Who elects the President?
What you're trying to do is trying to decide for the voters how we go forward. The voters need to hear this morning from four candidates, or say the media now is going to select candidates. . . . Let's have an open debate and go into Super Tuesday, or say that you guys want to decide the nominee.
Al Sharpton to CBS News' Dan Rather and the New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller during the pre-Super Tuesday debate.
I just finished reading the New York Times transcript of this debate. It is very clear from this debate that CBS is hostile territory to any Democratic candidate. The questions posed were, in and of themselves, attempts to smear the candidates. And, in addition, Sharpton and Kucinich, both of whom had interesting things to contribute to the discussion, had to fight tooth and nail with Bumiller and Rather to make their voices heard at all.
Anyway, here are a few highlights:
The first question required the candidates to expound on their religious beliefs. The question of why this is relevant or even appropriate in a nation that is ostensibly not a theocracy burns brightly in my mind. Interviewing for any other job, the question would never come up because anti-discrimination laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of creed, yet this was CBS's opening salvo in this debate. This question is irrelevant to fitness to serve and serves no purpose other than to allow voters to discriminate among the candidates on the basis of creed. They do all believe in God, by the way, and Kucinich can even quote scripture.
A bit later Kerry and Edwards are asked if they are Liberals. The question is posed as if a charge is being leveled, as if being "Liberal" disqualifies you not only from public office, but from proper society as well. That was alarming enough, but Edwards and Kerry both responded as if they had just been accused of killing kittens and devouring their entrails. Only Kucinich was willing to publicly confess to the crime of possessing a social conscience. How long are we going to allow the rhetoric of the opposition deprive us of language?
Another apalling question was when Edwards was asked if his supporters knew the kind of wealth he possessed. What purpose does this question serve except as an attempt to somehow smear him? Kucinich appropriately asked what Edwards' wealth had to do with anything. And really, does CBS imagine that Edwards' supporters are too stupid to have noticed that presidential campaigns tend to be a rich man's hobby?
More appalling behavior from CBS occurred when a very good discussion among the candidates of how best to resolve the situation in Iraq was interrupted so that the candidates could be asked whether they would attend servicemen's funerals, even being asked to defend the statement (which none of them had made) that the president should attend every funeral. The candidates answered well enough, but an important policy discussion was thwarted so time could be given to what was essentially an appeal-to-emotion question.
On the question of keeping America safe, Edwards was handed a loaded question challenging his credentials. He answered adequately, but when Sharpton interjected to point out that Bush was stonewalling the 9/11 comission, he was interrupted by Bumiller and the question redirected to Kerry, who changed the subject to ecomomics.
Back in the land of superficial questions, CBS asks the candidates if they think they're likable enough to beat Bush. The stupidity of such a question is resounding; the voters will assess their "likablility." The real purpose of such a question of course is not to seek an answer but to sow doubt among the voters about the "electability" of these candidates.
And now for the final outrage, the coup de grace, Bumiller asks: "Really quick, is God on America's side?" This is a loaded question if ever there was one. To answer "yes" is to appear every bit as sanctimonious as Bush, to answer "no" is to appear to hate America. Kerry was caught off guard. Edwards answered beautifully by citing a story in which Lincoln, upon being asked to join a prayer that God would be on his side opted instead to pray that he was on God's side. A graceful escape from a question should not have been posed.
This debate was very frustrating because of CBS insisted on posing questions that were thinly disguised attacks rather than serious questions about policy. Sharpton's quote above is, I think, the best overall summary of this debate. CBS is framing questions in ways designed to sow distrust in all of these candidates, even as they give Bush a free pass on some very serious problems with his presidency.
I imagine this is what the presidential debate will look like:
Rather: Mr. Bush, can you tell us your favorite color?
Bush: Certainly. Blue, because on the flag blue represents the unquestioning loyalty Americans must grant me to keep terrorists from eating their children.
Bumiller: So, Mr. Kerry, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Kerry: Errr. . .
But hey, it's what I'd expect from the Cheney-Bush Sycophants.
Al Sharpton to CBS News' Dan Rather and the New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller during the pre-Super Tuesday debate.
I just finished reading the New York Times transcript of this debate. It is very clear from this debate that CBS is hostile territory to any Democratic candidate. The questions posed were, in and of themselves, attempts to smear the candidates. And, in addition, Sharpton and Kucinich, both of whom had interesting things to contribute to the discussion, had to fight tooth and nail with Bumiller and Rather to make their voices heard at all.
Anyway, here are a few highlights:
The first question required the candidates to expound on their religious beliefs. The question of why this is relevant or even appropriate in a nation that is ostensibly not a theocracy burns brightly in my mind. Interviewing for any other job, the question would never come up because anti-discrimination laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of creed, yet this was CBS's opening salvo in this debate. This question is irrelevant to fitness to serve and serves no purpose other than to allow voters to discriminate among the candidates on the basis of creed. They do all believe in God, by the way, and Kucinich can even quote scripture.
A bit later Kerry and Edwards are asked if they are Liberals. The question is posed as if a charge is being leveled, as if being "Liberal" disqualifies you not only from public office, but from proper society as well. That was alarming enough, but Edwards and Kerry both responded as if they had just been accused of killing kittens and devouring their entrails. Only Kucinich was willing to publicly confess to the crime of possessing a social conscience. How long are we going to allow the rhetoric of the opposition deprive us of language?
Another apalling question was when Edwards was asked if his supporters knew the kind of wealth he possessed. What purpose does this question serve except as an attempt to somehow smear him? Kucinich appropriately asked what Edwards' wealth had to do with anything. And really, does CBS imagine that Edwards' supporters are too stupid to have noticed that presidential campaigns tend to be a rich man's hobby?
More appalling behavior from CBS occurred when a very good discussion among the candidates of how best to resolve the situation in Iraq was interrupted so that the candidates could be asked whether they would attend servicemen's funerals, even being asked to defend the statement (which none of them had made) that the president should attend every funeral. The candidates answered well enough, but an important policy discussion was thwarted so time could be given to what was essentially an appeal-to-emotion question.
On the question of keeping America safe, Edwards was handed a loaded question challenging his credentials. He answered adequately, but when Sharpton interjected to point out that Bush was stonewalling the 9/11 comission, he was interrupted by Bumiller and the question redirected to Kerry, who changed the subject to ecomomics.
Back in the land of superficial questions, CBS asks the candidates if they think they're likable enough to beat Bush. The stupidity of such a question is resounding; the voters will assess their "likablility." The real purpose of such a question of course is not to seek an answer but to sow doubt among the voters about the "electability" of these candidates.
And now for the final outrage, the coup de grace, Bumiller asks: "Really quick, is God on America's side?" This is a loaded question if ever there was one. To answer "yes" is to appear every bit as sanctimonious as Bush, to answer "no" is to appear to hate America. Kerry was caught off guard. Edwards answered beautifully by citing a story in which Lincoln, upon being asked to join a prayer that God would be on his side opted instead to pray that he was on God's side. A graceful escape from a question should not have been posed.
This debate was very frustrating because of CBS insisted on posing questions that were thinly disguised attacks rather than serious questions about policy. Sharpton's quote above is, I think, the best overall summary of this debate. CBS is framing questions in ways designed to sow distrust in all of these candidates, even as they give Bush a free pass on some very serious problems with his presidency.
I imagine this is what the presidential debate will look like:
Rather: Mr. Bush, can you tell us your favorite color?
Bush: Certainly. Blue, because on the flag blue represents the unquestioning loyalty Americans must grant me to keep terrorists from eating their children.
Bumiller: So, Mr. Kerry, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Kerry: Errr. . .
But hey, it's what I'd expect from the Cheney-Bush Sycophants.