Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Would Bush be in the White House if we had the blogosphere in 2000?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Ignacio Upton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 01:50 PM
Original message
Would Bush be in the White House if we had the blogosphere in 2000?
Edited on Wed Sep-28-05 01:51 PM by Ignacio Upton
This is the only negative thread in a sea of positive ones, but I've been meaning to post it for these past couple of days

Bush has only gotten as far as he's had because of an unchecked media. I think that this was particularly true from 1999-2001, before during and after his campaign (although not as bad as post-9/11, this period was almost as disgusting to say the least). From the moment he announced the corporate syncophants pumped him up and helped trash anyone who didn't roll over and concede (despite McCain getting good press after te New Hampshire Primary, the media said almost nothing of Bush's dirty tactic's, and months later they accused Gore of being too negative on Bush during his campaign, conveniently ignoring Bush's horrible attacks on McCain.) The only time in 2000 that they grilled him at all was when his DUI arrest was released, but other than that they carried his water. They made the public think that he "won" the debates against Gore, even though polls showed that people thought Gore won. My question is, what if DU and Kos had been around in this election? Would the Liberal Blogosphere been able to stop Bush and stop the M$M from aiding him? In 2004 the Blogosphere was able to prevent the media from spinning the debates in Bush's favor through a massive emailing and polling blitz and we managed to raise large sums of money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
seeker4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yes... they cheat and cheat BIG!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wapsie B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. That's a good point.
He wouldn't have had the cakewalk he did have that's for sure. There would've been someone scrutinizing his actions since the corporate media refused to do it.

Welcome to DU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignacio Upton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Thanks
:)

On the other hand I think the blogosphere would have been divided between Gore and Nader. Still, I bet that we could have sunk Bush regardless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jdlh8894 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Cakewalk?
The * was appointed ( given GRACE ) by the SCOTUS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wapsie B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. My point was that the media didn't do it's job
and scrutinize *'s life. It's as if nothing existed before Poppy got him the guv's job in Austin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
6. The internet was pro-Nader
That was the contribution in 2000, Gore is just like Bush and vote swapping. There wasn't any calling out of the media and its favoritism to Bush, the lefties on the internet fueled it in fact. That's what I remember.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WildEyedLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
7. Yes, because Nader turnout would've been higher
Edited on Wed Sep-28-05 02:56 PM by WildEyedLiberal
The "left-wing blogosphere" is not now and never was friendly to Democrats. Many pretend to love Al Gore now, but let's not forget what a villain he was among lefties in 2000. The "liberal blogosphere" would've been screaming the whole time about how there's not a dime's worth of difference between Gore and Bush, and as they say, the rest is history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
WildEyedLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I really don't think DU is any more influential than FR
The vast majority of the population considers both sites to be fringe extremists. And honestly, given the amount of Nader/ANSWER/Dem-bashing apologetics I see here, they're probably right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 18th 2014, 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC