The present study examines the political talk shows after the controversy of Taiwan presidential election in 2004. Taking "the suspicious case of Grand Justice's lobbying for the reconsideration of the Truth Investigation Committee Statute" as an example, the study uses textual analysis to probe into political talk shows within the specific social context and discusses the discourse strategies of the political talk shows. In addition, the study applies framing theories to identify frame strategies used by guests in the discursive process. The study finds that Pierre Bourdieu's notions of "dramatisation" and "vision du monde" cannot adequately depict Taiwan's political talk shows. Nonetheless, these political talk shows, failing to function as a public sphere, present themselves together as "the TV series of blue-green party conflicts in Taiwan" regardless of varied topics and issues in programs. Although their stances are distinctly different, both party members use "strategy frames" when engaged in the political discourse. Finally, the paper reflects on both the media responsibility and media law in order to provide suggestions of improving the television political talk shows in Taiwan.