SwiftVets.com

[swiftsocks]

I disagree. Charlie Gibson, one of the moderators of the 3 debates, has a serious axe to grind with Kerry. When Charlie Gibson pressed Kerry about throwing his medals over the fence, Kerry went postal.

Although Gibson isn't one of my favorite people, I have no doubt that he is armed and ready to defend his journalistic honor. I hope he shows up for the debates with 8X10 glossys of Kerry competing in the "Medal Toss"

My question is : With the onset of the 11 point lead from the convention, the "in your face" speech by Zell Miller, Rudy Guiliani, Arnold and last but not least....the "the greatest fence sitter of all times" John McCain.....
"are the gloves really off ? "

IF THE GLOVES ARE REALLY OFF.......let the first question be......"Senator,
did you tell the whole truth in "Tour of Duty ". And...if John ONeil and the SVBTs are lying...why haven't you sued them ?

The only other words I want Kerry to hear........

"You have the right to remain silent"

[Scott]

I want to hear "I refuse to answer that question because the answer might tend to incriminate me"!!!!
_________________
Bye bye, Boston Straggler!

[Big Kahuna]

Why will the media (even Fox) not press him with consorting with the enemy in France while in the reserves. Is that really such a hands-off question?
_________________
Top 10 Weasels.com is where Kerry is Weasel #1

[rhv5862]

One of Kerry's strong points is his debating skills. Even former Gov Weld of Massachusetts gave Kerry some praise for those skills when talking about his debates with Kerry. Mr. Baker will make sure it is not one sided and I do believe Gibson will be fair. The other 2 may lean left a bit but if they show to much of that the public will see right through it. Something like that could work in President Bush's favor.

RHV

[Jack Mclaughlin]

Jim Baker and Carl Rove are a lot smarter than I but to allow this thing to get this far along is puzzling to me. They should have not allowed Janet Brown ( liberal executive director of debate commission) to arbitrarily appoint these 4 people is a huge disadvantage for Bush. I agree Charlie Gibson would be the fairest but he may owe Kerry something after calling him on the medal tossing stuff. The commission should have put up a dozen possibilities and allow each side to choose and had two debates each for president and v.p. Of course Brit Hume should have been included in that pool but it was my understanding he was never seriosly considered.

[ASPB]

[truecons]

The following is my post in a similar thread at Free Republic (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1207822/posts). It deals with some of the same points raised here. Reply numbers refer to FR thread. May seem a little harsh, but for crying out loud, people...what are we thinking?

P.S. Couldn't find any info on Janet Brown's affiliations. Does anybody (Jack Mclaughlin ?) have anything indicating her inclinations? Thanks

---------------------------------

I can’t believe how NAIVE some of you are. Don’t you know what’s at stake here? 3000 innocent Americans were killed by sociopathic Muslim terrorists, more terrorists are being recruited every day, and you guys are acting like this is a high school debate on whether there should be pop machines in the lunchroom.

This is LIFE AND DEATH, folks, and it is knock-down, drag out politics, where every single one of thousands of factors is critical. It is ESSENTIAL that the debates be fair. They will be the single greatest factor in persuading the undecided voter. Undecideds will make final decisions on such factors as body language, how the candidate responds to manipulative questions, and who screws up the least. To concede beforehand to an uneven playing field is about the stupidest thing we could possibly do. It would be like Patton saying, “OK, Germany, go ahead and have 3 times as many tanks in the field as we do. We’re right, you’re wrong, and we’re destined to win.” How do you think we got Clinton?

We must IMMEDIATELY demand that the moderators be balanced. Some of you apparently haven’t even bothered to get the facts straight. They’re right on their web site, for crying out loud. Do some reading. The presidential moderators will be Lehrer, Gibson and Schieffer. Vice-pres will be Ifill. There is NO indication these conditions are tentative. As indicated in reply #9, for the first and third debates, “the moderators will select all topics and questions”. It couldn’t be any clearer. Does anybody actually believe Lehrer and Schieffer won’t use the same manipulative questioning tactics they’ve used all of their “professional” careers? COME ON, folks...wise up!

Pageonetoo: This is not “good”. It is a disaster waiting to happen. One trick question and a temporary lack of good judgment on the part of Bush and that’s all we’ll see on the nightly news from then till Nov. 3.

Redcloak: Saying “ I don't think that even a stacked deck of lefty mods will help Kerry” is like saying the liberal media hasn’t helped every Democrat that has won the presidency since Roosevelt. How can anybody say that an uneven playing field won’t help the opposition? How would you like to play a basketball game with mines on your side of the court?

TC Rider: Nowhere on their site is it suggested these terms are tentative. If Bush is going to change this, he’d better get moving on it. Care to make a bet on whether this changes?

GRRRRR quotes Ms. Brown saying, “she thinks the mods will be totally competent to ask the questions the public is most interested in ... because The Mods are ‘journalists’ who understand what is going on.” Geeminy Cripes in a Five Gallon Bucket !!! Has anyone been listening the last five years? This site has posted article after article proving the liberal bias of the media, including that over 80% of national journalists vote Democrat! Ms. Brown is either delusional or a liberal operative (I guess that would mean she’s both). But just because she doesn’t get it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t. WAKE UP!

IndyTiger: The most important debate is probably the last one. Debaters will tell you that while the first impression is important, the last word is even more so. If Bush does well the first debate and poorly the second, people will retain their last impression, which will be negative.

