Open thread: The last Fred-less GOP debate; Update: Huckabee clashes with Paul over the surge; Update: GOP candidates smack Fred; Update: Rudy defends his personal life
posted at 8:30 pm on September 5, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Eight elephants in a room and another who isn’t. The only one likely to mention Fred is Huckabee, who’s been knocking him regularly of late to try to boost his profile as a social con alternative. Count on a video highlight or two here later; the obligatory “Fred announces on Leno’s couch” clip will get its own post shortly after midnight. (FYI, the taping’s over and he’s already made it official.) Standard rules apply — if you’re watching and you see something, say something.
Some reading while we wait. Carl Cameron, who contributed to today’s earlier Fox News bombshell about Fred and who called the world’s attention to the fact that he rode around the Iowa state fair in a golf cart, kicks off the coverage tonight by noting how pissed the New Hampshire Republicans are at him for skipping the debate. Rush Limbaugh piles on by smacking Fred for devaluing the office of the presidency by announcing on Leno, an odd gripe for someone as media savvy as he is. Meanwhile, the last guy to announce on Leno takes a hard look at the electoral master stroke the GOP is trying to pull off in his state and comes out against it, naturally. And Rudy’s campaign trumpets the fact that he’s locked up Robert Duvall’s endorsement, which is somehow viscerally, if not logically, impressive, even if it does possibly reinforce the increasingly poisonous image of the party as “very old-fashioned, very old and not in touch with the realities of today’s society.”
I’ll leave you with Hillary’s awful new cookie-cutter ad about “change” with “experience.” It’s good at moments like these to remember the big differences with the other side.
Update: Brit wasn’t going to let them dodge the elephant in the room. Here’s the very first question of the night, preceded by a transparent slap at Fred ducking the debate by the head of the New Hampshire GOP.
Update: Arguably the most interesting, and deftly handled, answer of the evening. Frank Luntz’s focus group says it was McCain’s night, though.
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 ... 8 Next »
Still too crowded a stage, but I’d have to agree. Which I hate to do, because I’m the disagreeable sort. Don’t let it happen again.
Hollowpoint on September 5, 2007 at 9:20 PM
I’ll say again…Fred really needed to be at this debate. If anything really hurts him, it’s waiting one day to long.
JetBoy on September 5, 2007 at 9:20 PM
Good Lord. No more questions from the peanut gallery please.
VolMagic on September 5, 2007 at 9:20 PM
They are taking notes. Just seeing what questions NOT to ask
William Amos on September 5, 2007 at 9:21 PM
I agree. This isn’t a normal CNN/MSNBC debate. He’s missing the first ‘real’ one.
Spirit of 1776 on September 5, 2007 at 9:21 PM
6 months to build 813 miles of fence? If my calcs are correct, that’s 5 miles of two-layered fence with road in-between, being built at 5 miles per day.
amerpundit on September 5, 2007 at 9:21 PM
It is possible to send them all back!
AZCON on September 5, 2007 at 9:21 PM
rudy, all the handwashing you do won’t clear you from the red carpet you rolled out to illegals.
TexasDan on September 5, 2007 at 9:21 PM
He’s not going to build it by himself, you know.
TexasDan on September 5, 2007 at 9:22 PM
No.
Complete7 on September 5, 2007 at 9:22 PM
We haven’t been able to build 17 miles of single layered fence since October.
amerpundit on September 5, 2007 at 9:22 PM
McCain, what it would require is utter suspended disbelief on our part to think that you were serious in sending back even the smallest measureable percentage of the illegals in this country.
TexasDan on September 5, 2007 at 9:23 PM
Don’t mistake our actions with our ability.
Spirit of 1776 on September 5, 2007 at 9:23 PM
McCain does not understand. We KNOW the government can not accomplish the task he of speaking of..remember the amnesty of the 80’s? Wasn’t the government supposed to follow up?
lsutiger on September 5, 2007 at 9:23 PM
“How can you not call it amnesty?”
Rudy: Dodge, spin, avoid. “A physical fence won’t do the job.” If you say so, Rudy- I thought you were Italian and not Mexican.
McCain: “Would require fines, blah, blah, an “enormous amount” before illegals could be given… amnesty. Yeah, right. “These people are brave and wonderful and want to be citizens of this country”. Buh-bye, McCain.
Hollowpoint on September 5, 2007 at 9:23 PM
I can be done. But you can’t build the fence (thou I prefer a wall) with one crew at place along the border and work your way along it. Multiple crews, multiple locations. No Problem.
rslancer14 on September 5, 2007 at 9:23 PM
OK John it would require alot hmm , but the govenment has 24 hours to act before they get grandfathered in.
sonnyspats1 on September 5, 2007 at 9:24 PM
hey, whady’a mean we?
no, I know. i think they must have a crew of 5 on the job. I could get that fence built in 6 months, too. It’d be a big operation, but it’s doable if the money is there.
TexasDan on September 5, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Mitt says “end sanctuary cities”
How? What are you gonna do Mitt, to accomplish this?
VolMagic on September 5, 2007 at 9:24 PM
So we’re going to build over 5 miles of two-layered fence with vehicle barriers and room in-between, over rough terrain, in the blistering hot temperatures, per day.
amerpundit on September 5, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Craig just tapped his foot, here he comes
Dersu on September 5, 2007 at 9:24 PM
I’m sorry but Mitt is starting get it right.
sonnyspats1 on September 5, 2007 at 9:25 PM
That’s what I can’t stand about debates. Promises, but how ‘ya going to do it?
amerpundit on September 5, 2007 at 9:25 PM
How ’bout we spare the phrase ‘get to the bottom of it’ in regards to ‘ole Larry Craig.
Spirit of 1776 on September 5, 2007 at 9:25 PM
By Federalizing local law enforcement.
Big S on September 5, 2007 at 9:26 PM
They are really blocking out Paul. He must be stewing.
I can’t wait to see him bubble over
VolMagic on September 5, 2007 at 9:26 PM
Ha!
amerpundit on September 5, 2007 at 9:26 PM
I dunno why they’re talking about Craig…what doe that have to do with running for Peez?
JetBoy on September 5, 2007 at 9:26 PM
zinger from Hunter!
DCA on September 5, 2007 at 9:26 PM
Hunter: “We gotta rebuild the family”.
Love ya, pal… but way to go out on a limb there, duder. Hopefully you’ll grow some charisma before next election.
Hollowpoint on September 5, 2007 at 9:27 PM
cripes…*does and *Prez
JetBoy on September 5, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Big S on September 5, 2007 at 9:26 PM
Isn’t that kinda incogruent with conservatism?
VolMagic on September 5, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Yay, police state!
Hollowpoint on September 5, 2007 at 9:28 PM
Fred on Border:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjhkYzZiNTAxZjAyZTNjNzkxNjA2ZTNmNDBhNjhlYWU=
AZCON on September 5, 2007 at 9:28 PM
*incongruent (I think)
VolMagic on September 5, 2007 at 9:28 PM
So Mitt’s federalist on abortion, too. That’s all of the front -runners now.
amerpundit on September 5, 2007 at 9:28 PM
I’ve got a good idea that Hunter would use illegal labor to build the fence in 6 months. Of course he’d have them build it from the Mexico side. It is a job that apparently Americans haven’t wanted to do ya know.
Go Hunter, Go Tanc
Sorry Fred ya should have been there.
Buzzy on September 5, 2007 at 9:28 PM
Bloody hell, will Romney pick a stance on abortion and stick with it? I know less about what his stance now than I did before.
Hollowpoint on September 5, 2007 at 9:29 PM
Again, that’s beautiful Huckabee. How ‘ya gonna do it?
amerpundit on September 5, 2007 at 9:29 PM
Huck took the high road, did not diss rudy and rom on abortion.
He is a nice guy, maybe a VP
Dersu on September 5, 2007 at 9:29 PM
Fred gets a cheer!
AZCON on September 5, 2007 at 9:30 PM
Freds getting more “airtime” through the moderators than the candidates who are there…
JetBoy on September 5, 2007 at 9:30 PM
Rudy showing his gun control tendencies.. This debate is kickass. Everyone’s weaknesses are being exposed!
RobertCSampson on September 5, 2007 at 9:31 PM
I’ve got a fevah. The only cure, more RON PAUL!!!
P.S. Jeeze. These guys are slamming Fred from the moderators seat. Ouch.
VolMagic on September 5, 2007 at 9:31 PM
Rudy doesn’t answer the question. i don’t want to go unarmed unless the chance is zero, and you can’t give us that. so give us guns, you socialist.
TexasDan on September 5, 2007 at 9:31 PM
Now Rudy’s a federalist now too.
AZCON on September 5, 2007 at 9:31 PM
Rudy seems confused on the 2nd.
VolMagic on September 5, 2007 at 9:32 PM
Except, and I say this as a former New Yorker, he’s right. Gun crime was hugely reduced during his years, despite his gun policies.
amerpundit on September 5, 2007 at 9:32 PM
Mike Huckabee framed the answer on abortion most eloquently.
sonnyspats1 on September 5, 2007 at 9:32 PM
My points exactly. I’m not too fond of Romney’s immigration record. In Massachusetts, he pushed to have his police deputized into the federal immigration authorities; would he push to have this done as President? While it sounds good at first, when you think about it, it’s a very anti-federalist position. Somebody should ask him about it.
Big S on September 5, 2007 at 9:32 PM
so rudy, what about those unarmed citizens in your city that still got shot?
TexasDan on September 5, 2007 at 9:32 PM
Fred’s not even there, but apparently it’s now a the official Fred Thompson debate.
Rudy- Gun control made us safe! “The Second Amendment allows citizens to bear arms”… just not in NYC. “I focused on criminals, not guns”… yeah- anyone who dared keep one was a criminal, thanks in part to you.
Hollowpoint on September 5, 2007 at 9:32 PM
That’s probably because you can’t talk about Mitt without misdirecting and obfuscating.
It was clear to me:
1. There is a 0% chance of ridding America of Abortion regardless of who is President or not, until we overturn Roe v. Wade.
2. Once Roe v. Wade is overturned, states will have free reign to choose their abortion laws, unimpeded by the Supreme Court.
3. Over time pro-life will win out in these areas and there will be a de facto ban on abortion.
Its the same position and thought process the pro-life movement has had for years now.
BKennedy on September 5, 2007 at 9:32 PM
Oh, yeah, Ron. Let’s not have the government protect us. Let’s have the bankrupt, inept airlines do it. Brilliant!
amerpundit on September 5, 2007 at 9:32 PM
Got to say Ron Paul is 100% on this one..
RobertCSampson on September 5, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Man, Ron is on something here. The TSA is a disaster.
Spirit of 1776 on September 5, 2007 at 9:33 PM
YES!!!
Paul Crankery is my ambrosia.
Though Seriously. I agree with him on the Airlines. FAA is necessary. Security should be provided by the Airlines and let the market settle the accounts.
VolMagic on September 5, 2007 at 9:34 PM
Ron Paul, he does make some sense.
Too bad he is so misunderstood.
Dersu on September 5, 2007 at 9:34 PM
That’s not what he did; they were still local officials. However he waited until the final weeks of his campaign after a Dem was elected, so it never went into effect.
Hollowpoint on September 5, 2007 at 9:34 PM
Anyone else notice that there’s a lot of whooping after Paul’s answers, but when the camera goes around the audience, most of it is just politely clapping?
amerpundit on September 5, 2007 at 9:34 PM
heh. lemme carry muh gun on the plane too. i like it. not going to vote for paul until christmas eve in hell, though
TexasDan on September 5, 2007 at 9:34 PM
Hey Paul your out there baby!!!
sonnyspats1 on September 5, 2007 at 9:34 PM
What color is the sky in your world? The blue states aren’t going to become pro-life.
Hollowpoint on September 5, 2007 at 9:35 PM
I can’t imagine Delta Airlines employees stopping several jihadists with a bomb or other weapons.
amerpundit on September 5, 2007 at 9:36 PM
Fixed.
Hollowpoint on September 5, 2007 at 9:36 PM
LOL
Dersu on September 5, 2007 at 9:36 PM
You might be right, but I can see American citizens doing it.
Spirit of 1776 on September 5, 2007 at 9:36 PM
A Delta employee with a gun vs. a terrorist with box cutters? Put my money on the Delta employee.
Hollowpoint on September 5, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Who just answered the last question?
DCA on September 5, 2007 at 9:37 PM
That Hillary add is filled with way to many if’s
AKA if you want the conviction/strength/love fest Hillary has it.
Please are voters really that stupid?
F15Mech on September 5, 2007 at 9:37 PM
Brownback. Or as I like to call him: anti-charisma
Spirit of 1776 on September 5, 2007 at 9:38 PM
brownback.
TexasDan on September 5, 2007 at 9:38 PM
The constitution does not limit where Americans can bear arms, including planes.
AZCON on September 5, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Holy hell, he’s still in the race??? Why, if not to pick up chicks?
Hollowpoint on September 5, 2007 at 9:39 PM
take the govt. out of airline security, and the Airlines will still ban passengers carrying guns on the planes. kinda like many corporations ‘ban’ them on their property.
Ron Paul is an idiot.
jp on September 5, 2007 at 9:39 PM
I really do think we should arm citizens on planes. make them get a permit and take some sort of certification, but you wouldn’t need marshals anymore.
TexasDan on September 5, 2007 at 9:39 PM
You got me.
Spirit of 1776 on September 5, 2007 at 9:40 PM
6 Jihadists with knives against an employee with a gun. Hmm. Let’s set this up. The jihadis, who aren’t afraid to die, charge him/her, he/she shoots, and meanwhile the others jump on him/her, killing him/her with their knives.
Now, unless we’re talking about private airlines setting up mini-federal agencies, with highly-trained marshalls, that’s not going to go over well. Especially since ticket prices would go up so high that people would fly much, much less.
amerpundit on September 5, 2007 at 9:40 PM
McCain. Stop blaming Rummy. Seriously.
VolMagic on September 5, 2007 at 9:40 PM
for Paul’s plan to work, the govt. would have to mandate all passengers carry guns on the planes. another ‘no no’ for the utopians.
jp on September 5, 2007 at 9:40 PM
frequent flier miles?
TexasDan on September 5, 2007 at 9:40 PM
McCain speaking about security… someone must’ve turned his enthusiasm dial down to 2. Yawn, grandpa. Yawn.
Hollowpoint on September 5, 2007 at 9:40 PM
Rudy put the emergency command center in the twin towers, even after the ‘93 bombing. Smart anti-terrorist move.
AZCON on September 5, 2007 at 9:40 PM
Ok John man to man now . Don’t get two faced now. Look at Rudy man! John answer the question.
sonnyspats1 on September 5, 2007 at 9:41 PM
no. just mandate that all flights originate in texas. they’d be well armed that way, no question.
TexasDan on September 5, 2007 at 9:41 PM
I’m pretty sure they’d be carrying guns that held more than one bullet.
Hollowpoint on September 5, 2007 at 9:42 PM
AZCON on September 5, 2007 at 9:40 PM
Unfair.
VolMagic on September 5, 2007 at 9:42 PM
Rudy stop with the making faces already.
sonnyspats1 on September 5, 2007 at 9:42 PM
Yes Rudy, the illegals had hope when you had NYC
Dersu on September 5, 2007 at 9:42 PM
Mitt’s Iraq answer shows a lack of knowlege.
AZCON on September 5, 2007 at 9:43 PM
Mitt recoups on Iraq maybe?
VolMagic on September 5, 2007 at 9:43 PM
Romney- “the surge is apparently working… IF the surge is working…”
Someone hasn’t been paying attention. Way to take a stand, Flipper.
Hollowpoint on September 5, 2007 at 9:43 PM
I’m sorry, but having guns in a closed space, 30,000 feet in the air, with 300 or more people is a stupid idea. What if someone starts shooting? Or say that the terrorist are the only ones with the guns? Then we will have to have more air marshal’s, which means even more government.
Complete7 on September 5, 2007 at 9:43 PM
Mitts Iraq answer? I think he can get er done.
sonnyspats1 on September 5, 2007 at 9:44 PM
What to go John, way to come back!
Spirit of 1776 on September 5, 2007 at 9:45 PM
That’s the whole problem. They undoubtedly will next time. The whole gun-free zone is a terrible idea for the people in it, no matter how prickly a stage an aircraft may be for a gunfight.
TexasDan on September 5, 2007 at 9:45 PM
McCain. Love that hawk baby.
Tell it to everyone man. The surge is working!!!!
VolMagic on September 5, 2007 at 9:45 PM
And how does having several bullets help you when you’re dead? Terrorists aren’t coming from just the front, or just the back of the plane. You’re in a maybe 2-foot wide aisle. The plane is moving, and the employee is most-likely panicked. The employee’s going to take all 4-6 down, if they don’t have a bomb?
amerpundit on September 5, 2007 at 9:45 PM
Yeah, us carry permit holders are known to randomly discharge our handguns in crowded areas. Idiot.
Hollowpoint on September 5, 2007 at 9:45 PM
McCain straight answer on Iraq. Well well.
sonnyspats1 on September 5, 2007 at 9:46 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 ... 8 Next »