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.
I thought Bush looked better proportioned. Kerry looked kind of hulking and cramped. Of course, I'm totally impartial ;-)
Bush Is better proportioned.
Kerry looks like Stan Laurel's evil twin.
Hey, "Political Accountability" got pulled, lol. What was that one all about? Do ya think the Mods get suspicious when we call out the posse?
I agree. Lehrer allowed only one opening on character, and GW gave it a pass. The rest of the evening was open season on GW's record, no mention at all of Kerry's.
Not bad!
Absolutely. It shows how well someone handles themself. It was also designed to draw out the President's thought process. In addition, I believe it was Wolfowitz that gave the three reasons for invading Iraq. 2 of the 3 reasons were not there once in Iraq and the 3rd was said to be alone not a reason to invade. So, yes the question was valid.
Had this been a Presidnet Gore, we would have been cheering the questions under the same circumstances. Since it was our guy, we think he got his teeth kicked in with unfair and irrevelant questions.
As I stated, toward the end, the President got better. But early on he was irritated that Kerry had the audacity to come at him. The moments when he was shown while Kerry was speaking showed his contempt toward his opponent. To red meat folks, it was fine. To the average guy/gal, it made him seem to be irritable. His responses often made him look unprepared. He grasped for answers, looking like he was often pulling them out of his butt.
Kerry's answers may have been nothing but lies. But there was a command and flow about them. But the President should have called him on them. Instead, he huffed and puffed like Al Gore in 2000. He was the one that looked Orange. Kerry looked rested and ready. The President looked tired and fatigued.
Sure it's style over substance. But then again, why do people buy and pay more for a Cadillac built on a Chevy chasis when in fact it's a Chevy and they really only need dependable transportation. Style over substance.
Mule Fritters. Even Britt Hume explained why Kerry was framed better. And btw, Fox produced the video.
You're absolutely right. The President gave few answers that were outside the "message", meaning he gave few of any substance.
David Remnick, of The New Yorker is on Imus making fun of Bush, but he says he's not willing to say viewers won't still give the win to Bush, because he remembers 2000 when the tv talkers gave the debate to Gore, but when the numbers came in, Bush won.
Imus says the polls are going to show Bush did better than the initial opinions of the talking heads.
Tim Cagle, Debate Expert on FOX & Friends says Kerry was more conversational, came across as relaxed and definitively. Expert says Bush was very concise, very much like 2000, very natural. He says Bush is going to get hit hard on the Saturday Night Live factor..those cutaway camera shots.
I don't know that I believe Kerry knew questions ahead of time. I do know that both sides had a hand in setting up the debate in general and new the main topics of each debate ahead of time. The next one, I believe, will focus on domestic issues.
These slanted questions are my biggest beef about the debate. Yet no one seems to be talking about it on the spin circuit. It was an Ambush!
Foreign policy is The President's strongest area. Even some who dislike him, support him on the basis of his foreign policy and the way he has conducted the War on Terror. This was an opportunity to firm up that support by highlighting Kerry's waffles and forcing him to state specifics about his "plan", but didn't.
He needs better preparation and more rest before the remaining debates. Even having a debate with Kerry plays to Kerry's strength.
Lehrer tried but wasn't much help. Here is my simple analysis.
Debate # 1 Winner by category.
Fluff Kerry
Stuff Bush
Do you want fluff or stuff?
Watery Tart wrote:
Hey, "Political Accountability" got pulled, lol. What was that one all about? Do ya think the Mods get suspicious when we call out the posse?
Where do we go to file a complaint against Lehrer. I'm outraged.
Didn't something happen between Kerry and Lair-Uhhh right at the end?
The Fox panel sucked big time. Even Fred Barnes didn't do a good job of defending Bush's performance. Brit was too easily impressed by Kerry's poor performance.
My take on the debate...
Not good.
It reminded me of The Caine Mutiny Court Martial Revisited.
I kept expecting to see the President reach into his pocket and bring out those little silver balls.
Bush was clearly out of his league up against kerry. He appeared frustrated, repeating his lines over and over again, as if pleading for understanding, etc., as kerry hammered him like a prosecuting attorney. Never bring a knife to a gunfight.
kerry is a bullsh!ttter; Bush is an honest man--I have watched this sh!t go down for over 50 years now--bvllsh!tters almost always win, good guys finish last. I hope I'm wrong. Hate to see the editorials in the morning.
Two more debates to go--no room for any more of this!
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.