I think he did prety well for not having any chance in hell.

He likely said enough "words" that made sense to the lowest thinking 30% that can of course hear words in sentences but if tested after would score zero in listening comprehension testing. He likely confused a middle thinking 30% that might understand half of the issue - if (if) they had retained any previous political context or any interest in the topic. And for the upper thinking 30% of the population - it would serve as some great entertainment.

(Remember - more than 60% of our population cannot name our 3 branches of government.)

But all in all - he was not so bad. I can imagine how he might have responded with pathetic tactics, i.e., insults, etc. as do some we know when completely unable to get any help from logic.

Thanks
- Scott
-Scott | 04.10.06 - 9:34 pm | #