As others have stated, these debates aren’t debates at all but quasi beauty pageants/parallel news conferences. The only question is will enough people value the substance over the style. Sure our W is a bit of a gomer, but Easter Island Statue Head seems to me much sound and fury, in the end signifying nothing.

Ah well, it’s on to the VP debates tonight. Have already caught the gist of the lamestream spin for this go around- because it’s anticipated that Cheney is going to beat Edwards like a dime store drum, they’ll focus on the “personalities” in this one…. Mr. Sunny vs. Dr. Evil. In typical tired fashion, the liberals try to portray Cheney as a puppy kicking mastermind, which is the fallback liberal position when the stupid Conservative label doesn’t stick. (Thanks to Ann Coulter for recognizing this phenomena)

And ABC as well as Pew are still showing Bush with a 5 point lead as of this morning….uh, what happened to the Kerry bounce? Reporting for duty, indeed.

I had the same concerns too and thus why I did my own research into the polling methodology of these camps. The Gallup poll for example counts newly registered 18 year olds as LIKELY voters with ..and get this…a VOTING HISTORY! LOL!! Go figure.

If you click on the “Methodology” link on some of these sites, you will see their flaws. The key is whether or not they are using a large enough sample size (should be at least 3,000 to be statisticaly significant) and whether or not they are likely vs. registered voters and finally, where is the region the poll was taken? For instance, the Newsweek results so highly publicized by Kerry’s surrogates in the media were garnered from the Pacific Northwestern states and included only registered voters. Hardly a mixed heterogeneous sampling of political ideology.

The math is just flawed.

Pay close attention to the internals and you will see that Bush will win in a landslide. So let not your heart be troubled as Hannity would say. The media is in full campaing for Kerry mode. but voters are seeing through their “ratheresque” BS.

The left wing media has shifted from their already suspect “unbiased” REPORTING of the news to ACTIVELY CAMPAIGNING for Sen. Kerry. From the citing of polls with suspect methodologies and sample sizes to the ignoring of more robust polls indicating that President Bush has actually increased his lead in the polls. The Rasmussen Poll of 1,000 LIKELY voters actually shows 4-point over 3-day lead Bush has extended over John Kerry but nooooooooo, all we hear is how John Kerry all of a sudden has a statistically insignificant 2-point lead in heavily left leaning and heavily Democrat sampling polls like Newsweek and the Associated Press.

America was warned about John McCain and Russ Feingold’s stupid idea. The media knew full well that this would be their last minute unrestricted opportunity to keep a failing Democrat candidate like Kerry in the race. Since the candidates cannot advertise within 60 days out from the election, the liberal print and TV media take over as surrogates for John Kerry.

It is equally sickening that no one has the courage to call the so-called “swing” voter what it really is. Aside from a few truly conscientious members of this group, they are an unintelligent, superficial, shallow, poorly educated, infectious virus that is ill qualified to even cast a vote let alone participate constructively in our political processes. These kinds of voters will be the impetus for bringing back literacy and civics tests for qualifying to vote. Anyone who thinks Kerry won the debate because he looked better is a moron. President Bush clearly won the debate on substance. Alas for anyone to see that, they had to actually be listening rather than seeing which candidate looked better in his suit on TV.

I am still amazed why no one has mentioned that a man who has fought and is fighting two wars, trying to prevent another attack in this nation before election day, has had to watch the bodies of our brave fighting men come home in coffins, deal with the Democrat made mess that is North Korea and Iran and visit and console the victims of 4 major hurricanes in Florida and the Southeast HAS THE RIGHT TO LOOK AND BEHAVE ANGRILY in a debate with the traitorous vermin that is John Kerry. Why shouldn’t the President bristle at the troop killing rhetoric and lies spewing from mouth of the American hating Senator from Massachusetts? In fact, it may have been all the more appropriate for the President to walk over and deck the lowlife for his treasonous ways. John Kerry is killing my soldiers and I don’t like it one bit. He is working against the interests of the United States and offering nothing in the way of a positive future. I seem to recall in history where one American president even shot a man dead on the White House lawn for a much lesser offense.

I encourage black folk to think twice before voting for Kerry. No matter how you feel about President Bush now, it is in our best interest to take an even harder look at the Democrat Party and how they have kept us imprisoned on the plantation and locked in poverty and despair with their social handouts and vote buys. At the least we should be taking advantage of and crediting out President with starting programs that have seen the highest black home ownership in US HISTORY!

I encourage those of you out there who want fair and balanced coverage to do more research on your own, look at the other major polls like Rasmussen, and more importantly analyze the INTERNALS OF THE POLLS to see how the American people are being deceived by the Democrats and their surrogates in the media. Just like Dan Rather lied to the American people, so are Katie Couric, Chris Matthews, CNN and the other members of the 5th Column going after our president.

Kerry has not pulled even with president Bush when all of the polls are analyzed in the aggregate… America is not being told the truth, but I WILL TELL IT!

As for some other issue brought up in this e-mail thread, the nuclear issue that is North Korea was caused by none other than the weak presidency that defined Bill Clinton’s tenure. The spineless William Jefferson Clinton sent world renowned coward and pacifist Jimmy Carter to North Korea to ask them nicely to stop their nuclear weapons program and in typical appeasing weakling form, Jimmy doing Bill Clinton’s bidding gave a hostile, enemy, communist nation who WE ARE STILL AT WAR WITH two light-water nuclear reactors and $6 BILLION!!! Now what do you think North Korea did with those two gifts from the US? That’s right, they created nuclear weapons. Duuuuh. Other Clinton failures that President Bush is trying to fix now:

Not so bright people love to claim that George W. Bush lied about something, if so what EXACTLY is that lie and I would like someone to provide the EXACT quote that leads one to imply such. When and more importantly IF one finds such “lie” please be sure to add the quotes of all of the other parties including, France, Germany and John Kerry who received the EXACT same intelligence and voted to authorize force in Iraq. Did I mention that at the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, SADDAM HIMSELF threatened to douse our troops with WMD?

