Media Bias and the Debate

[a_unique_person]

Surprise, surprise, Kerry won the debate. You would have to be a frozen halibut to lose a debate with Dubya. But the interesting thing is how, when the people actually get to compare the two candidates directly, perceptions change dramatically.

I had thought the result of the debate would be irrelevant to the polls, but not so. Kerry, after being in a position so bad I would have thought it was about time to give up and go home, is apparently level pegging with a good chance to win again.

The question is, how can people, when presented with a clear and simple comparison, decide one way, but when presented with the medias interpretation, or the spin doctors manipulation, of the two candidates, have a markedly different view.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/03/gallup.poll/index.html

 

[corplinx]

I think the faces of the candidates seen in the debates are just as artifical as any other representation.

 

[peptoabysmal]

It's simple. Kerry won on style and Bush won on substance.

From the article:

On who is more honest and trustworthy, however, Bush trumped Kerry by 46 percent to 41 percent, and when asked who among the two candidates shares their values, voters chose Bush 49 percent to 45 percent for Kerry.

And when it comes to who they think is the stronger leader, those polled favored Bush by 56 percent to 37 percent for Kerry.

The Democrats made the blunder of polarizing the country on the Iraq war and showing themselves as weak on National Security. The only ones who haven't made up their mind by now on who they will vote for will very likely not even show up to vote. Now they are hammering away at the economy, but as any middle class person knows, aside from prices at the gas pump, the economy is doing pretty darned well right now. The economy is just not as much of an issue as National Security is. Kerry looks very weak on National Security and he is now comitted to painting himself into this corner.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Unfortunately, Pepto, polls show that undecideds went for Kerry after the election. Pop over to the USA Today area and see for yourself.

Bush is opening our borders - he recently said he will be adding 1,000 more border police. That's right, One Thousand. For around 6,000 miles of land border, and not including ocean borders. How will that help? He put more security than that in airports!

The Taliban is growing in power again in Afghanistan. Iraq is not improving. Cheney shrieks about new and impending attacks frequently, and so does Ridge. Meanwhile, it's not too hard to figure this out: Mexico has nowhere near the security level that we do. Terrorists could sneak into Mexico, cross the border with the 3 million other illegal immigrants who cross the border each year, and bam, we're attacked again.

Is he looking for that? No. Instead, he wants to give temporary worker cards to the illegal immigrants. He feels that giving jobs to Mexican families is a priority over both giving jobs to Americans and security. Why? Because businesses want him to. Mexicans work for less money.

Basically Bush is selling our security for votes from big business and from Hispanics.

About the debate: Why can't Kerry just win, without all the qualifiers? Why do you have to excuse yourself into some sort of fabricated tie?

For that matter, why are some conservatives saying that Lehrer asked Bush tough and loaded questions but asked Kerry easy softball questions? Anything to excuse Bush's poor performance, I guess. After all, Republicans agreed to all the moderators.

 

[clk]

The Democrats made the blunder of polarizing the country on the Iraq war

LOL! So the Democrats are responsible for polarizing this country, not Bush's policy of "Rush to war first, ask questions later"?

 

[a_unique_person]

LOL! So the Democrats are responsible for polarizing this country, not Bush's policy of "Rush to war first, ask questions later"?

When going along with the tide and not creating dissent on the reaction to 9/11, Kerry is called a 'flip flopper'. When he calls the result a disaster, he is a polariser.

 

[Dorian Gray]

I think what has really polarized this country is that half the people believe one way and half another.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

It's simpleminded to believe that Kerry won on style and Bush won on substance.

Fixed your post for you.

You're welcome.

 

[merphie]

It's simple. Kerry won on style and Bush won on substance.

I agree. Kerry had a lot of crap that was even debunked on this forum. Like Haliburton.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Halliburton doesn't exist? Is that what you mean by 'debunked'?

 

[a_unique_person]

Halliburton doesn't exist? Is that what you mean by 'debunked'?

Debunking means different things to different people. In this case, it appears to mean something like 'embunking'.

 

[merphie]

Debunking means different things to different people. In this case, it appears to mean something like 'embunking'.

No it means that the conspiracy theories of Haliburton getting no Bid Contracts and engineering the war to make a profit are not true.

 

[DavidJames]

No it means that the conspiracy theories of Haliburton getting no Bid Contracts and engineering the war to make a profit are not true.

Just so I'm clear, you're not denying that Haliburton received a no-bid contract?

 

[merphie]

Just so I'm clear, you're not denying that Haliburton received a no-bid contract?

I am denying it. They received nothing of the such. That is Kerry Propaganda.

 

[DavidJames]

I am denying it. They received nothing of the such. That is Kerry Propaganda.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/60minutes/main551091.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0325-11.htm
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1331
http://vek.perlmonk.org/archives/000573.html
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/1900/1/1/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/11/sprj.irq.halliburton/

There is more if you like

Edit to add a link to a negative Kerry ariticle which states:

There is no proof the government was wrong to award Iraq contracts to Halliburton without competitive bidding

 

[merphie]

There is more if you like

Edit to add a link to a negative Kerry ariticle which states:

Post all you want. I have debunked this rubbish on another thread. I can tell you didn't even bother to research the issue. You read a few articles with misleading information and declare there's a conspiracy. It's all propaganda.

I don't feel it is necessary to repost all that information again. Here's a LINK to the other thread which I addressed this issue.

The post was by me at 09-18-2004 08:50 PM

 

[circuit slave]

The media is a croc. Buncha instigators who just wanna see a fight. They aren't biased liberally or to the Right on this election. They blow up the story when Bush is ahead and the blow up the story on Kerry's superior performance.


