The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - The Review
Who will help nancy measure for drapes?
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Special Features — Comments (92) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Sunday, October 22, 2006
On TW, the "Tet offensive" remark was not drawing a parallel. It was insignificant. The real headline should have been that he came close to calling Moqtada al Sadr an al Qaeda tool. Or that he pointed out that John Kerry waved the 'white flag of surrender' on Iraq by campaigning for a date certain for withdrawal from Iraq whether or not we had achieved our goals.
Steph had to allow JF Kerry a chance to spread his manure in rebuttal, and he mischaracterized the President as saying that Kerry was waving the white flag by demanding a timetable. Kerry pulled out his dudgeon face, which is as awkward as any other, and called it "reprehensible" and called it "a lie."
On MTP, Barack Obama continued is book tour and Tim Russert called him the new generation of Camelot who will lead us from the tired arguments of yesterday.
On FNS, there was Warner, Lugar, Biden, and Levin. The discussion was interesting, but Biden had thought of everything years ago and Levin could only complain. The only thing which struck me as "new" was Dick Lugar's suggestion that we bring Iran into talks about Iraq.
On FTN, Schumer and Dole again agreed to have dinner. Dole said that President Bush was not on the ballot, and Schumer said that "people want change."
On LE, Arlen Specter was happy with the New York Times story, since refuted by the White House, that the President was considering an Iraqi timetable. He said that this was what James Baker was suggesting, though Baker has said explicitly that it is not. Jack Reed, on the other hand, explicitly agreed with Carl Levin.
Read the complete, Show-by-Show review below the fold...
Sunday, October 22, 2006
On TW, the "Tet offensive" remark was not drawing a parallel. It was insignificant. The real headline should have been that he came close to calling Moqtada al Sadr an al Qaeda tool. Or that he pointed out that John Kerry waved the 'white flag of surrender' on Iraq by campaigning for a date certain for withdrawal from Iraq whether or not we had achieved our goals.
Steph had to allow JF Kerry a chance to spread his manure in rebuttal, and he mischaracterized the President as saying that Kerry was waving the white flag by demanding a timetable. Kerry pulled out his dudgeon face, which is as awkward as any other, and called it "reprehensible" and called it "a lie."
On MTP, Barack Obama continued is book tour and Tim Russert called him the new generation of Camelot who will lead us from the tired arguments of yesterday.
On FNS, there was Warner, Lugar, Biden, and Levin. The discussion was interesting, but Biden had thought of everything years ago and Levin could only complain. The only thing which struck me as "new" was Dick Lugar's suggestion that we bring Iran into talks about Iraq.
On FTN, Schumer and Dole again agreed to have dinner. Dole said that President Bush was not on the ballot, and Schumer said that "people want change."
On LE, Arlen Specter was happy with the New York Times story, since refuted by the White House, that the President was considering an Iraqi timetable. He said that this was what James Baker was suggesting, though Baker has said explicitly that it is not. Jack Reed, on the other hand, explicitly agreed with Carl Levin.
STEPH AND THE PRESIDENT. Former Clinton (Bill) staffer George Stephanopoulos interviewed President Bush for this week's This Week on ABC. He began the President's segment with the President "delighting" a group of young school students in North Carolina. "It was like old times," Steph's voice narrated, perhaps cynically referring to the planes striking the Twin Towers as the President spoke to school children in Florida (see Moore, Michael).
He cut straight to the "Tet Offensive" bit, saying the President's acknowledgment of the Vietnam-Iraq "parallel" in response to a question concerning a Tom Friedman column in the New York Times in which Friedman asserted: "Iraq... the jihadist equivalent of the Tet offensive."
The President replied: "He could be right. There's certainly a stepped up level of violence, and we're heading into an election." (knowing smile)
STEPH: "Are they trying to influence the election?"
THE PRESIDENT: "Could be. I don't know. I don't have any intelligence that suggests that."
STEPH: "But what's your gut tell you?"
THE PRESIDENT: "George, my gut has been telling me all along that they have been trying to inflict enough damage that we leave. And the leaders of al Qaeda have made that very clear.
"Here's how I view it: first of all, al Qaeda is still very active in Iraq. They are dangerous; they are lethal. They are trying to not only kill American troops, but they're trying to foment sectarian violence. They believe that if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort and will cause government to withdraw."
The hyped bit was of little import; there was no "another Vietnam" admission. Despite what Steph claimed, the President did not draw parallels with Vietnam.
