"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.

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:Mmd7d.150078$MQ5.27967@attbi_s52...
Very interesting, that may explain the difference. I could not find
anything similar in the rnc.org web site.

Of course not.....the RNC is not in panick mode like the DNC

Looks to me like the Dems were doing their job. Imagine if everyone was
equally motivated. What a world.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/707yhfwo.asp


"Kerry often fails to connect, though he surely thrilled Democrats or
independents already committed to voting for him. This is no small thing. If
he hadn't stirred the faithful, the race would be over. The problem for
Kerry, though, is that right now, there aren't enough committed folks to
defeat Bush on November 2. The first debate didn't change that?"


"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.
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!

Doug,
The DNC outperformed the RNC on this, but I don't know how many people use
the online polls to determine who they think won.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:Mmd7d.150078$MQ5.27967@attbi_s52...
Very interesting, that may explain the difference. I could not find
anything similar in the rnc.org web site.

Of course not.....the RNC is not in panick mode like the DNC

Looks to me like the Dems were doing their job. Imagine if everyone was
equally motivated. What a world.

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 10:18:44 -0400, P.Fritz wrote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/707yhfwo.asp


"Kerry often fails to connect, though he surely thrilled Democrats or
independents already committed to voting for him. This is no small thing.
If he hadn't stirred the faithful, the race would be over. The problem for
Kerry, though, is that right now, there aren't enough committed folks to
defeat Bush on November 2. The first debate didn't change that?"


Geez, it's unanimous, even Barnes thinks Bush lost the debates. As for
finding the votes, Bush managed in 2000. For those of you with a short
memory, in early October, 2000, Gore's lead over Bush was larger than
Bush's lead over Kerry is now. Obviously, it is surmountable.

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 10:30:39 -0400, JohnH wrote:


Are you suggesting he ask for more heat than he gets? Why should he allow
'unbiased journalists' to make speeches opposed to the administration
while he stands there in front of them? Watch a couple White House
briefings, and you'll see what I mean.

Remember, John, that house is our house. If he wants to continue to stay
there, he damn well better answer questions. Our would you prefer the
White House become a fortress?

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040119fa_fact2

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:7Sd7d.301545$Fg5.263100@attbi_s53...
Doug,
The DNC outperformed the RNC on this, but I don't know how many people use
the online polls to determine who they think won.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:Mmd7d.150078$MQ5.27967@attbi_s52...
Very interesting, that may explain the difference. I could not find
anything similar in the rnc.org web site.

Of course not.....the RNC is not in panick mode like the DNC

Looks to me like the Dems were doing their job. Imagine if everyone was
equally motivated. What a world.

It is comical that the liebrals wish to claim victory based on flooding the
polls........

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!

Bush came across as a whiner. He wasted several of his 30 second rebuttal
periods repeating himself.

Let's hope that wasn't because there is no greater depth to this man than we
saw on TV last night. Without his advisors propping him up, he doesn't look so
sharp.
Seriously, you have to wonder if this "encourages" our enemies. If you know
exactly what the POTUS is going to do, and know that once he has set off on a
strategy he is going to "stay the course" come hell or high water- doesn't that
make it easier, not more difficult, to defeat us?

He let pass several opportunities to nail Kerry.
Not
a good job for Bush.

Kerry was very 'presidential' for a lying scumbag.

Damn, John! You do have at least a slightly open mind. Good for you. :-)

Bush completely blew it, but according to CNN the polls do not show the
debate changed anyone's mind.

Makes sense that the supporters of the guy who won't reconsider his opinions as
new evidence comes to light won't reconsider their own in the same
circumstances. I can't imagine that Kerry's excellent performance cost him any
votes among his own supporters, either.

What the debate accomplished is it allowed Kerry to make a direct, spin-free
contrast to Bush. No Rather, Moore, Hannity, or Limbaugh running interference
for either one. Mano a mano, Kerry kicked his butt.

NBC had a meeting with half a dozen or so 'independents' right after the
debate.
One hundred percent of them were now leaning towards Kerry. Hmmm, seemed like
a
set up to me.


It was. They set up the podium, and Bush walked right into the trap. He should
*never* have debated Kerry, but personally I'm glad he did. Maybe more people
will realize it's time for a change.

On the other hand, another poor showing by Bush
and he may be Crawford bound.

Didn't analysts credit a lot of Kennedy's 1960 victory over Nixon to a good
showing in the debates?

It is comical that the liebrals wish to claim victory based on flooding the
polls........

It would be comical for a ****servative to watch the thrashing that Kerry
dropped on Bush last night and even begin to fantasize that Bush compared well
in any respect.

