Faux. What Americans are saying about Bush's speech

[brettdale]

I dont want to read, all other MSM are giving it positive reviews and are saying his poll numbers have gone up, I hate to see what faux will say.



http://www.foxnews.com

[sniffa]

he was churchiLLesque

it was amazing the way he didn't choke on his tongue.

[Agnomen]

13. Churchillesque?

As in soaked in brandy? That's the only similarity.

[Liberal In Texas]

20. You know this Churchill analogy must be a GOP official talking point

because as I was flipping around the AM band, I heard some RW radio guy (I can't remember who) even play a Churchill clip from WW2 and then he went on and on about the similarities. Made me sick. I yelled at the radio and surfed to another station.

But it wouldn't surprise me if this was a Rove directive for the RW media to equate the shrub with the great Churchill!

[FreedomAngel82]

22. Of course

And didn't he say we're in WW3 too?

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

21. considering that churchill was a racist, heartless prick

who has been unjustly worshipped by damn near everyone, it's not surprising chimpy would get compared to him

[lancdem]

1. Who says his poll numbers have gone up?

No polls have been done except that CNN spot poll overloaded with Repukes. Hardly anyone watched the speech; I've seen little positive response even in the MSM.

Even if he does get a bump, it will be temporary.

[bullimiami]

2. im sorry but that is insane.

he re re re re hashed the same old warmed over crap. and fewer than 20 million people watched it.

it is impossible that it affected anything much at all.

[YOY]

3. Maybe I wasn't looking in the right spot

Maybe it has "come and gone" news wise. I didn't really see anything...nothing on the frontpage that jumped out at me regarding the Ft. Bragg speech.

If it's there I'm not looking any longer than I have to...I'm queasy enough after 2 minutes of simple scanning on the front page.

After entering the politics section they have a bit more..

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161022,00.html

[tubbacheez]

4. A bump upwards isn't surprising.

Bush's ratings (let's call them what they really are) always get a slight bump upwards whenever he makes a speech.

This is because he's the most secretive President in recent history and hardly ever speaks in public. His silence is mysterious and inspires a certain amount of distrust. This effect is one of the several factors that drag his ratings down. When he makes a speech, this effect is temporarily relieved.

[lancdem]

7. He doesn't get bumps like he used to

His recent prime-time press conference didn't help him at all.

[tubbacheez]

14. That's even better. Thanks for the news. n/t

[lancdem]

15. You're welcome

:hi:

[zoeb]

5. I heard a spot poll result today on the Dopehead network

which said 70% think we should stay the course in IRAQ.:wtf:

[oasis]

11. "Stay the course" doesn't necessarily mean they liked Bush's speech.

[KharmaTrain]

6. Let's Look At Those Polls Again

As always statistics can lie and liars use statistics.

From the "polls" I've seen...two things stick out. First, the people who were sampled actually viewed that pukefest last night. I haven't seen the Neilsen overnights (maybe someone has access to them), but I would submit the Home Shopping Channel drew a bigger cume for that hour. So your poll already starts with a small, inclusive sample.

Next, who was going to watch this drivel. We sure didn't need to hear more excuses and lies. This was red meat for the base. Thus far more Repugnicans tuned in...people with pre-concieved opinions in favor of the war and this speech was an attempt to keep them as kool-aided and in denial as possible...buying more time for the pilage and profiteering to go on.

The CNNServative polls said that 50% of those responding were Repugnicans...25% Democrats, 25% Independents. Just from that sample, of course his assholiness is going to do well. Or at least he won't do as miserably as if this poll were done of the general population.

A telling statistic I heard, but I haven't seen it linkable is a poll that said 75% of Independents had a very unfavorable take on this speech. There's where the real trouble is.

[lancdem]

8. 19 million watched

That's a really low number. There's a link on http://www.rawstory.com

[KharmaTrain]

18. Yes...That's Real Low...

The average primetime network TV audience is still around 50 million that watch network channels (I'm assuimg that's the 19 million cited)...so that means only 1/3 of the regular audience was tuned in! Nearly 70% of the people who would normally be watching at that time either checked out a cable channel, DVD, had sex or anything but watch this crap.

Now I'm not sure if that's reflective on how much people don't like or trust this oxygen theif or if they just don't care or want to hear about the mess he's gotten us in.

Cheers...

[Gay Green]

12. I for one, found the first three minutes of his speech to be so BORING

that I quit watching it. Just same old, same old from the gasbag.

[converted_democrat]

9. Well, I can tell you this........

Channel 8 news (NBC) Tampa called me for their poll on Bush's speech and I answered every question that they asked. They had the results on the 6:00 news and 50 something % did not like the speech. The kicker was this, though. They did and interview of "average people" and they could not find a person who did like the speech to interview. As they were telling the story they were standing outside Mc Dill airbase and found no one willing to support him in public.

[deacon]

10. The speech was terrible and insulting for any one with intelligence

that leaves MSM and FOx "News" out to begin with.

How dare the MSM shrug off his repeated references to 911 as justification-shows you want garbage they are.

However, here is on source that states things differently.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/062905_nw_bush_local.html

[Poiuyt]

16. ABC didn't like it

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=892082&page=1

June 29, 2005 — President Bush was more frank about the problems we face in Iraq than he has been in the past.

snip-

Key parts of his speech, however, were driven by spin, rather than a frank effort to warn the American people of the sacrifices necessary to win and the risks involved. The end result was to mislead in ways that could come back to haunt the administration and reduce longer-term public support.

snip -

In short, this was not the honest speech that Americans needed to hear; it was dominated by efforts at spin control. It did not explain the sacrifices needed, or the risks to be faced. It provided a partial and largely misleading explanation for the U.S. role in Iraq, without mention of our moral and ethical obligation to the Iraqi people and the vital strategic interests involved. Instead of "blood, sweat, and tears," we got spin, risk avoidance, and promises without cost. Normal perhaps by today's political standards, but scarcely the kind of realism and leadership that will inspire the continuing American support that U.S. forces, Iraq, and our allies will need during the difficult and uncertain years to come.

Anthony H. Cordesman is an ABC News military analyst, and an expert on the Iraq war as a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

more -

[DearAbby]

17. ABC didn't like it

:wow: Is there a glimmer of hope?

[Stinky The Clown]

19. The 'media' seems to think the speech sucked

I've done no particular study, but in flipping through the dial today, I've not heard one positive review of the speech. If that's true on a scientific basis (as opposed to my anecdotal experiences) then Main Street will also think it sucked.