Influential Americans

[TI83]

in APUS History today my teacher gave us an assignment to, as a class, pick out the five most influential people on American History in the last 4-5 years. We are required to write a two page essay on who we personally think is the most influential by friday. Now in no way, shape, or form am i trying to cheat on my hw, i just thought it would be interesting to see all of your opinions on the matter. Please ignore your political biases when choosing canidates :p .

discuss...

EDIT: i will state my ideas a little later on after the thread gets started
EDIT x2: the whole goal of the project is to write a letter to each of the five people we selected and have them send a picture back and explain in a short response why studying history is important and how it effected their careers.

[luv2run]

Uh ... President George W. Bush?

Regardless of whether you thik he is a good or bad influence, he is the biggest influence on American history in the past 4-5 years by far. Nobody else comes close. When they write textbooks about this time period the things Bush has caused to happen will get more space than the rest of American events, by far.

To name a few, Afghanistan, Iraq, No Chld Left Behind, the USA PATRIOT Act (by the way, that stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism ... hilarious isn't it?).

After that, throw in some politicians or baseball players or whoever and you're good to go. In my (limited) opinon.

[jrun]

4-5 years? Not too hard:

1.Bush
2.Osama bin Laden
3-5.???


---

[Jwaksman]

In the past 5 years (since 2000), 5 really influential Americans have been:


George W Bush (obvious reasons, love him or hate him)
Howard Dean (redefined the Democratic Party from a party of "Bush-lites" to hardcore lefties)
Alan Greenspan (his quick drop of the interest rates to historic lows, and his keeping it there, has as much to do with our strong economy as anything else)
Tom DeLay (has created a unified Republican Party that, along with Frist's help, has passed an extraodinary amount of legislation)
L. Paul Bremer (basically set the policy of Iraqi reconstruction)

[TI83]

4-5 years? Not too hard:

1.Bush
2.Osama bin Laden
3-5.???


---

i agree with bin laden i just think it might be pointless trying to send him a letter and asking for his picture...i'll ask my teacher though

[luv2run]

Haha, try it. If the governement catches you, we'll start a petition to get you out of Guantanamo.

[TI83]

thanks for the encouragement :)

[jrun]

Alan Greenspan


Yea, forgot about my man Greeney.

---
TI-83...send each person letter? Does your teacher expect you to wrap up the assignment next fall?

[jersey_guy]

John Dye

[100% Ozone Safe]

Bush is for sure. Osama also, and maybe Saddam???

[cnick]

He probably won't get mentioned but Rupert Murdoch should be in the top 5. His FOX News has influenced millions of people in America and abroad with it's far right news reporting. He's probably the most responsible for the re-election of President Bush and all the support Bush has recieved over the past 5 years.

[TI83]

Yea, forgot about my man Greeney.

---
TI-83...send each person letter? Does your teacher expect you to wrap up the assignment next fall?

i don't think we are really getting a grade for anything but the essay we write supporting our candidate and the debates we do about it in class, it is more of a history hall of fame thing and we are the first year doing it.

[Jwaksman]

He probably won't get mentioned but Rupert Murdoch should be in the top 5. His FOX News has influenced millions of people in America and abroad with it's far right news reporting. He's probably the most responsible for the re-election of President Bush and all the support Bush has recieved over the past 5 years.



Please... CNN is atleast as far to the left as Fox News is to the right. And the main network Fox is no more conservative than CBS, NBC, and ABC are liberal.


It's pretty easy to see what someone's idealogy is by how they view tv. Hardcore right wingers argue that Fox is balanced and it's just all the other channels that are biased. Dogmatic lefties argue that Fox is the Hitler network and ignore that all the other channels are liberally biased.

[cnick]

Thanks, I'm a conservative and I hate FOX News.

They are by far the least unbiased of the news networks and Murdoch is the one responsible for that. They called the 2000 election first and before they had any firm evidence that Bush was going to win.

[Biscuit_AQ]

little quick on the draw there Jwak?

[UpstateRunner]

Too many people are focusing on strictly political figures, I think America is influenced at least as much by social and entertainment figures. That said, here's my top 5 (in no particular order)

-George W. Bush (self explainatory)
-Michael Moore (sparked so much debate, most recognizeable public liberal voice)
-Barry Bonds (You either love him or hate him, but you have an opinion)
-Ron Artest (tell me that didn't have a profound affect on America)
-Pope JPII (large catholic population plus numerous others who had vested interest)

[MoMo]

I think you just have to have Ryan Seacrest,
Oprah Winfrey and Larry the Cable Guy on that list...

