First Republican debate open thread Update: Poll: Who won? Update: Videos added
posted at 7:48 pm on May 3, 2007 by Ian
Update @ 1:59 Eastern 5/4 Poll closed. Stay tuned for results …
Tonight at 8pm eastern on MSNBC. If you’re unable to watch it on television, MSNBC will simulcast the debate online and C-SPAN will broadcast the audio.
Chris Matthews will moderate. He was a speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, an aide to Tip O’Neill and worked for Democratic Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie. Matthews and “moderator” shouldn’t even be in the same sentence. But, alas, that’s a subject for a different thread.
Debating tonight: Fmr. Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Govs. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin, Jim Gilmore of Virginia, and Reps. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Duncan Hunter of California and Ron Paul of Texas.
The Politico and N.Z. Bear will be live-blogging from the Reagan Library.
As always, let us know if you see something clipworthy.
Update: I’m not a Romney guy, but I think it’s great his staff is pumping out debate video.
Update: Tony Snow was asked what the President thought about Keith Olbermann, a known Republican-hater hosting debate coverage (via Olbermann Watch):
At tonight’s Republican candidates debate, the pre-debate and post-debate coverage I read will be Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman of MSNBC, of whom there is a report that last October 23rd, Mr. Olberman said, “The leading terrorist group in this country is the Republican Party.”And my question: Does the President know why this Republican debate is tolerating such a reported maligner, and does he believe they should?
Update: Heading Right is doing some great live-blogging. Michelle also liveblogged.
Update: Rudy’s stance on abortion is already on YouTube:
Update: According to our poll, Drudge’s poll, and many bloggers, Romney won the debate. I’ve got to say, I’m not a Romney guy, but he came off as the winner to me. However, he also won the “invoke Reagan as much as you can” award. It would be interesting to see Fred Thompson debate this “incomplete crowd.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4
Great comments, people!
Anyone else catch Chrissy Matthews comparing Scooter Libby to Mark Rich?
Infuriating!
Jen the Neocon on May 3, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Indeed.
I thought that right away. With the singular exception of Ron Paul (who is the GOP Gravel), they were all manly men and I would put any one of them up against all of the Dhimmicrat candidates.
I thought, in general, that the field looked pretty good and unlike the Dems, they tried to address substantive issues.
But the incessant invocation of Reagan was cringe-worthy and I adore RR!
Props to Tancredo for saying good things about President Bush.
Jen the Neocon on May 3, 2007 at 10:40 PM
who is this douche they got on now?
all of these people, bar scarborough, are like sodashop punks sitting in the back of class and thunbing their switchblade combs with their emptyeaded sniggering.
there was nothing wishy washy or half formed about his abortion position. he staked a distinct federalist position. federalism is alien to these crypto-marxist swine. it’s presumed that the government is a gun a prospective official is entitled to pick up and fire in their preferred direction.
and what’s this idiotic sniggering about his sunni shia answer? was he wrong? god dammit i’d love to turn the interrogation on these fools!
jummy on May 3, 2007 at 10:43 PM
They’re now admitting they cherry-picked the questions from online submitters…
JetBoy on May 3, 2007 at 10:45 PM
oop, and a commercial for civic duty.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/12/video-civic-duty-trailer/
jummy on May 3, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Completely Matthews loaded. Sad that they call themselves a news network. Olbernazi wet his pants several times in the duration I’m sure. Talk about getting wet under fire. They might as well of invited Chavez to moderate.
Griz on May 3, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Wow, they just fact checked many of the responses from the candidates. I doubt they did that with the Dems.
What a bunch of turds.
SillyRyno on May 3, 2007 at 10:55 PM
I don’t know why my TV is still on MSNBC (I’m not really watching), but a minute ago, just before cutting to a commercial they announced that Ron Paul won the debate according to THEIR poll.
Time to change the channel, for sure.