He did, however, say that he thinks it is the al Qaeda who are tricking the Sectarians into killing each other. From that, if I had to draw a headline to hype the show, it would be: "BUSH CALLS MOQTADA AL SADR A TOOL!" I don't know that this is entirely accurate, but it is more so than the Vietnam parallel claim.
The President told Steph that the goal is to build a free and functioning Iraq which can take care of itself and be an independent partner. Steph said that each month, we are getting further from that goal, as the casualty stats are increasing. Bush replied that if you want to measure success by the number of casualties, then he's right. He added that this was how the enemy defined success and failure.
The President said that the Iraqi government has to follow the will of the Iraqi people. Steph asked if Maliki was satisfactory, and Bush reminded that he had been in office "for about four months." The President said he is patient, but not forever. Maliki faces a different task.
Bush said that he wasn't going to "cut and run," but that he would constantly adjust his strategy. Steph interjected that James Baker was looking for a middle ground between "cut and run and stay the course." The President replied: "Listen, we've never been 'stay the course,' George." The President said that he is for "completing the mission." This, then, is his definition of the old "stay the course" phrase.
Steph said that "this is what I don't get." He pointed out that James Baker is a smart guy with a good group of people, but what can he come up with the President and his commanders haven't thought of? The President said we'll have to wait to find out. "We're not in collaboration" with Baker's Iraq Study Group. "That's an interesting question, and I'm looking forward to seeing the answer."
Steph argued that some think our tactics should change now, not after the election when the Baker Commission reports. The President reiterated that we are constantly changing tactics.
Steph asked if the strategy were working now. The President replied: "If it's not working, the commanders change it."
The President Bush does not see "every single" soldier out of Iraq during his Presidency?
Steph asked him if these midterm elections will be a referendum of Iraq. The President called this the "Washington perspective" and said that his perspective was that these elections will be about who can keep this country from further attack and who can help the economy to continue to grow. He said that this election was about local issues, he's not on the ballot.
The checkered wall behind him, black and white squares, resembled a chess board surrounding his left shoulder when the camera shot was of the President's chest to the top of his head.
Steph pointed out that 72 Dem candidates were using the President in their campaign ads.
Steph asked the President about his rhetoric about this election being about a choice between the Republicans and the "Democrats who want to wave the white flag of surrender in the war on terror." Steph challenged him to name a single Democrat who would wave that flag. The President said he could name a Democrat who said that we should have a date certain of when we had to leave Iraq whether we had won or not. Bush said that this was "absolutely" surrender. He said he was not questioning their patriotism: "It's questioning their judgment."
Steph asked him about "scandal and corruption." Four Republicans have had to resign. Bush reminded that they were not on the ballot. Steph said they "tamp down" Republican turnout. Bush didn't know: "I'm not a pundit."
Bush said he's not a poll guy -- "That's you!" -- so he can't analyze why the majority of the American people is that the economy is on the wrong track.
The President refused to consider the Democrats taking either house of Congress, despite the MSM repetition.
Listing what his priorities would be, the President said matter-of-factly, that he's going to try Social Security reform again.
KERRY AND STEPH. This being Steph's show, John Kerry gets the last word. Steph confronted Kerry: "You heard the President. He said that Democrats like you who want a fixed timetable for withdrawal from Iraq are waving 'the white flag of surrender' in the war on terror." This is not what the President said, of course. The President said that those waving the white flag of surrender were those who would leave Iraq at a date certain whether we had achieved our goals or not. Steph lied.
But Kerry didn't care. Of the President, he said: "That's reprehensible. It's a lie." He accused the Administration of lying and making America less safe.
He said the President lied about al Qaeda in Iraq. Al Qaeda was not instigating Sectarian violence. "Al Qaeda is not a problem in Iraq." He said that this is a civil war between Shi'a and Sunni. He said the President doesn't have a policy, and then he said the President's policy was 'stay the course.' He ignored the President's definition of "stay the course." Kerry said we have to set a date, "because it's the only way to get Iraqis to respond."
Kerry spat the same prattle for a while, and then he said that the Dems would seize Congress. Steph credited Kerry with inventing Barack Obama, who might run for President. Kerry said that his judgment was great in putting Obama on the national stage, and if Obama thinks he's ready to be President, fine.
CHAIRMEN AND RANKING MEMBERS ON FNS. On FOX News Sunday, host Chris Wallace spoke to Chairman Dick Lugar of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and ranking Dem Joe Biden. He spoke to Chairman John Warner of the Senate Armed Services Committee and ranking Dem Carl Levin. All were in the studio, and all five heads were, at times, fit onto the screen at one time.
