No apologies for inviting him.

Cool. Of course, no apologies for not watching him, either. Cuts both ways, Georgie.

Cool! I've never been first before!

Good grief.

Like Realist, I won't apologize for not watching his miserable show either.

"If McCain is a "leading" voice on the conflict,..."

Of course he's a "leader." EVERYONE in the Republican't Party is a "leader," since no one is.

It's either him or Rush Limbaugh, after all.

Ed

Isn't Gates the leading GOP voice on Afghanistan?

Why is any show required to air a "Republican response," when for the most part, the party has shown no understanding of the issue? The show has a responsibility to provide us with information from experts who *know* something.

This is true about any issue, not just Afghanistan.

Actually, who, in Congress, would be a qualified Afghanistan expert on the GOP side?

Lindsay Graham? Richard Lugar (probably not belligerent enough to represent the 'bomb, bomb, bomb them' faction, though)? I'd settle for Lieberman, though not for reasons of him being an expert, more to highlight where Joementum's hart lies in this matter.

Stephanopoulos is inadvertently pointing towards the fact of how bare the GOP bench is.

I guess we are supposed to be grateful that it isn't Dick Cheney, or his lying offspring Liz? So instead of getting outright lies, we're only getting bafflement and confusion?

Doesn't Steph presuppose that Aghanistan should be a partisan issue, on which the parties have different sides? Why? If he needs to have multiple perspectives, why not the escalate/don't escalate pair, a weapons vs. civic development emphasis, or even the escalate/(shocking!)bring the troops home now debate? Why do we need a Republican, just because the Administration is Democratic?

Steph just loves McCain, and was making an excuse.

fourlegsgood: "Like Realist, I won't apologize for not watching his miserable show either."

That goes for me, too.

To be honest, it still really frosts me that during the 2008 election campaign, Stephanopolous never bothered to challenge Cokie Roberts' bimbotic dismissal of Hawaii as "a foreign, exotic place" in contrast to a "real American [vacation destination] like Myrtle Beach[, South Carolina]," when she criticized then-candidate Barack Obama's decision to bring his family to Honolulu that summer to visit his terminally ill grandmother.

(To be fair, Steve Inskeep also gave Roberts a similar pass when she repeated her same dubious assertion the very next day on NPR's Morning Edition.)

Roberts fully deserved the dubious accolade received from Media Matters, whose readers overwhelmingly voted her insulting and insensitive comments about Hawaii as the most innane punditry of the 2008 presidential campaign. By all rights, she should have shared that distinction with George Stephanopolous and the rest of that day's panel from This Week's "Round Table."

I don't care who George has on his show because it is mostly a waste of time. If McCain says anything important, it will find me.

It's also worth remembering that McCain has huge name recognition, and is likely to be a bigger audience draw than, say, Howard "Buck" McKeon or Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. Sometimes, it's all about the promo...

Why is any show required to air a "Republican response,"

I believe that these shows were required to air a Republican response even when the Republicans were in power.

If they actually wanted substance, they would put Richard Lugar on there. He actually knows his stuff, though he may not be as charismatic or cause a kerfuffle. That's why these shows are not really "news" shows, but entertainment.

Stephanopoulos's show is the most misleading on talk TV. Because he once worked for Clinton, many people assume he's liberal, or at least centrist. In fact, his programming consistently caters to the theatrical wingnut extreme. He generally has 3 conservative discussants, 1 ineffectual liberal, and someone like Reich or Krugman. He weights his main interviews by asking sharp, sometimes unfair questions of liberal guests, and softball questions of the wingnuts.

Perhaps he's just trying to bore everyone to death. McCain is not interesting and has become trite and predictable as have all the sunday talk shows. All Repubs say "we hate everything the Dems do." I have turned them off and now sleep in.

To be fair, McCain is the ranking member on the Armed Services committee and is a member of the Homeland Security committee. He also serves in the HELP committee. What that says about the judgment of his fellow senators is something else altogether.

Steve:

think you're harping a bit too much on McCain being on the shows so often. have you ever run the numbers of how often he was on Sunday morning talk fests in 2005-07 or 2002-04? my guess is that McCain has been a pretty constant presence on the talk shows for the past decade - sort of a famous for being famous presence.

Once you reach that status, the shows will just keep inviting you back on - same for Newt or Bill Bennett or Gergen or....

@ Matt

He's also the (failed) Republican presidential candidate, which is supposed to give him some additional heft on foreign policy and such.

I don't need to bother to watch because we all know McCain's going to push for thousands of additional troops and if Obama doesn't agree then he'll contribute to US failure there.

"Stephanopoulos's show is the most misleading on talk TV. Because he once worked for Clinton, many people assume he's liberal, or at least centrist. In fact, his programming consistently caters to the theatrical wingnut extreme. He generally has 3 conservative discussants, 1 ineffectual liberal, and someone like Reich or Krugman. He weights his main interviews by asking sharp, sometimes unfair questions of liberal guests, and softball questions of the wingnuts."

Bingo!

In light of ABC's nonsense last Sunday "Is Obama risking overexposure", this is completely disingenuous and hypocritical.

The next time anyone gets a chance to pose a question to Steph, please ask:

IF OBAMA IS 'OVEREXPOSED' ON THE SUSDAY TALKS, THEN WHAT ADJECTIVE WOULD YOU USE FOR McCAIN OR GINGRICH?

It's obvious that McCain was elected President of the Confederacy, so why shouldn't he get equal time with the President of the United States?

Just be glad that McCain can't fly and crash yet another aircraft.

But there's no reason to assume that McCain is the "leading GOP voice on Afghanistan."

Since McCain is the only GOPer to have actually fought in a war, he may well be.

"Stephanopoulos's show is the most misleading on talk TV. Because he once worked for Clinton, many people assume he's liberal, or at least centrist. In fact, his programming consistently caters to the theatrical wingnut extreme. He generally has 3 conservative discussants, 1 ineffectual liberal, and someone like Reich or Krugman. He weights his main interviews by asking sharp, sometimes unfair questions of liberal guests, and softball questions of the wingnuts."

Bingo! "
Double Bingo !!

If you want to watch SLANTED BS, watch "FIXED" News or George's Show.
I think his paycheck has clouded "His Concern"
for "Middle Amertica"
I have the same feelings about George that I had when "Charlie Gibson" was concerned that Capital Gains might be taxed more under an Obama Administration.

Clearly, John McCain is overexposed.

uh huh.

I could accept mccain if Stephanopoulos would ditch cokie, george will, woodward, noonan, david brooks, etc...I have a feeling that George could do that to his buddies though.

Bring on my husband, the combover! Please Gawd, somebody loan John McCain your private jet or plane, let him crash it and this time let him die already! 1 millionth of Arizona will love you for it!

McCain will presumably use the time to blast healthcare reform, condemn the Democrats for talking about Reconciliation, etc.

Jane's right:

"If they actually wanted substance, they would put Richard Lugar on there."