LegendHasIt on May 3, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Actually, THIS is Matthews “loaded”…haha Still one of my favs…
JetBoy on May 3, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Giuliani did get the answer correct, though.
amerpundit on May 3, 2007 at 11:01 PM
On Drudge, both Romney leads, but Giuliani is in second.
amerpundit on May 3, 2007 at 11:03 PM
Which, of course, means that MSNBC’s polls are for crud.
amerpundit on May 3, 2007 at 11:03 PM
AP has been in love w/Romney for months, and he shows it…hence the HA Romney leaning.
shooter on May 3, 2007 at 11:06 PM
I’ve always liked Mitt. He did come off as the most articulate, natural and Presidential. He was very invigorting and postive and quite frankly made Rudy look like a tired old man.
Ron Paul is the Republican Kucinich. Nuff said.
auspatriotman on May 3, 2007 at 11:13 PM
I really don’t think that AP has influenced the poll numbers on this.
The fact is, that Romney was best in the debate in terms of consistent right answers, polish, and likability. He’s not ‘my guy’; he just clearly won on overall performance.
LegendHasIt on May 3, 2007 at 11:15 PM
Too true.
Me too. I want Duncan Hunter to get some traction, my declared guy.
CrimsonFisted on May 3, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Ron Paul should have stayed in the Libertarian Party.
As much as I dislike to admit it now, I even voted for him for President in 1988 (because I did not trust GHWB). When Paul switched back to Republican, he at once made both the Libertarian party and the Republican party worse off.
LegendHasIt on May 3, 2007 at 11:24 PM
I didn’t see the debate the first time, so I’m watching the replay. I’m sure it’s been said already on this thread but…
My God Chris Matthews is such a tool.
billy on May 3, 2007 at 11:26 PM
LegendHasIt on May 3, 2007 at 11:15 PM
I was throwing AP a friendly jab, he knows it. And, even if he’s on vacation in the arctic, he’s watching too.
shooter on May 3, 2007 at 11:27 PM
{{{{DRUDGE POLL}}}}
WHO WON THE REAGAN DERBY?
Brownback
2% 859
Gilmore
2% 617
Giuliani
22% 8,366
Huckabee
4% 1,468
Hunter
3% 1,162
McCain
6% 2,454
Paul
14% 5,423
Romney
34% 13,063
Tancredo
5% 2,060
Tommy Thompson
8% 2,990
Total Votes: 38,462
http://www.drudgereport.com/
Speakup on May 3, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Completely Matthews loaded. Sad that they call themselves a news network. Olbernazi wet his pants several times in the duration I’m sure. Talk about getting wet under fire. They might as well of invited Chavez to moderate.
Griz on May 3, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Yeah I was thinking that too and Who put this piece of crap together. Then I thought hmm,it’s early and we have alot of time till election so MABEY the thinking on this is to showcase these guys to the Dems in hopes of pulling voter interest.
sonnyspats1 on May 3, 2007 at 11:46 PM
I think the poll vote on
RuPaulRon Paul is meant to be sarcastic.abinitioadinfinitum on May 3, 2007 at 11:57 PM
I gotta take issue with that. I don’t see any evidence of any thinking whatsoever.
If it had to be on MSNBC why not at least pull in Scarborough and Tucker Carlson.
They ain’t Brit Hume but they’d be better than this.
billy on May 3, 2007 at 11:58 PM
The left is out in force tonight promoting the guy who was made governor by the same people who have made Ted Kennedy and John Kerry career senators. Not surprising.
Perchant on May 4, 2007 at 12:05 AM
You know, I’d agree with that if I hadn’t seen them (the left) falling all over themselves to make it look like Guiliani and Paul the clear winners.
I’m suspicious of Romney’s Mass. credentials too, but give credit where credit is due.
LegendHasIt on May 4, 2007 at 12:26 AM
billy on May 3, 2007 at 11:58 PM
I was being cautiously optomistic. The other reason could be that some Repubs are in cahoots with the Dems on the New World Order and we are being sold to the highest bidder! Whats your take billy? Really.
sonnyspats1 on May 4, 2007 at 12:29 AM
I’m a Giuliani supporter, but tonight the crown goes to Tancredo. How well spoken our other Italian candidate is! Also, he’s a straight shooter like Giuliani.
Vincenzo on May 4, 2007 at 12:31 AM
Okay, now I’m positive: [t]he[y] said “more Iran than Iraq” at least 3-4 times, for what that’s worth.
