irateplatypus

I have a lot of respect for Jim Lehrer. He and Brit Hume are my favorite newsmen, I can't think of anyone more qualified. How do you feel about his choices for questions in this last debate? Read down this list and tell me if you felt either candidate had an inherent advantage in any of the questions by virtue of there direction, phrasing, and/or person addressed. Questions in bold were addressed to Kerry with a rebuttal by the President, underlined questions were asked in reverse.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

pan6467

The questions were good, fair and I think pretty straight. I don't think, however, that either candidate was thrown a fastball. I think both sides rehearsed very well.

I am no Bush fan, but I did hear and agree, somewhat, with this statement,

"President Bush is filled in everyday, at least once about foreign affairs and the war. However due to national security he can't reveal anything. So when Kerry is saying as President he would do this that and the other thing, Bush may not have been able to be as "liberal" with what he could say." = Mike Trivisonno, WTAM 1100AM in Cleveland.

Makes sense, not saying Bush would have had better answers just saying he may know things that we are doing that aren't in the "media's eyes".

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Zubon

There probably should have been something about Senator Kerry's record, either recent or in the past twenty yeras of Senate service. He is on the intelligence committee, and he was in the Senate the last time we went into Iraq. It makes sense to focus on recent events and the most pressing issues of the day, but I think there must have been time for one question on that front. I count six variants on, "Was Iraq a good idea or a mistake?"

It was nice that a quarter of the debate addressed the rest of the world. Granted, they still tied everything back to their talking points about Iraq and the war on terror, but we at least had questions on North Korea, Iran, Sudan, and Russia.

I also like that Jim Lehrer more or less tossed out the rule that he got no follow up questions. Perhaps he had all of those written down ahead of time or just fiddled with the order, but it certainly felt like he was asking for elaboration on an answer given, even if it was not "No really, I want specifics on that one. Try again."

JumpinJesus

I also think he did a good job moderating. His follow up questions allowed each candidate to respond more at length than the 90 or 30 seconds they were allowed on responses. I also agree with pan in that, though the questions were fair, some of them weren't tough enough. Both candidates were allowed to use rhetoric or talking points in place of detailed responses in some cases.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

roachboy

bush simply was outmatched in the debates.
what kerry did not do to him, he did to himself--the maradonna-like sequences of scowls and snippy faces, the ignoring of the rules to interject some extra, aggressively pointless soundbite,

why not simply accept it?
why bother to even try to blame the moderator?

but maybe leherer was not the problem...
there is no reason to stop with him--biais can be found everywhere...

why not check out the lighting crew? clearly there was some kind of biais in the lighting.

why not the sound guys? maybe there was unflattering biais in the way the sound was mixed--maybe keeping bush's responses audible was part of some Leftist Master Plan....

why not the camera people who insisted on keeping the camera on bush as he scowled and grimaced and grew snipper and snipper?

why not the producers? clearly the decision to stage the debates at all was evidence of an anti-bush biais.

why not the networks? they allowed the event to be televised, which clearly was not a netural decision.

why not astrology? the stars simply have it in for people sometimes.




what i thought was interesting about the debate is what happens to bush when he cannot control the discourse.
it is as if bush only really speaks a particular, arcane dialect---conservativespeak----when he uses that dialect, he loads up on coded messages to tickle and flatter and reeassure other members of conservativeland.
but bush seems unable to shift out of that dialect and, like most conservatives, cannot either articulate or defend the premises of his position if he is asked about them in ways that are not already shaped by conservative discourse itself..

the debate was as much about the fragility and limited nature of conservativespeak, of right political discourse as a whole, as it was about bush's particular situational ineptness(es)....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

roachboy

addendum: given that the debates are in the end about the audience, and given the problems i have with trying to get any handle on how people are reacting to the campaign/election process outside of the cities, i thouht this series kind of interesting.
bbc had been trying to generate a series of snapshots of the american electorate--

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3705144.stm

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

iccky

I think he did an excellent job. One of the best parts in my opinion is how he challenges Kerry to defend some of his more extreme statements about Bush, and therefore gives Bush a change to defend himself, something he normally would not have. Asking Kerry to defend things like his colassal misjudgement statemtn and his assertion that Bush mislead the American people, and giving Bush a chance to show why those things were not true, is a great service to the public.

The fact that Bush failed, for the most part, to take advantage of this, is yet another reason to vote Kerry

sprocket

He was a fair moderator. He asked questions that I think a lot of people have wanted to ask these two since the campaigning began. Good job Jim. Too bad it seemed like most of the questions were for the most part ignored and the time alotted for the answer was used as the candadites own personal soapbox for which to rant about whatever they felt like getting off their chest (IMHO). But thats not Jims fault.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

aceventura3

Given the circumstances Lehrer did a good job.

The problem was in the rules. He would ask a tough question and often get b.s. answers and was not able to challenge the b.s. adequately.

We need debates where b.s. can be challenged.

When Kerry says: "I can do it better"

Q: What does that mean? What would you do better?

A: "I would build a real coalition".

Q: How?

A: "I would provide real leadership."

Q: What the f**** does that mean?

A: "Duuuuuuuuuh? I can do it better, I can build a coalition, I can provide real leadership.

Q: Mr Kerry you are a master at b.s. aren't you.

A: You are attacking me, how dare you call me unpatriotic. I served in Vietnam, I faced real combat, I am married to Teeerrrrassssaaaa.

aceventura3

I not sure we saw the same debate.

I think Bush was dumbfounded. How many different ways is there to explain the Iraqi situation. For Bush there is only one way, and it doesn't take 45 minutes to explain. I understand it, and it is clear. If there are people who don't get it by now they will never get it.

What I don't understand is Kerry and his position(s) on Iraq. Kerry can talk for 45 minutes say nothing and he wins the debate? At home watching and listening to Kerry, I was making the same faces Bush was making. I can't wait to see the Democratic commercials with Bush making those faces, its going to actually hurt the Democrats.

guthmund

I think Jim Lehrer did a fine job.

He couldn't possibly call them on their bullshit answers (and there were quite a few, from both sides.) He did, however, try to direct the candidates to answer each other's challenges, which, in my opinion, is what a moderator is supposed to do.

I don't think there was an advantage given to either candidate. I think both candidates had opportunities to "zing" their opponent. Some were taken, some weren't.

I think Lehrer was pretty fair to both of them.

__________________
No signature. None. Seriously.

Paq

I think the moderator did a decent job, but ace...i don't know if we were watching the same debate...seriously...doesn't it scare you that bush did look dumbfounded???
Don't you think it's scary that bush couldn't explain it in that one way that doesn't take 45 minutes...

Don't you find it scary that you find it so clear when soooo many people don't...and you expect those peopel to understand it from a man who looks sooo dumbfounded?

Hell, that scares me....

__________________
Live.

Chris

scout

I find it scary that a shenanigan like this can be called a "debate". This was the left playing into their candidate's campaign and giving him every oppurtunity to attack while showing little respect for a sitting President. There is absolutely no way anyone leaning right, left or middle of the road can honestly look at those questions and say it was "fair". That's what scares the hell outa me!

Paq

ok, while this isn't exactly what i'd call a perfect debate...still...this is working within in the rules...and considering bush's group put in most of hte 32 PAGES of provisions, i'd say he could have at least have shown up, shown that he was informed, shown that he was on top of things, and shown that HE GIVES A RAT'S ASS ABOUT THIS COUNTRY.

as it was, his performance just shows that he thought the job was cakewalk and that he is WOEFULLY un-qualified...

__________________
Live.

Chris

QuasiMojo

being the fact that I was working 2nd shift, I caught some of the debates on the 'net.

It hemmed and hawed the whole night through.

/damn you streamy dreamy media

__________________
AzAbOv ZoBeLoE

aceventura3

We are at war with terrorists who will kill innocent people randomly to promote their ideology. They want the world converted to their ideology. They want to control through fear and intimidation. They can not be negotiated with. We have been under attack for over a decade. We have tried reolutions, they have failed. We have tried getting France, Germany and Russia directly involved, they won't. The central battle ground is in Iraq. (For the US it is better to fight the war in Iraq than here) We know and the terrorist know the central battle ground is Iraq. If Iraq becomes a free nation, the foundation is laid to end Islamic terrorism. The overwhelming majority of Iraqi people and Islamic people want to be free of terrorism, fear and intimidation.

Kerry doesn't get it. I am as dumbfounded as the President. Why doesn't Kerry get it? Or, does he get it, but is willing to do and say anything to get elected?

Do you get it? The terrorists wanted to kill you and me before Bush and if we don't handle this now they will want to kill you, me and our grand-children long after Bush is out of office. Unless you are willing to conform to their views of the world.

sprocket

It doesnt take much research to see that Kerry does get it. He was spouting comments regarding Iraq that woulda made George proud for years. All over TV and the senate floor. Strangely enough his tune changed when the democrats decided they wanted an anti-war presidential nominee.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

cthulu23

This would be a good point if it were true. Unfortunately, it is not. See factcheck.org for the details.

dy156

he was trying, I really believe, to be fair and impartial. But he's such a journalist that his bias crept in just a little, and I really think the way the questions were worded reflected that.
That having been said, it was nothing that Bush should not have been able to overcome, and is no excuse for his performance.
Don't know if this has been discussed yet on these forums, on Saturday Night live, Ben Affleck, as James Carville speaking to Kerry, said (paraphrased):
"You beat George Bush in a talkin' contest. That's like Wilt Chamberlain playing basketball with Stephen Hawkings and winning by 2 points. Don't get too excited. "

DJ Happy

Yes, well, if the US wants to carry on like this, what can you do? They have big guns.

aceventura3

I don't understand what you mean.

Islamic extremist don't like the fact that we have women who can do what they want (vote, go to school, get a sun tan, etc.). They don't like the fact that we buy oil from the middle east. They don't like the fact that Israel exists. They don't like the fact that their children like our movies, music, food and clothing, etc. (although, I guess they don't mind visiting with American prostitutes before their suicide missions to kill innocent people). They don't like the fact that we are a nation of laws and hold criminal accountable without torture and murder.

Perhaps you mean they don't want to carry on like this.

cthulu23

It's interesting to note that the perception of the media by some of the public has reached such a low point that the term "journalist" is synonomous with bias. Historically, that title conferred an air of fairness and of even handedness. Journalism has it's own ethical guidelines with bias as one of it's greatest sins.

Too often today, I hear people shouting "bias" when what they really mean is "I don't agree with what you are saying!"

OpieCunningham

Or maybe you're just disappointed in your candidates performance.

All of the questions Lehrer asked where vital questions to the state of the nation. If you think Kerry needed to be called on whatever shit you think he needed to be called on, Bush had the opportunity to do it and failed. Senate record? Bush should have brought it up and made it stick (were there any questions to Bush about his business failings, record as Gov in Texas or his failure to do anything about Al Qaeda before 9/11? No. Because those questions are not vital to this nation.)

Bush had nothing, so he lost.

dy156

yes, it is sad, but no, I'm not saying he's biased because I disagree with him.
I knew what I wrote was ironic, but I absolutely meant it. I have also said that FOX news is biased to the other extreme, too. That's why I watch FOX and other news sources -to get the complete picture. Would you expect a FOX NEWS reporter to give fair and balanced treatment to Kerry? Of course not. Nor would/should you expect Jim Lehrer to do so with Bush.

cthulu23

I would consider Fox News to be blatantly biased and truly the worst example of American "journalism." Personally, I think any comparison between Fox News and Lehrer is a stretch given Fox's naked partisanship, but that's just my opinion.

dy156

Have you ever watched PBS or listened to NPR?!!
Cute songs for intros, no big FOX power graphics, but they're more liberal than Dan Rather or Katie Couric on a bad day.

DJ Happy

What I meant was that I was unable to distinguish between the US and Al Qaeda based on this description: "They want the world converted to their ideology. They want to control through fear and intimidation. They can not be negotiated with. We have been under attack for over a decade. We have tried reolutions, they have failed."

Islamic extremists don't really care what your women do, they don't care that you vote, they don't care that you buy their oil (in fact, they love it), they don't care that your movies are against what they believe in, they don't care about your system of justice, they don't care about you "not torturing criminals" (of course, the US just tortures those who haven't been proven to be criminals yet) but they do care that your ideologies are being forced upon them and that you have influence over their countries.

It's very important that you understand this. They couldn't care less about the way you live, as long as you don't try to make them live the same way. And that's where the problem lies.

aceventura3

The American culture is not being forced on the world, people of the world like it and want it. People like the ability to have freedom of choice and to be able to go as far as their talents will take them. Islamic extremist don't want people in Islamic countries to freely choose their lots in life. They blame the fact that their own people want certain freedoms on the US. That is why they have declared a holy war against this country.

When a guy like Saddam wants to and has invaded neighboring countries, murders hundreds of thousands of his own people, uses chemical weapons, wants to develop nuclear weapons and would use them, I guess the thinking of the United Nations and most Democrats in this country is to do nothing. If you leave him alone, he won't bother the US?

cthulu23

As I said, that is just my opinion, but given such Fox allegations that "John Kerry looks french," the executive memos that prescribe the days spin for the reporters and other such twaddle, I'd say that Fox easily takes the biased crown.

roachboy

a good analysis of the faux news phenomenon:

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/sto...319956,00.html

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

boatin

First of all, my view of Saddam is pretty close to this. I would hazard a guess there isn't a person that posts on this board that thinks Saddam was a warm and cuddly leader of Iraq.

Secondly, your last sentence isn't what the poster you are responding to AT ALL. His point is a different one. I doubt it will do much good, but here is what I think he is getting at:

If we want the Iraqi people to support us (and quit shooting us!), it would be helpful to see the world they way THEY see the world. That doesn't mean changing the way you see the world. It means having a bit of empathy. Seeing the world the way they do doesn't make you weak, it doesn't make you wrong, it doesn't make them right, it's just empathy.

When you have empathy with someone, or some group, they tend to know that - and that makes communication and everything else easier. Think of the last time you fought with your girlfriend/wife. Take an absolutely hard line the next time you know you are right and she is wrong. Good luck.