Warner said that we must "impress on [Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al] Maliki that he has to come up with a way to get rid of the private militias in Iraq. Joe Biden said we were at a "tipping point" two years ago and he had long pleaded for a political solution in Iraq.
Lugar said that the Iraqis were all unemployed and we have to figure out how to get them jobs so they can pay for their own reconstruction. Levin blamed the Administration.
Warner said that we have to be tough of Maliki, and he used SecDef Rumsfeld and the President as examples of this toughness on Maliki. Maliki has to give more authority to the Iraq Army. It is their job, Warner insisted, to subdue the private militias.
Biden said that he had no confidence in Maliki and he never has. He said that he doesn't think Maliki "has the inclination to do anything."
Lugar said that Maliki was our best hope, the "best horse to ride on." He said that some Iraqis want a strong leader, so the United States has to find a way to give Maliki "more clout." Levin blamed the Administration.
Levin blamed the Administration for refusing to hold one-on-one talks with North Korea. Lugar pronounced: "There will be an American presence talking with the Great Leader." He said that we would guarantee him that we're not looking for a regime change, that his position was safe. We have to talk to him bilaterally, Lugar said.
Biden said that he has been saying for three years now that we have to talk one-on-one with Pyongyang. No regime change. He joined Levin in blaming the Administration.
Senator Warner said: "The President has done a very credible job with North Korea." He said that we have to keep negotiating in the framework of the six-party talks, as the PRC is the one with the leverage, but little side discussions with North Korea can continue. He pointed out that if we tried one-on-one exclusively, we'd take the blame if the talks failed. (The one-on-one approach failed under Clinton, but Warner did not mention this.)
Biden said that the Administration is afraid to talk to Iran. Lugar said we should bring the Iranians into an "existential" discussion about Iraq, beyond the nuclear issue.
Wallace announced that he wanted to have a quick, non-partisan discussion of the election. Senator Warner looked skeptical that this would happen. Warner said that the GOP would keep the Senate. He said, basically, that if the Dems take the House, we'll have lunatics running the House Committees. (To be fair, that's only my interpretation. Warner called it only a "new dynamic." He started to question the Dems who would be chairmen, but time was tight and Joe Biden had to speak.)
Biden predicted that if the Dems take control of the Senate, at least a dozen Republicans will be free to break with the Administration and demand a change of course. His proof? Biden said that three Senators had told him that before the show. Lugar and Warner made clear that it was not either of them.
BARACK AND TIM. The Barack Obama book tour continued on NBC's Meet the Press with Tim Russert. Tim quoted from Obama's bestselling book, something about how politically, when the Republicans are in trouble, the Dems just have "to get out of the way." Obama added that Dems have an "obligation," though, to call for a "phased withdrawal" and regional cooperation. By the end of 2007. He said that we have to tell the Joint Chiefs of Staff that this is how it is going to be, now do it.
Russert quoted Barack from his book asking if we invaded Iraq, why don't we invade Burma? Barack told Russert that we can't invade North Korea.
Barack told Russert that he voted against John Roberts even though John Roberts was qualified, but this act was bipartisan, he said, because he did not support a filibuster.
Barack accused the President and the Republicans of "approaching problems from a very ideological point of view." He wants to use "common sense" and be "reasonable." Russert was looking for "mission from God" stuff, so he quoted Barack as saying that the President has a "messianic certainty." Does this mean he thinks "God wills it"? Obama wouldn't go that far, but he said that the President uses ideology rather than facts.
Russert quoted Barack from his book as dismissing today's debates as retreads of those which took place in college dorm rooms in the '60s. Russert proposed that Barack Obama was the messiah from a "new generation" who would lead us to a place where we were not bogged down in the old debates. [My dad was a big Kingston Trio fan. Camelot! Camelot! (It's only a model.)]
SCHUMER AND DOLE ON FTN. CBS' Bob Schieffer, host of Face the Nation, this morning spoke to Chuckie Schumer of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and Liddy Dole of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). Both in studio.
Schieffer showed the Republicans up by ten in the Senate. Six seats will give control to the Dems.
"Can the Democrats do that?" Schieffer asked Chuck. Schumer said that though he would not have said this two months ago, Democrats are "right on the edge." He said that two months ago, the Republican was leading in Pennsylvania, while now the Democrat is leading. This is a bad example. Casey was leading in Pennsylvania all summer, but Santorum has closed the gap over the past few months.
