Posted on 10/06/2004 6:27:19 PM PDT by Utah Girl
ABC's instant poll may have given last night's debating edge to Dick Cheney, but a better indicator of the vice president's victory may have been what the media tried not to say last night. On PBS, ABC political director Mark Halperin started insisting that by Friday's second presidential debate, the vice-presidential exchange would seem as distant "as the Peloponnesian Wars." Liberal media gloom resurfaced. Charlie Rose asked Halperin if the race was Bush's to lose. "It is now," said Halperin. ABC's anchors and experts underlined how their poll showing Cheney winning over-sampled Republicans, since more Republicans were watching the debate last night.
Today, you can feel the liberal media trying to pull down the Cheney effort, noting strongly that Cheney and Edwards have met before, in contrast to what Cheney said last night, even digging up video from 2001. But they replay Edwards's saying Cheney voted against Meals on Wheels for senior citizens without making any attempt to find that roll call. If the dominant media were firmly on the right, instead of the left, they would have found John Edwards callow, plastic, and too negative — especially in his constant refrain that, unlike Bush-Cheney, his ticket would "tell the American people/tell the world the truth." They would have mocked Edwards's constant good-puppy invocations of the virtues of John Kerry's strength and backbone, and mocked the way he made verbal slips, like when he said Kerry the prosecutor was "putting people behind crime, er, behind bars." Edwards was so anxious to sell Kerry that he bungled not once, but twice, the moderator's request that he not mention his running mate by name.
That said, while the debate was sharp and offered voters a great contrast in visions, PBS's Gwen Ifill did not, as a moderator, succeed in asking a slate of strong, challenging questions or maintaining a pose of objectivity. While she did toss some questions at Edwards that reflected the conservative points against the Democratic ticket (Would Saddam still be in power if you had your way? Are you naïve to believe France and Germany will bow to you? What qualifies you to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?), she more often went soft on challenging Edwards. She asked Edwards if the U.S. was "absent" from Israel. She asked Edwards if he feels "personally attacked" as a trial lawyer by the Bush team. (This is especially soft, considering how Edwards's presidential campaign was very dependent on trial-lawyer donations.) She asked a vague question about the quality of intelligence: "Do you think that, in the future, that your administration or the Bush administration would have sufficient and accurate enough intelligence to be able to make decisions about where to go next?"
The worst example of a pro-Kerry bias was the last question to the senator: "Flip-flopping has become a recurring theme in this campaign, you may have noticed. Senator Kerry changed his mind about whether to vote to authorize the president to go to war. President Bush changed his mind about whether a homeland-security department was a good idea or a 9/11 commission was a good idea. What's wrong with a little flip-flop every now and then?" If that's not a Kerry-helping question, I don't know what is.
The worst question of the night (directed at Cheney) was the one Edwards stumbled over: "Without mentioning them by name at all, explain to us why you are different from your opponent, starting with you, Mr. Vice President." One test of a bad question is whether the candidates easily sidestep it to make other points. This question was the journalistic equivalent of "Go ahead, say whatever you want."
Ifill threw more hardballs at Cheney, starting with the obvious, liberal-media-hyped story about Bremer's feeling there weren't enough troops in Iraq. While she carefully read John Kerry's answer about a global veto from the last debate, she didn't try to clarify and read Bush's recent remarks to the voters: "When the president says that Senator Kerry is emboldening enemies and you say that we could get hit again if voters make the wrong choice in November, are you saying that it would be a dangerous thing to have John Kerry as president?" She also stressed GOP personal attacks by challenging Cheney to say that Edwards, "sitting here," is part of the litigation problem.
Liberals were especially happy when Ifill asked, "Mr. Vice President, in June of 2000 when you were still CEO of Halliburton, you said that U.S. businesses should be allowed to do business with Iran because, quote, 'Unilateral sanctions almost never work.' After four years as vice president now, and with Iran having been declared by your administration as part of the Axis of Evil, do you still believe that we should lift sanctions on Iran?"
Ifill did not ask Edwards a question that quoted him from 2000, or any other year. She could have used an Edwards quote criticizing Kerry, or an Edwards quote attacking tort reform. She failed.
Ifill's tiresome, obligatory inquiry about Cheney's liberal position on "gay marriage" — reciting his own quote about "freedom means freedom for everybody" — was a liberal question, one that assumed the administration is against "freedom for everybody." While Ifill did ask Edwards if the Democratic ticket was "trying to have it both ways" by saying they oppose "gay marriage," there was no assumption that they're anti-"freedom," and certainly no assumption (God forbid!) that they're too permissive or pro-sin.
The obvious question Ifill should have asked is one about Kerry's recent interview to a gay press outlet, in which he insists that there are parts of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act he now supports, such as letting states deny same-sex "marriages" — although of course he was one of the few who voted against it. Once again, he voted against it before he was for it. If you scroll down through the interview, you'll find "anti-gay marriage" Kerry comparing the issue to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as a desirable goal to achieve in time, starting with his "bully pulpit."
Conservatives and Republicans ought to be watching these moderator performances and questioning why they have allowed the Commission on Presidential Debates to choose only liberal journalists who put Republicans on the defensive and ask Democrats if they feel "personally attacked." James Baker does not look like a negotiating genius on this score. Why? Because the liberal media are so intimidating that the Republicans don't dare insist on a Brian Lamb or a Brit Hume for even one debate, for fear of the liberal media's punishing them in the daily headlines and soundbites. When the race is tight, it makes Republicans look like they're not afraid of Saddam Hussein — but are afraid of Dan Rather.
