Posted on 10/06/2004 6:27:19 PM PDT by Utah Girl
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.