[paul in cape]

No questions about Sen. Kerry's history.

No questions about his 20 year record in the senate.

No questions about his votes against funding intelligence gathering.

No questions about voting against every military bill.

No questions about his failure to attend intelligence briefings after the first WTC bombing.

Does anyone have the cajones to point this out? We'll see.

[kingu]

No questions about his 20 year record in the senate.

Now, let's be fair.. He didn't bother to show up for most of those twenty years, so let's just call it a five year record in the senate. Hmm. Still doesn't justify just sponsoring a couple bills. How about five months. Call it two tours, in Kerry-Speak. There. Now continue blasting Jim Lehrer.

[zarf]

Don't blame Jim. Bush shouold of brought these up in the context of his arguments. He had his shots but missed them.

It's up to the President to defend his policies every four years. There's nothing wrong with sticking a Presidents feet to the fire....

Bush did well enough.

[Tom_Busch]

I wonder how many debates Lehrer has done in the past and if he was less one-sided in those?

[stockpirate]

He did download them from his laptop.

[repub_phdstudent]

One step further, as some have already stated, Kerry answered as if he had at least some inkling of what the questions were going to be--how else would he have be able to recite all those statistics (I wonder how accurate they are?) and to speak with such fervor (in comparison to his usual draw, of course); or, maybe he sniffed too many nailpolish fumes.....

[tdadams]

You've got very good points. There is a lot to undermine Kerry's newfound pro-military facade. Leher didn't even touch on anything that would challenge Kerry. It was all directed at undermining Bush.

[mtbopfuyn]

Sure, the questions were biased, but Bush didn't take the ball and run with it. At times, he seemed he wasn't even at the ball game. Sorry, I love the man, but he dropped the ball far too many times and was on defense the whole time. He had opportunites to go on the offense but didn't.

[bvw]

Let's say Lehrer is a man who is extemely careful with his words. He's never been known (afaik) to ever have blown his professional cool during an interview, nor to get fazed or disoriented. So he's a man in strict control of his his words. When he uses a word or a phrase he means it. And when he doens't use a more common or expected word or phrase, well, gee golly molly -- he means that too.

In that light please consider the following statemnt by Mr. Lehrer about himeself, his job, his product:

The umbrella topic is foreign policy and homeland security, but the specific subjects were chosen by me, the questions were composed by me, the candidates have not been told what they are, nor has anyone else.

Let us parse ...

• "umbrella topic"

  Interesting turn of idiom. Don't quite know to make of it. It is not common. So it is likely to carry more that it's proximal meaning of "themes" or "major themes".

  However an umbrella is a protective devices. Not just from rain, either -- from sun, from bright light. Thus this opening may flag that what immediately follows is being used to protect the speaker from the bright sunlight of scrutiny.

• "but the specific subjects were chosen by me"

  But! Ain't needed. The sentence is perfect without the but.

  Why does Lehrer, master of words, use it?

  Because, I'd think, he's subconsciously attempting to be truthful by indicating in someway a negation of the truth-hood of what comes next.

  That is, there's something misleading in the statement that "the specfic subjects were chosen by me".

• "specific subjects"

  One word more than needed. Could be either "subjects" or "specifics" -- to say "specific subjects" is overspecifying. so ... some hanky-panky here.

  Somebody ELSE suggested the specific subjects to Lehrer. He only chose them. He only chose them, BUT he did NOT think of them himself.

• "were chosen by me"

  Passive, passive, passive, extra passive. Passive voice.

  He could have said, and far more clearly too -- "I chose the specifics". That's active voice. Clear. Precise. Instead we learn that somehow, by somebody, the specific subjects were chosen. He just was a spectator to the chosing.

• "were chosen by me"

  Why did I say this phrase is extra passive? Because of the "by me". It's unneeded. We already know he's talking about what he himself did. Isn't he? Why of course -- that's the normal assumption. But this master of language and words adds that weak tag, a stamp of "me too!".

  What might this mean? What do his words seem to infer? That Jim Lehrer did NOT chose the specific subjects. Somebody else did, he just added his passive stamp of approval.

• "the questions were composed by me,"

  Again, passive. Extra passive. With that same "me too! I agree too!" tag.

  Another indication Jim Lehrer did NOT create these questions, imo.

• "composed"

  Strange word, that -- "composed"! Especially after the recent Rathergate!

  Rathergate -- a fraud discovered by people who understood the art of typographic composition. Any old newsman refers to the final layout of a story as "composition", an expert at laying out the lead type. So Lehrer uses "compose" ... not "created", not "written", not "developed", not "scripted".

  That's a clue, I suspect, that Lehrer only re-ordered and slightly edited a list of specific questions fed to him by the Kerry camp. Lehrer only COMPOSED the questions.

Bottom line: Lehrer was given these questions by someone working with the Kerry team. IMO.

[fishtank]

Jim Lehrer relaxing after a tough 2-on-1 match against GWBush.