Why Can't The Press Just Admit Kerry Destroyed Bush?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

When George Foreman literally knocked Ken Norton out of the ring do you think sportswriters defended Norton's performance...


Kerry made Bush look like Elmer Fudd...

[Birthmark]

1. That wouldn't be good for sales.

It ain't easy selling commercial time for a rout.

[underpants]

5. They are still trying to make arguments FOR Bush-extending the debate

Observation of my wife. I liken it to the end of "Trading Places"

TURN THE MACHINES BACK ON! GET EVERYONE BACK IN HEEeeeeeeeRE!

I heard this on RW radio and on Fox News-"President Bush COULD have said...." SHOULD have said........" "What about Kerry's Senate record?!?!"

Well guess what dipwads Bush DIDN'T say any of that because he can't formulate anything close to coherent thought.

I agree about ad sales-local stations count on this revenue. This is their cash cow time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. I Read Where AWOL Got A 1270 On His SAT...

That led me to believe his ignorance was feigned to make him look like a regular guy...


Now I believe he paid someone to take the test for him...

[Birthmark]

12. Doesn't it remind you of high school?

When one of the less physical kids was threatened by the schoolyard bully and later says, "I was *gonna* do..." or "I almost said..." And then his friends join in the excuse making. Sounds exactly the same to me.

[underpants]

13. Yes very much like that

Good point.

[indef]

2. Pundits aren't sportswriters

Sportswriters have the option of telling what really happened.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. It Was A Massacre...

General Custer performed more admirably at Little Big Horn....

[Kammer]

19. Tie

..and the media today would report that Little Big Horn was a draw....hahah

[Blue_Roses]

3. Mr Potato Head can't let GE down

:eyes:

[Jacobin]

6. Christmas Talking Head Bonuses are on the line

Wouldn't want to upset General Electric, now would we?

[GP6971]

7. Probably

because they were threatened not to. And banishment to the rear or even worse....revocation of privileges / access doesn't help the almighty "bottom line".

[RafterMan]

8. I've seen all the answers

But I haven't seen a complete answer. It really does look like a live-action Emperor's New Clothes thing.

Utterly baffling.

[whistle]

10. Why did the press in Nazi Germany not admit that Hitler was a...

...tyrant? The media are now controlled completely by the ruling elite. The journalists who work for the media have sold their souls to the big corporations that run them.

As for Bush being made to look like Elmer Fudd, I believe that Kerry used truth and it exposed Bush for what he is, a person who is controlled by special interests and a man without judgment or independent thought.

[flordehinojos]

11. Me thinks that the Rove/Gestapo Fear Machine must be spewing out bits of

"wait and see what will happen to you if you go for kerry" ...

Besides, the Bushes are a mean bunch and they don't like to lose. Plus some in the media really are pimps for bush like judy woodruff, candy crowley, and others who will not give him up so easily ... so they will continue spinning and holding on to the bushes until the "lower the life boats" moment. Then ... perhaps, at long last, they will tell the truth, albeit, with a taste of bitterness on their lips. }(

[chookie]

14. Utter denial/ also a bit of Tiger Woods/Vijay Singh sorta thing

I do focus groups among people who don't follow the news, and are fairly apathetic about politics.

I have seen them evolve from swallowing what they are spoonfed by the media stenographers, to being repulsed by what they came to recognize as utter bullshit.

Over time, the Bush operational philosophy -- who do you trust, me, or your own eyes? -- has been running down....

What I have heard, even from people who just watched the debate for a few minutes -- is that they were flabbergasted at just how big a fucking idiot Bush was. They certainly had their suspicions -- but of course the "stupedia" always assure us what a magnificent and popular warlord, oops I mean war-time president, he is, so they were a little confused.

People I know who were on the fence about bothering to VOTE at all prior to the debate rushed out and registered.

Bush is still gushed over by the press for a lot of the same reasons as Tiger Woods -- who lost his mastery due to the Bartcop Hex -- is still gushed over. Vijay Singh and Mickelson are the real masters now, and Tiger is a pathetic loser -- yet they STILL want to pretend that he's still the top. Go figure.

[pansypoo53219]

15. because even dr.frankenstein

didn't give up on his monster.

[Nicholas_J]

16. Well the Washington Post had an article today

That indicates a considerable number of Republicans are not only worried about how
poorly Bush did in the debates, but that Kerry's performance compared to Bush has
totally wiped out all of the efforts that the Bush campaign has gone to in order to
pin the label of wishy washy onto Kerry, as well as undoing the flip-flopper label:

Bush advisers were described as stunned by how negative the reviews were of the president's
performance, which many of them regarded as not his best but not so bad. Bush was
portrayed as upbeat while acknowledging to supporters that he knew he could have done
better. His aides indicated they plan some retooling before Friday's debate, but they maintained
a sense of outward confidence.
Advisers to both candidates predicted that the race would tighten when the debates end on
Oct. 13, if not before, but Bush strategists say that will have less to do with the debates than on
a natural tightening as the election nears. The first poll since Thursday night to measure the
debate's impact, taken by Newsweek, showed Kerry leading Bush 49 percent to 46 percent --
a reversal from a series of polls over the past month...

