone (or would they rather describe him as Fredo?). I think the plan is to cast her and the White House as mean and dark, as Time did, but I'm hoping they've been listening to their own spin too long and that she'll run rings around Stephy. You never know, however, as she is a holdover from Janet Reno's Justice Department. Steffy may drop a Queen of Diamonds on the table in front of her in mid question. Representing the congressional Republicans we have RINO extraordinaire Chuck Hagel (a better choice for Fredo, to my mind). His betrayal of the President (and common sense), along with his cohort in crime Olympia Snowe, in joining with the Dhimmicrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee to issue a totally bogus and deceitful Iraq intelligence "phase 2" report a few weeks ago has made him the darling of the inside the beltway crowd (see The war against the war). They even (shudder) started talking about him as the new "straight talk express" guy (that may explain McCain's recent tantrum somewhat). And, the pièce de résistance for the alphabet network is the inclusion this week of ol' cut and run himself, John Murtha. I expect many great Irey campaign commercials to come from Murtha's performance.

CNN Late Edition offers up a second round of Dan Bartlett, no doubt with questions modified based on other statements Sunday morning, including some of his own. This is Wolfie's big advantage in that he usually gets the guests last and can sandbag them with things they haven't had a chance to prepare for. Lugar is showing his years and falls victim to simple maneuvers all too easily. He's much more a Senator than he is a Republican or conservative and much more an inside the beltway fixture than a representative of Indiana. His values have more in common with KKK Byrd, being concerned with the institution first, rather than the people or the nation. These Senators confuse what is good with the Senate (and themselves) with what is good for the country. I think that's why he's on this week as I'm betting that's how Blitzer will phrase questions about the White House, particularly the tribunals and NSA legislations. Chris Dodd has extricated himself from any waitress sandwiches with "uncle" Teddy and is on hand to moan about how we don't kowtow to the UN enough. A good interviewer, one unwilling to pull punches for the sake of "the cause," could gut him like a fish, which is why he's on CNN instead of somewhere else. Ambassador Khalilzad will be pilloried based on the "evidence" from Woodward's book on what's "really happening" in Iraq. And Brzezinski vs. Kissinger could be the main draw for a WWF pay per view event, but they'll never let it get meaningful or informative. I'll watch their droning old Europe statecraft stare down with interest anyway, just in case.

The Saturday shows are interesting, each in their own way. The Beltway Boys try to concentrate on the horse race, which is their conventional approach, even though I think this is turning out to be anything but a conventional midterm election. I believe that they're still too close to it to perceive this yet, but they think that being beltway insiders is a good thing. Go figure. Russert tempts me to watch his Saturday show with an hour of Bob Newhart, one of the funniest men on the planet. My big fear is that Timmah will insist on getting political with him. Fox News Watch examines the Clinton meltdown incident. I wish I had even the slightest faith in their ability to actually analyze their profession objectively on this issue. The event and this weeks aftermath should make someone's career, if not several careers, as it fully exposes the flaws in the dinosaur media that are driving them to extinction. And the Journal Editorial Report brings on the best political analyst around today, IMHO, Michael Barone. His is an opinion I'll be interested in hearing on the topics listed. Too bad the show times suck.

In summary, this week the DBM returns full throttle to wallowing in Bush Derangement Syndrome, framing all of the discussion (that they can control) on "what's wrong with Bush and his policies." They will try to declare a halt to all discussion or examination of Clinton and his failings, pointing to the VRWC as the source of any questions that predate January 20th, 2001. They will also try to further marginalize Fox as part of the "right wing cabal," ignoring what that says about them. Fox may actually be taking up the challenge and appears that they may be prepared to shove the entire weeks Clinton propaganda right down the throat of the rest of the media. Fireworks could ensue. In fact, if Chris Wallace chooses, he could turn it into outright war by simply raising the question of the full Monica that Tim Russert gave Clinton in his interview last week as a contrast to his own professional interview.