When Clinton lied, no one died? Are you sure?

* Mogadishu, Somalia 1993 19 US Rangers DEAD (CLINTON)

* WTC bombing 1993 (CLINTON)

* US embassy bombing Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (CLINTON)

* TWO US Embassies bombed in Africa. Over 200 dead

(CLINTON)

* USS Cole 17 dead (CLINTON)

* Khobar Towers bombing, Saudi Arabia 34 dead (CLINTON)

* 1996 Clinton put Al Gore in charge of National Airport

Security (CLINTON)

* 1998 9/11 bombers enter the country and begin training

(CLINTON)

* WTC 9/11/01 3000 DEAD all due to CLINTON’s inaction

against the terrorists.

“Yes, he (Saddam) paid the families of the suicide bombers in Israel”

That fact alone is enough to destroy Iraq.

Kerry said in so many words that we needed the permission of other countries to go to war (his infamous “global test” quote), but I am having a hard time seeing how Kerry is going to back up his claim that his is a strong diplomat when he has a psycho wife who will make any moronic comment at the drop of a hat, has slapped and spit in the face of the very visiting dignitary (Allawi) whose country he says he THIS WEEK (it will change again soon) he wants to help, told China, South Korea and Japan that they have no place in talks with North Korea to disarm and who has dishonored the other members of the 40+ nation coalition that is fighting the battle in Iraq. Kerry is to diplomat as Jesse Jackson is to black leader……NO CREDIBILITY. Nothing in his 20 year Senate record that he has been hiding suggests anything but weakness on nation defense.

Attacking Iraq and any muslim nation where terrorists are harbored is ALWAYS a good idea IF you do it correctly. My only criticism with President Bush is that he has not fought the battle in Iraq like a real war as say a General George S. Patton would have fought it and killed enough people and that Fallujah and Najaf and Samarrah are still standing. The ultimate solution to teach the muslims to leave the US alone would be to take out a city for every American killed starting with MECCA!!!!!!!

The bottom line is that clearly John Kerry lost the debate on substance but won it in the left wing media on so called style. The media itself is cheering Kerry. Then again, saying Kerry won the so-called debate is what we expect from the idiots out there who have not decided after 4 DADGUM YEARS whom they should vote for.

My point on the VP debate is that Bush laid a good foundation of substabnce to build on while Kerry laid down a bunch of BS. The VP debate is not really about the VP guys but an opportunity to argue the POSITIONS of the Presidential candidates. Cheney has been so maligned with this Dr. Evil stuff that he can improve his favorability if he can just refrain from torturing cats or taking a bribe live on camera. He is the most experienced VP in history while Edwards is the least. Cheney has to defend consistent Bush positions and if Edwards can remeber Kerry’s positions he should BE President.

No I think Cheney will crack a few appearance jokes on himself and start carving up Kerry. Cheney has no real need to even debate Edwards. He will pretend Edwards isn’t even there.

Whether Bush’s game is good will be revealed on 3 Nov. If he keeps the White House, gains 60 or more in the senate as well as any gains in the house, he will have effectively taken out cHillary in 08 and set back socialism for decades. Reason being, once Joe Q. Public gets a taste of the privatized social security, ownership, tort reform et al, he ain’t gonna give it up for cHillary or any moonbat for a looong time.

A campaign is one long debate. Kerry is playing checkers and Bush is playing chess (Dick Morris).

My take is actually fundamental to Morris. Bush has been debating a moving target. So his first task was just to get as much of Kerry on the record as he could. He did that. His next task was to sound strong, resolute, and caring. Finally he needed to nake it clearthat he is living in fantasy land. Hench he said “hard work” over and over. This plays on Kerry’s leisurely image.

Finally I think the strategery was to set up Kerry so Cheney can move in for the Kill in the VP debate.

Isn’t it worrying to people that so much rides—or is supposed to ride—on a “debate” that isn’t a debate but an image contest?

I just heard an NPR reporter claiming that Kerry is now triumphantly riding the crest of a “strong showing” in the debate. Now, this statement may presume a falsity—that Kerry “won” the debate. I don’t know, because I didn’t watch or hear it. (Of course, with liberal media bias . . . which, by the way, is there to see for them’s got eyes.) But I do know this: if he did “win,” it was because, as one of the commentators in this thread said, he managed to “look presidential.”

Once again: isn’t it frightening that so much rides on a “debate” whose object is . . . to “look more presidential” than the other guy? I know I’m exaggerating a bit, but only a bit.

On a related note, there’s an interesting letter to the editory in today’s Washington Post from a journalism prof. from Memphis who wants to reassure readers that TV news isn’t irrelevant. Why? Because the TV news doesn’t just tell you about events, it shows them to you. It’s more immediate than print.

Why is this interesting? Because the author is praising as a virtue what’s a vice of TV, esp. as a forum for political discussion: TV is all about immediate images, which means . . . it’s almost automatically propagandistic. And so I come back to the “debates”. . .

Adrian

There are all sorts of jobs, large and small, where you can contribute. Last weekend, and I will be doing this weekend also, I walked my local neighborhood contacting registered Republicans only from a list provided by my local office.

I just had to remind fellow Republican neighbors to be sure and vote in this important election, where to vote, and hand out a state party generated card that listed the party recommended candidates for local, state, and federal offices.

It is also a great opportunity to meet like minded people and meet new friends and neighbors. It is the first time I have done anything like this and I am glad I did. I am having fun.