Dole said that the party in the White House traditionally loses seats in the midterm. The GOP has some good candidates running great races, "The President's name is not on the ballot," she said. She cited Tom Kean as running on ethics.
Schumer and Dole renewed their collegial chuckling about having dinner when this was all over.
Schieffer asked Dole if Iraq were the "overriding issues." Dole answered that local issues are the ones which matter. On Iraq, she said that North Carolina has a lot of young people in Iraq, and Chuck would agree that we should keep them in their prayers. She mentioned Jim Baker and his plan for Iraq.
Chuckie said that "people want change." The majority of people don't like what we're doing in Iraq, and Iraq has become a Democrat "strong point." The Republican candidates "twist themselves in a pretzel," talking about a "secret plan."
Dole pointed out that putting the Dems in control of Iraq won't "fix" the tremendous problems; rather, she said, it will weaken us against terrorists. The choice between the parties is clear, she said. Democrat control of the Senate will weaken our economy, our security, and our "shared values" (lefty judges).
Chuckie said that "from one end of the country to the other, people want change." He said that Democrats will make next year a "year of transition" in Iraq. The Democrats will give us a foreign policy which is "strong and smart." People are unhappy with Iraq and with the way the Bushies are treating the middle class.
Dole professed that there have bee constant adjustments in tactics on Iraq. It's an "unconventional war, for gawdsakes." She pointed out that the Democrats have been against the terrorists surveillance act, the Patriot Act, etc. She said that the tax cuts have created new jobs, home ownership. Schumer agreed that the overall numbers are good, but everything is going to the top 1%. The Middle Class is worried about paying tuition. He said that there was a "donut hole" because the Republicans are letting the drug companies bilk us.
Dole said that the GOP should keep the Senate because of tax cuts, security, cheap prescription drugs, securing the border, and judges who do not make law from the bench. Schumer said the Democrats should take the Senate because "we need change." (This is what Obama wrote about, "getting out of the way" when the opponent has perceived problems. Obama added that the Democrats owed more than this on Iraq, but Chuckie does not agree.)
SPECTER AND REED ON LE. Senators Arlen Specter and Jack Reed were Wolf Blitzer's first guests on CNN's Late Edition. Blitzer declared that the situation in Iraq was "clearly deteriorating" and brought in the negativity crowd.
Specter said that the time had already passed to adjust tactics in Iraq and that he "takes heart" in a New York Times story, since refuted by the Administration, which claims that the President is reversing course and considering a timetable.
Reed was at the table across from Blitzer, who pointed out that the Administration was denying the TImes story. Reed said that a few months ago, he joined with Senator Levin in blaming the Administration and calling for a change in tactics. He said that the Iraqi government has "deteriorated."
Blitzer pointed out that Shi'ites were killing Shi'ites in Samara, and he launched into Moqtada al Sad.
Reed declared, "This is a civil war." Blitzer asked Specter about this, and Arlen answered: "Yes." He thinks we have to "face the facts" that Iraq is in a civil war. He said that the President has "given tacit approval to what James Baker is doing." Specter said we wouldn't have invaded Iraq if we knew that Saddam didn't have WMD. Specter said that we need a timetable because we can't stay in Iraq forever.
Blitzer quoted Olympia Snowe as saying we need to get out. Blitzer pointed to Reed as having been in Iraq "more than anyone else" and asked him about partitioning Iraq. Reed said that this would be "very difficult," as not everyone has resources.
Blitzer quoted Tony Snow as saying partitioning Iraq is a "non-starter." He quoted Olympia Snowe as saying that though partitioning would lead to Balkanization, "things are looking pretty good in the Balkans right now." Specter said partitioning "should be explored until somebody comes up with a better idea."
Blitzer played a clip of Cheney saying "last throe of the insurgency" bit, then his admission to Time magazine that his assessment was wrong. Blitzer asked Specter if he had confidence in Cheney and Rumsfeld. Specter said he had confidence in Cheney and that Rumsfeld was up to the President. Reed thinks Rumsfeld "should be fired."
Jack Reed, taking the Levin line, seemed more coherent on this matter than did Arlen Specter. He was more coherent than was Levin. He was also incoherent.
On North Korea, Reed blamed the Administration because they are "paralyzed" by the discussion over whether the talks should be bilateral or multi-party. Specter said "we ought to be negotiating on both tracks at the same time." He mentioned a year-old floor speech he gave calling for direct negotiations with North Korea and with Iran. He cited President Reagan, saying that Reagan negotiated one-on-one with the evil empire.