:o

[exjersey1]

Paris Hilton and her plan to change America from Fast Food Nation into Bimbo Nation.

[Jwaksman]

They called the 2000 election first and before they had any firm evidence that Bush was going to win.



Every network called it within a couple of minutes. They all made the same mistake.


Fox has a lot of commentators who are conservative, but they call themselves conservative. That is key. The problem with the other networks is that they have supposedly unbiased reporters and producers who are actually really far to the left.


Walter Conkrite used to always deny that there was liberal bias in television. Years after he retired he admitted that he finally realized that it was pretty liberal. A major CNN producer declaring (without any evidence whatsoever) that US troops were targetting reporters and killing them? The Dan Rather scandal? Focusing only on Tom DeLay (rather than the two dozen other congressmen, more than half of them Democrats, who have been discovered in this ethics probe)?


All you have to do is look at media studies leading up to the 2004 election of the major networks. They calculated major stories done on Kerry & Bush and whether they were generally positive, negative, or neutral. Fox had more positive Bush stories, the other three networks had much more positive Kerry stories (ABC was the closest, being only like 50% more likely to show a positive Kerry story). Overall, Kerry received the most positive coverage of any political candidate in more than 15 years. If he couldn't win with that, there was no way he was going to win...

[cnick]

FOX was the first network to make the call, and the others simply followed suit.

Sure, the other networks are biased, too, but none like FOX is. Does FOX ever air anything positive about liberals? Didn't think so.

[exjersey1]

From wikipedia:

Murdoch and politics

While at Oxford Murdoch was active in the Labour Club, and he actively supported the Australian Labor Party for some years. Since 1975, however, he has generally supported the Liberal Party. In Britain he formed a close alliance with Margaret Thatcher, and The Sun was widely credited with helping John Major win an unexpected election victory in 1992. In 1997, however, Murdoch's papers were either neutral or supported Labour under Tony Blair. In the US he has been a long-time supporter of the Republican Party and was a friend of Ronald Reagan. His papers strongly supported George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004. In the 2004 documentary, Outfoxed, the Fox News Channel is criticized for its perceived political conservatism.

Murdoch is often accused of running partisan media coverage for political parties that promote policies and decisions which favour his commercial interests. For example, it is believed that Murdoch tried to suppress publication of the memoirs of Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong, in an attempt to curry favour with China. Patten's book was critical of the Chinese government. Whatever the motives, the book was dropped from publication by Murdoch's HarperCollins publishing company. It was only because of Patten's political influence that the story came to light and the book was published by another firm. It is speculated that Murdoch wanted to please the Chinese government because it happened around the time he was attempting to get a foothold in the Chinese market with the launch of Star TV.

Murdoch's British media outlets generally support eurosceptic positions, and generally show contempt for Britain's European partners. Murdoch publications worldwide tend to adopt anti-French and pro-American positions. During the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, all 175 Murdoch-owned newspapers worldwide editorialized in favor of the war. [1] (http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,896864,00.html) Murdoch served on the board of directors of the Cato Institute.

[MoMo]

"Media studies..."? Kindly stipulate.

[Jwaksman]

FOX was the first network to make the call, and the others simply followed suit.

Sure, the other networks are biased, too, but none like FOX is. Does FOX ever air anything positive about liberals? Didn't think so.



Yes, they do. Studies show that the other networks are just as biased as Fox is. A good study is from (http://www.cmpa.com/documents/04.09.08.Summer.Campaign.pdf) The Center for Media and Public Affairs, at George Mason University. Rather than do subjective conservative-liberal studies, they simply counted the number of positive stories vs. the number of negative stories. This isn't from some crack-pot right wing "thinktank" - this group is the most accepted media studies group by most people on both sides of the aisle.

Their statistics show that Kerry had the best overall network coverage of any candidate since they began doing these studies in 1988.


Overall, about 3/4 of stories about Kerry were postive from June 1 through the end of the September (the study came out in September - the time period of the study covered both conventions), while only about 1/3 of stories about Bush were positive. Fox was the only channel on which a majority of Bush stories were positive. The most biased source of all was Newsweek magazine, which was more than 10 times as likely to have a positive Kerry story as a positive Bush story.

