Posted on 09/30/2006 12:34:14 PM PDT by Phsstpok
Preview and analysis for Weekend Talk Shows, 9-30 and 10-1-06
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.
I'll post a link to this Sunday's live thread here when it is up.
LOL...thanks, while I was off looking you guys were right there with the information.
I need to brush up on my investigatory skills...
I truly don't have a POINT re: that dem congressman, except to once again point out the double standard by which the dems CAN and DO get away with child sex molesters in the Congress....
MY point in this whole thread was just to discuss the various aspects with you all....bringing in all of the different POV.
I personally am disgusted and angry with Foley...and I feel the SAME about Republican leadership IF they knew, and did nothing about it....
I am just getting opinions on a thread where I know there are THINKING people...not just hit and runners, about where they see this going.
As much as I want ALL Republicans to have to own up to any wrong doing...I am selfish enough of MY families future, that I am afraid of this causing the DEMS to get more power, the HOUSE, than they deserve.
That was great wasn't it...
It make me more sure that I love Rummy!!
My husband said it is too bad he is in his seventies...cause HE would love to see him run for POTUS.
It would seen the libs right off the nearest cliff...LOL
No problem, I was actually reading up on this anyway.
I have to say, I wish people would just use the word or name the names. I hate people using the "N" word, or the "I" word or the (insert letter here) word. Writers need to stop trying to be cute and just write what they want to say. Sheesh!!!
I was watching Beltway Boys tonight...and they were talking about the various races in different states...
They showed an ad by Harold Ford, Jr...and talked about he and Corker....Fred Barnes saying that he sees Corker winning.
Fred mentioned that it is pretty conservative..and mentioned the name of Fred Thompson..
That perked my ears....Fred Thompson, actor....conservative, popular...what about HIM for POTUS 2008??
I don't think we can have a 'different' point of view when it comes to preying on youngsters. Sorry you have a different opinion. That is your privilege.
He wouldn't like the added pressure making less money than he is now.
You can go back to sleep now.....
(ROFLOL)
Except if you use the N word on a thread, regardless of context, your post will likely get pulled and you might even get banned or suspended.
There are people on this thread trying to suggest that since the dems get away with this vile behaviour somehow we ought not be outraged.
Just to butt in, without knowing what was said.
My understanding is DC's age of consent is 16. If so, Foley was not preying on kids by definition.
He's still guilty of horrible behavior as far as I'm concerned and he was taking advantage of the power of his office and should go to jail. I have a hard time with people like this and I hope he rots in jail somehow.
We either have the moral high ground or we give ground to the evil doers.
I agree we have the moral high ground, but I refuse to allow low life Democrats to criticize us until they clean out their own house.
That said, I have also read that Hastert was told that a family complained about inappropriate emails and NOT the content. It was handled thru proper channels. No one was told of the specifics. Foley was told to knock it off and he did.
The family of the boy did not want to pursue further action other than to have the emails cease and desist....which they did.
Until more information comes out, I am not willing to throw Hastert under the bus.
I am willing to say that Foley ought to rot in jail. Since he is gay there will not be too much gnashing of the teeth. The media is reporting simply that the emails were 'rauncy' and some media not even mentioning that it was directed at a boy.
There is nothing on earth that can justify defending Foley on this, no matter the age of consent.
As a parent, I resent anyone saying that....after all.....the democrats do it!
How sickening.
BTW, can you tell that I'm angry!
Very true...what WAS I thinking...LOL
I love you OF...you know that...but, I think you aren't reading my posts the way I mean them.
I know that is probably my fault for not making myself clear.
I have NO doubt that you and I are on the same page and feel the same.
I was just starting a discussion...I am sorry I dragged you into it.
Yes, ma'am, I can tell you're angry. With reason, I might add. Me too.
I am waiting to hear more from GOP leadership but there better be a be a better reason than what you offered before I'll let them off the hook.
As for Foley, I have nothing to say to defend him, I think he's scum. But, if you have a problem with the age of concent, take it up with the voters. As much as I disagree, that's the legal age and as long as the kid was over 16 there was nothing illegal about it in DC. Foley seems to have used his position in congress to influence the kid and that IS against the law as I understand it.
I don't have a problem with 16 and 17 yr. olds engaging in sex (I do but I'm not the morality police) but I do have problems with teachers preying on students.
The politicians who prey on underage children in their care.
I don't care if every dem 'does it'......we cannot equivocate on our stand on this issue.
Nothing on earth could put me in that camp.
You've got mail
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.