Being insular to press biting Bush in the ass?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 7, 2004, 3:00 pm

I wonder if Bush not doing a lot of press conferences, not doing campaign stops without scripted questions from known supporters has come back to bite him in the ass.

Perhaps instead of his handlers being so scared of him talking off the cuff, they should have been developing that skill instead of just trying to minimize damage. Because, he needs to have one if not 2 strong debate performances to win this election.

heard a conversation about it, and i think there could be some truth to it.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » October 7, 2004, 3:35 pm

That was a point I read in the Tribune today as well. Some Bush supporters are worried that because he's been so reinforced over the past four years that he's doing the right thing, he's not used to people directly confronting him. If you've ever watched a few of his press conferences, he gets real snappy when he has to think on his feet and shows lots of anger if shown a differing opinion. Perhaps the isolation Bush has been in will, as you say Voronwe, hurt him.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 7, 2004, 4:10 pm

It is unfortunate that Bush is a mediocre debater. I was watching commentary from an analyst that was pointing out all sorts of things that Bush could have used during the debate that wouldn't have bashed Kerry but would have strengthened his stance on Iraq and the war on terror.

A Cheney/Kerry debate would be much better for the republicans. Bush needs to call in sick tomorrow and have Cheney stand in.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » October 7, 2004, 6:37 pm

Winnow wrote:
A Cheney/Kerry debate would be much better for the republicans. Bush needs to call in sick tomorrow and have Cheney stand in.

Agreed. But, the media would still say Kerry won. "Kerry did what he needed to do tonight.....blah blah blah." "Cheney seemed like a grumpy old man.....blah blah blah". I guess we now know the origin of the hotkey.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » October 7, 2004, 6:57 pm

Question...if you think Cheney knows more about what's going on, why isn't he running for President? A Kerry/Cheney debate would be better, you say. Why?

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 7, 2004, 7:06 pm

I don't think he was saying Cheney knows more, I think he was saying Cheney is a better debator.

Xzion- · Post by **Xzion-** » October 7, 2004, 9:57 pm

The difference is...ummm uhhh uhhhhh ummm... B..b...b.b.Bush is a fucking moron (im not saying this just because i disagree with him, im just stating a plain fact), Cheney on the other hand is a very intelligent man. He has more power atm then Bush has, he has been dubbed "the most powerful/influential VP in American history). Bush is but a puppet (I don’t see why, but I guess he appeals to there base (dumbass racist rednecks/religious fanatics, as he embodies both stereotypes))
On intellect scale it would go
Kerry>Cheney>Edwards>Bush imo

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » October 7, 2004, 10:49 pm

Having Scott McClellan as your frontman really pays off I think. That way you don't have to answer any legitimate question and you have a nice looking guy keep repeating the same phrase in different forms.

Same goes with a lot of Bush/Cheney campaign stops, republican registration is a must to attend most of these events. I'm not sure if its the same way with Kerry/Edwards but at least from where I'm from its mostly open forum style where anyone can come and go as they please.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » October 8, 2004, 9:39 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Winnow wrote:
A Cheney/Kerry debate would be much better for the republicans. Bush needs to call in sick tomorrow and have Cheney stand in.
Agreed. But, the media would still say Kerry won. "Kerry did what he needed to do tonight.....blah blah blah." "Cheney seemed like a grumpy old man.....blah blah blah". I guess we now know the origin of the hotkey.

That's funny, after the first debate, they had some woman with a PhD so exclamatory over how wonderful Bush's performance was, I thought she was going to have his baby right then and there.

She couldn't even make a valid point, just rant and rave about how fucking glorious Bush was and how he obviously won the debate hands down.

Maybe you should try watching more channels...you might see that not every media outlet it out to get you.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 8, 2004, 11:03 am

Same old tripe.

Originality elusive

Silvarel Mistmoon · Post by **Silvarel Mistmoon** » October 8, 2004, 11:04 am

I watched the debate on C Span and I don't see where Kerry did all that great.
I think they had the wrong questions asked. Kerry did not say one thing different then he has said the entire time he has been running. Bush had to react to every answer Kerry gave because they were attacks on Bush, he had no choice but to answer as he did.
I say give them questions real people want answers to, not what some idiot news person wants to ask.
I will most likely end up watching again tonight, my 15 year old daughter has American History this year and every day they talk about current events, so she asked me to watch the last one with her and I sat through it even though I hate watching debates.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 8, 2004, 11:08 am

tripe!

i thought it was a legitmate question. If Bush repeats the performance he had last week, the election is over. If you don't believe me, ask that liberal media icon Bill O'Reilly

miir · Post by **miir** » October 8, 2004, 11:56 am

I think they had the wrong questions asked. Kerry did not say one thing different then he has said the entire time he has been running. Bush had to react to every answer Kerry gave because they were attacks on Bush, he had no choice but to answer as he did.

Maybe Bush doesn't have any valid issues to attack Kerry on.
Maybe Bush was on the defensive so often because his administration has done such an abysmal job in the past 3 years and has refused to take responsibility on any of it. Bush is a sitting duck. As long as Kerry stays on the offensive, Bush will be at a distinct disadvantage.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » October 8, 2004, 11:57 am

I was talking with a friend about the debates last night and he assured me that Bush's people will be showing him all the finer points of public speaking since he did so poorly in the previous one and it hurt him. I told him that they've had 4 years to teach him how to speak well in public, what the hell difference is a couple more days going to make? He was a C student in college, and has several failed businesses that his father gave him to run. Bush never had it in him and he simply never will. End of story.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 8, 2004, 11:57 am

Voronwë wrote:tripe!

i thought it was a legitmate question. If Bush repeats the performance he had last week, the election is over. If you don't believe me, ask that liberal media icon Bill O'Reilly

That was classic.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 8, 2004, 12:01 pm

Did anyone see Bill on David Letterman the other night? It was classic, O'Rilley spent at least a min. or two bashing Bush's performance at the debate... classic

Marb

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 8, 2004, 12:22 pm

he repeated it on the Daily Show last night.

I think Bill got with a PR firm earlier this summer and must have had some serious sessions on how to remake his image. And to his credit he is doing a good job. He is coming across as a likeable guy in these interviews, (promoting his books). His radio ratings are down some, so perhaps it is part of changing that around as well. His TV ratings are of course solid as a rock. He owns 8pm in the land of cable news.

anyway, i think Bill is doing a good job putting a more marketable face on himself.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » October 8, 2004, 12:33 pm

Politics are becoming a burnout issue for me.

I hear the same stuff over and over.

Someone posts an opinion, everyone half listens and dumps their oft-repeated canned response.

rinse and repeat

After a while it just becomes noise.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 8, 2004, 12:54 pm

I'm a little worried about tonight's debate.

The republicans might need to use some fear tactics to pull this election out afterall. Pump that terror-o-meter up to orange starting Nov 1st.

The media has been decidely on Kerry's side since the first presidential debate. I think they are more interested in creating a close election for the TV ratings drama than anything else.

The funny thing is terror could decide this election but probably not in the way the terrorists would want. Terror threat/event close to the election = Bush win. Terrorists playing it smart and remaining in the shadows near the elections = a boon for terrorists with Kerry being elected so they can run rampant the next four years.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 8, 2004, 12:58 pm

Yes, I'm concerned that Kerry's campaign platform includes letting terrorists run free internationally while he does nothing about it.

I like Bush's policy of ferreting out and killing all of the terrorists in Iraq. 15000 down, and thousands more to go. Hopefully Bush will continue this tactic of invading and occupying soverign nation to kill more terrorists because it has been incredibly effective so far.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 8, 2004, 1:01 pm

I think King Richard's crusade to liberate the Holy land--- err oil reserve--- err...

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 8, 2004, 1:17 pm

miir wrote:Yes, I'm concerned that Kerry's campaign platform includes letting terrorists run free internationally while he does nothing about it.

Kerry will do jack shit about the terror issue and it will fester. I don't want to hear empty flip flopping promises. I want to see a president who takes care of business and doesn't worry that it will hurt his image. Fuck Kerry and everyone like him. The guy is as fake as his face. He's a power hungry wannabe that marries richer and richer women, will take whatever stance is necessary to make himself look good in the polls. Bush sucks but Kerry would be our worst president ever if he got into office and I can't even fathom the horror that would happen to our country if Kerry dies and Edwards becomes our president. That guy has no business being anywhere near the White House.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 8, 2004, 1:36 pm

I hope History will be able to prove you wrong Winnow. Personally someone who can't take the time to evaluate the situation and continually goes against evidence to support his personal scares me more than having Carter back in the WH... You can be a great man and not a good President like J. Carter or you can be neither like G. Bush.

Did you guys know that Prescott Bush (Ws Grandfather) helped to sell thousands of Nazi War bonds to support WWII before we got involved? We people say Bush is a Fasicst they have no idea how correct they really are...

I do commend your post though Win, just like you said, the Republicans need to go on the offensive in regard to trying to scare America to keep them in office. We just won't fall for it here

Cheers!
Marb

miir · Post by **miir** » October 8, 2004, 1:42 pm

Tell me, oh wise one, how did you come to your conclusions.

Kerry will do jack shit about the terror issue and it will fester.

What evidence has Kerry given that his administation would ignore the issue of global terrorism? In his speeches and campaign platform, he has indicated the opposite.

want to see a president who takes care of business and doesn't worry that it will hurt his image.

SO you think that the USA can singlehandedly fight and defeat terrorism on a golobal scale without the help of anyone else? Should the USA alienate and belittile any potential ally that might question their motives and means? Do you feel that foreign policy based on isolationism and military might is more effective than one that balances negotiation with the threat of military action?

Fuck Kerry and everyone like him. The guy is as fake as his face.

So physical appearence is an important factor in your political opinions?

He's a power hungry wannabe that marries richer and richer women

As opposed to George W Bush who has been 'given' control of powerful, successful companies and consistently driven them into the ground?
If one cannot manage a successful company, how can one expect them to successfuly manage an entire country?

will take whatever stance is necessary to make himself look good in the polls.

Since you have no special insight into the psyche of John Kerry, how can you truthfully say if he believes the stances he takes on issues.

Your posts are getting pretty inane lately Winnow.
You were much more entertaining when you were playing the role of the prnakster. At least your cracks at canadians were amusing.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 8, 2004, 1:45 pm

The Bush terror record.

Feb 2001: Bipartisan Feingold/Hart commission requests to meet with senior White House staff to report on 3 year findings of investigation of terror threats to the United States. Bush refuses to meet with them because Russ Feingold helped John McCain campaign for president.

March 2001: Terrorism "Czar" Richard Clarke continuously requesting principles meeting to discuss Al Qaeda and threats to the United States. This meeting never happens, and it is on 9/11 that principles defer to Clarke during the events to coordinate governmental affairs.

Jan 20, 2001 -> Sept 14th (or later) 2001: Presidential Task force on Counterterrorism chaired by Dick Cheney never meets.

Aug 6, 2001: Presidential Daily Briefing from the CIA entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States" indicating that risks included highjacking of airplanes. Earlier in the summer the President's accomodations in Switzerland had to be moved because of fears of a terrorist attack on that hotel by impacting a highjacked airliner into it.

Sept 11, 2001: President Bush told "we are under attack". Responds by sitting motionless for 7 minutes holding a children's book.

Winnow, as usual, your political opinions are completely baseless. YOu offer nothing other than parroted propaganda and i defy you to produce evidence to support your case that President Kerry will be weaker against terrorism.

I don't think that Bush had a high probability of stopping 9/11 even if his administration was working hard on the effort. But you know what, they weren't doing shit to protect us from terrorism. If you are trying your best, and you fail, that is OK. It is not OK to fail because you simply were ignoring the problem.

Homeland Security is an underfunded joke of a bureaucracy. NOthing has been done to secure our seaports. People can still smuggle weapons onto airliners, terrorists are actively probing our airport security and doing test runs of bomb assembly on our flights (Source: Women's Wall St Journal).

Israeli intelligence analyst take on our attack of Iraq:

"Before Iraq there was one Osama Bin Laden. Now there are hundreds"

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 8, 2004, 1:47 pm

Conversely: Proove that Kerry would be a stronger force than Bush

miir · Post by **miir** » October 8, 2004, 1:54 pm

Akaran_D wrote:Conversely: Proove that Kerry would be a stronger force than Bush

You can read about it in his campaign platform and transcripts from speeches.

If he does what he says he will do, it will be a lot more proactive than the Bush administration.

Usually, when someone makes an accusation, the onus is on them to at least try to prove, or give some credibility to their accusation... not the other way around.
If I was to accuse George W Bush of eating babies for lunch, the onus would not be on you to prove he doesn't.

This is a basic rule of debate.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 8, 2004, 1:59 pm

miir wrote:
Akaran_D wrote:Conversely: Proove that Kerry would be a stronger force than Bush
You can read about it in his campaign platform and transcripts from speeches.

I am going to destroy the moon tomorrow.

You can read about that right here. Campaign promises mean shit. Kerry's actual history is a wishy washy mess of confusion. Sure, he can promise to do this or that...it has as much validity as me promising to destroy the moon.

Kerry will tell you what he thinks you want to hear and not necessarily what he'll do.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 8, 2004, 2:03 pm

You can read about that right here. Campaign promises mean shit. Kerry's actual history is a wishy washy mess of confusion. Sure, he can promise to do this or that...it has as much validity as me promising to destroy the moon.

Can you show me something, anywhere that shows Kerry's history on sticking campaign promises?

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 8, 2004, 2:05 pm

Sorry Miir - in America, it's a race to find out who can break their campaign promises the fastest. Politicans never tell the truth in their work to get elected, and if by some chance that they do, they don't tell you the full truth about it.

They are about as flimsy as one-ply toilet paper.

Show me some proof as to what he has done so far in the senate to make the country more secure, and I'll be more inclined to beleive them.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 8, 2004, 2:09 pm

Show me some proof as to what he has done so far in the senate to make the country more secure, and I'll be more inclined to beleive them.

Find it yourself.

I'm not going to waste my time proving Winnow's horsehit wrong when he can't even be arsed to back up his GOP spin spewing accusations with any semblance of facts.

And while you're at it, find some proof the Duya doesn't eat babies.
Because I can't believe that you people would want a baby eater running your country. I also heard that he assfucks all of the male Whithouse interns. PROVE THAT ONE WRONG!!!!

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 8, 2004, 2:11 pm

Sorry Miir.
If you can't be bothered to convince me, I can't be bothered to look for it myself. You want me to vote for him, you have to show me every reason why.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 8, 2004, 2:16 pm

Typical....

This forum is just becoming one big fucking joke now.
It used to be kinda fun when people actually took the time to back up their points and arguments with facts.

So Akaran, have you found any proof that Dubya isn't a homosexual assfucking babyeater?

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 8, 2004, 2:17 pm

Nope. But I haven't had any reasonable reasons to look for it.
Campaign promises != reasonable.

And yes, this forum has degraded into one big joke.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 8, 2004, 2:37 pm

Ok then, since you can't prove it wrong, George W Bush must be an assfucking babyeater.

And you want this guy as your president?

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 8, 2004, 2:42 pm

But I haven't had any reasonable reasons to look for it.

Show me evidence that Bush has fucked babies in the ass and eaten his sperm from their intestines with a spoon, and I'll start looking /beleiving.

Show me evidence that Kerry has made attempts to stop terrorism or to defend our country, and I'll start looking / beleiving.

Words mean nothing. Campaign promises mean nothing.
Saying soemthing means nothing.

