Review of the Sunday Morning Talk Shows
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Elections — Comments (47) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
For Sunday, November 27, 2005.
Okay… Joe Biden went on Meet the Press and was clear that while Dick Cheney was a liar, the President had only "misled." Carl Levin argued on FOX News Sunday that President Bush had linked Saddam and September 11. As proof, he offered that many Americans believed that such a link existed. Host Wallace accused him of "distorting the information."
Historian Joseph Ellis, on the Face the Nation historians' roundtable, declared that 9-11 was not that big a deal, and that even the Europeans knew that it was all hype. On CNN's Late Edition, host Wolf Blitzer seemed skeptical of how much Iraqi National Security Advisor Dr. Mowaffak al-Rubaie and the government actually supported the U.S., then super-journalist Seymour Hersh told him that President Bush was living in a religious dreamworld and was incapable of dealing with reality.
Finally, Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold declared on ABC's This Week that he wants our troops out of Iraq by the end of 2006, but that we should still send our Special Forces into the country to do things on the sly. He got into an argument with the host over whether fighting the Bosnian conflict was in our national interests.
for the show-by-show review, read on…
JOE BIDEN AND JOHN WARNER DO MEET THE PRESS. MTP Host Tim Russert and Senators Warner and Biden in the studio discuss Iraq. Joe Biden, who said that he will seek the Dem Presidential nomination in 2008 if he finds that he can raise the necessary money, seemed to be preparing to raise those funds from the base.
Joe Biden doesn't think the war is lost, he said, but he sees a six-month window in which the President has to "fundamentally change" the way things are being done. Joe Biden argued that we "can't sustain" 150,000 troops in Iraq for the next two years, as outlined in his Saturday WashPost Op/Ed: Time for an Iraq Timetable.
Senator Warner countered that he had gone over Biden's Op/Ed point-by-point with Joint Chiefs Chairman General Pete Pace, who said that we can keep 150,000 in the country for as long as the circumstances on the ground dictate. "We should not be establishing any type of a timetable."
Russert asked Warner about his recent resolution, calling for progress reports from the President. Warner explained that he "thought it very important to strike a bipartisan note," so instead of proposing something in opposition to Carl Levin's timetable resolution, he amended it to remove the timetable.
Russert asked if the President should level with the American people, showing them maps, he said, of where we had been victorious and where the insurgents had taken back territory from us. Warner liked the idea, pointing out that President Roosevelt had done this during World War II.
Russert asked Biden why, if U.S. soldiers can be trained and ready in a few months, it was taking so long to train the Iraqis. Biden answered that first, the Administration was not leveling with us; secondly, there is not officer corps because we had completely disbanded the Iraqi army, unlike, he said, what we had done with the defeated armies in World War II. Thirdly, Biden argued, we have been training Iraqis for only nine months. Lastly, Biden concluded, there is no command and control in Iraq.
Biden kept arguing that we needed more troops. Warner countered that if we brought in more troops, we'd seem more like an occupier. Biden called this a "Bush-fulfilling prophecy": that because he did not send enough troops at the start, bringing in enough to fix the problem would make us seem an occupier.
Joe Biden told Russert that his vote for the war was a mistake, but not on his part: "It was a mistake to believe the President would use the authority we gave him properly. … With this President, I absolutely would vote no."
Joe Biden angrily recalled the Vice President asserting that Saddam had a nuclear program, which Biden asserted was "a flat misrepresentation of the facts." The veep later said he had misspoken, used the wrong words, but Biden dismissed that.
Russert asked about the aluminum tubes: Did the administration put the best spin it could on them to mislead the American people into believe that they were to be used for nefarious purposes? Warner replied, curiously, that he has known the Bush family since the President's grandfather walked the Earth, and that the family is "known for its integrity."
Biden pointed out that he had said only that Dick Cheney had "lied"; the President, on the other hand, "misled."
