Replies

It's unfortunate that when we are of one mind on a subject it is bad for our side.
Your comments are right on target.

It is unfortunate when people confuse relentlessly negative critical comments as intellectual sophistication. There is this strange fascination with a certain segment of Freepers. They seem to think if they are playing devils advocate ALL the time and making constantly critical comments about their own side, it makes them seem thoughtful and intelligent. Maybe we should have a term for this? Call it "McCainism" A metal defect that requires the victim to constantly critize their own side while NEVER pointing out where the other side blew it. Mccainism does not make you look smart. See REAL intelligence would be to provide some serious BALANCED review not this hysterical "OH WE LOST! IT IS ALL OVER" chicken little screech time after time, post after post.

Mark my words Boy's and Girls, John Kerry just lost the election tonight. Since most who suffer from McCainism seem to be lawyers, I will put it to you in terms you might understand. John Kerry may, or may not, have won the formal debate but he didn't win the Jury. And you people always forget this one fact. The JURY (i.e. The American people), not the Debate coaches decides the election.

John Kerry lost the election tonight people. You heard it here first.

"Mark my words Boy's and Girls, John Kerry just lost the election tonight."

You're right. I went into this hoping Bush would jsut hold his own.

From the start, Kerry was dour and repetitive. He came off as a stiff; Bush came across as a man in command--of the facts, of the Korean and Iran issues, of the larger war in Iraq. Bush had to correct Kerry's "facts" a couple of times, and generally came off as energetic and intelligent.

People like a friend who just called get stuck in the moment--"Why didn't Bush call Kerry on this, that or the other?"

It doesn't matter. Tomorrow, you will be talking to friends at work who won't be able to quote much, but they will remember that Bush was alive, that he spoke of a widow whose husband's sacrifice in Iraq was the supreme one, that he has a plan for N Korea.

The crew on MSNBC looked like they were attending a wake, though that was just for the second I flipped by.

I think Kerry lost the race tonight.

This was not a debate people. This was a news conference. Everyone here was looking for a knockout. A knockout was not needed. Kerry did fine if you are looking for style and debate points. Bush spoke to the American people. Kerry needed a KO and didn't get it. It was a draw and that's a win for our guy.

Brilliant post.

In college, it seemed "intellectual" to have a snide, condescending comment for every occasion. Nothing was ever good enough. Everyone was always unenlightened and wrong.

Most Republicans eventually outgrow this wet-behind-the-ears obnoxiousness. Real life experiences teach them about the general imperfectibility of life, and they become more compassionate toward people who are actually in the foxholes of life trying to accomplish something.

Many liberals never outgrow their snottiness because they tend to have careers that insulate them from the day-to-day down-and-dirty of real life. They become teachers, professors, journalists, and theoreticians who can be consistently wrong without ever incurring any concrete sanctions.

Kerry has never done anything real during his entire life. He has existed entirely in the realm of the policy wonk. He has thought and talked, but he has never taken an action that has had real consequences for himself or others. He has had the luxury of being unaccountable in his professional life.

Bush, on the other hand, has real-life accomplishments. He's been an executive in the private sector and in the public sector. He's not had the luxury of theorizing endlessly. He's had to make decisions based on available information and implement policies. He has a real record because he's had a real life.

Kerry is the proverbial eunuch in a harem. He can talk about it, but he can't do it.

"And you people always forget this one fact. The JURY (i.e. The American people), not the Debate coaches decides the election.

John Kerry lost the election tonight people. You heard it here first."

Good points...

Upon further reflection, I believe Dubya scored with his compassion, sincerity, and conviction.

Kerry demonstrated far less sincerity, conveyed little warmth, and came off as smarmy.

Yeah, maybe you're right. Dubya could have won :-D

I agree .. even though I have seen the President articulate much better .. he still stayed with his core beliefs which is important.

Kerry was talking too loudly .. and the President too softly. It might have been done on purpose but I'd be checking to see that it wasn't the microphones being purposefully set that way.

Kerry was too agressive and arrogant .. his usual. I find his voice very hard to listen to.

All Kerry ever said was I have a better plan .. but he still never said what the plan was.

It is unfortunate when people confuse relentlessly negative critical comments as intellectual sophistication. There is this strange fascination with a certain segment of Freepers. They seem to think if they are playing devils advocate ALL the time and making constantly critical comments about their own side, it makes them seem thoughtful and intelligent.

What the h*ll are you talking about? When have I EVER been a "devil's advocate?" Show me ONE post of mine where I have argued against our side? Kerry was much more presidential than Bush last night; Dubya was halting, repetitious, hunched over and even--at times--whiney.

Your assessment of my comment is as poor as your assessment of the debate. Denying reality is never helpful.

Bush looked tired--he was NOT sharp. I am extremely angry with his handlers who allowed him to knock himself out running all around Florida yesterday. He should have rested and even taken a nap in the afternoon. There were some bad decisions made.