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.
"Hume is not a conservative?"
Hume surprised and disappointed me to have his first comment be that Cheney looked OLD. The panel did not seem upbeat. I don't know why they seemed so cautious.
They were disappointing.
" Edwards wasn't mean because he cares and has better hair."
LOL and at a rally the day before he said, "I want you to remember, I am there for YOU".
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."
Version B: (with sarcasm) "Thanks for asking about the tremendous progress that we are making in Iraq. It was good of you to mention the world's views, since 30 nations have joined our commitment to liberate Iraq; it was good also that you spoke of 'losing' because when we lose 1 man in Samarra, killing 125 terrorist insurgents and capturing another 100, it really is a setback - just not to us. We will persevere, and if it looks like losing when we mop up the remaining several thousand insurgents and terrorists, so be it, we'll just
Now our plan to win the victory in Iraq we all want is simple, and its working: The four point plan from my May speech to the Army War College is a good plan. So good, in fact,that Senator Kerry grausly lifted from it to create his own 4 pount plan. I had 5 points, but point 1 - Iraqi sovereignty, was achieved in June.
So we are moving ahead with the other 4 points: Get Iraqi security forces trained, equipped and able to provide security in Iraq on their own; go ahead with elections in January; continue to rebuild the contry's infrastructure; and get more nations involved. We are doing all these things, making great progress, and we are succeeding despite the best efforts of terrorist enemies to foil us.
War, by the way, does not need 'fixing', it needs winning."
Huh, that sounds like the kind of question David Gregory would ask Pres Bush ... if the shoe was on the other foot.
WERE YOUR ACTIONS FINANCIALLY MOTIVATED?"
Only after burying the POW/MIA issue when he chaired the Select Committee for POW/MIA's and their "psuedo investigations". Which were clearly done only to
Lift the trade embargo and normalize trade relations with Vietnam. Totally horrible person. No wonder Kerry is that countries Poster Boy. The communists love him.
I don't think any of the FOx crew wer on their game last night. I think they were consumed by the Yanke game -. they said as much
"Bob Schieffer should also be a blast to watch next week. They think they're all being so 'fair' in their questions."
Bob S Question Template:
"Mr President, you said "X", but a [senior CIA 'insurgent', RINO Senator, liberal think tank, NY Times editorial] asserts "Y", how do you square your dubious chimp-like statement meant for the extra-chromosone right with the authoritative statements of [contrary source]?"
"Mr President, isnt it true that [insert Kerry talking point here]?"
"Mr President, what's your excuse for not being a smart liberal like the rest of us in Washington?"
"Senator Kerry, I am in awe of your tan. Which manly non-tanning-salon activity did you engage in to get it?"
"Senator Kerry, it seems Bush lied. Why don't you tell the American people in 90 seconds or less why, without using the L word."
"Senator Kerry, do your [war wounds act up, patriotism feel attacked] when the mean Republicans attack you so unfairly by [daring to mention your Senate record, saying 'flip-flop', calling you a Liberal, mentioning your buds wit hTed Kennedy]?"
Quote: Gwen was far better than Lehrer....which is NOT HARD to ACCOMPLISH!!!!
But still not fair!!!
Vice President Cheney bascially destroyed Edwards in the debate..and John Kerry on technical points...that being their attendence and voting record.
Yet .."It was a draw"...David Gergin comments...or a Edwards win..blah blah by others.
Today there was a vote on the 9-11 commision...and guess what 2 Senators were no shows for such an important vote.
This democrat jig has been a football toss ...smiling with nice hair...travelling *Snake oil show!!
Over 80% of Black Democrats are going to vote for Kerry/Edwards...and these 2 have done nothing for the Black socio reality in America...while President Bush has achieved in Education,Housing,Tax relief ..and gets nothing from the Evil media.
Outsouring is another lie/scam the Dems use.
Like their are no Democratic voter/business owners rushing to outsource and make a buck...no only Republicans do that.
From lying Saudi talking heads on the T.V.....too Andy Rooney.....who says U.S. soldiers in Iraq are not Hero's,
we are just chewing on it 24
I disagree. I think she was fair & did a good job.
Received a video with Hitler voiceover alleging the Pentagon attack was a hoax.
Demunists are the New Soviet Man of Stalin, the True Believer of Eric Hoffer.
Hannity had Jesse Jackass on who alleged attempts to disenfranchise blacks.
The "media" is the ministry of propaganda for the Demunistas.
Kerry signed the "Dear Commandante" letter to ComSchmuck Ortega--after giving aid and comfort to Communist North Vietnamese regime.
There's nothing fair and balanced, nothing democratic about the Demunist Party.
The ends justify the meanness.
Your right! Bush has GOT to be on fire this Friday! And they better not stack the deck with a bunch of whining RATS!
What they should do is have 4 moderators, 2 conservative (like Hannity and Rush), and 2 libs (like Matthews and Combes), and just let them throw the best questions that they can. That way, it will be fair.
Exactly, my point is that they keep attacking Cheney over Halliburton and it`s all proven false. Noone knows about Kerry`s dealings in Asia. That Collier`s deal looks crooked to me, maybe I just want it to be. Maybe someone should look more closely at it. Have you ever seen the site http://www.powmiafamiliesagainstjohnkerry.com/ ?
"We only wanna help yooou".
...That way, it will be fair...
I don't want to read opposing viewpoints, I hear it all day from the liberal media, and HBO needs to take Bill Maher off the air. Have him join up with Howard Stern.
:) blink blink
Yes I am familiar with that site. Kerry is evil incarnate.
... Fair enough. ;-)
What was really funny about Ifill's questions. She asked Edwards did what Cheney said about trial lawyers offend him! She basically asked him did Cheney hurt his feelings! haha
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.