I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Kerry!
(It's time we start Eschaton threads with a senator who's worthy...)
don't forget jumpin for joy.
My morning newspaper reports that Cameron was the author -- no surprise there.
Did they expect a performing seal?
Did they expect a fucking cartwheel?
They said, "You're a lock.
You'll clean Kerry's clock."
Now he's trashing my war-hero spiel.
Who's winning the post-debate spinfest?
I really haven't been able to watch too much TV...
I've been too busy finding the normal planes of space curves...
(RN)CNN.con is now spinning that Kerry won BUT:
"But the debate was not all bad news for Bush.
Viewers said they they trusted Bush more to be commander in chief.
Both the ABC and CBS polls found the debate had very little immediate impact on people's vote.
And look at the record of who viewers thought won the first debate in previous presidential campaigns.
In 1984, they thought Walter Mondale beat Ronald Reagan in the first debate.
In 1988, Michael Dukakis edged out then-Vice President George Bush.
The first debate in 1992 was a big victory for Independent candidate Ross Perot.
And in the first 2000 debate, Vice President Al Gore edged out George W. Bush.
None of those first debate winners won the election."
It doesn't matter
A friend works at Fox News. He tells me that Cameron is a jackass.
Why weren't they pointing this out before the first debate? We could have dispensed with it and started with the second one...
Given the paragraph about power outages right after, I think that that section of the article is just a grab-bag, and the author doesn't intend us to connect the silence with Bush's annoyance. Take them as they are, as two disconnected facts.
I loved a comment I heard last night - I think it was on Tweety where some right wing pundit said "Well, nobody really watched the first debate."
Only in Republican spin land are 70 million Americans "nobody".
*snicker*
No, its the nervous reaction people get when you see someone reacting poorly to criticism. You sort of feel sorry for the person, and therefore you become uncomfortable and silent.
Fox and 'Campaign Carl' is definitely biased, but I don't see it here. He's just describing what actually happened.
Ever get the impression that these fuckers might realize the gig is up?
Breaks my heart, really it does...
i think he's saying the liberals fear bush's mad rage skills and kerry was in shit now for daring to anger the bush
"I think that's fine — I hope they send it far and wide," Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie (search) told FOX News after the debate. "The fact is, the president was listening to Sen. Kerry and taking notes ... they would rather have that kind of distraction than talk about the facts."
Hardy har har. Yep, the facks. What a maroon. And Karen Kafoot Hughes commented that the Bush Boys facial expressions were a reaction to the "senator's misrepresentations".
Talk about sour grapes.
"A friend works at Fox News. He tells me that Cameron is a jackass."
I work in my basement and I could have told you that.
ooooh, me askeered of presnit bush!
Ever get the impression that these fuckers might realize the gig is up?
Just too bad there can't be a purge.
Maybe they will flip-flop like the rest of Rupert's empire did in England, where they flip-flopped from backing Thatcher and her cronies to backing Blair when it was obvious he was going to win.
perhaps the reporters were simply appalled and shocked at what they saw.
I didn't get to watch TDSWJS's post-debate coverage until last night, but I thought it showed the folks in spin alley behind Biden as very happy and almost giddy and the folks in spin alley behind Guliani (heretofore, "Bugeye") as pretty grim.
Check out Carl during a preinterview with Bush in 2000. He is fawning all over him.
heretofore = hereinafter
Need coffee, I guess.
I am of the thought the press and media were almost traumatized into remembering what a President should be. The visible dichotomy between Kerry and Bush was profound. To be brief, I think at least for some, there is some serious soul searching. Note I said for some.
...And in the first 2000 debate, Vice President Al Gore edged out George W. Bush.
None of those first debate winners won the election.
Er, actually IIRC, Gore sorta did win the election.
Carl: "My head is up?" Bush's ass? Jesus, what a suckup.
"And Karen Kafoot Hughes commented that the Bush Boys facial expressions were a reaction to the "senator's misrepresentations"."
What Karen is saying is that Bush demonstrated he clearly lacks the emotional maturity to be president.
His "reaction" should have been to simply offer a rebuttal and counter what he perceived with inaccuracies with true facts. That's how you win debates.
Instead, Bush showed his true colors - that he's a petulant, immature and petty man who is completely knocked off his game at the first perceived slight.
Thanks for pointing this out to us, Karen. Because a grown man who acts like a spoiled adolescent is in no way qualified to handle the daily pressures of being POTUS.
This is the spin I've heard quite a few times now:
"Well, we won't really know who won the debate for a few more days because people need time to really think it over before they come to any final conclusions."
And this:
"Kerry may have won on style, but Bush wins hands down on substance, and that's what's really important."
Think about it. A Kerry Presidency would mean that every time a Democrat came onto Fox News, he/she could use the argument: "We need to show respect for President Kerry and the office he holds as the war-time leader of this great nation. You guys remember beating us over the head with that one for the last four years?"