Whatever your guy is, he is not a debater.
He can read a speech, and given enough time to ponder a question he can
probably formulate an answer- sometimes even a good one. Bush cannot think or
speak on his feet. He needs time, preparation, and help------all missing in the
debate format.

If you think the Bush really won the debate and Kerry's supporters "flooded the
polls", you obviously didn't watch the event.

Gould 0738 wrote:
It is comical that the liebrals wish to claim victory based on flooding the
polls........

It would be comical for a ****servative to watch the thrashing that Kerry
dropped on Bush last night and even begin to fantasize that Bush compared well
in any respect.

Whatever your guy is, he is not a debater.
He can read a speech, and given enough time to ponder a question he can
probably formulate an answer- sometimes even a good one. Bush cannot think or
speak on his feet. He needs time, preparation, and help------all missing in the
debate format.

If you think the Bush really won the debate and Kerry's supporters "flooded the
polls", you obviously didn't watch the event.



Appoarently some 300 Republicans watched a movie the other night that
supposedly was the GOP "response" to Fahrenheit 911. They agreed it
really "answered" all the questions raised in Moore's film. Oh...one
little factoid...of the 300 responders, some 298 indicated they had not
seen Moore's film.




--
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?

Maybe Sean Hannity will moderate the next one.

John H

That would be a hoot!

"Senator Kerry, aside from being a lying snake in the grass, a liberal
socialist traitor, a sniveling coward, a marital opportunist, and the *MOST
LIBERAL MEMBER OF THE SENATE*, what other special characteristics do you feel
best qualify you to serve as Commander in Chief?"

If Hannity moderated, maybe Bush could pull up to even that round.

Gould,
I cringed watching Bush and could not believe Bush's poor performance. Once
Kerry got on a roll after 15-20 min. he dominated the debate.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Bush completely blew it, but according to CNN the polls do not show the
debate changed anyone's mind.

Makes sense that the supporters of the guy who won't reconsider his
opinions as
new evidence comes to light won't reconsider their own in the same
circumstances. I can't imagine that Kerry's excellent performance cost him
any
votes among his own supporters, either.

What the debate accomplished is it allowed Kerry to make a direct,
spin-free
contrast to Bush. No Rather, Moore, Hannity, or Limbaugh running
interference
for either one. Mano a mano, Kerry kicked his butt.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
It would be comical for a ****servative to watch the thrashing that Kerry

Gould,
It looks like you have taken off the gloves. Why are you stopping to the
level of those you disagree with?

"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.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:48:29 -0400, JohnH wrote:


It would be nice if some questions had been thrown at the guy wanting
to
enter the kitchen to see if he could stand the heat.

Bush has withstood the heat. Not eloquently, but he's done it. It's a
shame Kerry doesn't have the balls to go on O'Reilly's show. Then he
would
get the typical heat thrown at the administration, although in a much
fairer and more balanced manner.

LOL, it's about the only time Bush has felt the heat. In his nearly
four
years as President, do you know how many news conferences Bush has
given?
Bush doesn't like the heat.

Just saw a clip of Bush on tv talking about the next debate...

He said, referring to Kerry...

"Looking forward to the next debate, on domestic issues. Kerry's going
to run up your taxes...I won't."

Interesting sentence. I put words together that way after being in the sun
all day, then going home and having 9 bourbons.

Something else interesting: If a private business played games with prices
the way Bush plays with the subject of money, they'd be in trouble at LEAST
with customers and the Better Business Bureau, and with any luck, the
attorney general of the state in question. I wonder why Bush's drones choose
not to draw this analogy?

I don't think the polls matter as much as the fact that the DNC did
something massive, in terms of communicating with people. THAT is what
really bothers PFritz. He wants the DNC to be quiet.

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:7Sd7d.301545$Fg5.263100@attbi_s53...
Doug,
The DNC outperformed the RNC on this, but I don't know how many people use
the online polls to determine who they think won.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:Mmd7d.150078$MQ5.27967@attbi_s52...
Very interesting, that may explain the difference. I could not find
anything similar in the rnc.org web site.

Of course not.....the RNC is not in panick mode like the DNC

Looks to me like the Dems were doing their job. Imagine if everyone was
equally motivated. What a world.

Gould,
It looks like you have taken off the gloves. Why are you stopping to the
level of those you disagree with?

After several hundred postings of "liebral" by the same angry right winger, it
isn't completely uncalled for to give the guy a clue just where his
"misspelling" could lead.

You, Taco, are a conservative.

