Regime media has been in the tank for Democrats for decades. We all know this. Even before the time when Tim Russert, the former Mario Cuomo aide, hosted NBC's Meet the Press, liberal journalists always seemed to be the ones who got to anchor the important slots in the news divisions of network television and cable. 

When Bob Schieffer ran Face the Nation, CBS' Sunday show, he was reliably left-leaning, but at least paid lip service to objectivity, and got to moderate three presidential debates in his career. His style was old school - ask questions and minimize the role of the moderator. Debates should be about the candidates and the issues, not who's asking the questions. 

David Brinkley was the gold standard for a Sunday show host on ABC's This Week, until he gave way to Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts, who were much more partisan. The slide to open activism has continued at that network through current-day anchors George Stephanopoulos and Jonathan Karl. 

Even on Meet the Press, Russert, a staunch Democrat, was at least prepared for conversations. And if you were to get the best of him, you had to do your homework and bring your A game. His bias, though, was always to go much easier on Democrats, and push back much harder on Republicans. 

Today's crop of Sunday show hosts, and I exclude Shannon Bream, who follows the late Tony Snow and Chris Wallace and is the prototype of what a Sunday show host should be in how they conduct interviews, has descended into abject partisanship, substituting themselves in interviews as the de facto campaign surrogate for the Democratic Party. 

Over the years, there have been many disaster when Republicans went on Sunday shows and had their hat handed to them. My former podcast partner, Congressman John Campbell, has long advocated for Republicans to quit appearing on these shows, believing that boycotting them entirely is how you starve them of attention. 

There is an interesting development as of late, and it's pretty encouraging, from my perspective. The Republicans appearing on these shows are getting much better at going into harm's way, and acquitting themselves very well in the process, and the hosts of these shows are getting caught flat-footed a lot more than I remember. In short, our side is getting sharper at communicating, and the regime media heads are getting worse both in partisanship, and in how poorly they're using their platforms. 

My friend, Ed, the boss, had a piece up earlier looking one exchange in particular between Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton and This Week's Karl, but there are many more examples just in the last couple weeks to buttress this point. 

On CNN's State of the Union with Dana Bash anchoring, Florida Congressman Michael Waltz came on, and in the midst of the conversation, Bash floated the idea that the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal was actually Donald Trump's fault. Waltz, a retired Green Beret, served multiple tours in Afghanistan, and wasn't having any of this argument, and pushed back hard. 



Dana lost as soon as she prefaced her question with, "As you well know." Waltz couldn't believe she was going there, and literally silenced her with actual facts that refute her 'as you well know'. 

On Meet the Press yesterday, GOP Vice-Presidential nominee J.D. Vance had a one-on-one sit-down interview with Kristen Welker. Welker got beat routinely throughout the interview, and used Democratic Party talking points to shift to a different subject. Vance was smooth, even-keeled, and had very coherent responses that refuted the premise of every subject that came up. 

On immigration and the problem at the border, Vance had to not just answer questions, but counter just one of several mouthpieces for the Harris campaign. 



When Welker retreated to her safe zone, the abortion issue, here's how Senator Vance handled it. 



The line that stung Welker was when J.D. Vance rebutted more on Harris' record at border czar.

One more push by Welker, who is treating the abortion issue like it's the only issue of substance that will decide the 2024 presidential election, and how seamlessly Vance dismissed her concerns. 

Kristen Welker: "Can you commit, Senator, sitting right here with me today, that if you and Donald Trump are elected, that you will not impose a federal ban on abortion?"

JD Vance: "I can absolutely commit that." pic.twitter.com/jli8s0y38T

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) August 25, 2024

For the Republicans to be tempted to try any kind of national abortion ban, they'd need a Republican in the White House willing to sign that legislation, and they'd need at least a 30-seat majority in the House, because putting through legislation like that will cause a short-term bloodbath in the next Congressional elections, and they know that. They're not willing to go against their own political interests, giving up a possible majority, and going against the will of the American people, especially when their argument all along, pre-Dobbs, was to restore the issue back to the states, which is exactly what has happened. The life issue will come to the Republican over time, over generations. There's no need to overplay their hand now. The field is coming to them, to use a football metaphor.

The Senate is the big hurdle, and Welker knows this. In order for Democrats to codify abortion and pass its legalization through legislation, they'll have to break the legislative filibuster to do it. Make no mistake - Kamala Harris and many radical Democrats are willing to do that. But if Republicans are in control, again to address the hysterical premise in Welker's question, Republicans are not willing to break the filibuster. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski wouldn't be with them even if they had that desire. Republicans would have to have at least 65 seats in the upper chamber, to comfortably clear the 60-vote cloture threshold after some moderate Republicans peel off. That's just not a likely prospect, as enticing as it may be to my political perspective, that is going to happen in my lifetime. J.D. again handled it very well. 

I've got to come back to the Cotton-Karl episode on This Week, though. It's too tremendous not to address. And it's not even the first time this month that Karl has looked absolutely foolish. Two weeks ago, Karl sat down with Senator Vance, and one of the many controversies around Democratic vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz came up - his advocacy for the removal of gender dysphoric teens from homes in which parents refuse to allow gender reassignment surgery. Karl knows that issue is a radical view, and is not the ground on which he and his fellow Democrats want to fight this election, and attempted to deny he holds the position. J.D. pressed the point very effectively. 



It's not happening, "Baghdad Bob" Karl said. "That is crazy," he claimed. I agree. It is crazy. It also happens to be true. Here's the background on the Minnesota legislation Governor Walz signed into law. 

Read more: https://t.co/p8Fp5vaJet

— American Principles 🇺🇸 (@approject) August 12, 2024

It's not just that Karl is wrong, it's that he's unwilling to even accept the answers of the guests he interviews. He has to reject statements on behalf of a political party that's unwilling to send their principals onto his, or anyone else's show at this stage of the electoral cycle. Karl is standing in the gap as a surrogate, and he's really not that good at it. He got mocked pretty widely for the Vance stunt a fortnight ago. Yesterday, he walked into a door yet again with Senator Tom Cotton.



Notice that Karl had no answer to Cotton's counter that nobody has heard what Kamala's policy is from her directly. Karl is wishcasting that Haris' policy is what he wants it to be in order to not be politically damaging. But again, Karl's chronic problem as a surrogate is he's not really good at this. A video of him referring to Kamala Harris as the border czar surfaced about a nanosecond after he fought with Senator Vance, denying she was ever given that title. 

Now, with the issue of whether Harris is for ending private health insurance, again a claim that Karl says is preposterous and that allegedly, Harris has denied it, here is Karl in 2019 on the day Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar joined the field in the 2020 presidential primary. His analysis of the lane in which Klobuchar would run differed from that of Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, whom both have supported the ending of private health insurance. 

He knew in 2019 what Harris' position is. He's leaning on an unnamed campaign spokesperson who offered a press release on behalf of the campaign to state Harris is no longer for that? Pretty weak sauce. 

By the way, Karl didn't make reference to actual Harris video from the same time period where she wants to "get rid of it, It's time to move on," from private health insurance. Here's Harris on CNN with Jake Tapper during a 2019 town hall. 

I have no hope for regime media. They are circling the wagons, and considering people's trust in media and their ratings slide these days, those wagons are in turn circling the drain. What I am hopeful about is that decades of rhetorical combat with a hostile media has raised up a lot of very talented communicators on the Republican side, in Senator Vance, in Rep. Waltz, in Senator Cotton, and so many others that the future looks pretty good.

The ideological middle of the country are still up for grabs, but you have to be able to make a cogent argument. Republicans are, Democrats, including regime media, are not.