Messed Missages?
 

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?

He was gone after the first half hour.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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?

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?

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?

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.



I liked the format, the lights, and the questions. I think the
discussion was spot-on.

--
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?

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.



Interesting. I just voted there...I am an "electronic" subscriber to the
WSJ.



--
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." :-)

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
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.


Um, I never paid for any subscription to WSJ or it's site and I just went
and voted there.
And, just as research for this question, I was able to vote there three
times by tweaking
my computer a little. As allways - polls don't mean much, internet polls
mean almost nothing.

"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.

Bush looked annoyed.


What is a good word for someone who *thinks* he's right
and has no doubt about it, but that is actually wrong? I'm
not just looking for jerk or simpelton but something that
actually conveys that concept of thinking you are right
(or in the right) when in reality you are not.


Anyway, Bush looked like he *knows* and *feels* that
he is in the right and is doing everything right and that
anyone who askes him any questions about it or says
otherwise is just wasting his time.


Kerry looked presidential.

Gary Warner wrote:
Bush looked annoyed.


What is a good word for someone who *thinks* he's right
and has no doubt about it, but that is actually wrong? I'm
not just looking for jerk or simpelton but something that
actually conveys that concept of thinking you are right
(or in the right) when in reality you are not.


Anyway, Bush looked like he *knows* and *feels* that
he is in the right and is doing everything right and that
anyone who askes him any questions about it or says
otherwise is just wasting his time.


Kerry looked presidential.





Despite my many misgivings, I thought the format worked well, and Jim
Lehrer did an excellent job framing questions, keeping control and
keeping the guys moving. Not enough views of each candidate while the
other spoke.

I really felt as if Bush's handlers had given him three 3x5 cards with
instructions to repeat the same pet phrases over and over and over and
over and over. If not, and if all that is on Bush's mind is "mexed
missages," then we really do have an inarticulate dolt in the White House.

Kerry sounded and looked professional and came across as a statesmen.
Bush came across as a guy giving his first performance at Toastmasters.






--
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?

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
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.


Hell....all you have to do is have multiple user profiles in
Netscape/Mozilla, and you can go back & vote once for each. Then, switch
over to IE. Different cookie is set for each user.

Realistically, I don't think the average person has that much time on their
hands, though. :-)

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
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.


Hell....all you have to do is have multiple user profiles in
Netscape/Mozilla, and you can go back & vote once for each. Then, switch
over to IE. Different cookie is set for each user.

Realistically, I don't think the average person has that much time on their
hands, though. :-)



Virtually all the "online" polls I have seen show the aame approximate
results with 60-70% indicating Kerry won the debate.


--
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
...
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.

"Gary Warner" wrote in message
...

"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.




It says he's favored by people who like to be aggravated?

"Gary Warner" wrote in message
...

Bush looked annoyed.


What is a good word for someone who *thinks* he's right
and has no doubt about it, but that is actually wrong? I'm
not just looking for jerk or simpelton but something that
actually conveys that concept of thinking you are right
(or in the right) when in reality you are not.


Anyway, Bush looked like he *knows* and *feels* that
he is in the right and is doing everything right and that
anyone who askes him any questions about it or says
otherwise is just wasting his time.


Kerry looked presidential.




I don't know the word, either, but Kerry addressed the behavior at one point
by saying it's one thing to be committed to an idea initially, but wrong to
be totally inflexible as new information is discovered. I'm sure this idea
was lost on Bush.

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:04:46 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


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.


Not too far off. Check out this article:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...0/223850.shtml

Doug Kanter wrote:
"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.



Well, I really was shocked by how bad Bush was. I expected Kerry to win
on debate style, but I thought Bush's low-key, "winning" personality
would help the President. It wasn't in evidence. Bush seemed to run out
of things to say before 20 minutes had gone bu, and...and this is really
important, he looked as if he couldn't handle the very direct and
straightforward questions being put to him (and to Kerry) by Lehrer.

I've always been concerned by Bush's inarticulateness. It should be the
kiss of death of a politician. I've read that many Americans like Bush
because "he talks just like we do." If that is true, we have truly been
taken over by the stupid.

--
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?

thunder wrote:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:04:46 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


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.


Not too far off. Check out this article:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives


All you need to know about NewsMAx is contained in these lines that
follow the article you cite:

"Editor's note:
# Urgent: President Bush needs your support – Click Here Now and show
your support to your friends and family."







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


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
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----

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.

Bush came across as a whiner. He wasted several of his 30 second rebuttal
periods repeating himself. He let pass several opportunities to nail
Kerry. Not
a good job for Bush.

Kerry was very 'presidential' for a lying scumbag.

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:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 08:16:06 -0400, thunder wrote:

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:04:46 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


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.


Not too far off. Check out this article:

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 H

A. Bull****. The debate was about foreign policy since 9-11.
B. Bush is the sitting POTUS. He wants another term. His
administration's record is the issue in this campaign.

NewsMax...Jesus.





--
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 Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:35:20 +0000, Taco Heaven wrote:

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

It's way too early to say but . . . for many, this was their first real
look at Kerry. It may take some time to sink in. If Kerry hadn't made a
good showing, he was done for. I'm not so sure the same can be said of
Bush. Reagan did very poorly in his first debate with Mondale, but
devastated him in the second. This race is far from over, but Kerry's
showing can not hurt him. On the other hand, another poor showing by Bush
and he may be Crawford bound.

thunder wrote:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:35:20 +0000, Taco Heaven wrote:

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

It's way too early to say but . . . for many, this was their first real
look at Kerry. It may take some time to sink in. If Kerry hadn't made a
good showing, he was done for. I'm not so sure the same can be said of
Bush. Reagan did very poorly in his first debate with Mondale, but
devastated him in the second. This race is far from over, but Kerry's
showing can not hurt him. On the other hand, another poor showing by Bush
and he may be Crawford bound.

Kerry has a sackful of "shutdowns" for any quips that come from Bush.
Reagan was articulate and knew how to use language. Bush's jokes are
inappropriate in a world he has made more dangerous.

--
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 Fri, 01 Oct 2004 08:32:15 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:



"Editor's note:
# Urgent: President Bush needs your support - Click Here Now and show
your support to your friends and family."

Hopefully, the need will be become more urgent. ;-)

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 08:16:06 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:04:46 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


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.


Not too far off. Check out this article:

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.

So? As your president said (about 18,000 times last night), "it's hard
work". We're talking about the POTUS, not the person who works the soft ice
cream machine at McDonald's. If your boy can't stand the heat, he doesn't
belong in the kitchen. Every CEO has to defend his or her decisions from
time to time.

"thunder" wrote in message
...



Not too far off. Check out this article:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...0/223850.shtml

Bush supporters bitching about Jim Lehrer being the moderator
is as as stupid as those in the Kerry camp bitching about those
timing lights. They negotiated all the details - now they have to
live with their choices. If they can't negotiate the rules of a debate
how can they run the country??

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.

Thunder,

The debates are designed to sway those on the fence, and you are correct, if
Kerry looks presidential and strong in all 3 debates, and Bush looks as weak
and flustered as much as he did in the in this debate, it will probably help
Kerry gain the majority of the swing votes in the key states.

I sure hope Bush never says "It is a hard job" again, damn what the hell was
he trying to say with that line of crap.

Harry said something about Bush's talking points only lasted 20 min and I
would have to agree with him. Kerry seemed apprehensive in the first 10
min. and I thought Bush was doing a better job than Kerry, but after Bush
repeated the same lines 3 times it was all down hill from there. Kerry
might have said the same thing over and over again, but he said it
differently every time.

While the online surveys show Kerry ahead by 70% to 30%, but ABC's
scientific poll showed the following:

Among a random sample of 531 registered voters who watched the debate, 45
percent called Kerry the winner, 36 percent said it was Bush and 17 percent
called it a tie. It was a clean win for Kerry: Independents by a 20-point
margin said he prevailed.

Moreover, while 70 percent of Bush's supporters said Bush was the winner,
considerably more Kerry supporters - 89 percent - said their man won.


Who Won? (Among Debate Viewers)
Kerry 45%
Bush 36
Tie 17


As is customary, the debate did not immediately change many minds. Bush's
support was 50 percent among viewers before the debate, and 51 percent after
it; Kerry's, 46 percent before, 47 percent after. Ralph Nader had 1 percent
before and a tad less than that after.


Vote Preference Among Debate Viewers
Before the debate After the debate
Bush 50% 51
Kerry 46 47
Nader 1 0.5


This kind of outcome is typical in presidential debates, which tend to
reinforce viewers' preferences rather than change them. But the debates - an
essential window on the candidates' styles as well as their substance - can
affect the race more subtly as voters move toward their final judgments.

The results of this survey are not among all registered or likely voters;
instead they are among registered voters who watched the debate Thursday
night. They are, however, similar to the race overall, 51 percent to 45
percent among likely voters in an ABC News/Washington Post poll earlier this
week.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/polit...ll_040930.html



"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:35:20 +0000, Taco Heaven wrote:

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

It's way too early to say but . . . for many, this was their first real
look at Kerry. It may take some time to sink in. If Kerry hadn't made a
good showing, he was done for. I'm not so sure the same can be said of
Bush. Reagan did very poorly in his first debate with Mondale, but
devastated him in the second. This race is far from over, but Kerry's
showing can not hurt him. On the other hand, another poor showing by Bush
and he may be Crawford bound.

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:47:13 -0400, P.Fritz wrote:


Is it any wonder the online and non scientific polls are that way..

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0...w=wn_tophead_1

John,
O'Reilly is by no means balanced. Like most media pundits, he is very
biased. While all news agencies and reporters are biased, O'Reilly is not
effective in hiding his bias.


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 13:14:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 08:16:06 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:04:46 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


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.


Not too far off. Check out this article:

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.

So? As your president said (about 18,000 times last night), "it's hard
work". We're talking about the POTUS, not the person who works the soft
ice
cream machine at McDonald's. If your boy can't stand the heat, he doesn't
belong in the kitchen. Every CEO has to defend his or her decisions from
time to time.


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.

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!

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.

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."

Yes, we sure want to see Bush defend his abysmal record on the economy,
on health care, on the outsourcing of jobs and the tax benefits
available to companies who do that...





--
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 Fri, 01 Oct 2004 10:04:34 -0400, P.Fritz wrote:


"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

Perhaps it wasn't panic mode before last night, but ...

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0...w=wn_tophead_1

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

The author does make some good points. Lerher was asking questions
designed to
show administration faults.

So? As your president said (about 18,000 times last night), "it's hard
work". We're talking about the POTUS, not the person who works the soft
ice
cream machine at McDonald's. If your boy can't stand the heat, he doesn't
belong in the kitchen. Every CEO has to defend his or her decisions from
time to time.


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.

John H

They'll both 2-3 more chances with other moderators.