Why is the media saying b*sh did so bad???

[soggy]

The word definately got out, further even than the 63 million that watched the debacle, that bush is a complete moron...

Now that the right wing spin machine has completely given up trying to polish this turd, I have to admit, sure, he seemed quite retarded, but certainly not any more than usual. In fact, compared to his April press conference, Thursday was his Gettysburg Address.

Did he do any worse than he did in 2000? If so, I certainly couldn't tell. Have people not watched any tv in the last 4 years?

What do y'all think, did he really do any worse than usual?

[senseandsensibility]

1. He was his usual

irritable. slow witted, stupid self. He appeared so like his normal self to me, that I just assumed the pundits would praise him as usual. I still don't understand it, except that Kerry was there for comparison.

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. I may be the wrong one to ask, since I despise him so...but I have to...

admit that * was in particularly "fine" form showing his full complement of idiotic, immature, pouty, childish, annoying and destructive set of tendencies - from his body language oddities, pallette of expressions, and complete ignorance, stupidity and worthlessness...

Yes, I guess you could say that he even exceeded my expectations for complete failure, beyond what I typically observe (as much as I can stomach observing any of him!)

[soggy]

14. hmm

I'm trying to construct a scenario in which bush could be said to "win" the debate Friday night.

Rove has to be a bit panicky right now, because 1/2 the electorate saw bush and are still laughing at his utter incompetence. So what's Rove to DO about it?

I'll guarantee we'll see a much calmer shrub on Friday, at least while he's not speaking, but how do you make the guy smarter than he is? It's similar to trying to teach a 3rd grader to pass the bar exams in 8 days. So as long as he doesn't throw a fit on stage, will spinners be able to say he won?

I'm still curious as to what makes a disasterous bush performance different than a great one.

[El Supremo]

3. Bush* isn't a moron...

The electorate is.

[Demoiselle]

4. Yes, he was much worse than 2000.

Doesn't seem possible, I know. But he was considerably more coherent in 2000. He was spouting bullshit, then, of course, but the press in its wisdom never bothered to point that out. Also, no annoyed pissed off body language. When you add the very real disintegration in his performance to the fact that he has been the President of the United States for nearly four years and cannot string a sensible set of thoughts together and looked like an angry little brat....oh yeah, MUCH worse!

[Bandit]

23. The difference is in 2000 he was a candidate, this year he is

pResident. He was promising the world in 2000 and this year he was defending his policies. He was not bragging about how well he had done. In 2000 he was going to give us the moon. In 2004 we know he is not competent to do anything and he knows that as well. It is Hard Work to be an imbecile.

[cheshire]

5. Couldn't find a big enough gyroscope to spin that flop.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. I've been wondering too...

The nearest I can come to a theory is that he was so damn bad that the reframe was hopeless. I talked to a relatively clueless "undecided" today who said she thought Bush's performance was so stupid that she is wavering toward Kerry. Maybe she was influenced by the pundits, but I kinda doubt it--it sounded like her own conclusion. She is a probation agent & therefore used to reading people.

[dansolo]

15. Also too many people were watching

With viewership equal to roughly half of the likely voters, there was no way that they could have spun it any other way.

[deadparrot]

7. He was standing next to Kerry. Apparently,

large amounts of the American public don't realize that * is such an incompetent ass if he's up on stage by himself surrounded by adoring fans. Put Kerry up there, and some people get a clue.

[mitchum]

8. The emperor had no clothes (except for that Kevlar )

[WilliamPitt]

9. It was a rout

[alcuno]

10. Because this time, 63 million people saw how awful he was.

Hard to spin that when the contrast was so clear and SEEN by such a large number of people.

[Lerkfish]

12. two reasons: 1. contrasted directly with Kerry, and

2. no thunderous applause/support. Its like a laugh track on a really bad sitcom. it subconsiously makes you feel guilty that you don't find it as funny as people in the audience (laughtrack) do.
Since we've all seen fawning sycophants applauding his every utterance as if it were gold, we subconsciously have given it more credit than it would deserves without the fawning.

Now, us here are more immune to that..but freepers are highly susceptible to that sort of thing...the dark side of the force is strongest against those of weakest minds...

(edit: this was supposed to be directed to the thread in general)

[arewenotdemo]

16. I agree. Those are the two main reasons.

Those and the fact that Kerry was relentless. Bush had to play defense the whole game, and his record is indefensible.

[cyr330]

11. Hmmmmm

Could it have anything to do with the stunningly shitty performance he treated us all to last Thursday evening?

[Johnny 99]

13. It's impossible to spin it otherwise

The GOP tried, but everyone saw through it. I don't think the whole "low expectations" game is going to work out this time - he has tried to portray himself as Mr. Strong Leader, yet he's inept in a debate. Already Kerry is back in a dead heat - another bad performance, even an average one, is just going to hurt Bush.

On the other hand, Kerry needs to dominate again, regardless of how Bush does, and Edwards needs to make Cheney look like the soulless blood-sucking piece of cow shit that he is.

[genius]

17. I was expecting the paramedics to come in and take him away.

[leftofthedial]

18. he showed more disgust and impatience than "usual"

It was really more a case of Kerry doing so well that showed the bushturd for what it is.

[Jane Austin]

19. I'm still curious as to what makes a disasterous bush performance differen

The difference is that it went on for 90 freaking minutes!

[K8-EEE]

20. He Did WAY Worse Than In 2000!!!

Natch he was a moron in 2000 but he didn't have that hungover look he has now -- he had a bit of spark and energy to his disgusting, BS rhetoric.

This time his disgusting BS rhetoric looked like it was boring HIM to death!!

[Lerkfish]

21. I agree...it was worse..

in 2000, he was espousing DIFFERENT points which contrast completely with his actions. Do you remember how he touted nonintervention and was against nation-building..the list goes on.

in 2000, he ran on a platform that was 180 degrees from his eventual record.

in 2004, he has to defend a failed foreign policy, which is a lot more "hard work" than spouting theory.

[npincus]

22. LOL- love the expression "trying to polish this turd"

hilarious- that's exactly it! All the spinmeisters and GOP pundits are in fact, turd polishers! Very original!

[skygazer]

24. He's the incumbent now

In addition to not being able to spell that, he now has to defend his performance over the last four years. It's a lot easier to just make stuff up that you're going to accomplish than it is to rationalize the complete clusterfuck that is Iraq.

Add to that mix the fact that Kerry performed so well and you have the recipe for a meltdown. Sure, he was just as bad as he is in his campaign stops but there, he has hand picked crowds to play to who applaud his every inanity. With a real politician for comparison, he comes off looking much worse.

[demwing]

25. Of Course, the Professional Turd Polishers Are Still Busy Rubbing

but their rhetoric is looking especially thin, and their presentation is inceasingly lame.

Watched Scarborough's show last night, and while he is posiutive Bush flubbed the debate, the talking heads started out by making fun of Kerry's nails, asking if he had a French manicure, then "what is it with Kerry and France?" then on to "Kerry is weak on the issues!"

WTF?

Kerry's nails are an issue? Can the turds get any deeper?

Luckily, regardless of how much you spit and how much you rub, shit will NEVER turn into shinola. The turd will NOT shine.

[CityHall]

26. Test

Test post

[hatrack]

27. I think it's pretty simple

As political junkies, many of us here at DU have hung with breathless amazement on every rotten-tuna moment of Bush's campaign events over the past year.

We are well aware of the hand-picked audiences, the cross-brandishing Thumpers, the pre-chewed "questions". Most importantly, we've been aware for a long time of Chimpy's capacity for moments of complete idiocy, even in carefully greased and managed moments like these - witness ObGyns "practicing their love", and countless such.

But for the first time in four years, the Littlest President didn't have his cue cards, didn't have his teleprompter, didn't have his pre-chewed questions and adoring fans. In excruciating silence, he posthumously beat the same old horse he's been flogging since five years back, and it wasn't enough. He stumbled, mumbled and waited for carefully cued applause that wasn't coming. He didn't have the material, he didn't have the smarts and he definitely didn't have the presence he needed.

For the first time in four years, tens of millions of Americans tuned to see the Bush we've known about since 2000 - snappy, petulant, thin-skinned, dismissive, ignorant and arrogant - and they saw him working without a net for the first time in four years.

And he slipped off the tightrope.