Posted on 09/30/2004 7:48:13 PM PDT by wagglebee
Presidential debate moderator Jim Lehrer showed once again Thursday night why top aides to President Clinton used to call him "our moderator" when presidential debate time rolled around in 1996.
The questions, which Lehrer announced at the outset had been authored exclusively by him, were supposed to help the American people determine which candidate would be a better steward of U.S. national security in a post-9/11 world.
But there were no queries to Sen. Kerry about his long Senate record of voting against defense appropriations; or his sponsorship of a bill to cut CIA funding by 6 billion dollars a year after terrorists struck the World Trade Center in 1993; or Kerry's support of the nuclear freeze movement during the height of the Cold War.
Kerry wasn't asked about why he teamed up with Jane Fonda to protest the Vietnam War while his band of brothers were still on the battlefield, or why he met with enemy leaders in Paris, or why he accused fellow soldiers of being "monsters" and "war criminals."
Most Americans would consider the answers to those questions extremely relevant to the selection of any U.S. commander-in-chief during a time of war.
But not Jim Lehrer. Instead, he focused on Iraq with question after question that suggested Bush had blown it.
Here's a sampling:
"You said there was a miscalculation in Iraq," Lehrer asked the president. "What was it and how did it happen?"
"What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion," Lehrer asked Kerry, "has President Bush made in these areas [Iraq]?"
To Bush: "Mr. President, has Iraq been worth the cost in American lives -10,052 - I mean 1,052 up to today?"
To Kerry: "You've repeatedly accused President Bush of lying to the American people on Iraq. Give us some examples of the president being untruthful on Iraq?"
Despite his focus on Iraq, however, Lehrer never asked why Kerry voted to authorize the war, then turned around and voted against the legislation to fund it. Or why he voted against authorization for the first Gulf War, even though President Bush's father had amassed just the kind of coalition Kerry says the U.S. needs now.
Likewise, the PBS host declined to ask Kerry about comments in recent days from French and German officials who announced they have no intention of sending troops to Iraq, even if Kerry is elected.
That's quite a stunning development, given that Kerry's Iraq policy rests almost solely on the promise that he'll persuade Old Europe to pitch in and take some of the load off U.S. forces.
But not stunning enough, apparently, to interest Mr. Lehrer.
...or 1984.
Besides, it was easy for Reagan to be relaxed. Alzheimer's does that for you.
Whaddayamean? Kerry wrote the questions for Lehrer!
Good analogy.
I thought Lehrer was trying to start a fight! And that question to POTUS about "underlying character issues" was especially appalling!
Absolutely agree with you.
Oh, but didn't Our President have just the right comeback: "That's a loaded question".
Then he went right on to be most gracious to a man who has his thugs out vilifying the President at every turn.
George W. Bush is a class act.
And so is Laura, with her kind ebrace of the frazzled Teresa Heinz.
You're right on. I'm starting to get concerned now. Monsieur Kerry looked well-composed and Bush didn't and that plays well into the minds of the American people. God help us all if Lerch succeeds in his bloodthirsty quest for power.
After the first few questions, my wife and I both concluded that Lehrer had stacked the deck. To no avail however, Bush did well enough and regardless of the debates, Bush will win the election.
you win the Home Run Derby.
I'll reply to your second iteration :)
Yes I believe he had them, or at least a very solid "heads-up" on the way the questioning was going to go. I'll have to read the transcript to the debate, but one thing that cinched it for me (that Kerry at least had a "heads up" was when he replied something along the lines of "I'll cover that when we get to the homeland security issue/question -- however he phrased it.) So for me, at least, that was a flag that he knew what was coming.
I also believe the questions were slated to give Kerry as much play that he could shoot out answers shotgun style in order to stack the deck against W in his replies -- it's difficult to formulate a reply when a ton of garbage is thrown against the wall -- especially when a lot of Kerry's replies were along the lines of being prepped by Michael Moore -- my Lord, he even threw in Halliburton!.
I was hoping W would slam him on a lot of those replies -- but then I got to thinking: W could have turned this into a cat fight, but then he wouldn't look Presidential -- and that's what he is -- The President. Kerry, on the other hand, was throwing out so many re-hashed and tired points, that Pres Bush did not have to lower himself to responding to every bit of trash that Kerry was throwing out -- a lot of points that Kerry was making were so blatant in his support of the UN taking the lead it sounded like the "support" that he wants are the Allies in the UN, and then, as an afterthought, others like, oh ... France, Germany. As if those can supplant the 30 - 31 Allies we now have.
And the President was correct -- we've built a coalition, and he made it a point to talk to not only us at home, but to OUR ALLIES that Kerry was belittling them by his foolish prounouncements.
The way I see it, the only way Kerry can get a "bump" from this is from the kool aid drinkers out there who have a love affair with Michael Moore, or aren't going to vote.
I would have loved to watch W draw more blood ... but when someone is sitting in the bath tub with their wrists slit, why offer them another razor blade -- give them time -- they'll expire on their own.
I might as well get this out in one post so I'll blab a little more. I think W made a good point about Korea -- a lot of what Kerry is spewing sounds like so much Monday Morning Quarterbacking ... He doesn't take into account that once you begin a venture such as we have in Afghanistan and Iraq, you start shifting your position as the wind blows. It's an insult to those who have died, it's an insult to our Allies, and it's also a betrayal to those that we have liberated, thus far, and are working with so that they can be self-sustaining. I think W let him blab on about N Korea and then shut him down both in the issue of the "rods" and also when he brought China into play.
Again, I wish W had had drawn more blood -- but all in all I think our President did come across as responsible, taking the initiative in what he did and sticking to it until it is complete, and setting the stage that we will be responsible for our own security, not dependant on the UN or being swayed by foreign powers, and attacking the killers "over there" rather than waiting for another attack on our soil.
Kerry also mentioned adding, or creating (and I'll have to check the transcript for the phrasing) something like 2 more Army Units ... W, without refuted him by saying that we will have an all volunteer military. With the volunteer forces we have now you'd have to have a draft to get enought warriors to create "2 new whatever" ... Kerry said our forces are stretched out now -- and then he's going to create two new divisions or whatever? He has to be alluding to a draft.
OK all done now ... think I'll have some dinner, finally. </RANT>
Thats it in a nutshell. I think I remember ONE question about Kerry (sacrifical question I presume). Well, maybe two or three if you count the "Mr. Kerry, how to YOU feel about President Bush doing THIS...blah blah type of questions.
all I heard(refused to watch) was the same thing as I saw on Letterman: just more clintonista polish on a turd
I thought for darn sure that Lehrer would have the integrity to ask Kerry to defend his Senate record after coming out guns a blastin' on Iraq. Just one question about 20 years as a Senator - ONE QUESTION about opposing Reagan during the Cold War, or cutting defense and intelligence, PARTICULARLY since Kerry had the unmitigated gall to use Reagan to imply that Bush isn't fighting the WOT correctly.
This was by far an even more loaded *debate* than anyone predicted.
Bush said several things that make good soundbites, Kerry had nothing outstanding.
Remember Bush wants the campaign to focus on the present. He doesn't care about the deep recesses of Kerry's past.
Lehrer is like Rather Biased another anti-Bush Texan. Lehrer went to junior college in Victoria, a city some 30 miles from the Gulf Coast. But Lehrer is much better at disguising his liberal views than is Rather.
Not even close.
Exactly. That *debate* screamed out for at least this question -
- - - - Senator Kerry, what does your record in the Senate during the Cold War say about your ability to keep this country safe?
PARTICULARLY since Kerry had the unmitigated gall to use Reagan to imply that Bush isn't fighting the WOT correctly.
Didn't Bush fail to reply at all to the line where Kerry, who supported the 1983 nuclear freeze, tried to link himself in Reagan's foreign policy mantle? There were many lost opportunities in this debate. Being blunt and decisive would have gotten him much further along, as I see it.
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.