Open thread: Sunday news shows

posted at 8:00 am on February 19, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Three of the four Republican presidential candidates make the Sunday talk-show rounds today, but oddly missing is Mitt Romney.  Romney has spent very little time on Sunday talk shows so far, but with Rick Santorum breaking out into a national polling lead and starting to gain double-digit momentum in Michigan and Ohio, one might think that Romney would take the opportunity to get on national TV ahead of the debate on Wednesday.  Instead, Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul will try to set the narrative for the Arizona debate, while John McCain tries to fill in for Romney on ABC’s This Week, which will be hosted by Jake Tapper — and that means it’s watchable.  Set your DVRs accordingly.

  • ABC’s This Week: Senator John McCain, Robert Gibbs; Roundtable: George Will, DeeDee Myers, Lou Dobbs, Jonathan Karl, Clarence Page
  • CBS’ Face the Nation: Rick Santorum; Roundtable: Karen Tumulty, Todd Spangler, Norah O’Donnell, John Dickerson
  • CNN’s State of the Union: Ron Paul, Mitch Daniels, Michele Bachmann, former CIA Director Michael Hayden, Ambassador Ed Walker, Starbucks CEO Howard Schulz
  • Fox News Sunday: Newt Gingrich, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor
  • NBC’s Meet the Press: Reps. Paul Ryan and Chris Van Hollen on the budget; Roundtable: Ed Gillespie, Al Hunt, Helene Cooper, Andrea Mitchell

A couple of points to watch for in these matchups:

  • On CNN, I’d expect to see Candy Crowley press Bachmann on an endorsement decision.  Crowley will certainly want to get Bachmann to weigh in on the relative conservatism of Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich, and it might produce an interesting moment, especially considering Bachmann’s influence with the Tea Party.
  • John McCain will want to talk about Romney, but look for Jake Tapper to press him on Santorum’s record in the Senate, since McCain worked much more closely with Santorum than Romney.
  • The Crossfire-like setup on MTP might produce a few good moments, too, especially if Ryan demands Van Hollen answer whether the Obama budget reduces spending (it doesn’t), and if it addresses long-term debt reduction (it doesn’t).  Van Hollen will try to offer a blizzard of slogans, but Ryan will have the facts and the numbers on his side.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

katy, thanks.

this woman messes my mind up so bad. only reason i’ve tried is that we always had and still have a very natural connection. but we’re too much alike, i think, too stubborn. her head is harder than mine, and that’s saying a lot.

but I think i am going to use the whiskey shot/texting analogy anyway, just to give it to her as simply as possible.

i know she doesn’t want me to drink in front of her, and so i try, for her sake. what’s lacking here is any recognition on her part that there should be a quid pro quo.

sad.

cane_loader on February 20, 2012 at 12:58 AM

katy, great job quoting the whole page, LOL

It sounded even more insane quoted the way you did it :D

cane_loader on February 20, 2012 at 1:03 AM

Chudi, you’ve been attacking Conservatives on Hot Air for months.

Nobody’s going to feel any sympathy for you.

kingsjester on February 19, 2012 at 5:39 PM

What a stupid statement from a stupid rationalizer. If you turn out to be older than 9, I’ll be very surprised.

Isn’t kindness one of the most important qualities a serious Christian should exude? What’s your opinion of people who claim to be Christian but apathetically still act unkindly towards others anyway? Do you believe that you are a kind person? If so, why?

It’s bad enough to let someone get under your skin offline, but anyone who lets an online poster get under her/his skin, excluding the times threats are involved, is inarguably a pathetic loser. Anyone who would either commit, condone or attempt to justify what happened to Chudi because his insults damaged their self-esteem is inarguably a pathetic loser. If you try to argue with what I am saying here, consider it to be an absolute proof that you yourself are a pathetic loser.

Bizarro No. 1 on February 20, 2012 at 3:47 AM

C’mon, guys, let’s knock off the insults. Or is this fight going to go on and on and on?

A pax on all your houses….

cane_loader on February 20, 2012 at 6:52 AM

katy the mean old lady on February 20, 2012 at 12:30 AM

Okay, that was really confusing for being so early in the morning.

I don’t think you understand how dangerous posting personal information about an anonymous poster can be, or what it’s like to be “stalked” by someone who is obviously mentally ill.

Rational Thought on February 19, 2012 at 10:16 PM

Been there, done that. One nutball here did the same and used the link to my website to place false orders in order to get my physical address. It went on for a long time before the nutball got banned for another reason.

Somebody tried that before the internet days and came closer to succeeding. I came out with only bad memories and a “no bill” from the grand jury. I have more to protect these days and the knowledge that I won’t hesitate.

If chupi had the common sense that God gave a hamster, there would be nothing to argue about here. He could have either not been a nutball here, or not been a nutball on facebook. He, it appears, is a hatin’ nutball both places. I don’t know what personal information was linked to, but it was information he chose to share on facebook with an equally nutball rant to what he does here.

cozmo on February 20, 2012 at 8:07 AM

C’mon, guys, let’s knock off the insults. Or is this fight going to go on and on and on?

A pax on all your houses….

cane_loader on February 20, 2012 at 6:52 AM

Thomas Jefferson said, “I think it is in our interest to punish the first insult; because an insult unpunished is the parent of many others.”, and he was absolutely right about that.

Morally equating primary offenses with the reactions they cause, which wouldn’t exist w/o the first offenses, is what leads to brilliant, thought-provoking creations such as “zero tolerance”, a good example of which is the doling out of punishment to kids who defend themselves against bullies, often with the same penalty given to the bullies. How could that kind of mindset possibly be healthy in your opinion?

Is it ok in your book to call Hugo Chavez a “fascist pig”, to call 0bamessiah a “laughably arrogant, lying dumbass”, or to call people who are unrepentent idiots, “unrepentent idiots”, or is expressing that kind of truth aloud just too mean for you? I can tell you it’s not too mean for me – if someone doesn’t like being insulted after she’s behaved in a way which merits it, she then needs to learn to treat others with more respect in order to stop those insults before they start, doesn’t she?

Bizarro No. 1 on February 20, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Bizarro No. 1 on February 20, 2012 at 9:59 AM

How dare you make sense when there is a movement afoot to turn chupi into a martyr for the Romney cause.

cozmo on February 20, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Bizarro No. 1 on February 20, 2012 at 9:59 AM

I wasn’t drawing any sort of moral equivalence, just asking folks to tone it down.

Do you possibly need to look up the definition of “pax,” versus “pox?”

cane_loader on February 20, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6