Russert confronted Biden with the caveats on the intelligence contained in the National Intelligence Estimate the Senate had reviewed prior to the war vote. Biden said that he had read them, but that he had voted only for "keeping Saddam in a box." War would not be necessary unless the situation met all sorts of points in a hypothetical scenario.
Warner countered that using the best intelligence available, the President had determined that the situation met all the preconditions.
Russert asked Joe Biden about his Presidential run, with the Senator having written in a letter that he was running. Biden explained that he would if he could raise the money but that for now, he wanted to be "John Warner's truth detector" on MTP. Warner was clearly disgusted, as he shook his head and pointed out gruffly that Biden was running for President on the show.
LEVIN AND LUGAR ON FNS. Democrat Senator Carl Levin of Michigan and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Dick Lugar of Indiana were Chris Wallace's guests on FOX News Sunday this morning.
Levin brought up General Shinseki, but did not repeat the charge that the general had been fired for questioning the number of troops we took to Iraq; instead, he argued that the general had been "severely rebuked," or words to that effect. Levin argued that this sent a message throughout the military that they had best not challenge the Administration.
Levin argued that while we don't need more troops now, we needed more "when we first went in there."
Levin argued that BushLied™ when he made the connection between Saddam and 9-11. Wallace played a clip of what the President actually said, showing that no such link was made, and Levin countered that the President had convinced the American that there was such a connection. The President had said that Saddam "would like to use" terrorist organizations against us, and Levin said that this was the connection.
Wallace: "Senator, Senator, again, I think you're distorting the information."
Lugar said that he wanted to talk about our troops on the ground in Iraq right now.
PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIANS ON FTN. Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer talked to Presidential historians Ellen Fitzpatrick, Joseph Ellis, James Reston Jr., and Stephen Carter. He does this every Thanksgiving weekend. This time, he said he wanted to know: "Can Bush resurrect his second term?"
Schieffer said that the President's second term "had become a nightmare. At least it's become a nightmare for him." Ellis argued that only James Monroe had a better second term than his first, and he advocated a single term of seven years. Fitzpatrick argued the second terms were uncommon in the latter part of the 20th century and that second term problems are war related. Reston said that Bush declared a crusade against Islam and produced a "five year nightmare." Schieffer mentioned that Eisenhower talked of a "crusade in Europe," and Reston argued that they have longer memories in the Middle East. Carter explained that we live in a "time of great fracture," and he said he's not sure what any President can do in such a situation. He cannot imagine "what it would take to build a successful Presidency" in today's atmosphere.
Schieffer asked about abortion, and he remembers when it was not an issue. Fitzpatrick argued that it’s the politics of getting into "people's personal lives." She pointed out that abortion was not criminalized until the late 19th century. She cannot fathom, she said, that "we'll go back to a time" when women cannot have abortions.
Schieffer argued that he sees India and China finding new things to research, while we're wrongly finding ways to limit research. Ellis argued that if he "were a right-wring Republican, which I'm not," he would be afraid if Roe were overturned. If the issue of abortion were returned to the States, he argued, it would lose its efficacy as a political issue. "And that's what it is to the Republican Party." (It's not about saving lives, he said; rather, it's about securing votes.)
Reston declared that Iraq was an elective war which had gone sour, and that it has nothing to do with the American revolution. "It's about how we extract ourselves from this terrible…" He talked about Richard the Lionheart's exit from the Third Crusade, how to leave Iraq with dignity. Schieffer pointed out a terrorist State with oil forming if we withdraw, and Reston argued that this was for the politicians and that we are in a "terrible situation" because "our leaders did not pay attention to history."
Ellis argued that we should declare victory and go home. We did not have to worry about Iraqis attacking us, just as we didn't have to worry about Ho Chi Minh attacking us when South Vietnam won that war. "There were no Iraqis on those planes." Schieffer agreed but argued that the followers of Saddam were terrorists.
Ellis insisted that 9-11 would not rank in the "top-tier" of security crises for the United States. He argued that it was all hype, and that the Europeans recognized it as such. And he said this as the time expired.
Of all, Stephen Carter, at least, seemed sane.
DR. MOWAFFAK AL-RUBAIE ON LE. On CNN's Late Edition, host Wolf Blitzer first talked to Iraqi National Security Advisor Dr. Mowaffak al-Rubaie. Blitzer showed a quote from former Iraqi interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, stating in the London Observer, that the torture in Iraq by the Iraqis now is worse than it was in Saddam's time. Dr. al-Rubaie declared this nonsense and "part of the election campaign." He said that the violations of human rights in "corners" of the country were the exception rather than the rule. They are "between the devil and the deep blue sea," with the insurgents and Saddam loyalists being "slaughterers." (Which was the U.S.'s situation regarding Abu Ghraib.)
Blitzer asked about dozens of "torture victims" seen in a vid, pointed out that Washington loves Allawi, "a respected politician" – an item he picked up from a dubious Seymour Hersh piece in the New Yorker magazine (see below). How does Rubaie explain, Blitzer asked, Allawi's harsh remarks? Rubaie explained that the bunker was discovered by the Iraqi security forces, and that they are investigating it, with the investigating team being led by a deputy prime minister.
Blitzer played a quote from Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, had of the Shi'ite Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, claiming that the United States had not allowed his forces to root out the terrorists. Rubaie pointed out that the Iraqi government was being criticized for being careful and observing human rights standards, standards by which Hakim's group would not be bound.
Blitzer brought up the "Cairo declaration of a few days ago" (Arab League), which stated that resistance is an option for all groups. Blitzer wanted to know if this meant resistance against U.S. troops. Rubaie explained that the Iraqi government did not take part in that declaration; they had shown up only for the first day. Blitzer asked them if they were slapping the U.S. in the face, and Rubaie said that they appreciate the U.S. and would never slap "our strategic partners."
Blitzer pointed out that the Cairo declaration contained no language of appreciation for the United States, nothing positive. Blitzer asked him when he expects U.S. forces to leave, as the Cairo declaration had called for a timetable. Rubaie said that the Iraqi government was not calling for a timetable, but that he expected 30,000 U.S. troops to leave early next year and 30,000 by the end of 2006.
Wolf asked if the trial of Saddam would take place, and Rubaie promised that it would, and that it would be a "time of healing." He has no idea how long the trial will last, asserting that Iraq's judicial system "is totally independent."
He told Blitzer that the Iraqis are "two days" behind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, that they are "very, very close." Wolf asked him why they couldn't find "this guy," and Rubaie said that Iraq was a "huge country with 30-million people," hills, valleys, mountains, etc.
SEYMOR HERSH ON LE. Super-journalist Seymour Hersh of New Yorker magazine was Blitzer's next guest on Late Edition. Hersh has discovered that the Bush Administration is changing tactics in Iraq,
Seymour said that Iyad Allawi was the favorite in Washington and London, adding that the elections do not have much meaning in an Iraq involved in a fierce civil war. Seymour said that the Iraq units were incompetent and that we would use air power to make the Iraqis look good. He said that the Iraqis would direct American air power, which frightened everyone that our tremendous air power would be used for the wrong purposes, to settle old tribal disputes, etc.
Seymour said that the President is kept in a religious fervor, with Cheney and Rumsfeld handling day-to-day issues. The President, he reports, believes that he is doing the right thing and will be judged by history in 20 years. Seymor further reports that the President is "very serene" about the war while sitting at Camp David.
Seymour reports that the President is living in a dream-world "utopia," impervious to facts. He asks: "Is this President going to be capable of dealing with reality?"
Seymour is disheartened that "even Jack Murtha," who knows scads of generals, was unable to get through to the President.
I thought Wolf had done a splendid job with Dr. Rubaie, but then he turned around and talked to the fringe, the guy with visions of being a bizarre Bob Woodward dancing in his aging head.
FEINGOLD ON THIS WEEK. Host George Stephanopoulos of ABC's This Week sat down with John McCain's erstwhile partner Russ Feingold (D-Cheese), who is preparing to run for President as the timetable/date certain, anti-war candidate. Steph referred to him as "this maverick Senator from Wisconsin."
Russ doesn't want to think of this war "in terms of winning and losing." It's not military, he said; rather, it's political. "Some sort of success for the Iraqi people in getting back their country." Iraq is a "problem" which has made us "weaker" in the war on terror.
He wants out by the end of 2006. Strangely, the election in which he wants to run is in 2008.
Russ said that those who think that a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq would be a disaster are "in a minority." He claimed that Generals Abizaid and Casey want a timetable, "though they may not say it."
Steph asked Russ if President Bush were preparing to declare victory and go home. Russ said this thought frightens him: we have to have a timetable and goals.
Steph speculated that we will have made no progress in a year. What then? Russ talked about Jack Murtha and a timetable. Even if the Iraqis are not prepared to defend themselves in a year, we should get out of the country but not the region. And then use Special Forces in Iraq.
Russ said that he voted against the war because we should go after al Qaeda only. He said that despite what the White House was trying to claim, Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. (CANARD!) He saw "no clear evidence" that Saddam wanted to use his WMD against us.
"Iraq is not the be-all and end-all of our foreign policy."
Russ said that the White House frightened and intimidated his fellow Senators into voting for the war, making them believe that if they didn't vote for it, "they didn't support the troops and were soft on terror." He, as Russ Feingold, didn't buy it, he said. He knew that the Bush Administration was "twisting "all the information.
Russ said he understands the al Qaeda network and heeds the warnings of the 9-11 Commission. Steph mentioned that the FBI, CIA, etc. say that one of our best weapons against the terrorist networks was the Patriot Act, which Russ voted against. Russ said he had trouble only with certain provisions of the Patriot Act.
Steph mentioned that Russ voted for John Roberts. Russ countered that he thinks Roberts "would do a decent job of chief justice." He thinks Roberts was a better nomination than was Harriet Miers, and "we'll see about Judge Alito.
Steph asked about Alito's strong anti-Roe statements of twenty-years-ago, and Russ said that he will demand an explanation from Alito more than simply that "it was taken out of context." If Alito stands by the memo, Russ said, he would support a filibuster. He said that he is the only Dem who opposed "The Deal," which "let certain judges get through which couldn't get through."
He praised Harry Reid's "heart" and "strength" in shutting down the Senate a few weeks ago. He said that before this, the Democrat Party had gone along with Republicans on a lot of things which have hurt our country.
Russ wants "energy independence" within the next 10 to 20 years.
Steph asked Russ how a northern Democrat with an ADA rating of 98 can win the White House. Russ replied that the wisdom that only a Southern moderate Dem could win the White House – LBJ, Carter, Clinton – was old. Steph warned him that the Republicans would accuse him of being "more liberal" than Kerry, Clinton, Boxer. He said that they do that to him in Wisconsin, and he always win.
Russ said that Bosnia was not part of our national security. Steph was nonplussed: "BOSNIA IS NOT ?!?" Steph argued that it "has been a success." Russ countered that this was arguable but that what was central to our security was Middle East security, the Israel-Palestine situation. (Which, Senator, is admitting that Iraq and democracy in the Middle East is crucial to our national security.)
Steph then pointed out that Russ was a Jew and asked if that would hurt him. Russ replied that he didn't think so. He's part of a culture "which has sustained me my entire life."
Russ: "One thing I think we all can agree on. I think this country is long overdue for a Cheesehead President. We've never had one!"
-----
Have at it.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | President Bush To Reveal Plan To Stem Illegal Immigration — Comments (35) »
Review of the Sunday Morning Talk Shows 47 Comments (0 topical, 47 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Isn't this the same Joseph Ellis who led people to believe he'd served in Vietnam and was suspended from Holyoke for being a liar? Did anybody challenge his credentials, Mark? What a disgrace to give a public forum to this man.
I always find how, with the briefest of exceptions, that strong conservatives never find there way onto these programs. Again, a media bias that may not show up on any grading chart but a large one nonetheless. And anyone who says people like Hatch and Shelby arent intelligent, informed AND entertaining need to stop smoking those funny cigarettes.
spent much time in the military.
Russert asked Biden why, if U.S. soldiers can be trained and ready in a few months, it was taking so long to train the Iraqis.
It in general takes 1 to 2 years from when a person goes to boot camp to when they are fully capable of doing their job. This is in an military that already has established leadership, chain of command etc. Could the US train Iraqi soldiers faster? Probably, but I would rather take our time and do the job right, than rush it, just to say we did it.
I don't know if he is as liberal as his dad, or even how liberal/conservative he is, but it was nice to see him call a dem on their talking point.
And Russ Feingold is an idiot.
Aluminum tubes? Bush implied that Iraq and 9-11 were connected? Bush implied Iraq was an imminent threat? We haven't got enough troops, but we should bring the ones we do have home right away?
How can anyone take the Dems seriously? They have no interest in winning Iraq. Their primary goal is to impeach Bush. If they can't do it through Plamegate, they will try the pre-war intelligence. If that doesn't work, there's always the Abramoff scandal.
In the mean time they're playing Yahtzee with our national security.
You are spot-on right about strong Conservatives never being on the Sunday funnies. In boxing vernacular, they want tomato cans. A tomato can is a ultra-weak opponent that even a washed-up chump can knock over. So that's why they paired Joe Biden with John Warner.
Watch out whenever the MSM wants to have a "debate." They'll always grab a tomato can to represent the conservative side of the debate. This is especially evident when "church vs. state" or "intelligent design vs. evolution" or other debates are planned by the MSM. They'll conveniently forget about asking people like Ravi Zacharias or Lee Strobel to represent the SoCon side.
Bill Maher occasionally would put a strong conservative on his show, but then hem them in with three lefties. Didn't matter when Ann Coulter was on there with him, she'd clean all their clocks. God bless her.
And as for MTP, Russert has lost all objectivity, openly joining Biden today in piling on the administration.
That is the same historian Joseph Ellis who told the Boston Globe in 2000 that, according to a commentator, "he saw action 'clearing out' the area around My Lai. He wasn't just a grunt, either -- he was commander of a platoon of combat paratroopers from the legendary 101st Airborne. In fact, he was such a good leader that he was elevated to the staff of American commander General William Westmoreland."
Oh, and he kept lying:
He told the Boston Globe last year [2000] that he was repulsed by what he saw in Vietnam and joined the peace movement when he returned home. He did civil rights work in Mississippi, too, he said, and was seen as such a threat by the white power structure that state police followed him.
And, as if claiming heroic involvement in nearly all of the era's significant historical events wasn't enough, he told the Globe he'd scored the winning touchdown in the last game of his senior year in high school.
He wasn't even on the team."
The man makes Doris Kearns Goodwin seem a careful and honest academic. He makes Ward Churchill seem... well, I wonder if those two know each other.
he can expose an idiotic argument pretty quick.
Did you see the part where Biden was justifying his personal claims about in sufficient troop levels based on what he heard during a brief trip to Iraq on Memorial Day--and that "flag officers" are telling him things that they aren't telling their superior officers or civilians in the DoD? And who are these flag officers? This can technically mean anyone over a captain--so is this some disgrunteled ltbird? And if so, how does this make Rumsfeld's claim that the senior commanders have never been denied additional troops false? I just don't get it.
Or does he mean flag officer in Star Trek terms? If he's talking Wrath of Khan it might make some sense.
too much time with the Navy, but (for clarifications sake) I believe you are confusing his use of the term "flag officer" to refer to (in his words) people with "stars on their shoulders" (i.e., more properly referred to as Genral Officers or GOs in all services but the Navy) with "field grade officers", which includes the ranks Major, Lieutenant Colonel, and Colonel.
What I found truly bizarre was Sen Biden's defense of his Joint Resolution vote on the basis that he only voted to give the Bush administration the authority to use force IF Iraqi WMD were found AND IF the UN Security Council went along. Not only does the Joint Resolution say nothing of the kind, but (if I recall correctly) this argument was tried by Sen Kerry, and it didn't work too well for him either.
Just as I suspected, Biden has warned at every juncture that we would fail if we didnt follow his advice. He tossed out a 6 month window today as well.
How could one help but be confused in the face of this kind of imprecision? And we're supposed to take his word about his first-hand military knowledge?
Yes, that backing and filling about what the joint resolution "really meant" was pretty diningenuous. Did he vote for force before he voted against it?
In the Army, Marines, or Air Force, that means a General officer. In the Navy, that means Admiral.
He's not referring to the junior rank of Captain (O-3). In the Navy, a Captain (O-6) carries the same rank as a full Colonel in the other branches, so he's certainly not referring to anything but senior leadership.
I would pay cash to see Ravi Zacharias debate Bill Maher. It would be an intellectual massacre. For those who have never heard of Ravi Zacharias you might visit www.rzim.org.
His messages can be downloaded as MP3s. If you listen to just one of his messages I would suggest "Why I am not an atheist" given at Princeton University. It is one of the most brilliantly logical arguments against atheism you will ever hear.
I didn't see your post before I made mine. I should refresh more often.
truly been talking to "flag officers"; I guess they'd be asking for, what, more ships?
you brought out an important distinction between Navy Captains and all others that I neglected to mention.
This has been much more informative than Biden's comments--maybe he should check in here before he goes to Iraq?
And I still don't see how this makes Rumsfeld's claim of not having turned down a request for more troops from the commanding generals false. Perhaps Biden decided not to watch the Sunday shows last week because he wasn't on them?
for doing the research, Mark. I was sure it was him but part of me could not believe they would have the nerve to put him on the show. In any case, it reveals our dilemma, doesn't it? Any lie, any revision, however non-sensical, and any bass-ackwards logic, whoever the source, can be thrown out without fear of being challenged. And this liar is a respected enough educator to warrant a place on the show. Unbelievable.
To other commentators on this thread, who wonder why we never get real conservatives on these shows who are willing to challenge people like Ellis, Biden et al. Wasn't it Terence who wrote: "Why should I go to Rome? I never learnt how to lie".
I watched FNS this morning and was struck by how Carl Levin, even when confronted with video evidence, continued on with the Bushlied line. His insistence on the Dem line was embarassing. But, what was more glaring was that when Wallace asked Lugar to respond, he wouldn't stand up for the president. He changed the subject.
Lugar did exactly the right thing. You go on these programs to go after the center of the country. Wallace had just completely demolished Levin, all but calling Levin a liar. The last thing Lugar should have done would be to do anything to politicize the issue, and cloak Wallace's blows in partisanship (or the perception thereof). Instead, Lugar correctly took the high road.
You may have been annoyed by Lugar's performance and, given the way this WH has operated, there's surely someone at the WH who's annoyed at Lugar as well. But you (and they) are not the target audience. Lugar did the president (and, more importantly, the party) by not taking Wallace's bait and giving the wagging tongues on the other side a target to reply to. Instead, Levin et al. are left hand waiving at the host and Lugar (and, by implication, the Republican party) become statesmen. That's a good thing -- even in the current climate of attack attack attack.
Lugar's an old pro. He showed it in that exchange.
I was surprised Sen. Lugar refused to take Sen. Levin to task. The Democrats have no foreign policy to speak of four years after 9/11, but they have nonetheless succeeded in reducing Pres. Bush's support by 10 or 15%. How have they managed this? Two reasons, mainly: 1) they have repeated slanders month after month, and 2) the Administration and other Republicans have not refuted the slanders with counter-arguments. If slanders are met only with silence, the public is more likely to believe the slanders.
Mark,
I'm grateful for your efforts here, and obviously, you can't watch everything. Krauthammer single-handedly took on three liberals, without any support from the cowardly moderator, on one of the stations (ABC, maybe?), and smashed them. The liberals got more and more upset, and made their charges more and more outrageous, but they couldn't touch Krauthammer. Not surprising. Who would think that Mark Shields and Nina Totenberg (who may be dumber than Barbara Streisand) could match Krauthammer?
I wish I'd taken notes so I could share it with y'all. Maybe I will next time.
by a senator of his party? What must the center think about a gop senator that doesn't counter an attack on the patriotism of the commander in cheif? (I submit that it would be unpatriotic to lie to gain suppport for a war and would be an impeachable offense)
Lugar could have quoted McCain who said that those who say the president lied, are themselves liars.
But I doubt even ole straight talk wouldnt have the moxy to say that to a 100 club pal in a joint tv appearance. Too much like torture! I mean, lets get real. The senate comity outweighs the presidents reputation anyday.
Just ask the troops.
The center went for Reagan not 41 lugar types.
With all due respect my good man. Von, and i mean that. You could be right. But...
I wonder if we have 1 (one) senator that loves america more than the senate enough to call a liar a liar on tv.
Warn the budddy beforehand if one adheres to marquis of Queensbury-Roberts Rules of order-Jesuss golden rule if one must.
The senate rules assume the members are gentlemen. The dems are not. And we must stop letting the bully roll us.
THEY ARE HARMING THE COMMANDER IN CHEIF LEADING OUR TROOPS IN WAR.
COME ON VON
and get the transcript for a morale booster
find out Gideon please
and great work with the Bibles
sorry couldnt resist brother
Levin had just been all-but-called a liar by the host; when Lugar also calls him a liar, what does it add?
These dances should not be directed to the base; FNS is not a forum to provide red meat. Lugar comes across very much as he is: statesmanlike and decidedly old school. I'm proud to have him as one of my Senators. (
The transcript isn't available yet, but should be up in the next day or two, I imagine.
Here's the link:
http://www.insidewashington.tv/
I watched the exchange between Wallace and Levin. Levin was visibly shaking as he was trying to defend himself against Wallace.
The heat is on, Levin is stuck with his pants around his ankles, and what does Lugar do......
Changes the subject. What a moron.
This is why Republicans constantly wind up on the short end of the polls. They play Mr. Nice guy pretending to be above it all when the democrats give them Atomic Wedgies on national television.
And what do they do when they finally get a chances to return the favor............
Change the subject.
Here is all that Lugar succeed in doing.
He made me go from wanting to slap Levin in the face to wanting to kick Lugar in the ass. How playing the school yard punching bag helps the GOP get centrist support is beyond me. Who want to swear allegiance to a group wimps.
I was thinking this same thing as I read through Mark's summary.
It seems every time Slow Joe starts pontificating, that '6-month-window' pops up. Perhaps it an official 6-month-window^tm? (can't seem to make it do that little superscript thingy).
Sooner or later he will be correct - and rest assured, he will remind everyone how he 'forcast these very results'.
Biden/Boxer '08 (the sharp marble ticket)
I missed them all this week. What about that loon Seymour? He's not ready for prime time.
By the way, I would love to stack a potential R nominee up against either Feingold or Biden. Let's all wish them the best. If I could, I'd contribute to their candidacy.
Try this one on for size;
On the darkest days when the critics of the war are at their loudest,when the voices of doom,defeat and gloom are at their shrillest,Keep in mind that they have ALWAYS BEEN WRONG. always,every time,WRONG!
If that doesn't work,,try thinking of just one democrat plan or program that actually was a success..go ahead..try.
Which, remembering the old green nightmare, is an impressive piece of work. My only quibble is that there seem to be no exits -- none -- between just south of Cambridge and Logan. One would think that downtown Boston would merit at least one exit (or entrance to the freeway) so that the hurtling traveler could get to, say, a downtown hotel or restaurant.