But first, I'm looking forward to seeing Hannity's head explode on live TV as Kerry takes Florida and the electoral votes in his column surge past 270.
schadenfreude_on_tap
"We need to show respect for President Kerry and the office he holds as the war-time leader of this great nation. You guys remember beating us over the head with that one for the last four years?"
ROFLMFAO - That will be Great!
When you are reduced to explaining your master's facial expressions, it is time to find a new dungeon.
And it looks like Fox may have posted a doctored photo of Bush and Kerry on it's website
Central Scrutiner:
Where have you seen the "We don't know who has won yet" meme? I have a letter to fire off for that one.
Thanks for the video link, 'sconi. Didn't Carl start the organization Smacked-Asses for Bush? What a dweeb. Camaronies????
Yeah, like you need something like this to 'prove' that Fox is biased.
MWO had a permalinked story on their site (I don't think it's there anymore) about Brit Hume giving a talk to a Republican meet-up. Apparently some of the nuttier Repubs had complained that Fox was too (cough) liberal, so Brit rattled on in his speech about how good a job he thought Fox was doing for "our" side.
Gee, did anyone ever bother to think that the corporate-owned media is just that, and that different organs have party affiliations, for example, Fox is a Republican TV operation, whereas the New York Times is essentially an outlet for Democratic Party talking points, propaganda, and the like.
No, noone bothered to think that the real issue with media is not party affiliation but corporat ownership. Oh no, wait, now I am a "troll" because I did'nt echo the (incorrect) viewpoint that the corporate owned media is actually just a vast Republican conspiracy to make John Kerry look bad. Oh no, now I am a troll again. Boo hoo.
"No, its the nervous reaction people get when you see someone reacting poorly to criticism. You sort of feel sorry for the person, and therefore you become uncomfortable and silent."
Yes, totally. What the hell did people see in this guy. He's done more damage to this country than we can possibly imagine. Decades from now 'innocent' americans will be killed in payback for something we will have long ago forgotten about.
In the debate, idiot-boy took the position that criticism denigrated and demoralized our allies and troops. Fuck that. The fact this stupid fucking warmongering idiot has been in the white house for four years should make us all ashamed.
I think we thought it ok we could be stupid. We were wrong.
Has anyone seen the White House transcript of Bush's post debate speech?
Favorite part -- transcribing audience reaction into the transcript.
Reminds me of Good friday mass, when the congregation was given the choice of Barabas or hero of the story and we were meant to say "Crucify him" over and over. (Very traumatized ex-Catholic.)
whoops -- here's the speech:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/r...0041001-
10.html
WHOOOOO-CARES???? About the Fox reporters. Did anyone think that they wouldnt be biased in favor of the ignoramus currently in the White House. I think its wonderful. I wanna keep them quiet and discouraged...sooner or later, in their own interest, they will figure out that they had better change their tune. And if not, thats ok too...they can kiss my a--!
We here in Australia (and I mean that as in 'me and me mates') reckon it's pretty funny that your news organs are trying to make Bush look less like the idiot he clearly is...Kerry made a mess of him
WRT - Bush acting like a spoiled brat while Kerry was talking: I've seen this before, and I don't mean with Bush.
I was working with another criminal defense lawyer and we had a client who was accused of rape and assault. While the victim was on the stand during the trial, our client acted almost exactly like Bush did while Kerry was speaking. I was sitting between the client and the other lawyer. The other lawyer grabbed my arm and leaned over and whispered fiercely: "Tell that little fuck to knock it off." And I did. But the damage was done. The jury hated him more than ever after that.
Unbelievably immature and completely sociopathic - that was our client and that was Bush Friday night.
awab,
I don't recall exactly where I heard it (it may have been Blakely on McNeil Lehrer last night, or maybe it was Gwen Ifill later in the evening), but I also heard the same thing yesterday on my local news.
I should have been paying closer attention.
We here in Australia (and I mean that as in 'me and me mates') reckon it's pretty funny that your news organs are trying to make Bush look less like the idiot he clearly is...Kerry made a mess of him
Central Scrutinizer:
Thanks I will look into those. I too haven't been paying good enough attention, my ears pricked when I heard it and knew it would recur but was unsure where I first heard it.
No, noone bothered to think that the real issue with media is not party affiliation but corporat ownership - CAF
Total BS. Everyone here knows that the media is owned by a few big corps whose only interest is making money. The fact is that the republicans are more in bed with the media than the democrats- can you say Rupert Murdoch? The only reason you will be accused of being a troll is because you bring nothing to the conversation- Kerry is as bad as Bush, etc.
BTW do you know 88? or ROCKSORE?
CAF, you're a troll because you're one of the advocates of known GOP tool Ralph Ratfuck Nader, who imagines that if we keep the fratboy coward in office, a revolution that will allow Ralph's authoritarian ass to come to power will somehow happen.
Well, y'see, CAF, you're a troll not because of those things, but because you constantly misstate the facts, and you spout the obvious as if you've just had a Big Revalation.
As a good f'rinstance, you're absolutely correct about Fox being a "Republican TV operation". But they keep insisting they are nonpartisan, when everyone can see they are not. And we've been talking about that, and about Rupert Murdoch's ownership, for years.
Similarly, the NYT has a reputation for accurate reporting. Setting aside the immediate implication of your statement, which is that "liberalism" equates with "accuracy" and therefore "conservitism" must equate with "inaccuracy", The Times' rep has been tarnished in the past few years. Jayson Blair, that sort of thing.
The Times also has an odd mix of opinion columnists for a "liberal" paper. Yes, it's got Krugman and Herbert and, to an extent, Frank Rich, and even (when the wind is blowing the right way) Maureen Dowd. On the other hand, it's also got Safire and Brooks, two of the most devoted neocons out there.
So, you see, you're a troll because your little diatribes are filled with inaccuracies, insults, and, frankly, some of the most confusing and contradictory sentences I've ever seen. And I've read Krauthammer.
Anybody notice that horrible green thing Karen Hughes was wearing the night of the debate? Sometimes I think the Rethugs emphasize bad taste to make themselves seem "more Murikan."
Admiral
Oh and Tena, congrats on having your letter published- beautifully written I might add.
I know all sorts of opinions are given on what Kerry and Edwards should say in the debates, but I really, really think that Edwards should say this on Tuesday:
"Did everyone see the presidential debate the other night? My god, George Bush was down right scary, wasn't he?
And just think about it people, the only thing between this guy becoming president is a day of a high cholesteral diet by my friendly opponent, Dick, standing here.
I mean seriously, a couple of donuts in the morning followed by a double cheeseburger with fries at lunch and poor Dick isn't going to be with us any longer, and that guy you saw fumbling around looking like a lost boy the other night is going to have to lead the free world. Don't let it happen!"
The more I watch the highlights of the debate the more I see Kerry cleaned his clock - It was fun - He's got to do it again though -
I'd say that 62 milliion people heard empty repetitive phrases coming from the President and that he seemed little more than an empty suit - And a mean spirited one at that -
Kerry not only wins on style he wins because for a change he gets to respond directly to empty campaign rhetoric and show it for what it is -
His differences with the President were clear and his stance on Iraq unwavering - It's gonna' make the whole flip-flopper thing just sound old and tired - like Bush's attacks
Admiral
I didn't pay any attention to her attire. The few seconds I saw her, I ended up looking at her eyes. Between her delivery, content and voice, the eyes capped off the view that she is totally zoned. Bush could perform the most vile acts in front of her and a full national audience and she would still spin him up. I have seen that type down here and it is definitely a special Texas edition of the cult groupie.
Fox isn't pro-Republican per se. If Rupert thought his interests were bettered served with a Democratic presidency Fox would drop the GOP like a smouldering bag of dog poo.
The GOP happens to be (more) the party of media (and general corporate) deregulation, tax giveaways for the rich, and world domination on behalf of corporations.
CAF, let's imagine Al Gore were president. Let's imagine that Gore sat in a classroom reading to school kids as the nation were under attack on 9/11. Let's imagine he did everything in his power to stonewall a commission to investigate the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11.
Let's imagine Gore told Americans that a nation possessed WMD and took this nation into an unprecedented pre-emptive war where over 1,000 Americans were killed - and that his claim about WMD was later proven false.
Let's imagine Gore dressed up in a flight suit and flew onto an aircraft carrier to announce the end of his war, and later encouraged insurgents to "bring on" attacks against American troops - and that chaos, violence and American casualties only increased after these ridiculous stunts.
Let's imagine Gore blew the surplus and created the biggest deficit in US history and was the only president since Hoover to have a net job loss during his term.
Let's imagine an America in which Gore and the democrats passed the Patriot Act, and where only hand-picked crowds of supporters were allowed to attend Gore rallies. Republican protesters who showed up were ridiculed, assaulted, arrested and charged with criminal tresspass.
Now, imagine the Washington Press Corps and the media giving Gore the same pass on these debacles they have given to Bush over the past four years.
no imagination - thanks. Both letters I've had published in the last year were ones I wrote really fast, while I was kind of mad. Maybe that's the trick, because the 500 other letters I've written that didn't get published were ones I'd worked over more carefully.
Wasn't there a video of a pre-interview exchange between Shrub and Cameron where Cameron is bragging about his wife's hard work for the Bush/Cheney re-election. Bush says, with glassy, creepy eyes, "She's truly a blessed soul."
Or am I mixing up Fox shills?
WaPo is on the Bush Reaction shots story.
Democrats must make this story last at least until the next debate. And if Cheney does as much as smirk, place the contemptuous and condescending tag on the entire ticket. It is crucial tha Democrats do not let this opportunity to corrode Bush's likability lead.