Blitzer played a clip of Clinton (Bill) by saying that the Republicans have won elections by scaring people, and he thinks "the dog is mangy." Blitzer said that Bush and Rove still believe they can scare people into voting for Republicans. Reed said that the "veil has fallen" from that one, and that the "people want change."
Specter disagreed with Clinton's "mangy old dog" analogy. He said that people voted against Gore because they didn't like what Clinton was doing.
Jack Reed said that there was a Democrat surge in Rhode Island. Specter said that though Rick Santorum was "fighting for his political life," he (Specter) had fought for his political life "in many ways" in the past and always won. "Don't count Rick Santorum out." So there is Arlen trying to motivate the Republican base in Pennsylvania by gloating about his 2004 primary victory over Pat Toomey. I wish this guy would keep his mouth shut.
-----
Have at it!
« The Sunday Morning Talk Shows: The Review — Comments (16) | The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - preview — Comments (4) »
The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - The Review 92 Comments (0 topical, 92 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I'm inclined to think that Obama is really angling for the VP spot. If HRC sees it the same way, she's probably cool with it. She's a politician; she'll cut what deals she needs to cut. And Obama might be a very savvy choice for her VP, anyway.
This is assuming that HRC plans to run herself. I guess I'm the last person in America who doesn't accept this as a foregone conclusion.
That's just what this country needs, a socialist as a president and a lightweight as vice-president.
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
Liberals LOVE trying failed ideas (and bless 'em for it)
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
....Lo and behold: My guess is that if Obama ever decides to run for President, and assuming a Democrat victory in this election, his choice for Veep will be...
...Rahm Emanuel.
Why do I say that? Well, just listen to Paul Begala compare him to LBJ:
"He's like Lyndon Johnson, who finished almost every campaign in a hospital bed. As someone from Texas, I don't make that comparison lightly, but Rahm just may be our skinny, nine-fingered, Jewish, Chicago version of LBJ."
Ho ho. Yes. Why didn't I think of that, Paul?
In any case, assuming they would snub the Hillster in '08 and try to run as a Chicago Dynamic Duo, they could call it the "Obama-Rahma Dream Team" and sell "Obama Rahma Pajamas" to raise money.
I didn't know the Twelfth Amendment prohibited anyone who had been a professional ballet dancer from becoming Vice President... Live and learn. And there goes that comparison with LBJ, come to think of it...
But seriously, why the Twelfth Amendment? How is either of them ineligible? Rahm was born in the United States, according to the Wikipedia entry.
it was a misprint in Wikipedia. That should have read: trained as a ballot dancer! It was referring to his early political training!
There was a little brouhaha in 2000 when people wanted to make a 12th amendment technicality about Bush and his running mate both being from Texas. Apparently Cheney had lived in Texas while he was with Halliburton. Since he owned a home in Wyoming and once represented Wyoming in Congress the thing eventually went away.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
I don't see why that would be a problem, necessarily. One of them could just establish residence a stone's throw across the border in Wisconsin and it would only add 45 minutes or so to the commute into Chicago. I guess it would be sticky because one of them would presumably have to resign his job, but I'm not sure whether that's necessarily strictly legally true...someone else more versed in that area of the law must know...
I think Obama will win if that's the case. Romney will look like the "extremist" and Obama the "centrist". I'm not agreeing that that's the truth, but I can see the perceptions forming already.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
and Romney will look manly, experienced in business and politics, and open to compromise
"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher
But so is Obama. Just an opinion about who'd win...
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
has been a businessman and governor so I can see why he might be a good/great candidate. But what in Obama's work experience makes him a great cnadidate?
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
as good as John Edwards' hair.
I suspect Obama is the "great candidate du jour" for several factors: (1)he's black; (2) he presents himself well; (3) Oprah thinks he should be president, but I suspect that's because of reason one.
In real terms there isn't much 'there' there. Former state legislator, one term Senator, and don't forget ..., and then there is always ... Well actually that's it.
Obama has two afflictions: he believes the 'superstar' press releases; he's a Senator and all Senators eventually come to believe they can be president.
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
I would not be too dismissive of this guy. Not too long ago we had to endure a presidency of a guy with a short resume as a former governor or Arkansas and a Tennesee Senator for a running mate. I think if the dems chose the former governor of Iowa and this Illinois Senator for their ticket they could have a chance to pull it off. This part of the dem party would be an immense improvement from the Kennedy, Kerry, Kucinich, and Dean moonbats that have been running the party.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
While certainly the partisan right is never going to vote for him, they aren't going to vote for any Democrat. I fail to see how you can ascertain that he is too far to the left. Based on what? His brief voting record?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
A good sound reason for him to be president?