RD on May 4, 2007 at 12:42 AM
sonnyspats1 on May 4, 2007 at 12:29 AM
Honestly, I think the Republican party still doesn’t get that they don’t have to play with a stacked anymore.
Could you imagine the Dems having a debate on Fox moderated by Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer?
They just play smarter when it comes to using the media. They only appear in friendly venues, our side goes into forums like this to prove…what?
That they’re courageous? or “mainstream”
It’s just dumb.
There is no objective press.
Dems get that
Reps don’t.
billy on May 4, 2007 at 12:43 AM
Well, I’m late to the party, but Mitt! clearly showed he was more candid, knowledgable, prepared, and most importantly, presidential than any other candidate. I was very happy to hear Huckabee, and for the most part, Brownback. Of course Rudy looked good too. Tancredo….seemed Chris Matthews had it out for him, but I like some of what he said. Ron Paul is a one trick pony and frankly, the rest didn’t impress me too much. I think McCain came off as trying too hard. We’ll see how well he does next time.
Can some please tell me where fred was? Was he not able to make it to the debate because of all the conservative groupies trying to steal his undies thereby forcing his limo to return to the hotel?
csdeven on May 4, 2007 at 12:44 AM
Gotta say, I was impressed with the whole field tonight. More transparently honest and straightforward than the Truth-tellers on display the other day (except for Kucinich… at least I know the guy’s being honest :-)
RD on May 4, 2007 at 12:51 AM
Would someone please tell me exactly what the pro-life position actually is? I think this is such an Achilles Heel for the party right now, because everyone is forced to do a fan dance around the issue, and that weakness will most definitely be used as weaponry by the MSM.
Against abortion? Check. Overturn Roe? Check. But what then?
Are we for making abortion, or letting the states make abortion, a criminal act (murder)? And if so, what punishment are we for? Jail? Compulsory guidance counceling?
I feel sorry for Giuliani about this, because he’s stuck between a geniune dislike for abortion and the Right’s unwillingness to define legally and in practical terms how the pro-life position would play out. I would love to be proven wrong about this, but I see heads in sand, and hate to think of all the leverage this will give the MSM once they go into full attack mode on the GOP nominee.
Halley on May 4, 2007 at 12:57 AM
Not sure whether that was a serious question or not. If it was, I believe that this debate was for OFFICICALLY declared candidates. Since Fred! has not officially declared, (whether out of coyness or strategy) it would have been unfair to have him there.
If it wasn’t a serious question, then: Fred! wasn’t there because he was busy teaching Jack Bauer how to torture the answers out of terrorists and Chinese spys with just a look, rather than all those loud verbal threats and messy beatings.
LegendHasIt on May 4, 2007 at 1:12 AM
Where is Fred! Where is the most important presidential candidate?
omegaram on May 4, 2007 at 1:14 AM
That’s impossible. fred is too busy talking about thinking toward considering a possible thought that he may decide to wonder if he should run.
Will the HA fred groupie that got freds skivvy’s please stand up?
csdeven on May 4, 2007 at 1:18 AM
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that prior to Roe the legal penalty for abortion in most states fell hardest on the doctor or whoever else performed the abortion rather than the mother.
As I understand it:
Overturning Roe on the national level,
and limiting or banning the ability to legally abort on the state level,
and trying to inculcate respect for the life of the unborn on the personal level so that the right “choice” will be taken regardless of whether abortion is legal or not.
billy on May 4, 2007 at 1:19 AM
His plan isn’t really government health care. Private sector plans.
IrishEi on May 3, 2007 at 9:03 PM
As it should be.
I didn’t get to see the beginning of this one, sadly. I came in right as Ron Paul was talking about the IRS and I was like “Woah, who is this guy? I LIKE him.” But quickly had to pull a John Kerry (Gawd, how embarrassing) and deny I said that. Ron Paul is out. No chance for him.
I thought Rudy came off weak looking. He was kind of slouching and didn’t seem confident in what he had to say more than half of the time… and what’s with him and McCain and their David Byrne Jackets? Was it only me who thought both of those men looked like their jackets were 2 or 3 sizes too big for them?
