Good grief...how many times did Bush same the same stupid thing, over
and over and over...

Long pauses, stumbling through the language...

And Bush's body language...looked like he wanted to be somewhere else.

What an embarrassing fool Bush is.





--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

Harry Krause wrote:
Good grief...how many times did Bush same the same stupid thing, over
and over and over...

Long pauses, stumbling through the language...

And Bush's body language...looked like he wanted to be somewhere else.

What an embarrassing fool Bush is.





I just scanned the transcript of the debate. Bush brought up "mixed
messages" more than 100 times.



--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

Bush should *never* have agreed to debate Kerry. Personally, I'm glad he did-
he looked like a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest----

However, don't forget there's a reason that newspapers are written on a sixth
grade level. There will undoubtedly be a lot of folks who think Bush was more
"folksy", and if that's the most important quality for a POTUS, then he surely
scored points with them.

Gould 0738 wrote:
Bush should *never* have agreed to debate Kerry. Personally, I'm glad he did-
he looked like a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest----

However, don't forget there's a reason that newspapers are written on a sixth
grade level. There will undoubtedly be a lot of folks who think Bush was more
"folksy", and if that's the most important quality for a POTUS, then he surely
scored points with them.


Unfortunately, we are a nation of Joe Six=Packs, but Kerry dropped one
laser-guided bomb after another on Bush, and all Bush seemed to be able
to do was repeat one of the four phrases on the 3x5 cards someone else
wrote out for him.

Bush looked and sounded pathetic...but...


--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

Who would listen to the politcal opinions of posters who don't have enought
sence not to post to a boating group! Der.

On 01 Oct 2004 02:57:54 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Bush should *never* have agreed to debate Kerry. Personally, I'm glad he did-
he looked like a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest----

==================================================

Interestingly enough readers of the Wall Street Journal tend to agree
as of 11:15 PM Eastern Time. So far the reader debate poll is tilting
60% to 33% for Kerry, with 7% undecided. Since the WSJ readership
tends to be conservative and reasonably well educated, that's an
interesting result. If the Democrats had run Kerry 4 years ago, I
think he would have won.

Wayne.B wrote:
On 01 Oct 2004 02:57:54 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Bush should *never* have agreed to debate Kerry. Personally, I'm glad he did-
he looked like a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest----

==================================================

Interestingly enough readers of the Wall Street Journal tend to agree
as of 11:15 PM Eastern Time. So far the reader debate poll is tilting
60% to 33% for Kerry, with 7% undecided. Since the WSJ readership
tends to be conservative and reasonably well educated, that's an
interesting result. If the Democrats had run Kerry 4 years ago, I
think he would have won.


Is the WSJ "poll" restrictive so as to eliminate the possibility of
partisans voting repeatedly for their candidate?





--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:22:56 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Is the WSJ "poll" restrictive so as to eliminate the possibility of
partisans voting repeatedly for their candidate?
=========================================

Yes. If you go back through the poll a second time, only the current
results are displayed. Since the WSJ is by paid subscription they
have a pretty good handle on who is doing what.

Wayne.B wrote:
On 01 Oct 2004 02:57:54 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Bush should *never* have agreed to debate Kerry. Personally, I'm glad he did-
he looked like a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest----

==================================================

Interestingly enough readers of the Wall Street Journal tend to agree
as of 11:15 PM Eastern Time. So far the reader debate poll is tilting
60% to 33% for Kerry, with 7% undecided. Since the WSJ readership
tends to be conservative and reasonably well educated, that's an
interesting result. If the Democrats had run Kerry 4 years ago, I
think he would have won.


At this moment, 11:45 pm EST, the MSNBC poll on the same subject has it
Kerry 71, Bush 29, with about 350,000 voting. Again, though, I have no
idea whether the site blocks repetitive voting.



--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

At this moment, 11:45 pm EST, the MSNBC poll on the same subject has it
Kerry 71, Bush 29, with about 350,000 voting.

Again, though, I have no idea whether the site blocks repetitive voting.



Just to check, I just voted twice at MSNBC, WSJ, and CNN.

However, I do find minor validity in these polls. If the numbers were
5 ot 10% apart I'd say someone could be voting a lot to change the
numbers. But when Bush is running 30% to Kerry's 70% on all
three sites, I'd say it's somewhat accurate.

I notice Bush IS winning the AOL poll. I'm not sure
that says much for Bush.