The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - The Review

(the art of weaving tangled webs)

By Mark Kilmer Posted in | Comments (31) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Sunday, January 20, 2008
Image
Rudy Giuliani was first up on ABC's This Week, talking about tax cuts and reductions in federal spending. He declared himself the "strongest fiscal conservative in the race." He is still making the same assertions as he did when he was called "front runner" by various media outlets.

Next up on TW, Chuck Rangel said that Nancy and the Dems were way out in front of the GOP in creating a bi-partisan stimulus package for that as-yet-hypothetical recession.

Over on FOX News Sunday, Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney talked about the importance of investing taxpayers' money on alternative fuels. He said that he had promised this, not a federal bailout of the automotive industry. He also said that he did not "understand the ways of Washington" but was "intimately familiar" with the private sector economy, and thus could best spend taxpayers' money to create jobs.

Next up on FNS, Chuckie Schumer declared that "fighting and dickering" would make whatever recession we do eventually have worse. He said that the President's stimulus package, at $145-billion (1% of GDP), was the right size, but D's and R's had only to fight and dicker over how the $145-billion would be spent.

On MTP, Tim Russert had his panel of political experts: former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw, whose latest gig was pimping the 1960s; Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, whose last book I can remember dealt with the Lincoln Administration; Jon Meacham, editor of Newsweek magazine, who invents religions and takes Michael Isikoff at his word; Peggy Noonan, who needs no introduction; and Michele Norris of NPR.

On FTN, host Bob Schieffer asked John Edwards, through a series of questions, basically: "So when are you going to quit?" Edwards was cheerful – "in it for the long haul" – and feels that he is best suited to run against John McCain. (He's evidently selected the Republican nominee before Super Tuesday, and here we were concerned about what could happen at a brokered convention.)

Next on FTN, Schieffer talked to David Axelrod for Barry and Howard Wolfson for Hillary. Each accused the other campaign of nastiness. Schieffer asked Wolfson what they were going to do about Bill, and Wolfson said he should keep doing what he's doing. Axelrod said that Bill was being the Bad Cop. ("Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?")

First on LE, host Wolf Blitzer spoke to John Edwards. Edwards said he got his "butt kicked" in Nevada because Hillary and Barry outspent him, but he hopes that "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas."

Next up on LE was a quick interview with Mitt Romney, who said that he will do well in the South but what really matters is who can win the "swing States" like "Michigan and Nevada." He said that he has proposed a larger stimulus package than the President's because his experience in the private sector has taught him that that what they do in Washington – like creating jobs – affects the economy.

Read the show-by-show review beneath the fold. ...

RUDY GIULIANI ON TW. Host George Stephanopoulos's first guest on ABC's This Week was Republican Presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani. There stood Rudy backed by a group of controlled people holding his campaign signs. People as props.

Rudy began speaking a language also spoken by John McCain on the trail: cutting taxes raises revenues and should be accompanied by cuts in spending. Giuliani argued that he has a record of cutting taxes which is better than anyone else's in this campaign. He repeated something he's said on Sunday's past, that his technique has been to propose scads of tax cuts and see which ones stick with the Democrat legislature. Wallace brought up the accusation of Team Mitt that Giuliani inherited a deficit and left with a larger deficit, and Romney explained that he inherited a surplus and left with a surplus. He explained that he left office in the middle of a fiscal year, before the revenues had come in, so the budget he had put in place before he left office turned out to be balanced once it was closed.

Rudy explained that we are in a global economy and have to allow investment in our country; what we must do, he added, was to export more of our goods to the emerging economies. As for foreign investment in the United States, he explained that there must be a "diversity of investment" so that no single investor can disrupt our economy if they're of the mind. Rudy pointed out that he gained more foreign policy experience as mayor of New York than most of the others seeking the Presidency, adding: "I'm the strongest fiscal conservative in the race." (I assume he thinks Thompson has dropped out.)

There was nothing new in this talk from Rudy. He is still making the same assertions as he did when he was called "front runner" by various media outlets.

RANGEL ON TW. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Chuck Rangel told Steph that the President's taxpayer-funded economic stimulus package did not go far enough. He asserted that the Dems were "way ahead on this issue." Nancy, he declared, had assembled the Dems in December to talk about a stimulus package for when we inevitably went into a Bush recession; in fact, Nancy has been chatting it up with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson.