Gould,
I cringed watching Bush and could not believe Bush's poor performance. Once
Kerry got on a roll after 15-20 min. he dominated the debate.

No doubt. If the election were decided by last night's debate, the permanent
population of Crawford would be going up a little.

These debates could be disastrous for Bush. Folks who watched the first one and
concluded, "well, anybody can have an off night," will have a harder time
remaining enthusiastic behind Bush if he repeats his poor performance. For a
guy who wants to be perceived as a courageous warrior, a Commander in Chief, he
sure spent a lot of time running scared and acting confused last night.

It's no secret that I want Kerry to replace Bush as POTUS, but I hate to see
anybody so humiliated in front of an enormous audience. Talk about "encouraging
our enemies", it isn't unreasonable to arrive at a conclusion that Bush is not
the brightest star in the firmament after watching last night's debate.

Maybe Bush will call off the next two debates "In the interest of national
security."



Really support our troops. Join "Soldiers for The Truth". http://www.sftt.org/

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:7Sd7d.301545$Fg5.263100@attbi_s53...
Doug,
The DNC outperformed the RNC on this, but I don't know how many people
use
the online polls to determine who they think won.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:Mmd7d.150078$MQ5.27967@attbi_s52...
Very interesting, that may explain the difference. I could not find
anything similar in the rnc.org web site.

Of course not.....the RNC is not in panick mode like the DNC

Looks to me like the Dems were doing their job. Imagine if everyone was
equally motivated. What a world.

It is comical that the liebrals wish to claim victory based on flooding
the
polls........


I would have to agree that Kerry won the debate. I don't think it was the
major knockout punch he needed nor will it sway the election one way or the
other at this point.

However, if Bush continues to perform the way he did in future debates it
may have a negative impact.

But at this point I think it is nothing more than a ripple in the water.

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:AGe7d.156963$D%.120221@attbi_s51...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
It would be comical for a ****servative to watch the thrashing that
Kerry

Gould,
It looks like you have taken off the gloves. Why are you stopping to the
level of those you disagree with?



Thrashing.....hardly.......except from the skewed view of the liebral base
and the compliant MSM

another intersting viewpoint.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/100104J.html

Also interesting is how the same spin occurred with the first gore/Bush
debate........just give it a little time, and the incoherance of kerry's
policoes will come home to roost.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
It is comical that the liebrals wish to claim victory based on flooding
the
polls........

It would be comical for a ****servative ...snip

Never thought I would see the day you lower yourself to such childish
wording. I guess I was wrong Chuck.

I really think you should take a break from this group based on your health.
I mean that in all sincerity as you seem to be losing it more and more every
day.

In the end, this NG is not what is important, nor is anyone's opinion on
boats or politics.

Your health (mental and physical) and family come above all. You are
letting this NG get to you and you need to step away for a bit Chuck.

" JimH" wrote in message
...

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:7Sd7d.301545$Fg5.263100@attbi_s53...
Doug,
The DNC outperformed the RNC on this, but I don't know how many people
use
the online polls to determine who they think won.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:Mmd7d.150078$MQ5.27967@attbi_s52...
Very interesting, that may explain the difference. I could not
find
anything similar in the rnc.org web site.

Of course not.....the RNC is not in panick mode like the DNC

Looks to me like the Dems were doing their job. Imagine if everyone
was
equally motivated. What a world.

It is comical that the liebrals wish to claim victory based on flooding
the
polls........


I would have to agree that Kerry won the debate.

On delivery /style... so what.........remeber the hell from the last
slick talker that occupied the WH from the liebral side of the aisle.

I don't think it was the
major knockout punch he needed nor will it sway the election one way or
the
other at this point.

Agreed


However, if Bush continues to perform the way he did in future debates it
may have a negative impact.

But at this point I think it is nothing more than a ripple in the water.

The MSM and the liebral socialists have been waiting to spin this as the
start of the 'kerry comeback' so the fast and furious spin is not
surprising.

I think when everything settles down, it will be shown as a draw.....that no
one 'won' anything.

If Hannity moderated, maybe Bush could pull up to even that round.

Hey! What's fair is fair!


John H

If we all stopped being partisan for a little while and just compared the
actual performance of the two candidates in last night's face-off, we'd have
some interesting
conclusions.

Imagine you were hiring somebody for a job, and those two candidates showed up
for an interview. If they were interviewing for a job, (and they were), and you
had to hire one based on the interview alone, I believe the difference between
the candidates was dramatic enough that most peole would have been able to
identify a clear choice.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 15:33:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

I don't think the polls matter as much as the fact that the DNC did
something massive, in terms of communicating with people. THAT is what
really bothers PFritz. He wants the DNC to be quiet.

RIGHT!

snicker typical liebral response.....accuse others of what they
personally are guilty of.


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!

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 01 Oct 2004 15:16:19 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

It is comical that the liebrals wish to claim victory based on flooding
the
polls........

It would be comical for a ****servative to watch the thrashing that Kerry
dropped on Bush last night and even begin to fantasize that Bush compared
well
in any respect.

Whatever your guy is, he is not a debater.
He can read a speech, and given enough time to ponder a question he can
probably formulate an answer- sometimes even a good one. Bush cannot
think or
speak on his feet. He needs time, preparation, and help------all missing
in the
debate format.

If you think the Bush really won the debate and Kerry's supporters
"flooded the
polls", you obviously didn't watch the event.

Is this a mistake, or are you emulating the Harry one?

"... would be comical for a ****servative to ..."


That is what happens when one depends on style rather than substance


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!

Come on, Chuck. Bush was *out talked*, not 'humiliated'. Let's don't get
carried
away here!

Bush humiliated himself. Kerry had nothing to do with it, except turn in a very
creditable performance that made Bush look even worse by comparison.

Is this a mistake, or are you emulating the Harry one?

"... would be comical for a ****servative to ..."


As a liebral, I took a spelling cue from Pfritz. What's the matter, it's only
funny or acceptable if your side dishes it out? :-)

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 01 Oct 2004 15:47:05 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Gould,
I cringed watching Bush and could not believe Bush's poor performance.
Once
Kerry got on a roll after 15-20 min. he dominated the debate.

No doubt. If the election were decided by last night's debate, the
permanent
population of Crawford would be going up a little.

These debates could be disastrous for Bush. Folks who watched the first
one and
concluded, "well, anybody can have an off night," will have a harder time
remaining enthusiastic behind Bush if he repeats his poor performance.
For a
guy who wants to be perceived as a courageous warrior, a Commander in
Chief, he
sure spent a lot of time running scared and acting confused last night.

It's no secret that I want Kerry to replace Bush as POTUS, but I hate to
see
anybody so humiliated in front of an enormous audience. Talk about
"encouraging
our enemies", it isn't unreasonable to arrive at a conclusion that Bush
is not
the brightest star in the firmament after watching last night's debate.

Maybe Bush will call off the next two debates "In the interest of
national
security."



Really support our troops. Join "Soldiers for The Truth".
http://www.sftt.org/

Come on, Chuck. Bush was *out talked*, not 'humiliated'. Let's don't get
carried
away here!

that is all the liebrals can do, to gin up hype about kerry's 'victory' to
mask the lack of substance to his positions.


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!

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
You, Taco, are a conservative.

Yes I am, but I missed the point you were making.

I disagree with either party or person, when they stoop to that name
calling. I agree that the misspelling is very minor compared to some of the
trash that is said in rec.boats, but in the past, you normally stayed above
the fray.

As a side note, I thought your comment about "conservative" was actually
funny.

You forget the interference of Lehrer who could easily have put in a few
questions to allow some reciprocal butt kicking.




Not so. Not at all. If you will recall, George Bush got confused about the
debate protocol at least twice, and launched into
rebuttals that he wasn't entitled to under the rules. In both cases, the
moderator allowed the president the additional time to
try and climb out of his hole. You will recall Kerry momentarily protesting,
and then consenting to Bush's extra time with a good natured remark something
like, "Well, I suppose it's Ok to make up new rules as we go along."

If Lehrer favored anybody, it was George Bush. I didn't notice Kerry asking for
any extra time outside the rules.

But that sort of sums up the election doesn't it? George Bush needs some extra
time (another four years) to try and figure out some answers. Rules be damned.

ahh yes another off topic post from our lil buddy harry. what a suprise.

plunk*


chris....


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.

--
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?

I agree with you JimH. If Bush continues to perform as bad, and Kerry
continues to perform as well, I think it would be enough to swing the key
battleground states over to Kerry.


" JimH" wrote in message
...

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:7Sd7d.301545$Fg5.263100@attbi_s53...
Doug,
The DNC outperformed the RNC on this, but I don't know how many people
use
the online polls to determine who they think won.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:Mmd7d.150078$MQ5.27967@attbi_s52...
Very interesting, that may explain the difference. I could not
find
anything similar in the rnc.org web site.

Of course not.....the RNC is not in panick mode like the DNC

Looks to me like the Dems were doing their job. Imagine if everyone
was
equally motivated. What a world.

