Do the moderators decide what questions to ask???
Don't be mean to the girl.
In all seriousness, how do you like the Dims saying that Cheney was "mean?" Mean! These are the people who say they can fight a better war, because they "have a plan," yet, they whine every time W or Cheney does anything other than kiss their yellow butts.
The moderators get to decide the questions. They also, I'm noticing from last night, get to allow lawyers to retry their answers over and over again until they're done with their talking points.
"Uh, can I answer that after I go back to what he just said?"
Drove me crazy last night.
My only complaint about Ifill (as opposed to Lehrer who I could go on about forever) was that she asked edwards LEADING questions...
Hell... one of the questions went on so long, I thought she had started to answer FOR HIM...
The good news is Cheney whooped edwards pretty darn good!!!
"I thought Gwen Ifill did a pretty good job, but it was in contrast to Jim Lehrer's"
I agree with you. I thought she was fair with her questioning. I didn't particularly care for Brit Hume's comment re: Cheney looking old, felt that was uncalled for and never heard that mentioned in the derogatory fashion
which Hume used. Surprised me. Cheney was great.
I agree, Gwen was better than Jim Lehrer, but still not as objective as a true moderator should be. The first thing she did that bugged me was letting the Silky Pony "rebut" before she ever granted him his 30 seconds. He just started talking, and she should have said, "Wait a minute. I didn't say you could respond." Of course, she would have been voted off the MSM island for such a faux pas had she actually stuck to the rules to the Hairdo's detriment.
I didn't see the debate but followed the thread here. Most Freepers thought that Ifill was reasonably fair. In fact, she was extremely fair for a liberal. She at least tried.
This analysis reasonably shows that, even at that, the questions were more favorable to Edwards than to Cheney.
The big joke is that if Baker were able to get someone like Brit Hume to moderate a debate, he would actually be fair. Hume is not a conservative. He only seems so in contrast with almost everyone else in the media game.
To find someone as prejudiced as Jim Lehrer on the conservative side, you would probably have to resurrect Atilla the Hun.
Gwen was far better than Lehrer.
She should have done more research and been better prepared - perhaps some even keeled questions would have been better. I'm surprised she was chosen as moderator.
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.
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.
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?
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."