Rangel argued that we are going to be prepared to deal with a recession when it inevitably comes. He told Steph that he can bet his life that the Nancy-Rangel package will include more welfare checks ("unemployment compensation") and food stamps. It will be a "bipartisan package," he argued, led by Nancy. He said, "I've never seen this kind of solidarity" between R's and D's for developing this package to combat an as-yet-hypothetical recession, even though Rangel said they do not know what will be in the package besides welfare checks and food stamps.

ROMNEY ON FNS. Host Chris Wallace's first guest on FOX News Sunday was Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, whom Wallace declared a co-front runner with John McCain. Romney declared that if voters want someone who "understands Washington's ways," they should vote for McCain.

Romney talked about the federal government's role in having businesses to buy equipment and create jobs. Wallace asked Romney about his $20-billion federal bailout to the automobile industry, and Romney laughed (not quite Hillary's infamous cackle). He said that his $20-billion federal bailout plan had nothing directly to do with the automobile industry. He wants the federal government to use taxpayer's money to invest in science, explaining that we are already spending $4-billion per year; he merely wants to quadruple federal spending for science. He called it "investing." He said that where the federal government spends money, we do well, and federal spending for alternative energy sources will benefit all industry and give us economic independence.

Romney declared that this election was "about changing Washington." He is the best to "rebuild the economy," a federal program, because he has "been in the economy," in the private sector. He did not bridge the public-private dichotomy. He said he is "intimately familiar with how our economy works" in the private sector, yet he wants to spend taxpayer money, public funds, to direct the economy.

Wallace did not ask Romney in which State he next hopes to be competitive.

SCHUMER ON FNS. If Steph can have a Dem named Chuck on his show (Rangel), I suppose it is good enough for Wallace, so enter Chuckie Schumer to talk about the Democrats' stimulus package for the recession many seem to want to happen.

"Partisan fighting and dickering are only gonna make whatever kind of recession we have worse," proclaimed Chuckie. What if we have a super-duper recession, the kind which is immune to partisan fighting and dickering? What if we do not have a recession? (I apologize for interrupting the Sunday narrative.)

Schumer argued that we have to give money to people earning $35,000, who do not pay taxes, because they are more likely to spend it than those who earn $200,000.

Chuckie said that they will extend welfare payments because doing so injects $1.75 into the economy for every $1.00 the federal government spends (invests?). He said that they will begin negotiating the package on Tuesday in order to have it finished by March 1. He agreed that the President's "stimulus package" is about the right size, most economists agree, because $145-billion is one percent of the GDP. What the two sides have to fight and dicker about it how the $145-billion will be spent (invested?). He promised that the process will be bipartisan, no "all or nothing" declarations.

TIM RUSSERT'S PANEL. Tim Russert, host of Meet the Press, assembled his usual panel to talk about issues and political strategy: former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw, whose latest gig was pimping the 1960s; Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, whose last book I can remember dealt with the Lincoln Administration; Jon Meacham, editor of Newsweek magazine, who invents religions and takes Michael Isikoff at his word; Peggy Noonan, who needs no introduction; and Michele Norris of NPR.

Asked about the Florida race for the GOP, Brokaw said that it reminds him of dirt tracks in rural America. He added that Republicans have given McCain a boost because they favor "authenticity." Russert flipped up the cover of Newsweek, trumpeting a bit by Michael Gerson about how the GOP has lost its way. (It was a case of Meacham paying a disgruntled ex-Bushie to write some tripe to attract lefties to his mag.) Meacham agreed with Gerson's feeble thesis that Iraq was a lost cause associated with Bush, so the Reagan coalition which became the Bush coalition "has come to an end." As evidence, he pointed to Mitt Romney, whom he called the "most establishment candidate in the Republican field," running against "George Bush's Washington."

Russert then began talking about the Confederate flag.

If any of you watched this nonsense in its entirety and can expound, please do.

JOHN EDWARDS ON FTN. On CBS, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer got the short end of the stick this week. He waved the thing like a wand, and out popped John Edwards. Bob asked him if he cane keep his campaign going. Edwards said he could. He's in South Carolina, after he "got my butt kicked in Nevada."

Schieffer asked him if it had more to do with him or with historical forces (first woman, first African American). Edwards said that this was a factor, what with the publicity those two attract, but he's not "making excuses." He's speaking out for the middle class, etc. Schieffer pointed out that Hillary won those voters in Nevada. Why cannot Edwards get his message out? Edwards said that Hillary spent "massive amounts" of money while he did not run a television ad.

Schieffer asked Edwards if he were hanging around in hopes of a brokered convention, as otherwise, he'll have to win something. Edwards said that it was a long process, a lot of States to go, go on for a while.

Edwards credited Hillary and Barry with running good campaigns. He characterized Hillary as the Washington, DC candidate. He said that Barry, while advocating change, was too "academic" to fight for it.

Schieffer said that Hillary's peeps tell him that this will be wrapped up after Super Tuesday. Edwards said that there were lots of States, and the Dems have to think of who they are going to put up against John McCain. ("He will be strong.")

Schieffer asked him if the race fight between Hillary and Barry were gone, or was it coming back? Edwards said that it was unfortunate and that he had seen too much of such things when he was growing up in the South.

Edwards told Schieffer that he's in it "for the long haul."

DAVID AXELROD AND HOWARD WOLFSON ON FTN. Harold Wolfson, Hillary's communication director, said encouraging things about his candidate. David Axelord, chief strategist for Barry, said encouraging things about his candidate. Bob Schieffer listened attentively.

They argued about which candidate would do well with the "Latino community," despite the fact that one candidate threatened a lawsuit and the other ran a negative ad. (They were griping, spinning.)

Axelrod said Barry's for change and he has been "very specific about change." He boasted that Barry "put the federal budget on Google." Wolfson said that Hillary is focusing "resolutely on the economy (stupid)."

Bob asked Wolfson about Bill: "What do you do with Bill Clinton from here on out?" Wolfson wants him to "keep doing what he's doing." He's a huge headline grabber, etc. Axelrod said that Bill Clinton has "become sort of their point man on making the negative case." (Bad Cop! Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?)

Okay, just when I'm a little down about our prospective nominees, the Dems speak, and it seems very plausible that they are our greatest hope.

EDWARDS ON LE. On CNN, Late Edition host Wolf Blitzer first talked to John Edwards, pointing out that he'd vastly outspent every other Dem in South Carolina. Edwards said he should do well next Saturday. He has "no idea" if he'll win. (Mitt Romney spent the most in South Carolina of Republicans, and he finished fourth.)

In Nevada, Edwards exclaimed, "I got my butt kicked." Yes, he said "butt" on television,, and he said he hoped that 't is true that "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas." He said that Hillary and Barry did better than he did because they spent more time and money there.

Blitzer asked Edwards why he would be better than Hillary or Barry at fighting a recession if we have one. He said that he has never taken any money from lobbyists and special interests, and that the fight to give people federal money was "personal" to him.

Blitzer said that Hillary asked for a 90 day moratorium on foreclosures and a five year hold on interest rate increases. Edwards said that's fine but he would go further, allowing judges to restructure private sector loans and creating a fund to bail people out.

Blitzer played a clip of Hillary declaring that the President has to be able "to run the federal bureaucracy." Edwards argued that the fights of the next President will involve more than "pushing paper around."

Blitzer played a clip of Barry saying that Ronald Reagan had changed America in ways Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton did not. Edwards said that he would never use Reagan as an example of change because the President helped big corporations and destroyed the environment.

MITT ROMNEY ON LE. Wolf next spoke to Romney about South Carolina, and Romney said that it was a nice state but was "McCain-Huckabee" country and he didn't need it. Romney said that he would do real well in the South and was tied for the lead in Florida. But the South, he argued, mattered less than "who's gonna win" in "swing States" like Michigan and Nevada.

Romney said that Giuliani was a nice guy but no one has supported him so far. He said that he has spent his life in the private sector and knew the economy. Romney said that McCain was a nice guy but has been in Washington "all his career" and thus could not change Washington. Mitt boasted that he proposed a bailout stimulus package even larger than Bush's because his experience is in the private sector and he knows how jobs "are affected by what we do in Washington." (His experience in the private sector has led him to the conclusion that the federal government can best create jobs?)

The interview was brief and breathless.

« The Sunday Morning Talk Shows: The ReviewComments (16) | The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - a previewComments (9) »
The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - The Review 31 Comments (0 topical, 31 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

"Over on FOX News Sunday, Rudy Giuliani talked about the importance of investing taxpayers' money on alternative fuels. e said that he had promised this, not a federal bailout of the automotive industry."

This was Mitt Romney, not Guliani.

I'd vote for a democrat. They have the expertise on that since FDR.

God forbid that the taxpayers actually spend their money.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Sunday Morning the day before Martin Luther King Day? A sea of sameness, a complete ignoring of the significance of having a serious African-American candidate in the race -a great topic for this day. They are all babbling about change, but clearly they are all oblivious of the single biggest change going on in America, and it can be summed up in one word: Demographics.
The blogosphere is so much more vibrant and interesting than the blabosphere. TV is becoming more and more like Talk Radio: monolithic and monochromatic in its desperate effort to attract Angry White Males. No one wonder the media empires are crumbling.

your anger is palpable. Are you angry WITH white males?

========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

fougasseu
Some of my best friends are Angry White Males. And I've defended Angry White Males who have been accused of being bipolar, or having a personality disorder, or narcissists, or children of alcoholics with detachment disorders. I just think they like to ride around and listen to the radio rather than go home and head to the basement...or garage.

... you are one heck of a [expletive deleted] idiot.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

in Nevada to his in south Carolina and he is still way back in third place. Nevada means very little when you can win with only 22,000 votes. Its about time we started weighting delegates based on primary turnout, not population.

Mitt has the highest turnout, period. Also, why are you whinning? If they gave them out on a percentage basis Mac would get less than he got in SC.

"Its about time we started weighting delegates based on primary turnout, not population."

So John McCain can just ignore states that bar independents from voting and stir up attention where his liberal base can come out in full-force?

I think not. Base it on population. Perhaps as they've done on states that went to Bush in 2004. And that's it.

The failures of some candidates to compete in certain states is just as damning to their campaigns as jumping into the fray and losing. Organizational short-comings do not make good excuses.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

Great sources.

absentee

John McCain NEVER seriously considered running on Kerry's ticket, although the appearance of a waffle on the idea did provide him with much-appreciated face time in the MSM. He courted it, while never really considering it.

Like so much of what he has done over the past seven years, it was a way to tweak the nose of GWB, get face time, and make sure that conservatives remembered how important he was.

========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?

is a threadjack.

If you want to attack McCain, start your own diary. You will be shouted down soon enough in this case, as it was John Kerry's peeps who supposedly considered McCain as part of some dream, unity ticket. McCain himself showed no interest and no doubt would have shot the idea down in an instant.

Rudy is gasping for air in Florida, betting the farm, risking it all. His numbers are slipping everywhere and his turtle position will cost him Florida.

McCain and Romney coming into the state strong and Huck will be giving it everything he has.
Romney will sweep up and win Florida I think, because Huck, McCain and Rudy will be fighting for the same voters, and changing message to fit polls.

Rudy and Huck are both out after Florida, I thought Huck would be out after S.Carolina but I guess he's reaching for glory, a longshot indeed.

I don't see anything new that Rudy, McCain or Huck will bring to the table and they are all old news really, McCain really hasn't looked past S.Carolina and is just going on his name now.

www.myinvolvement.blogspot.com

"I don't see anything new that Rudy, McCain or Huck will bring to the table and they are all old news really, McCain really hasn't looked past S.Carolina and is just going on his name now."

Actually, the latest FNC poll had McCain ahead in Florida by 2 points, and he has open field offices in Florida in advance of SC.

Nationally, he leads 28-18-15 (over Huckabee and Romney, respectively), so I would say that McCain's positioning outside SC is actually pretty good.

Thompson dropping might throw a wrench in everything, however.

I guess I was wrong.

I also thought that America's continued dependence on foreign oil was a threat to national security and that addressing this was supposed to be a major priority of the next President. I heard this all from Conservatives.

Apparently, I was wrong.

I do appreciate you taking the time to give the rundown on all the Sunday shows, I look forward to it each week. Also, I recognize that it is your right to put whatever bias or spin you want on the shows and the candidates performances, you are after all the one who is doing to work of putting the post together.

However, it just seems that recently your anti-Romney bias is over the top. In the past your Sunday reviews were fairly neutral and thus much more rewarding to read. However lately you can't write one good thing about Romney, it's as if he is worse than the Clinton's.

I just have one question for you? Has the increased negativity towards Romney come naturally or do you take special care to word things in such a way that reflect badly on Romney? I don't think the DNC could wordsmith things against Romney any more than you do.

I don't really expect you to change since you obviously have a visceral dislike for Romney that unfortunately many people share. It is just frustrating that you let your bias show so much in what used to be a pretty fair review of the Sunday shows.

That being said, I will still look forward to your review next week and each of the weeks after that, and I still appreciate the time that you spend to give the rest of us a summary of the shows. I just wish you would try a little harder to hide the fact that you hate Romney.

At least with HRC, what you see is what you get. With Mitt the changling, you never know what he really stands for.

The problem that Romney has is good conservatives like you and many people on this and other blogs have preconceived notions that color your opinion of everything he says.

Here 2 quick examples:

AUTO INDUSTRY - Romney has been saying for months (along with every other candidate) that we need to invest more to become energy independent. Virtually all conservatives are okay with this because they view it as an investment in national security.

All Romney did in Michigan was point out that Mitt's already stated goal of energy independence would also help the struggling auto industries because it would include investment in technologies to make cars more fuel efficient.

Call it good politics or call it pandering, but Mitt didn't change his position and he didn't espouse socialism nor did he say he wants to bail out the auto industry. How is it talked about by the anti-Mitt people, most of whom didn't even read the speech? They say Mitt changed his position in order to win votes and that Mitt wants to give GM and Ford 20 billion dollars of tax-payer money. Let me say it again, if this is how you view what he said in Michigan, your need to take off your anti-Mitt goggles.

GUNS - Romney has held the same position on guns for his entire political career. (It also happens to be the exact same position GWB has.) Romney is in favor of a limited AWB but otherwise wants very little restriction on guns. When he was running in Massachusetts he emphasized the AWB. Now that he is running nationally, he is emphasizing the rest of his record. No change in position, just a change in emphasis based on who he is talking to.

Because Romney did a poor job at pandering and made a few misstatements and for that he has gotten killed as a flip-flopper on guns. Romney misspoke and said that the NRA endorsed him in MA. They didn't endorse him, but they did phone bank for him which is pretty close to an endorsement considering they spent resources on his behalf.

On almost every issue other than abortion Romney gets reamed for changing positions, when the reality is he didn't change positions on any other key issue.

I know you are one of the anti-Romney posters, but are you being willfully ignorant here or just insincere?

Every candidate has called for investment in energy independence. All Mitt did was point out that the investment in energy independence would help American auto-makers.

He didn't say anything about a bailout and you are being insincere or willfully ignorant if you continue to believe that is what he said.

I appreciate what Mark does each week. I've been reading his write-ups for a long time but they really have become more biased.

Not a big deal (it's his blog) but I am going to validate the poster's point.

"I guess the lesson learned here is that it doesn't matter where everyone is from as long as we're all the same religion." - Peter Griffin (Family Guy)

Each state is a part of this nation and each citizen deserves to be heard, no matter where they are from.

What the liberal media ignores, and many on this site also ignore, is that we have had 6 contests so far. Not just Iowa, and unrepresentative state, or New Hampshire, also and unrepresentative state, and South Carolina, which is so evangelical, they cannot see clear.

We have had 6 states, and Romney has place 1st in three of those 6 states garnering over 50% if you average the 65% in Wyoming, 53% in Nevada and 38% in Michigan.

McCain knew he would lose Iowa, so he avoided it, and cast his pearls with Huckabee. Remember, he came in 4th there, but it was close for third and fourth.

McCain won New Hampshire with about a 5% advantage, much less than the 19% with which he won in 2000.

McCain lost Michigan, which he won in 2000, and lost it by a big margin, Romney even getting a plurality of the evangelical vote there.

McCain won South Carolina, but actually with less than he got in losing there in 2000. Romney came in 4th there, but it was close for third and fourth.

There is no way of getting around it.

South Carolina will vote Republican, no matter what, unless hell freezes over.

New Hampshire and Iowa probably will not.

Nevada is now a swing state, and Romney got over 50% there. In states like Nevada, Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, Oregon, California, mostly now swing states (excepting Idaho and Utah which are solidly Republican), if you take away the Mormon vote from the Republican, those states will not be voting Republican. Where does that put the Republican nominee?

Do you really expect McCain to carry New York or Pennsylvania, or New Jersey, or California, or Illinois, or Michigan, or Connecticut, or any of those states to make up for Republican losses in what has previously been Republican strongholds?

And, McCain and Huckabee, keep attacking a strong Republican base, the Mormons, and see if you win without us.

in hearing more from Mitt about how the Federal government creates jobs. I'd also be interested in hearing more about what he thought could be accomplished by "getting everybody together" to help figure out fix the American auto industry after he gets elected. By "everybody", do you think he means Rodney King? When he says government will spend to invest in alternative fuels, how will government choose which alternatives to investigate? Or will this just be money for basic research with no strings attached? Tax breaks for R&D are the most conservative thing he's proposed, but I'm interested in getting more detail on how he plans to use his managerial expertise to help government teach business how to make money.

Mark hates Romney and therefore spins like crazy when discussing everything Mitt says. He didn't say any of the things Mark acts like he said.

Mark takes his personal, negative interpretation of what Mitt says and then passes that on as if Mitt actually said what Mark has only interpreted him to mean.

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service