Via the always interesting Don Surber, the news that WV Sen. candidate Hiram Lewis will be on Hardball tonight:
Hiram Lewis, Iraqi war vet and candidate for US Senate (R-WV), is expected to be on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews Thursday evening, August 18th, around 7:30 p.m. “We are unsure of the exact time, but we expect it to air sometime during Thursday evening’s show,” Lewis said.
Chris Matthews has been interviewing Iraqi war vets interested in serving in Congress. “I watched Chris tear into Patrick Murphy (D-PA) yesterday. I felt sorry for the guy,” Lewis said. “Hopefully, Chris will take it easy on me.”
Lewis continues to support the war effort in Iraq even though polls show weakening support. “We must finish the work we started. We must have the resolve to see it through,” Lewis said.
“If the anti-war crowd has an alternative plan, let’s hear it. Let’s have the debate. If not, then support the troops in the current mission or volunteer to participate in the execution of the current mission. Attempting to sway public opinion against the war, does nothing but encourage the terrorists to kill more soldiers and lower our morale.”
That will be a lively show…
Marcus Wellby
Yes, please, “Let’s have the debate”. But, for the love of God, let’s not have the debate on Hardball. Matthews is far too in love with the sound of his own voice to let any debate happen without piping in with meaningless comments, answering his own questions, or laughing at his own jokes.
Steve
I would love to see more people with military experience in government, whether they be for or against the war, but I think it’s far too late in the day in Iraq for competence to make a difference, unfortunately.
Geek, Esq.
I’d be content for swapping DeWine and Byrd for Lewis and Hackett.
Nate
Lively show? Chris Matthews is a tool for the Right, which is why he tears into Dem candidates but mysteriously doesn’t do the same to Rep ones, unless they are so unhinged (Zell Miller) that it’s a no brainer.
When I wonder how in the world Bush got re-elected, I just think about these stealth journalists: Thomas Friedman, Chris Matthews and even Bob Woodward, and I start getting it. When reasonable and educated people hear these supposedly non-biased men spout Bush’s “logic”, they can be swayed in ways where loons like Hannity and Limbaugh could never get to them.
Peter T.
I love how the pro-war crowd is doing covers of Vietnam era Golden Oldies – “if you don’t support the war, your aiding the enemy.” This implies that the insurgents are really tuned into what’s happening in the US. I don’t think many insurgents speak English, and fewer still are getting the Times home delivered. Whatever news they get undoubtedly comes from some source that filters it to meet the political goals of the insurgents – sort of like what Fox News does in the US.
The insurgents are doing what they’re doing for their own reasons. They don’t care what anyone in the US thinks, pro or con.
Steve
Does Lewis stand any chance of getting the actual nomination, by the way?
Cyrus
I don’t have too much respect for this Lewis guy in the first place if he equates freedom of speech with supporting the terrorists, but… I read an alternative plan for success from a guest blogger on Andrew Sullivan’s blog recently: partition Iraq. Make it three seperate countries or whatever. It’s what a lot of people would have wanted (not counting entrenched professional politicians who have a vested interest in the status quo).
The Kurds get the independence they’ve wanted, the Sunnis wouldn’t have Shi’ites oppressing them (or is it the other way around? I think I’ve read that the proportions of those groups in Iraq is the reverse than in the rest of the world, but I’m not sure, so I get confused…), and the damage done by Iran’s ambitions would be minimized.
There are a number of problems with it, of course, (does the Sunni/Shi’ite divide have easy geographical distinctions?) but the biggest one by far is that Bush would have to admit he was wrong. So in other words, if the way to get the most stability and democracy in the region is to have three nations where there was one… they’ll have to wait until 2009 at the earliest.
This is like my fifth post in three days. I need to get back to work. Damn you, John, for having such an interesting and thought-provoking site!
Blogsy McBlog
Here’s a question for the pro-war right. If we assume that calling for a timetable for troop withdrawal aids the insurgency by giving it a concrete expectation of our time there, we are tacitly admitting that the forces opposing the insurgency aren’t prepared to combat it without our assistance. If that’s true, wouldn’t it have made more sense to train the pro-“democracy” forces in the no fly zones, or in Saudi Arabia, until they were capable of fending for themselves immediately upon overthrow? In other words, will you admit that the “urgency” surrounding this war was pointless, and that invading when we did was a mistake?
Blogsy McBlog
Cyrus, how would you apportion the oil wealthy acceptably? The Sunnis would receive far less than they have been receiving in the past three decades, which would give them no desire to stick to the partition. How would you deal with Kirkuk? That city is a powder keg as it is; partition would possibly cause a four part civil war. How would you appease Turkey? Turkey doesn’t want a pure Kurdish state in Northern Iraq, and may “acitvely” protect its interests.
Doug
The work we started: make sure Iraq has no WMDs or nuclear program. Mission accomplished.
Alternate plan:
1. Fire the management that has brought us these horrific results.
2. Withdraw the troops, let the Iraqis fend for themselves now that Saddam has been removed. First rule of holes: stop digging.
3. Invade Saudi Arabia — at long last, it’s payback time for 9/11.
4. Conduct a thorough audit of Iraqi war expenditures. We haven’t gotten anything like a return on our investment. It’s time to figure out where the money is going and figure out who to string up for waste, fraud, and/or incompetence.
5. Build a time machine by the end of the decade. Go back in time and prevent the Bush administration from getting this cluster started.
Reminds me a bit of the scene in “Life of Brian” where Brian keeps trying to deny that he’s the Messiah, only to have his devoted followers say, “Only the true Messiah denies his own divinity.” In other words, a rhetorical approach designed to prevent any counter-argument.
neil
“Attempting to sway public opinion against the war, does nothing but encourage the terrorists to kill more soldiers and lower our morale.”
Since this guy is a would-be politician who is running for office on a platform of being in support of a war, this strikes me as transparently dishonest. If only there were any support or interest in debating the issues, instead of debating whether it should be _verboten_ to debate them.
marteen
Here is what really frustrates me:
“If the anti-war crowd has an alternative plan, let’s hear it. Let’s have the debate. If not, then support the troops in the current mission or volunteer to participate in the execution of the current mission.”
Why not have an alternative from those who support the war? There are many (and I mean MANY) who support the concept but deplore the execution of this action. By many measures things are going horribly wrong. It seems to me that we need to change tactics (more troops, less troops, no troops, etc) until we find something that improves the situation. This should not be left to the “anti-war” crowd. The most motivated group, I’d imagine, would be the supporters of the principles behind this war.
Don
There are certainly derranged people in the anti-war camp who’d just pull out willy-nilly and create the next 1999 Afghanistan but it’s either dim or dishonest to claim that’s all that exists in the anti-war camp. It’s not an all or nothing pair of options and I think in private the real non-Bush-koolaid republicans can admit to each other (if not to the general public) that all this anti-timetable, anti-pullout-standard junk is demonized because it’s too close to accountability talk. When you set real goals with real metrics you have to answer for it when you don’t meet them, as opposed to more nebulous junk like “handovers” which are 98% paper and no different in taxpayer dollars and troop deployments and causalties.
Steven
The problem with guys like Lewis is that they don’t recognize there is no current plan. They tell me, “Support the troops in our current mission.” Fine. Tell me what the current mission is. Tell me how I will know when we’ve accomplished that mission. I don’t think Mr. Lewis can tell me that and frankly I don’t think President Bush can tell me that either, because neither one of them really knows. There is a lot of talk these days about winning and losing in Iraq, but no one provides any definition of what those terms mean. That may be because those terms actually have no meaning in this situation. What if by the end of 2006 most of our troops are out of Iraq, there is an Iraqi constitution and an elected representative government that is dominated by the Shia and an ally of Iran? Is that a win or a loss? I really get the sense at this point that Bush doesn’t know how to stop fighting. He knows he can’t just quit, but he has no idea how to gracefully disengage, so as long as they are shooting at us, he’s going to shoot back. Supporters of the war say you can’t set a timetable for withdrawal because it will encourage the insurgents. Frankly, I don’t think they are lacking for encouragement. What would be wrong with the President making a televised speech along these lines:
“We went to Iraq to remove Saddam and the threat that he posed to our national security. As a result of his removal, we have put the people of Iraq in position to determine the future of their country through democratic processes. We recognize that we cannot dictate to the people of Iraq what their future government will look like nor do we intend to. At great costs to ourselves, we have been providing military security for the Iraqi people during this process. But now is the time for the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their country. Starting in early 2006, we will begin staged withdrawals of our troops to the end that substantially all of our combat troops will be removed from Iraq by the end of 2006. We will continue to provide training and support to Iraqi government forces if the insurgency continues. But the Iraqi people must step forward to determine their own destiny. We are confident they can do so.”
At some point in time, he has to give a speech like that. Maybe he’s hoping things will get better on the ground, but I doubt there will be any big moment he can point to as justification. Iraq is a death by 1000 cuts. Metaphorically, I think we’re somewhere in the 400s now. Just give the damn speech before we get to the end.
Steve
To make the case that pulling out would lead to 1999 Afghanistan, and staying will have a better result, you need to prove one very basic fact: that we are making progress towards a safer Iraq.
It seems to me that if we were clearly making progress, the administration would have no qualms about showing us the evidence. Instead, all they offer is platitudes and attitudes. The fact that they have repeatedly refused to set any public benchmarks for measuring our progress strongly suggests that things are remaining the same or getting worse. This makes it harder to articulate a case for “staying the course.”
Mike S
Is this a reverse “chickenhawk” argument?
I try to avoid the whole CH meme. But that is just straight out BS.
Mike S
And to be clear. I don’t begrudge this man any opinion he may have on the war. He’s been there, done that and has every right to voice those opinions, as we all do. But to call on people who have been against this war to sign up without saying the same about those who vocally support it is disengenuous at best.
Jim Caputo
Mike S. is the only guy to pick up on what I thought was the most imteresting, if not the most important, part of the story. The guy is saying that those OPPOSED to the war should have to sign up or shut up.
I wonder if this is the new mantra the “got better things to do” Repugs are going to be unveiling in the coming weeks to try to combat the chickenhawk dogtags they’re wearing around their necks…
…if you’re for the war, that’s enough in and of itself. Cheer it on at the top of your lungs! You don’t have to actually fight it since we have other people to fight it for you. See? That way others die for the war you support but you don’t have to. Of course, you may have to suffer through another round of tax cuts, but you can handle it, right?
But if you’re against the war, you need to sign up and fight in the war you’re against to have a voice.
They’re clever, those bastards! But me thinks that dog won’t hunt.
PS…Remember, you only have another day to get the video of Katherine Harris making all touchy-feely with some congressman on the floor of the Congress. I’m taking it down tomorrow.
Rick
Chris Matthews is a tool for the Right, which is why he tears into Dem candidates but mysteriously doesn’t do the same to Rep ones, unless they are so unhinged (Zell Miller) that it’s a no brainer.
Nate’s got his own set of facts for his own reality. Zell Miller, Republican candidate.
Cordially…
Mike S
Mathews isn’t a tool of the right or left. He’s just a tool. Or as the Daily Howler likes to refer to him, a “clown.”
khead
It will be nice to see Bucky on TV. Someone should ask him about the price of gas in southern WV. :)
Darrell
Peter T wrote:
Reality based community?? I love how the left pretends that their hateful themes * couldn’t possibly * encourage or support the terrorists. OBL’s speeches have practically morphed into leftist talking points:
Remember OBL’s reference to Bush being “more interested in listening to the child’s story about the goat rather than worry about what was happening to the towers”?? Hello, leftist scum.. OBL * heart * Fahrenheit 9/11
OBL pontificates on the Patriot Act: “He passed on tyranny and oppression to his son, and they called it the Patriot Act, under the pretext of fighting terror”. Does the NY Times deliver to caves on the Afghan border?
OBL on Florida election fraud: “Bush the father did well in placing his sons as governors and did not forget to pass on the expertise in fraud from the leaders of the (Mideast) region to Florida to use it in critical moments.”
Aid and comfort to the enemy? Nah, never. Everyone knows how patriotic the “Chimp’s war for oil” leftists are in this country… and how their noble words could NEVER be used to give support our enemies. How dare you question their patriotism
Mike S
Speaking of “tools.”
The funny thing about fools like Darrell is that they act as if words are more powerfull than deeds. Pointing out that Bush sat in a class room with a blank look on his face while America was under attack is worse than the fact that Bush sat in front of a class room…
Pointing out that the patriot act was born of fear and takes away our liberties is more important than taking away our liberties.
Pointing out and decrying the torture, rape and murder of prisoners is worse than the act.
Darrell is a perfect example of everyting I detest about the New Republican Party. Nothing that is done by the leadership or in their name is wrong, simply because they are Republicans. Pointing out the wrongs they do is the problem.
TallDave
Should be interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Representative Citizen
When people like Darrell read that terrorist organizations have used the Iraq war to not only dramatically increase recuriting for their organizations, but also as a training mechanism for future actions, do they blame it on “leftists,” or do their brains simply refuse to process information that challenges their simplistic notions of the world?
Andrei
It seems that this conversation was doing moderately well in terms of back and forth — might even had lead to an interesting conversation over an important topic like what defines success for the war in Iraq at this stage and how do we achieve it — then Darrell shat all over it.
Steve
First, any criticism of the government whatsoever is obviously going to be someone’s propaganda fodder. If you say we can never do anything that might end up as propaganda, you say we can never criticize the government, which is a pretty unamerican idea.
Second, you assume that if Osama didn’t have those particular issues to reference, he wouldn’t just say something else bad about the US. That’s kind of silly.
The best way to stop Osama from making videos is not to stop the liberals from providing him with propaganda. The best way is to hunt him down and kill him.
neil
As long as you want to use Osama’s words credulously when talking about giving comfort to the enemy, Darrell:
Everybody knows that going to war in Iraq could NEVER embolden our enemies. And those who support it surely don’t hate America and want its economy to bleed.
TallDave
Fine. Tell me what the current mission is.
I think that’s been pretty clear: stand up enough Iraqi troops so that they can defend their own democracy.
What if … an elected representative government that is dominated by the Shia and an ally of Iran?
The thing to remember is that democracy is a process, not an event. Iraq may start loosely allied to Iran, but how many Shiite voters want to emulate an oppressive Iranian theocracy that the vast majority of Iranians don’t like? How closely allied was W Germany to E Germany? How important was the example of W Germany toward creating momentum for reform in E Germany?
Even once it can defend itself, Iraq will still be widely corrupt, badly governed, violent, and poor for some time. But it will get a little better every day. That’s why democracy works. Every election is another iteration toward getting it right. It didn’t happen overnight here, and it won’t there.
Representative Citizen
“Every election is another iteration toward getting it right.”
So are you arguing that once a country has elections, it will forever be on a Democratic path? Does November 6, 1932 ring a bell with you?
Andrei
That’s a nice theory — and I’m sure we can all hope it becomes true — but that doesn’t answer the hypothetical posed. (The key words in your theory is “loosely allied” which I dont think anyone can make an honest prediction of how strong or weak that alliance may be at this stage.) The hypothectical question was, what if that doesn’t happen? What if Iraq becomes a strong ally of Iran? Maybe even an extension of it to some degree. What if they did so democratically by voting that way for leaders who want that? Where does that leave us and would we have succeeded?
Caroline
I’ve deduced that the mission must be to quell the insurgency, however, Bush will never say that. Bush really doesn’t want to win the war because he would have instate a lot of policies that would be politically very unpopular.
Peter T.
I’ve always found Osama’s election eve tape to be troubling – in the sense that the Osama in that tape seemed unusually tuned into American pop culture. Perhaps Osama does get the Times in his cave. Perhaps there’s a Blockbuster nearby where he got Fahrenheit 911 on dvd. Perhaps Osama is living in a condo in Ft Lauderdale. Odd.
In any case, this is how Osama began:
“People of America this talk of mine is for you.”
bin Laden wasn’t whipping up fellow jihadis; he was addressing Americans. I can’t speak for wingnuts, but I’m ok taking knocks from a religious maniac/mass murderer who has to live in a cave to stay alive. We live in a free society, and our political leaders are always going to get criticism. If others choose to interpret that as weakness, that’s their problem, whether they’re Islamic extremists or domestic nut cases who can’t bear hear their idols criticized.
I can’t absolutely prove that the Taliban or the Iraqi insurgency are motivated by lingering fury over what happened in Florida in 2000. Maybe they’re concerned about having their library book selections snooped if they ever visit the US. The Earth just keeps getting smaller.
Steve
Wow, “process” really is the new buzzword. I guess Jon Stewart nailed it the other night when he showed Condi saying “process” about 20 times in her speech about the constitution being delayed.
The problem isn’t that it’s not a “process”; the problem is that when you call it a process, you can basically define anything that happens as part of the process. Are we moving forward? Great! Are we moving backward? Well, gosh, what “process” doesn’t have its little hitches?
The Iraqi assembly could utterly fail to reach a constitution, they could dissolve it and need to elect a new one, and you can bet the response would be, “This is the democratic process in action. It’s hard work. Did we mention the US Constitution took 11 years to draft?”
If you have any interest in determining whether things are moving in a positive or negative direction, you can’t just dismiss everything that happens as “part of the process.” On the other hand, if you have your mind made up in advance, it’s a fine strategy.
Cyrus
You know, Darrell, I think I read somewhere that Osama bin Laden just loves the taste of sweet, sweet oxygen in the air. I’m surprised you haven’t painted yourself green and tried to learn how to photosynthesize yet.
And did you know, that bastard is completely convinced the earth is round? How dare he! You’d better start sailing for the edge of the world. I’m sure you’ll find it sooner or later.
I’m curious about where you’d go with this. Do you want to outlaw disagreement with the government? Do you think that criticizing the government’s conduct is immoral? When would you say that it is acceptable to question the president? Please, I’d like to hear your thoughts.
Cullen
People like Darrell don’t have thoughts. They have fevers.
KC
I hate to say it, but I see both political parties jockeying for Iraq war vets. I know the Dems will be, but I’m sure the Republicans wouldn’t mind having a few in the basket either.
Boronx
Why not have an alternative from those who support the war?
Who cares whether folks on either side come up with a plan? Even a plan from “Defense Guy” would be superior to anything Bush is likely to implement.
I’m convinced that a key difference between pro-war and anti-war folks is that pro-war folks have made the mistake of believing that since they support Bush, his goals and plans somehow coincide with theirs.
Boronx
John, I don’t believe you’re much of an Atrios fan, but he’s got this quote from Matthews up on his site:
Coolcajun
Thanks for the link, Boronx.
I doubt that this will be a interesting interview but I will watch it. I hope Chris will ask some tough questions to Lewis.
jg
From Americablog:
“You can support the troops but not the president.”
–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
Amen Tom.
“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
–Sean Hannity, Fox News,
Unless the mother is a democrat?
My two favorites:
“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”
–Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
–Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
Tell it George.
Mike
“Peter T. Says:
I love how the pro-war crowd is doing covers of Vietnam era Golden Oldies – “if you don’t support the war, your aiding the enemy.” This implies that the insurgents are really tuned into what’s happening in the US. I don’t think many insurgents speak English, and fewer still are getting the Times home delivered. Whatever news they get undoubtedly comes from some source that filters it to meet the political goals of the insurgents – sort of like what Fox News does in the US.
The insurgents are doing what they’re doing for their own reasons. They don’t care what anyone in the US thinks, pro or con.”
And I love how the anti-war crowd is doing covers of Vietnam era Golden Oldies. “It’s a quagmire”, “we can’t win”, “thousands of civilians are being killed”, blah.blah blah. I was alive during the Vietnam protests and I can tell you, you guys haven’t gotten a new act yet. Same old crap by the same old suspects. Hell, even Jane Fonda is doing a comeback on the old anti-war trail.
Andrei
Wait… remind me again… We won the Vietnam War?
Caroline
Kinda sad. Reflexively being pro-war is just as bad as being reflexively anti-war.
TallDave
What if Iraq becomes a strong ally of Iran?
It’s not likely; free democracies and oppressive dictatorships tend not to get along.
TallDave
Wow, “process” really is the new buzzword.
Yeah, I hear 2+2=4 is popular too.
Mike
“Andrei Says:
“I was alive during the Vietnam protests and I can tell you, you guys haven’t gotten a new act yet. Same old crap by the same old suspects.”
Wait… remind me again… We won the Vietnam War?”
Why do you ask?
Hoping for another loss?
jg
You are so naive dude. Sorry.
Explain our chummy relationship with Pakistan please, or our previous relationship with Saddam (pre-’91).
Democracies and dictatorships get along just fine when they have a common goal asswipe.
jg
Sorry for the asswipe thing, it was uncalled for.
Stormy70
It’s not chummy, we have Pakistan’s nuts in a pincher. Powell handed them a list of demands after Sept. 11th. Pakistan had to comply or we’d go through Pakistan to get to Afghanistan. With India cozying up to the US, and full of nukes, Pakistan had no viable options. The attempted assasinations of Mussaref were a major blunder for the extremists, and Pakistan began to round up their terrorists. I find it ironic that Mussaref had a better track record of dealing with their radicals than Britain had, before 7/7.
Boronx
we have Pakistan’s nuts in a pincher
Which is why Pakistan has given up bin Laden, nukes, and support for terrorism…
Andrei
Apparently not as much as you are hoping to avoid the question.
Peter T.
I don’t blame anyone for not wanting to talk or hear about civilian casualties – too depressing. Estimates of civilian casualties in Vietnam are well in excess of 1M; some estimates are much higher. Don’t forget that 10 years after the fall of Saigon, Vietnam had turned into … one of the world’s top tourist destinations.
We’ll have it your way Mike – our troops will be home from Iraq by Christmas, followed by a triumphal tour of the country by Bush. And no more civilians will be hurt. Amen.
Don
Oh my god I almost peed myself over this one. Does John’s server have enough storage space for the list of dictators we’ve been in bed with for political expediency? Or do you mean we’re not an actual free democracy?
Mind you, we’re a democracy that has enshrined certain religious freedoms in our constitution, something it’s still unclear Iraq will do or will enforce if they do put it in there. And we still found it acceptable to cozy up to scum like Saddam and that little country that likes to drive tanks over students. But maybe if you -claim- to be a Republic the rules are different…
ppGaz
A fine, fine post.
I’ve been opposed to pulling out, but I have to say, in view of the complete, utter and absolute lack of any rational argument against your position (the rule of holes), I can’t really stay that I’m sticking by my guns on that any more.
The pro-war crowd in here is an abject failure and embarassment to blogging and to citizenship. Asked to comment on this stuff, they sling forth the same stale and provably-wrong bromides and slogans we’ve been getting for 3 years now. The anti-war crowd conflates hating the decision to go to war, a hatred which is extremely rational, with wanting to pull out, which is really not rational, despite the rule of holes, which is quite rational …. if you get all that. But in the absence of any coherent argument for staying in (this is what passes for “argument” on that subject, at BJ: “America doesn’t quit”, a slogan right up there with “Less Filling”) I can’t see staying any longer.
Anybody wants to try to convince me otherwise, without sounding like a frigging cartoon, go ahead.
jg
Pakistan had to comply or we’d go through them? What does that even mean? We can’t get to Afghanistan without going through Pakistan. Afghanistan is land locked. We’d need permission to pass through other countries to get there. Otherwise you’re invading another soveriegn country’s airspace, its an act of war.
Bush said we will make no distinction between the terrorists and the nations that harbor them. We know OBL Zhwahiri, and Mullah Omar are in Pakistan. If we have Pakistan by the balls why not go get tham? You actually think Pakistan complied with us because they were afraid of India? It must be a texan thing to just assume anyone not from texas is a pussy or something. Pakistan is not afraid of India. Pakistan is very narrow, India can’t nuke Pakistan without nuking its own border towns.
Frankie
Robert C. Byrd will not have to worry about this Republican hopeful. West Virginia Republican Senate Wannabe’ Hiram Lewis today was on TalkLine with Republican Hoppy Kercheval. It was evident from just listening to Lewis talk about the issues at hand that this guy is not ready for prime time. Not even ready for state office. He failed to talk about anything in depth and his voice was jittery with lots of pauses as he was obviously thinking what to say next. Right leaning Hoppy Kercheval even had to assist him in some of his Republican talking points. He even lied about Casey Sheehan in that Lewis said that Sheehan was actually for the war and that he apposed his mother who is also ant-war. I called him out on it on the show and asked him where did he get that from. Lewis replied:
“I heard it on a TV clip someplace.”
Yeah right, nice try. Lewis also said he was going to be on MSNBC’s Harball this evening. He was not. Given his inability to carry on a conversation on radio, I do not see how the TV taping could have gone well, if it did at all. Maybe it will be on during a later date. They did hold two guests over for a segment. Could this have been the filler so Hiram Lewis would not embarrass himself and the state? We will see.