I know full well that some will read this and somehow think I'm saying something I'm not. Oh well. Not the time and place for subtleties and shades of grey I guess. We're at war, after all...

aceventura3

I guess that must be the problem with guys like me and Bush. We think the Iraqi people want to be free to make what they believe to be the best choices for their lives and their families. I think they want to live in peace, and to be respected and treated with dignity. However, I think what Islamic extremist want is far different than what most Iraqi people want.

Are we wrong? If we are wrong how do they see the world, what do they want?

aceventura3

I re-read your response and could not let the above statement go. The US government does not sanction torture. If war criminals or political prisoners have been tortured, those responsible will be held accountable. I know our system is not perfect but we are diligent we try to be a just and open society. And, people have the right/obligation to speak-out and challenge our government. What we do, we do in the "light of day".

boatin

I would like to believe this. I think we are a little further from perfect than you do. Couple of thoughts:

What happened to Paul O'neil and Richard Clarke when they spoke out and challenged our government? What happens to anyone that speaks out against this administration?

And as for sanctioning torture:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846
I'm not done reading this yet, but it casts reasonable doubt...

boatin

Would you believe there are people that are cynical about the US's interests? You surely want them to be free. I don't doubt that for a second.

But if you were living there, and saw the building of military bases, seen the devestation of this war, seen an unplanned for aftermath, etc, wouldn't you be a little itty bit cynical? Perhaps enough to turn off your logical brain and let your emotional one free?

It's easy for us to trust American interests. A bit harder for Iraqi's to trust us. I trust my own family more than you would, too.

Try to understand that mistrust, make a plan to work around it, try to win the proverbial peace. That's what I ask of our government. But all I see is more "you're with us, or you're against us". It's damn hard to welcome that approach...

aceventura3

I think the guy above being willing and able to write and publish his book tells me alot about our country.

I think O'neil and Clarke made a sh** load of money. I gues O'neil didn't need more money, but he is doing pretty good even if you assume the nation is slimey/vile/corrupt or whatever word some would use.

aceventura3

So, what should we do? Work to earn the trust or just leave?

aceventura3

I did not finish.

I think we have been trying to as you say "make a plan to work around it". Bush has not got credit for anything positive. Or perhaps it is just our media. But, it the Iraqi's don't appreciate our help, perhaps it is time to leave.

DJ Happy

Who's talking about your culture? No-one's talking about watching American Pie movies or wearing Levis. The US has a history of supporting and enforcing regime change throughout the world regardless of the wishes of the people it affects. Did anyone ask the Iraqis if they want democracy? No. Yet you talk as though you speak for the entire population of the earth, when you don't and the entire population of the earth doesn't want you to. Why do you think Osama Bin Laden is more popular in the Arab world than Bush? Because of McDonalds???

At the moment Saudi Arabia is preparing for its first local elections. In conversations with the locals, hardly any of them are going to vote because they're content with the way things are.

Islamic extremists want the US out of their lands. They want to be able to live their lives the way they want without having the US telling them what to do and how they should be doing it.

No-one is saying that Saddam was a nice person. But the blatant hypocrisy on show is that there are many more tyrants in the world who operate without reproach from the US or even with their blessing. Some of these tyrants are far more of a threat to the US than Saddam could ever be. Yet nothing is done about them. Why doesn't Bush invade Sudan or Rwanda, where state sponsored genocide is the norm? Why doesn't he invade Zimbabwe, where "democracy" has evolved into starvation of the populace and imprisonment or death to government opposition, not to mention blatantly racist agendas? Why don't they invade North Korea? Or China for that matter?

After you invade a country and reduce it to rubble is the wrong time to be asking these questions.

Then explain Camp X-Ray.

aceventura3

You think Osama Bin Laden is more popular in the Arab world than Bush. If true why is Osama hidding in a cave somewhere. If he is loved he would be protected and not need to hide.

True, we did not ask the hudreds of thousands of people killed by Saddam if they wanted democracy. For the people still alive, they will make their decision in January, assuming the terrorists allow it or we defeat them.

That is o.k. with me. I just hope they choose not to support international terrorists. If they do, there has to be consequences.

What about those who are not Islamic extremists in those lands, do they get input?

I have never understood the logic in that argument. If a doctor is treating an accident victim with multiple wounds. The doctor has to decide which injuries to treat first, that doesn't mean the other injuries are not serious and won't be treated. Just like in our war on terror, we can disagree on the strategy but we can agree somthing has to be done. So what is the point of your arguement, one of strategy or are you saying we should not do anything. If you say strategy, then you have to agree that action is required in Iraq.



[quote]After you invade a country and reduce it to rubble is the wrong time to be asking these questions.[\quote]

I don't think Iraq has been reduced to rubble. We could have done that, but we did not. We have taken extra-ordinary effort to minimize Iraqi casualties and destroying the country.


Not familiar with it.