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. :-)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? :-)

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.

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.

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?