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
what you mean. Certainly his brief tenure in the Senate is not a good reason to vote for the guy. But it also doesn't invalidate him either.
Heck there are people who want to see Condaleeza Rice run for President and she's never held an elected position in her life.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Rice has had plenty of administrative experience-in the private sector and in government. She has held two very important high level jobs, both of which involve foreign policy experience, something a lot of senators aren't going to have.
Obama has been a senator for one term and doesn't have any executive experience.
I do think Obama is a candidate to watch out for in the future, I just don't think '08 will be his year-I think he needs more experience, not to mention he is definitely more to the left than his rhetoric. I think his lack of experience would get him eaten alive in a general election. Also, while he makes pretty speeches, he doesn't do so well on the Q and A end, and this has to improve, and probably will, but it could turn into some awkward moments during an election season.
I think that Obama will spend the next year seeing how viable a run really is.
I thought he did very well this morning with Russert.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
that being a half-term senator with Oprah's endorsement makes one a more impressive or qualified candidate than a brilliant, successful Secretary of State with long government experience going back to the Cold War, a phd and provost of a major university? maybe if she had the chance to be commish of the NFL first she'd be in Obama's league?
certainly Obama, like Rice, has a more inviting demeanor than the shrill Hillary Clinton, but that alone is not a cause for support either.
none of what you describe with Rice is executive? She is a career civil servant.
FTR, I'm not suggesting that one is better than the other. I was simply pointing out, and rightly given the responses, that people will overlook discrepancies or shortcomings if they see other values in a person.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
that is fair enough. and I did not mean to suggest you were wrong to say that lack of elected office is a hurdle a Rice candidacy would have to overcome. even though you weren't making a direct comparison (my apologies for reading too fast to realize that the 1st time) I do think she has enough relevant experience and is impressive enough to be a legitimate candidate if she wanted, and that Obama does not yet have sufficient value to overcome his lack of experience. that is not to say Obama can't or won't get the seasoning required to become a legitimate candidate, but it won't be by 08, or that both he and Condi wouldn't probably benfit from being in the #2 seat first.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
wasn't he a 3 term governor? surprising because he was so young, and maybe AR isn't the biggest state in the country, but still. and a governor of any state has executive experience which a half-term senator (or any current senator that I'm aware of outside of the bland and gaffe-prone Allen) does not. Clinton was far more accomplished than Obama.
a Clinton or Obama run would be infuriating to watch because the media would constantly be lamenting the sexists/racists won't vote for them, when the fact will always be that there will be far more people that would vote for them solely BECAUSE s/he is a woman/minority than against them for same. this is not a good way to choose a leader, and why I pray that there is an actually qualified (and non-leftist) female or minority candidate that can preempt them (though that looks quite unlikely for Clinton, who is certainly running this time, unless its Condi, who says she's not running...still would be a great candidate for veep though).
In my post I was not comparing Obama and Bill Clinton. I was comparing the Iowa governor Vilsack to Clinton and the Illinois senator Obama to Gore. In other words Obama running as a veep.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
at least about Obama. I think that Republicans should be worrying about this guy.
Whereas Hillary would be the Republicans dream candidate, this guy is their nightmare candidate.
He inspires his base and actually comes off as being pretty moderate. He talks about big ideas and seems to stay above a lot of the partisan heckling. He has very little voting record, which is usually an albatross around a Senator's neck. I could seem being a latter day JFK.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
You know, that is a plausible scenario. But who will win after they've given the Martians the right to vote?
The Dems really believe that war is an organized thing with the bad guys wearing black hats and the good guys wearing white hats. They think you can have a shot clock that runs out and the game is over and everybody goes home. They think that intelligence is all black and white and you can tell who the enemy is because all their thoughts appear in a balloon above their heads like in comic books.
“Tough and smart?”
How will the Dems gather intelligence? Will they use psychics? Will they send out questionnaires: “Please answer a few questions and you could win a free set of steak knives.”
Heh!
"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher
I'd like to know who in the Dem party came up with this vapid phrase of non-information. Kinda like "truth to power". What exactly does that mean?
It seems like every time the New York Times writes a story and the White House refutes it, the fact that they refuted it becomes indisputible evidence of its veracity. So the New York Times could conceivably write a story cycle that begins with an op-ed where one of their columnists says:
"Given the suite of gloomy options he's facing, the President must surely be considering unconditional withdrawal from Iraq and stepping down as Commander-In-Chief at this point."