I though Mitt came off looking very presidential. Almost too polished, but… with The Dub’s line bumbling, that’s probably a good way for the Elephants to go. His answer about stem cells was great. The after debate bash team was saying that was stupid, to bring up something people never heard of before (the altered nuclear transfer thing) but I think that is exactly the type of thing he should do; educate about the alternatives in the whole Stem Cell debate.
I did appreciate the chance to look at the other candidates, guys who I know so very little about up to this point (and, for the most part, didn’t even know they were running). I think that Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee might be worth looking at more closely.
I just wish I could believe it when these guys say they are going to go after taxes and the borders if they get elected. (Except for Tancredo on the borders, I believe that, and the other guy who was pushing “Fair Tax” (I’m ashamed I can’t remember who atm, but it is late… sorry… oh, and is there a better link on it out there? I know Neal Boortz wrote a great book on it.
rahjr2k on May 4, 2007 at 1:20 AM
Is that a trick question?
The Ugly American on May 4, 2007 at 1:29 AM
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Ugly American on May 4, 2007 at 1:30 AM
The debate, a nonfactor.
Nonfactor, a calm Factor tonight.
Lehosh on May 3, 2007 at 9:33 PM – you left out “What do you dislike most about America?” Other than that, excellent.
Watch C-Span at 11:30p.m. on Friday, May 4. Fred! might have something to say about some of this, and more.
Entelechy on May 4, 2007 at 1:37 AM
With Hillary fading and the magic one catching up, I wonder how Mitt! would do against him in a head to head poll? Mitt! has the experience and both of them are well spoken, but Mitt! can speak from experience and magic dude will have to speak in hypotheticals.
I think Mitt! will get a 5 point bump out of this, Guliani will stay static, McCain loses ground, and of course fred will continue to wonder if he should think about considering a thought that might lead him to talk about possible developing a strategy to decide if he should think about running.
csdeven on May 4, 2007 at 2:24 AM
I liked what Mitt had to say, but I still prefer Fred! He’s older (by a lot) which means he has more experience in life. I think Mitt could be the next Republican presidential candidate, OH, or Fred!’s running mate. I’m not a big fan of Mitt being a mormon, but Mitt made a good point about this country being a place where everyone makes their own decision on how to worship. So I feel more than obliged to give him a pass as a possible candidate. IF he wins the nomination, he has my vote.
j_ehman on May 4, 2007 at 2:37 AM
Here ya go.
http://www.fairtax.org
plainspeakin_mom on May 4, 2007 at 2:51 AM
Sorry. meant to link this site.
plainspeakin_mom on May 4, 2007 at 3:07 AM
I’m pissed that I missed this, but should I be? From a skimming of Michelle’s live blogging it sounds like I would have been wanting to put my first through the TV over Matthews and Olberman’s idiocy.
That said, I get the impression (from skimming a few blogs) that Romney won, and Rudy did the same old Rudy dance and actually probably hurt himself a bit if anything, and that McCain is just the same old McCan (any truth to the rumors that his response to every question was “Lighten up and get a life”? I mean, he only said it like 20 times to respond to everything a few weeks ago).
Anyway, will Fox or really anyone who isn’t the lord and savior to The DailyKos, be hosting a real debate any time soon?
RightWinged on May 4, 2007 at 3:54 AM
RightWinged, we’ll have the full 1 hr and 30 minute debate up in a day or two at youdecide2008.com for your viewing pleasure.
Nate A. on May 4, 2007 at 4:51 AM
BEST COMMENT QUOTE OF THE THREAD:
Lehosh points up so many facts:
McVAIN is a mealy-mouthed, pole sitting, pain in the ass.
MATTHEWS is a self aggrandizing, pole smoking pain in the ass.
RUDY is a self congratulatory, pole watching pain in Jane’s ass.
NICELY DONE, Lehosh. You win “Pundit of the Thread”. Lean, economical and spot on!
seejanemom on May 4, 2007 at 5:39 AM
Thanks Nate, and while I know the answer in the sense that you’d like a visitor to your site… but do I really want to watch this? Was it anything more than ridiculous questions by the insanely left monitors and canned answers from the candidates?
I guess I’ll probably play it in the background so I can listen while I work, but I have a feeling I’m going to be so irritated by Matthews and Olberman that I’ll wind up stopping it a few minutes in.
By the way, is there any better time for Fred! to jump in? Again, my understanding (from blog skimming) is that Romney came out on top, Giuliani lost some ground, and McCain basically did nothing. I don’t know if Romney has the ability to ever be the nominee though, he just simply won’t get the press.
I mean the vast majority of the country would say “who” about roughly half of the group of candidates, and the media can only focus on 3 apparently (Rudy, McCain, Romney – like Hillary, Obama, Edwards for the Dems). Like with Edwards for the Dems, Romney doesn’t get nearly the press (good or bad isn’t the point, just his name in print period). I complain about how annoying it is how the dishonest leftist media drives public opinion whichever way they want it to go, but it’s equally annoying that they choose a few candidates for us to pick from and ignore the rest. Money of course plays a role, but at the same money gets donated to those in the headlines because obviously folks don’t want to waste their money on a candidate who doesn’t stand a chance (as dictated by the media).
So Romney’s problem could potentially be Fred!’s problem if he jumps in too. The media has already decided it’s Rudy or McCain vs. Hillary or Obama (and those will probably be the two P/VP generally election campaigns as well). But am I right that after last night’s display, Fred! sort of has a “now or never” moment in front of him?
RightWinged on May 4, 2007 at 6:35 AM
Romney is extremely intelligent and very smooth…and can blow away any Dummiecrat the idiot libs throw out there. The Dummies are dead in the water.
lynnv on May 4, 2007 at 7:47 AM
Rudy, Mitt and maybe Huckabee were the only ones that needed to be there. We can add Fred. (Senators do not get elected President) I like Fred, seems like a great guy. He can communicate very well and I am sure he is a conservative but is he an executive? We are really really hungry for that person right now, make sure you are not eating a big bowl pork fried rice, fills you up but is gone in a second. We need meat and potatos, he may be that, I don’t know. But be prepared to suck it up and vote for Rudy or Mitt, unless you don’t care if Clinton, Ollabama or Edwards wins, if that is the case you would not be paying attention. In the main election 1.5 years from now (Wow) it will not be time to teach people a lesson (like the rep party did in 92 with Ross) it will be time to keep a dem out of the white house.
By the way Newt is a none story I think, sitting on the side lines refuseing to get in the sand box and play because there is not enough room.
Just my thoughts
Ross
sorry for the spelling, can’t spell for crap
kara26 on May 4, 2007 at 7:56 AM
IMHO you should take the time to watch it. We all know matthews is a puke, but he asked questions that were potentially problematic for the candidates. This is a good thing as it forces the candidates to have to think on their feet. I think the people who are complaining the loudest are the ones whose candidate was tripped up by the questions.
What I got from this was a clear indication that tough questions will be the bane of the dems and most of the reps. If I were to put rep candidates up against any dem they would be Rudy, Mitt!, McCain, Brownback, or Huckabee.
I was very glad to hear from Huckabee. I really like his style and he was prepared for almost every question. Ditto for Brownback, but not quite as impressed with his stances.
Hope that helps.
csdeven on May 4, 2007 at 8:30 AM
I’m still with MITT !
But am also interested in hearing more FRED!
Fmr. Sen. Fred Thompson Speaks at the Lincoln Club of Orange County, CA
On C-SPAN FRIDAY, MAY 4 at 11:30pm ET
Anyone know when the debate replay will air on C-SPAN? I glimpsed a re-run of the Dems last weekend (quickly turned it before my eyes burned out), but didn’t see the Republican debate listed on the schedule.
Brat on May 4, 2007 at 8:34 AM
It’s obvious the questions were submitted by MSNBCs regular viewing base. That explains the immature and assinine nature of them. They obviously despise and fear people of faith, people who value life, and people who love their country. I just wish one of the candidates would have made a remark to point out the chicken shits in the democrat field, who were too cowardly to appear in Fox News’ debate. That would have resonated very well.
roninacreage on May 4, 2007 at 8:50 AM
You can watch it online here.
IrishEi on May 4, 2007 at 8:52 AM
I’m glad the Repubs are mature enough to do a debate on MSNBC with matthews, however it feeds the nutroots presumptions that Fox News is biased and MSNBC is the moderate outlet, and possibly some moderates which is bad.
jp on May 4, 2007 at 10:07 AM
Who won the debate? Why, that’s an easy question.
Fred!
Kokonut on May 4, 2007 at 10:22 AM
And, Fred! wasn’t a part of that debate.
Go figure!
Fred!
Kokonut on May 4, 2007 at 10:23 AM
I didn’t know there were such Conservative moonbats as a couple of the nuts on that stage last night.
Having Chris Matthews run the debate was a joke. Rush should be in charge of the next Dem debate if that’s how this is going to go.
Hening on May 4, 2007 at 10:42 AM
Transcript of the GOP Debate
… sort of.
Lehosh on May 4, 2007 at 10:48 AM
I thought they all did well except for the little guy mad about Iraq and Guliani on abortion. Problem is without a name in front of them I’m still not sure who is who outside of McCain Romney, Tancredo and Guliani.
I think that Matthews came off as an ass and I changed the channel the moment Oberdouche came on.
CCRWM on May 4, 2007 at 11:47 AM
you may have noticed, as i did, ko’s affected snickering throughout his post-game hackwork. i noticed this particularly when he mentioned the question about the difference between sunni and shia put to guliani and guliani’s correct answer. before the break, olberman payed it forward with an incredulous attitude: “we’ll have (joeblow, i forget) on to do the fact check report and we’ll see how guliani did on THAT question.”
when olberdouche, the pear-shaped orange premature ejaculator, had to come back and announce that guliani had indeed answered correctly, he looked as if he had just been served with an irs audit. he was pissed off and diissapointed.
but here’s the thing which i find most interesting. the difference between the two reactions demonstrates that olberman didn’t know the difference between sunni and shia.
jummy on May 4, 2007 at 11:56 AM
I think it’s definitely healthy to do more research and be suspicious of someone that gets elected to a liberal state. However, California (the state that has given us Senators Boxer & Feinstein and SotH Pelosi) gave us Governor and then President Reagan.
So, getting elected by a liberal state shouldn’t be a deal killer. In fact, it could be a positive, when you consider that the country is split about 50/50. Nominating a candidate that has the ability to draw votes from independents and conservative Democrats is not at all a bad idea (as long as this ‘uniter’ is a conservative & not a wolf in Republican’s clothing).
JadeNYU on May 4, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Peggy Noonan’s opening paragraph sums it nicely.
They stood earnestly in a row, combed, primped and prepped, as Nancy Reagan gazed up at them with courteous interest. But behind the hopeful candidates, a dwarfing shadow loomed, a shadow almost palpable in its power to remind Republicans of the days when men were men and the party was united. His power is only increased by his absence. But enough about Fred Thompson.
opusrex on May 4, 2007 at 1:18 PM
Romney, Romney,
He’s the man.
If he can’t do it…
Then
Fred Thompson canObama will be president.Sorry, until Fred! (the fence sitter) announces he’s running, then we can assume that he is not really in it.
You can only be president if you first throw in your hat.
PS
What’s with the exclamation point at the end of Fred!? I mean, Yahoo! has this, and they are second to Google. Is he starting a trend?
Darnell Clayton on May 4, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Conservative friends kept probing, over and over, why I wouldn’t ‘warm up’ to Romney. I couldn’t answer it because I didn’t know what it was. I just knew that I couldn’t. I’ve figured it out – he’s slicker than one named Willie.
Watch C-Span tonight, at 11:30p.m. Peggy Noonan is right. I know it better from the Left’s reaction than from what Peggy writes.
Entelechy on May 4, 2007 at 2:06 PM
That’s just how it’s spelled: Fred!
IrishEi on May 4, 2007 at 2:11 PM
The people that have a hard-on over fred have put the “!” after his name because it looks like a dick and balls.
And you’re right about fred. He was nowhere to be seen last night because he is still thinking about contemplating the idea of wondering if he might make a decision to consider the thought of running. These fred supporters are starting to remind me of the beatles groupies of the 60′s. Ripping their hair out, screaming and crying over someone who isn’t even a candidate. I waiting for them to start swarming his limo when he shows up to the forums where he gets to hit softball questions out of the park.
