Presidential Debates - Part II
jillfeat...@my-deja.com
"I miss JFK Jr. because he injected passion, ethics and a sense of
justice into the political system. Now, all we have is Debategate, a
scandal which reflects a very nasty and a very hostile political
climate. At the same time, we have a media that is more prone to chase
scandals that are controlled by sleazy political operatives, than by
genuine, investigative reporting.
The FBI inquiry of the Debategate fiasco has focused on Yvette Lozano,
a disgraced liar who was fired from her job when she worked for the
Democrats, because she lacked integrity. Lozano was filmed by a
security camera mailing a package in an Austin, Texas, post office and
the label on the Express Mail package containing the Bush debate
videotape corresponds to the date and time that Lozano was caught on
tape. Lozano now requires a criminal Attorney, to dispute the claim
that she had anything to do with DebateGate.
The suspicion that the Bush team engaged a dirty tricks scheme to
entrap the Gore team by secretly sending the Democrats material they
were not supposed to have, is difficult to dispute. And if Lozano
wasn't in on the plot, who was? The FBI is very good at tracking every
mailbox, and when the FBI determined that Lozano was in the post office
mailing a package on the very same day that the debate tape was sent to
the Democrats, the match is quite obvious. The only question is how
long and by what tactics, will the truth about Debatgate be denied.
And the question that is perhaps most disturbing is why doesn't George
W. Bush Jr. fire Yvette Lozano."
In article <8ra4t...@enews3.newsguy.com>,
"Jerry O" <joka...@maui.net> wrote:
> Just saw a news segment that claimed (1) the majority of people who
will
> watch the debates already know who they will vote for, (2) the
debates are
> really for the undecided, but if past experience is any indication,
most of
> the undecided will not watch the debate, and (3) polling right after
> previous Presidential debates debunk the common held idea that one
side won
> the debate.
>
> Those of you who might have read my previous post on this subject,
know my
> thoughts. This news segment only reinforces my feelings about the
upcoming
> debates. But I now wonder what good are debates if the very people
they are
> for (the undecided) don't watch? Why does the media strongly support
these
> debates? For a cynic like me, is it possible that they want to have
more
> eyeballs watching the TV screen? That it gives these networks more
of an
> opportunity to analyze this upcoming election, i.e., gives them more
to talk
> about? Is this more for entertainment purposes?
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.