This is politics. This is not a personal attack, which I despise. This is rough and tumble politics, taking advantage of those small windows of opportunity.
The door is open. Can Democrats walk through it?
Nah. It's just that there were Thoughts that they had to Listen To for a change. It was Hard Work compared to just churning out the catch phrases, which leaves lots of time for laughing and joking since it uses no brain cells.
Scorpio
Eccentricity
And in the first 2000 debate, Vice President Al Gore edged out George W. Bush.
None of those first debate winners won the election."
It doesn't matter
awab | Email | Homepage | 10.02.04 - 11:18 am | #
Actually, Bush "won" the first debate in 2000 - not on points but he won where it mattered: Afterwards wavering voters could imagine him as president and be sort of comfortable with it. The "sigh" didn't matter that much outside of medialand - Bush helped himself by not looking like an idiot.
On Thursday, Kerry helped himself by not looking like a weak-willed waffler, and by responding to the character attacks directly and forceably. It was a BIG MISTAKE for Bush to bring up the "changed positions" and "mixed messages" themes in the debates. Those are effective commercials, but essentially not good debating points - in fact they gave Kerry an opportunity to confront them directly, which he did. Rove really fell down on the job - Bush should have been in "vision mode" blathering about democracy and freedom and stuff, ideally he would be defending his record but he doesn't have one to defend. The tactics that worked for him as a challenger don't work for an incumbant.
Ooops, I read further up the thread. Nevermind. It is appalling that this dude was allowed to continue as a "reporter" but Fox plays by its own rules.
Magnum is right - big media supports Bush because they support Michael Powell and the end of restrictions on media consolidation. It's a basic "pocketbook issue" for them.
And if Cheney does as much as smirk, place the contemptuous and condescending tag on the entire ticket.
Cheney doesn't smirk as much as he snarls in that teeth-baring, rabid dog sort of way. And the thing is I don't think he can help it. Unless he botoxes the shit out of his upper lip, we'll see plenty o' snarl on Tuesday night.
Elwood - It is a pocketbook issue, and Pie said yesterday something that fits here. The media is keeping the idea alive that this election is still a horse race with skewed poles and biased reporting in order to keep people tuning in.
More people are actively engaged in this election than I can recall people being in over 30 years. The media is actually helping that process by being so execrable, I think. That may be an unintended consequence of their ridiculous handling of the news and campaign stories. It's not what the media is meant to be in a democracy, but it isn't an altogether bad side affect. Once the election is over, there need to be some questions asked and some answers from the media over the handling of the run-up to the war - that is where they really fucked this country over.
This is politics. This is not a personal attack, which I despise. This is rough and tumble politics, taking advantage of those small windows of opportunity.
The door is open. Can Democrats walk through it?
justmy2
I'm all for continuing to emphasize the Bush debate reactions story; not necessarily because I really believe this "debate style" bullshit, but because I believe that Bush's debate smirks and eye-rolling are entirely consistent with my conception of who Bush really is: an arrogant, entitled, spoiled and immature man who is wholly unfit to run a country. He is absolutely startling in comparison to Kerry. Bush put character and likeability on the table; nothing is wrong with allowing the country true glimpses of Bush's character especially when contrasted with Kerry, who is intelligent and sane.
Re the original post: Most likely, the liberal journalists knew Fox was in the house so they just kept quiet. Plus, there weren't a lot of laugh out loud moments. Silence is the best policy, when you are pretending objectivity.
You know, it's not the reporters in the field who are biased (though some are, and others are idiots, especially the ones on TV). But they all have editors. And even a lot of the stuff hated by partisans is a misguided effort at balance. It's good you call them on any crap. Makes them more careful and then they compensate the other way. I think that is paying off for Kerry in a lot of the post debate spin. At the very least, they won't call it for anyone -- and several are saying,
through gritted teeth, they'll just have to wait for hte polling. And that's fine.
Bear in mind that this first debate was on foreign policy - Bush's supposed "strong" suit.
It just proves that Karl and Karen can only do so much - you can't put lipstick on a pig and try to call it a lady.
After reading the transcript awab referred to, I got the distinct impression that Bush was speaking before a pack of Pavlov's dogs. They've been conditioned to respond right on cue. Seems the training is still in progress because they've only managed to shape a few behaviors really well: 'four more years', 'flip-flop', and 'Booo'. 'Yes', 'No', and 'Laura' still need some work.
but georgie is their creation. eeven franenstein loved his monster.
Tena's right about clients in front of juries--I always tell my clients not to react to anything any one says about them in the courtroom because the jury will be watching---so why didn't the Bush camp get that message across to Chimpy--did they think the camera would not be on him--did they think that showed a forceful leader---do they not have anyone with (criminal) trial experience around to say hey, maybe this is like when a jury is making a dcision---are they just stupid or arrogant?
What I found more interesting was watching each of them taking notes. Kerry took notes like many of us do--like we have been doing it all our lives--we took notes in class, to get the important stuff; we take notes in court, to respond; we take notes during meetings; we take notes during phone calls so we can respond or follow up--we take notes like it's second nature and we know what to do with them. Bush took notes like he thought he better start writing because Kerry was--he didn't know how to do it, or what to do with them (because if he did, he would not have had those long pauses). It's more proof of what we all know--Bush is an idiot, a superficial lazy idiot.
Tena, keep that ole' ire fire stoked- opinions like yours need to be heard.
As far as the gist of this thread, long ago I realized that this whole liberal media conspiracy meme is just a Republican fantasy of projection- reverse what they say and you'll know the truth. Really, my concern is how the media will handle Kerry's presidency. Will it be a Clinton redux?
Only in Republican spin land are 70 million Americans "nobody".
the NBC affiliate where I was on Thursday night (Huntsville, AL) tried to run a post-debate story at the top of their 10:00 news, but they couldn't find enough people who'd watched.
it's entirely plausible to attribute this to media laziness, but there you are.
President Twitchy obviously suffers from some sort of neurotic mental problem associated with an election theft.
you can't put lipstick on a pig and try to call it a lady.
Don't tell Candy Crowley.
"Kerry may have won on style, but Bush wins hands down on substance, and that's what's really important."
That's the one I've heard OVER and OVER again from my Republican friends. It's not even worth responding to anymore.
I love to see Republicans grasping at straws.
You know what get's under my skin.
Fucking WAR MONGERERS!
But that's just me.
there was silence in the press room Thursday night.
Ominous Nagourney Silence.
What's more telling from the post-debate banter: Scarborough saying that Kerry looked more Presidential, or Hannity saying Bush won?
And where was Triumph on Thursday nite? He killed with Joe and Ron after the conventions. I was waiting for him to go mutt-to-mutt with Andrea Mitchell (sorry, Greenspan -- I know you're just channelling your old pal Ayn Rand with that hookup).
On the other hand, that Flavia chick (er, young woman) is mucho caliente! Mas, MSNBC! Mas!
Bush has developed the Physical shape of an 80 year old woman. he looked so bad hunched over, making pained faces and slurring his words. Does he have arthritis, brain damage and brittle bones?
Anyone hear about how Fox news photoshopped a pic of Kerry and Bush to make Bush taller? They made him about 6' 3" in a photo of them shaking hands.
Cheney doesn't smirk as much as he snarls in that teeth-baring, rabid dog sort of way. And the thing is I don't think he can help it. Unless he botoxes the shit out of his upper lip, we'll see plenty o' snarl on Tuesday night.
That's not all Cheney does. I hope the broadcast is on a 5 sec. delay so that when Cheney gets tired of being kicked around by Edwards (which I estimate will be about 25 minutes into the debate), all the viewing audience will hear is "go bleep yourself."
I do not have access to a boob-tube so I had to read the deabate on line and I was surprised at what was there.
Kerry was working the questions to his advantage.
Bush was using trite expressions based on his campaign smear rhetoric to answer the questions posed and respond back to Kerry. I was surprized that Bush was not able to lay open any new wounds.
Methinks that Bush's vocabulary deficiency is beginning to show where it can really hurt him. By using the same old, worn-out attacks, people are starting to suffer from political tin ear. Peoples' level of expectation is so high that failure to make the grade could spell lost of support in November.
It may very well be that Bush's use of focus groups and limited campaign stops without a high degree of expectations could be his undoing...they're only geared for the party faithful and not the undecided voter who will ultimately cast the deciding vote.
Kerry may have a very good chance of stealing an election that Bush is throwing away.
regards from this side of the point of no return.
.
caf isn't a troll. disagree with him all you want. trolls are a different thing completely.
I'm praying that Cheney puts on his patented snarl because John Edwards is nothing if not a good looking guy. But Edwards is far more - he has the ability to lay Defib in the aisles and leave him there gasping for breath. And Edwards only has to smile to put the icing on the whole thing.
Seems to me the silence in the press room was discomfort and fear. Bush was looking like he was going to completely blow his stack and have a meltdown right on national television.
The press knows Bush is a very weak man, and that a weak, insecure man who is challenged is a powder keg waiting to blow.
My guess is the press folks were silently contemplating how they were going to spin Bush's extreme hostility, anger, immaturity and inability to face a challenge like a man.
So good that I actually watched the debate, recorded it and printed out the transscripts. Now I know what really happened even after the media succeeds in turning everything upside-down as usual. And I have the evidence safe!
Fox isn't pro-Republican per se. If Rupert thought his interests were bettered served with a Democratic presidency Fox would drop the GOP like a smouldering bag of dog poo.
Two words: Roger Ailes.
Murdoch knows what he's doing. He's done it again and again around the world. Murdoch hired Ailes to build Fox News from the ground up as a Republican propaganda machine.
Ailes is the man who put Rush Limbaugh on television. He was largely responsible for getting Ronald Reagan and then George Herbert Walker Bush elected president.
I think claims of media bias are often overblown, but for anyone to claim that Fox News does not have a political bias is just silly. Ailes said some interesting things to Billy Tauzin's committee hearings on the 2000 election:
"I would like to say a few words about John Ellis because I am sure you are all familiar with him and his family connections. Mr. Ellis is the first cousin of President George W. Bush and Governor Jeb Bush. We at Fox News do not discriminate against people because of their family connections. I am more than happy to give you examples of offspring of famous politicians who are employed at Fox News."
A story you've heard before but worth repeating. The vote count in 1968 too all night and was very close. My family was watching NBC (it came in best on our 1950s era TV). When they announced that Nixon was the winner the newsroom burst into applause. A very embarassed looking John Chancelor mumbled about people being relieved that it was over. He didn't look as if he expected to be believed.
Yes, they're afraid that Bush might get tossed. Kerry wouldn't have any use for Bush's old concubines.
John, you win go over the heads of the Washington press whores, make sure your officials cut them cold. They're your proven enemies. You owe them nothing. You owe the country a strong administration.
Oh, and realease those presidential papers of the past. Release all the old papers that are kept hidden for reasons of secrecy. The ones Bushco doesn't torch, that is.
But Edwards is far more - he has the ability to lay Defib in the aisles and leave him there gasping for breath. And Edwards only has to smile to put the icing on the whole thing.
Tena
It isn't for nothing that the press has turned him into a nonperson. They know he was a great choice for Vice President but they can make him disappear. Cheney has as much charm as he has honesty, his best asset are his looks and his mendacity.
Olaf, CAF raises some important questions- Israel, Iraq, the DNC- and probably isn't a troll. However, CAF appears to me to be an uncompomising idealist, countering most arguments with more of the same- Bush bad, Kerry bad, the Democrats are evil- refusing to recognize that Dems and Repubs really do have fundamental policy differences. A mistaken meme that gave us Bush, (ignoring the stolen election bit here), and we all know what that has gotten us. Instead, I think CAF is of the "it must get much worse before it can get better" crowd. Suddenly, Americans will see the light if the shit hits the fan- then glorious revolution will ensue. Total fantasy.
i think you are right, no imagination. so argue with him.
I vote CAF onto the troll list for the ever shifting focus, shifting views supporting everyone in turn except Kerry, bringing up poor little Ralphie and what those mean Democrats are doing to him, attempts to wedge apart Kerry support.... Also suspect we've met before but haven't been interested enough to think hard on it. I'm still relishing Kerry's debate performance.
I always find trying to get inside the mindset of a winger a bit like trying to get inside that of an adolescent or two-year-old, but I've raised a couple of kids so let me parse:
Bush is "our" president, so of course "we" want him to win. There are some other bad people out there who don't want us to win, and so of course they don't like our president or want him to win either. Being Americans, we naturally get upset when our president doesn't win. I know some reporters may not share these feelings, but I'm trying to be generous here by assuming that most of them do. I'm not some kind of crank who thinks the press is on the side of the terrorists, for goodness sake--after all, these are my colleagues!
A meme is not an explicit idea, it's a governing logic--an unspoken set of assumptions within which ideas get framed. So it's inherently difficult to adequately render them as explicit ideas, but if you did, I suspect this one would go something like that.
Olaf, I'm pretty tired and probably will cease arguing with him- I admit I only engage in such arguments for pleasure. If I want substantive arguments on policy, I'll go talk to my Libertarian or Green friends who understand that policy issues are not resolved by blind faith, repetion, or who can yell the loudest.
Bush wasn't debating. He was spewing talking points and sound bites. He clearly demonstrated that he is incapable of critical and logical thinking. Karen Hughes and his other handlers can coach him until they're blue in the face, but they can't make him think. He made a lot of people uncomfortable Thursday night, although a lot of people may not understand why. By the end of the third debate, they'll know why. Bush is toast. Pass the jam.
I'm not actually going to send this, but I need the release.
Dear Mr. President:
Love is a many-splendored thing, but glib lipservice to the great sacrifice of millions of ordinary people to their leaders' megalomania is not one of those splendors.
I, and many around me, am repulsed by your increasingly frequent, and increasingly inappropriate, rhetorical appropriation of the word "love". "Creeped out" would not be too strong a term.
One does not "love" people - be they widows, bereaved mothers, hurricane victims, or gynecological patients - through the formulaic recital of calculated consolations and the application of brief, lascivious hugs. Your use of the word in this way cheapens and demeans the deepest emotions and commitments of all Americans.
I beg you, Mr. President, to find within yourself the sensitivity and dignity to refrain from such rhetoric in the future. To quote your friend Senator McCain: "Don't give me that shit, and get your hands off me."
Seems to me the silence in the press room was discomfort and fear.
And this is a surprise to you, because..?
The media has spent over 20 years, since the beginning of the Reagan presidency, sucking-up to the corporate Establishment. An affable movie star was given a free pass to make up stories about polluting trees, welfare queens and fighter pilots out of movie scripts.
During a Democratic timeout, it progressed to a witch hunt over what happened, involving the most foul descriptions of sexual dalliance ever spoken by mainstream journalists, never mind applied to a sitting president.
It has culminated to where the American press has now created a totally fictitious narrative on the state of world and national events, that is told nowhere else in the world but on our airwaves and in our papers. A war for empire, destroying a civilization, bankrupting our country, destabilizing the planet and slaughtering tens of thousands of human beings is retooled by the media to sound like a George M. Cohan patriotic ditty; focusing instead on campaign howls that appear too impolitely loud, "flip-flops", suntans, and "shove it".
But at long last, after eating this shit for decades, a solid 50% of the American people rebel.... loudly. And up to the plate steps a candidate, who not only can cream the poseur fronting for the cabal that has taken us over, but is working with a team that is not about to get punk'd again.
So now... you're the media, in that room the other evening. And for over 20 years, you've been eating the caviar at a banquet that's coming to an end, right before your very eyes.
Are YOU gonna whoop and holler? Or are your very insides collapsing in sheer terror?
Margaret Carlson (10/10/00): Gore’s fabrications may be inconsequential—I mean, they’re about his life. Bush’s fabrications are about our life, and what he’s going to do. Bush’s should matter more but they don’t, because Gore’s we can disprove right here and now…You can actually disprove some of what Bush is saying if you really get in the weeds and get out your calculator or you look at his record in Texas. But it’s really easy, and it’s fun, to disprove Gore.
Looks like happy happy playtime is over, kiddies.
BTW, C-SPAN is showing the third Bush-Gore debate (the "town hall" one) at 11:35pm EDT tonight. Leah A at Corrente has a good post up about the wild contrast between Bush-Gore I and the conventional wisdom that metastasized afterward.
And if you missed it Thursday night, C-SPAN is reshowing Kerry-Bush I at 10:00am EDT Sunday morning. Don't forget to tape/TiVo/burn it and make sure everyone you know sees it -- this one's a keeper. If you did not see C-SPAN's split-screen coverage, you did not see the full debate.
One good thing about the performance of Bush's face in the debate is that it puts to rest that old chestnut about Bush seeming like a great guy to have a drink with.
He was as obvious a dick as you can get. Who'd want to spend any time socializing with this touchy little fucker? He's like everybody's worse boss in their life -- you'd be making fun of him behind his back, and avoiding him every way you can.
Oops, I hit submit too soon. That Margaret Carlson link was supposed to be to The Daily Howler
From: Reaction Shots May Tell Tale of Debate WP 10/02/04 Dana Milbank posted upthread:
On Thursday night, adviser Karen Hughes said: "On his face, you could see his irritation at the senator's misrepresentations." But by Friday morning, Mehlman said: "I don't know that he was irritated." [...]
If you ask me, Chimpy looked unhinged, very very angry -- pathologically so, IMO, and definitely like he lost his cool.
At informal appearances, Bush's squint and slouch over the lectern can effectively convey Texas confidence, said Sonya Hamlin, a consultant on how body language affects communication. But in the formal setting of a presidential debate, it made him appear smaller and less commanding compared with a tall opponent who is standing straight up, she said. And his facial expressions conveyed insecurity, she said, raising the question "When things get tough, is this what he does?" In debates, Henson said, "You don't get mad if someone disagrees with you."
Yeah, I think that's pretty much what millions of lyin' eyes saw.
A meme is...
Meme
you're welcome.
Barry Champlain: that was a great post.
If you ask me, Chimpy looked unhinged, very very angry -- pathologically so, IMO, and definitely like he lost his cool.
oh, I don't know. I'd give my weekly beer budget to see him really flip out and pull a Zell Miller.
The Kerry campaign needs to freeze out Cameron, period.
Just boycott the man, making little or no comment, and leave it to the other news media to 'fill in the blanks' on the whys and wherefores.
Succinct response re: Bush supporters' claim that Bush won the debates on "substance":
WHERE'S THE SUBSTANCE?
If there really is any, they should be extremely forthcoming about naming, specifically, the "substance" they are referring to.
Bush lost on style. He lost on substance. He lost, period. And he's going to lose it all, very soon.
I thought the shots of GW's back looked like he was wearing some kind of harness, like for a production of Peter Pan or something. A couple of his moves while Kerry was speaking looked like Karl had his Abu G wires hooked up to help him control his temper.
Succinct response re: Bush supporters' claim that Bush won the debates on "substance":
WHERE'S THE SUBSTANCE?
If there really is any, they should be extremely forthcoming about naming, specifically, the "substance" they are referring to.
Bush lost on style. He lost on substance. He lost, period. And he's going to lose it all, very soon.
Succinct response re: Bush supporters' claim that Bush won the debates on "substance": WHERE'S THE SUBSTANCE?
Most of my couch panel swore the pResident was chewing peyote buds when he clenched his jaw but a highly vocal minority insisted they saw signs of a chemical/organic mixture at work.
This would seem to be in keeping with this well-known Bush quote: "Who among us hasn't sniffed his weight in cocaine and had family connections bury the arrests?
tena-court tv runs the same shot of scott peterson over and over and your comment reminded me of the look he pulls...someone should compare scott and bush grimacing side by side and i bet the expressions are pretty close.
Peanut
That's not the kind of substance I had in mind. But I like your take on it. Bush, a many of many substances but little substance.
hello
remember the ny post erroneous headline phoned in by murdoch, allegedly to draw attention. did
cameron and the chain of editors do what they were tod to do in order that the manicure become, by hook or by crook, a national story.
query from josh marshal:
8. Why did comments very similar to Cameron's fabrications come up again and again from Fox commentators on debate night?
murdoch wants a story played come hell or high water.
Here's something from the Post article, that reveals a deeper reason for Rove hiding Bush in supportive crowds. Bush is mean and insecure. He is big daddy with a fist. And Rove and Hughes and Card, they KNOW their guy cant take heat without exploding. I mean he doesnt read the papers because he just cant deal with it. And they cant let that snide side of him show. He is cool with fawners, and for some reason (anybody know why?) it can be contained in two-person press events (like with Blair or Putin also answering--or with Cheney there for the 911 Commission) but alone he is unleashed and unable to have the time to contain himself. I think the Irish interview attitude would be replayed over and over if Kerry plays it right. And it may be OK to gig the press--they are despised by the public, but they cant let the general public see what a baby he is.
From the WAPOST: "Bush has flashed such expressions -- and worse -- at reporters when they ask him hostile questions. But the public has generally not seen the president's more petulant side, in part because he is rarely challenged in a public venue. He has held fewer news conferences than any modern predecessor, Congress is in his party's control, and he has a famously loyal staff. In rare instances when Bush has been vigorously challenged -- most recently in interviews with an Irish television journalist and a French magazine -- he has reacted with similar indignation."
That family doesn't know the meaning of the word "love."
I'm convinced that the reason the twins acted up was to get attention. Laura Bush has never struck me as being the most attentive mother in the world (too much time wiping her husband's ass to pay much attention to her children).
Have a drink with DUMBya? He's no doubt a sloppy, mean, argumentative drunk and no picnic to be around.
I'd rather have a drink with John, although Teresa says he's not a drinker. The conversation, I'm sure, would be much more to my liking.
Dear Mr. President:
Love is a many-splendored thing, but glib lipservice to the great sacrifice of millions of ordinary people to their leaders' megalomania is not one of those splendors.
I, and many around me, am repulsed by your increasingly frequent, and increasingly inappropriate, rhetorical appropriation of the word "love". "Creeped out" would not be too strong a term.
One does not "love" people - be they widows, bereaved mothers, hurricane victims, or gynecological patients - through the formulaic recital of calculated consolations and the application of brief, lascivious hugs. Your use of the word in this way cheapens and demeans the deepest emotions and commitments of all Americans.
I beg you, Mr. President, to find within yourself the sensitivity and dignity to refrain from such rhetoric in the future. To quote your friend Senator McCain: "Don't give me that shit, and get your hands off me."
Gee, did anyone ever bother to think that the corporate-owned media is just that, and that different organs have party affiliations, for example, Fox is a Republican TV operation, whereas the New York Times is essentially an outlet for Democratic Party talking points, propaganda, and the like.
i'll agree with that to a certain point...NYT my be left but they sure banged the drums for the war..Gee, ppl can still like big government and be pro-war i guess.
long threads= the poster you reply too is out doing lawn work by this point.
why waste time with this crap about assigning different major papers different parties when it is obvious by the evidence, more logical by what we know and simpler by the razor that they are fat capitalists trying to make money? Was the NYT a Democratic paper when they were the Point Man or the Quest To Prove that Bill Clinton was Not a Virgin, or when they endorsed the Republican wars, or supported laughable Republican ideals and pushed Republican talking points?
If they were a bunch of libruls, wouldn't they be cheering?
Well, my household is certainly a bunch of libruls, and we pretty much just sat there in stunned silence as Bush did worse than we ever imagined he would. I mean, it's not good sportsmanship to cheer too loudly for your team when they're winning 56-0. Afterwards, however, I did walk around with a big grin for hours!
"Anybody notice that horrible green thing Karen Hughes was wearing the night of the debate? Sometimes I think the Rethugs emphasize bad taste to make themselves seem "more Murikan"
I thought of Scarlet O'hara and the draperies... or rather I thought of Carol Burnett's classic parody, wearing the drapes, curtainrod and all.
Some people may support Bush more than ever because he endured so much criticism from the traitor Kerry without stooping to a response.
I, for one, do not believe this.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
