Bad News Bob [Schieffer]: Dan must have been pleased.

National Review Online ^ | October 14, 2004 | Tim Graham

[Danno]

I am of the camp that Bush shouldn't have done these debates PERIOD. I am surprised this has not been discussed at length here on the forum.

When you had the lead that Bush had it is a mistake. Because Bush already has a verbal handicap that is well known and documented (said lovingly and not to put him down). Short of Bush pushing the issue, Karl Rove did not service him well in this regard. Strategic blunder.

Any negative flak Bush could have easily deflected and would have had less likely a contraction of the polls than occurred.

We live in perilous times and soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan deserve our President's full attention. These asinine and spinned out debates totally occupied our President for the past month or so. So glad they are over with so we can let fine citizens like the Swift Vets and others continue with the great job they were doing...

[Labyrinthos]

I've watched the debate twice and I still believe Bob Schieffer did a good job. He's one of the good guys trying to be fair. Some won't be happy until the likes of Hannity or Rush are moderating.

Oh please. Any doubt as to BS's bias is erased by his minimum wage question. He could have asked the question without the loaded introduction, and let the candidates spin, but he chose to spin first and then invite the candidates to react. At the very least he could have framed the question like Perky Katie Colon: "Some people claim that the gap between between rich and poor is growing and more people are dropping into poverty," rather than stating it as an absolute fact. Indeed, this is exactly the kind of crap the Bernard Goldberg cites in his book Bias -- that the gap grows and poverty increases the moment a Republican is sworn into as president, and the povery ill is cured the second a democrate is innaugerated.

[NutCrackerBoy]

That said, even if Lehrer, Gibson and Schieffer are going to pull the Kerry lever, I think they are like umpires at a World Series game. Their main concern has to be not screwing things up and trying to be fair for historical purposes. Besides, any perceived bias in the wording of a question can easily be overcome by either candidate. They pretty much can answer the question they would like to have been asked.

You are letting them off way too easily. Understanding their own biases is not rocket science, and this is not analogous to different strike zones by different umps. If there are credible claims of bias, then guys of that stature should take them seriously. Have they observed Brian Lamb? Did they observe the second debate? Certain of the questions reflected a perfectly reasonable and widely-held worldview, and I wonder if Lehrer, Gibson, Schieffer considered why each has never, ever, ever, framed a question that way.

[Lancey Howard]

I will be the first to admit that I know little about disease epidemics, etc., but I DO know that it is common for such numbers to be exagerated when budget-time rolls around. I am skeptical of government numbers, period.

Best regards,
LH

[wildwood]

i am so confused today. did we all see the same debates that these morons and polltakers did? everybody i know, even KIDS, was saying the bush wiped the floor with kerry. that all kerry did was say "this president did this wrong and THAT wrong" and that he looked so creepy when he tried to smile, like a cadaver or something, and that he laughed inappropriately and that his answers were SO lame you could hardly stand it. EVERYBODY said bush was the CLEAR winner. i can't believe even the conservative commentators saying the same things because of those stupid polls that none of us voted in!