[cnick]

I'm going to stop. No point in arguing with your Ivy League education, haha.

[Biscuit_AQ]

generally there is just no point arguing with him. I've never once seen him admit he was even a little wrong.

[Jwaksman]

generally there is just no point arguing with him. I've never once seen him admit he was even a little wrong.



Yes, I've never admitted that I'm wrong :rolleyes:


Whatever... as I"ve mentioned before, I was originally a Democrat. Then I realized that I was wrong. I'm really a liberal. And the Democratic Party is not liberal, atleast not in the true sense (they call themselves "liberals", but I'd like to see Harry Reid explain to John Stuart Mill how the legislation he proposes is liberal).


I debate in order to find out if I'm wrong. I enjoy being challenged by someone who is truly a good debater. The problem is that a lot of the posters here fall into one of two groups:

1) high school kids who simply are not knowledgeable enough yet. They may be smart enough, but you need to have a firm grasp of history and logic to debate, which most Americans do not get in high school.

2) highly partisan people. These people often argue for seemingly contradictory things (how can someone who opposes abortion then support the death penalty? How can someone who supports 1st amendment rights ignore 2nd amendment rights?)


If I'm wrong, then I'll admit I'm wrong. I just don't understand why I am constantly criticized for this when I really haven't seen a post by anyone on this board ever who said, "You're right, I'm wrong."

[exjersey1]

generally there is just no point arguing with him. I've never once seen him admit he was even a little wrong.


I don't know if it's that or just that he always tells others that they don't know what they're talking about. He doesn't just say "I disagree," it's "here's why you're an idiot."

It's one thing to think (and act) like you're always right, but another thing entirely to come across that you believe that no one else ever is.

[mzungu]

Please... CNN is atleast as far to the left as Fox News is to the right. And the main network Fox is no more conservative than CBS, NBC, and ABC are liberal.


It's pretty easy to see what someone's idealogy is by how they view tv. Hardcore right wingers argue that Fox is balanced and it's just all the other channels that are biased. Dogmatic lefties argue that Fox is the Hitler network and ignore that all the other channels are liberally biased.


no, we're not going to buy that for a second. cnn has no editorial position, whereas fox is very clearly behind the republicans.

[mzungu]

by the way, it's not contradictory to argue for first amendment rights and argue against second amendment rights, not that i'm doing this at all. i believe in strict constructionism on the second amendment, which clearly states the right to regulation and situates arms in the context of the militia. not to get zat here posting again, though. :D

but it's not contradictory to support any one amendment and oppose another, unless the same principle is involved in the two amendments, or unless you are couching your support of the one amendment on the fact that it is an amendment.

[Jwaksman]

Yeah, that's like saying that the first amendment guarantees the right to assemble in the real world but not the right to have free speech in the cyber world - so we can ban people from saying bad things about the President on the Internet...


You can manipulate reasons why you're somehow supporting the 2nd Amendment while opposing gun rights, just like how Republicans will argue until they're blue in the face about why supporting the death penalty is a "right to life" position. But no one who is outside of partisan myopia believes these rationalizations for a second.


And does anyone else find it ironic that people spend so much time telling me how stupid and blockheaded I am for just calling other people stupid and blockheaded?


... I have the kettle on Line 2 :D

[Biscuit_AQ]

I'll try to tread carefully. Jwak, you're probably the best debater on the forum. Probably one of the smarter people here as well. My question to you, and a couple other people is this:

Can you ever remember saying: "You make a good point (MoMo, Mzungu etc. etc. etc.) or something equivalent? Maybe a healthy, "You made me see this a different way" or, "that evidence you presented proved me wrong"

:confused:

[Jwaksman]

I've said, "[so and so] made a good comment" a lot of times, but it depends on who the person is. This isn't Affirmative Action, I don't have to agree with each person the same amount of times. Some posters are better then others, and I will acknowledge them more often.

[Jwaksman]

Being a good debator doesn't make you right. Both John Kerry and George W. Bush are excellent debators. Kerry was like a national champion debator in college, and Bush handily whipped Anne Richards and Al Gore (both excellent debators themselves) every time he faced them. But that doesn't make them right on the issues.

[Dyenimator]

BisonBerger was a great debater, no doubt. Same goes with TrackDaddy (IMO he crushed you guys on the AA thread, anytime you can get someone crying over a post, must mean his message was pretty powerful), sans the Bonds thread.