The next day, after a flurry of phone calls, they write:
"Today administration sources, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the contents of the President's Daily Briefing told the Times that senior administration officials had discussed the option of unconditional withdrawal from Iraq and Bush stepping down as Commander-In-Chief."
The next day, after Tony Snow smacks it down in a press conference, telling the world that yes, the President laughed at the idea while he was spreading the New York Times out on the floor to wipe his feet with after returning from a bicycle ride:
"Although White House sources now vigorously deny that the President is going to announce an unconditional withdrawal from Iraq and step down as Commander-In-Chief, this contradicts earlier statements from other administration sources that the subject had been enthusiastically broached."
Then the Sunday Magazine runs a five-page article: "Countdown to Withdrawal: Unwinding the Iraq War" and the newspaper runs an editorial saying that Bush stepping down might seem like the easy way out to the President, calling him a coward and an irresponible President because it would leave Dick Cheney in charge.
Iran is the problem.
To win Iraq we must defeat Iran's mad mullahs.
No national politician is talking about Iran as the enemy, at least as far as the MSM is concerned.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
He went on and on and on about "neo-cons" on the Wolf Blitzer Cavalcade. I swear, he sounded like a left-wing conspiratorialist.
I guess he's just really, really old. And egotistical. And old. (Standard blah, blah: I honor his service.)
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
my god did you hear them talking about a 20+ pickup in the house for the dems? that is NOT going to happen. they are going to pick up no more then 7 seats. in hte senate they will get 3 seats net, not the 5 or 6 they were saying on beat the depressing (meet the press) or whatever show that was that they said it on...
"Suppose you were a congressman, and suppose you were an idiot. But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain
I think you have a VERY optimistic view of what is going to happen in the House.
The GOP has 3 seats that are essentially gone already(Ney, Foley, Delay).
Lots of other seats in which the Republicans are facing are going to be very tough for the GOP to retain.
I think a 7 seat loss would be a huge win for the Republicans right now.
In the Senate it could go either way. I think the Democrats are almost certain to pick up a few seats. And if all the cards fall the right way they could pick up 6. I would probably put it at 4. If Kean somehow wins, though, that would be a big win for the GOP. That would, at the very least, ensure a GOP controlled Senate.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
I think you have a VERY optimistic view of what is going to happen in the House.
The GOP has 3 seats that are essentially gone already(Ney, Foley, Delay).
Lots of other seats in which the Republicans are facing are going to be very tough for the GOP to retain.
I think a 7 seat loss would be a huge win for the Republicans right now.
In the Senate it could go either way. I think the Democrats are almost certain to pick up a few seats. And if all the cards fall the right way they could pick up 6. I would probably put it at 4. If Kean somehow wins, though, that would be a big win for the GOP. That would, at the very least, ensure a GOP controlled Senate.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
The seats that Ney, Foley, and Delay had are not essentially gone. Padgett, Negron, and Gibbs are very competitive, They can win in these conservative districts. What you said is akin to saying that Cunningham's seat is gone. Bilbray won, and I also think he will win again in November.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
he is looking for. On Nov 8 we can all go back and revisit everyones predictions...and enjoy the obvious crow dinners!
you want me to bring the beer to wash it down with? someone is going to have to bring a side salad...
i have no problems eating crow if i am wrong...i've been wrong before and i will be wrong in the future. i am just trying to be realistic though.
"Suppose you were a congressman, and suppose you were an idiot. But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain
these are Republican districts. the Cunningham/Bilbray comparison is spot on. to say they're gone is silly, even though the ballot situation for Negron and Gibbs is a bigger challenge. certainly there's a chance the Dems can pick up 1 or even 2 of them, but I'd be shocked if they swept them.
Remember "Democrats are entitled to govern." Repeat until understood.
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
ballot problems for Gibbs and Negron it is a pretty huge hill to climb. Trying to win with write in candidates is exceedingly difficult, particularly when Republican voters are not terribly motivated.
According to RT strategies Space has a 9 point lead on Padgett.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
I've heard that somewhere before, now where was it? Oh yes, every newspaper, news magazine and every network news program for the past 6 weeks.
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
Republicans who don't post on a daily basis on Conservative blogs are not as motivated for this election as they were in 2004 or 2002.
If you think this is a contentious point then we will need to agree to disagree. Based on my own personal anecdotal evidence it certainly seems pretty accurate as virtually EVERY Republican I know is dismayed with the Republican party.
