Bush debate should concern every intelligent person
 

Bush performed well in the second presidential debate.

While the Limbaugh Little Leaguers and other right wing fanatics have been
crowing about Bush's "victory" in the first debate, the majority of the country
saw a dramatic difference between Kerry and Bush in their first debate, and the
difference was not in the incumbent's favor.

The Friday night rematch was more evenly fought. D's and R's alike could take
some pride in the overall performance of their favored candidates- and each
side
got off a few "zingers" against the other.

Were the encounters boxing matches, rather than debates, the first would have
been a knockout and the second contest narrowly decided one way or another by
points.

There was an aspect of Bush's performance that must surely concern a geat many
people. How could the confused, bumbling, face-making buffoon from the first
debate have morphed so convincingly into the still bull-headed, but now
adequately communicative full participant in the second?

Such inconsistencies in personality and performance are often symptomatic of
serious underlying issues. Was the POTUS "medicated" for one of the two
debates? If so, which one? Was that the *real* George Bush, standing erect and
making eye contact with the crowd while speaking coherently enough to convince
his loyal base that he hadn't lost his mind entirely?

Which of those Bush's would occupy the White House if he is reselected for
another four years? The smirking incompetent? The oh-so-wrong but adequately
functional statesman? Both at once?

Jekyl and Hyde?
There can be no greater, or more potentially disastrous "flip-flop" than that.

Kerry won the first
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Bush performed well in the second presidential debate.

Yep.



While the Limbaugh Little Leaguers and other right wing fanatics have been
crowing about Bush's "victory" in the first debate, the majority of the
country
saw a dramatic difference between Kerry and Bush in their first debate,
and the
difference was not in the incumbent's favor.

Funny how we all see things, especially those Michael Moore lovers and other
left wing fanatics that see Kerry winning the first debate.

My view:

1st Pres. debate: Kerry won on style, Bush on substance. Perhaps a draw
but edge to Kerry.

Cheney had his way with Edwards in their debate. Edwards came across as a
slick lawyer type.

2nd Pres. debate: Kerry came across as talking down to people, Bush was
more at home and comfortable and came across as genuine. Neither scored a
knockout. Perhaps another draw but the edge this time to Bush.

To date I see the Pres. debates a draw but edge to Bush because of Cheney's
win.

These debates mean something only to the idiot undecided voters. And if
last nights debate was not a convincer either way for them then they are
indeed helpless.

Gould,
When you make posts like this, and others that seem on the brink of clinical
paranoia, I am concerned about your health.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Bush performed well in the second presidential debate.

While the Limbaugh Little Leaguers and other right wing fanatics have been
crowing about Bush's "victory" in the first debate, the majority of the
country
saw a dramatic difference between Kerry and Bush in their first debate,
and the
difference was not in the incumbent's favor.

The Friday night rematch was more evenly fought. D's and R's alike could
take
some pride in the overall performance of their favored candidates- and
each
side
got off a few "zingers" against the other.

Were the encounters boxing matches, rather than debates, the first would
have
been a knockout and the second contest narrowly decided one way or another
by
points.

There was an aspect of Bush's performance that must surely concern a geat
many
people. How could the confused, bumbling, face-making buffoon from the
first
debate have morphed so convincingly into the still bull-headed, but now
adequately communicative full participant in the second?

Such inconsistencies in personality and performance are often symptomatic
of
serious underlying issues. Was the POTUS "medicated" for one of the two
debates? If so, which one? Was that the *real* George Bush, standing erect
and
making eye contact with the crowd while speaking coherently enough to
convince
his loyal base that he hadn't lost his mind entirely?

Which of those Bush's would occupy the White House if he is reselected for
another four years? The smirking incompetent? The oh-so-wrong but
adequately
functional statesman? Both at once?

Jekyl and Hyde?
There can be no greater, or more potentially disastrous "flip-flop" than
that.

These debates mean something only to the idiot undecided voters.

Those who continue to carefully weigh all available evidence to arrive at the
most thoroughly considered opinions are "idiots"?

Then surely those who decided on the second day of Bush's term that they would
be voting for his reelection, despite anything they might learn in the next
four years are certified geniuses.

Gould,
When you make posts like this, and others that seem on the brink of clinical
paranoia, I am concerned about your health.

You're right. I should just stereotype and call everybody names, and thereby be
considered "normal" in this group. :-)

"Jon Smithe" wrote in message news:I8V9d.440632

Gould,
When you make posts like this, and others that seem on the brink of
clinical
paranoia, I am concerned about your health.

...... while Chuck all the while insists that he is of neither party and able
to maintain a balanced view. Pshaw!

Gould 0738 wrote:
Bush performed well in the second presidential debate.

While the Limbaugh Little Leaguers and other right wing fanatics have been
crowing about Bush's "victory" in the first debate, the majority of the country
saw a dramatic difference between Kerry and Bush in their first debate, and the
difference was not in the incumbent's favor.

The Friday night rematch was more evenly fought. D's and R's alike could take
some pride in the overall performance of their favored candidates- and each
side
got off a few "zingers" against the other.

Were the encounters boxing matches, rather than debates, the first would have
been a knockout and the second contest narrowly decided one way or another by
points.

There was an aspect of Bush's performance that must surely concern a geat many
people. How could the confused, bumbling, face-making buffoon from the first
debate have morphed so convincingly into the still bull-headed, but now
adequately communicative full participant in the second?

Such inconsistencies in personality and performance are often symptomatic of
serious underlying issues. Was the POTUS "medicated" for one of the two
debates? If so, which one? Was that the *real* George Bush, standing erect and
making eye contact with the crowd while speaking coherently enough to convince
his loyal base that he hadn't lost his mind entirely?

Which of those Bush's would occupy the White House if he is reselected for
another four years? The smirking incompetent? The oh-so-wrong but adequately
functional statesman? Both at once?

Jekyl and Hyde?
There can be no greater, or more potentially disastrous "flip-flop" than that.


Bush did better than in the first debate, but he didn't look or sound
Presidential. He's got all the intellectual curiosity of a rotifer.

And he continues to blame others for his mistakes.





--
"...vice president (Cheney), I'm surprised to hear him talk about
records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he
was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against
banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors. He voted
against the Department of Education. He voted against funding for
Meals on Wheels for seniors. He voted against a holiday for Martin
Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of
Nelson Mandela in South Africa. It's amazing to hear him criticize
either my record or John Kerry's."

- Senator John Edwards, 10/05/04

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
These debates mean something only to the idiot undecided voters.

Those who continue to carefully weigh all available evidence to arrive at
the
most thoroughly considered opinions are "idiots"?

Then surely those who decided on the second day of Bush's term that they
would
be voting for his reelection, despite anything they might learn in the
next
four years are certified geniuses.



Bull****. If you can't make up your mind after hearing Kerry for a year and
seeing Bush in action for 4 you are indeed an idiot.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Gould,
When you make posts like this, and others that seem on the brink of
clinical
paranoia, I am concerned about your health.

You're right. I should just stereotype and call everybody names, and
thereby be
considered "normal" in this group. :-)

Like you did a few posts up when you said "While the Limbaugh Little
Leaguers and other right wing fanatics have been crowing about Bush's
"victory" in the first debate..."??

You just don't get it Chuck.

Gould,
You repeatedly do just that. You assume that everyone who is conservative
listen to talk radio and Fox Network. You continually classes all
conservative into one group, look at your posts today and you will see you
are guilty of doing just that

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Gould,
When you make posts like this, and others that seem on the brink of
clinical
paranoia, I am concerned about your health.

You're right. I should just stereotype and call everybody names, and
thereby be
considered "normal" in this group. :-)