It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jim Lehrer - a partial moderator in the presidential debate

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 07:13 PM
link   
I watched the presidential debate like many others a few nights ago, and like many, came away with the feeling that Kerry had out debated President Bush. IMHO - it had nothing to do with the responses and had everything to do with stage presence and public speaking. I will admit that I am conservative and thus would not be swayed by Kerry to switch my vote unless something drastic happened.

That all being said, I read an artical recently on the subtle bias of the moderator of this debate. Personally, I was unaware as I watched it of any partisenship, but on further review, it became clear to me.

To start out, the moderator Lehrer was a well known friend of the Clinton aides. So good in fact, that he was refered to by them as "our moderator." More importantly, Lehrer was the exclusive author of the questions asked at the debate.

Now, on to the questions asked by him. Of all the questions he asked to both Kerry and Bush, none - NOT A SINGLE ONE - called into question the voting record of Kerry on national defense. Thats right, no question of Kerry voting against defense, or his indorcement of a 6 BILLION dollar cut in CIA funding a year after the first attack on the world trade center.

No questions about his war record, no quetions about Kerry voting to go to war and then voting against money for it. Or his voting AGAINST GWI - even though it consisted of the vast coalition that Kerry so strongly supports.

And most of all, no questions about how Kerry will get French and German help, even though both countries officials announced they have absolutly no intention of sending troops to Iraq - EVEN IF KERRY IS ELECTED. One would think that might be important, since Kerry's whole Iraq policy is based around persuading Europe to join us.

No - none of these questions was asked, and because of the rules of the debate Bush could not ask them either.

There was how ever, seemingly no end to the number of questions directly or indirectly attacking Bush.

Among them to Bush:

"You said there was a miscalculation in Iraq. What was it and how did it happen?"

"Mr. President, has Iraq been worth the cost in American lives - 10,052 - I mean 1,052 up to today?"

Among them to Kerry:

"What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas [Iraq]?"

"You have repeatedly accused President Bush of lying to the American people on Iraq. Give us some examples of the president being untruthful on Iraq."

These questions all are attacks on Bush. But I ask, where are the attacks on Kerry? I challange anyone to come up with a single hard nosed question directed either at Kerry, or one directed at Bush, which would allow him to attack Kerry.

And lastly, did anyone notice that Lehrer winked at Kerry after the debate was over?

I would like this to stay away from Bush/Kerry bashing, and instead be a prove/disprove my assertation that Lehrer was onesided in his questioning.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Did you miss when Leher broke the rules and kept giving Bush rebuttal time when he wanted it, but not Kerry?

It sounds like you wanted Leher to ask, "Why are you a commie coward flip-flopper?'

Leher is a news man, he deals in facts. It may of seemed shocking or harsh, because Bush was actually asked real questions. The kind people would like to ask at places such as press conferences.

Real questions seem in contrast to the "bubble boy" four years Bush has had with the press, that's why it seemed so shocking.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Personally, I was unaware as I watched it of any partisenship, but on further review, it became clear to me.


So you let an opinion piece change your mind? If you were unaware of it perhaps because it was not there?

Bush has a three-and-a-half year record as president to defend, Kerry has zero.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Curme

I have no problem with asking hard questions of Bush, to the contrary, I believe that he should be questioned. However, I feel that the SAME should be done to Kerry - and it was not. There were no hard questions asked of Kerry.

I gave one example of a question, dealing with facts, as you pointed out, about how Kerry tells America he will get countries such as France and Germany to help in Iraq, yet BOTH have said they WOULD NOT help, EVEN IF KERRY IS ELECTED.

Now, that seems to me as a relevent question to ask, considering Kerry's whole plan is based on getting them involved. My point is that no questions were asked that demanded Kerry to defend his position, while many were asked of Bush.

As far as rebuttle time, it was given to both Bush and Kerry, but I will admit that it was given to Bush slightly more often then Kerry. But hey, I'd take that in exchange for all of the attacking questions being directed at my oponent any day.

Gools

No - the opinion piece did not change my mind. As I said, after I went back and watched the debate again I became aware of the bias. Isn't this how it is supposed to work? Some one makes an argument, then you review the facts and agree or disagree with the argument? Everytime you read about some new conspiracy on this website, don't you review the facts and then make a decision? Or do you just decide what you will believe without looking at the facts?

As for records to defens, Kerry has been a senator for much longer then 3 and a half years, yet no questions demanded he defend it, such as voting against money for body armour for our GI's in Iraq after he voted to send them there.

Do you see what I am saying? I have no problem with asking either of these guys tough questions, but lets make sure that they BOTH get grilled.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I thought Jim Lehrer was a super moderater. I meen has anybody even seen his newsweek show! good stuff.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Can anyone find a compiled list of all the questions without having to chop and paste it out of the transcript? It would be interesting to look a bit closer at this.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Gools

No - the opinion piece did not change my mind. As I said, after I went back and watched the debate again I became aware of the bias. Isn't this how it is supposed to work? Some one makes an argument, then you review the facts and agree or disagree with the argument? Everytime you read about some new conspiracy on this website, don't you review the facts and then make a decision? Or do you just decide what you will believe without looking at the facts?


Touche!




Do you see what I am saying? I have no problem with asking either of these guys tough questions, but lets make sure that they BOTH get grilled.


I can agree with that. It's just that I found the flow of questioning to be following what was going on and based on what was said and brought up by the candidates in their answers. Had it lasted longer, perhaps we would have seen more critical questions directed at Kerry. If Kerry's past as a senator needs to be criticized at this point, perhaps we should look into Bush's as well?


The election is about the future, not the past.

The problem is that the incumbent has something to defend and the challenger has a future to explain. This is the nature of political debates.

Edit: fixed quotes

[edit on 10/4/2004 by Gools]



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I think Jim is above that stuff.

I don't know if you watch his show on PBS, but I catch it relativly often. Jim is oldschool when it comes to newscasting. He's above this partisan stuff when it comes to work.

How he votes on his own time is his business but I thought he did a pretty good job.

The rebuttle thing was interesting. Bush jumped in a lot. Towards the end it seemed like Jim sort of started to expect him to jump in.

I'm not sure if Kerry had a rebuttle, I think I remember one early on. However, at the end I can remember Kerry trying to rebute and not being given the opportunity too do so.

I guess Bush gets more because he is the president. I mean, you've gotta beat the champ, not the other way around.

I really could care less about these two; I know who I'm voting for. GW does need to work on his stage appearance a bit though. I doubt he will make the same mistakes he did at the first one when it comes to posture and stage appearance.

Now, what I'm really looking forward too is the VP debate. That should be a hoot.


[edit on 4-10-2004 by The Big O]



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gools
I can agree with that. It's just that I found the flow of questioning to be following what was going on and based on what was said and brought up by the candidates in their answers. Had it lasted longer, perhaps we would have seen more critical questions directed at Kerry. If Kerry's past as a senator needs to be criticized at this point, perhaps we should look into Bush's as well?


The election is about the future, not the past.

The problem is that the incumbent has something to defend and the challenger has a future to explain. This is the nature of political debates.

Edit: fixed quotes

[edit on 10/4/2004 by Gools]


And this is where I disagree. Kerry has just as much to explain and defend as Bush does. I mean, if you look at his voting record and then compare it to his speaches there is a lot contridictions. I am not saying that Bush is not guilty of the same thing, but in this debate, Bush was the only one asked to defend himself.

That to me is unfair.

As for the Challenger, he also must explain his past. As they say, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Kerry's voting history and personal actions need to be examened just as Bush's need to.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 08:19 PM
link   
While I think Kerry did really well in the debate, I think they didn't ask some serious questions that should have been asked. They didn't touch on his voting record over the years and they didn't ask Kerry about how many votes hes missed as well as not showing up to key committee meetings. Important things that Americans should know about.

My impression was Bush was put on the defensive and Kerry's record - meaning his total, career record, wasn't scrutinized at all.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Big O
I think Jim is above that stuff.

I don't know if you watch his show on PBS, but I catch it relativly often. Jim is oldschool when it comes to newscasting. He's above this partisan stuff when it comes to work.

How he votes on his own time is his business but I thought he did a pretty good job.

The rebuttle thing was interesting. Bush jumped in a lot. Towards the end it seemed like Jim sort of started to expect him to jump in.

I'm not sure if Kerry had a rebuttle, I think I remember one early on. However, at the end I can remember Kerry trying to rebute and not being given the opportunity too do so.

I guess Bush gets more because he is the president. I mean, you've gotta beat the champ, not the other way around.

I really could care less about these two; I know who I'm voting for. GW does need to work on his stage appearance a bit though. I doubt he will make the same mistakes he did at the first one when it comes to posture and stage appearance.

Now, what I'm really looking forward too is the VP debate. That should be a hoot.


[edit on 4-10-2004 by The Big O]


Never ever give any man that much credit. Power currupts. Absolute power currupts absolutly. He had absolute power in this debate. He alone wrote the questions. He alone asked them.

Think about it - everyone has an opinion, including him.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Bush just seemed uncomfortable because he was finally put in a position where he couldn't dodge everything asked of him ...



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 08:31 PM
link   
There were a couple of times that Kerry wanted a rebuttal and wasn't given one. However, he would just use his rebuttal in his next answer. He did that a couple of times.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 08:42 PM
link   
As president John F. Kerry will be expected to formulate policy NOT simply cast a vote or not on someone else's legislation, which i might add is invariably HEAVILY loaded down with all sorts of provisions, and often no particular method of funding it.

You notice how Bush didn't even answer the question

Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?

BUSH: No, I don't believe it's going to happen. I believe I'm going to win, because the American people know I know how to lead.
The man can not even conceive that he could lose in November.
I kept waiting for someone to say 'You haven't answered the question, Mr. President."
John F. Kerry and Jim Lehrer were both More than gracious. Far TOO gracious in my opinion.

The president should be able to RESPONSIBLY answer the numerous questions Americans have about his actions in Iraq.

Jim Lehrer simply asked the intelligent questions many Americans have. Bush simply didn't even have the mental dexterity to answer succinctly or effectively, Even with Karl Rove coaching him in his earpiece.

Some of you so-called conservatives see shadows and bogie men everywhere, Could it be your candidate and his policies you support just don't measure up?

edit: spelling

[edit on 4-10-2004 by slank]



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by muppet
Can anyone find a compiled list of all the questions without having to chop and paste it out of the transcript? It would be interesting to look a bit closer at this.



couldn't find one, but I will cut/paste just for this thread


To Kerry:

Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?

"Colossal misjudgments." What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?

As president, what would you do, specifically, in addition to or differently to increase the homeland security of the United States than what President Bush is doing?

Speaking of Vietnam, you spoke to Congress in 1971, after you came back from Vietnam, and you said, quote, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?

New question. Senator Kerry, two minutes. You just -- you've repeatedly accused President Bush -- not here tonight, but elsewhere before -- of not telling the truth about Iraq, essentially of lying to the American people about Iraq. Give us some examples of what you consider to be his not telling the truth.

Can you give us specifics, in terms of a scenario, time lines, et cetera, for ending major U.S. military involvement in Iraq?

What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?

Senator Kerry, you mentioned Darfur, the Darfur region of Sudan. Fifty thousand people have already died in that area. More than a million are homeless. And it's been labeled an act of ongoing genocide. Yet neither one of you or anyone else connected with your campaigns or your administration that I can find has discussed the possibility of sending in troops.

If you are elected president, what will you take to that office thinking is the single most serious threat to the national security to the United States?

To Bush:

Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?

What about Senator Kerry's point, the comparison he drew between the priorities of going after Osama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein?

What criteria would you use to determine when to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq?

New question, Mr. President, two minutes. You have said there was a, quote, "miscalculation," of what the conditions would be in post-war Iraq. What was the miscalculation, and how did it happen?

Has the war in Iraq been worth the cost of American lives, 1,052 as of today?

Mr. President, new question. Two minutes. Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?

New question, Mr. President. Do you believe that diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the nuclear problems with North Korea and Iran? Take them in any order you would like.

New question, President Bush. Clearly, as we have heard, major policy differences between the two of you. Are there also underlying character issues that you believe, that you believe are serious enough to deny Senator Kerry the job as commander in chief of the United States?

All right. Mr. President, this is the last question. And two minutes. It's a new subject -- new question, and it has to do with President Putin and Russia. Did you misjudge him or are you -- do you feel that what he is doing in the name of antiterrorism by changing some democratic processes is OK?

Source


Oh, Curme - on further review, BOTH were given EQUAL time to rebuttal. And both were given times where they either wanted to a rebuttal and got it or didn't. Read the transcript.

EDIT: To make it easy to read.

[edit on 4-10-2004 by American Mad Man]



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank
As president John F. Kerry will be expected to formulate policy NOT simply cast a vote or not on someone else's legislation, which i might add is invariably HEAVILY loaded down with all sorts of provisions, and often no particular method of funding it.

You notice how Bush didn't even answer the question

Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?

BUSH: No, I don't believe it's going to happen. I believe I'm going to win, because the American people know I know how to lead.
The man can not even conceive that he could lose in November.
I kept waiting for someone to say 'You haven't answered the question, Mr. President."
John F. Kerry and Jim Lehrer were both More than gracious. Far TOO gracious in my opinion.

The president should be able to RESPONSIBLY answer the numerous questions Americans have about his actions in Iraq.

Jim Lehrer simply asked the intelligent questions many Americans have. Bush simply didn't even have the mental dexterity to answer succinctly or effectively, Even with Karl Rove coaching him in his earpiece.

Some of you so-called conservatives see shadows and bogie men everywhere, Could it be your candidate and his policies you support just don't measure up?

edit: spelling

[edit on 4-10-2004 by slank]


First of all, saying he is going to win is simple confidence. Just as every athlete believes he is the best, so does Bush believe he will be win the election. Secondly, that is what is called a bait question, where the person is baited into being overly critical of the oponent. This tends to make people have a bad view of you, and since this was one of the first questions, IMHO, it was good tactical debating.

On the other hand there is Kerry, who answeres this question ohhh so well





As president, what would you do, specifically, in addition to or differently to increase the homeland security of the United States than what President Bush is doing?

KERRY: Jim, let me tell you exactly what I'll do. And there are a long list of thing. First of all, what kind of mixed message does it send when you have $500 million going over to Iraq to put police officers in the streets of Iraq, and the president is cutting the COPS program in America?

What kind of message does it send to be sending money to open firehouses in Iraq, but we're shutting firehouses who are the first- responders here in America.

The president hasn't put one nickel, not one nickel into the effort to fix some of our tunnels and bridges and most exposed subway systems. That's why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there. We hadn't done the work that ought to be done.

The president -- 95 percent of the containers that come into the ports, right here in Florida, are not inspected. Civilians get onto aircraft, and their luggage is X-rayed, but the cargo hold is not X- rayed.

Does that make you feel safer in America?

This president thought it was more important to give the wealthiest people in America a tax cut rather than invest in homeland security. Those aren't my values. I believe in protecting America first.

And long before President Bush and I get a tax cut -- and that's who gets it -- long before we do, I'm going to invest in homeland security and I'm going to make sure we're not cutting COPS programs in America and we're fully staffed in our firehouses and that we protect the nuclear and chemical plants.

The president also unfortunately gave in to the chemical industry, which didn't want to do some of the things necessary to strengthen our chemical plant exposure.

And there's an enormous undone job to protect the loose nuclear materials in the world that are able to get to terrorists. That's a whole other subject, but I see we still have a little bit more time.

Let me just quickly say, at the current pace, the president will not secure the loose material in the Soviet Union -- former Soviet Union for 13 years. I'm going to do it in four years. And we're going to keep it out of the hands of terrorists.




Notice how he didn't even adress his plan untill the very [B]LAST[/B] sentance of his entire response? And even then he didn't say specifically what his plan was, just that he would do it.

If that is his specific plan for all of homeland security, I am affraid, very affraid.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 09:43 PM
link   
.
Bush is in office/power right now. WTF is he doing about it?

ZIP. NADA. NOTHING. ZERO.


Bush is FAILURE in IRAQ.

over 20,000 Iraqis dead. over 1000 American service personell dead.
All for WHAT?
To create a seeding ground for terrorists?
Ones who specifically HATE AMERICA?

Bush is treasonous. If you support him you are a TRAITOR to this nation.
I live in this nation. I love its highest ideals.
Bush crushes those Ideals and murders thousands of innocents because he is wreckless.
His legacy will last for decades at a minimum. Children seeing their parents, friends and loved ones killed by the US. All for NO GOOD REASON.

I believe John F. Kerry, THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, will listen to his military advisors and not Just fire them when they tell him the truth and not the lies he wants to hear.
.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank


Bush is treasonous. If you support him you are a TRAITOR to this nation.


This has to be the most rediculous statement I have seen on this site to date. So I am a traitor because I voted for GWB in '00 and plan on voting for him again in '04? [sarcasm]You are brilliant[/sarcasm]



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 09:56 PM
link   
.
In 00 you could claim ignorance of what wreckless ignorance would create.
The evidence is now in.
Bush supports terrorists. Bush creates terrorists. It is Treasonous to support him. Period.
.



posted on Oct, 4 2004 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by slank
.
In 00 you could claim ignorance of what wreckless ignorance would create.
The evidence is now in.
Bush supports terrorists. Bush creates terrorists. It is Treasonous to support him. Period.
.


Where is your evidence that Bush supports and creates terrorists? So you are saying that 40% or so of the nation is treasonous? You are utterly ridiculous and not worth the effort to type a response to anymore.

[edit on 10-4-2004 by nyarlathotep]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join