Poorly Framed Questions Reflect Media Slant

What’s up with the Dem media operative “hit jobs” on Rep candidates during the debate on Thursday—the questions are framed in such a way as to “implicate” the candidates just because they are Republicans.  Let me remind you the moderators, or “operatives”, were Tim Russert and Brian Williams, both lib water carrier media personas.

The way they frame some questions forces the candidates into a hole they must climb out of .  Take for instance the question on running away from the “republican record” to date on the economy, followed up with the poll question on Iraq.   I’ve clipped some transcripts below, and I believe they are rather obvious and enjoyable examples of Terror Media bias leaning toward Dems and big government control.

Russert: The Wall Street Journal-NBC News asked people all across the country in our poll today, "Which party would be better in dealing with the economy?" The Democrats had an 18-point advantage.

With that in mind, and looking at the record over the last seven years, the unemployment rate in 2001 was 4.2 percent; it's now 5.0 percent. The debt was $5.7 trillion; it's now $9.2 trillion. There was a $261 billion surplus; there's now a $250 billion deficit. Gas was $1.47 a gallon; it's now $3.02.

Why should the American people continue a Republican in the White House with that kind of economic record, Senator McCain?

Wow!  Where’s the acknowledgement of the Clinton recession Bush inherited and the        911 attacks?  Throwing stats out, especially from an NBC poll is fishy.

Russert: Governor Huckabee, George Bush has been president since 2001. The Republicans controlled Congress for most of those years, losing control in 2006. With this economic scorecard, why should the American people keep the Republicans in charge?

Notice the repetition here of, “Why should the American people keep Republicans…”

Huckabee: Well, Tim, let me remind you I wasn't in Washington during all of this time. So that's one of the reasons they ought to give me a chance, since I wasn't there messing this up.

Good answer, but Tim hops right on it looking for a Huckabee implication and possible head line.

Russert: So you do think that President Bush and the Republicans in Congress did not measure up?

Russert: Governor Romney, higher deficits, higher debt, higher unemployment, higher gas prices. Is that the kind of Republican record that you want to run on?

Nice, Tim is like, “Mitt, just give it up because your party sucks.”  I love how Mitt answers here and he rises above Tim’s little jab.

Romney: I'm not going to run on that record, I'll tell you that. I can run on my own record. I can run on my record of having been in the private sector for 25 years, my record for having helped turned around the Olympics, my record as the governor of Massachusetts. I'll run on that record of accomplishment.

Russert: Will you run away from this record?

Ha!  Another try by Tim to get a Candidate to damn his own party.  Mitt keeps it “Washington” and that hits both parties.

Romney: What I'll do is I'll run away from the record of Washington. You see, Washington is fundamentally broken. Washington has made promises to us over the last decade that they just haven't been able to fulfill.

You can go down the list. They said they'd solve the problem of Social Security. They haven't. They said they'd rein in spending. We got all sorts of people, almost every congressman and senator says they're going to cut spending, cut those earmarks, cut that mentality in Washington. But somehow, every year more and more and more money goes in.

They said they'd live by high ethics. They haven't. They said they'd solve the problem of illegal immigration. They haven't. They said they'd get us off of foreign oil. They haven't.

Issue after issue that's been raised over the past couple of three decades have -- has been spoken about, and Washington has failed to deliver. And I'm not going to...

Russert: Both parties?

Romney: Both parties. And change is going to have to begin with us in our party. We are the party of change. We are the party of fiscal responsibility.

And when Republicans act like Democrats, America loses. And you've seen that over the last several years. We're going to have to make sure that we rein in spending. It's not just -- we all agree, the earmarks and the pork barrel spending and the bridge to nowhere, that's an easy one to take a shot at. But the big one is entitlements and reining in entitlement costs. And that's where the big dollars are.

And then you go on to say how are we going to bring down taxation, because we have the highest tax rate next to Japan in the world? That hurts our economy.

What you're seeing in the weakening dollar, in the declining stock market, in foreign countries coming here to buy into our banks, you are seeing an underground -- the foundation of our economy being shaken by the fact that we haven't been doing the job that needs to be done in Washington.

And I'm going to Washington to change Washington.

            Nice.  Well said and a very presidential way of answering Tim’s pointed question.

Williams: Congressman, time is up.

As promised, our colleague, Paul Tash, the editor of the St. Petersburg Times, has been very patient with us. We're going to go to some of the questions that have been sent in locally for the candidates.

Paul?

Now, here’s a good one about Iraq—It sounds like it came from that buffoon from CNN, Cafferty.  Who are “Our military leaders” and “economic experts?”  I love it.

Paul Tash: Senator McCain, this question comes to us from William Harper of Bayonet Point, Florida. "Our military leaders tell us that our Army is on the verge of breaking, and our economic experts tell us that we cannot sustain our economy through the deficit spending. Both tell us we cannot sustain our present effort in Iraq. You have stated that you would leave troops in Iraq for an indefinite period. How will you do this, both militarily and economically? Please, no generalities."

McCain: I know of no military leader, including General Petraeus, who says we can't sustain our effort in Iraq. So you're wrong.

            Well done by Micky.  “So you’re wrong” works good for me here.

The fact is, we're succeeding in Iraq. We're going back down to previous levels, and we will be able to withdraw troops over time if we succeed.

Russert: The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll today, the highest percentage ever of Americans, six in 10, said that the removal of Saddam Hussein from power was not worth the price we have paid in blood and treasure.

Every Democratic...

Excuse me, please.

The Democratic nominee will go to the country and say the war in Iraq is a bad idea, not worth the price in blood and treasure, and we should get out.

I want each of you to take 30 seconds.

Will you go to the country, Senator McCain, and say, the war was a good idea, worth the price in blood and treasure, and we will stay?

This is phony.  Tim frames this “bad idea/good idea” thing from the poll and his Dem nominee comment and couples it with the favorite phrase “blood and treasure.”  First of all, war is never a good idea, it is a last resort.  And second, what is freedom worth?  I’ll tell you, 40 million babies over 30 some years.

McCain: It was worth getting rid of Saddam Hussein. He had used weapons of mass destruction, and it's clear that he was hell bent on acquiring them.

The problem was not the invasion of Iraq. The problem was the mishandling of Iraq for nearly four years by Rumsfeld.

And again, I railed against that. I was criticized by Republicans. There were others that called for a phased or secret withdrawal.

The war in Iraq was justified because of the threat of Saddam Hussein. It was the mishandling of the war.

Now we're on the right track. Now we are succeeding. And if we withdraw and if we decide that we have to get out of there, I guarantee you, Al Qaida will be trumpeting to the world that they have defeated the United States of America.

            Yes, they will.

Russert: Senator, my question is...

McCain: Your -- my answer.

Russert: ... was the war a good idea, worth the price in blood and treasure?

Here’s the repetition thing again.  Tim is good at this, and I think he knows it will make a good tv add for the Dem nominee depending on the answer, and McCain saying the war was a Good Idea is one.

McCain: It was a good idea. It was not worth the failures that happened, but it is worth it at the end of the day, because we will have peace and success in the Middle East, and our men and women will return, and return with honor, and they won't have to go back and fight Al Qaida there.

Russert: Mayor Giuliani, was the war a good idea and worth the price in blood and treasure?

            Repeat.  You are getting very, very sleepy….

Giuliani: It's very, very interesting, the way you put that question is with a poll, because when the polls were six and seven out of 10 Americans thinking it was a good idea, Hillary Clinton was in favor of the war. And now when the polls are six out of 10 are against, Hillary Clinton is against the war.

To be...

Russert: What does Rudy Giuliani think?

Giuliani: I was for it when six out of 10 were for it. I'm for it when six out of 10 are against it. I'm for it not because of polls, but because America is in a war, an Islamic terrorist war against us.

Russert: Congressman Paul, was the war a good idea, worth the blood and treasure that we have spent?

Russert: Governor Huckabee, was the war a good idea? Is it worth the cost in blood and treasure?

Russert: Governor Romney, was the war in Iraq a good idea, worth the cost in blood and treasure we have spent?

Repeat, repeat, repeat.  When you wake up, you will rub your tummy when you hear a bell….

Romney: It was the right decision to go into Iraq. I supported it at the time. I support it now.

It was not well managed after the takedown of Saddam Hussein and his military. That was done brilliantly, an extraordinary success. But in the years that followed, it was not well -- we were under- managed, under-prepared, under-planned, under-staffed and then we came into the phase that we have now.

The plan that President Bush and General Petraeus put together is working. It's changing lives there and, perhaps most importantly, it's making sure that Al Qaida and no other group like them is becoming a superpower, if you will, in the communities and having a safe haven from which they launch attacks against us.

It's critical for us. When we think about debating the Democrats, they might want to go back and talk about what happened at the beginning. But the most important issue is what do we do now, and they're just run and retreat, regardless of the consequences, is going to be a real problem for them when they face a debate with a Republican on the stage.

Next is Romney’s response to a draft question I left out.  I included Mitt’s response because he nails the Dems about midway through and refers to General Hillary Clinton.  He received great applause here.

Romney: Well, I'm recommending that we add 100,000 active-duty personnel to our military. We're right now at about 1.5 million. Take that to about 1.6 million.

We found in our state that we were losing enrollees for the National Guard at about 6 percent per year. And the legislature and I got together and passed something called the Welcome Home Bill.

We said, you know what? If you'll sign up for the National Guard, we'll pay for your entire education for four years.

We put in some other benefits as well -- life insurance and other features that we decided to pay for. And the result of that was, the next year enrollments went up 30 percent.

And so, if we want more people to sign up for the military, we have to improve the deal. And frankly, our G.I. Bill has gotten a little old. We need to update our funding level for that so that young people who go into the military get a full ride as they come home and get to go into college.

But let me step back also and just talk about what we saw the night with the Democratic debate as we think about the commitment that needs to be made to Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is simply unthinkable that the Democrats would have said at that debate when they were asked, "What's more important to you, that when we get out or that we win?" that with their answer -- they wouldn't answer directly, but with each of their answers, it was very clear getting out was their only objective. Just get out as fast as you can, regardless of the consequences. And that's simply wrong.

We cannot turn Iraq over to Al Qaida and have Al Qaida have a safe haven from which they can recruit people to carry out bombings, to attack this country and our friends around the world. It's unthinkable, and that's why I will not walk away from Iraq until we have been successful and finished that job.

And one more thing.

What an audacious and arrogant thing for the Democrats to say, as Hillary Clinton did, that they are responsible for the progress that the surge has seen by virtue of their trying to pull out so quickly. Look, the success over there is due to the blood and the courage of our servicemen and women, and to General Petraeus and to President Bush. Not to General Hillary Clinton.       

This line of questioning to Romney is Key and great.  Mitt is giving some ideas to Obama here.

Russert: Governor Romney, as has become apparent over the last few weeks, if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she'll be running as a team with her husband.

Specifically, how would you run against Hillary and Bill Clinton in November?

Romney: I frankly can't wait, because the idea of Bill Clinton back in the White House with nothing to do is something I just can't imagine. I can't imagine the American people can't imagine, and I...

Russert: What does that mean?

Romney: I just think that we want to have a president, not a whole -- a team of husband and wife thinking that they're going to run the country. And instead, you want to elect a president.

But I'm not going to run on the basis of Bill Clinton. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, it's going to be Hillary Clinton. It's going to be her positions and her postures on a whole series of issues. And frankly, she is so out of step with the American people on everything from taxes -- she wants to raise taxes.

She has a plan for health care. Her health care plan, quite simply, is one which says, look, we're going to give health insurance to everybody by the government. It's going to cost $110 billion more, every single year, $1 trillion plus dollars over 10 years.

Her approach to the war in Iraq -- just get out as fast as you can. Just don't even think about the sacrifices that have been made, or the need to keep Al Qaida from establishing safe havens.

She's exactly what's wrong in Washington. I said before Washington is broken. She is Washington to the core. She's been there too long. Bill Clinton has been there too long.

The last thing America needs is sending the Clintons back to Washington.

            Well said.

Look, sending the same people back to Washington expecting a different result is not going to get America on track. And I'm going to make sure that we strengthen this country and we do it the old- fashioned Republican way, the Ronald Reagan way of pulling together economic conservatives, social conservatives and foreign policy, national defense conservatives.

I speak to those three groups. I will pull them together. That's how we'll win the election and that's also how we're going to keep the country strong and vibrant.

This next question is HORRIBLE and very insensitive.  How is Mitt’s religion appropriate for the “all knowing, all just” free Terror Media to bring up?  There is no religious test to run for any office in America, yet, the bastards at NBC make it an issue—just shows who the real divisive bigots are in America—the Terror Media.  Give this one to Barack, but change the “Mormon” to “Black.”  OHH MAN!!

This question is so illicit and inappropriate.  You know, it’s not even a question, it’s just thrown out there for Mitt to tackle.

Williams: Governor, we've got an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll coming out in the morning that says, among a lot of other things, 44 percent of respondents say a Mormon president would have a difficult time uniting the country. And I know you've answered similar questions about what you were able to do with the Catholic vote in Massachusetts, but 44 percent nationally, writ large, is a large number.

Romney: You know, I just don't believe that people in this country are going to choose their candidate based on which church he or she goes to. I just don't believe that. And, you know, polls ask people a lot of questions. And my faith isn't terribly well known around this country. But I don't think for a minute the American people are going to say, you know what, we're not going to vote for this guy for a secular position because of his church. I just don't believe it.

I think when the Constitution and the founders said no religious test shall ever be required for qualification for office or public trust in these United States, that the founders meant just that. And I don't believe for a minute that Republicans or Americans, for that matter, are going to impose a religious test when the founders said it's as un-American as anything you can think of.

I just don't believe it.

I think when the Constitution and the founders said no religious test shall ever be required for qualification for office or public trust in these United States, that the founders meant just that. And I don't believe for a minute that Republicans or Americans, for that matter, are going to impose a religious test when the founders said it's as un-American as anything you can think of.

And so I believe that I'll ultimately get the nomination. I can't be sure of that, but I'm pretty confident. And I believe in a head-to-head with Hillary Clinton.

The differences in our perspectives on how to get America going again and how to get us on the right track are as different as night and day. She takes her inspiration from the Europe of old, big brother, big government, big taxes. I take mine from Republican ideals -- small government, small taxes, individual freedom.

I believe that free American people are the source of America's greatness. And so I don't think you're going to see religion figuring into this race after people have had a chance to get to know all the candidates.

I realize I’ve been pretty long here, so I’ll make the next part short.  So, before closing, allow me to indulge a “flip” here and come up with some “well framed” questions Tim and Brian ought to pose to Hillary and Barry:

Tim Russert:  There have been over 40 million abortions  since Roe vs. Wade made abortions legal some thirty years ago.  Is abortion a good idea, and are 40 million aborted babies worth a woman’s right to choose?  Senator Clinton….

Brian Williams:  Senator Obama, you said you would invade Pakistan if there was actionable intelligence on killing Osama bin Laden.  Is that a good idea, how could you trust the intelligence, and is it worth starting a possible nuclear war?

Get the Point?