John,
While we both agree that Bush would make a better president, if you review
the fact checks at factcheck.org, you will see that both parties and
candidates are guilty of lying in their campaigning.

Historically, candidates running for any office will distort or lie about
their opponents. So if you think Kerry is a scumbag for lying, you are
living in a glass house.

In your opinion you might think Kerry would suck as a president, but don't
use the fact that he distorts or lies about his opponent as a basis for your
opinion.


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:13:59 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:21:18 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 08:54:50 -0400, JohnH wrote:


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...0/223850.shtml

The author does make some good points. Lerher was asking questions
designed to show administration faults.

John, no amount of spin can put Bush's poor performance on Lehrer.
Bush
has done well in his previous debates mainly for one reason, he had no
record and could play the outsider. Now he has a record, and it is his
to
defend.

You are absolutely right. We're talking two different things here. One
is
Bush's
performance, which sucked. The other is the tone of the questions, which
Bush
should have expected. The questioning seemed designed to test only
Bush's
mettle.

What's wrong with testing his mettle? The guy has to have one-on-one
conversations with world leaders, virtually all of whom are more clever
than
he is, and none of whom send a script before their visit. I think it's
good
for the country to see what kind of chump is representing us in such
meetings.


Good points, but you missed the word 'only'. If elected, Kerry (the lying
scumbag) would also be expected to stand before world leaders, etc. His
mettle
was in no way tested last night.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

There are 10 kinds of people in the world,
those who do binary and those who don't!