Once he actually announces his intention to run and has to actually face his compitition, he becomes viable, but until then, all he offers is so much ear tickling rhetoric that any non-candidate can espouse too.
csdeven on May 4, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Romney did great. I thought Giuliani did good as well as Duncan Hunter.
ron paul was a joke….he was the only one I truly thought was an idiot and didn’t belong up there.
Highrise on May 4, 2007 at 2:40 PM
csdeven, take a downer and get informed. You told us by now a ‘hundred’ times that Fred has not declared yet, and you still don’t know why. I won’t bother to tell you either because I’m enjoying your ignorance by now.
There are good reasons, and most of us know what they are, for him waiting until June. Do some research. Otherwise you sound like you’re just repeating yourself.
Entelechy on May 4, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Merci
F15Mech on May 4, 2007 at 7:06 PM
That was really juvenile.
Yeah, we get it that you hate Fred Thompson and have nothing but disdain for anyone that thinks he might be a good candidate and leader.
Yeah, I wish he would declare oficially. But I also see the potential strategy in holding off too.
Can’t speak for anyone else, but I started using the exclamation point as a sort of a good natured parody, (even though I have high hopes for Fred!).
Even if Fred! might not be the perfect candidate, at least he will add some ‘spice’ to a rather uninspiring field where the overall best candidate from a policy standpoint hasn’t a ‘snowball’s chance’ (barring direct intervention by God).
LegendHasIt on May 4, 2007 at 7:48 PM
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010023
and
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/601ewvvj.asp
Are good editorials by Noonan and Barnes. Good point about constant comparisons about Reagan
Bradky on May 4, 2007 at 8:04 PM
F15Mech, de rien :)
Entelechy on May 4, 2007 at 8:33 PM
Quick sum up; I have a more detailed assessment at my blog site: http://www.theright-stuff.com/archives/000552.html
Paul and McCain are completely out for me. I like Paul’s IRS bashing, but don’t agree with isolationism (see the years 1938-9 for details). McCain I can’t trust; he claims we need campaign finance reform, yet American Indians don’t have to comply and we all know where he doesn’t stand on illegal immigration. As someone said above, David Byrne! LOL
Giuliani was a bit tired with his “When I was mayor…” and the repetitive recitation of his stats. I don’t feel like his campaign moved forward last night.
I was pleasantly surprised by Thompson; he had some good lines in there and his welfare reform record is impressive. Hunter needs more airtime, he’s a good guy, I agree with him a often and liked his trade/China answer. Tancredo, although a little nervous and treated rudely by Chris “The Mouth” Matthews, still came off well; I don’t think we can underestimate the importance of curbing illegal immigration.
Brownback I thought was a bit of a social morality pusher, but I liked several other things he said, particularly about Social Security numbers meaning something. Gilmore was decent, I agree with his 9-12 week abortion window, as I am a little more middle of the road on that topic. I would give him a second look.
Huckabee I liked before the debate, having heard him on Hannity’s show, and I still liked him a lot after the debate. It was great to hear him advocate more power pushed down to the states, and “people are great not government”.
Romney was also a pleasant surprise. Unlike someone above, I got the impression that Romney is smart, and thinks well on his feet. He looked up to date on topics (particularly stem cell research), without seeming supercilious.
I was actually heartened by the debate. Despite Matthews trying to get them nattering at each other and failing misererably, and the inanity of several of the questions (“What don’t you like about America”? “Karl Rove” “Terri Schiavo”, etc etc) when serious pressing matters are afoot, I thought for the most part the candidates looked good. They didn’t seem like deer in klieg headlights, and their answers (except for a few comments by Paul and some of McCain’s grandstanding), were thoughtful. Giuliani looked stunned when asked the Sunni/Shia question, but did well.
I think the GOP lot, on the whole, is a heck of a lot better than what the Dems offer. Billary? You’re joking, right? Obama? Nothing here, move along. Edwards? The poster child for arrogance and class warfare. Kucinich? Peace this, you tool.
Fred! should throw his hat in quickly or just bow out. He’ll muddy the water too much with a late entry after the current lineup has already debated several times. It’s not good to be too much of a tease.
linlithgow on May 4, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Which causes you to continue to repeat yourself. Isn’t THAT interesting?
csdeven on May 4, 2007 at 10:59 PM
See, this is the problem with getting in on an issue late. You obviously have not read most of what I have written, but i’ll give you a pass on your accusation as I know how these things work.
The issue is that fred wins debates and is voted for in polls, when he isn’t even a candidate, is comical and I poke fun at the mindset.
What I notice is happeneing is these same people who are gaa-gaa over fred, get completely a$$broke when I point out the guy is not a viable candidate.
He is not, because he has not announced. Now, if someone would like to define fred as a good candidate to be a candidate for POTUS, then that would be accurate and a discussable point.
I can’t wait to see what he says tonight. I suspect more of the same ear tickling rhetoric, but he might susprise me and actually announce. Then of course, he can be compared to his already running compition.
csdeven on May 4, 2007 at 11:15 PM
Who won the debate?
That’s an easy one. MSNBC, of course.
MSNBC won by obfuscating all the conservatives’ defining issues, such as military preparedness, homeland defense, balancing the budget, public education and school choice, intellectual diversity on campus, individual integrity versus group identity, equal opportunity versus equal outcomes (racial quotas and reverse discrimination), thought control through hate crime legislation, Fairness Doctrine versus First Amendment, etc.
petefrt on May 4, 2007 at 11:47 PM
I must say after hearing the Matthews sound bites today on Rush and reading people here whining about him being the moderator I was getting disillusioned about the character of the candidates. It was really refreshing to actually hear to the very competent feild of Republican candidates and their concise to the point answers. Everyone was so positive it was contagious. It was great to watch them all take the high road when Matthews tried to stir the pot! I thought Gulliani showed his New Yorkness in some of his answers a little wavering his positions and not to conservative on social issues. Just not sure the midwest voters would support him. McCain is a little too bi-partison for me and he might be to beholden to the DC establishment. Romney has a couple strong points I like One being he doesn’t drink , he is a performer in the private sector and has a comprehensive view on the issue of terrorism. I question his ability to maintain his positions as he stated them tonight talk is cheap. A couple others like Trancerto and Brownback seemed one dimensional with the immigration issue being their only redeeming quality. Paul should reconsider his party affiliation.Tommy thompson had good answers all the way as did Mike Huckabee with Gilmore sounding pretty good too with his conservative record. it’s early in the race and I want to see how they handle themselves over time before I support anyone.
sonnyspats1 on May 4, 2007 at 11:54 PM
Gee, thanks for giving me a pass; I REALLY appreciate it….
Not only have I read most of what you have written (here) on the subject; it tends to be the same thing over and over again. So all we have to do is read one of your posts on the subject and we pretty much get your point on all of them.
And as far as getting in on the issue late… Scroll up and you will find which one of us ‘came late to the issue’.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I don’t disagree with many of your points. But that juvenile comment about the’meaning’ of the exclaimation point was way over the line IMO. That kind of thing is more typical over at the DU… Or amongst 7th graders.
LegendHasIt on May 5, 2007 at 2:18 AM
Well, you obviously haven’t comprehended my position concerning fred and THAT makes it reeeeal hard to take you seriously, especially when you start with the childish complaints about dicks and balls. If that bothers you, it’s time for you to shut the computer down and climb back under your bed because I have seen much worse here even to the point of members making inappropiate remarks about MM.
Don’t try to pretend that the issue I was refering to was the topic of this thread. You chose to insert yourself into a conversation and made an assine comment about my position on freddie and his groupies.
You were and still are WRONG. So, grow up and apologize, or don’t, because I really could not care less. It’s your reputation and you have to live with it.
csdeven on May 5, 2007 at 6:27 PM
That does not make your comment any more appropriate or mature.
I’ll be glad to live with it.
If the majority of the other commentators and hosts here think maintaining a certain level of maturity and decorum on serious subjects is a bad thing, I’m willing to accept their disdain.
I’m so pleased that you don’t care if you get an apology for me calling your juvenile comments juvenile, because it isn’t going to happen.
You can have the last tirade if you wish.
LegendHasIt on May 5, 2007 at 7:20 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4