Quote:
Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 5 2004, 12:58 AM
Because Republicans didn't go see F911. They buried their heads in the sand and whined loudly about the treatment they were getting. Republicans are extremely close minded for the most part and bleet nothing but party line, ignoring the issues or the state of the country.
Add to that, the RNC was much better covered by the networks which allowed the Republican message to get out much more effectively than the Democrats.
|
True story:
I was sitting with my wife in the San Antonio, Texas airport on Thursday night and this young woman, no more than 24 years old, was loudly gabbing about nothing with some friend on her cellphone when suddenly the conversation turned serious.
She told her friend she refused to see Farenheit 9/11 because it appalled her to think that "lying" gadfly, Michael Moore, "would get a single nickel of my money. My friends think I'm crazy but that's just the way I feel about it!!"
At which point I turned to Mrs. Cowperson and whispered "Atta girl!!"
The young lady caught me in the act when my wife started to laugh and assumed we were ridiculing her position on Farenheit 9/11. She told her conversation partner: "There are people in the airport here LAUGHING at me right now for what I just said but I'm serious about it. Michael Moore is a lying turd and I'm not giving him any of my money!!"
I didn't get a chance to correct her on my opinion - a regret - but it's one small illustration how entrenched positions are in the USA. (Mrs. Cowperson hates GW Bush by the way).
Both Farenheit 9/11 and the Swiftboat ads were dismissed outright by the opposition and both were easily torn to shreds on a point by point basis by their critics, at least enough that decided voters on both sides of the fence dismissed them as irrelevant even as they were being championed by supporters.
Both were essentially preaching to the choir and poll results seemed to reflect that, Republicans no more likely to change their votes because of Michael Moore than Democrats were to change their votes over whether or not Kerry deserved his medals.
However, maybe its just me, but I thought the RECENT Swiftboat campaign ads which have John Kerry as a young veteran throwing away war medals along with another ad with his comments that soldiers in Vietnam were ALL essentially baby killers, has been devastatingly effective.
If I'm not mistaken, the baby killer ad was released Aug. 20 and the latest on Aug. 31. They seem to coincide, along with the RNC convention, with Kerry's swoon in the standings.
We know the American public came out of Vietnam and into the 1980's with a collective guilt trip about how they had treated Vietnam vets. The new mantra through the Reagan years and into the first Gulf War was: "It's okay to criticize the leaders, but regardless of what happens, lets cheer on the boys we're sending into harms way." Even Michael Moore won't criticize the soldiers.
To bring back the "baby killer" accusations from so long ago and put that front and centre with Kerry's picture stamped on it - a charge Kerry can't easily refute since it's a matter of public record - I think really strikes a cord with a lot of Americans even though Kerry wasn't particularly out of sorts with public sentiment when he made his original statements. It certainly goes against the CURRENT public mood and probably turned a lot of veterans away from him in recent polls.
It's natural to assume the Bush camp got a Convention lift in the polls. It would be normal if they did. But it wouldn't surprise me if the coincidental ads I cited might have driven a nail right through Kerry's forehead as well.
Just my opinion.
The baby killer ad I found on Google:
http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesui...it_video2.html
The medal ad:
http://swiftvets.com/medalsscript.html
d to that, the RNC was much better covered by the networks which allowed the Republican message to get out much more effectively than the Democrats.
People actually keep track of that stuff and any story I saw in the aftermath had coverage roughly equal between the two conventions, the Republicans and Democrats getting effectively the same air time on the networks. The Democrats certainly don't seem to be squawking about it. FOX, as might be expected, stands out as a bit of an exception as noted in this story.
A fair look at convention coverage:
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/rnc.html
And another link after the Democratic convention:
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/conventions.html
If the Republicans were better at scheduling and spinning their message - and most observors agree this particular White House is the best in at least 50 years in doing that - then more power to them.
Besides, isn't the "left wing mainstream media" supposed to be helping Kerry out?
Oops, sorry, you're the guy who thinks the mainstream media is a government controlled propoganda organ for the Bush camp.
It's hard to keep you guys on the left and right straight. Your complaints about the press all sound the same.
The race is just starting IMO
I think its over.
And I was hoping Kerry would win.
Kerry needs a big score in the debates ala Brian Mulroney in 1984.
Even the devastating terror attack on a school in Russia is probably helping Bush right now. Even a terror attack in the USA might help him.
My thoughts.
Cowperson