Why Was Bush Yelling at Charlie Gibson?: Prez Debate II

NEED ANY WOOD?

Prez Debate II: Why Was Bush Yelling at Charlie Gibson? By: blogic Posted: Saturday, October 09, 2004 on The Tide Goes Out Message Board: Politics Why was Bush beating up on poor Charlie Gibson? There Charlie was, glasses perched on his nose like some small town librarian, looking as harmless as he does every morning on Good Morning America. Bush was getting in his face, interrupting, and just generally bullying Charlie. That can't look good. America is not reassured, Mr. President. Is all the pressure getting to Bush? He seemed a little unhinged.

What a crock! I just watched the debates for the second time. And at NO time did President Bush get in Charlie;s face!

blogic, that is strange.... you are the one refering to the Gallup Poll. The Gallup poll has repeatly reported that Bush is the more likeable person, and Bush is the one tough enough for the job (result from both debates). So when do you say "America is not reassured... who are you refering?"

The polls show undecided debate viewers overwhelmingly prefer Kerry.

I find it hard to believe you're not aware of the perception that Bush's performance in the first debate was -- at best -- erratic and to many appeared angry and unhinged. His eyes rolling, furiously blinking, scowling in the background as Kerry responded to questions. Even Bush is aware of his poor performance -- he referred to it in second debate.

WASHINGTON - President Bush smirked and winked and chuckled to himself. He jumped from his stool, chopped at the air and interrupted the debate moderator. As he fought to keep his emotions in check during a combative debate with Sen. John Kerry, the president jokingly said, "That answer almost made me want to scowl."

You may not be aware of how Bush is coming off, but Bush himself is, as is the Associated Press.

You know, I always wondered what kind of people sit around and watch "Queer eye" and "fashion police", and I think I know now. People who have nothing better to criticize someone they hate about.

Write as many of these as you like Blogic, you aren't influencing anyone and the quality just gets worse. If this is a "million monkeys" thing to see if you can randomly make a good article you need a few more monkeys..

I have wondered why you make all these articles, though I do agree that Bush was not being the best behaved kid in the house, though couldn't it be said that Kerry wasn't so nice to point out that charlie made too much money?

Aw, go easy, Baker.

This furious backfilling is kind of fun to watch. And you gotta give blogic high poll ratings for tenacity.

Cheers,
Daiwa

The polls show undecided debate viewers overwhelmingly prefer Kerry.

No. The undecided voters think Kerry won the debate, but the undecided voters do not "prefer" Kerry. Go look at the poll you refering (Gallup). Do you even look at the poll numbers? Gallup has Bush being the "more likable person" and "more trustworthy" person in the two debates? This is not about if I like like Bush or if you like Kerry. This is about what most American think. So stop talking about what you and I like or noticed. They are irrelevent.

If you think most independent voters preferred Kerry, then shouldn't Kerry lead the poll by huge margin by now? There are more registrated Democrat than Republican in this country (by about 8%), so Kerry will win this election even if undecided voters vote 50/50.

If what you said is true, then explain to me why most poll still have Bush ahead of Kerry or the two are even. Do the math, you.

People who want to follow -- or contribute to -- the discussion regarding Gallup's poll of viewers of the second debate (Mr. Gallup himself actually says, and I quote, 'Kerry bitchslapped Bush") should go to Gallup Sez Independents Strongly Favor Kerry: Prez Debate 2

To sum up: Not only did Bush snap at harmless Charlie Gibson, but "his performance in the first debate was -- at best -- erratic and to many appeared angry and unhinged. His eyes rolling, furiously blinking, scowling in the background as Kerry responded to questions" and the Associated Press had this to say about his appearance in the second dabate: "President Bush smirked and winked and chuckled to himself. He jumped from his stool, chopped at the air and interrupted the debate moderator."

Reply #9 By: blogic - 10/9/2004 6:21:06 PM People who want to follow -- or contribute to -- the discussion regarding Gallup's poll of viewers of the second debate (Mr. Gallup himself actually says, and I quote, 'Kerry bitchslapped Bush") should go to Gallup Sez Independents Strongly Favor Kerry: Prez Debate 2

Could be. But immediatly after the dabate on "national TV'"I heard it remarked that what Bush did to kerry is like taking someone out behind the wood shed!

"...should go to Gallup Sez Independents Strongly Favor Kerry: Prez Debate 2"

That should read: "If you want more lies and misrepresentations go read Gallup Sez Independents Strongly Favor Kerry: Prez Debate 2".

Blogic has officially lost it. He's resorted to lying and tabloid-style articles.

"(Mr. Gallup himself actually says, and I quote, 'Kerry bitchslapped Bush") "

Mr. Gallup??? COuld you post a link to this statement? The aticle you quote says the debate was a tie. That's not another LIE is it???

Is there even a "Mr. Gallup"? I thought it was obvious that the may-not-even-exist Mr. Gallup wouldnt say anything like that anyway. Agree with me or not, I nearly always cite my sources so you can judge for yourself.

Is there even a "Mr. Gallup"? I thought it was obvious that the may-not-even-exist Mr. Gallup wouldnt say anything like that anyway. Agree with me or not, I nearly always cite my sources so you can judge for yourself.

Then why the hell would you say what you did?

NO, blogic, you said "(Mr. Gallup himself actually says, and I quote, 'Kerry bitchslapped Bush") ".

That isn't sarcasm, it is a lie.

• If I take it literally, it is false. To my knowledge there is no "Mr. Gallup" involved in interpreting the poll. If there is, no one used the words "bitch slaped" or even implied a Kerry victory.
• If I take it figuratively, it is just as false. Gallup rated the debate as a tie. It wasn't even a "bitch slap" in terms of independant voters.

This isn't exaggeration, Blogic, because you are responding to people that had already told you the truth, and YOU supplied the link to where the truth could be found. When you know the truth, and you knowingly mislead people to serve your arguement, YOU HAVE LIED. You have no credability at this point. Anything you post will need to have a link, because it's obvious that people can't take you on your word.

And a link to a credible source.

It was such an implausible quote that I honestly thought no one would take it seriously. As I've already indicated, I don't think there is a "Mr. Gallup", and it never occurred to me that anyone would believe the head of Gallup would use the term "bitchslapped". Can you show me any poller who's used similar language to publically describe the results of a presidential poll? Certainly you can see that it's plausible I didn't think people would take that line seriously, right?

That said, I did make a mistake. Although I correctly named the post that links to the polling report, I forgot to enter the link parameter. That is now corrected. I'm genuinely sorry for any confusion that may have caused. Gallup Sez Independents Strongly Favor Kerry: Prez Debate 2

, that is a LIE... Gah...

The question to the people polled was "REGARDLESS OF WHO YOU SUPPORT, who do you think won the debate."

Your title says they favor Kerry, and you know it. You tagged the word debate as a half-hearted attempt at honest, but it isn't close. You could have easily as said "Gallup Sez Indpendents Strongly Declare Kerry Debate Winner" or something, but you didn't. You said they FAVOR Kerry.

This isn't something you need told to you, blogic. You know exactly what you are doing, you are just trying to see how much you can get away with.

I don't think JU should allow people to abuse it in this way. At some point you have to say, "If you are going to use this site to lie and spread misleading information, there's the door."

Blogging is a new thing. If people like blogic continue to use it as a type of war-propaganda, then what little respect it enjoys now won't last long. This crap reflects pooly on blogging and poorly on JU.

BakerStreet, I've usually enjoyed reading your posts -- sometimes agreed with your claims, and sometimes disagreed.

I will always advocate your right to express your opinion, even when your opinion is that I shouldn't be able to express mine.

I've enjoyed your posts in the past as well, blogic. That's why this sudden shift is so lurid, I think.

Blogic has set a high watermark with the majority of his posts, perhaps it's the lack of depth and length in this post Bakerstreet is irked by...

"perhaps it's the lack of depth and length in this post Bakerstreet is irked by..."

*boggle* Do you eaven read what you are talking about, anymore? No, it was the fact that the articles in question bore no resemblance to the truth...

Jeez...

So much for trying to be civil.

, I'm sorry if I was snippy, but you were accusing me of making a big deal about falsehood because I was really irked by lack of depth and length. If I was irked by lack of depth I would try and show lack of depth. What bothered me was the "Bush said X", when Bush didn't say X, or "Gallup said X" when Gallup's poll say anything of the kind.

Again, sorry if I am being antsy, but this is a circumstance when someone lied, not made a mistake, not accidently misquoted, LIED. Then, when they tried to tone it down, they, again, LIED. Go read the articles in question Deference.

Blogic, I don't want you to be banned, or want you to leave, or even for there to be any turmoil. When you say things that aren't true, though, you have to expect people to be put off.

I understand, particularly with our past exchanges. It was my opinion that was reflected in that comment. I acknowledge your point, totally valid, I thought that perhaps you too were somewhat let down by Blogic underperforming.

I am. I think it is a symptom of the whole climate, though. What bothered me was that after it was pointed out that it didn't seem to matter to Blogic.

'nuff said, i"m over it. Things should get back to normal after the election, unless whoever loses contests the election for a year ...