Liberal Bias: A Sign Of The (NY) Times
By Bonnie Chernin Rogoff (10/12/04)
Watching the second debate, President Bush was relaxed, confident and clearly came across as the winner. The town hall format has an advantage in that candidates can be viewed as they interact with audience members who purportedly are independent voters, answering questions regarding policy issues. Once again, Senator Kerry spent more time criticizing President Bush than presenting his own plans for how he would lead the country in a time of war.
There was a distinct difference in facial expressions and body language that revealed Senator Kerry as disingenuous. He was caught off guard on questions where he didn’t have handy talking points available, such as when asked about stem cell research and abortion.
When asked about invading Iraq, Senator Kerry mentioned the Duelfer report: “The goal of the sanctions was not to remove Saddam Hussein. It was to remove the weapons of mass destruction…just yesterday the Duelfer report told you and the whole world, they worked.” That’s not true, and he skirted the main point. President Bush referred to the same report and corrected Kerry: “Saddam Hussein was gaming the oil-for-food program to get rid of sanctions. He was trying to get rid of sanctions for a reason. He wanted to restart his weapons programs.” In this regard, Saddam Hussein posed a threat to America. Now that he is removed from power, President Bush correctly stated that by rebuilding Iraq, we are creating stability and spreading democracy throughout the world. Fighting terrorism at home won’t work by making deals with our questionable allies in the United Nations.
President Bush was asked what three mistakes he made and how he would correct them. That’s a trick question. Once he admits to errors, the mainstream press would immediately pounce on it and berate his judgment and leadership abilities. As it happened, President Bush did admit to minor appointments he regretted, and the New York Times editorial response was typically critical:
“One of the uncommitted voters in the audience sensibly asked President Bush to name three mistakes he’d made in office, and what he had done to remedy the damage. Mr. Bush declined to list even one, and instead launched into an impassioned defense of the invasion of Iraq as a good idea. Even worse, the president’s refusal to come up with even a minor error…underscores his inability to respond to failure in any way except by insisting over and over again that his original decision was right.”
Why wasn’t Senator Kerry asked a similar question, such as: “What three pieces of flawed legislation did you introduce, and what was you’re your response when your fellow Senators rejected your proposals?” He wasn’t asked because he’d have no answer, since his Senate record is insignificant.
In the same editorial, the New York Times accused President Bush of resorting to “name-calling” because he called John Kerry “a liberal and a tool of the trial lawyers.” Is it name-calling to tell the truth? Times editors further criticized President Bush’s response on Supreme Court appointments, saying he was “utterly incoherent,” (not true…he was funny) and then stating his response was “an unfortunate one, given the fact that the president owes his job to a Supreme Court vote. Leave it to the objective New York Times to replay Election 2000 and the Florida recount, the results of which seem to be haunting the judgment of their editorial staff writers to this day.
Senator Kerry’s responses on abortion and stem cell research revealed him as dishonest and ill at ease when confronted with issues he can’t tackle sans handy democratic talking points. One audience member asked if it wouldn’t be more useful for the government to pursue adult stem cell research, since adult cells have cured or treated thousands of people whereas embryonic stem cell research has been a failure. Senator Kerry gave a long answer, but didn’t address the main issue: adult stem cell research is superior, so why destroy embryos?
As Senator, John Kerry consistently voted against partial birth abortion bans and parental consent laws. His response on partial birth abortion was self-serving, and frankly, insulting. You don’t have to be Catholic to oppose infanticide. The case he tried to make about a daughter being raped by her father is the exception, and does not represent the millions of minor children who are undergoing these dangerous surgical and medical procedures without parental knowledge.
However, billionaire Kerry’s most absurd moment came when he tried to portray President Bush as a small business owner who received $84 from a timber company. At last count, Kerry with his wife owns 5 manors, a jet, a yacht, an $8,000 bicycle, and Heinz outsources their food processing overseas. President Bush’s response was, well, priceless: “I own a timber company? That’s news to me. Need some wood?”
In case anyone missed it, when the debate ended President Bush mingled with the audience members, while John Kerry walked over to Charlie Gibson where they shared a warm and cozy encounter, exchanging smiles as the senator patted him on the arm. Is that indicative of an impartial moderator?
I just can’t wait to see if the third debate brings more fair and unbiased media coverage.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Bonnie Chernin Rogoff
