Video: Highlights from first Republican debate
posted at 8:59 am on May 4, 2007 by Ian
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Highlights include:
To McCain: “if you would be comfortable with tom tancredo, a staunch opponent of illegal immigration as head of the immigration naturalization service?”
To Romney: “What Do You Dislike Most About America?”
To Romney: “Would the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed be a good day for America?”
To Romney: “What do you say to Roman Catholic bishops who would deny communion to elected officials who support abortion rights?”
To Rep. Paul: “Do you trust the mainstream media?”
To All: “Do you think Scooter Libby should be pardoned?”
To All: “Does anyone want to pardon him? I want to see .. does any Gentlemen want to raise his hand and say pardon him?”
To all: “Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?”
Romney: “You have got to be kidding.”
Michelle also liveblogged the highlights from the debate, most of which are included in the clip.
Bob Owens sums up the debate in 10 words.
Also, Fred! will be on C-SPAN live at 11:30PM Eastern giving a keynote to … the Draft Fred! ‘08 dinner! Why do I get the feeling this would be a perfect event to announce your candidacy for President? I’m just sayin’:
Urgent Action Item!
Draft Fred Thompson 2008 Committee
www.fred08.comTUNE IN & TAPE
Who: Senator Fred Thompson
What: Key Note Speech
Where: Lincoln Club Dinner, Orange County, California
Date: Friday, May 4, 2007
Time: 11:30 p.m. estCoverage: C-SPAN will cover the speech live!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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:
Pathetic…
NRA4Freedom on May 4, 2007 at 9:02 AM
There were ‘highlights’..? You could have fooled me !
DoctorDentons on May 4, 2007 at 9:03 AM
I’m thinking right after the Law and Order Season Finale in a couple weeks.
Yes Chris, yes I would.
sunny on May 4, 2007 at 9:18 AM
Absolutely nothing of substance. This “debate” was totally worthless, IMO.
Neocon Peg on May 4, 2007 at 9:20 AM
Too bad Fred! didn’t show up.
AlexB on May 4, 2007 at 9:23 AM
..where was this being held again….LOL
honora on May 4, 2007 at 9:24 AM
I rather like Huckabee. Know he’s got little chance. Strictly from a delivery and Q factor perspective, it was pretty much Romney’s night I thought.
honora on May 4, 2007 at 9:26 AM
As suspected, Chris Matthews asked a bunch of silly questions just trying to make the participants look foolish. What an obnoxious jerk he is!
Why did msnbc pick Matthews, the most biased jerk on TV, to moderate a Republican ‘debate’. Never mind, I know the answer to that.
These types of programs should not be called ‘debates’. They should be called forums or something. They are NOT debates.
Why do Republicans subject themselves to this kind of farce? Just tell msnbc to butt out.
If Matthews asked me what I dislike most about America I would give him a one word answer – “YOU”!!!
OBX Pete on May 4, 2007 at 9:28 AM
If I was neutral on the Republican and Democrat candidates, I think I’d be favoring the Republican candidates for being willing to put up with Matthews and Keith “The leading terrorist group in the USA is the Republican party” Olberman while the Dems are afraid of Fox News.
Queasy on May 4, 2007 at 9:30 AM
I predict within the next few days…if not tonight…Fred! will declare he’s in.
Nothing missed in that circus of a “debate” last night. But if only Fred! were there. He’d “rack ‘em, stack ‘em, and pack ‘em” for sure…
JetBoy on May 4, 2007 at 9:32 AM
Who the hell is Bill Owens?
;-)
Bob Owens on May 4, 2007 at 9:40 AM
Oh my goodness! More rhetoric fron freddie on friday?
Who’d a thunk it?
Unlike fred, there were ten candidates that put themselves up in front of the american people in an obviously hostile enviroment to answer the most inane questions possible from the most partisan hack on cable TV. Considering that, I have more respect for Paul than freddie. When fred decides to take the plunge, we’ll get to see how he will do in a hostile enviroment where he has to answer for his weaknesses. I think it’s a smart move for fred to bid his time, but if Mitt! starts getting some real traction and out distances fred in the polls, it’s clear that fred does not have the executive experience to catch up with Mitt! Romney in a substantive debate.
The clear winners were Mitt!, McCain, Rudy, and Huckabee. I say Huckabee because I knew nothing of this guy and I am very impressed with him now.
csdeven on May 4, 2007 at 9:44 AM
Fred! wins any debate, even when he isn’t there.
opusrex on May 4, 2007 at 9:45 AM
Go Romney,
But if Fred gets in: GO FRED / ROMNEY 2008!!!!
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on May 4, 2007 at 9:46 AM
A very rare occasion when I agree with honora.
Lawrence on May 4, 2007 at 9:57 AM
Matthews is a legend in his own mind.
Journalist? Moderator? Uh-uh. I’m sure if he had more time he would have asked someone “Did you stop beating your wife?” MSNBC overseeing a Republican Debate … that’s like appointing Adolph Eichmann judge at the Nuremberg Trials.
Who won? Fred Thompson, because he’s laying in wait.
fogw on May 4, 2007 at 9:57 AM
I think Rudy lost some points by his wishy-washy answer on the repeal of Roe v. Wade.
dalewalt on May 4, 2007 at 10:00 AM
I’m not seeing the big issue on Rudy. He said he’d appoint judges we’d like, then says he’d let the judges decide on this. Wouldn’t that be, you know, getting what we want? Odds are Supreme Court justices will be on the bench, a lot longer than the President will be in office.
What kind of idiotic question was the Bill Clinton one?
amerpundit on May 4, 2007 at 10:09 AM
I think I fell asleep for part of it.
amerpundit on May 4, 2007 at 10:14 AM
Oh, wait, no. It was just that mind-numbingly boring.
amerpundit on May 4, 2007 at 10:15 AM
IMHO, during primary season, all candidates need to balance the issues of their base and yet not alienate the blocks that will get them elected in the general. Namely, undecideds, indies and cross-overs. We conservatives know matthews is a partisan, but most people do not, so his stance is not an issue. People who are looking for the best candidate just want to hear what the candidates have to say. In many respects, image is enough for a certain people from those blocks and others just need a beter than 50% agreement with the issues. The base appreciate great image, but issues are the lynchpin.
So far, only 4 or 5 candidates are still successful at that balanacing act.
csdeven on May 4, 2007 at 10:20 AM
I guess Rudy gave the “correct” answer, but not one the conservative base will be happy with. The other candidates said without a doubt that they’d be happy if/when Roe was overturned, it seemed to me that Rudy’s answer, even though technically correct, was more of a waffle.
One designed purely to get the candidates to badmouth Slick Willie, hoping to turn off some of the more conservative Democrats.
dalewalt on May 4, 2007 at 10:22 AM
And every one that just said “Absolutely” lost a good chunk of the few Democratic votes they could get, and a decent chunk of independents, who are staunchly in favor of Roe v. Wade.
amerpundit on May 4, 2007 at 10:28 AM
By the way, I agree with your other point about the Bill Clinton question.
amerpundit on May 4, 2007 at 10:28 AM
I missed the discussion where someone explained why the early candidates for the Republican nomination agreed to a debate moderated by a leftist Democrat, and commented on by a total moonbat, with questions derived from a leftist political web site.
Who cares about the Republican responses to questions from partisan Democrats?
This was pathetic.
I’m listening to Laura Ingraham defend her buddy Matthews’s performance on her radio show. She’s a nothing, too.
Jaibones on May 4, 2007 at 10:32 AM
“What Do You Dislike Most About America?”
And the Dems were afraid of debating on Fox News.
BohicaTwentyTwo on May 4, 2007 at 10:45 AM
I thought the debate showed the Republicans in a better light than the Democratic debate showed the Democrats (Bush isn’t running again but it was a debate against him all night).
Chris Matthews was rude, ignorant and asked personal attack like questions i.e. Scooter Libby. He kept referring to Clinton going “home” to the White House. I’m glad that the Republicans participated because it showed their class and dignity.
I liked that the Republicans weren’t apologist for this war but were honest mistakes were made . I like that they addressed the Islamofacist terrorism threat and Iran and its interference in Iraq. I liked the family values anti abortion that they all but Giuliani were willing to stand up for.
CCRWM on May 4, 2007 at 10:48 AM
How do you know what MOST people know about Matthews?
My point is why do the Republicans subject themselves to this kind of circus. When somebody comes up with a serious Q&A session with some serious questioners we can find out what the candidates think. When you have silly questioners asking silly questions with the object of getting the candidates to make some silly answer that they can use as sound bites from now to election time, the whole thing is useless.
OBX Pete on May 4, 2007 at 10:49 AM
What? No hat-tip for the Fred! keynote speech?
unamused on May 4, 2007 at 10:58 AM
Nobody sounded half crazy. I count that as a small victory.
jdpaz on May 4, 2007 at 11:03 AM
There’s too many candidates to have a real debate at this stage. The real debates can happen once the field is thinned out a bit.
jdpaz on May 4, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Ok, for those who didn’t watch, rundown of the debate:
Romney: Wins by looking competant.
McCain: Fights new wars with old ideas.
Brownback: Actually conservative, but unpresidential.
Tancredo: Not as looney as people say.
Giuliani: Rudy! as played by the Answering Machine.
T. Thompson: Remarkably unremarkable.
Hunter: So that’s what he looks like?
Huckabee: Wants to be the Reliable Conservative but isn’t any more conservative than the other tier 2/3 candidates.
Paul: Interprets the cosmos through the “how did this get us into Iraq” lense.
Gilmore: Said nothing that I can even remember.
Lehosh on May 4, 2007 at 11:04 AM
In the most hostile place for Republicans possible, led by one of the most offensive leftist tools plying his trade today.
Contrast that to your cowardly dem pussies who ran away from FNC.
You’re pathetic. You know that, don’tcha?
techno_barbarian on May 4, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Right. Especially given the fact that no one watches PMSNBC but moonbats. They are the lowest rated cable news division, by far.
Exactly. Useless.
Jaibones on May 4, 2007 at 11:44 AM
I don’t know… could be good indicator of how well the candidate would perform when dealing with the U.N….
Bradky on May 4, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Heh. Or the White House press corps.
But this wasn’t supposed to be an adversarial atmosphere; the point of a debate is to openly examine the positions of the candidates. I think…
Jaibones on May 4, 2007 at 12:14 PM
When I asked “where” I meant, uh, “where”. Thought I heard Reagan mentioned once or twice. Or twenty or thirty times…
In the most hostile place for Republicans possible, led by one of the most offensive leftist tools plying his trade today.
Contrast that to your cowardly dem pussies who ran away from FNC.
Oh positively. I must point out however, that pathetic as I am, I do realize that MSNBC is not a “place” per se. LOL.
honora on May 4, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Can it be a good thing if Clinton was in the White House?
WTF kind of policy question is that?!?!
I’d love to see them ask the Dems “Would you like another BUsh or Cheney next term in the white house?” And watch them and the audience lose their fracking mind
Defector01 on May 4, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Do you guys realize how many softballs were tossed to the candidates? Or is it just because you perceive Matthews to be a certain thing you can’t get past it?
Nonfactor on May 4, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Weak response. Very weak. And completely predictable.
A lot like defining what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.
And yes, the ‘place’ (on the dial, if you wish), was mspmsnbc, one of the most toxic propaganda outlets broadcasting today.
techno_barbarian on May 4, 2007 at 2:28 PM
I didn’t hear any silly answers from Mitt! Romney. Even some dems on this forum thought he did well. They may not agree, but there wasn’t a silly remark the entire debate from Mitt!. If you don’t understand that, perhaps you should re-read my comment you are responding to?
csdeven on May 4, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Hello? Do you REALLY think that MOST people know what Matthews is? Most people DO NOT WATCH HIM and therefore DO NOT KNOW HIM, so how the heck can they know he is a partisan hack? Which brings me to the point that people who don’t know him are not going to focus on his questions, that is left to conservatives who are disgusted by him. Because MOST people don’t know him, they will focus on the answers to the candidates questions.
csdeven on May 4, 2007 at 2:39 PM
That isn’t fair. Every candidate (top tier anyway) were asked questions that are the very positions we conservatives have been wondering about for weeks.
Conversely, everyone, including you, should be offended by the stupid Clinton, Rove, and Libby questions. There were an insult to serious adults.
csdeven on May 4, 2007 at 2:45 PM
These weren’t softballs, they were more like nerfballs.
Just once I was hoping someone would answer Matthews by saying; “Ya know Chris, that is a really stupid question. Can we move on to a better one?”
Lawrence on May 4, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Shoot me, but for what little was actually portrayed in that clip, Romney seemed a bit Reaganesque.
nico on May 4, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Comment pages: