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 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.




CNN has it 78-18 in favor in Kerry.

--
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?

CNN has it 78-18 in favor in Kerry.

Faux News will probably declare it "too close to call." :-)

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Wayne.B wrote:
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.




CNN has it 78-18 in favor in Kerry.

In all fairness, Harry, we must allow for the possibility of several things:

1) The average Bush supporter couldn't figure out the TV schedule, and
missed the debate completely.

2) The average Bush supporter saw what's-his-name from PBS and decided the
debate was moderated by a socialist (whatever that is), and not worth
watching.

3) The average Bush supporter wanted to vote by computer afterward, but
couldn't figure out where the keyboard plugged in because it was dark, and
hard to see under the hoods of their cars.