Posted on 10/06/2004 11:18:49 PM PDT by kingattax
When you are a liberal reporter, you are TOLD what to think. NO individual thinking allowed!
I still don't understand what people are saying about how bad Bush's expressions were. I really didn't see anything that bothersome going on. I thought Kerry did indeed do pretty well on style, but I didn't think Bush was nearly as bad as some seem to think he was. On substance, Bush was the clear winner IMHO, but I definitely agree with you that he needs to get on offense this time.
Tonight on Jay Leno, Laura Bush said that in the actual debate, from the front row, she didn't see it the way we saw it; must be something about TV.
She and Leno even joked about it, she saying that Bush mentioned something about it in his speech today and Leno saying "Well, when we don't have botox, we actually can move our faces!" or something close to that.
Ah, the Slash and Burn group.
It really depends on your "grading criteria". Evidently you are more impressed by style than content. You should keep in mind it's more important what a candidate says then how he expresses it. You may recall the eight years of "symbolism" over "substance" during the clintoon admin. Unless I'm mistaken, Kerry also received the questions ahead of time from Jim Lehrer...something the sponsoring networks always do in prez debates to help their cvandidate score points.
That is the main issue. Bush is in the position of incumbent defending every decision he has made BUT Kerry is also a known quantity and he cannot be allowed another free pass on his own record. I am not sure how it can happen in this "town-hall" environment of so-called undecided voters. From what I have seen of the undecideds so far in the media is only how many times they plan to try to vote for Kerry.
Kinda reminds me of what Kerry wants to do with our national security.
I think I've been wrong about journalists, I think they do know the truth when it bites them in the butt. I was under the Bernie Goldberg assumption that their liberalism was so ingrained that they didn't know they were biased, but this report makes me rethink that.
When Gregory admits that he saw missed opportunities for Bush, he's admitting Kerry lied, otherwise there wouldn't have been any opportunities for Bush to miss. These reporters know softball questions when they hear them, they throw them out themselves everyday to democrats. And what they saw last thursday was softballs to Kerry and "what did you do wrong?" questions to Bush. Bush won just by the fact that he didn't go over and slap the crap out of the moderater.
So, I think journalists know the truth, but they're so convinced that liberalism is the right way that they ignore it in order to push their own agenda.
That's my theory and I'm sticking to it. :)
Yes the split screen did kill him. I'm not so sure he was looking to bag Kerry in the first debate though. I've posted some thoughts on that under Bush/Kerry Debate One, Rope a Dope?
Check it out.
Look, Bush may not have been a clear loser. He did come off flat and even on FR he only drew 52% of our participants saying he wone. Cheney pulled in a 92%.
I do think Bush will mop the floor with Kerry in Debate 2.
Your points about the questions are something I need to review. I was tired on the debate night and I didn't pick up on what you noticed. I have heard others address it. You may be right on target.
I think the split screen wasn't that bad. For goodness sakes, is this a screen test,,well I guess it is. But I thought Bush won as I was looking at content rather than style. Kerry struck me as using the same technique Edwards did, that of lobbing fifteen criticisms each time he got camera time. It is hard to respond to that and Cheney noted it, twice Cheney said there wasn't enough time to respond or there was too much to respond to. This is throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the opponent then criticizing the opponent for not responding. I dislike that in a debate but others may be wowed by it thus the criticixm of Bush for not answering every charge, for having missed opportunities to zing Kerry. Kerry was just slinging so much crap per minute of debate, it was impossible to answer even a small amount of it.
btw, when I watched the debate (that is, when I was actually in the room and not upstairs screaming.....), I thought that the President was too mild under the attack even though he responded to many of the bombs being thrown at him, but I KNEW that the media would claim a Kerry victory because he was slicker and quicker, and said absolutely nothing at all of substance.
They not only like him because he's a follower, but they like him because they're ALL about an inch deep.......
I think you're exactly right!!! I Tivoed the debate and watched it again yesterday. My initial reaction on debate night was that Bush didn't do well, but I was very surprised when I re-watched it at how strong he was in the first half of the debate. I guess everyone remembered what they last saw, which was the end of the debate where the Pres repeated things and looked frustrated. My husband, on the other hand, thought Bush was the winner all along.
I'll take one "global test" for 1,000 shots of Bush cringing and a thousand other "missed opportunities." Kerry, the MSM, and the collected poodles have had nothing to use except a claim to a "win" and some screen shots that won't change any minds, and that reflect just as much on the object of those expressions as the man who made them.
The Little Senator tried his best to trip up the President. Look for more of the same, plus a little, but not much, more aggression from the President.
Guess you missed the President's speech yesterday.
Look, Kerry was dead wrong about everything, but you know you're in trouble when he starts talking about trusting the North Koreans and is able to make it sound good to the unlearned. You know you're in even more trouble when your guy cant even refute such a stupid position.
You're right--Bush didn't say anything phenomenally stupid like Kerry did. Yet he looked and sounded so dumb...
In any case, he appears to have survived. In my own personal reckoning, I'm taking Florida off the board today, as we have perhaps the fifth poll out of sixth showing him up by three or more.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who is still voting for Bush after last week's performance will be voting for him no matter how badly he does or how stupid he looks in the future.
"Rope A Dope?"
I think we are looking at pure genius at work. I think that the plan was for President Bush to appear flat and tired at the last debate. They knew the media and Dems would freak out with excitement with his poor performance. The bar has now been lowered for President Bush for the upcoming debates. He will come out swinging and will WOW everyone. The focus will NOW be on Kerry's record. He will also use his poor prior debate performance in a humorous, self depracating way which the public always loves. Kerry will be seen as negative, dour and stiff and President Bush will be seen as strong, optimistic and human. The polls will put President Bush way ahead and he will win by a landslide. IMHO
Well hell, this is what I thought all along. Even here on FR, folks were disappointed in Bush, but the idea that he "lost" took some time to grow and spead. I think that, contrary to the media mantra, he held his own, drew blood with some jabs, and elicited sympathy with his occasional pissed-off expressions.
I thought and still think that Bush won. I guess I don't change my mind based on the most recent polls. Tho Bush did miss opportunities to counteract--but you wonder if everyone seemed to know what opportunities Bush could have given Kerry some zingers then I wonder how many people actually knew the obvious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.