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.
Even so, it was not Bush's best hour. He looked tired, distracted and on the defensive. This is how the voters will remember him going into the election. In the domestic policy debate Bush had better get his act together. Polls tomorrow will show the race tightening.
I know the deck was stacked against President Bush, but after a bit of reflection, and letting it settle in, I realized that most of us were frustrated the same way the President was, with Senator Kerry.
This shows me that President Bush has done a WONDERFUL job of setting the terms of the debate--and all the softball questions to Kerry couldn't make up for it.
It's clear who was the slick, practiced soundbite politician, and who is the man doing the tough job of keeping America safe. Of COURSE President Bush was frustrated and annoyed with the questions, and the extravagantly pandering botoxed voice of Kerry.
I trust the tired and frustrated man with the facts who is doing the actual work, and frankly, in my demographic (middle-aged, hard-working and frustrated at times ourselves) I think President Bush did extremely well.
Additionally, President Bush ended well. Very honest and heartfelt. I don't think we want another "slick" willy as president. Kerry has a visible veneer, but we've all seen it not so smooth, and he may THINK he looks good in the mirror, but he's still a phony.
I don't know what the polls will show, but I trust my judgement that my demographic will be a bit annoyed with Kerry's broad, sweeping statements that have little to do with the facts. I suspect the polls will agree with me.
I agree with your assessment regarding Fox pundits. Most are Bush supportes and they believe Kerry did better. Even Fred had a hard time staying in Bush's corner
I would love to see Rush and Sean be the moderators! Actually, they could have Alan Colmes too, he really doesn't seem to fond of sKerry.
Bush was poor tonight. I think his strategy was not to engage Kerry, that way Kerry couldn't score any hits. But the strategy was ineffective, and made Bush look ineffective too.
He missed a great opportunity when Kerry insisted that we should have bi-lateral talks with North Korea.
Bush should have jumped on the fact that Kerry wants a broad coalition in Iraq, but wants to dismantle the coalition we have exerting pressure on North Korea.
I have to say I was dissappointed tonight.
Oh shit, we're in for a fight.
That James Baker is vastly overrated?
Bottom line, the President's performance was lacking, but why did they agree to 3 debates, when an incumbent traditionally only does 2, and Prsident Bush has never done exceptionally well in debates? Why agree to 4 lib moderators, 3 with questionable histories? Why allow JL alone to come up with questions?
Bush was definitely on the defensive about Iraq. As a Bush supporter and a Republican, one of the reasons I've opposed the Iraq invasion is because it's stupid policy that could put the Democrats back in the White House.
You're getting repetitious, just like Kerry.
Did you know that he was in Vietnam?
I'm with you sKerry had the questions before hand.
Lately, it has been hard for W supporters to exalt W's public speaking appearances. He is good with people one on one but not with all the cameras focused on him. It seemed to begin with State of Union address last Jan. which was so terrible! That was the lst time I had heard the FOX panel be critical and seems to have been ever since.
Karen Hughes and Sean Hannity seem to be groping tonight!
I remember Bush's speech on 9/11/01 as being rather weak and ill-prepared, but his speech nine days later will go down in history as one of the defining speechs in modern history. Wait until next week, this will give Bush a whole new level of forcefulness.
Yes, you're right. However, the results of tonight's debate will not change the momentum of this campaign one iota. And we all know which way the momentum is going!!!!
ALL of the lamestream network news operations, without exception, tow the New World Order line. And the NWO--with Soros as its point-man--wants its sock-puppet Kerry elected. The commercial networks are owned by NWO mega-corporations, and PBS--which was founded to belong to the American people--instead caters to the pseudo-intellectual elites and is in reality over-dependent on NWO foundation and mega-corporate suppport. The same goes for the major lamestream newspapers. But now we have the "blogosphere" as a countervailing force!!
Who made that decision???
That's absurd.
Why not just let Carvile make up the questions?
That pretty much voids this debate. The fix was in.
And he has a plan...
It looked like the President got into Teresa's valium.
He was passionless and his long pauses were painful. He better get his act togther.
What do you want on your words Nov 3rd?
Sadly, I agree. I about died every time he had a long several second pause and an ..."uh..." before speaking. He looked indecisive and acouple times confused. Lurch was well rehearsed and decisive. Lurch is a liar, I know, but he came across as the better of the two. Sure hope the voters forget this one.
Lehrer's questions were all aimed as hits on Bush policies...then followed by...
"Senator Kerry..don't you agree Bush is the devil".
Lehrer never asked Kerry about his switched votes.
He never asked Kerry to detail what his plans are.
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.