Posted on 07/14/2004 4:51:34 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Do they do it to keep us off balance? Just when you're about to write off The Today Show as hopeless DNC surrogates, they pull something like this morning. In separate interviews, Katie Couric made manifest her skepticism about John Edwards, while (the solid professional, IMHO) Jamie Gangel treated Laura Bush in a reasonable and straightforward manner.
Katie began her interview with Edwards and wife Elizabeth with a shot between the eyes: "Despite a nationwide bump in the polls when you were named to the ticket, a new poll in NC shows Kerry/Edwards down by 15%."
Edwards: "I'm not a poll expert but I've seen other polls showing 'basically a dead heat' [translation: " not down by quite as much"] in NC. I think once they get to know John Kerry, the people of NC will embrace this ticket."
Shot back an arch-eyebrowed Katie: "Really? A liberal Democrat from Massaschuesetts?"
Edwards waxed on about Kerry's volunteering for the military and service in Vietnam.
Couric: "Do you have a Florida strategy?" Edward and Elizabeth dwelled on the fact that his wife was born there and that they have 20 relatives that live there."
This again was met with skepticism by Katie: "Well, that's 20 votes, but doesn't George Bush have the ultimate family tie with the Governor?"
Both Edwards and wife mused darkly about how, yes, the "administraiton" of the state of Florida played an important role as to how the election came out in 2000, and piously hoped that this time "the people" will get to decide.
Katie then quoted Dick Cheney about how Kerry and Edwards voted for the Iraq resolution but now have developed "a convenient case of campaign amnesia."
Edwards: "It was right to vote for the resolution. But that authority has been abused by the President in lives, money, our reputation around the world."
Yet again, Couric put Edwards on the spot: "But you knew the coalition wasn't that strong and that there wasn't a fully-developed exit strategy, and you still voted for the resolution. How can you look back now and say this wasn't happening and that wasn't happening?"
Edwards was forced to retreat: "That's a fair question and I take full responsibility for my vote. But I didn't have control over the coaliton, over the lack of a plan to win peace. Saddam was a serious threat and needed to be dealt with. But ultimately it was the President's responsiblity."
When it came to Kerry and Edwards voting against the $87 billion in Iraq war funding, again Katie put Edwards on the defensive: "There's been a change of tactic on the campaign trail. [Note how the reference to 'campaign trail' implies that this was a purely political maneuver]. Kerry used to say that he supported the $87 billion but objected to the way it was funded [he wanted to raise taxes]. Now he says he's "proud" of voting against it. Which is it? Do you have a problem being one of four senators who voted for the war and against funding?" [Recall that he voted against funding at the point Howard Dean was riding high and it was expedient for Edwards and Kerry to portray themselves as anti-war].
"My view was I had to stand up and say no, this is not working."
Couric: "What would be John Kerry's exit strategy in Iraq?"
Edwards: "John Kerry would make certain that Iraqis were much more quickly and efficently trained to take responsibility for their own security."
With sarcasm normally resolved for Republicans, Katie shot back: "With all due respect [which as we know means: "with no respect at all"] why would Kerry be able to do a better job?" Edwards' answer escapes me.
Couric: "What do you think of Dick Cheney?"
Edwards:"He's always been cordial and polite [guess he hasn't told Edwards to go ---- himself. Yet]. He called me on the day I was nominated. But he is out of touch with ordinary Americans, wiht the struggles people deal with in their daily lives. We have dramatically different views of the world."
Edwards then actually repeated, for the 1,000,007th time, "my father worked in a mill, and I was the first person in my family who went to college."
He continued: "I feel an enormous responsiblity to provide those opportunities to other Americans."
Once again, he was met with Katie's incredulity. "And you don't think Dick Cheney wants to give opportunities to Americans?"
Edwards: "I don't see any signs of it. I get up every morning thinking about giving the same chance to other Americans. I grew up in the bright light of America and I want to give other Americans that same chance" [gag me with a smiley face.]
Then it was on to Jamie Gangel's interview with Laura Bush.
Gangel: "In light of the Senate report highly critical of intelligence on Iraq does your husband have any regrets?"
Laura: "Who can regret Saddam is no longer in power? Is it tough? Absolutely? Have we sacrificed? Absolutely. But we can do tough things in this country."
Gangel: "She [Laura] has become the President's secret weapon, and is ready to play political hardball."
Gangel: "Kerry recently said that "no young Americans will need to go to war unnecessarily if I'm president," implying they have under President Bush.
Laura: "Are they sorry Saddam is no longer in power? They saw the same intelligence. They're stuck because they can't give any credit to Pres. Bush."
On Ron Reagan, Jr. speaking to DNC convention, Gangel asked: "Is it embarrasssing?" "No." "Is he being used?" "I'm not going to say that" [meaning that I'm too polite to say that it is obviously true].
Gangel lobbed a softball on the VP candidates: "What do you think of John Edwards? Do you think he matches up to Dick Cheney." Laura: "Of course not, absolutely not." "Any basis for speculation that he might be replaced by someone like Colin Powell? "No. No."
The interview concluded with some soft questions about daughters Jenna and Barbara's new-found interest and involvement in the campaign.
Neither Gangel's questions nor tone were hostile. A shocking contrast with the blatant skepticism Couric expressed to Edwards.
At the risk of running afoul of the "no posts about DU" rule, I can't help but pass along this gem I just found there. A poster was complaining about the interview and about Katie in general:
"I saw the interview and thought why the hell does any democrat agree to talk to that woman? She can't even hide her partisan nature."
That's right. Katie Couric is a Republican partisan. It's official: the world has stopped turning on its axis.
As a former democrat I don't by Edward's spin. I am a hardworking provider to my family of six and I see who's hand is in my wallet.
Besides, as a family man, I also understand the word "values."
Come to think of it, I also recall several other Gangel interviews with other Bushes. She must be their Designated Interviewer - one of the few members of the liberal media they trust not to hijack them.
GO LAURA GO!!!!
E. Pilot, God bless you!
Every time I hear a politician say: "I take full responsibility for my vote." It really boils my blood. In my book, that's insubordination. You work for me Smiley. I am the one that holds you responsible and accountable for your actions.
Holy smokes! I'm glad I didn't actually see this, I would have keeled over from shock!
However, I still stand by my moratorium on television in my house.
Edwards then actually repeated, for the 1,000,007th time, "my father worked in a mill, and I was the first person in my family who went to college
***
Cheney worked for phone/or electric company in Wyoming climbing poles when he was young. Rugged job.
Edwards never got his hands dirty as far as I know. I tend to believe we all would have heard about it. :)
It might be premature, but that has never stopped me before. I expect that a lot of the Clinton Lovers will soon go negative on Kerry-Edwards. The test might be whether they also become positive on Bush-Cheney. I still look for Hillary to be on the ballot this year by hook or by crook.
Some mornings thing happen that make me think I woke up in an alternate universe.
Katie didn't gah-gah over Edwards? Katie actually asked journalistically difficult questions of the Dem candidate? Wow. Next, someone will tell me al-Jazeera decides to have a Code of Ethics.
Maybe this is a dream.
Ouch!
Did he actually say this? Is there a transcript on the NBC website?
"[W]hy the hell does any democrat agree to talk to that woman?"
LOL, it's pretty funny the way EVERYBODY hates the media. I guess bias is, to a certain extent, in the eye of the beholder.
Where they under the influence of drugs?
Couric must have had a brain fart.
My thoughts after reading the exchange between Couric and Edwards were along the lines of "what a bitch". Her comments were catty and sarcastic, not intended to shed any light on any issues, just kicking up more tabloid dirt. That's all these people are about anymore. I think Bush's strategy of avoiding these jerks, like the NAACP, is the most sane and sensible approach. Why participate in letting these people Mau-Mau you, even if you're a Democrat? Why watch?
I can't say it's a verbatim transcipt, but be assured that it's a fair account of his remarks. And he definitely used the phrase about growing up in "the bright light of America." I recall that specifically because it seemed a bit off kilter. Normally of course to say that you are in the "bright light" is akin to saying you are in the spotlight, or under the microscope, which is not of course what he meant. Instead, it was a clunky way of reaching for a "sunny morning in America" metaphor.
Where they under the influence of drugs?
Couric must have had a brain fart.
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.