A simple theory as to why Repub pundits gave Kerry the win

[DancingBear]

(aside from the fact that he won, of course)

What they saw last night was a man, supposedly arguing his strong suit, crumble like the fool we know he is. Pundits, being part and parcel of the "what have you done for me lately" crowd, KNOW this boy has NO CHANCE and are jumping ship.

What we saw last night was the beginning of them washing their hands of GW Bush and beginning their long rehab. They'll have many years to think about where it went wrong, but the starting gate will always be Debate 2004.

There won't be enough room in the water for all them after debates 2 and 3 - if they even happen.

Either way, they're desperately trying to forget 9/30/04.

Good luck.

[Arkana]

1. Oh, I don't think so.

Brit Hume still hasn't let go, and I'm sure Sean Insannity and Bill O'Lielly won't either.

[DancingBear]

5. Those are special cases

Bush could kill a roomful of nuns and those guys would say chastity is under attack.

I hate to use the words thoughtful and Republican in the same sentence, but I meant some of the other folks. :)

[salinen]

2. Here's a problem

In order for a republican to pull the Kerry lever, they must admit that China, Russia, France, and Germany were correct and that the U.S. of A. made a terrible mistake. The conservative psychology is that of a disturbed child. Mistakes are made by other people.

[Search Party]

7. addicts do the exact same thing, it's always someone else's fault

[zbdent]

3. They're dismissing it as "Kerry was the better debator"

Didn't you get the memo?

Another case of style over substance.

[Larkspur]

4. Or they'll use this performance to keep lowering expectations for

Bush. It worked in the past.

[pmbryant]

6. Yes. Bush has two more chances.

His performance last night was so dismal that it may revive all the old "low expectation" games of 2000 for the next two debates.

We have to be on guard against that.

--Peter