[Biscuit_AQ]

trackdaddy WAS a great debator. Take a look at the bonds thread or the religon bit going now.

[Jwaksman]

I haven't been on the Bonds thread. But let me guess.... people are only going after Bonds because he's black?

[leighpeas]

4-5 years? Not too hard:

1.Bush
2.Osama bin Laden
3-5.???


---
not too hard, and yet where are 3-5? hehe-- you're so silly. :p

[Dyenimator]

Bin Laden isn't an American.

[Jwaksman]

Word for word.



I know him too well... I swear, I haven't been on that thread once. All I needed to know was that TD was dominating the convo and was being irrational. I was able to put two and two together :D It's always either his my-interpretation-or-the-highway Christianity or his belief that every white person is racist and would re-enslave blacks if given the chance....

[Biscuit_AQ]

bullseye.

[KenA55]

It's always either his my-interpretation-or-the-highway Christianity or his belief that every white person is racist and would re-enslave blacks if given the chance....

While I have all the respect in the world for your intellect, your insistence on painting two-dimensional caricatures of your adversaries betrays a lack of good judgement in that particular area. If you feel that they are obviously doing it to themselves, then let the obvious speak for itself, it should require no highlighting, and smearing others smears yourself. If I may say so. It also poisons the possibility of reasonable discourse in the future.

[Jwaksman]

Ken, stop lecturing people all the time. Just because you're old doesn't make you the moral authority.

[MoMo]

jwack, your last post might have seemed funny with a little smiling face thingy. without it, you simply reinforce ken's very moderately stated point.

for someone who once constantly protested others' supposed ad hominem attacks, you seem now to turn FIRST to that approach. as you yourself have said, that doesn't win arguments.

(and if you now attack me as an "america-hating leftist," you'll further underline the point.)

[Jwaksman]

jwack, your last post might have seemed funny with a little smiling face thingy. without it, you simply reinforce ken's very moderately stated point.

for someone who once constantly protested others' supposed ad hominem attacks, you seem now to turn FIRST to that approach. as you yourself have said, that doesn't win arguments.

(and if you now attack me as an "america-hating leftist," you'll further underline the point.)



That kettle on the line... he was calling for you...

[KenA55]

Ken, stop lecturing people all the time. Just because you're old doesn't make you the moral authority.

Not putting it forward as a moral issue, J- stooping to the personal labeling and caricature simply makes a person look small, something you want to realize if you take this sort of debate and discourse seriously. Moral issues aside, a simple matter of establishing your own stature here as an individual who commands some respect, as opposed to being a two-dimensional caricature in your own right.

[Jwaksman]

Not putting it forward as a moral issue, Ken- stooping to the personal labeling and caricature simply makes a person look small, something you want to realize if you take this sort of debate and discourse seriously.

[KenA55]

You know I've never taken the trouble, in any post here, to apply labeling to your way of thinking and go on to explain to you why you think the way you do. This is a habit you've gotten into that you'd be wise to break if you wish to command respect. No put down intended. All of the other tools are in place. Last post on the subject.

[Jwaksman]

You know I've never taken the trouble, in any post here, to apply labeling to your way of thinking and go on to explain to you why you think the way you do. This is a habit you've gotten into that you'd be wise to break if you wish to command respect. No put down intended. All of the other tools are in place. Last post on the subject.



Have you even read your last 10 posts? Did someone else post under your name?


Edit: This is all getting far too childish. Can we please get back on topic??? I don't know why every thread turns into a "bash Jwaksman cause all he does is put people down" thread.....

[mzungu]

that's because you have labelled various posters here, and criticized us for those labels you have attached, in at least twenty separate posts recently. stop doing it and no one will accuse you of it. you adopt the ad hominem argument and then you protest people who object to it.

[Jwaksman]

I get it. I'm stupid, I'm demeaning, I'm conceited, I put other people down... is there anything else?


Why is this all you guys can talk about?

For people who are criticizing me for labelling other people, you sure do seem to spend most of your time labelling me.



I made some actual discussion points in this thread. If you'd like to discuss them then that's great. If you're going to sit here and just tell me how stupid I am then I'm done with this thread. I won't be spoken down to by someone who is so closeminded that he doesn't think that there's anything wrong with admitting that he doesn't read the opinions of people that he disagrees with...

[mzungu]

george w. bush is a terrible debater, even when he has a microphone attached to his back. :eek:

he didn't win any debate against al gore. what happened was that americans didn't like gore's reaction to bush's stupidity. and americans gave kerry a big margin over bush in the debates.

[mzungu]

if you criticize other people, you legitimately open yourself up to criticism from them for your judgments.

the study cited by jwaksman on media evaluations says that five times as many stories about kerry were negative as positive on fox news. "non-partisan sources" were even more positive to kerry and less positive to bush than the networks. so, maybe the reason the stories about bush were more negative overall than kerry had nothing to do with bias or editorial policy, but rather that the economy was lagging behind previous recoveries, the war in iraq was continuing for a year and half after bush had declared victory, the body count in iraq was nearing 1,000, the budget deficit was $400 billion per year, we had appropriated $200 billion for the iraq war already, and the administration had set up torture as our national policy (and so it is unsurprising that torture cases have turned up in guantanamo, afghanistan, and abu ghraib). moreover, bush as president was much more exposed to bad coverage, since he is responsible for national/international policy, and kerry was merely one of 100 senators. so, the fact that all the sources other than the one with the editorial policy that is pro-republican gave more favorable coverage to john kerry than george w. bush only shows that the basis for the coverage was 'objective'.

[KenA55]

Have you even read your last 10 posts? Did someone else post under your name?


Edit: This is all getting far too childish. Can we please get back on topic??? I don't know why every thread turns into a "bash Jwaksman cause all he does is put people down" thread.....

What's childish is pausing in a debate to drop trou and moon your adversary. Which is about what the labeling and caricature amounts to. Might get some laughs from certain elements in the crowd, but it's guaranteed to keep the debater relegated to the lightweight class by any reasonable judging standard. This isn't bashing, it's sound advice for any worthy competitor.

None of my last 10 posts labelled you as anything other than a worthy intellect deserving unhandicapped discourse. Consider losing the impediment.

[Jwaksman]

george w. bush is a terrible debater, even when he has a microphone attached to his back. :eek:

he didn't win any debate against al gore. what happened was that americans didn't like gore's reaction to bush's stupidity. and americans gave kerry a big margin over bush in the debates.



Your opinion is that Bush lost because people tend to think that their side wins a debate. Democrats tend to think that Democrats win, because they're much more easily convinced by someone they already agree with. Same for Republicans, of course. Polls, however, showed that Bush won every debate against Gore. Kerry had a decent win in his first debate against Bush, but the other two were essentially even (I think both had tiny margins of victory in one, but they were basically statistical ties).


Now, your argument about the economy last year is not correct. Bush was running on an identical economy to the one that Clinton ran on in '96 as "economic prosperity." The fact that so many people didn't realize that we were long out of the recession is actually one of the big pieces of evidence of liberal bias (e.g. job & gdp numbers are only given big news stories when they're bad, and good economic data gets ignored).

You could be right about Iraq, that Bush got negative coverage because of soldier deaths in Iraq, but that's missing the major point that I made. Kerry, despite several scandals (most notably the Swift Boats) got the most favorable coverage of any candidate since this study began in 1988. Why does bad news in Iraq mean that Kerry has to get so many puff pieces?

[Jwaksman]

What's childish is pausing in a debate to drop trou and moon your adversary. Which is about what the labeling and caricature amounts to. Might get some laughs from certain elements in the crowd, but it's guaranteed to keep the debater relegated to the lightweight class by any reasonable judging standard. This isn't bashing, it's sound advice for any worthy competitor.

None of my last 10 posts labelled you as anything other than a worthy intellect deserving unhandicapped discourse. Consider losing the impediment.



Even mzungu was mature enough to move past this point. How long do you have to keep going, trying to tell me how horrible of a person I am??? I get it... I'm simply unworthy to be in a room with you :rolleyes:

Whenever you grow up, we'll be waiting here for you...

[KenA55]

If you were unworthy I never would have wasted the effort talking about this.

If you were horrible, the moderators would have banned you long ago, and that hasn't happened. The reason we're still talking about it is that you're responding, and defending yourself by pretending to have been assaulted with personal barbs that were never launched. So if you're interested in responding, then my questions are these- Do you really feel that using the tactics described above qualifies as debating an issue? If not, does it nevertheless add something positive to the discussion in some way that's lost on most of the rest of us? If you're not interested in responding, then don't, and the conversation ends. You owe me no explanations.

