Nat'l Review Blames the Moderator

[TexasSissy]

What is National Review's response to *'s big loss at the third debate? Well, blame the moderator, of course! That's what the Repubs ALWAYS do when their guy doesn't do well at a debate, if there is any way they make it stick. Here's a snippet from the article at http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/graham200410141018.asp



October 14, 2004, 10:18 a.m.
Bad News Bob
Dan must have been pleased.

By Tim Graham

Bob Schieffer was easily the worst moderator of the four selected by the Commission on Presidential Debates, the one who most clearly favored John Kerry. This might not be surprising — after all, CBS has emerged this year as the network favoring John Kerry to the point of spreading forged documents across the country to paint Bush as a man who defied orders.


The spin was apparent from the first question, when Schieffer asked, "Will our children and grandchildren ever live in a world as safe and secure as the world in which we grew up?" This echoes the Kerry back-to-normalcy theme, that we should have less terror over terror.

[trotsky]

1. Go figure, I thought Schieffer was a bit harder on Kerry.

Asked twice a question mainly about "how do you pay for all of this" while simultaneously not challenging * to defend his out-of-control spending.

[Wickerman]

2. Funny, guy on MPR this morning said that Bob failed to follow up

on both of them and that lobbed some softballs Bush's way.

:eyes:

[bullimiami]

3. forged documents?

there has been no proof that the guard documents were forged. \
and bob and his brother are close friends of the bush family.

mr graham you are a HACK.

[truhavoc]

4. Well it all proves that Kerry won the 3rd debate!

I think Bob did a great job, and Kerry should ask to be on Face the Nation this Sunday. I think Edwards did a great job and Kerry could keep up the momentum without the Bush lies every two minutes.

[TexasSissy]

10. Yep. I think Shieffer did a great job. Very neutral. Good questions.

Plus, he's just a very likeable guy, IMO.

[high density]

5. Forgive us for not loving this world of bogus colored terra alerts

How in the hell was that first question spin? Was it because it was against Bush's campaign based on fear? That's Bush's fault, not Kerry's or the moderator's.

[Cha]

6. bob schieffer threw soft balls at bush and

didn't bring up stem cell research(even though Christopher Reeve just passed on) and the Environment was not brought up..even though the Earth is "In The Balance"!

Those ungrateful fascists at the national review should get a clue.

But, I agree, he was the worst!

[Supersedeas]

7. Scheiffer was tough--no doubt about it, but this is about the election of

the most powerful man in the world.

President Bush has been isolated for so long, they have forgotten that a President does have to answer tough questions from time to time.

Most Bush did not bother answering the tough questions:
Assault weapons, minimum wage, Roe v. Wade, or the nature of homosexuality.

And his dodginess showed.

[Viking12]

8. If Scheifer was pro-Kerry he would have asked

some questions policy questions about stem-cell research & the environment, NOT irrelevant "religious" questions.

[liberal N proud]

9. That is a farce, the questions pandered to bush

• Question 6 -- Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?
• Question 7 -- How does Kerry handle criticism from Catholic archbishops?
• Question 14 -- Would Bush like to overturn Roe v. Wade?
• Question 18 -- What part does faith play in policy decisions?
• Question 19 -- How can the president unite America?
• Question 20 -- What have you learned from your wife and daughters?

Sure were no tough questions on Energy or Environment

[hatrack]

11. If NR is blaming the moderator, it's an admission that (yep, once again)

George screwed the pooch! He's a fucking loser, and even they can't hide it any longer.

[GoBlue]

12. Which of course is why Bob brought up wedge issues.

Abortion, homosexuality and gay marriage. Never mind the environment or a recent report that we may only have a few years to stop global warming before it goes critical; if it hasn't already.