Review of the Sunday Morning Talk Shows
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Elections — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Sunday suggesting that some Democrats would vote to confirm John Bolton's nomination, Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell suggesting later on the same show that some Dems had "whispered in my ear" that they might support the rule modification to allow judicial nominees to be confirmed by a majority of Senators (he called the option, "the Byrd option").
Ted Kennedy said on Face the Nation that we had to teach the Iraqis how to defend themselves, and he mentioned Halliburton in the context of judicial nominations. Hadley said on Late Edition that the President has signed orders authorizing the killing of Zarqawi and other enemy leaders.
Joe Biden said that Babs Boxer had told him that she put a hold on John Bolton's nomination only because she didn't want Frist to schedule a vote on Monday. John McCain, while complaining about the possible rule modification, said that he will vote to confirm "the President's judges" and to confirm John Bolton.
READ ON below the fold to read the summaries…
EGYPTIAN PRIME MINISTER AHMED NAZIF ON MTP. Just the guy from whom we wanted to hear this morning. (He's in DC this week, so I assume Russert figured: "Why not?")
Meet the Press host Russert asked if the invasion of Iraq were a good thing. Nazif: "It's hard to tell… it's a wait-and-see situation." As decisive as this sounds, he went on to answer that Saddam's removal from power was good for both Iraq and "for the while region."
He spoke of what "we" had to do in Iraq, by which pronoun he was including Egypt, which is a good thing. Egypt, he said, wanted to train people. But "we" had to work on three things: security, the political situation, and the economic situation.
Asked about international monitors for Egypt's elections this September, Nazaf said: "The emphasis is on free and fair elections." Outside monitors, as the POTUS has stated? It's not that easy, he explained. You see, he said, in Egypt, elections are supervised by judges. Russert pointed out that the judges have already said that the elections would be fraudulent. Nazif explained that what the judges really meant is that they want more power to supervise the elections. (It sounds almost like Mubarak wants Vlad Putin to assure that the elections are conducted cleanly.)
Russert grilled Nazif about Egypt torturing terror suspects, which Nazif assured him did not happen. Everything is for Egypt's peace and security, provoking from Russert: "So one person's peace and security is another person's torture?"
Russert, of course, wanted to know how many people the U.S. has sent to Egypt to be tortured. Nazif did not answer. Russert asked him about America's 90% unfavorable rating in Egypt, about Egypt's pop culture being rife with hatred for America and for Israel. We've given them $50-billion -- and Russert stressed the "b" -- so what's the deal? Nazif said that our relations were good.
HADLEY ON FNS. National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley was host Chris Wallace's first guest, and the host asked him about the People's Republic of China's (PRC) refusal to back sanctions against North Korea, has that harmed the six-party strategy with Pyongyang? Hadley said that all was well, that "we are all sending the same message," and that "there must not be a nuclear North Korea."
Hadley said that it was actually the Japanese who had suggested sanctions against the PRC if a test is conducted.
On Bolton, Wallace asked him about Voinovich's objection to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's suggestion that she would have to "supervise" Bolton if he were confirmed. Hadley said that any high-ranking ambassador would be supervised by the Secretary of State, since "policy comes from Washington."
Hadley suggested that both Republicans and Democrats, quickly modified to "some Democrats," will support Bolton's nomination. He might have thrown Democrats in as a reflex, then emphasized as a face-saver, or he might have been suggesting that he has heard that there will be some Democrat support for Bolton. (Ben Nelson?)
Wallace grilled him on that airplane, and Laura Bush being whisked to a secure location. Wouldn't the President like to be told of such things? Hadley explained that "this kind of thing happens… in the post 9-11 world," and that the President had not demanded a change in procedure to let him know what's happening before it happens in regards to little airplanes and mandatory evacuations. Unconcerned?
WHIPS ON FNS. Next on FNS, host Wallace talked to Democrat whip Dick Durbin and, after the resolution of some technical issues, Majority whip Mitch McConnell. Durbin said that he needed "one or two" Republican Senators to switch to opposing the Senate rule modification. He had said that they need six total, so he is tacitly saying that he already has four or five on his side.
Durbin said that there were only four judges at issue here, and that the Dems were merely exercising a "check and balance on the power of the President."
McConnell's situation came online and said that Republicans would like to go back to the way in which the Senate operated before the filibuster was used on judicial nominees. "If cloture were invoked," he said, "we would be moving back to how things were done in the past."
Asked for a vote count, McConnell said: "I haven't given up on the possibility that we might have 60 votes, including some Democrats who have been whispering in my ear."
Durbin countered that there are "at least four Republicans with" the Dems on the matter of what he called "constitutional values."
Wallace asked Durbin about Harry Reid's floor speech in which he said that Judge Henry Saad's FBI file contained some bad stuff. Durbin said: "There have been controversies made of several nominees…" He wouldn't name names. Wallace asked him directly whether Reid had crossed the line with Saad, and Durbin pledged not to "go into it."
McConnell said, "Look, we all know that we're not supposed" to mention private files.
Asked about Senators Specter, Hagel, and Warner, McConnell affirmed that "we'll have the votes" if they are forced to enact what McConnell called "the Byrd Option." When Byrd was majority leader, McConnell noted, he had several rulings from the chair, which is what this would be.
He repeated the term "Byrd Option" liberally.
TEDDY KENNEDY ON FTN. A trim Teddy Kennedy was host Bob Schieffer's guest on CBS's Face the Nation, with Newsweek's Eleanor Clift along to ask questions. Schieffer asked him if he still wanted to withdraw U.S. troops from an Iraq "which has been nothing but trouble" (Schieffer's expression). Kennedy muttered that there can be no military solution; the solution must be political, the Iraqis have to do it, etc. Schieffer asked him again if he still wanted to pull out the troops, and Kennedy said: "I believe that we have become the occupiers, not the liberators." What we must do, Kennedy averred, is to convince the Iraqis to defend themselves.
So Kennedy has backed off from his earlier push to bring the troops home without a resolution; no, he did not explicitly admit his error.
Schieffer then explained how the filibuster fight was more than "inside baseball." About how the same techniques would apply for a "liberal Democrat" President like Ted Kennedy or Hillary Rodham Clinton. About how the courts could "overturn Roe v. Wade" and take away fundamental rights.
Does Frist have the votes to "overturn the filibuster rule"? (He's buying into the line that the GOP wants to stop all filibusters.) Kennedy hopes that "responsible Republicans" will vote with the Dems. He complained of a "right wing power grab," Halliburton, privatization of Social Security, etc. Both Clift and Schieffer tried to interrupt him for questions, but Kennedy continued talking about confirming 96% of the President's judicial nominees, etc.
Schieffer asked again if Bill Frist had the votes. Kennedy said that "it's till very much up in the air." He called in the "most important judgment in the Senate" since he began serving in the last century, since, he said, it cut to the core of what the Founding Fathers empowered the Senate to do. He accused Frist of "changing the rules because [he is] running for President."
There were more attempts by Schieffer and Clift to get a word in edgewise.
"The Senate is basically about comity," Kennedy maintained, "about coming to a schedule."
Asked about John Bolton, Kennedy said: "We need a diplomat, not a bully…. We need more Voinoviches on the floor of the Senate." He would not answer a question about a filibuster, when Schieffer was at last able to cause the Senator to pause long enough for it to be asked, but he noted that Bolton is the "architect" of "the failure of this administration on North Korea."
It was good to see the Senator residing in a more reasonable weight class.
JOHN MCCAIN ON THIS WEEK. "The maverick Senator with his eye on the White House." Steph wanted to know if McCain's search for a compromise will cost him the Republican nomination.
McCain declared that it is difficult to stop the Iraq insurgency because the insurgents are so hardcore and dedicated. That being said, McCain said, he can't imagine that the Iraqi people would support blowing up babies as a political tool.
George played an ABC reporter interpreting an unnamed DOD official as saying that we could still lose the war in Iraq. McCain flatly disagreed. He also pointed out that it is the casualties which affect the American public.
McCain disagreed with Hagel that the U.S. should be certain that Iraq has a democratic government. McCain said that we cannot make the mistake we made in Vietnam, where we tried to install our own government. He stressed that we had to fight terrorism abroad so we don't have to stop it here.
Steph spoke of a British memo which says that Bush wanted to remove Saddam because of terror and WMD, but that "the intelligence has been fixed" around the policy goals. McCain said he saw no proof of this. Steph said, "But what about the memo?" McCain, his voice rising a level, said that he disagreed with the memo. Even Saddam's own generals thought he had WMD. McCain does not believe that the Bush Administration "set up a scenario" enabling a war in Iraq.
McCain sees a way out of the judicial filibuster impasse, with "people of good will" sitting down and working on one. He blames "the extremes from each party" (including the Majority Leader?) for the impasse. McCain thinks that it takes 67 votes to protect the minority, and that the Democrats are going to enact revenge one day.