Other Republicans were privately less optimistic about the race, fearing that Kerry's debate
performance could erase much of the impact of months of Bush-Cheney ads portraying the
Democratic nominee as a flip-flopper. They said they were surprised by Bush's lackluster
performance, even granting that the president is not the most skilled of debaters.
Asked whether he worried that Bush was on the defensive over his record in Iraq, one GOP
strategist said: "I'm far less worried about that than that we had firmly pinned down as a
wishy-washy flip-flopper and that's now not nearly as pinned down as I wish it were." The
strategist, who declined to be identified to speak freely about the president's campaign,
indicated that the debates offer Bush the opportunity to drive home that argument decisively
and that in the Coral Gables debate he failed to do so.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2925-2004Oct2?language=palm&vendor=avantgo

It does seem that given the bounce that Kerry is seeing in the first post-debate polls, that the fears of Republicans are correct, and that it is going to be hard going to them to try to get the labels that they have desparately trying to get to stick to Kerry to stay stuck. He appeared far more decisive, sure of himself, confident and anything but wishy washy during the debates.
With well over half of the anticipated voting public watching the debates, and with most of them indicating an opinion of Kerry coming out of the first debate that is diametrically opposed to the image that the Bush campaign has tried to apply to Kerry, it looks like the attempt to continue to use this tack on Kerry will not succeed with the remaining undecided voters. Polls indicated that it was the undecided voter who gained the greatest positive opinions of Kerry during this debate and who gained the least positive opinions of Bush during the debates. In fact, the difference between the fact that the undecided voters have seen a Kerry who is very different from the candidate who the undecided voters saw during the debate may create more of an opinion of Bush as a person who has misrepresented his opponent in a most unethical way. This may also give undecided voters pause in considering what else Bush may have misrepresented in the past. mostly regarding Iraq.

[H2O Man]

17. Great post!

Some papers have reported it accurately. I had fun yesterday, taking a ride with a local municipal employee. We are in a very republican rural upstate NY county. After we had engaged in a little idle chatter, I noted his candidate looked kind of weak during the debate. He cracked up laughing, and said that it was humiliating. He told me to buy the Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin, because I would enjoy how it reported on how pathetic Bush was. I couldn't help myself, and so I asked if he was really going to vote for Bush? He said, "No way!" I think that there are plenty more republicans like him, who in the privacy of the voting booth are NOT going to support Bush.

[rocktivity]

18. That would be bad for business (especially NBC's)

From the Associated Press (who else?):

NBC, meanwhile, said it made a special effort not to declare a winner or loser of Thursday's debate, after reading research that showed many voters' opinions of the debate were formed as much by punditry as by what they saw...the network did not conduct an instant poll of viewers to determine who won or lost, said Tom Touchet, executive producer of the "Today" show.

"We gave it a lot of thought as a network news division," Touchet said. "It's important for us not to be an active part of the decision-making process, to let the facts present themselves and not to in any way, shape or form declare a winner or loser."

Translation: "We gave it a lot of thought as the subsidiary of a major defense contrctor. It's important for us to protect the military and media monopoly interests of our parent companies. Presenting the facts would result in the public declaring Bush as the loser of the debate, and that would be REAL bad for business!"

:headbang:
rocknation

[redstateblues]

22. GE-We Bring Good Things To War-And We Make A Shitload Of Money

doing it. Hey- every war profiteer needs it own media outlet or two(MSNBC) or three(CNBC)-Did I miss any?

[high density]

20. "Fair and balanced"

You can't say who won or lost if you want to have balanced news coverage! Well... except if Kerry crashed and burned, then there would have been a clear winner to the debate, of course.

[gratuitous]

21. It's all about the Benjamins, baby!

Tune into a lopsided football game today (or more likely, tomorrow night when my pathetic Chiefs get folded, spindled and mutilated by Baltimore) and listen to the announcers. They will grasp at any ray of light for the team getting walloped. If folks are persuaded that the game is a rout, they change the channel or turn the set off, and that's bad for business.

You'll hear things like, "If that pass is completed, Skitterfeet could have gone all the way, and it would have been a two score game." The evidence before your eyes is that the pass was 10 feet over Skitterfeet's head because the quarterback has been running for his life all afternoon, and even with a touchdown, the score is still going to be 27-11 and there's only three minutes left.

[progressivebydesign]

23. I realized Kerry won, because Kerry WON, not because Bush sucked..

.. that is something that is being pushed around the pundits. YOu know, that KErry won, because Bush did badly. No. Kerry won, because Kerry was informed, intelligent, affable, AND he FINALLY got to go around Faux News, and the rest of the whores, to get his message out. Because the networks really dissed and downplayed the convention, and because EVERYTHING Kerry tries to say and project is destroyed through the corporate media, the debates have really been the ONLY chance for Kerry to address the AMerican people.

It's not that he did so incredibly that night against Bush.. it's that FINALLY people are able to see what Kerry is all about!! ANd they liked it! Even if Bush had not been freakin' odd, Kerry STILL would have won... but the corporate media would have called it for Bush, but Bush's performance was SO bad that even they couldn't lie about it for once.

[leftofthedial]

24. they are in the employ of the oligarchy behind the neocons and GOP

their purpose--their JOBS--are to spread GOP propaganda. If they do something else, namely tell the truth, they'll be fired.

[Karenina]

25. Because they are in all their glory

PUBLIC ENEMY #1.

They are making skadoodles of $$$$ destroying YOU, your communities and the democracy into which you were born. They are OWNED by elitists WHO DON'T CARE about anything but their bottom line. They put any and every propaganda outlet that has come before to shame, due to technological advances. It is absolutely breathtaking.