But I have gone well out of my way here to avoid telling you directly to grow up- interesting that you chose that directive in your last post.

[Jwaksman]

Are you done yet? :rolleyes:

[TI83]

so....when i was doing some research for my paper on JFK and various other failed catholic candidates for president i found that John Kerry's initial are JFK and that he is Catholic...also only 10% of the nation knew that Kerry was Catholic while i believe about 90% knew that Kennedy was...just found that interesting

you may continue on with your debates about the immaturity of certain posters :rolleyes:

[Jwaksman]

A couple reasons for that:


1) Kennedy was the first and only Catholic to be President. Everyone learns that in high school US history. Anyone who was alive then also knows that it was a big campaign issue, as some charged that he would be influenced by the Pope (hence the reason we hadn't had a Catholic President before.)

2) Kerry shied away from his Catholicism. His support of stem cell research, civil unions, and abortion rights made him an enemy of the church. The Boston Archbishop even tried to deny Kerry communion on Easter. Also, back in the 1960's a Democratic candidate could be religious when he talked. Now you almost never hear Democrats talk religion, except in sily pandering (Kerry mentioned a couple weeks ago that he recently re-read the New Testament :rolleyes: ).

[Dyenimator]

Are you done yet? :rolleyes:

God, you're immature.

But that's okay if you're cool in your own mind...

:confused:

[Jwaksman]

God, you're immature.

But that's okay if you're cool in your own mind...

:confused:



I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone here. I'm trying to get things back on topic and all everyone wants to talk about is how I always take things off topic!



I GET IT! I SUCK AT LIFE! I'M STUPID! I'M IMMATURE! I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ARGUE! I'M POMPOUS AND CONCEITED! I GET IT!!!!!!!


Now... can we please discuss something of consequence? Can you guys stop being exactly what you're criticizing me for?

[running high]

I GET IT! I SUCK AT LIFE! I'M STUPID! I'M IMMATURE! I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ARGUE! I'M POMPOUS AND CONCEITED! I GET IT!!!!!!!

Wow. And you're a ragaholic ;)

[mzungu]

according to this poll, bush won the third debate with gore, while gore won the second, contra your statement.
2b. Regardless of which candidate you support, who do you think won the debate?

Bush won the debate
24.5%

Gore won the debate
28.2%

Both did equally well, or
32.9%

Both did equally poor
9.4%

Not sure
5.0%

this year, kerry won the first and third debate by large margins BY POLLS.

and we know that gore did not lose on content, but rather on the audience's annoyance with him 'sighing' and looking superior.

as far as the john f. kennedy and john f. kerry catholicism issue, kennedy very explicitly stated that he would not vote on the basis of his catholicism, and that reassured many people, whereas kerry was criticized because of the opposite thing, because people said he was too independent, that he disagreed with conservative catholic views. there is a very good article in the new yorker now examining ratzinger and jpII's positions in relation to conservative and liberal catholicism in the u.s., including the kerry/kennedy issue. john kerry said clearly on the campaign trail and in one of the debates that he is a catholic, that (this is a popular interpretation by american catholics of vatican ii) as a person he opposed abortion but as a politician would a) obey the law and supreme court decision allowing abortion and b) not impose his religiously founded belief concerning abortion on people with different religious beliefs, in the public sphere. there are many catholics who agree with kerry here, but ratzinger and jpII have purged many of the prominent catholics who supported abortion, contraception, and so forth, including getting an influential catholic university of america professor fired for his left interpretation of vatican ii (he now teaches at SMU, I believe).
Finally, john kerry is probably much more knowledgeable about the bible than George W. Bush. I'm sure you all remember from one of the debates when Kerry, a former altar boy, quoted extensive passages from the bible from memory.

[Jwaksman]

Thank you for providing a source for that poll..... There are dozens of polls that came out about the debates in 2000, but in typical mzungu fashion he has quoted exactly ONE, without even telling us when it was taken :rolleyes:


Some polls on one of the debates showed an even score (some even had Gore winning by a couple of points) but if you average out all of the scores Bush clearly won.


Even left-wing pundits had no problem acknowledging during the 2004 campaign that Bush would not have won in 2000 if it wasn't for his victory during the debates...