This whole thing is equally a test for the new media. So far we haven't coalesced around any concrete position on the issues raised by the Clinton hissy fit last week, except that it pissed us off. I feel we've been getting distracted by horse race analysis and trivia like whether it was planned or not. Instead we should have been concentrating on the facts and enumerating the lies told and the willing complicity of the old media in outright fraud. A few have done this, like Byron York or Lorie Byrd, but far too few. More important than any "blame game," this question, their way versus our way in the war on terror, is the central argument of this election. We must be able to honestly present what their way is and remind people of the consequences of letting them win. The whole point of the Clintonista's offensive offensive (not a mistake) this week is to make those questions out of bounds. I refuse to play by their rules, anymore. I think maybe Fox has decided the same thing, as well. After all, it's obvious the rest of the drive by media isn't going to come to the defense of a fellow journalist against the forces of censorship and blacklists. Screw it. They want a war, we'll give them a war!

This has been cross posted to my blog at Wizards.townhall.com. This post exists primarily as a heads up for who is on the weekend talks shows, what they've been invited on to push (based on their recent pronouncements) and the spin (meme) the DBM is likely trying to push based on that information. All of this is prep work for the weekly Sunday Morning Talk Show thread posted by Alas Babylon!. That thread provides a live commentary and analysis of the Sunday talking head shows, with rare insight and exceptional fact checking. we are the Jedi Council of FreeRepublic, at least in regards to these DBM gabfests. You wanna know what was said and what it meant, as well as where they messed up? Read that thread!

Here is a link to Mark Kilmer's excellent preview of the Sunday shows over at RedState.COM when it is up.

"Week 4 of the DBM blitzkrieg against McChimpy Bushitler - this is our last chance, so screw reason and fairness... let's pile on the BS!"

You keep laying gems like this one on us and the rest of us won't have anything to contribute!

I've noticed that the main distraction (and source of intense melodrama!) for the loonies is the legislation that clarifies violations of the Geneva Conventions. Take a look at PJ-Comic's latest effort (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1711370/posts) for Chicken-Littlism at its best.

Several of the local blogs in my area have picked up on this trend and the trollish-ones fear that the gestapo is just one step away from their doors (OK, the door to the basement at their parents house ;'}

Also, my favorite lefties have been curiously mum lately. I expected a strong defense of their "man" klintoon, but not a word. I wonder what's up?

Funny bit. I'll be picking at that post for awhile.

As an aside, for those who might follow the link like I did and get a "404 not found"

The link

(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1711370/posts)

includes the closing parenthesis by mistake.

it should be

(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1711370/posts)

Took me a couple of tries to figure that one out.

I am glad you saw that Foxwatch....I thought she said she had already re-signed with Fox...but, my closed captioning said she said she "resigned"....

Didn't know which to believe.

Actually, I wish they would all resign...and get a new group...just like with MNJohnnie's posts above...this group is too "inside the beltway"...they are all starting to sound alike every week...and that is scary considering that idiot Neal Gabler is SO left.

At the risk of getting flamed for getting TOO upset again...I think we should discuss this Foley thingy.

Yesterday, I was disgusted by what he did, and I still am...then I listened to Mark Levin and learned some things I didn't know, about a certain Dem congressman that did the same thing, but did NOT resign, or even apologize---and even continued the relationship with the page...

That man was even re-elected several times after this became known.

I bring this up only as a point of fact that may or may NOT need to be considered.

I heard on Fox News tonight that the dems (naturally) are demanding an investigation..not into what Foley did, but what did the other Reps know..and when did they know it.

It seems that Boehner admitted to someone that he has known for quite a while...and that he told Hastert. This could mean that Delay knew...and heaven only knows how many more knew about it.

If it is true that all of these GOP House members KNEW for a long time..and did nothing, I am as disgusted with them as I am with Foley...

But, I am MORE angry with them...because you all can see the writing on the wall...and this COULD (hyperbole alert) lead to THEM being in trouble about oh, say...election time???

All of this then could for sure turn the House over to Pelosi, Murtha, Rangel and gang....ALL, because they hid this???

That is where the DEM with the similar problems comes in...or does it???

Personally, I don't CARE what the dems allow in their party...and that this guy, like Clinton could still get elected AFTER being found out to be a pervert..it says a LOT about that party.

