Posted on 10/06/2004 10:48:57 AM PDT by FlyLow
Whether or not you think the debate last Thursday was fair depends on how you view the purpose of the debate process.
If you see as its purpose, to examine President Bush's performance regarding events that have not gone perfectly, to give him a chance to explain and to give Senator Kerry an opportunity to criticize and state how he could do better, then you should have found the first debate fair.
If you see as its purpose, to let us learn what goals the President and the Senator have in mind for the next four years and to let us judge their capabilities to accomplish their goals (and to handle events that surprise them), then the first debate seemed unfair. Here is why.
The debate topic was foreign policy. The President has a foreign policy performance record. This means that there is a body of material that we can examine. We can ask and talk about what went well; we can ask and talk about what did not.
But, the Senator also has a foreign policy performance record, one that he accumulated during his twenty years of service in the Senate. Here, too, is a body of material that we can examine, comprising legislation that he offered, supported or opposed, what he said and how he voted. We can ask and talk about those of his actions that were helpful; and we can ask and talk about those that were not.
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
amen to this......
AIM is one of my favorite outfits....I hardly ever, if EVER, disagree with anything they write.....
All you have to do is read the questions by themselves, which someone astutely posted right after the debate, and another person made the observation, that the ones to Bush were "You did everything wrong, please explain", and the ones to Kerry, were "Please tell us everything that Bush did wrong".
Here is the link and the questions. It's worth reading them.
Lehrer Biased Questions (extracted from Transcript)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1232331/posts
Q 1 (to Kerry): Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?
Q 2 (to Bush): Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?
Q 3 (to Kerry): "Colossal misjudgments." What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?
Q 4 (to Bush): What about Senator Kerry's point, the comparison he drew between the priorities of going after Usama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein?
Q 5 (to Kerry): As president, what would you do, specifically, in addition to or differently to increase the homeland security of the United States than what President Bush is doing?
Q 6 (to Bush): What criteria would you use to determine when to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq?
Q 7: (to Kerry): Speaking of Vietnam, you spoke to Congress in 1971, after you came back from Vietnam, and you said, quote, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?
Q 8: (to Bush): You have said there was a, quote, "miscalculation," of what the conditions would be in post-war Iraq. What was the miscalculation, and how did it happen?
Q 9 (to Kerry): You just -- you've repeatedly accused President Bush -- not here tonight, but elsewhere before -- of not telling the truth about Iraq, essentially of lying to the American people about Iraq. Give us some examples of what you consider to be his not telling the truth.
Q 10: (to Bush): Has the war in Iraq been worth the cost of American lives, 10,052... uh... 1,052 as of today?
Q 11: (to Kerry): Speaking of your plan, new question, Senator Kerry. Can you give us specifics, in terms of a scenario, time lines, et cetera, for ending major U.S. military involvement in Iraq?
Q 12: (to Bush): Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?
Q 13(to Kerry): What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?
Q 14 (to Bush): Do you believe that diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the nuclear problems with North Korea and Iran? Take them in any order you would like.
Q 15 (to Kerry): Senator Kerry, you mentioned Darfur, the Darfur region of Sudan. Fifty thousand people have already died in that area. More than a million are homeless. And it's been labeled an act of ongoing genocide. Yet neither one of you or anyone else connected with your campaigns or your administration that I can find has discussed the possibility of sending in troops.
Why not?
Q 16 (to Bush): Clearly, as we have heard, major policy differences between the two of you. Are there also underlying character issues that you believe, that you believe are serious enough to deny Senator Kerry the job as commander in chief of the United States?
Q 17 (to Kerry): If you are elected president, what will you take to that office thinking is the single most serious threat to the national security to the United States?
Q 18 (to Bush): All right. Mr. President, this is the last question. And two minutes. It's a new subject -- new question, and it has to do with President Putin and Russia. Did you misjudge him or are you -- do you feel that what he is doing in the name of antiterrorism by changing some democratic processes is OK?
Check out Q. 3:
"Q 3 (to Kerry): "Colossal misjudgments." What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?"
Lehrer claimed he made up the questions in advance, so how come he is leading off with what Kerry just said?
The whole thing is a sham: Lehrer and Kerry teamed up, trying to bring Bush down. Not a single question about Bush's record vs. Kerry's record on foreign policy. It's all about attacking Bush, and giving Kerry a platform to do it.
Lehrer is liberal, as Bush, et al. and we all know. So knowing that, why wasn't Bush prepared to bring up Kerry's record and go on offense??? I blame Bush and his handlers for not doing that (and for agreeing that Lehrer moderate in the first place). They should have known Lehrer would not likely bring up Kerry's record.
Jim Lehrer merely cemented his reputation as a biased liberal hack.
I don't know why the Bush team agreed to have Lehrer be the moderator. They should have had at least a panel of 3.
Bush was answering the questions.
Busted. I say we now demand to see his(lehrer's) medical records too...
If you even ask that question .. are you sure you've been paying attention ..?? Liberals stick together .. Bashing Bush is where it's at .. protecting Kerry's record is where it's at.
I have a feeling the first debate was a "hook in the jaw" which worked just fine. Kerry made statements there HE CAN NEVER RECOVER FROM. Perfect!
Gwen is a Liberal, but she did her job and hit both candidates hard.
Lehrer let his Liberalism get the best of him, soft balled Kerry, and assaulted G.W.
Now, the Republicans know better than to trust fairness from the press so I'm certain they expected to be hit harder than the Dems, the debate was what it was BUT Lehrer gains NO respect from me by not doing his job.
I have no problem with hard hitting questions so long as they are directed at BOTH candidates, so long as they both are expected to answer for their perceived weaknesses.
Lehrer falls into the same category as Rather. Gwen has earned some respect. Lehrer dug his own hole.
Bump questions for later reading.......thanks QQQQQ
I agree about Gwen. She let Edwards rebut the buttal a couple times. I was very worried that she was going to Lehrer x 12. I was waiting for the "Mr. Cheney, how many boys blood do you have on your hands from all your mistakes" question.
Overall, I think she did a great job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.