Bush wins first Debate!

Regardless of outcome, be ready for it, it is coming to your news feed tomorrow, while you're having your coffee and watching Katie Couric supress her hormonal lust for Matt Lauer. The art of lower expectation that has been hammered at us since Debate I of 2000, has continued unabated. This week, I had the stomach turning displeasure of watching, on prime time network "news", actuall discussions and in depth analysis of Bush's eyebrows & lips conveying leadership, as well as a reporter telling us that men vote for presidents based on whether or not they feel they could share a beer with da guy.......... NETWORK NEWS........in PRIME TIME......a month BEFORE AN ELECTION

We have a concerted effort by the complcit corporate media to prop up Bush & create a sense of faite d'complet with continued siting of inaccurate polls, as described here: Artificial Poll Numbers. What good is the ABC/Gallup poll if it starts off with a 40% Republican to 33% Democrat sampling!??! HELLO, McFLY !?!?
What sense does it make to continuelly site "Registerd Voters", and NOT mention that voter registration has increased by 250% in some areas!!!!!???!?! Those folks ain't registering Republican, either.

So regardless of your stripe, contrary & not including the overt Fascist element on the Right too evident on online discussion boards, I do believe that most people want a non-handicapped fair fight, because they think their man ( Kerry, Badnarick, Bush, Nader) has got the goods.

Conservatives, Liberals, Progressives, Moderates, Independents all need to be up in arms over this manipulation.

[edit on 30-9-2004 by Bout Time]

I am absolutely in agreement with you 100%. The vast majority of the media (particularly fox news) paints Bush's campaign as successful and Kerry's falling to tatters. The continual portrayal of this makes people believe it and then they flock to the supposed victor like rats off a sinking ship.

Distortion of the truth is a massive problem in the media today.

drfunk

I was actually talking with my boyfriend about this same thing last night. Mind you, he works for the State Department, so he pretty much knows what he's talking about. They said on one of the news channels (forget which one we were watching) that Bush defeated Gore in the 2000 debates. I was like "what?". My boyfriend said "yeah, because he didn't look like the bafoon that he usually does, they consider it a victory for him." What a bunch of BS. Gore tore him to shreads IMHO.

Well, Kerry tore him to shreds last night, hehe....

Originally posted by Bout Time
We have a concerted effort by the complcit corporate media to prop up Bush

Like Dan Rather and CBS on the memogate lies? Or, more recently:

CBS Reporter Defends Draft Story
October 1, 2004 13:29:22 EDT

INDC Journal talked to three people from CBS News about their draft story, which cited a fake e-mail and failed to identify one of the interviewees as an activist.
Richard Schlesinger, the reporter for the story, Sandra Genelius, a CBS News spokeswoman, and Linda Karas, producer for the piece, all defended their story.
:
INDC: "Probably the main concern with the story is that the e-mails that are shown in the piece are false; they've been debunked on various internet sites long ago ..."

Schlesinger: "The fact is, they were going around. I know several people that got them, and it�s gotten people all riled up. Whether or not there�s any reality to there being a draft, is almost besides the point. Do I think there�s going to be a draft? No. But it's an issue that people are talking about."

Incredible, the way the mainstream media is attempting to smear Bush with lies. You would have thought tht CBS would try to recoup some shred of dignity after the memogate prevarication.

I added the emphasis in the quote. It brings new meaning to the saying, "The facts, though interesting, are irrelevant".

The above is from the following link.
CBS (Communist Broadcasting System)

:shk:

Originally posted by Gazrok
Well, Kerry tore him to shreds last night, hehe....

Yeah, its hard to put a spin out that Bush won the first debate. I was shocked to see even the Conservative media felt Bush blew it regardless of his positions being weak or strong:

The ever-cautious mainstream media is mostly calling Bush-Kerry Round 1 a draw this morning. Perhaps they don't trust the instapolls or the folks in Ohio. Perhaps they are CBS.

But a number of conservatives are calling it like they saw it -- and it ain't pretty for their man.

Jay Nordlinger, managing editor of the right-wing flagship National Review magazine, wrote up his thoughts immediately following the debate, without talking to anyone else or listening to other commentary. He said that an effective, relaxed Kerry "spoke clearly, and at a nice pace," while Bush, "a little desperate," pulled a Dan Quayle. (Ouch.) Here is part of his take on the president's quagmire in Coral Gables:

"I thought Kerry did very, very well; and I thought Bush did poorly -- much worse than he is capable of doing. Listen: If I were just a normal guy -- not Joe Political Junkie -- I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate, I would. If I were just a normal, fairly conservative, war-supporting guy: I would vote for Kerry.

"Kerry went right to the alliances. He emphasized the importance of such relationships. At least you can't accuse him of succumbing to Republican mockery on the subject, of shucking this core conviction of his. Bush, throughout the evening, as Kerry spoke, had that pursed and annoyed look. I think it must have driven many people crazy. ...

"Bush said, 'We're makin' progress' a hundred times -- that seemed a little desperate. He also said 'mixed messages' a hundred times -- I was wishing that he would mix his message. He said, 'It's hard work,' or, 'It's tough,' a hundred times. In fact, Bush reminded me of Dan Quayle in the 1988 debate, when the Hoosier repeated a couple of talking points over and over, to some chuckles from the audience.

"Staying on message is one thing; robotic repetition -- when there are oceans of material available -- is another� I hate to say it, but often Bush gave the appearance of being what his critics charge he is: callow, jejune, unserious. And remember -- talk about repetition! -- I concede this as someone who loves the man.

"Bush was weary -- harmfully weary, I think. He let a million opportunities go by."

(Did we say, ouch?) Read Nordlinger's entire lengthy analysis -- it's honest, and it's brutal.

This morning Nordlinger had some company on the Dan Quayle point: Fox News icon Bill O'Reilly, on his morning radio show, also berated Bush for saying Iraq was "hard work" over and over in the debate. Then there was Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol (Republicans are "deflated"), and conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan (a "Carter-Reagan rematch," with the two parties flip-flopped).

And how about those critical women voters? "Bush blew an opportunity," was the assessment of Janice Shaw Crouse, spokesperson for the Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee:

"Bush was inexplicably unfocused; he lacked energy and seemed distracted. He didn't seem prepared. He struggled to talk knowledgeably about his record -- his clearly outstanding record. Bush virtually sleepwalked through the debates, only occasionally mustering up the passion to hammer home his points.

"The president allowed John Kerry to set the agenda and ended up on the defensive. He simply needed to be presidential and stand on his record; instead he repeatedly answered his opponent and bowed to Kerry's agenda. �

"The net outcome is that Kerry exceeded expectations; he skillfully, if not honestly, addressed all the accusations against him. Bush did not live up to expectations; he did not even seem presidential. The Bush campaign had hoped to seal the election with the first debate; instead, it is going to be a long road to November 2."

I felt neither won. They both performed under par for many differnt reasons. Only reason that people are saying Kerry won is becuase he is a better orator.

Originally posted by JediMaster
I felt neither won. They both performed under par for many differnt reasons. Only reason that people are saying Kerry won is becuase he is a better orator.

That is half of what a debate is. What you say, and how you say it. Neither of them dropped any bombshells or brought up things that haven't been done to death. Kerry just did a better job of covering that up.