Therein lies the rub....because of the above I doubly don't want that party to LEAD our Congress against Bush at a very, very delicate time in our history...HOWEVER, do I want to fight...because I am so, so angry and disappointed with however many GOP members had knowledge of..and did nothing about Foley.

All they would have had to do is tell him to RETIRE, back when they found out...and then go to the Ethics Committee and let them know.

I think I would like to discuss this with anyone that would like to.....but, I understand if you all think I am worrying too much.

With the Sunday shows in less than 24 hours...how much of THIS will take the place of other subjects in your great pre-view, Phsstpok?

... about a certain Dem congressman that did the same thing, but did NOT resign, or even apologize---and even continued the relationship with the page...

That man was even re-elected several times after this became known....

Would that certain Dem congressman share a name with a Presidential K9?

Even if you're talking about a different Dem, we do need to remember Barney Frank and his live in relationship with a male "aide" (paid with taxpayer dollars) who in turn ran a "callboy" prostitute ring, partly out of ol' Barney's Washington town house, using Barney's help to fend off authorities and the courts for quite some time.

And for any Democrat to bring up sexual impropriety as a campaign issue one week after Little Billy Clinton thrusts himself back into the forefront of the news is truly incredible.

As to the Republican leadership "knowing" anything about Foley, being told an unconfirmed rumor and having facts that one can act on are two very different things. So far we don't know which form of "knowing" we're talking about. Politicians in Washington must hear thousands of tales about people every day, only a tiny fraction of which ever pan out.

Personally, I want to know what Nancy Pelosi knew and when did she know about Juanita Broderick? And knowing that why did she still cover up for the rapist? Why is she still covering up for him? Maybe Nancy ought to put some ice on that thought.

NO...Mark was talking about a Congressman other than Barney Franks...even though he mentioned Franks.

The problem with your Clinton/Brodderick/Pelosi arguement is that whenever anyone brings up Clinton to the dems they automatically hold up a hand and say, "This isn't about Clinton, why do you always bring him up?"

They use that as a shield to have to answer for anything on the dem side of the ledger.

I will go see if I can find the name of the guy that Mark was talking about yesterday.

I am still trying to find the name of the Congressman that I referred to in my first post here.

I was looking at the almost 1500 post thread about the Foley resignation that started yesterday afternoon.

In THAT thread, yesterday evening, the posters were asking "what did they know, and when did they know it?"..

Only they were talking about the DEMS...like did the DEMS know about this for a while...and waited until the primary was over...so that the Rep Party in Florida couldn't replace him on the ballot.

I know I read about that congressman somewhere, but his name was one that I didn't recognize...so he isn't a current one.

I will keep checking...

RE: your response about expecting them to answer about Clinton? never gonna happen...but, I bet the GOP loses the House now.

I agree with everything both of you said. This whole thing makes me mad at Republicans. One because we seem to have allowed this to escalate to what happened, and two because we don't have the ability to investigate or punish similar or worse behavior by the Democrats.

I have no idea why this is so but it sure seems to be that way. All I can say is I tell every congress-critter and senator I visit with to prosecute wrongdoing. Virtually none of them respond in an aggressive manner, other than Joel Hefley who is leaving congress anyway.

I am totally ticked off with Foley but I am just as upset with Republican leadership. When the media compares the inside the beltway mentality, I have nothing to say because our side is just as bad on too many issues.

I realize there's a lot of internal, insider pressure with the GOP, just as there is with the Democrats, but that just means we have to put more pressure on each elected representative and senator. Sadly, I don't think the situation will change until rank and file activists start putting more pressure on each elected congressman. If WE don''t make this a major issue, why should they? Once they are in office other things tend to become more important, even for us.

The congressman in question is probably Garry Studds.

From Wikipedia for the lack of something better:

Studds is remembered chiefly for his role in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with a minor – in Studds's case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page.

During the course of the House Ethics Committee's investigation, Studds publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to a Washington Post article, "apparently was not news to many of his constituents." Studds stated in an address to the House, "It is not a simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public official and gay."

As the House read their censure of him, Studds turned his back and ignored them. Later, at a press conference with the former page standing beside him, the two stated that what had happened between them was nobody's business but their own

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.