Kerry is still going to lose, though.

 

[DavidJames]

Post all you want. I have debunked this rubbish on another thread. I can tell you didn't even bother to research the issue. You read a few articles with misleading information and declare there's a conspiracy. It's all propaganda.

I don't feel it is necessary to repost all that information again. Here's a LINK to the other thread which I addressed this issue.

The post was by me at 09-18-2004 08:50 PM

Thanks for part of the story, now for the rest of the story. The paragraph below is directly after the one you quoted. Emphasis is mine.

"In February 2003, with the study done, the Corps of Engineers decided to issue a contract to actually execute the plan that KBR had drawn up for dealing with problems in the Iraqi oil fields. At the end of that month, Army headquarters authorized the Corps to issue a sole-source contract to KBR. (The assignment seemed logical for another reason: Halliburton/KBR put out 350 oil-well fires in Kuwait after the first Gulf War.) "Only KBR, the contractor that developed the complex, classified contingency plans, could commence implementing them on extremely short notice," Flowers wrote Waxman. "The timing was driven by Central Command's operational requirement to have support available in advance of possibly imminent hostilities." Flowers added that the contract was always intended as a temporary "bridge" to a more permanent contract that would be offered for competitive bidding."

The study was performed under LOGCAP, but the contract was clearly a separate item. Even the author makes no attempt to place it under LOGCAP.

A sole-source contract, do you know what that means merphie?

Was the contract to put out the fires given to KBR without competitive bid, yes or no?

Once again merphie, you fall short when it comes to backing your opinions with facts.

 

[merphie]

Thanks for part of the story, now for the rest of the story. The paragraph below is directly after the one you quoted. Emphasis is mine.

"In February 2003, with the study done, the Corps of Engineers decided to issue a contract to actually execute the plan that KBR had drawn up for dealing with problems in the Iraqi oil fields. At the end of that month, Army headquarters authorized the Corps to issue a sole-source contract to KBR. (The assignment seemed logical for another reason: Halliburton/KBR put out 350 oil-well fires in Kuwait after the first Gulf War.) "Only KBR, the contractor that developed the complex, classified contingency plans, could commence implementing them on extremely short notice," Flowers wrote Waxman. "The timing was driven by Central Command's operational requirement to have support available in advance of possibly imminent hostilities." Flowers added that the contract was always intended as a temporary "bridge" to a more permanent contract that would be offered for competitive bidding."

The study was performed under LOGCAP, but the contract was clearly a separate item. Even the author makes no attempt to place it under LOGCAP.

A sole-source contract, do you know what that means merphie?

Was the contract to put out the fires given to KBR without competitive bid, yes or no?

Once again merphie, you fall short when it comes to backing your opinions with facts.

The whole thing was done under LOGCAP. It clearly says in the article why they were given the "sole contact." Next time read the whole paragraph.

No, they got the bid through a bidding process.

The facts are in the report. You are cherry picking sentences to support your claim.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Unfortunately, Pepto, polls show that undecideds went for Kerry after the election. Pop over to the USA Today area and see for yourself.

I had admitted myself elsewhere in this forum that I felt that Kerry had "won" the debate. My decision after reading the transcript several times is that Bush provided a greater demonstration of being a leader who will make the tough decisions necessary in the war on terror. It is what average Joe American really cares about more than if we give more entitlements to the already grossly entitled - and the polls prove this, Bush is still winning the election.

Bush is opening our borders - he recently said he will be adding 1,000 more border police. That's right, One Thousand. For around 6,000 miles of land border, and not including ocean borders. How will that help? He put more security than that in airports!

That makes him the first president in my memory to even address border security. How would not adding any border police help? Make sense...

The Taliban is growing in power again in Afghanistan. Iraq is not improving. Cheney shrieks about new and impending attacks frequently, and so does Ridge. Meanwhile, it's not too hard to figure this out: Mexico has nowhere near the security level that we do. Terrorists could sneak into Mexico, cross the border with the 3 million other illegal immigrants who cross the border each year, and bam, we're attacked again.

There is no proven connection between the Taliban and al-Queda .

Is he looking for that? No. Instead, he wants to give temporary worker cards to the illegal immigrants. He feels that giving jobs to Mexican families is a priority over both giving jobs to Americans and security. Why? Because businesses want him to. Mexicans work for less money.

Agreed, this is wrong. There is a tremendous special interest who wants this to go through - who is it? Even the Governator backed down on this issue...

Basically Bush is selling our security for votes from big business and from Hispanics.

How about endangering our troops overseas in order to win an election? Yes, two wrongs don't make a right. One thing you can say about the Republicans, when they make promises to minorities; they deliver. The Democrats just keep making promises that they don't keep and keep their base of voters in a cycle of poverty to create more voters who will vote for entitlements.

About the debate: Why can't Kerry just win, without all the qualifiers? Why do you have to excuse yourself into some sort of fabricated tie?

There are a lot who called it as a tie. I don't - Kerry won, on style. That may have worked for the real JFK, but Kerry is not the real JFK.

For that matter, why are some conservatives saying that Lehrer asked Bush tough and loaded questions but asked Kerry easy softball questions? Anything to excuse Bush's poor performance, I guess. After all, Republicans agreed to all the moderators.

Read a transcript. If you can't see that most of the questions approached the issue from the perspective of "President Bush has gotten us into this mess... how will you get us out of it?" (when directed at Kerry) and "President Bush you have gotten us into this mess, how do you plan to get out of it?" (when directed at Bush) - then I don't know what more I can say on this..