McCain cautioned that the rule change "would change the Senate, basically, into a body where the majority rules." GET THAT ONE!
Steph quoted Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life as saying that the Democrats are "trying to prevent Godly men and women from serving on our courts." McCain said the statement is "unfortunate." He also said that the Democrats' filibuster of judges was "unfortunate."
He wants the judges confirmed, he said, and he wants John Bolton to be confirmed.
McCain said that wants "a commitment not to filibuster appeals and Supreme Court nominations." He does not, however, want a rule change. (Is there a choice in that dichotomy?)
Steph played an emotional commercial asserting that experiments conducted on human embryonic stem cells will cure diseases. He asked what made McCain change his mind on this, and McCain faulted Nancy Reagan. But McCain condemned cloning.
Steph asked about immigration. McCain argued that it could take as much as eleven years for a person who has come here legally to become a citizen. McCain talked of how his opponents want to load people on buses and send them back to their home country. He talked about how the illegals are exploited and mistreated.
Steph talked about McCain whipping the Dems in the Presidential election, but he asked how he could win even when social conservatives hate him. McCain said 2008 was a long time away, but that fiscal conservatives like him and some social conservatives care about the environment. Steph asked him if he thought religious conservatives are too active in the GOP. McCain strongly disagreed. He told Republicans who thought so, though, to "get busy and regain their influence in the party." Those on the "religious right", he said, have a right to their issues, their agenda, and to be active in support of it.
HADLEY ON CNN. National Security Advisor Haley was Wolf Blitzer's first guest on CNN's Late Edition. Blitzer brought up the New York Times assertion that the Sunni's were trying to get into the Iraq solution through the "back door." Hadley said that the Iraqis were trying to encourage participation, but the U.S. is "in conversation" with representatives of the Sunnis, "through our embassy."
He spoke of Dr. Rice in Baghdad, and "she is going to continue" reaching out to the Sunnis as a means "to bring an end to this terrorist effort."
Hadley said that the level of terrorism has been "pretty consistent," but that the "lethality" has increased. Blitzer suggested that the terrorists were "getting better" at what they did, and Hadley agreed.
Blitzer asked if Hadley were worried about Iran's influence over the Shi'a elements of the new Iraqi government. Hadley said that we have asked Iran and Syria to stop supporting the terrorists and allow the political process to go forward. He's confidence that the "Iraqis are not going to turn [their process] over to Iran."
Hadley said that he could specify "which element" of the terrorist were being supported by Iran. It's more of a general thing.
Blitzer wanted to know if Hadley would order the assassination of Zarqawi if we discover where he is. He suggested that Pak might be allowing us to fly drones over the countryside to assassinate people. Hadley would not discuss the nature of relationships, etc.
Blitzer wanted to know if the President had signed a document authorizing assassinations of terrorist leaders. Hadley said that we're fighting a war, so "of course."
DICK LUGAR AND JOE BIDEN ON CNN. Senator Lugar is the Chairman, Biden the ranking Dem, on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Blitzer played for Lugar an excerpt from George Voinovich's Thursday monologue and asked Lugar if Bolton had enough votes. Lugar asserted: "John Bolton has a majority of votes to be confirmed." Matter-of-factly. He agreed with Voinovich that many might be good to lead the reform, but the President wants John Bolton. It's the President's call.
Lugar played Secretary of State Rice from a Larry King Live of last week, suggesting that Bolton has been successful. Biden agreed that "in general," a Secretary of State should get whom she wants, "but this isn't about John Bolton's political views." Biden said that this is about Bolton misusing and "threatening the envelope" on intelligence. And something about a "climate of intimidation."
Blitzer asked Biden about Babs Boxer's hold, and he said that she told him that she put the hold on, not for the docs, but to be certain that there would be no vote on Monday. He said that only nine Republicans voted for Bolton in committee, that he received only ten. Blitzer asked him why he won't filibuster. Biden said that would be premature, as he hopes the President caves and withdraws Bolton.
Lugar, answering a query by Blitzer, said that the politically charged environment has "been building, really since the election of 2000." He noted that "procedural issues are interesting, and they're important," but they should really get back to work.
Blitzer played a clip of Ted Kennedy on FTN mumbling something basically incoherent about compromises which prevent a single Senator from blocking a vote on a judicial nomination. Joe Biden said that it would be a disaster to modify the rule for confirming judges, because George Will and Ken Starr said so.
Lugar said that "we are skating over very thin ice" as to the "continuity of life in the Senate as we know it." He said that he believes filibusters are important. Blitzer asked him if he'd vote against the rule modification. "Not necessarily." He praised Joe Biden and the Dems for not using procedural rules to block Bolton in Committee.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And that's it for the shows this week.
Next week, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist could either shine brightly or take the first step toward reopening his medical practice.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | Say One Thing, Do Another — Comments (15) »
Review of the Sunday Morning Talk Shows 13 Comments (0 topical, 13 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
that serious conservatives, including those who oppose abortion, can support medical experiments performed on the stem cells of human embryos. The hope is that maybe such work can find a cure for something, and that's a hopeful way of thinking. If we're going to kill human embryos and perform experiments on their stem cells, I hope that some good can come of it. I also hope that it is stopped and tests are performed on adult cells.
I'm also aware that my way of phrasing these things can be considered extremist, or whatever, but is it wrong?
Please tell me what vaccines have been discovered through such experiments.
No snark intended here whatsoever: if you believe that more federal funds should be extended to conduct embryonic stem-cell research, what do you think about places like Harvard University doing the research on their own, without taking a dollar of federal money, so that they can exempt themselves from the existing cell-line regulations?
I ask because it just seems to me that in many ways that labs like the ones Harvard has built have done an end-run around the federal regulations and, in many ways, made them moot -- and so, if they're moot, then the government should drop them and start funding the research again. Do you think that was the idea, or am I all wet?
Sorry, Mark, I went off on more of a rant than I intended. I do think your way of phrasing it was wrong, in the sense that it suggested that McCain came to his conclusion on embryonic stem cell research in a flip manner. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't; it does no one any good, however, to presume the worse.
Please tell me what vaccines have been discovered through such experiments.
This is an entirely unsatisfactory response but: I'm sorry, I don't want to identify the specific treatments and vaccines developed from fetal cell lines. (Note that the cell lines are derived from fetal tissue; we're not talking about actual experiments on fetuses.) The last thing I want is to (inadvertently) identify a client's drug/vaccine, which might then harm their business. I will say, however, that it's all public knowledge, and that pro-life sites have been dedicated to identifying the particular drugs/vaccines at issue. In other words, it's all out there -- but, given the duty I owe my clients, I'm not going to spread it any further.
I ask because it just seems to me that in many ways that labs like the ones Harvard has built have done an end-run around the federal regulations and, in many ways, made them moot -- and so, if they're moot, then the government should drop them and start funding the research again. Do you think that was the idea, or am I all wet?
Frankly, I don't know. I do think that federal funding will help research at the public schools (incl. land-grant universities) -- where, frankly, most of the relevant research occurs. I'd be willing to consider alternative market-based initiatives, where federal monies don't go strictly to stem cell research, but tax and other credits are given -- tho' I suspect that such a "compromise" will satisfy exactly no-one.
It's about as good an answer as I've heard from anyone so far. I think this issue is incredibly important and also deeply trying -- the choices can be portrayed so that they resemble Faustian bargains very easily and the facts need to understood very clearly in order to prevent that. I agree very strongly with your statement that it's unwise for anyone on any side of this issue to snark around with it. For my part, it infuriated me when John Edwards made his statements saying that people like Christopher Reeve would "get up out of that wheelchair" during the campaign. Krauthammer was right on the money when he called Edwards on it.
<gratuitous plug>
Aside from that, to Mark Kilmer -- once again, this is the best (and the funniest) summary of the Sunday morning shows going. It's now become a regular read for me -- it should be in syndication, and as a free resource on a blog, it's fantastic. I'm going to make a contribution to RedState next week, and your weekly digest is one of the reasons why.
</gratuitous plug>
such an important decision regarding stem cells in an unserious manner, and I do not beleive Senator McCain did so.
I'll try to explain:
Steph played an emotional commercial asserting that experiments conducted on human embryonic stem cells will cure diseases. He asked what made McCain change his mind on this, and McCain faulted Nancy Reagan. But McCain condemned cloning.
"McCain faulted Nancy Reagan." The verb could be disputed; substitute "credited." He said that Nancy Reagan is held in high esteem and her impassioned statements on the subject changed his mind. He might have been flip in his answer.
And he did condemn cloning. He said something to the effect that while he does favor medical experiments on human embryos, he draws the line on human cloning. (He may have added, "And that sort of thing," or words to that effect.)
I'll research what's been done with human fetuses, and I understand your reluctance.
Seem to me to be pretty much the same issue. I don't see how using ES cells is going to be effective without using therapeutic cloning. There is going to be immune system compatibility issues even if a treatement can be devised useing cells derived from embryos. So if we are going to pursue this research we may as well admit that what we really need is to allow therapeutic cloning.
Elisabeth's voice is much more pleasant. (PDF transcript here.)
I listened to the CSPAN Radio replay this afternoon, and had to laugh at Bumiller's frustration as Kennedy filibustered the tough questions and she couldn't break through with a question. What a horrible guest Kennedy is.
Sample:
Ms. BUMILLER: Senator...
Sen. KENNEDY: All we're talking about is a handful of the most radical, right-wing, extremist
judges that are for repealing voting rights...
SCHIEFFER: Yes, sir. We totally understand.
Sen. KENNEDY: ...and repealing other constitutional rights and that we find is unacceptable.
SCHIEFFER: Senator, if I could--may I just--may I just interrupt you? I'm not sure that
you're hearing me back here.
Sen. KENNEDY: Yeah, sure. Yeah, sure. Yes.
SCHIEFFER: Back to the question. Do have you the votes to block Senator Frist or does he
have the votes to pass this? Could you just give us your estimate at this point?
Sen. KENNEDY: Well, I would hope that he would. I think it's still very, very much up in
the air. I think most of us understand that this will be decided by one or two votes.
Ms. BUMILLER: Senator, let me just ask...
Sen. KENNEDY: But what we're talking about...
Ms. BUMILLER: Senator...
Sen. KENNEDY: Yes.
Ms. BUMILLER: ...let me just ask this question.
Etc.
for your donation. And another thanks to Mark for his tireless work!
Disclaimer: This has nothing to do with Mark's post.
Conflating pro-life and opposition to stem-cell research, opposition to financing stem-cell research, or any other issue only hurts the slow movement of convincing more Americans to call themselves Pro-Life. I met a Democrat last night who had recently begun referring to himself as pro-life after the partial-birth abortion debate last year. Let's not scare off those who are not religiously or dogmatically pro-life by making it a narrowly defined term.
I agree very strongly with your statement that it's unwise for anyone on any side of this issue to snark around with it. For my part, it infuriated me when John Edwards made his statements saying that people like Christopher Reeve would "get up out of that wheelchair" during the campaign.
Absolutely. The other side of it is to promise Alzheimers patients that they'll be cured in six months if the research is allowed. They won't.

Thanks for the review; it's been very helpful.
Steph played an emotional commercial asserting that experiments conducted on human embryonic stem cells will cure diseases. He asked what made McCain change his mind on this, and McCain faulted Nancy Reagan. But McCain condemned cloning.
If I may go off on a rant, here:
Perhaps it's because a lot of my work involves pharmeceutical companies, but this snark really irks me. The implied assumption is that there's only one "Republican" or pro-life position on embryonic stem cell research, and that is to oppose such research in all circumstances. Not so.
First, lots of pro-life Republicans have come to the conclusion that embryonic stem cell research should be allowed (under certain controls), and even receive federal funds (to a greater extent than at present). McCain is one; Orrin Hatch is another. Moreover, many (indeed, I daresay, most) Christians and Jews belong to religious demoninations that either allow embryonic stem cell research or have not yet expressed a denominational opinon on the issue. To define "pro-life" to include only those who follow the teachings of certain conservative Protestant Churches or those who are fully in accord with the Catholic Church's teachings is to define the term "pro-life" out of political significance.
Second, it currently appears that prohibiting or limiting embryonic stem cell research research may very well (indirectly) result in additional or different human suffering. Indeed, to the extent that the results of future research can be predicted, every indication is that embryonic stem cells are unique cells, and that research on them will have singular and unique benefits -- benefits that will not exist as a result of any other presently-conceivable research path. For opposition to embryonic stem cell research to be honest, it must recognize that fact; for it to be persuasive, it must answer it. (And I don't suggest that it incapable of providing an answer, for, among other things, there is a difference between direct and indirect harm.)
Finally, it's also worth noting that embryonic and fetal (non-stem) cell research has generated all manner of novel and useful treatments in the past, including (among other things) vaccinations that many RedState readers and/or their children have probably received. If your opposition to embryonic stem cell research is based on its allegeldy unprecedented nature or some "slippery slope" fear, you may want to rethink your position.
I respect those who oppose embryonic stem cell research on moral grounds, and, though I currently favor addressing federal funds to such research, I don't pretend to be free from moral doubt on the issue. But it's unwise -- morally or politically -- to be snarky on this issue.