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.

On the other hand, another poor showing by Bush
and he may be Crawford bound.

Didn't analysts credit a lot of Kennedy's 1960 victory over Nixon to a good
showing in the debates?

It is comical that the liebrals wish to claim victory based on flooding the
polls........

It would be comical for a ****servative to watch the thrashing that Kerry
dropped on Bush last night and even begin to fantasize that Bush compared well
in any respect.

Whatever your guy is, he is not a debater.
He can read a speech, and given enough time to ponder a question he can
probably formulate an answer- sometimes even a good one. Bush cannot think or
speak on his feet. He needs time, preparation, and help------all missing in the
debate format.

If you think the Bush really won the debate and Kerry's supporters "flooded the
polls", you obviously didn't watch the event.

Gould 0738 wrote:
It is comical that the liebrals wish to claim victory based on flooding the
polls........

It would be comical for a ****servative to watch the thrashing that Kerry
dropped on Bush last night and even begin to fantasize that Bush compared well
in any respect.

Whatever your guy is, he is not a debater.
He can read a speech, and given enough time to ponder a question he can
probably formulate an answer- sometimes even a good one. Bush cannot think or
speak on his feet. He needs time, preparation, and help------all missing in the
debate format.

If you think the Bush really won the debate and Kerry's supporters "flooded the
polls", you obviously didn't watch the event.



Appoarently some 300 Republicans watched a movie the other night that
supposedly was the GOP "response" to Fahrenheit 911. They agreed it
really "answered" all the questions raised in Moore's film. Oh...one
little factoid...of the 300 responders, some 298 indicated they had not
seen Moore's film.




--
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?

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.

Gould,
I cringed watching Bush and could not believe Bush's poor performance. Once
Kerry got on a roll after 15-20 min. he dominated the debate.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
It would be comical for a ****servative to watch the thrashing that Kerry

Gould,
It looks like you have taken off the gloves. Why are you stopping to the
level of those you disagree with?

"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

That's silly, John. It's like going to the Porsche dealer, and during the
test drive, you "test the car's mettle" by pushing it all the way to 47mph.
When the salesman says "John....this is a Porsche, not a Chrysler mini-van.
Don't you want to see what'll it'll really do?" So, you increase your speed
to 53. :-)

Kerry was coasting last night. It's all that was necessary to deal with
Bush.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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."

Interesting sentence. I put words together that way after being in the sun
all day, then going home and having 9 bourbons.

Something else interesting: If a private business played games with prices
the way Bush plays with the subject of money, they'd be in trouble at LEAST
with customers and the Better Business Bureau, and with any luck, the
attorney general of the state in question. I wonder why Bush's drones choose
not to draw this analogy?

I don't think the polls matter as much as the fact that the DNC did
something massive, in terms of communicating with people. THAT is what
really bothers PFritz. He wants the DNC to be quiet.

"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.