Xorian · Post by **Xorian** » October 8, 2004, 2:51 pm

Show me evidence that Bush has fucked babies in the ass and eaten his sperm from their intestines with a spoon

disgusting

edit: typo

Truant · Post by **Truant** » October 8, 2004, 2:52 pm

How can you demand proof of what someone will do as leader when they haven't been elected yet.

That makes no fucking sense at all.

It's like your asking us to run a simulation of the world with Kerry as president then show you the results so you can decide if Kerry is worth voting for or not.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 8, 2004, 3:10 pm

Show me evidence that Kerry has made attempts to stop terrorism or to defend our country, and I'll start looking / beleiving.

*boggle*

I'll show you, as soon as you tell me how a senator can directly affect national policy in regards to the 'war on terror'.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 8, 2004, 3:11 pm

So what you're saying is, you assume he's better than Bush based on his campaign promises?

Thess · Post by **Thess** » October 8, 2004, 3:21 pm

Akaran_D wrote:Sorry Miir.
If you can't be bothered to convince me, I can't be bothered to look for it myself. You want me to vote for him, you have to show me every reason why.

I believe I have taken every opportunity to help point you and direct you to information you have wanted.

The main reason I read in the 9/11 report for the reason it happened was a lack of imagination, I find that a slap in the face to everyone who died as well as there loved ones, terrorists using planes as bombs has been planned before. We know terrorists will look for any hole in our security system to cause harm to americans and our economy.

If I can find the holes in our security system - our ports as well as nuclear power plants/waste (they don't even have no fly zones), think about what someone who wants to harm america could think of.

Say a 9/11 type event happened - does anyone here know how to respond if it happened in their area? The last information I got about how to respond to a threat was to get under my desk in school...

miir · Post by **miir** » October 8, 2004, 3:22 pm

Akaran_D wrote:So what you're saying is, you assume he's better than Bush based on his campaign promises?

No, what I am saying is that Kerry's campaign platform seems more thorough and proactive on the issues surrounding national security and fighting global terrorism.

Bush doesn't really seem to have as coherent a plan to fight global terrorism. His track record to date has been less than stellar.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » October 8, 2004, 3:23 pm

Akaran_D wrote:So what you're saying is, you assume he's better than Bush based on his campaign promises?

Yes of course he does. I mean, god, why would you look at his record in the senate for the past 2 decades? Why would you be worried that even he and his runnign mate won't even discuss their records? Why would you be concerned that the media, debate questioners, don't take him to task on his record? LOL

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 8, 2004, 3:25 pm

Aye Thess, you have, and I thank for you it.
I'll keep going through it as I get the time, too.

But yes, I know what to do - in my area - should another 9/11 attack occur. In the events of a chemical spill, I know what areas to avoid, in the event of a fire, I know what to do, in the event of 'terrorists' pulling guns and shooting the shit out of everything, I know what to do, in response to a nuclear attack, it's safe to assume I 'll be going in a direction opposite the blast site.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » October 8, 2004, 3:26 pm

shit, its opposite? i gotta study more

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 8, 2004, 3:46 pm

his senate record on defense seems to mirror Dick Cheney's opinions as Sec of Defense. Which is a point of concern for me.

Burke · Post by **Burke** » October 8, 2004, 4:12 pm

Why should anyone show or prove anything to anyone on this thread or this board? Are you really going to change your vote if they do or don't?

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » October 8, 2004, 6:38 pm

Akaran_D wrote:Show me evidence that Kerry has made attempts to stop terrorism or to defend our country, and I'll start looking / beleiving.

Errrmmm the discover and dismantling of BCCI...

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 8, 2004, 6:41 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Politics are becoming a burnout issue for me.

I hear the same stuff over and over.

Someone posts an opinion, everyone half listens and dumps their oft-repeated canned response.

rinse and repeat

After a while it just becomes noise.

So my theory is correct. You do only read your own posts.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 8, 2004, 10:35 pm

I want to see a president who takes care of business and doesn't worry that it will hurt his image.

Yeah you're right Winnow, Bush does an excellent job when it comes to taking care of businesses.. heh.