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.
So far virtually all of the debate questions are critical of Bush and assume the past 4 years are a failure. Why none directed to Kerry and Edwards about their politics? Would like to see some direct questions to Kerry about his Viet Nam protest years and his record of weakening America. He needs to explain how someone with his record can be president. Also some tough questions about Edwards ethics in driving up the cost of medicine through frivolous lawsuits.
Hmm. That's why you thought Ifill did "a pretty good job." Dangerous way to form opinions.
Wish I could stay. Gotta go now.
I didn't see the debate live, I've watched most of it since then (had insomnia last night.) Still didn't see the beginning of the debate. I thought she had hard questions for both candidates, several whiffleball questions for Edwards. And I said in contrast to Lehrer she did a good job. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Can't wait for Charlie Gibson and his questions Friday night. (Rolling my eyes here.) And Bob Schieffer should also be a blast to watch next week. They think they're all being so 'fair' in their questions.
The incumbents have a record to defend. A lot of the questions asked Cheney to defend that record, which makes the questions come across as tougher on the incumbents. I think Cheney succeeded in his defense, and being asked decent, intelligent questions helped. I just wish the moderator could enforce the answering of questions that get fudged around.
Ifill and Lehrer. Good propagandist, bad propagandist. Dan Rather wannabees.
Great questions! Maybe someone in the audience will ask one of these Friday night. But Im not counting on it!
Cheney declined to answer Haliburton charges--that would have been defensive and a loser. instead he directed listeners to find the facts for themselves at Factcheck.com (which should have been Factcheck.org.) Anyway, answering their inane talking points would be both defensive AND a waste of time--losing proposition.
One little footnote--Brown and Root is a subsidiary of Halliburton and is historic in support of Dems. When LBJ first ran for congress, Brown & Root sent sacksfull of money(literally brown paper sacks stuffed full) to LBJ's team whenever they needed it for ads, bribes, you name it--totally illegal. If anyone cared to check, I'll bet Halliburton has supported a lot of Dems bigtime because they are into keeping friends with the powerful.
Brit Hume had a man from the Annenburg Group on his Special Report tonight who answered all the charges and inuendos about Halliburton. The major point is that Halliburton already had a contract for work in Iraq under Clinton and subsequent contracts were extensions and enlargements of the original(s). Also brought out--about 70% of Pentagon/govt. contracts are no-bid contracts because so few companies are large enough and have the expertise to fill them. Halliburton is the largest oilfield service company in the world and originally built the majority of the oilfields over there. The only comparable company is French Schlumberger--I'm sure Kerry thinks we should have divided with Jacques boys. Especially, given that they shot us down in the UN, were dealing under the table in the UN Oil for Food Program, and also selling Hussein illegal weapons.
What's wrong with these idiot college students that they lap up the leftist hate garbage and do not have the intellectual curiosity to hunt for the truth or analyse the fact that they are being used to tear down the country that is giving them more than they deserve? This is a literal question--any answers?
My 2 cents for what it's worth.
vaudine
Yep. you are right.
Of course now that the NASCAR crowd is upset about language I could be wrong.
Well said. I don't mind the asking of hard questions. The men are debating and working towards being our leaders for the next four years and they need to say what they think and believe. I just felt like last week that President Bush got the hard questions, a few very biased, and Kerry didn't. I'm really hoping Kerry gets asked about his Senate record, but I'm not holding my breath. I read somewhere today "Kerry's running on his four month service in Vietnam and a ninety minute debate in 2004. Scary."
Ifill and Lehrer are such incompetent journalists that no consumer will willingly pay for their product. In the real world, they would be without jobs.
The moderator, Gwen Ifill, did an outstanding job.
There's hundreds of things she could have asked, but oh well, time was limited. She single-handedly knocked at least three points off the Kerry vote by asking Edwards why he thought he was qualified to be Vice President given his very limited experience.
Ifill was soft on Edwards? Sorry. No sale.
Thank you for bringing those facts out. Also, many contracts were awarded to Halliburton during the Clinton administration, never hear that either.
And in the nineties, Congress came up with a plan to lessen the problem of having to bid out jobs for each foreign intervention. A corporation would win the right to be on call for a period of time when services were needed quickly. And that is why Halliburton "won" the bid for Iraq, they won the competitive process in 2001, and Iraq was a place where services were needed quickly.
And I don't have an answer for you. I think sometimes it is easier to listen to slogans and sound bytes to form one's opinion. A lot of people also rely on emotionalism for their opinions, it's the candidate who tugs their heartstrings the most that will get their vote. Michael Moore is coming to my neck of the woods on Oct 20, his 'speech' consists of reading My Pet Goat to the audience (to poke fun at President Bush), he leads them in a sing-a-long, and then promises new underwear to those students who register to vote in 2004.
And I honestly think there are many America haters out there. And many Americans who believe that America can do nothing right. And they then listen to the propaganda being spouted. Repeat the lie often enough and it becomes the "truth".
I don't agree. I thought she was much more even handed than Lehrer. Her question to Edwards about the global test exposed Edwards as a liar because she quoted Kerry and Edwards was essentially denying Kerry said it.
that one time she goofed and gave Edwards more time it made him look like an idiot by the way he reacted--so it was fine by me. :-)
Journalism is the business of using a printing press or TV station to make yourself look good.There is no reason that a good chess timer couldn't allocate the time among the debaters, and let the debaters themselves define the issues. But the journalists wouldn't have it, because they have to protect their interests. And since Democrats toady to journalists anyway, Democrats and journalists conspire in plain sight to gang up on the Republican.
Liberals want to paint the Republican as the evil rich seeking to oppress the poor. The proper defense of the Republican is to stand up for the middle class which is the party's constituency. We are the ones who need a lawyer!
He still beat Edwards with one hand tied behind his back.
I Agree wholeheatedly that Cheney won!!
Fox News disappointed me. Heck Chris Matthews was fairer in his assessment than Fox and that is amazing!!
"Great questions! Maybe someone in the audience will ask one of these Friday night. But Im not counting on it!"
They remove any real citizens who care about the character and leadership of the candidates and stack the deck with people begging for Govt to give them more. That's why Clinton was so great in those forums, master of the pander.
I hope John Forbes Kerry comes off as the elistist that he is. That and Bush On Fire is the best we can hope for.
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.