That doesn't mean they won't vote. But it could mean that some of them won't.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
While they are certainly not deep red Republicans they are certainly Republicans.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
so we can convince them to go vote Republican :-)
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
Well they won't be voting Democrat, you can be sure about that.
But they may not show up to the booth. A lot of them were big supporters of the President but have become disillusioned with him.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
if you are truly a friend you'll help them find their way home, back to the Republican Party where they belong :-)
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
Let me say that I know quite a few Republicans and many of them dismayed at the party and more important at the current officeholders. But I can say that every one of us plans to vote Novemeber 7th, and vote Republican; the penalty for not doing so is far too high to playact at being in a snit.
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
But my comment was about Republicans being less motivated this election. And in an election in which the Republicans will need to write in their choice, that is very possibly going to be a very significant burden for the Republican candidate to overcome.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
I don't notice any exceptional surge of enthusiam on their part. Looking at your party, its not hard to explain why. Most of the people people running the show there have been in office for thirty years and have not had an original thought in that time.
that's going to leave a mark :-)
John
---------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
I saw a story on the people who would take over various committee chairs if the Dems take the House. Ignoring the question of their political views (far left) the thing that jumped out was that they have all been in Congress since the mid-seventies, or even the sixties in some cases. "Ossified" is not too strong a term to use.
Here's a slogan for them; "Vote The Party of The Past - Vote Democratic Party"
And she would certainly have a leadership role.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Did I not?
Link to examination of motivation in each party. Dem/MSM spin aside, there is no idication of Republicans not being motivated.
I missed that, sorry.
We won't really know whether either party is motivated or not until November 7th. However the mood of the two parties certainly suggests that the Republicans are less motivated than they were in the past.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
http://www.redstate.com/stories/special_features/the_sunday_morning_talk...
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
The only thing I can say is that the Democrats are motivated about one thing, how much they hate George Bush. That is the ONLY political placard I see on the streets right now. "Stop Bush: Vote" placards are all over the place. I don't see too many pushing for a candidate.
So I suspect that a lot of them may not be thrilled with their Democratic representatives but their anger over Bush trumps it.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
That the Democrats believe in nothing but their unreasoning hatred of Bush? We've all been trying to tell you that for a long time. Looks as if the message is starting to sink in.
So I suspect that a lot of them may not be thrilled with their Democratic representatives but their anger over Bush trumps it.
I'm sure that accurately describes the "netroots" and the Democratic party activists. I have to wonder how accurately it describes the average American voter who happens to be registered Democratic, but who does not spend his every spare minute nursing his hatred for Bush. Yes, there are a lot of nutters on your side, but they don't speak for the party as a whole or Lamont would be in better shape.
Most Democrats have a blind hatred of George Bush, although many do. But most Democrats really oppose George Bush right now.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Since I have no way of knowing one way or the other I made an observation based on my anecdotal information.
Would you prefer if I were to use a more definitive tone with my speculations?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Most Democrats have a blind hatred of George Bush, although many do. But most Democrats really oppose George Bush right now.
Is the "right now" supposed to indicate there was some time when most Democrats did not "strongly oppose" Bush?
And what explains so many Dems having blind hatred for the President?
They didn't mind him on November 6th 2000.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com/g/531f46e9-c032-446e-9dd9-53acb1bbb6...
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/gamecock/2006/oct/13/mature_gop_voters_vs_...
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
were very low. The problem with DEMs beyond that is that they aborted so many potential democrats 18-34 years ago.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
that they're not as motivated, especially compared to 2004. however, I don't think that's any less true of Democrats. there was a recent poll rating voter enthusiasm, and it was pretty much dead even (Rs may have even been a tiny bit ahead, or maybe the other way around...whichever, the difference was slight). It is possible parity on this scale is a step back for Republicans, though I think every story in the media certainly would have had you believe the Dems were as or more motivated than the Reps in 04.
It's the Dems that won't vote because for the same reason they didn't bother to show up last time and the time before that. It is because the majority of people attracted to today's Dem party are self centered, lazy, have no sense of community or national responsibility and the stupid MSM is basically telling them they don't have to because the Dems are going to win easily.
The Repubs? Just the opposite.
This concept is why every coach tells him team that the next opponent can beat them even when it is OU vs Iowa State. The MSM has so strongly predicted the defeat of the Repubs that complacency has set in. Just watch.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Barack Obama also threw his name into the ring of potential Democratic candidates for 2008.
Although he didn't come right and say he was running for President he did say he was considering it. Probably the worst news Hillary Clinton has heard all week.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw