Posted on 10/01/2004 6:59:00 AM PDT by kddid
My Lord, horrible one sided questions like was the loss of life worth it, asked two different ways. UGH
The question I wanted to her was this:
"Senator, you claim to be strong on Defense of the country, yet you voted against every major weapons systems currently being used in the war on terror. How do you justify those votes?"
In order to be attacked you have to be doing something besides running your mouth. Bush has done plenty and so he gets attacked from all sides.
On the other hand, what has Kerry done, besides run his mouth, that he can be attacked for? ... oh yeah, twenty years of nothing in the Senate and from war hero to anti war activist.
Yes, it's true the questioning held a bias.
I expected it, so I'm hardly going to act surprised it occured.
I'm hesitant to pursue allegations of bias. Bush won these on substance, if people start raising a fuss about obvious bias we risk the "sore loser" label. Bush didn't emerge as a "loser" and I do not want it tagged to him after the event.
At the moment people are beginning to focus on the substance of the debate. It's the wrong move to turn our attention to bias when Kerry's own statements crucify him.
Interesting that Imus apparently thought it was notable to ask the question
When Lehrer asked Bush if the Iraq war was "worth it," that was an insult and a trap. There can be no doubt about the partisan bias. Kerry was never asked about all the times he voted against various needed weapons systems, even though he is viciferous about being SO very supportive of the military.
Kerry has at least two faces and the MSM aids and abets him.
"It appeared to me, also, that Kerry seemed to not give any thought to complicated questions. Could he have some advance notice from these creeps?"
My thoughts exactly. If Lehrer is going to be taken down like Rather was, thats the way it will happen, ie, with a stunning headline like LEHRER COACHED KERRY BEFORE DEBATE or something like that. If that could be found out. I got the definate feeling that Bush was like the "Visiting Team" at a verbal football game playing against the "Home Team" right from the beginning when Lehrer made sure to always say Kerry's name first when refering to the 2 candidates.
Something Fishy is going on...
"Two questioners...One selected by each party. Each party select the questioner for the other candidate. THAT would be interesting!"
That's more than interesting, it's essential. Republicans will forever be at a tactical disadvantage if we keep agreeing to liberal moderators. In all future debates at all levels, we must INSIST the moderators be balanced, and your suggestion accomplishes that. It also reduces the chances of giving the candidate the questions beforehand by half.
Lehrer's version of the Groucho Marx line:
1. Mr. Bush, have you stopped beating your wife?
2. Mr. Kerry, why has Bush not stopped beating his wife?
I was disappointed with Dubya.
I expected the edge to the questions, and I believe that Dubya & Co. should have expected that, also. I don't think that any of the questions, regardless of bias, should have been especially unexpected (except the one about Kerry's character), and Bush could have had his own carefully scripted replies.
Bush also seemed unprepared to counter the easy lies that Kerry put out there. Perhaps he was even astounded that Kerry did that! Still, I believe he should have been prepared for SOME of those, too, but all too often Kerry's lies were left uncontested. Of course, that seems to be the Demonrats' general strategery: throw out as many damaging lies as possible, and the opposition won't have enough time to expose ALL of 'em.
Is the public getting wise enough to notice that? I sure hope so!
The word moderator implies moderate. Would the correct word be liberator?
After reading the trasscript, Lehrer needs to be removed. His questions were very biased.
He looked great when he looked confused and then said, I don't understand this Global Test.....
Made Kerry look full of sh*t and too willing to bend over for the UN
In thinking about President Bush's 4 years (almost) in office ... he has consistently chosen the high road. He does not tear down the members of Congress; or attach Senator Kennedy, or Tom Daschel, or the Senate for refusing to confirm his judicial appointments, or answer in kind any of his opponents.
We know he prays daily. He is a man of faith. As strange as it seems, he is living his faith. The Bible is filled with stories of God's wonders: where a few men won victory against overwhelming odds, or as in the case of David slew the giant and later spent many years of trial ... always trusting God. David made a good ending to his life. He was a man after God's own heart.
It seems the President is intent on a course of action where he stays true to his beliefs and trusts God to do the wonders in this day.
It is for us to pray for God's will in this day, in this coming election. Apparently that is what George W. Bush is doing; which indeed confirms him to be the man for the job. imo
The minions of the democratic faithful accept 'using' mendacity as a tool for the price of winning.
I have heard many Kerry and Clintonites dismiss debating point like this as 'necessary fibs'. That Kerry has lied and his supporters know that Kerry has no intention of following up on this point in reality, so the extra cost does not exists. The minions of the democratic faithful accept mendacity as the price of winning.
Viable national freedom hangs from a gossamer web of truth, morality and trust.
LOL
You're wrong. Buck up.
Part of the debate was to see what kerry's solution to the current problems were should he become President; the best I could tell he would bring home the troops and melt down their weapons and then send them on a goodwill tour of Europe before airlifting massive amounts of MREs to the strife-torn regions of the Third-World and a load of Hula Hoops to celebrate World peace.
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?
Same as quesiton one but loaded. To say you can do better at preventing an attack than the other guy is the same as saying the other guy would make it more likely that we would be attacked. It's just much harder to say it as bluntly as Q2, so it was unfair to phrase it that way.
Q 3 (to Kerry): "Colossal misjudgments." What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?
Translation: Give us your standard stump speech about what a schmuck Bush is on this issue.
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?
Translation: Try and defend yourself against Kerry's valid charges.
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?
Translation: Give us your standard stump speech about what a schmuck Bush is on the issue of Homeland Security.
Q 6 (to Bush): What criteria would you use to determine when to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq?
Translation: How do you plan on getting us out of this Iraq mess?
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?"
That's a question?
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?
Translation: List all the mistakes you have made, in hindsight, planning for post-war Iraq.
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.
Translation: Give us your standard stump speech about what a liar Bush is on the issue of Iraq.
Q 10: (to Bush): Has the war in Iraq been worth the cost of American lives, 10,052... uh... 1,052 as of today?
Translation: Do you still beat your wife?
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?
Translation: Give us your standard stump speech about how you are going to get us out of the mess Bush got us into.
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?
Translation: Are you planning to make similar messes in the future?
Q 13(to Kerry): What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?
Translation: Give us your standard stump speech on the issue of preemptive war. )Note that Bush was asked this same question in loaded version. Kerry voted for the war, too.)
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.
Translation: Are you planning on attacking the other members of the Axis of Evil?
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.
I would have to look into this one further.
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?
Translation: Say nice things about Kerry or look like a jerk. Then I will let Kerry say rude things about your character in defense.
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?
Translation: Give us your standard stump speech on the issue of national security.
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?
Translation: For a last impression to our audience, tell us what a schumck you were in dealing with Russia.
At the beginning of the debate, Lehrer said that he himself had written all the questions.
Newsmax does not have to be excerpted.
Lehrer on Defensive Over Biased Questioning
PBS host Jim Lehrer was challenged Friday morning on claims that he went easy on Sen. John Kerry during Thursday night's presidential debate, while tossing verbal hand grenades in President Bush's direction designed to keep him on the defensive.
"I don't know what in the world you're talking about," Lehrer told radio host Don Imus, in his only post-debate interview.
"I would argue that my questions were right down the middle. There were some hardball questions for each candidate. There were some softball questions for each candidate. But for the most part they were just terrific."
The bias complaint, said Lehrer, was more of a commentary on his critics than a valid criticism of his own debate performance.
Still, some observers noted that Lehrer's questions largely focused on negative aspects of Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq - while avoiding Sen. Kerry's waffling on the issue, not to mention the top Democrat's long record of opposing measures to strengthen U.S. intelligence and national security.
At one point Lehrer claimed that over ten thousand U.S. soldiers had been killed in Iraq, before quickly revising that number to 1,052.
At the end of the debate, the PBS anchorman shook Sen. Kerry's hand - with some debate watchers claiming he gave the top Democrat a knowing wink.
In 1999, the president of Lehrer's network had to resign after admitting that 53 PBS affiliates had been sharing their donor lists with the Democratic National Committee for years.
In 1997, then-White House aide George Stephanopoulos revealed that President Clinton's reelection team thought it was a major coup when Lehrer was chosen to host one of the presidential debates, boasting that "our moderator" had been picked.
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.