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.
You are right, I did say that...
I want all that did wrong...the ones that knew what Foley was doing, if any, and did nothing to stop him, GONE.
If that means that the Dems will take over the House...it scares the crap out of me....because I worry about MY kids.
I am selfish.
Freepmail and email
Kristinn has posted the statement from Hastert's office on FR. Check it out.
Kristinn has posted the statement from Hastert on FR. Check it out.
I don't understand what that means: "I worry about your kids too...and therein lies the difference between us"..
Do you mean that my worries are NOT good for my kids??
My gosh..even the parents of the page did NOT want this to go any farther.
IF for some reason, this takes down the whole GOP leadership, leaving it to Nancy Pelosi, even if they did NOT know about the IMs....it would be BETTER in your mind?
which would in turn be better for MY kids???
I guess I am just not ready to be so high and mighty, before we know the facts...to turn the country over to the dems.
Evidently you are getting something from dwelling on this topic a second night.
Not sure what it is, and it's time to agree to disagree.
BTTT... and PING to WPtG (this is that GREAT thread I was telling you about.)
Thank you again Phsstpok!
Finally saw Michael Sheuer for the first time on FN Sunday. I love it when people are honest enough to call liars, "liars" and he didn't mince words about Clinton. I gotta read this guy's book.
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.