One, however, would be wrong. No exit for you!
...it's not easy to find "historians" to ravage Bush, as the historical case against him is hogwash.
An honest historian would have to look square in the face of American and Middle Eastern history and declare the Bush policy "about right." Do you think Scheiffer (sp?) was going to let that happen? Better to have a lying "historian" than to risk a show where a panel came out in favor of the grownups being in charge.
Social Security? The space program?
Two off the top of my head...
hah!! god bless her??? she is the anti-christ!
Any intelligent conservative would think so, which is why they usually shy away from her crazy ramblings. Have you actually read her musings? Maybe they are entertaining, but not usually based on relevant topics/information.
Thank you. I'd always wondered what the conventional wisdom on Ann Coulter was on the other side of the Big Ditch.
I can't decide which group I detest most (or least): television pundits, US Senators or historians.
you are so right
how many posts have I made that emphasized the lie that is between election msm polls and that we should be reagan 24-7 365
thanks fire cubed
God bless Chris Wallace. He's not afraid to call out the liars when they lie.
Wait a minute, now. Coulter backs up all her assertions with rock-solid bibliography. Grab one of her books and check out the notes section. It's meticulous. You may disagree with her, but she backs everything up nine ways to Sunday.
Take a weekend to read her book Treason and see if you still paint her as the antichrist. I suspect that if you took a straw poll of Redstaters you'd find Ann Coulter to be very popular among the rank and file.
OK, well...
I'd like to be able to cite "providing our country with a budget surplus" a "program", but I suppose I can't on a technical basis.
Despite the fact that it is (well, it WAS) potentially more important for our country than any program set forth by the either the Reagan, GHWB, or GWB adminstrations.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0111.coulterwisdom.html
read some of this and see what YOU think about her comments.
I have read many things about Coulter, and seen her on many shows, and cannot align myself with any of her beliefs. I was obviously just kidding about her being the anti-christ, I just dont think she is a good representative of ANY party.
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001939.htm
here is another site that doesnt support the argument that conservatives "like" her,, I think they are just amused by her.
Russert is pretty consistent at being tough on both conservatives and liberals, but when he forgets himself, it usually means he's easier on liberals.
Wallace never forgets to be tough on liberals. He made an absolute fool of Sen. Levin.
denied the dems had never enacted good programs.
I would diagree that the surplusses for 18 mos in the 90's are in any way comparable to Reagan's victories over inflation that saved the economy, tax cuts that spurred 25 yrs and counting of growth with very short interruptions, and the soviet union. Or with W's war on terror and the freeing of 50+ million muslims.
I would also add that the surpluses were for only 18 months and were not a dem program. They were a Gingrich program that Bill agreed to. Bill and no dem proposed it. And the main reason was the tech bubble, which was an abberation.
Moreover, a balanced budget, per se is irerelevant and not significant unless its a much larger % of gdp that it is now or has been since wwii.
Simply put, we muct grow the economy to survive.
BUT, I would say that the greenspan inspired first Clinton budget that no gop member voted for and which many dems lost their seat was a major acheivenment, because at that time intert rates were high and the bond market needed a signal that soendinga nd the defict as being tackled.
and it worked and I give clinton credit
not much else
except that he did agree to gingrich's welfare reform and did use the military some at least
I watched FNS this morning and was struck by how Carl Levin, even when confronted with video evidence, continued on with the Bushlied line. His insistence on the Dem line was embarassing. But, what was more glaring was that when Wallace asked Lugar to respond, he wouldn't stand up for the president. He changed the subject. Here was a chance for a "distinguised, senior senator" to denounce this idiocy and he ducked it. When it was Lugar's time at bat, he hit a slow roller to the second baseman. Swing for the fences or sit on the bench. This lukewarm, non-defense encourages this Bushlied nonsense even more.