Second Republican debate open thread
posted at 8:36 pm on May 15, 2007 by Ian
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Tune in tonight to the Fox News Channel at 9pm eastern. Like the previous debate, this one will last 90 minutes.
If you’re not a television, Fox News is simulcasting the debate on Fox News Radio.
We’ll have a poll up afterwards asking who won. LGF has a pre-debate straw poll. Stay tuned.
If you’re watching and see something clipworthy, don’t be a stranger.
Update (AP): The Fredheads are on the scene with literature in hand. Geraghty thinks the debate might already be over, with Fred the winner by dint of his video response to Michael Moore. It would be sweet irony if Moore, whoring for buzz for his movie, ended up inadvertently building excitement for the conservative standard bearer in the race.
WaPo expects Rudy to be in the crosshairs tonight given South Carolina’s reputation for social conservatism and Falwell’s death this morning. (Any hosanna for Falwell are likely to come from Mitt, who’s in fifth place in the state, if you can believe it, and will be looking to trumpet his values credentials.) He might get a question about 9/11 planning, too, after a former advisor produced an old memo challenging Rudy’s claim that the advisor had recommended the NYC emergency crisis center be placed in WTC 7. (Another former Giuliani aide came forward today to corroborate Rudy’s account.) The possible X-factor tonight, though, is immigration. Late word is that Republicans and Democrats have reached a compromise that would legalize illegals; neither McCain nor Rudy is going to want to talk about that, but Hotline says Tancredo plans to come out swinging so they might not have a choice. Stay tuned.
Update: The boss is liveblogging it.
Update: Huckabee says Congress has been spending money like John Edwards at a beauty shop:
Update: POLL CLOSED — RESULTS COMING SOON …
Update (BP): We have one or two video hightlights on the way. Here’s Rep. Tancredo looking for Jack Bauer.
If you think he’s kidding, here’s a clip from Laura Ingraham yesterday proving that he’s…not.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
honora has been banned, William.
Laura on May 15, 2007 at 11:15 PM
I’m sure its been mentioned (I didn’t read every comment here), but Ron Paul is sympathetic and “open minded” about the 9-11 Twoofer movement and thinks WTC 7 “should be looked into.”
He’s a genuine Birchean freak and deserves ridicule.
Romney’s the best looking and most articulate. Guliani has the best chance to pull the center. McCain won’t get the base. Everyone else is meaningless.
WHEN IS FRED THOMPSON GOING TO RUN?!!?11!!
Good Lt on May 15, 2007 at 11:15 PM
Ya I especially like how we are not going to retreat from Iraq but we are going to disengage.
TheBigOldDog on May 15, 2007 at 11:16 PM
GREAT comments everyone! I enjoyed reading all of it..time to go but it REALLY was uplifting! I think we have some REAL contenders! YAHOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
labwrs on May 15, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Oh, that bites! My poll vote was apparently cancelled because I clicked it again to see the latest results. But… 18 votes for Ron Paul?? Go figure.
Laura on May 15, 2007 at 11:18 PM
If you rated a candidate by his ability to think on his feet, then Giuliani won because of his slap-down of Ron Paul. Shades of reagan.
If you rated a candidate on naiveté, then McCain lost. To think that terrorists would treat their prisoners humanely because we treated our prisoners humanely was being naïve of the first order. Plus, from I’ve seen of him in the Senate, I don’t trust the man.
It was also apparent that some of the candidates didn’t understand Brit Hume’s terrorist scenario. Some wanted to close the barn door after the terrorists left.
I’m still waiting to hear from Fred Thompson.
pocomoco on May 15, 2007 at 11:21 PM
Three things from this debate:
I was very impressed with Brownback on abortion and fighting the war.
Tancredo was more animated than most of the rest, and of course right more often than the rest save maybe Brownback).
Ron Paul, an idiot is you. Let me rephrase that: Ron Paul is an idiot.
1st, in suggesting that Iraq perpetrated 9/11 because we were bombing Iraq for 10 years. Tinfoil hat time.
2nd, even hinting at the suggestion that the U.S. cannot go wherever in the world we want and do whatever we want. Screw you, Paul, I don’t need another Jimmy Carter in the White House!
The idea that Guilliani won the debate.. pfah, you people must have either voted w/o seeing the debate, or been conditioned by space-aliens to react in a pavlovian fashion to anything Guilliani. Guilliani blew it when he would not answer the question on abortion. I want to see one, strong journalist ask him, “Is abortion murder, yes or no?”
