Open thread: Sunday morning talking heads

posted at 8:01 am on January 17, 2016 by Allahpundit

A rare moment for the Sunday shows as the suddenly competitive Democratic primary takes precedence over the durably competitive Republican one. Both Her Majesty and Bernie Sanders will be on four of this morning’s big five — “This Week,” “Meet the Press,” “Face the Nation,” and “State of the Union” — to address Chelsea Clinton’s bizarre new role as mom’s attack dog on health care and the increasingly plausible scenario where Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire. (Desperate to lower expectations, Hillary will probably insist this morning that she’s the underdog in both states. She might not be wrong.) A dilemma for Team Clinton: How hard should she hit Sanders in front of a national TV audience? On the one hand, Iowa votes in two weeks. There’s no time to waste. On the other hand, every time someone allied with Hillary goes after him, his cash register starts ringing. The party line will be that South Carolina will back Hillary and restore the race to its natural order, but I don’t know. Imagine how demoralized Hillary fans will feel if Bernie Sanders goes 2 for 2 in the first two states when even Obama, at the height of Obamamania, could only manage one win.

Elsewhere, the Trump/Cruz war continues apace. Trump will appear on “This Week” and “State of the Union” while Cruz will guest on “Fox News Sunday.” As I write this on Saturday, here’s what my Twitter feed looks like:

Then came this:

Gonna be a fun morning. The full line-up is at the AP.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I think that one should think of Ferguson or Baltimore only many times larger, in every city and lasting for many months to get an idea of the scale of unrest.
MJBrutus on January 17, 2016 at 4:04 PM

Unrest is coming, one way or another.

Cleombrotus on January 17, 2016 at 4:19 PM

Cleombrotus on January 17, 2016 at 4:17 PM

Here’s some background from our founders. They had dealings with Islam too. And not just the Tripolitan pirates.

It is a religious belief system. For SOME followers it is also a political ideology but NOT FOR ALL. Anyway, the literature shows that our founders certainly did intend it to have 1st Amendment protection.

MJBrutus on January 17, 2016 at 4:40 PM

It is a religious belief system. For SOME followers it is also a political ideology but NOT FOR ALL. Anyway, the literature shows that our founders certainly did intend it to have 1st Amendment protection.

MJBrutus on January 17, 2016 at 4:40 PM

No doubt. As long as it remained a minority polity. The minute it becomes the majority, as I said, it will stretch the definition of religious freedom beyond recognition. Our principle of religious freedom will not be able to contain the stresses this ideology will place on our freedoms.

Deal with it.

Cleombrotus on January 17, 2016 at 4:49 PM

Cleombrotus on January 17, 2016 at 4:49 PM

Actually, I suspect you’re right about that part. Christians like to call this a Christian nation with laws based on Christian principles. I think that is bunk, but if I accepted that premise then Christianity is a political ideology as well. I do think you’re right that if we became Muslim majority then even the “moderate” Muslims would want to push us towards being an Islamic state which would indeed suck.

As for whether I would rather live under a “Christian” political system or Islamic one I won’t hesitate to say that Islam sucks. It has never left the dark ages whereas Christianity did change and incorporate the Enlightenment in the most important ways.

MJBrutus on January 17, 2016 at 4:56 PM

I think that one should think of Ferguson or Baltimore only many times larger, in every city and lasting for many months to get an idea of the scale of unrest.

MJBrutus on January 17, 2016 at 4:04 PM

It will make the illegals that much easier to identify if they try it.

Ferguson and Baltimore only happened because of the spinelessness of the local and state government.

When yo let rats feed at will, you get more of them. You go after them, they will scurry away in a hurry.

It is really quite simple. Given the option of leaving voluntarily with the possibility of returning legally or getting caught and forever being barred from returning, there will be a exodus toward the border.