ClearCase_guy got it exactly right. The power of the leading question is enormous. To have that power consistently used against Bush and for Kerry for three debates is an uphill fight we cannot afford to agree to.

Imaverygooddriver: You’re living in a dream world. According to your logic we never would have had a Dem president in the last 60 years. “Everyone” does NOT “see the lunacy of the left”. Just because you and I do doesn’t mean the undecided voter does. They apparently didn’t in 92 AND 96.

TomGuy: Visit the site. Read the info. For cryin’ out loud, take the time to read reply #9! You don’t even have to go to all the work of going to another web site! “The moderators will select all topics and questions”! Don’t you guys READ?

G.Mason: “It will give GWB an opportunity to showcase his adeptness at dealing with the left”. OK. How about giving Kerry “an opportunity to showcase his adeptness at dealing with” the right? Let the best conservative interviewer have a crack at Kerry and see how he does. THAT would be fair. But having it so one-sided is a tight-rope act without a net only a fool would agree to.

I don’t know if the recent poll numbers have given some of you a terminal case of over-confidence or what. But you NEVER intentionally go into an event with a built-in bias. It’s a recipe for DISASTER.

The Wizard: What are you talking about? The site says NOTHING about this being tentative, and the president will operate under the rules set by the organization, or not attend. Have you heard ANYTHING about Bush refusing to attend because of the bias of the moderators? Until then, they are tacitly agreeing, and are being very unwise.

Shortwave: Just because a liberal accidentally asks a tough question doesn’t mean he’s not a liberal. Liberals HAD to cover the Lewinsky story, after Drudge broke it, to avoid looking like total partisan hacks (which they are anyway). But they spun the thing silly. Lehrer “fair”? Have you been watching his show lately? He’s in full “loaded question” mode. Conservatives are sorely in need of seminars to learn how to detect the manipulative tactics of leftist journalists.

Bottom line, no wonder conservatives are losing. We are pathetically naive and childishly optimistic. The last 4 years haven’t even been close to a conservative victory. It has been a slowing of the decline at most. A $600 tax cut and a victory in Iraq don’t reverse a Federal government that is 70% unconstitutional, the killing of 1.5 million innocent children every year, the debauching of our currency, etc., etc., etc. Until we get serious enough to fight every battle like our freedom depends on it (because it does), and until we stop sticking our heads in the sand every time the situation calls for fairness and the liberals give us a crap sandwich (which they do), the drive over the cliff is just a little slower.

Reply #33 gives the link to contact the GOP. INSIST that these debates are structured fairly. Mark my words, if we screw this up and Kerry wins, we will regret it more than words can express.

[rhv5862]

aspb I sure hope your right in that "it won't work in America".

RHV

[ASPB]

[Navy_Navy_Navy]

Moving to the geedunk..... thanks!
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother

[Integrity]

Anyone who's ever watched President Bush deal with the White House Press Corps knows the presence of leftist bias as a moderator doesn't phase him in the least. I don't care much for any of them, especially Sheiffer, but if it's true that the debates will be watched by undecideds than the more biased the questioning the better for President Bush.

The key will be how fast W gets a rise out of Kerry as Senator Unhinged appears to have a real temper problem. He's just liable to wind up one of his Don't you know who I am routines ? or better he can dust off I will not have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could've and who misled America into Iraq.

I can see him scoring lots of points with moderate undecideds with that tact. \sarcasm

Kerry has yet to provide a single instance of why he should be elected. In fact as Ron Fournier points our (hardly a Bush Supporter) As he opened the fall campaign by criticizing Bush's economic record, Kerry said Friday, "The president wants you to re-elect him? For what?"
Voters will be asking a similar question: You want us to send an incumbent president into early retirement. For what?

Full article herehttp://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002435.php

Don't let your hearts be troubled. President Bush will decimate whatever is left of Kerry that the Swift Vets haven't obliterated by the debates.
_________________
"What our enemies have begun, we will finish,"
- President George W. Bush

[Jack Mclaughlin]

Thanks truecons, You laid it out much better than I. Too many do not understand how critical this issue could be. These debates could cancel out all the hard work we have accomplised here in the past four months. Imagine my consternation when I went on-line this morning finding this post had been removed from the main forum which only proves your point, that our people do not comprehend the significance of this development. Having observed Janet Brown`s ties to Harvard University and her appearancces on C-Span, plus the way she conducted herself as Executive Director of the Presidential Debates Board leaves no doubt in my mind who she is. One of the moderators, Bob Schieffer, even denounced the swiftees on the Don Imus Show as " the most despicable bunch in all my years in broadcasting." Your right truecons, we need to wake up.

[truecons]

To confirm the problem, the following appeared in the New York Times, Sept. 10 (by way of http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1211718/posts)

Campaigns Enlist Big Names to Set Debates' Details


"...For all their negotiating talent, the debate teams are likely to be able to affect only so much. The bipartisan commission has said it will not negotiate its selections of moderators, locations and dates, meaning that except for a few issues like how many debates the candidates will actually participate in, the assembled power brokers could spend much of their time arguing over camera angles and lighting..."(emphasis added)

Please contact the GOP and urge them to boycott the debates unless fair moderators are chosen.

[PC]

Kerry would like as many debates as possible so that he can take every possible position on every issue.

[msindependent]

I'm not worried because truth is on Bush's side. I will be happy to send out emails to the people in charge if you guys think we need too. If I were him, I won't even debate (we are at war).