Wait a minute there, cowboy. The simple fact of the matter is that Shrub proved himself to be the smarter of the two candidates up for election. :eek: Anyone who manages to get beaten by a moron automatically proves themselves to be a much larger moron by default, since they couldn’t figure out how to beat the moron.
IIRC, before Kerry got the Democratic nomination, polls were showing that any Democrat could beat Shrub, hands down. Kerry, however, managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. As bad as the drooling idiot in charge is, I have to think that things would be far, far, far worse with Kerry in charge. Would that someone like Wesley Clark, or hell, anybody but Kerry or Lieberman, been chosen during the primaries, and Shrub would now be nothing more than an unpleasant memory.
That’s a beautiful oversimplification. Kerry campaigned stupidly and Bush had some good strategists. The fact that one man is a better campaigner than another doesn’t mean the other is stupider or wouldn’t be as good a President.
Not quite; at best, you could argue that the Bush election campaign was smarter than the Kerry election campaign. But unless we’ve got proof that GWB himself was directing every facet of his 2004 campaign, there’s no way to conclude that his wwin was due to being smarter than Mr. Kerry.
I gotta disagree. If Kerry didn’t have the smarts to order the people running his campaign to run ads showing the Deciderer doing stupid things like saying he’s “the Deciderer” then he’s a dumbfuck, no matter how smart the folks running Shrub’s campaign were. Shit, if Kerry had simply run ads asking, “Where’s Osama, stupid?” he would have done better than what he did.
Instead, we got stupid shit like that brace faced little girl at the DNC lecturing us about Cheney saying a bad word. Guess what, honey! He’s a grown up and grown ups are allowed to say such things, and they don’t take kindly to being lectured to by precocious little kids. I’m sure that when you become a grown up, you’ll understand such things.