POWERFUL INTERVIEW....sm
Posted By: Democrat on 2006-07-21
In Reply to: to further my point - double wow
Double wowzers!!!
I am impressed and concur with Pat and the interviewers view points.
Thanks for sharing.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
POWERFUL! :) nm
nm
My Bush certainly is all powerful. sm
The fact is, you don't understand Kyoto at all do you? It's just another reason to hate Bush and it has to be so because someone says it is so. Not only is Kyoto suicidal to any economy, the whole premise was based upon what amounts to pushing paranoid stupidity. I mean, how laughable is it to pretend that miniscule amounts of CO2 from human breath, from Dr.Peppers and Hummers give humanity more power over weather than the huge natural CO2 levels and the extreme effects of the sun? And to fight this myth, we need a price-doubling energy-banning treaty? Grrr. What a LOL!
Fact is, there's just no such thing as global warming. Today, over 40% of US states are in cooling trends. The 1930's US decade remains as warm as any since. And no US year is warmer than 1934. Even the 1922 world record for highest temperature is still held by Libya. So forget about the global myth.
Second, no weather chart in the world has ever been able to show a parallel relationship between increases in human CO2 and increases in the regional temperature. NONE. Even in Los Angeles, where large CO2 increases still produce 2004 temperatures 3.5 degrees cooler than the highs of the mid 1950's. So forget about linking man and the CO2 myth as well.
The only proven link between man and climate is in $green$ frauds, where most environmental claims are likely as corrupt as any UN oil-for-food scam.
Recently, it was revealed the UN's lead member used falsified data to hype his claim of the 1990's as the warmest in the last 1,000. As it turned out, this study, although frequently used by the media and UN to accuse human influence, was never peer-reviewed by anyone - until now.
And once it was, the study was rapidly debunked by at least 4 mainstream science publications for it's numerous errors and gross miscalulations that made his wild claims impossible to replicate. So the warmest and coolest years over the last 1,000, still remain the Medieval Warming Period(1000-1400) and the Little Ice Age(1500-1850).
So gt, be careful what you wish for. Bush was not the only President to not sign Kyoto. For good reason. You didn't give one cogent reason in your argument about the effects Kyoto would have on economy, especially our economy. But then, maybe you were just looking for another reason to blame Bush when the economy was TRULY in the crapper.
Wow - powerful message
Loved it - We all need to be reminded.
Wow, you must feel very powerful,
being the All-Knowing One who knows the minds and hearts of every single person that voted for Obama.
A powerful statement I ran across today...sm
Regarding whether we are winning or losing the war in Iraq.
*Who can win or lose a battle of morality, religious beliefs, and or political ideology? Nobody wins or loses. People just continue to fight until one side finally decides it's futile to try and change the minds of the opposite party!
Peace and love...*
Powerful ad to show right to life
Link below:
And since when do the rich and powerful get to make...sm
all the decisions for the hardworking, undereducated, less intelligent, the poor and middle class to their own benfit. That is not a democracy.
A powerful message at a time we need it most
Click on the link below. I encourage all faiths to see this message. Thank you.
What a powerful post. Refreshing, too.
Thanks so much for sharing this profound insight.
Well, I thought for sure it was the great and powerful "O."
nm
Mesmerized followers of the great and powerful "O".....
see only one truth...that issues from the great and powerful mouth. No matter WHAT that is.
Wow, that was a powerful, cogent, scholarly argument!..................nm
nm
Once powerful Christian Coalition teeters on insolvency...see article.
Pat had better tell them to get their bankruptsy papers turned in before Oct. 17. 
Once powerful Christian Coalition teeters on insolvency
By BILL SIZEMORE, The Virginian-Pilot
© October 8, 2005
The Christian Coalition, the onetime powerhouse of the religious right founded by Pat Robertson, is struggling to stay afloat.
The group’s annual revenue has shrunk to one- twentieth of what it was a decade ago – from a peak of $26 million in 1996 to $1.3 million in 2004 – and it has left a trail of unpaid bills from Texas to Virginia. Among the creditors who have sued the coalition for nonpayment are landlords, direct-mail companies, lawyers and at least one former employee seeking back pay.
It has even come to this: The company that moved the group out of its Washington headquarters in 2002 went to small-claims court Friday in Henrico County trying to collect $1,890 that remains unpaid on its three-year-old bill.
It is the latest in at least a dozen judicial collection actions brought against the coalition since 2001. The amounts sought by creditors total hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The reasons for the group’s decline are legion, say supporters, critics and experts who have followed its trajectory. Among them are the loss of key leaders, including Robertson, who resigned as president in 2001; alleged mismanagement by his successors; the cyclical nature of politics; and bitter infighting within the organization and with other political players on the religious right.
CHRISTIAN COALITION TIMELINE
1988 After Pat Robertson’s failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination, he turns to Ralph Reed – a shrewd political operative who became a highly visible spokesman for the religious right – for day-to-day operations of the coalition founded in 1989.
1997 Ralph Reed leaves the coalition and later sets up a political consulting business in Georgia, where he is now seeking the 2006 Republican nomination for lieutenant governor.
2000 The coalition, which had been based in Chesapeake through the 1990s, moves to an office on Capitol Hill in Washington.
2001 Robertson resigns as president, turning over the reins to Roberta Combs, right, who, within a year, closes the Washington office and moves the group to South Carolina. Since its move to South Carolina, the coalition has been pursued by a variety of creditors, including suppliers of services for its 2002 “Road to Victory” rally in Washington.
2004 In a fiscal report to South Carolina, the coalition claims revenue of $1.3 million and expenses of $1.5 million, leaving a $200,000 deficit.
“Their future is really bleak,” said Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has followed the Christian conservative movement for years. “The Christian Coalition is a shell of its former self.”
In one sense, the group is a victim of its own success, Rozell said. It is widely credited with helping Republicans seize control of Congress in 1994 and the White House in 2000, but with those goals achieved, it has lost much of its reason for being.
“These types of opposition groups tend to do really well when the other party is in power – especially, for a religious right group, when the folks in power are Bill and Hillary Clinton,” Rozell said. “But when Bush is in the White House and the Republicans control Congress, the need for a Christian Coalition as a counterweight to established power just isn’t that great.”
Coalition officials insist everything’s fine. As if to underline the point, last month they announced the hiring of a new executive director, Jason T. Christy, the 34-year-old publisher of The Church Report, a national news and business journal for pastors and Christian leaders.
“The Christian Coalition is going to be around for a long time,” said Roberta Combs, the group’s president. “I really believe that with all my heart.”
The coalition arose from the ashes of a failed 1988 bid for the Republican presidential nomination by Robertson, the Virginia Beach-based founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network.
To run the group’s day-to-day affairs, Robertson brought in Ralph Reed – a shrewd political operative who became a highly visible spokesman for the religious right.
The coalition mobilized millions of conservative Christians with its voter guides – pocket-sized candidate scorecards distributed in churches.
Reed left the coalition in 1997 and set up a political consulting business in Georgia, where he is now seeking the 2006 Republican nomination for lieutenant governor. He has also become a central figure in the American Indian casino gambling scandal surrounding indicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
The coalition hit its zenith in 1996, when it pulled in a record $26 million in revenue. By contrast, in its 2004 annual report to the South Carolina secretary of state, the group reported $1.3 million in revenue and $1.5 million in expenses, leaving a $200,000 deficit.
Based in Chesapeake through the 1990s, the coalition moved to an office on Capitol Hill in Washington in 2000. Its Chesapeake landlord sued the group in 2001 for $76,546 in back rent, in a case that is still open in Chesapeake Circuit Court.
Within months of the move to Washington, 10 black employees filed a racial discrimination lawsuit alleging that they were forced to enter the office by the back door and eat in a segregated area. The coalition settled the suit in December 2001 for about $300,000, according to several published reports.
That same month, Robertson announced his resignation as president, saying he wanted to spend more time on his broadcast ministry and Regent University, the Christian school he founded next door in Virginia Beach. He was succeeded as president by Combs, head of the coalition’s South Carolina chapter, who closed the Capitol Hill headquarters in November 2002 and now runs the group from an office in Charleston, S.C.
On its Web site, the coalition still lists a Washington post office box as its mailing address, but it no longer has an office in the capital. It employs a lobbyist who works out of his home.
It was the move from Capitol Hill that left an unpaid bill resulting in the claim against the coalition Friday in Henrico County. The coalition is contesting the claim.
Since its move to South Carolina, the coalition has been pursued by a variety of creditors, including the mailing companies Pitney-Bowes and Federal Express. The group has also been sued by suppliers of audio, lighting, exhibit construction and other services for its 2002 “Road to Victory” rally in Washington, which featured a star-studded lineup of speakers, including Robertson and now-indicted House leader Tom DeLay.
Even the coalition’s longtime Virginia Beach law firm, Huff, Poole & Mahoney, has joined the chase. The firm secured a $63,958 judgment for back legal bills in 2003 that resulted in a garnishment of the group’s bank account and a partial payment of $21,136. The firm has retained a South Carolina attorney to try to collect the rest.
One of the coalition’s most costly legal battles was a 2002 blowup with Focus Direct Inc., a San Antonio direct-mail company that sued the group over a major fundraising campaign that went sour. The case dragged on for two years. Combs said it was settled for $200,000.
One of the coalition’s co-defendants, Northern Virginia fundraiser William G. Sidebottom, declared bankruptcy as a result. His attorney, Kevin M. Young of San Antonio, said it was a messy case.
“My father was a preacher, and I became aware of an old saying: 'There’s no politics like church politics,’” Young said. “This is an example of that. On the outside, everybody’s making a happy face, but behind the curtain, it was pretty unseemly.”
And then there’s family politics.
Combs hired her daughter Michele as communications director and Michele’s husband, Tracy Ammons, as a Capitol Hill lobbyist. When their marriage dissolved into a nasty divorce and child-custody battle, Ammons was fired.
He then sued the coalition for $130,000 in unpaid salary, accusing his mother-in-law of “personal animosity and malice” arising out of a desire to break up the marriage.
Explaining in an affidavit how he went months without a paycheck, Ammons said: “I believed that … I could trust my own mother-in-law.”
In another affidavit filed in the Ammons case, Tammy Farmer, who worked at the coalition as a bookkeeper in 2001, said she found the group’s financial affairs in disarray.
“I witnessed a very consistent and chronic pattern of Roberta Combs intentionally refusing to pay valid debts, salaries and accounts for no discernible reason,” Farmer said.
As the overdue bills piled up, Farmer said, telephone service would be cut off occasionally and vendors would refuse to do further business with the coalition.
Farmer said Combs frequently told her, “Don’t pay … they’ll never sue.”
Debt is nothing new for the coalition, Combs said Friday.
“In 1999, when I came into the national organization, it had debt,” she said. “I had to do a lot of creative things. It has less debt now than it had then.”
The Ammons case is in arbitration, but fallout from it continues. Arlington County Circuit Judge Joanne F. Alper imposed $83,141 in sanctions against Ammons and his attorney, Jonathon Moseley, for improper and frivolous pleadings. Both declared bankruptcy as a result.
The coalition’s attorney, Brad D. Weiss, moved last month to withdraw from the Ammons case, citing an “irreconcilable conflict” among himself, the coalition leadership and its board.
Meanwhile, two other attorneys, H. Jason Gold and Alexander M. Laughlin, who had been representing the coalition in the Ammons bankruptcy proceedings, moved to withdraw as well. Their reason: The coalition had failed to pay them.
News researcher Jakon Hays contributed to this story.
I know it is not the same interview.
What I was saying is that he outlines in this interview what he feels is the big problem with the White House.
Did you see the interview......
with those three men who were recently released after being hostages in Columbia? I was about in tears when that one guy was talking about being locked in boxes at night and how he would think about his daughter. When he talked about them having no indication of being released and then him and two guys looked out and saw a rainbow......he knew they would get out and go home but he just didn't know when. That rainbow was a sign to him that God was going to get them through. To be able to have such faith in a time like that. Makes my problems seem so small compared to what they went through. I can't even imagine. The one man said that he finally got to meet his 5 y/o twin boys for the first time as they had not been born when he was taken hostage.
No, I did not see that particular interview...
but have read a lot and it is indeed inspiring. And personally I believe trials are when faith is the strongest, you dig deep and find strength you never thought you had. And you are the most open to God communicating to you...like the rainbow communicating to the man and the Holy Spirit confirming that they would be rescued. And yes, when you hear of something like this, certainly does put one's own problems in perspective, doesn't it?
Then why not do an interview for someone who...
doesn't get a tingle up their leg when you speak? Who is going to ask you the hard questions? He avoided that for over a year. If he is so confident, so ready to lead, why let little old Fox News scare him? Your argument rings very hollow...and it is the koolaid you should be reaching for, not chocolate...lol.
I saw that interview
What I didn't see was the reporter questioning McCain/Palin. Did that happen? What kind of questions did she ask THEM? With her attitude, I certainly do not blame Obama/Biden. She admitted on Larry King, I think it was, that she is a Republican. Another conclusion I've come to. Rabid Republicans have poor eyesight!
yup, that was an interview by someone from
man I can't think of his name right now. He has a side kick lady, but you were listening to the same one. The guy with long hair and sunglasses....Stern. That's him. While it was amusing, it was also an eye opener. Even Stern who is very liberal was shocked at the stupidity.
Yesterday's interview on
Matt Cooper pretty much spelled it out. You might not like it, though, because it still holds your boys accountable for their actions. So by all means, read at your own risk.
MSNBC.com
Transcript for July 17
Matt Cooper, John Podesta, Ken Mehlman, Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein
NBC News
Updated: 1:57 p.m. ET July 17, 2005
PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS NBC TELEVISION PROGRAM TO "NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS."
Sunday, July 17, 2005
GUESTS: Matt Cooper, White House Correspondent, Time Magazine; John Podesta, President and CEO, "Center for American Progress" and Former Chief of Staff, President Bill Clinton; Ken Mehlman, Chairman, Republican National Committee; Bob Woodward, Washington Post and author, "The Secret Man: The Story of Watergate's Deep Throat" and Carl Bernstein, former Washington Post Watergate Reporter
MODERATOR/PANELIST: Tim Russert, NBC News
MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: the investigation into the leak which identified Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative. This Time magazine reporter says his source released him from his pledge of confidentiality, allowing him to avoid jail by testifying on Wednesday. What did he say to the grand jury? He'll discuss it for the first here this morning. Our guest: Matt Cooper.
Then Newsweek magazine quotes Karl Rove as saying it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency, who authorized the trip." What now for President Bush's deputy chief of staff? With us, Rove's former deputy, now chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman, and President Clinton's former chief of staff, John Podesta.
And 33 years ago, another famous source, Deep Throat, provided information which brought about the resignation of Richard M. Nixon. His identity has now been revealed and his story now chronicled in a new book: "The Secret Man." With us, Watergate reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.
But, first, joining us now is Matt Cooper of Time magazine. Welcome.
MR. MATT COOPER: Morning, Tim.
MR. RUSSERT: This is the cover of your magazine: "Rove on the Spot," subtitled "What I Told the Grand Jury," by Matthew Cooper. And here is an excerpt from your article, which will be available tomorrow in Time magazine.
"So did [Karl] Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that [Joe] Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him?"--to Niger. "Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the `agency' on `WMD'?"--weapons of mass destruction. "Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know."
For the record, the first time you learned that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA was from Karl Rove?
MR. COOPER: That's correct.
MR. RUSSERT: And when Karl concluded his conversation with you, you write he said, "I've already said too much." What did that mean?
MR. COOPER: Well, I'm not sure what it meant, Tim. At first, you know, I thought maybe he meant "I've been indiscreet." But then, as I thought about it, I thought it might be just more benign, like "I've said too much; I've got to get to a meeting." I don't know exactly what he meant, but I do know that memory of that line has stayed in my head for two years.
MR. RUSSERT: When you were told that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, did you have any sense then that this is important or "I better be careful about identifying someone who works for the CIA"?
MR. COOPER: Well, I certainly thought it was important. I wrote it in the e-mail to my bosses moments later that has since leaked out after this long court battle I've been in. You know, I certainly thought it was important. But I didn't know her name at the time until, you know, after Bob Novak's column came out.
MR. RUSSERT: Did you have any reluctance writing something so important?
MR. COOPER: Well, I wrote it after Bob Novak's column had come out and identified her, so I was not in, you know, danger of outing her the way he did.
MR. RUSSERT: You also write in Time magazine this week, "This was actually my second testimony for the special prosecutor. In August 2004, I gave limited testimony about my conversation with [Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff] Scooter Libby. Libby had also given me a special waiver, and I gave a deposition in the office of my attorney. I have never discussed that conversation until now. In that testimony, I recorded an on-the-record conversation with Libby that moved to background. On the record, he denied that Cheney knew"--of--"or played any role the Wilson trip to Niger. On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, `Yeah, I've heard that, too,' or words to that effect."
Did you interpret that as a confirmation?
MR. COOPER: I did, yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Did Mr. Libby say at any time that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?
MR. COOPER: No, he didn't say that.
MR. RUSSERT: But you said it to him?
MR. COOPER: I said, "Was she involved in sending him?," yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: And that she worked for the CIA?
MR. COOPER: I believe so.
MR. RUSSERT: The piece that you finally ran in Time magazine on July 17th, it says, "And some government officials have noted to Time in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched to Niger..."
"Some government officials"--That is Rove and Libby?
MR. COOPER: Yes, those were among the sources for that, yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: Are there more?
MR. COOPER: I don't want to get into it, but it's possible.
MR. RUSSERT: Have you told the grand jury about that?
MR. COOPER: The grand jury knows what I know, yes.
MR. RUSSERT: That there may have been more sources?
MR. COOPER: Yes.
MR. RUSSERT: The big discussion, Matt Cooper, has been about your willingness to testify...
MR. COOPER: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: ...before the grand jury. And let's go through that. This was Wednesday, July 6, Matt Cooper talking to the assembled press corps.
(Videotape, July 6, 2005):
MR. COOPER: This morning, in what can only be described as a stunning set of developments, that source agreed to give me a specific, personal and unambiguous waiver to speak before the grand jury.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Now, Karl Rove's attorney has spoken to The Washington Post. "[Karl Rove's attorney, Robert] Luskin has said that he merely reaffirmed the blanket waiver by Rove ...and that the assurance would have been available at any time. He said that [Matt] Cooper's description of last-minute theatrics `does not look so good' and that `it just looks to me like there was less a desire to protect a source.'"
MR. COOPER: Well, can I back up a little bit, Tim? For two years, you know, I have protected the identity of my sources. As you know, I was in a rather infamous court battle that went through all the courts in Washington, right up to the Supreme Court, and we lost there with a special prosecutor trying to get me to disclose my source. My principle the whole time was that no court and no corporation can release me from a pledge of confidentiality with my source. And so even after Time magazine, over my objections, handed over my notes and e-mails, which included, really, everything I had and identified all my sources, I still believed that I needed some kind of personal release from the source himself.
And so on the morning of that clip you just saw, my lawyer called me and had seen in The Wall Street Journal that morning Mr. Rove's lawyer saying, "Karl does not stand by any confidentiality with these conversations," or words to that effect, and then went on to say, "If Matt Cooper's going to jail, it's not for Karl Rove." And at that point, at that point only, my lawyer contacted Mr. Rove's lawyer and said, you know, "Can we get a kind of personal waiver that applies to Matt?" And Mr. Luskin and he worked out an agreement and we have a letter that says that "Mr. Rove waives confidentiality for conversations with Matt Cooper in July 2003." So it's specific to me and it's personal, and that's why I felt comfortable, only at that point, going to testify before the grand jury. And once I testified before the grand jury, then I felt I should share that with the readers of Time.
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Luskin, Rove's attorney, is suggesting that you had the same waiver throughout the last two years, and only when you were confronted with going to jail did you, in effect, decide to compromise your source or not protect your source.
MR. COOPER: Well, I protected my source all along. I don't maintain that I haven't. I have all the way along, and that's why we went to the Supreme Court. That's why I stood by the source even after Time had disclosed my documents. We went to Rove only after seeing his lawyer, in some sense, invite us to, in that quote in The Wall Street Journal. My lawyers and the editors at the time did not feel it was appropriate for me to go and approach Rove about some kind of waiver before then.
MR. RUSSERT: In your piece, as I mentioned, you said "some government officials," and you said it may be more than just Rove and Libby. Did you get waivers from those additional sources when you testified before the grand jury?
MR. COOPER: I don't want to get into anything else, but I don't--anything I discuss before the grand jury, I have a waiver for.
MR. RUSSERT: Norman Pearlstine, editor in chief...
MR. COOPER: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: ...of Time magazine, authorized the release of your e-mails and notes to the prosecutor. Pearlstine said this: "I found myself really coming to the conclusion that once the Supreme Court has spoken in a case involving national security and a grand jury, we are not above the law and we have to behave the way ordinary citizens do." Do you agree?
MR. COOPER: In part. I mean, I think Norman Pearlstine made a very tough decision. I spent a lot of time with him and I admired the way he made it. I disagreed. I thought we should have at least, you know, gone forward, gone into civil contempt. I would have been willing to go to jail. I think we should have, you know, held on a little longer, but that's a reasonable, you know, disagreement between people.
MR. RUSSERT: Now, he came to Washington, Pearlstine, and some other editors from New Work and met with the Washington bureau of Time magazine.
MR. COOPER: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: At least two correspondents produced e-mails saying, "Our sources are now telling us they will no longer confide in Time magazine. They will no longer trust us to protect our sources." Is that going to be a long-term problem for your magazine?
MR. COOPER: Well, I think, you know, Time will have to, you know, reassure confidential sources that we're going to continue to rely on them and continue to protect them. You know, this--Tim, I think the important thing is here that one aberration in this case was it went all the way to the Supreme Court, and it was then--you know, Time did decide in this case to turn over the notes. Now, Pearlstine has said that in other cases he might not. I think the important thing to remember here is that, you know, the reporters of Time will keep their word. I kept my word for two years. I didn't feel like any court or corporation could release me from that confidence, and I kept my word and so only spoke with the grand jury after I received that written personal waiver from my source.
MR. RUSSERT: You are going to testify this week before Congress for a shield law. Explain that.
MR. COOPER: Sure . Well, Tim, you know, this is the 12th day, I believe, of my colleague Judith Miller from The New York Times being in jail in this investigation because she did not get a waiver that she feels comfortable with and she's protecting her sources. There's incredible aberration, Tim. Forty- nine states have some kind of protection for journalists and their confidential sources, but there is no protection at the federal level. And so in a bipartisan way, Republicans and Democrats have put forward legislation in Congress to create some kind of protection for whistle-blowers and confidential sources and other people who want to come forward to the press so there'd be some kind of federal law, too.
MR. RUSSERT: What's your biggest regret in this whole matter?
MR. COOPER: Well, I'm not sure I have that many. I mean, I believe the story I wrote was entirely accurate and fair, and I stand by it. And I think it was important because it was about an important thing that was going on. It was called A War on Wilson, and I believe there was something like a war on Wilson going on. I guess I'd be a little more discreet about my e-mails, I think. I'm an object lesson in that, you know, e-mails have a way of getting out.
MR. RUSSERT: Will this affect your career as a journalist?
MR. COOPER: I don't think it should, Tim. I kept my word to my source. I only spoke after I got a waiver from that source. That's what other journalists have done in this case. I don't think it should.
MR. RUSSERT: How did you find the grand jury?
MR. COOPER: I was surprised, Tim. You know, I'd heard this old line that grand jurors are very passive, that they'll indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor tells them. I thought this grand jury was very interested in the case. They--a lot of the questions I answered were posed by them as opposed to the prosecutor. I thought they were very involved.
MR. RUSSERT: Where do you think it's heading?
MR. COOPER: You know, I really don't know, Tim. I've been, you know, involved in this case as anyone, I guess, for a couple of years now, and at times I think it's a very big case, at times I think it's, you know, politics as usual and not going to be that big a case at all. I just don't know.
MR. RUSSERT: And we'll find out. Matt Cooper, we thank you very much for joining us and sharing your views.
MR. COOPER: Thank you, Tim.
Saw this interview, and I would surmise the man
knows what he is talking about...apparently things are NOT hunky-dory with the freedom-thing in Iraq, and so much as says let's get out now! and I agree!
I saw this interview on Countdown.
Twice. (I taped it.) Jonathan Turley is a very well respected expert in Constitutional law, and I was actually very pleasantly surprised at the courage he showed by saying what he said. I just hope he isn't the next victim to be crushed by the Bush career-demolition machine.
In the interview I saw, no one made the...
Republican party look ignorant. So I would say...are you deaf?
Can watch the interview at
cnn.com/2008/politics/09/05/palintrooper./index.htm. Better to see it for yourself.
someone wanted to see SP interview?
well sunday night on fox, greta vansusteren will interview her. greta is a v. good interviewer too, (with good questions, listens to the answers, etc, if you are not familiar with her).
watched the SP interview
I felt very uncomfortable for her. She was clearly out of her depth and Charlie really give her general questions, not detailed-oriented questions he could have asked. The blank look she had at "Bush Doctrine" was the worst; the way she tried to get a hint from Charlie about what he was talking about was squirm-inducing. A commentator noted she agreed with Obama's policy on Afghanistan rather than McCain's. I am hoping that voters will view her sympathetically as an uniformed foreign policy neophyte who simply cannot cram the vast knowledge required to deal with potentially explosive affairs in a few weeks time. I am hoping voters are willing to give her a few more years to grow into a national position. I am hoping voters will not put our children at risk by electing someone they "like" to be understudy to a man who is clearly being worn down physically by this campaign. We need well-informed, knowledgable leaders. If voters want to reward people for service and likeability, they can do so with the numerous reality shows where viewers vote for candidates.
Obama Interview.........sm
Hey sam, are up for a complete dissection on every single answer or non-answer that Obama gave on the O'Reilly interview?
Personally, what I came away with is this:
1. Obama is very charming, likable, charismatic. He looks good and acts presidential, most of the time.
2. Even though the interview was scripted, and Obama knew what the questions were going to be, I think he answered things pretty well. He did sound thoughtful, and knowledgeable.
3. I thought he was going to be given a free ride, but O'Reilly really was kind of tough on him a few times.
4. But really, the single most interesting thing I came away with was......I had no idea what he said a couple of times. He danced around a couple of questions, talking both sides, I really didn't know what his answer was. I guess he was trying to please everyone, but I have no idea what he was really thought or said. It was weird.
Anyway, I see why they all follow blindly. He looks good and sounds good, and says exactly what they want to hear. But I just still don't see anything of real substance there behind the man.
Tell me, who would you choose to interview him? nm
Must have been watching a different interview than the...
watch 60 min interview
There is a big black hole under his left ear behind that chipmunk type cheek. I kept thinking it was a trick of light, but there is a deep crevice there or something.
don't remember which interview
watched so many with all the political shows. Can't even visualize the reporter.
Did you see the short interview she did with ...sm
reporters where she was asked to comment on her censure by the Alaska legislature? She totally ignores the fact that she was censored for unethical behavior in the interference she allowed to occur trying to get the trooper fired. She just said she was grateful to the Alaska legislature for absolving her of unethical or criminal behavior in the firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, no mention of what she was actually censored for. Unbelievable!
"Sarah Palin unlawfully abused her power as governor by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper, the chief investigator of an Alaska legislative panel concluded Friday".
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOTk11gvqDAgD0cY3i4WjI_2YOxwD93O25DG0
I saw the McCain interview.
She basically asked McCain the identical questions about Obama so McCain could trash him. I'll see if I can find the link.
Have you seen where they interview people on the
nm
Update on Job Interview
First to katy - haha about community organizer! We were discussing that earlier. Careful, my hubby might be president one day! LOL
Anyways he went to the interview today. He thinks it went well. They were pretty laid back. Basically from what he was able to gather between the job description, what we found online, and what they told him, he will be working with the community, schools, and churches to implement programs that will better the welfare of children in the community. It is part of the Family Connection Partnership in Georgia (I think it might also be national). It's a relatively new effort in reply to the fact that Georgia is ranked around 45th for child welfare/raising.
We should know soon if he got it or not. He loves working with high risk teens and children (like most of our youth group!) and helping them to see that they can do better and succeed and be self sufficient!
Thanks to everyone who prayed or gave well wishes! I read some of your replies to him and he said thank you as well!
Interview Video
This was a good interview.
What interview are you talking about?....(sm)
I looked around and found this:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=6251086&page=1
I'm getting about the exact opposite impression here.
I saw this interview. As usual, . . . sm
all weasel, whiny and blustering, and no answers. SOS, and losing more credibility with each passing day!! And he's the best they got?!
I agree the entire interview was not there.
And I truly don't understand why. I tried to quickly find the transcript of the entire interview, but I was unable to find it.
I wish they would have posted the entire interview because Sean and Newt argued and probably for the first time did not agree. If I remember correctly, there was even a jovial comment at the end about Newt being closer to Alan than Sean (or something to that effect). I don't remember the exact words. I did watch the entire interview, and I can tell you that Sean challenged Newt on points, but Newt still disagreed with him. The gist of what Newt said was that the President just needs to start being honest with the American people about things he does.
If I have more time later, I will search some more and see if I can find the entire interview in case you don't believe what I have told you after watching the entire interview.
I do agree, however, that the entire interview should have been there because I think his disagreement with Sean was much more interesting than his agreement with Alan.
I thought the interview was chilling.
I actually watched the interview on TV and was going to wait a day or two until the transcript was available and post the transcript, but I was able to find a clip of the interview, which is much better than the transcript.
Unfortunately, there is still a lot that can go wrong in the year and a half Bush has left because there are growing numbers of *bogeymen,* in my opinion, partly because USA is seen as an arrogant bully by a significant portion of the world. We have to worry about North Korea and Iran. (Ironically, Valerie Plame had been working on Iran's nuclear program when she was outted by Rove and Libby, which makes me wonder whether we're being told the truth about them by the Bush administration.)
I'm very glad I saw this because I've increasingly wondered how two different sides of the political spectrum could see things so very differently, with one of them having such venom towards the other side. I remember the good old days when Democrats and Republicans could discuss and debate issues. Even if the debate became heated, they walked away from it still friends and still respecting each other. The Republicans would debate, not personally attack. I haven't seen that in a long time.
Now I understand why. 
Here is a synopsis of the Dean interview.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0714-25.htm
Recent Russo interview ...sm
With Conscious Media Network. Of course, it wasn't on CNN, etc. I have seen the trailers.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3254488777215293198&q=aaron+russo
Ron Paul radio interview
For those of you in the listening area, Ron Paul is being interviewed on NPR. I am in New England and it is on now. But if you miss it, you can log onto NPR on the web and play it back at your leisure. :o)
For those itching for that Focks interview sm
After commanding an audience of 84,000 at Mile High, and another 38,000,000 or so in the TV viewing audience (more than the Oscars, the opening ceremonies of the Olympics or the American Idol finale), he probably can go without appearing in front of that that so-called "largest viewing audience" of Focks News you accuse him of fearing, and their golden boys, Bill O'Reilly and/or Sean Hannity...and come out of it just fine. Still, if you insist, let's strike a deal.
Tell you what. Obama will submit to an interview on Focks News just as soon as McCain agrees to an unscripted Q&A with any of the following:
Michael Moore
Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman
Ariana Huffington.
Bill Mahar.
Bill Moyers.
Indymedia.
Independent Press Association (IPA)
Chris Matthews
Keith Olberman
Richard Dreyfuss
Helen Thomas
Jim Hightower
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
Naomi Klein
Al-Jazeera English
Jeremy Scahill
Robert Scheer
Nir Rosen
Allan Nairn
James Steele
John Ghazvinian
Seymour Hersh
Scotter Ritter
The Nation
Rolling Stone
Mother Jones
The American Prospect
Greg Palast
Could go on, but you get my drift, yes or no?
I saw Biden in an interview this morning....
he got realll agitated when confronted about an issue they really did not want to break. Talking to a reporter and he almost got loud. They are not on the run, but they are definitely concerned. The debates will be verrryyyy interesting.
To Biden's credit, though, he was almost snarly to the press for sexism and attacking Palin's family. Much more forceful about it than Obama. Good for him!
Finally - a decent interview
I caught the interview with Sarah Palin tonight. Part 2 is on tomorrow. I thought finally! Someone treating her with respect. The interview with Gibson last week was definitely a set up (been in the military and I know about investigations and such, and how to make people "uneasy"). As much as I cannot stand Hannity I have to say the interview was very respecful and not condescending. He asked her decent questions and asked her to explain herself on some issues which she did. When it comes to economics, energy and other issues she shows the wisdom and intelligence to understand what is happening and what needs to be done to get the problems fixed. There was no doubt in my mind by the end of the interview she will be one of the best VPs and I have confidence enough that if something happens to JM she will do just fine. However, JM's family lives to be quite a ripe old age so am sure he will be around for many more years to come. I'm just glad there was finally a fair interview. Asked her tough questions, had her explain her viewpoints and treated her with the respect she deserved. Can't wait to see the rest of it tomorrow. She'll be talking about how she has been treated by the media among other things.
I heard Kissinger myself in an interview....
this morning saying that he never suggested that the President of the United States sit down with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. He said negotiations should start at lower levels and when conditions hadbeen worked out and certain agreements arrived at, THEN the President would sit down. He cited an instance where it took 3 years of lower negotiations before the President sat down. Couric knows that, or would if she had actually asked Kissinger himself instead of "confirming his opinion." What better way to confirm his opinion than to ask him??
Michael Savage interview
When you have time and want to listen it's an excellent interview. His interview is with Berg - a lifetime democrat/lifetime liberal
http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/2-news/43-phil-j-berg-on-michael-savage-audio
Once on that page there is a link to click to hear the show (the direct link was too long to post here)
P.S. - I just heard this on the show and it does bring up a question. Why isn't Obama bringing his wife and kids to visit his ailing grandmother. The one who raised him. Wouldn't he want his ailing grandmother to see his wife and kids? It does not make sense that these could be her last days why didn't he bring his wife and daughters.
It's from an interview last January not today
nm
If he was in a Fox interview, I wouldn't expect him to be.
Panthers don't scare me. Hannity, on the other hand....
She should be giving interview and she is most certainly is not "whining"
I don't agree with you on this one. I just watched different news stations and all say pretty much the same thing. They are saying at least she is not playing the victim like HC did with her phony crying episodes and the poor me they're picking on me because blah, blah, blah.
Gov. Palin should be giving interviews (just like Kerry and Edwards did after the last election). The public also deserves the right to know how she was treated. Whether you like her or not the truth is she was treated most unfairly and disrespectfully. She's not whining about it. In fact time and time again she has said she has a tough skin and you don't make it in politics by having a thin skin. You take the rolls with the punches and you just keep going. She said it takes a lot more than what has been dealt to her to make her want to quit. You can't let yourself get beaten down. Did she do well during the Couric interview? No she did not. I heard a news reporter on MSNBC say afterward that to be totally fair you could see she was quite nervous. Were there questions she should have known the answer to, you bet there was, but in all fairness she should have never agreed to be interviewed by Katie Couric, who was most definitely one out to destroy her. There are plenty of reporters who are fair that could have treated her respectfully. Katie Couric did not and Katie Couric even admitted to meeting with someone to "bone up" on how to make an interviewee look bad. Did the news media treat her unfairly through the election. Most certainly. And they are still doing it. Did they treat the democrat woman (HC) differently than the republican woman (SP) you bet. I watched it every day. Is Caroline Kennedy being treated differently, My gosh do you even have to ask that question? Caroline Kennedy (whom the media is calling Princess Caroline) is being treated like royalty by the media. I don't know why because the Kennedy's are not royalty. But the media has always treated them that way. We all know that if Gov. Palin was running on the democrat ticket she would have been treated with grace and dignity. The media is in love with the democratic party and have wanted to destroy the republicans for a long time (Olberman, Maddow, Matthews, CNN, etc). They had their hay-day and had a blast doing it, while at the same time poo-pooing the poor me, everyone is picking on us routine. I think it's time America deserved the truth. I'm not saying the media lost the election for the republicans because they didn't. John McCain/GOP did that all by themselves himself (and without the help of Sarah Palin). But the media's love affair with Barack and the democrats were so blatanly obvious it was sickening. I watched the interviews. Never did I see Barack or Hillary get the kind of questions they gave to McCain and Palin and it was so obvious after awhile I just lost interest. Which by the way it was interesting to see the media never interviewed Biden or covered him the way they did Palin. The news media knew not to interview the next VP because he would certainly say something that would screw up their chances, but yet they went after the republican VP candidate. So once again another display of how unfairly the media treated certain people.
I will most definitely watch the interview. I think Sarah Palin is a fine person and I hope to see more of her, but in honesty after what the political rape of Sarah Palin and what the media and public has done to her and her family I wouldn't blame her not going through the witch hunt/inquisition again.
|
