Do you guys realize how many softballs were tossed to the candidates?

Nonfactor on May 4, 2007 at 1:14 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?”

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

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.

How do you know what MOST people know about Matthews?
OBX Pete on May 4, 2007 at 10:49 AM

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.

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

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?

Oh positively. I must point out however, that pathetic as I am, I do realize that MSNBC is not a “place” per se. LOL.

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.

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

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.

techno_barbarian on May 4, 2007 at 11:29 AM

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.

You’re pathetic. You know that, don’tcha?

techno_barbarian on May 4, 2007 at 11:29 AM

Oh positively. I must point out however, that pathetic as I am, I do realize that MSNBC is not a “place” per se. LOL.

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…

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….

How do you know what MOST people know about Matthews?

Right. Especially given the fact that no one watches PMSNBC but moonbats. They are the lowest rated cable news division, by far.

My point is why do the Republicans subject themselves to this kind of circus. …the whole thing is useless.

OBX Pete on May 4, 2007 at 10:49 AM

Exactly. Useless.

..where was this being held again….LOL

honora on May 4, 2007 at 9:24 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?

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.

We conservatives know matthews is a partisan, but most people do not, so his stance is not an issue.

csdeven on May 4, 2007 at 10:20 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.

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.

And the Dems were afraid of debating on Fox News.

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.

I’m not seeing the big issue on Rudy.
amerpundit on May 4, 2007 at 10:09 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.

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.

I’m not seeing the big issue on Rudy.
amerpundit on May 4, 2007 at 10:09 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.

What kind of idiotic question was the Bill Clinton one?

One designed purely to get the candidates to badmouth Slick Willie, hoping to turn off some of the more conservative Democrats.

Why do Republicans subject themselves to this kind of farce? Just tell msnbc to butt out.
OBX Pete on May 4, 2007 at 9:28 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.