Granting amnesty of any sort will never work. It will just cause that many more to illegally invade the country.

animal02 on January 17, 2016 at 4:57 PM

Christians like to call this a Christian nation with laws based on Christian principles. I think that is bunk, but if I accepted that premise then Christianity is a political ideology as well.

MJBrutus on January 17, 2016 at 4:56 PM

No. The difference between our political system and one founded on Islam has to do with more than mere principles and goes to the heart of understanding the essential differences between the two “religions”.

One “informs” ones view of reality and the other “determines” or “dictates” it. It’s hard for a non-believer to grasp that distinction but it is crucial.

When Christians assert that this country was founded as a Christian nation upon Biblical principles, they are actually correct. Where the problem comes in is in a misunderstanding of what that actually means. One has to consider the mindset of the people of that time and where they derived their views and interpretations of reality from. For example, it would never have occurred to anyone living at the time to conceive of the idea of, say, abortion rights, or gay rights, but it is an issue today. Why? Because these ideas descend from our current interpretation of reality and it is that which “informs” our politics today.

It is correct to say that TODAY we are no longer a Christian nation but it was not correct to assert that, say, in 1775. We were, quite accurately, a nation of Christians, or at least a nation of people who overwhelmingly viewed life through the prism of the understanding of life they derived FROM the Bible.

Cleombrotus on January 17, 2016 at 5:38 PM

La Cruz

Schadenfreude on January 17, 2016 at 5:51 PM

or at least a nation of people who overwhelmingly viewed life through the prism of the understanding of life they derived FROM the Bible.

Cleombrotus on January 17, 2016 at 5:38 PM

We won’t agree, but people re-interpreted what the Christian bible had to say based upon the progress of secular reasoning of the enlightenment era. The bible didn’t say to Jefferson that all men are created equal. The secular reasoning of his and the other enlightenment thinkers did.

Christian thought in the 18th century still maintained that royalty (even the demented ones like George III) possessed the special privilege to rule by virtue of divine authority. We rebelled against that.

MJBrutus on January 17, 2016 at 5:57 PM

MJBrutus on January 17, 2016 at 5:57 PM

No, you’re right, we won’t agree about the source of the Founders’ enlightened principles but keep in mind that all of the Enlightenment philosophers were, themselves, raised in a Biblical milieu, devout Catholics, Pietists, Lutherans, etc.

We wouldn’t have HAD an “Enlightenment” if it hadn’t been for Christian scholastic disciplines. With the exception of a few, I doubt if any of them had the notion that what they were introducing would lead to abortion on demand and homosexual marriages.

Cleombrotus on January 17, 2016 at 6:45 PM

Cleombrotus on January 17, 2016 at 6:45 PM

They studiously avoided putting marriage and abortion and all the other “Christian principles” into the Constitution. They knew that mores and demographics evolve and they wanted posterity to have the freedom to define their own rules. They may not have anticipated the specific arguments we have today but they certainly knew that there would be conflict over social issues and sought only to define the boundaries of what is permissible for government to control.

MJBrutus on January 17, 2016 at 6:58 PM

MJBrutus on January 17, 2016 at 6:58 PM

OK, we can agree on that.

Cleombrotus on January 17, 2016 at 7:16 PM

LOL. Your refusal to recognize Islam as a religion, and so deeming it ineligible of 1st Amendment protection, stretches a point well beyond breaking.
MJBrutus on January 17, 2016 at 3:46 PM

Your refusal, and the refusal of our political betters, to recognize Islam for what it really is is gonna stretch this COUNTRY to its breaking point.

Cleombrotus on January 17, 2016 at 4:17 PM

constitutional rights are reserved for american citizens. people here illegally do not have the full array of constitutional protections. if you get jumping a fence you dont get a trial, you get tossed out. We’ve become so dumb as a country we allow this sort of nonsensical argument. very similar to allowing terrorists caught behind enemy lines out of uniform to hide behind the geneva conventions,m which specifically were designed to discourage scumbags from doing exactly that.

johngalt on January 18, 2016 at 8:39 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3