"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.