"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

That's silly, John. It's like going to the Porsche dealer, and during the
test drive, you "test the car's mettle" by pushing it all the way to 47mph.
When the salesman says "John....this is a Porsche, not a Chrysler mini-van.
Don't you want to see what'll it'll really do?" So, you increase your speed
to 53. :-)

Kerry was coasting last night. It's all that was necessary to deal with
Bush.