No equivocation, no quoting of irrelevant statistics.
As for bombing Mecca… 4 neutron bombs around Mecca. Short of that, MOABs would do nicely to destroy any number of Islamic holy sites.
Hiraghm on May 15, 2007 at 11:23 PM
Yeah, I discovered that last debate and mentioned it in the HotAir thread last time. It is apparently done by IP, not a cookie, so no way around it unless you go to the Internet cafe or to your office etc. and get a different IP address.
LegendHasIt on May 15, 2007 at 11:26 PM
honora has been banned, William.
Laura on May 15, 2007 at 11:15 PM
No Way! When did that happen? She was here earlier today.
She may be a Lib, but she was not a bomb thrower.
BacaDog on May 15, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Can we all, as somewhat “tech-savy” folks, agree that Rudy’s tamper proof ID card is impossible? Anything can be duped/tampered.
Help me out here guys.
mojowire on May 15, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Granted, they’re freaks on many issues – but they’re spot on as far as the UN and have been for decades. I did a brief stint producing a local talk radio show and set up a debate between William Norman Grigg, a top JBS guy, and a top guy at the UN. Grigg mopped the floor with him, and for all their lunacy, JBS has done a real service monitoring and trying to keep the heat on the UN all these years – long before they got so unpopular in the last decade.
Laura on May 15, 2007 at 11:26 PM
(sorry redo)
If you rated a candidate by his ability to think on his feet, then Giuliani won because of his slap-down of Ron Paul. Shades of Reagan.
If you rated a candidate on naiveté, then McCain lost. To think that terrorists would treat their prisoners humanely because we treated our prisoners humanely was being naïve of the first order. Plus, from what I’ve seen of him in the Senate, I don’t trust the man.
It was also apparent that some of the candidates didn’t understand Brit Hume’s terrorist scenario. Some wanted to close the barn door after the terrorists left.
I’m still waiting to hear from Fred Thompson.
pocomoco on May 15, 2007 at 11:28 PM
BacaDog on May 15, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Bryan banned her for too much snark re: Falwell’s death. Interestingly, he mentioned that she’d listed her last name as Hitler when she registered. I’m still trying to figure that out – bizarre!!
Laura on May 15, 2007 at 11:28 PM
WHAT?!? When did this happen? I’ve been travelling a lot lately and feel so out of the loop. I have to say, I seldom agreed with her, but I always enjoyed the diversity she added to the debate.
thedecider on May 15, 2007 at 11:29 PM
When was Honora banned!?
Troy Rasmussen on May 15, 2007 at 11:30 PM
As crude as I can be sometimes, I’d never accuse someone of being a McCain supporter… haha. But yeah, he used that line (the whole “I got an email from a former drunken sailor” and everything) before, at least once. Here’s one example from the other day:
http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070513/NEWS01/705130339
Mentioned a few weeks earlier
Even worse, he’s stealing over 3 year old material from Scott Ott.
RightWinged on May 15, 2007 at 11:30 PM
pocomoco,
Uhm… thinking on his feat? Guilliani has been riding his rep for how he handled 9/11 ever since…. 9/11.
I would have been amazed had Guilliani NOT jumped on Paul for that idiocy.
Vote for Guilliani if you want 8 more years of Bush-like duplicity.
Hiraghm on May 15, 2007 at 11:31 PM
Here it is:
honora, head on over to HuffPo or DU where you belong. You’re no longer welcome here.
Bryan on May 15, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Honora, who gave her last name as “Hitler” in her comment account (which I just learned today in the process of banning her), isn’t worth you folks asking that she be reinstated. She’s a threadjacking troll who exists to steer posts critical of Dems in directions that are more to her liking. But if she asks nicely I’ll let her back in. Let’s see if she’s capable of seeing why that particular comment of hers was over the line. Or if she even cares.
Bryan on May 15, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Laura on May 15, 2007 at 11:31 PM
We need Fox to do more of these debates. The more I see the second tier, the more I know what they think. I like what I see in Huckabee and would love to see more.
Ron Paul – Teh Republicans have let in a troll…
CCRWM on May 15, 2007 at 11:32 PM
Honora was banned this afternoon due to a very snide comment about Falwell’s death. Not as bad as what was going on at DU etc. but she finally made Bryan mad enough to act.
He will let her back if she apologizes.
LegendHasIt on May 15, 2007 at 11:32 PM
Still finishing catching up on the DVR, but am I the only one disappointed with the fact that the candidates that the media has determined are our choices (Rudy McRomney) are the ones we’d least likely vote for if everyone had the name recognition needed to win the general election? Of course I’d taken any of those 3 over Ron Paul, but I don’t really count him. He’s pathetic and I put him on the same level as Kucinich. I can (honestly) see those two running on a 9/11 Truth ticket together.
RightWinged on May 15, 2007 at 11:33 PM
Wow. I didn’t get a chance to follow the Reverend Falwell thread today. I’ll have to check it out.
Too bad. I kinda feel like the neighbor living next to the the quiet serial killer. Who knew?
BacaDog on May 15, 2007 at 11:35 PM
I wish… Shades of Ross Perot!
Laura on May 15, 2007 at 11:35 PM
Did you actually hear what he said about fighting the war or are you just in favor of retreating from Iraq?
TheBigOldDog on May 15, 2007 at 11:35 PM
KUDOS to Huckabee for mentioning fairtax!!! People need to get on board…Fairtax would kill the class-controling liberals!!!
DCJeff on May 15, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Oh, here comes Ron Paul….
TheBigOldDog on May 15, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Did anyone else get the feeling that McCain was uncomfortable? He just didn’t seem to know what to do with his hands.
I he wasn’t putting the death grip on the podium, he was banging the mike with his jabbing. Not sure what that’s all about.
I really like the guy, but I just don’t think I could pull the lever for him.
Caveat – If he were to get the nomination, as a Republican I’d vote for him early and often.
BacaDog on May 15, 2007 at 11:41 PM
I actually heard what he said about fighting the war.
He favors torture, which I approve, he favors overwhelming response to an attack, which I approve.
Do YOU favor slaughtering Iraqis until our guns melt and our soldier’s arms grow tired? Find me a candidate who does, and I’ll prefer him to Brownback. Anything less is just a matter of when we lose, not if.
Does any candidate favor disarming ALL Iraqis? Does any candidate favor destroying neighborhoods where an IED has gone off? Does any candidate favor making the Iraqi gov’t a puppet of the American governor general? No? Then I’ll have to pick the least bad options from what we got.
I’m not a Brownback supporter, but I certainly favor him over the Democrats Guilliani and McCain, and the idiot Paul.
Mabe Tancredo would make him VP…
Hiraghm on May 15, 2007 at 11:42 PM
Interesting that Paul is leading in the “text” poll. Shows how fallible new media can be against an organized effort.
I’m sure Chrissy and Olby will make an issue out of how “FOX” viewers chose the anti-war candidate.
BacaDog on May 15, 2007 at 11:44 PM
So you think we’ve already lost and favor retreat. That’s fine. Just wanted to know if you understood his semantic game. Wouldn’t you be better off supporting the Democrats then since you’d be guaranteed of a quick retreat?
TheBigOldDog on May 15, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Sure they can be duplicated but the expense would seriously curtail illegals hiding under the radar.
csdeven on May 15, 2007 at 11:49 PM
I jumped over and read it. Her comment was snarky, but there was a comment afterward from someone else which was far worse. I didn’t see that person getting banned. I guess she pushed the wrong button with Bryan, but I don’t agree with banning her for that. IMHO.
thedecider on May 15, 2007 at 11:54 PM
Wow, Ron Paul a close second (after leading) in the text message voting on Fox News? Yeah, that’s not suspicious… Colmes is demanding reaction to something so stupid. Big deal, Ron Paul has a bunch of nutty supporters who think they’re going to make some statement by wasting their time and money voting in this stupid thing. It’s like when the Kos Kids flood online MSNBC polls and “prove” that 95% of the country wants to impeach Bush. Or all the idiot college kids showing up in the thousands to protest whatever is popular that week. Colmes, you’re an embarrassment as is anyone who gives that “poll” a second thought.
RightWinged on May 15, 2007 at 11:56 PM
He’s Colmes hero of the night.
abinitioadinfinitum on May 16, 2007 at 12:01 AM
thedecider on May 15, 2007 at 11:54 PM
Agreed – she gets on my nerves most of the time (and Bryan is certainly right about the threadjacking) but this one comment, I didn’t find ban-worthy. I wonder what’s up with that Hitler thing though? That really surprised me.
Laura on May 16, 2007 at 12:04 AM
It’s pretty clear that freddie boy has been left in the dust. Even if he gets in now, he will not be able to catch the top tier candidates, especially since the next debate will vett out at least 6 of the ten. I don’t see fred? getting a free shot to debate ACTUAL candidates who had the balls to put it on the line, while he sat around making prepared speeches and getting milk-toast interviews. Add to that alllll the issues he has to answer for, and it looks pretty bleak for fred?. I feel bad for his groupies, because once the reality of his screw up sets in, they wont leave their homes for two weeks.
Short of the only reply possible to the weakest stupidest candidate of the ten, Rudy was unimpressive. Mitt looked great. AGAIN. But he has room for improvement. McCain has great moments, but equally bad moments. I still like Huckabee. He is squared away. Tancredo isn’t in this to win it. He’s in it auditioning for head of homeland security under the next republican president. Only Hunter stood out in the final 5, but they are all done.
But again, my heart goes out to my friends who have hitched their wagon to the falling fred? non-candiidacy.
csdeven on May 16, 2007 at 12:07 AM
The debate was questions were excellent this time: tough, probing, taking what candidates had said in the previous debate (and on the stump) and pressing them to clarify/deepen the discussion. No surprise: some of them just weren’t up to it.
I thought from the P.O.V of performance – not on the question of where they stand – Giuliani impressed, McCain disappointed a smidge, and Romney disappointed more, though all were acceptable.
Not acceptable: Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore. How many times do we need a resume as a dodge to the question asked? This was also Romney’s problem IMHO, on several questions. Ahem.
OTOH, very impressed by the performances of Tom Tancredo, Huckabee and (yes!) Ron Paul. No, I didn’t text message for this guy. He may be bat-sh– crazy, but his points were principled, intellectual, precise. And yes, I’m thankful as heck that Giulani wiped the floor w/him on the 9/11 issue. Nevertheless Paul’s performance still beat the heck out of the sorry-a## efforts from the 3rd tier.
Ambivalent: Duncan Hunter. He didn’t lose, he has the demeanor and the many solid credentials, but he didn’t cover many of the better questions of the evening.
Am I bat-sh– crazy?
RD on May 16, 2007 at 12:08 AM
Too bad then you are not the decider! Or maybe you will tell everyone she was staying and then replace her right after the election. Sorry with your name, I just couldn’t resist:)
Spirit of 1776 on May 16, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Oops – that should read “The debate questions were excellent this time…”
RD on May 16, 2007 at 12:11 AM
The “Hitler” thing was definitely weird. She didn’t strike me as being that strange. I’ve read her comments for months and months – she typically posted during the day when I’m at work – and she comes off as reasonably intelligent. She was even humorous at times. I see a lot of snarky comments from most people who post here and I’m guilty of it as well. However, my snarks are against liberals and democrats so I guess that’s okay. I’ve stated before on this very blog that I like it here because people of varying opinions can post and be heard from. So she didn’t like Falwell. Okay, I can live with that. Allah is a noted atheist. I’m not offended and love to read his posts. I thought we had thicker skins than this. I’m disappointed.
thedecider on May 16, 2007 at 12:14 AM
She can come back in if she:
1) lights my cigar
2) warms up a sifter of brandy for me
3) keeps my table clean
4) wears the French maid outfit
Then and only then will honora prove herself worthy.
Mojave Mark on May 16, 2007 at 12:16 AM
There’s a vile & nasty streak in honora that often doesn’t show up on a first read. To really see it I had to follow the discussion in some and interpret what her comments actually mean. In a few bygone threads they were some of the most insulting and degrading garbage I’d ever read on HotAir. Below the radar, not overt, but even smellier because of it. (I’ll try to track back to one if I can find it.)
Bless Entelechy’s heart for humoring this pill, but IMVHO she doesn’t deserve it in the slightest.
Honora, expect a smackdown once you apologize your way back onto this board and smear us all by implication one more time.
RD on May 16, 2007 at 12:18 AM
Sorry – “To really see it I had to follow the discussion in some detail …”
RD on May 16, 2007 at 12:19 AM
Both honora and shacker or whatever got banned, though I didn’t ban shacker. I would’ve but Allah or someone else beat me to it.
For me it was the “Hitler” thing that put it over the top when added to the snark about Falwell. We can have our differences with people but have enough class not to spit pixels on their grave. Honora lacked the class to know not to do that. Or didn’t care and just wanted to provoke a reaction. Then seeing “Hitler” as her fake last name, I took to be a poison pill slam on this site–calling conservatives “Nazis” is so old hat it’s a yawner as far as I’m concerned, but it tells you something about her. She didn’t come here for debate or engagement. She just came to threadjack and be annoying. And she succeeded in both.
But as I said earlier, if she asks nicely…
Bryan on May 16, 2007 at 12:22 AM
P.S. Honora, I don’t know if you intended those comments as intentionally vile or not, but they revealed a bad faith I had sometimes suspected but not had confirmed (until…).
RD on May 16, 2007 at 12:23 AM
I guess Honora is banned from posting here, at least until she takes some social etiquette lessons in the fine art of common decency. Until then I thought this would be a fitting tribute to her former persona. I hope she comes back as a good witch. OH Honora what have you done. Look what your bat droppings hath wrought!
sonnyspats1 on May 16, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Bryan, glad to hear shacker was booted too. That truly was offensive.
Too bad about Honora though. She was a pain in the ass, but I feel like my nutty uncle was just busted for kiddie porn.
You and AP did right. Add them to the long list of trolls who eventually drink the kool-aid and freak out.
BacaDog on May 16, 2007 at 12:26 AM
Oh! Sometime the Hotair family needs to pitch in and finance a beer and Rib bash for the HA team. I mean, you make it happen and scrub the turds off of the floor so we don’t have to step in it. What’s the favorite beer and wine retailer you prefer. WE’ll establish a fund for use by you when the going gets too tough.
BacaDog on May 16, 2007 at 12:33 AM
OK, enough about honera okay? she hijacked enough threads while active and there is no reason to allow her to continue after she’s gone.
You guys are as bad as the fred? groupies. ;-)
csdeven on May 16, 2007 at 12:35 AM
Fred
Mojave Mark on May 16, 2007 at 12:37 AM
Of course. I’m sure the “Hitler” thing was her liberal attempt at humor – the typical cliche that conservatives would be drawn to such a person. Yada, yada – I get it. I doubt she’ll apologize. She’s gone for good. Again, I seldom ever agreed with her but I will miss her alternative points of view – however snarky. I’m the kind of person who doesn’t mind opinions that differ greatly from mine. I like my thinking to be challenged, if, for no other reason, than to solidify why I believe what I believe. There are so few here who can do that. I wouldn’t throw pixels on Falwell’s grave either – that’s very bad form – but I would rather debate someone who would than shut them up forever.
thedecider on May 16, 2007 at 12:39 AM
I’d rather debate and engage too. But you have to be able to debate and engage in good faith or you’re wasting your time. In what she did today combined with the Hitler thing, I see bad faith. That made it clear to me at any rate that bad faith is the only faith that she knows.
Bryan on May 16, 2007 at 12:43 AM
I agree. There are some who post on this blog (Nonfactor comes to mind) that I simply will no longer debate because it’s a complete waste of time. I will take it on good faith that you did what you felt was best and leave it at that.
Back to the topic at hand: Tancredo really surprised me tonight. I honestly didn’t think he had this much spunk. His comments about the use of torture in the scenario Brit provided were interesting and agreeable. I’m betting it bought him some points although, in the end, I don’t think it will help him. John McCain delivered a complete non-surprise in response. Somehow, I’m betting it comes down to Romney or Guiliani. Early comments that Fred! and Newt have forfeited the race by their delayed arrivals appear to be spot-on. I think they’re out by now.
thedecider on May 16, 2007 at 12:56 AM
Don’t sweat it Bryan. You made the right call.
Now, where do I send the beer for the celebratory bash for the excellent job you guys have done tonight?
BacaDog on May 16, 2007 at 12:58 AM
I just sat on the sidelines watching Honora pushing all the right buttons. She was a masterful temptress as well as spirited debate opponent. She did lack the facts on alot of topics and did resort to smoke and mirrors on many occasions. She may have strengthened the resolve and debate skills here but did (in this case) the means justify the ends cause she may have wielded influence over readers and commentors. Propaganda Personified!
sonnyspats1 on May 16, 2007 at 1:00 AM
I asked the question and this is what I’ve found so far. Here are 2 on-line polls that haven’t been totally hijacked by the Ron Paul kiddies … Wearetheright.com and Thevirtualvideomap.blog.com
DannoJyd on May 16, 2007 at 1:25 AM
OK, I finally caught up by viewing the entire debate in clips at the FoxNews website. Actually, being able to do ‘instant replays’ was an advantage in fully comprehending what they were saying and what they were avoiding.
My take:
Even though (or because of?) the questions were better than the first debate, overall, there was a less clear winner than last time.
Romney really impressed before, This time he was lackluster.
Giuliani did better than last time; Kicked butt on terror related stuff but other issues… not so much.
McCain was McCain: As always, about half right, the other half… Well, I wouldn’t want him making the ‘hard decisions’ if he were elected as the local dogcatcher, much less Senator or President.
Hunter: I’m a big fan of his, philosophically and politically, so my impression of tonight’s performance may be somewhat less than fully objective. He did better than I expected. If he had some of Romney’s and/or Giuliani’s personality, (and name recognition) he would be the clear front runner of those declared right now.
Tancredo: Again, similar to Hunter, I really like him on Immigration and a couple of other things. He did quite well overall, better than I expected. He would be taken more seriously with a personality injection from Romney or Giuliani.
Paul: More and more he reminds me of Perot. I like a lot of his positions on domestic issues. But, he and reality are only nodding acquaintances.
Several of the rest of the field got in some good lines, but mostly they are non-entities and would be wise to quit wasting their time right now.
I voted in the poll above for Hunter winning the show based on content (It wasn’t really much of a DEBATE, but then, with ten candidates and multiple questioners, an actual debate would have taken three full days). Romney and Giuliani tied for second, more on performance than content.
Of course the 800 pound gorilla that I think will EVENTUALLY pound all of them into the sand wasn’t even there.
LegendHasIt on May 16, 2007 at 1:40 AM
I’m glad the feeling is mutual. Although I do cherish certain quotes spilled onto us from you: “To what extremes must modern science go to deny a sole Creator – even when (given the incredible intricacies of the universe) it is so obvious?” Ah, classic decider. It’s so obvious isn’t it?
“He insists that every word anyone posts must be factually accurate and backed up in some form; yet does not hold himself accountable to the same rules. He’s a liar and a hypocrite. All must know.” A flowery description of yours truly.
On the topic of the debate – I didn’t see it.
On the topic of honora – Stupid reason for a ban.
Nonfactor on May 16, 2007 at 1:42 AM
Honora’s comment was no different than the huffpo comments. She just lobbed it softer because she was in “our” house. Same lack of respect.
Shackler was a troll.
I miss Pinky though.
I was for Rudy, now I’m open to persuasion. Many good candidates IMO, including Rudy of course. I’m a Christian and Mitt’s religion does not matter to me. Neither does Rudy’s abortion stance or marital history. Just don’t take my gun Rudy, the red coats are coming.
Buck Turgidson on May 16, 2007 at 1:44 AM
Hmm…I take it you’re thinking of Fred!. I think he’s a non-issue at this point being so late in applying for the job. Why has he waited so long?
Anyway, your assessment of the debate is about what I thought of it too. Tancredo was a real surprise but it seems too little, too late. At the end of the day, it will come down to Romney and Guiliani – against Shrillary. Romney is more conservative, but Guiliani can draw over some moderate democrats disenchanted with Shrillary. At this point, it’s a tough call.
thedecider on May 16, 2007 at 1:47 AM
Honora’s aura is strong enough to have threadjacked two threads, even after her ‘death’ on HA.
RD you are good too, from many exchanges, previous.
I didn’t humor her. Those of you who’ve been around longer know how often and how brutally she tried to insult me, including ridiculing my rudimentary attempts at poetry (for good reason, btw.). I’m not easily insulted, though. Eleanor Roosevelt said something to this effect “you can only be insulted by others, if you let them”.
I sincerely like honora’s wit, and I’m not the only one. She, obviously, likes AP, and she liked being here. Much more challenging than over there at the kiddie-blogs. She is fully aware of this.
I tried very hard to lift her up for the numerous talents she possesses, and to temper her faults, the most prominent one being her lack of control. She charges into a whirlpool like no other, and when proven wrong, doesn’t know how to get out of it, and just leaves. I also wished she would comment on topics which were not to her party’s glory, especially standing up for women’s rights and freedom around the world.
I disagree with this comment being the reason for banning her but I can’t figure out the strangeness of the ‘Hitler’ thing. It blew me over.
honora, your first instinct might be to never ever come by again and to be mad at HA, and some of us.
It would do you a lot of good to rethink this, though. Pride is not always the best. Write down a sincere ‘mea culpa’ and drop it off to HA. Actually send it to Bryan, not to AP. It’s him and MM whom you’ve had in your claws lately. Read, and reread it several times and then have the courage to hit the send button.
Then, come back here and explain what the dumbness of the ‘Hitler’ thing was, and make a full-fledged attempt to debate, but not to insult. Not the commenters, not the owners/officers of HA, and not the dead subjects of the threads, unless they are thugs like Zarquawi. In such cases have at it.
Then forget about it thereafter and just be yourself, your intelligent and witty self. The nice part of you. I bet you will not die in the process, many here will forgive you and your old buddies will continue to spar with you, in good spirits and fun. You and many here will be the better for this exercise.
Should you decide otherwise, I will miss not having met you and not having debated you face to face. And I will miss you on HA. We are all fallible, and we all learn from our mistakes. Sincerely and with best regards,
Entelechy on May 16, 2007 at 1:50 AM
Oh good! The final word has arrived. The “feeling” has hardly been mutual as is evident by your droll response.
thedecider on May 16, 2007 at 1:58 AM
Well, it IS a year and a half before the election. Seems to me like it isn’t so much a matter of Fred being so late, but everyone else starting too early. I wish he would go ahead and declare myself, (If only to shut csdeven up about it ;-)
Anyway, as I understand it, due to his contract with Law & Order, he would have had to be either in breach of contract OR in violation of election regulations until just this week when he (apparently) reached a conditional agreement on his contract.
His strategy of delaying his official declaration even further (Let the also-rans drop out first, and especially Tommy Thompson due to the likely name confusion amongst the non-cognoscenti.) IS, I think (hope?) a wise strategy. Time will tell who is right.
There is more going on behind the scenes in setting up his campaign organization than most probably think. And I’m pretty sure that the money will be there when he declares officially. I know that mine will be. Maybe not fair to the other early-birds, (I’d have given more to Hunter and Tancredo already if Fred weren’t looming in the background.) but wise in the cut-throat process of getting elected anymore.
By waiting for some attrition among the crowd, he can spend his time and money competing with the significant ones and not waste it on helping to weed out the ‘not ready for prime-timers’.
Sorry about taking this thread a somewhat off topic.
LegendHasIt on May 16, 2007 at 2:19 AM
No, I’m glad you did, and that makes much more sense. Obviously, tonight’s debate weeded out about 70% of the candidates running – albeit they may not concede to that for several weeks from now. Another candidate (if solid and popular enough) could step in to the race at this point, but aside from the blogs, I don’t see Fred! getting a lot of publicity or being in the public eye enough to be a serious contender at this point. I’m just afraid it’s too late for him.
thedecider on May 16, 2007 at 2:32 AM
THOMPSON – POE 2008!
Ropera on May 16, 2007 at 2:44 AM
Legend I think you have a point. In about 6 months to a year we are going to be tired of all these people whether we started out likiing them or not.
Danno the virtualvideomap got taken over already. What stupidity.
CCRWM on May 16, 2007 at 3:14 AM
I did not hear an answer from Tancredo that I disagreed with, I think I’m a convert.
Calling Jack Bauer….
Yogurt on May 16, 2007 at 8:14 AM
My first time here posting, have been reading for a very long time. Have to comment on the “Honora” thing, saw this after Byran’s post concerning her last name, “Honora hitler”, look at it closely “honor A. Hitler”, or am I wrong.
nwsseeker on May 16, 2007 at 8:15 AM
;-)…..I’m a baaaaad booooooy.
csdeven on May 16, 2007 at 8:52 AM
Welcome to the discussion. I sometimes wonder who’s lurking out there. Good to meet you.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I have to give Jaherer22 some credit for not saying something inapropriate yesterday.
Buck Turgidson on May 16, 2007 at 9:31 AM
inappropriate, sorry.
Buck Turgidson on May 16, 2007 at 9:33 AM
Good riddence to honora the committee.
The very least posters can abide by on blogs is to represent a single person, not have people of various snarkiness use the nic.
That is deception from the get-go. Just ’cause occasionally an honora user spoke some sense doesn’t make up for the other abuses that were plainly designed to derail. Debate fair and let the cards fall where they may.
That the Left resorts to lies and fraud to push their agenda or to undermine the exposition of legitimate concerns should be a warning that there’s something very very wrong in that realm.
naliaka on May 16, 2007 at 10:09 AM
I can tolerate honora. Trolls I can handle. And as of late, honora’s even managed to address HotAir board members directly, quite a step up in my opinion. I think you may be responsible for at least some if not most of that! :-)
It was a few months back, on a thread not necessarily drenched in politics (and one with a “us chicks need to stick together” vibe), after a more or less cordial discussion, where I saw her real contempt emerge, not only for board members, but even for their efforts to carry on a dialogue with her. Her remarks were not addressed to any of us, but to someone else entirely (who knows who) – that’s what was over the line: you don’t carry on an “honest” conversation with someone, then talk bad about them to someone else right in front of them.
It wasn’t exactly done overtly, or even cleverly – otherwise I’d say “provocateuse” – it was more subtle than that.
That’s when I had the suspicion she’s never talked to any one of us directly, at face value, ever – always to some other audience.
But I concede it’s entirely possible that your clever engaging of Ms. Hitler on several levels has paid dividends: it’s been several weeks (!) since I’ve caught a whiff of that utter bad faith.
RD on May 16, 2007 at 10:15 AM
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!
I believe we have a winner…
Jaibones on May 16, 2007 at 10:21 AM
Indeed! :-) And while I’m at it I’ll give myself some credit as well, because Falwell’s not my favorite guy in the world and had not Ms. Hitler beat me to it I might’ve said something impolitic and downright mean, man.
(Just kidding… I was hours late to that party!)
RD on May 16, 2007 at 10:22 AM
And while I’m at it I’ll give myself some credit as well, because Falwell
’swas. not my favorite guy in the world …RD on May 16, 2007 at 10:23 AM
Well said, Laura. But to me, the vindication is that she has essentially discredited her entire history here by exposing the lie that is behind her persona. She is a fraud, and her critics have been fully vindicated, as nothing that has been said about her was apparently strong enough…
Jaibones on May 16, 2007 at 10:27 AM
I didn’t read all the comments but I don’t think Americans will elect anyone with cancer. Don’t Rudy and Fred both have it? I’m not trying to be weird here. Serious question. I would not vote for someone who had cancer.
I think Romney is the best POTUS material so far. Too bad the Mormon thing will work against him.
PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on May 16, 2007 at 10:36 AM
No.
I did a little trolling over at Democratic Underground after the debates.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×3266108
Ron Paul Gets 30% on the Feedback POLL!!!!
iconocrastic (166 posts) Tue May-15-07 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. It’s because we’re stuffing it. GET BUSY PLEASE !!!!!!!!
Connie on May 16, 2007 at 10:48 AM
While a candidate’s health is a valid subject, (not issue), I think a blanket statement is unfair. We’re all gonna die someday. The Mormon thing is a non-issue driven by the media.
Buck Turgidson on May 16, 2007 at 10:52 AM
373 comments…….9 months to SuperTuesday……
I am going to need new reading glasses if this keeps up.
Limerick on May 16, 2007 at 11:20 AM
Screw the Fred fanaticism. He’s not as conservative as some up there. I’ll take the Hunter/Whoever ticket
tadams1138 on May 16, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Wait – where did that come from?? Was she allowing other people to log in and comment on her account?
As for Fred!, tadams, I like Hunter a lot, and if he’s the candidate I’ll be delighted to give him my vote. But I think Fred! has a much better chance of winning, and he’s a better communicator. Which after the last 6 years, would be very welcome.
Laura on May 16, 2007 at 11:45 AM
Yes. But Hunter won’t win the nomination. I like Hunter too, but let’s be realistic.
lorien1973 on May 16, 2007 at 12:31 PM
How did Rudy get first listing in the poll?
When will Honora get her own thread? She will just posthumously hijack another thread down the road.
Valiant on May 16, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Word.
Jaibones on May 16, 2007 at 3:21 PM
“That’s Ms. Hitler to you…”
Laura, thanks for the heads-up.
RD on May 16, 2007 at 3:55 PM
That’ll probably continue to be the rule of thumb for live-blogging threads, but I doubt many others will get quite this long (our collective efforts notwithstanding ;-).
RD on May 16, 2007 at 3:59 PM
I thought that Huckabee was a “joke” candidate until I heard his complete answer to the thing that ended with the Edwards haircut comment. Most of the answer was about the “fair tax” and everything he said made complete sense. It is too bad that only the “zinger” got any coverage. This just shows how bad the MSM has gotten. Tripe trumps common sense for coverage.
duff65 on May 16, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Bingo. We’ve had the Bush now we need the anti-Bush.
Mojave Mark on May 17, 2007 at 12:37 AM
Looks to be ROMNEY-GUILIANI (or vice versa).
Tancredo for Secretary of Defense.
Fred for Surgeon General.
Ron Paul for Ambassador to Iran.
profitsbeard on May 17, 2007 at 1:41 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »