Sunday News Shows
Link to Quote: https://www.thelaurelct.com/news-since-morning-papers/
Sunday has always been a day when TV provides us with special news shows that drill down on the events of the past week. Some of these shows have been with us as long as television. Most notable for withstanding the test of time would be "Meet the Press" and "Face the Nation." If one is old enough to remember how cordial and non-partisan a host Lawrence Spivak was on the original "Meet the Press" could be, the wonder is how such a format could evolve into the present day activist-journalist of a Chuck Todd (NBC's 12th moderator of the show)?
This Week
If one had the time and the interest, Sunday morning could begin with ABC's This Week. The show that once had the even handed David Brinkley lead into the show by announcing: “and now here’s the news since the morning papers.” This Week now has a few different hosts. Usually it's George Stephanopoulos (still a Clinton loyalist) or one of the co-anchors Martha Raddatz or Jonathan Karl. The meat & potatoes of the show is the roundtable panel usually featuring 3 democrats/strategists and Republican moderate Chris Christie. Yesterday one of the featured guests was Sen John Barrasso. The conversation was initially about the Ukraine, but somehow veered off to Trump's view of a President's right to declassify documents. Stephanopoulos asked Barrasso about it. Barrasso told him that he hadn't heard Trump's comments on it, but: "in terms of national security documents, we have to always use extreme caution."
Not exactly what Stephanopoulos wanted to hear. For the past 5 years msm reporters have wanted to hear Republicans contradict Trump, so we got the very predictable final question:
STEPHANOPOULOS: "That – that was a rhetorical question. You know that a president can't declassify documents by thinking about it. Why can't you say so?"
BARRASSO: "I don't think a president can declassify documents by saying so, by thinking about it."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-25-22-white-house-national-security/story?id=90399232
Fox News Sunday
Immediately following "This Week" is "Fox News Sunday." That's the show Chris Wallace left in hopes of being a star in the msm. Sadly for Chris, it was not to be. The show is now hosted by Fox Workaholic Shannon Bream. She more than earned the anchor chair. This show is based on ABC's modern version of "This Week." It has featured guests and then comes the roundtable. Fox roundtable usually has at least one democrat, typically the dejected Juan Williams or Marie Harf or Jessica Tarlov. The featured guest was Congresswoman Elise Stefanik and the discussion centered around the main story of the day: The House Republican's "Commitment to America." I try to catch these two news shows if I can. The first starts at 9:AM and the second follows up right after at 10:AM
I have little interest in the modern versions of "Meet the Press" or "Face the Nation." Althought yesterday we did get a bombshell statement from Jen Psaki on Meet the Press. We found out why democrats want to talk about everything but Biden's performance as president.
Almost as a book end to whatever football game CBS covers is "60 Minutes."
"60 Minutes"
"60 Minutes has a unique format. The idea is to cover 2 or 3 human interest stories as quickly as possible. Like most of the Sunday morning TV News Shows, "60 Minutes" gets into trouble the minute it starts to cover anything political. Earlier this year the show tried unsuccessfuly to smear Florida Gov Ron DeSantis. The shows lowest point was when Lesley Stahl blatantly denied Trump's claims that political opponents spied on his campaign. The Durham investigation, if nothing else, has proved that Trump was right!
"The contentious interview was resurfaced over the weekend after Fox News reported that lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a technology company to "infiltrate" servers belonging to Trump Tower, and later the White House, in order to establish an "inference" and "narrative" to bring to government agencies linking Trump to Russia, according to a filing from Special Counsel John Durham ."
https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-stahl-durham
Last but not least is my favorite.
Life, Liberty & Levin
8:PM on a Sunday night and it's Rum & Coke time. Last night was a classic.
Two great guests and a wonderful review of the history of the democratic party:
Sunday isn't just for Pro-Football.
Tags
Who is online
93 visitors
Mark's entire monologue should be required reading.
Despite the Levin video being an hour long, I looked at the first few minutes of it. I'm surprised that even a Mark Levin would present that nonsense as the "truth".
Woodrow Wilson wasnt racist because he was a modern day Democrat, he was racist because he was an impressionable son of the south teenager right after the civil war when whites were desperate to retain control over the freed slaves lives.
Levin then regurgitates the garbage about Republicans championing the Civil Rights Act and Democrats being against it. We have discussed this many times on NT. Yays and nays on the civil rights act broke down by geographic region, not political party. Southerners of both parties voted against it. In fact, not a single southern Republican voted in favor of the civil rights act.
At that point I stopped listening to Mark Levin's lies.
Nobody ever called him a modern day democrat. He was part of the old democratic party, that of the solid south and the Klan and the Confederacy.
At that point I stopped listening
That is a pity.
Are you serious? The only reason this topic is ever brought up by conservatives is to imply that the Democratic Party of TODAY is still the same as the Democratic party of the 19th century, and the south.
The racism of the old Democratic Party wasnt because they were Democrats, but because they were southerners who sympathized with the confederacy.
Levin's presentation is AT BEST very misleading.
Not true. The democratic party has changed with time. It is now the party of the radical left.
The racism of the old Democratic Party wasnt because they were Democrats, but because they were southerners who sympathized with the confederacy.
It is the senior political party. It has been many things, once the party of labor as well.
The Republican party was born as the anti-slavery party, but it too has gone through many transformations.
Exactly, that's why we never saw racism in the Dem controlled urban areas in the Northeast. Upper Mid-west or the West Coast. No racism when non-Southern Dems run things.
“The only reason this topic is ever brought up by conservatives is to…”
…deflect away from the fact that they are actually the one’s rooted in the past.
Wilson was the first modern democrat. He was the first progressive Democratic President, who moved the party away from the classical liberalism of the Grover Cleveland wing of the party. He set the stage for FDR and the Democrats becoming the party of centralized, big government.
Sean, I stand corrected.
You have called him the 1st modern democrat and I must say, you did it well!
Go tell it to the virtue signaling leftist elite racists at Martha's Vineyard; the NIMBY governor of NY; and the degenerate mayor of Chicago that couldn't stand to see any poor brown people threaten her racial hegemony.
More racist Democrats will be outed as the transfer of migrants from the border to their in name only sanctuary cities continues. Whitless in Michigan needs to get her fair share of the pain that southern border states are feeling. Detroit, Lansing, Ann Harbor, and Flint should be the next stopping points.
LBJ had it right. "I will have those n*****s voting Democrat for 200 years".
The Democrat party didn't change- they are still as racist as ever. They just diversified their targets.
In other words, Socialists/Marxists whose goals are to destroy the US Constitution, our safety, and our sovereignty.
[Deleted]
OK, HR 6127 passed the House with 119 Dem and 167 Repub Yea votes against 107 Dem and 19 Repub Nay votes and Ike signed it into law.
let me help you a little. A higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans voted yea in the north, and a higher percentage of Democrats voted yea than Republicans in the south.
What were the geographic percentages in that vote?
What is the your explanation for the deep, structural racism in Northern and West Coast Urban centers that have been Dem controlled for a century or longer?
Has it ever struck you as odd that so many Democrats specify "Southern Democrats" as if they belonged to a different party somehow while I have never once heard about "Southern Republicans".
It is almost as though today's Democrats would like to disown those awful, horrible, racist Southern Democrats after willingly accepting them into the fold when it meant a stranglehold on Congress for decades.
Gee, I wonder why?
It’s almost like FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton didn’t court their support and votes.
I understand as part of FDR’s “Southern Strategy” he traveled to Dallas to unveil a Robert E Lee statue and made very complementary remarks about the Confederate general.
True enough. Like any of them could have won without those awful, racist Southern Democrats!
Ooh, I don't think any negative comments about a Democratic god will be tolerated.
this is probably the best explanation of that vote that i have seen
www.theguardian.com /commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights
Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten
Harry J Enten 6-7 minutes 8/28/2013
W ith Republicans having trouble with minorities, some like to point out that the party has a long history of standing up for civil rights compared to Democrats. Democrats, for example, were less likely to vote for the civil rights bills of the 1950s and 1960s . Democrats were more likely to filibuster. Yet, a closer look at the voting coalitions suggests a more complicated picture that ultimately explains why Republicans are not viewed as the party of civil rights.
Let's use the 1964 Civil Rights Act as our focal point. It was arguably the most important of the many civil rights bills passed in the middle part of the 20th century. It outlawed many types of racial and sexual discrimination, including access to hotels, restaurants, and theaters. In the words of Vice President Biden, it was a big "f-ing deal".
When we look at the party vote in both houses of Congress, it fits the historical pattern. Republicans are more in favor of the bill:
80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did. Indeed, Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Richard Russell of Georgia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster.
Of course, it was also Democrats who helped usher the bill through the House, Senate, and ultimately a Democratic president who signed it into law. The bill wouldn't have passed without the support of Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana, a Democrat. Majority Whip Hubert Humphrey , who basically split the Democratic party in two with his 1948 Democratic National Convention speech calling for equal rights for all, kept tabs on individual members to ensure the bill had the numbers to overcome the filibuster.
Put another way, party affiliation seems to be somewhat predictive, but something seems to be missing. So, what factor did best predicting voting?
You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.
But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year , "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".
In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.
Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did.
The same pattern holds true when looking at ideology instead of party affiliation. The folks over at Voteview.com , who created DW-nominate scores to measure the ideology of congressmen and senators , found that the more liberal a congressman or senator was the more likely he would vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once one controlled for a factor closely linked to geography.
That's why Strom Thurmond left the Democratic party soon after the Civil Right Act passed. He recognized that of the two parties, it was the Republican party that was more hospitable to his message. The Republican candidate for president in 1964, Barry Goldwater , was one of the few non-Confederate state senators to vote against the bill. He carried his home state of Arizona and swept the deep southern states – a first for a Republican ever.
Now, it wasn't that the Civil Rights Act was what turned the South against the Democrats or minorities against Republicans. Those patterns, as Trende showed , had been developing for a while. It was, however, a manifestation of these growing coalitions. The South gradually became home to the conservative party, while the north became home to the liberal party.
Today, the transformation is nearly complete. President Obama carried only 18% of former Confederate states, while taking 62% of non-Confederate states in 2012. Only 27% of southern senators are Democrats , while 62% of Union state senators are Democrats. And 29% of southern members in the House are Democrats compared to 54% in states or territories that were part of the Union.
Thus, it seems to me that minorities have a pretty good idea of what they are doing when joining the Democratic party. They recognize that the Democratic party of today looks and sounds a lot more like the Democratic party of the North that with near unity passed the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 than the southern Democrats of the era who blocked it, and today would, like Strom Thurmond, likely be Republicans.
Thanks, didn't care to do the deep dive into the 1957 vote or the 1960 vote? Since you haven't explained the structural racism in Northern and West Coast urban centers, maybe Dems in the North and the West were only racists at the local level and not at the national level.
I'm afraid so. They gave us a good dose during the summer of love.
Harry went to a lot of trouble to exonerate democrats. Without the Republicans, LBJ would have been in the same spot JFK was in: No Civil Rights Bill!
No implications.....
The truth
I gave you the facts. How you accept them is your problem.
No problem for me, but I observe that you gave no facts on the 57 or 60 vote and more importantly, how structural racism became so embedded in Dem controlled urban centers in the North and West Coast. Usually you are all about ensuring that we all recognize that racism, what gives now?
Sometimes folks want to ignore the past and pretend Democrats didn't do what they did. Some think labeling some as "Southern Democrats" makes them somehow different than other Democrats. Since when did any political party have to try something so devious in an attempt to distance themselves from some of their own?
Maybe cause there are almost zero Rep controlled urban centers ?
The reality is that structural racism exists everywhere across this country.
Huh?
Did I stutter ?
How would we know?
You might want to read this:
A very fair assessment. I think we can all agree on the history provided in that link.
90% of it, they do reveal their bias though, especially on the more recent comments...
That sums things up pretty well.
When you hear some disingenuously say that they are better off now than they were 2 years ago, you really have to wonder at how little empathy they have for their fellow Americans.
Sometimes other people's facts can be subjective and selective.
John is quoting an article from Harry J Enten... And claims it is the absolute truth and answer to how the Republicans are more racist than the Democrats...
Harry J Enten ... (wikipedia)
Harry was introduced to politics as a child when his father, a judge, took him into the polling booth to help pull the levers for elections. He attended Riverdale Country School.
Enten graduated magna cum laude, and Phi Beta Kappa from Dartmouth College in 2011. Enten chose to attend Dartmouth at least partially due to New Hampshire's status as the first-in-the-nation primary.
Enten began publishing a blog called Margin of Error , and held an internship at NBC News Political Unit in Washington, D.C. Prior to working for FiveThirtyEight , Enten was a journalist for The Guardian .
Of course John would exalt him as an expert with all the facts, being he is considered one of the "Young Turks" that are now driving democrat ideals...
Problem is, his political bias come first... Which is what is expected given his chosen employment history...
A whitewashed past that never existed.
"Maybe cause there are almost zero Rep controlled urban centers ?
The reality is that structural racism exists everywhere across this country.
So true Pat despite their desire to blame all the worlds ills on Democrats.
All ignorant bullshit. Arrogance. Lies.
3 Democrats on the panel? Of course the conversation turned to Trump. That's what you do when you have nothing to offer on a topic.
There's going to be a lot of whining and crying about that one statement.
One of them almost said Republicans want to make it about the economy!
There's going to be a lot of whining and crying about that one statement.
The onslaught is coming
I used to watch "This Week"when Sam and Cokie were regulars, but quickly tired of Stephanopoulos. I watched MTP for years because of Tim Russert's evenhanded moderation and likeability. Haven't watched that show since he passed away.
I stopped watching FNS because of Walllace's leftist favoritism, but will check out Shannon next week. I enjoyed Charles Kuralt for years, especially the "On The Road" series. I like Levin, but only watch Maria on "Sunday Morning Futures" regularly.
Maria does do a good job.
Isnt that the clown who regularly lies for Trump?
There's no way that I'd ever click/open that cryptic crap that looks like spam that would infect my computer. Care to try again?
That's 74 Million people, right?
"Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie believes that Trump is headed down the road of "self indictment" due to his legal battles with the DOJ. "The more you absolutely antagonize with nonsense arguments on television that your lawyers won't make in court — because they're afraid they'll be sanctioned if they do because they have no evidence — you're pushing yourself closer to a self-inflicted indictment," Christie said on ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos."
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/chris-christie-believes-trump-headed-towards-self-inflicted-indictment?utm_source=sf&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=twjs