It is comical that the liebrals wish to claim victory based on flooding
the
polls........


I would have to agree that Kerry won the debate. I don't think it was the
major knockout punch he needed nor will it sway the election one way or
the other at this point.

However, if Bush continues to perform the way he did in future debates it
may have a negative impact.

But at this point I think it is nothing more than a ripple in the water.

He might be just having fun and actually enjoy throwing a few barbs. If the
crap that goes on in rec.boats actually gets to him, I hope he does take a
break.

If not, it is fun to see someone doing a good job of debating issues. As a
whole, Gould can hold his own with anyone in rec.boats and does better than
most.






" JimH" wrote in message
...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
It is comical that the liebrals wish to claim victory based on flooding
the
polls........

It would be comical for a ****servative ...snip

Never thought I would see the day you lower yourself to such childish
wording. I guess I was wrong Chuck.

I really think you should take a break from this group based on your
health. I mean that in all sincerity as you seem to be losing it more and
more every day.

In the end, this NG is not what is important, nor is anyone's opinion on
boats or politics.

Your health (mental and physical) and family come above all. You are
letting this NG get to you and you need to step away for a bit Chuck.

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:LOf7d.396700$8_6.120582@attbi_s04...
I agree with you JimH. If Bush continues to perform as bad, and Kerry
continues to perform as well, I think it would be enough to swing the key
battleground states over to Kerry.

I would agree ID the elections were held immediately folloqing the
debate.......but what has 'legs'......Bush's facial expressions, or kerry's
"global approvl' comment, will determine, in the long run, who benefits from
the 'debate'




" JimH" wrote in message
...

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:7Sd7d.301545$Fg5.263100@attbi_s53...
Doug,
The DNC outperformed the RNC on this, but I don't know how many people
use
the online polls to determine who they think won.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Taco Heaven" wrote in message
news:Mmd7d.150078$MQ5.27967@attbi_s52...
Very interesting, that may explain the difference. I could not
find
anything similar in the rnc.org web site.

Of course not.....the RNC is not in panick mode like the DNC

Looks to me like the Dems were doing their job. Imagine if everyone
was
equally motivated. What a world.

It is comical that the liebrals wish to claim victory based on flooding
the
polls........


I would have to agree that Kerry won the debate. I don't think it was
the
major knockout punch he needed nor will it sway the election one way or
the other at this point.

However, if Bush continues to perform the way he did in future debates
it
may have a negative impact.

But at this point I think it is nothing more than a ripple in the water.

I noticed that Lehrer did allow Bush 30 secs to respond, even though the
rules stated it was up to Lehrer to decide if the candidates could get an
additional 30 secs. But if he gave Bush and extra 30 secs, he than allow
Kerry an additional 30 secs. to respond to Bush.

I am sure Lehrer is biased but it appeared that he was trying his best to
remain neutral, which doesn't mean that he didn't lob Kerry a few easier
balls. My opinion is he did give Kerry slightly easier questions, but
unless you asked each camp to provide the questions it is going to happen..


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
You forget the interference of Lehrer who could easily have put in a few
questions to allow some reciprocal butt kicking.




Not so. Not at all. If you will recall, George Bush got confused about the
debate protocol at least twice, and launched into
rebuttals that he wasn't entitled to under the rules. In both cases, the
moderator allowed the president the additional time to
try and climb out of his hole. You will recall Kerry momentarily
protesting,
and then consenting to Bush's extra time with a good natured remark
something
like, "Well, I suppose it's Ok to make up new rules as we go along."

If Lehrer favored anybody, it was George Bush. I didn't notice Kerry
asking for
any extra time outside the rules.

But that sort of sums up the election doesn't it? George Bush needs some
extra
time (another four years) to try and figure out some answers. Rules be
damned.

Great question Gould, I would have hired Kerry in a heart beat. Based upon
last nights interview, I can not imagine many people hiring Bush if the two
of them were the only people being interviewed for the job.

Now, if I was doing the interviewing and hiring, I would have stopped both
of them when they started to use "buzz words" and would have insisted them
give me more specific answers to my questions.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
If Hannity moderated, maybe Bush could pull up to even that round.

Hey! What's fair is fair!


John H

If we all stopped being partisan for a little while and just compared the
actual performance of the two candidates in last night's face-off, we'd
have
some interesting
conclusions.

Imagine you were hiring somebody for a job, and those two candidates
showed up
for an interview. If they were interviewing for a job, (and they were),
and you
had to hire one based on the interview alone, I believe the difference
between
the candidates was dramatic enough that most peole would have been able to
identify a clear choice.