Quote: Gwen was far better than Lehrer....which is NOT HARD to ACCOMPLISH!!!!
I don't know what debate they were watching......I was impresed by Ifill's fairness and actual use of brainpower in making the questions.
All that you have to do is what I do on Friday evenings. I surf by Washington Week on PBS, which is a panel show (subsidized by the taxpayers) "moderated" by Gwen Ifill. I do that to check to see if she ever has a panelist that has ever, ever voted for a Republican. I've been doing it for years, and there has yet to be a panelist that anyone would think ever, ever voted for a Republican.
I have emailed her numerous times and never got a reply until I got a bit nasty. She didn't answer my question but just told me not to bother watching her program - in spite of the fact that in every email I had told her that I never watch, I just surf by to see who is on the panel.
Gwen Ifill stated, before the debate started, that she had composed the questions herself.
Not only did he shrug it off after he did it a few times, he did it with a smarmy smirk on his face, as if to say, "So what? You can't do anything to me."
... I'm surprised she was chosen as moderator....? THINK ABOUT THAT FOR JUST A MOMENT....
Imagine if Edwards got some of Cheney`s questions and vice versa...they wouldn`t have needed a moderator they`d have needed a coroner. I vow when I hit the powerball I`m buying into big media and firing 93% of them.
I don't know if the moderators "craft" their own questions, but I had my fill of Ifill by 7:11 p.m. PDST. That's when she started in on AIDS fatalities being highest among African-Americans 18-44 or something like that. It was right after she asked Edwards whether he felt "personally attacked by the V.P."
Powerline raved about how wonderful she was. What debate did he watch? Her demeanor and questions were SO BLATANTLY BIASED against Cheney and for the Dimwit. It seemed to get more and more personal for her, as when she asked about the 30% of Cleveland citizens living in "poverty."
She's way too self-important, acted like she could get up and slap the boys around if she felt like it. Just ask the questions, stupid.
The debates are a farce anyway, like the 9/11 commission, they're a forum for promoting anti-American leftist propaganda and manipulating the outcome of the so-called impartial "debate." Maybe I'm in the minority here, but when I got fed up last night, I wanted to tell the Prez the cancel to rest of the debates. It's stacked against us more than ever. These liberal mods need to be brought down a few pegs.
In spite of all this, Cheney hit it out of the park every time. While Edwards couldn't even bunt and stumbled over his shoelaces.
Very well said!!!
What we should be doing is bombarding the Commission on Presidential Debates. Unfortunately, they don't give any help in identifying a means to contact them.
It would be a good thing for FR and others to do their damndest to get rid of this commission. Period. And the so--called Republican co-chair, Frank Fahrenkoff (SP?). He's obviously out of it.
Most of us thought Ifill was "fair" because we are so used to media bias we EXPECT questions that beat up on us ...
If the mods were really fair, we'd get a few questions like:
"SENATOR, ZELL MILLER CALLED YOU WEAK, WOBBLY AND WRONG ON DEFENSE DURING YOUR 20 YEARS IN THE SENATE. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE IN THE SENATE THAT WOULD REBUT THAT CHARGE?"
"SENATOR, DO YOU REGRET VOTING AGAINST THE GULF WAR AUTHORIZATION? WHY OR WHY NOT?"
"SENATOR, YOU OPPOSED THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT IN 1996. IF YOU HAD TO DO IT OVER AGAIN, WOULD YOU VOTE THAT WAY?"
"SENATOR, IN 1986 YOU SAID IT WAS "SEARED IN YOUR MEMORY" THAT YOU WERE IN CAMBODIA ON CHRISTMAS 1968. WAS THAT "SEARED MEMORY" REAL OR FICTIONAL?"
I could swear that Ifill told both debaters that they were not to address each other directly, and the first moment Edwards opened his mouth, it was directed to Cheney personally. Did anyone else notice this?
You got that right!
Cheney nailed it every round.
More proof this is the Democrat B-team.
When the media is so obviously biased - Bush/Cheney might be able to humorously use this to advantage, highlighting the bias and addressing the subject issue, by rephrasing the question to what it should have been. For example:
Moderator: "So, now that we are losing in Iraq, the world hates us, and everything's going to hell in the mideast - tell me what you're going to do fix all that."
Bush/Cheney: "Thank you for asking about our progress in fighting terrorism. We indeed are making Iraq a more stable country, which will serve as the lynchpin for democracy in the middle east. And as you mentioned, the war effort is indeed going very well, with the pacification of the vast majority of provinces in Iraq, and the steady eradication of radical forces who are fighting the new government and democratic progress in Iraq."
Yes! - That and edwards speaking out of turn!!!
Thanks. I didn't see most of the debate.
Cheney looked like the big bulldog and Edwards was the little squeak yapping all around him. Edwards was coached so badly, he came out and attacked Cheney in his first statement. Rookie mistake - Edwards is outclassed, outgunned, and generally out of his league.
How about... "SENATOR KERRY, IN 1994 YOU PERSISTED IN YOUR EFFORTS TO LIFT THE TRADE EMBARGO AGAINST VIETNAM, BASED ON THEIR COOPERATION ON THE POW/MIA ISSUE. SHORTLY AFTERWARD COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL, YOUR COUSIN C.STEWART FORBES`S COMPANY WAS GIVEN A $905 MILLION DEAL TO BUILD A DEEP SEA PORT IN VIETNAM. BASED ON YOUR ATTACKS AGAINST THE V.P. AND HALLIBURTON, WERE YOUR ACTIONS FINANCIALLY MOTIVATED?"
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.