Richard Roeper is no fan of Bush, but he is proof that the DNC/MoveOn.org and various lefties' efforts to influence the pre- and post-debate spin has gone too far and is now looking clumsy and phony.
Last Thursday's presidential debate was still in progress when the e-mails started trickling in from citizens around the country. At 8:28 p.m. CST, Catie Tierney of Douglas, Ga., wrote: "John Kerry did an AMAZING job tonight. His arguments were valid and very well-said. I sincerely hope he wins the election this fall. He will make a far better president than Bush."
Harvey Jones chimed in: "Have you noticed Bush's body language? He seems to be blinking an awful lot. I hear this is one of the usual signs of lying."
Next up, Anne Horton Wood of Knoxville, Tenn.: "John Kerry showed the voters why he should be president, while Bush looked and sounded like a whiny little boy who has grown old, but has never grown up."
At 9:31 p.m., the trickle of e-mails turned into a hurricane.
"I am an undecided voter in Florida," wrote Andrew Monaco, "and I wanted to let you know that I think John Kerry won the debate.... Kerry was more in command of the issues and looked more presidential. The president was flustered and distracted."
Joyce Mulazzi of Suwannee, Ga.: "John Kerry proved he is a LEADER by discussing his plans for our country and discrediting President Bush's claims. George Bush proved that he is a CHEER-LEADER by . . . stating over and over again about the hard work he's done. It's not hard work lying to us, alienating us from the rest of the world, ruining our environment, and making the rich richer."
Pam Gordon, Orchard Lake, Mich.: "Kerry was the clear winner. He was poised, knowledgeable and outlined his points clearly."
Kristine Serrano, Westminster, Co.: "I am a registered independent who has decided to vote for John Kerry. President Bush looked very unprepared for the debate. Sen. Kerry . . . possessed excellent command of every issue."
The flood of "Kerry won!" messages continued all Thursday night and well into Friday — more than 500 in all.
And not one supported Bush.
Even most Bushies concede the debate was not the president's finest moment — but come on, 500 to 0? These e-mails seemed about as authentic as the missives I get from Congo dictator Mobuto Sese-Seko, asking my help in transferring his secret stash of millions.
News organizations throughout the country were inundated with the pro-Kerry e-mails. The Democratic National Committee acknowledges sending e-mails to supporters encouraging them to go online on debate night and write e-mails to "the editor of your local paper." On the DNC's Web site, there's even a sample letter to get you started. Dozens of pro-Kerry bloggers and Web sites also encouraged readers to flood the media. Many included lists of the e-addresses of reporters and columnists.
Bad idea. This was the wrong e-mail campaign directed at the wrong people at the wrong time.
Think of the thousands of reporters tapping away on deadline. Cell phones being what they are, maybe these journalists are instant messaging or e-mailing with a source or a colleague or an editor, or they're online doing some quick background research. Every time a "ping" announces e-mail, they click over to it — only to find another half-dozen unsolicited testimonials.
An organized campaign like this is also an insult. As if we're supposed to write, "According to the e-mails this journalist received, 100 percent of the country now supports John Kerry for president...."
Hey, maybe the folks were e-mailing before the debate is over because they used the same time machine that Jerry Killian used to to type up his memos in Microsoft Word.
