MirCat on September 6, 2007 at 10:49 PM

I only watched the debate once through, but my impression of Tancredo’s performance is as follows: First, he was only asked a few questions but I think he probably received equal time relative to the other second tier candidates. Tancredo’s real problem was that he was too careful and spent most of his time allotted for answering questions trying to lay the groundwork to prepare the audience for his non-PC answers. Then, he would simply run out of time in almost every instance. Still, he scored some decent points while pre-qualifying his answers but overall I think he did much better in the previous Fox News debate a few months ago and in his recent TV appearances.

However, he did score a fair number of points resulting in strong applause.

- The Cat

Except for the FedEx bit he ‘borrowed’ from Newt.

Spirit of 1776 on September 6, 2007 at 1:21 PM

I re-watched it and Huck was stumbling around with some of those “natural” whiz bangs he’s been getting off against folks. It looked like it has been scripted the entire time.

Why don’t you just admit you are a ignorant racist redneck…

tommylotto on September 6, 2007 at 12:16 PM

Yeah. No kidding. Where does that leave gay conservatives? How about conservative atheists? Black conservatives? I have seen a lot of crap from that guy, but I never expected this kind of mindless crap.

while Romney’s reply made it clear he had no clue how to handle the issue.
Miss_Anthrope on September 6, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Yeah, that was an awkward moment for Mitt, but I have heard him handle that question much more deftly in the past. I think he was trying to nuance his position too much. But, I am definitely going to be closely watching his responses this area in the future.

jaime on September 6, 2007 at 2:09 PM

Heh. I got a little chuckle out of that too. :-)

gekkobear on September 6, 2007 at 6:14 PM

Look, you already admitted that you overlooked AZCON’s sly bigoted comment. Just admit you were wrong, you defended the wrong guy, and move on.

Practice your rhetoric skills somewhere else…

s it okay to call him “wonderbread” or how about a Whataburger w/ cheese?

I always preferred “whitebread” myself, but “wonderbread” works. I’ve been called that myself before, and I don’t exactly care either way. I tend to ignore those who make an attack that shallow (and I’m a bit disappointed that I overlooked AZCON’s spaghetti and bagel statement).

There is an unfortunate reason why the rural flyover portions of this country are looked down upon by the blue coasts, and AZCON’s sentiments are a major part of that reason.

So, to avoid bigotry and idiocy from the blue states; it’ll be necessary to silence every single idiotic statement from every single person in every red state.

Because the Blue state people aren’t clever enough to understand that one bad apple doesn’t ruin the whole bunch? Gotcha… doesn’t that say something though?

Why are you standing up for that ignorant racist redneck?

Um, I think what he said was wrong, the racial comments in particular. And I think your bigoted attacks are also wrong. I still think you’ve been presumptuous, arrogant, and elitist.

I was not making any value judgments concerning any part of the country or ethic group

Really? It read that way.

Oh, I forgot. You can make assumptions, derive the meaning of “implicit statements”, and make educated guesses to divine the inner meaning of the posts of others.

And oddly, if others do the same with your posts, that’s a problem.

We’re just reading the same words differently here I’m sure, but reading your posts with the same rigor you applied to AZCON’s doesn’t paint a complimentary picture.

Now, his post was cheerleading for the rural areas over urban areas; and crossed the line slightly on one point.

I’m from Texas so I appreciate the red state – blue state thing. I get the fly over stuff. I appreciate the moral simplicity of rural areas. However, he was not just cheerleading for rural areas and he didn’t cross the line just slightly. He called Italians, spaghetti, and jews, bagles. Is it okay to call him “wonderbread” or how about a Whataburger w/ cheese?

For which you call him a racist redneck, attack rural areas and “implicitly stating” that anyone not in a big city is an ignorant racist redneck. Which seems a bigoted and tasteless attack. Right?

Your logic is upside down. I did not state or even imply that my comments applied to anyone other than AZCON. There is an unfortunate reason why the rural flyover portions of this country are looked down upon by the blue coasts, and AZCON’s sentiments are a major part of that reason.

Oh, and since “predominantly white” isn’t good, can you clarify the proper ratios so maybe we can ship people around the country to get the correct mix of people?

gekkobear on September 6, 2007 at 3:34 PM

Once again, your logic is upside down. I was not making any value judgments concerning any part of the country or ethic group, unlike AZCON.

Why are you standing up for that ignorant racist redneck?

FloatingRock on September 6, 2007 at 4:00 PM

Of all the candidates, I feel like I know Rudy the best, because I lived in NYC when he was mayor. And even then I don’t know if I prefer him over the others. All of the candidates on view last night have flaws that are becoming readily apparent. But like you, I’ll be voting R on election day, and hope for the best.

It was implicit in his post that the predominately white parts of the country are somehow morally superior to the more cosmopolitan portions.

Gekkobear,

That was a silly observation because it makes no sense, but TommyLotto was responding to AZCONS spaghetti and bagels Jews and Italians comment and his whole spiel about how people from Tennessee are way superior to New Yorkers, AND the ludicrous suggestion that liberty is something that only flyover country cares about.

Under the circumstances I don’t blame him for tagging AZCON as an “ignorant, racist, redneck” as it had a ring of truth to it – unlike AZCON’s azzhat comments which are based on nothing but prejudice, bigotry and…ignorance.

Are you electing a wartime or peacetime leader?

JiangxiDad on September 6, 2007 at 2:58 PM

In either case the President should be the chief representative of American principles and ideals. I’m not willing to sacrifice my freedom and liberty for temporary security, and although I may be in a small minority here at HotAir, I feel confident that there is still a sizable portion of the conservative electorate that agrees with my view.

Besides, I’ve never gotten the impression that Rudy understands Jihad any better than the other candidates; just the opposite, frankly. If Rudy understands the threat so well, why does he, or did he, (or whatever), support sanctuary-cities? He says he wants to set up cameras at the border—-for what purpose? So we can count how many people are pouring across? Why doesn’t he support workplace enforcement and the shutting down of the other magnets that draw them here?

I think that the case some have made that Rudy would be the toughest on terrorism is greatly overstated. If that’s the only factor to consider we should perhaps give Tancredo our undivided attention from here on out, which isn’t likely to happen.

Buy Danish on September 6, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Agreed. Spaghetti & Bagels? Yeah, that didn’t register for me the first time, and wasn’t appropriate.

It was implicit in his post that the predominately white parts of the country are somehow morally superior to the more cosmopolitan portions.

You got a map or something so I can see what you’re talking about? Can you show me on a map where these “predominately white parts of the country” are? I’m assuming they’re not in the South, or Southwest, or Midwest, or West, or on either coast. I’ve not done much traveling in the Dakotas, or Wisconsin or Michigan… maybe there? Oh, and is there an inherent benefit in not being “predominantly white”? Would there be a similar benefit in not being “predominantly” any other race? Or is it just White that’s bad to have “predominant”?

Now, his post was cheerleading for the rural areas over urban areas; and crossed the line slightly on one point.

For which you call him a racist redneck, attack rural areas and “implicitly stating” that anyone not in a big city is an ignorant racist redneck. Which seems a bigoted and tasteless attack. Right?

See, if you can play the “implicit in his post” then I get to play the same, right?

Oh, and since “predominantly white” isn’t good, can you clarify the proper ratios so maybe we can ship people around the country to get the correct mix of people? I’ve never seen the proper ratio for “cosmopolitan” except:
* 1 oz Vodka
* 1/2 oz Triple sec
* 1/2 oz sweetened lime juice
* 1/2 oz Cranberry juice

Take a seat, squeaky, you’ve had a long day.

Your shtick as a troll would be more believable if you gave equal time to AZCON for his coded speech about Italians and Jews.

Or do you like the fact that it, err, “promoted dialogue”?

The point in regards to Guiliani is okay we know you were mayor of NYC, now can we move on. It is okay to tell me what you accomplished but what I want to know is what are you going to do.

You should have some huge clues about what Rudy would do from his record as Mayor of NYC.

Personally I don’t trust folks from New England because they are constantly stereotyping southerners.

You mean like you’re stereotyping people from New England?

asc85 on September 6, 2007 at 2:26 PM

I spent most of my life in Manhattan, then (Shhhhhh, don’t let LakeRuins hear this) moved to New England, where I spent 6 years. I have lived in the South for the past 7 years.

Since you’re a Rudy fan, here is a great article from City Journal, entitled Yes, Rudy Guiliani is a conservative which you would enjoy.

Indeed, I think Guiliani is more of a conservative than those who believe he is an “authoritarian” member of the “spaghetti and bagels” wing of the Party.

(See I can do the odd slanderous troll-like attack as well, they aren’t that difficult, but they don’t exactly promote dialog, discussion or understanding… they tend to shut down all of these)

gekkobear on September 6, 2007 at 12:49 PM

Well said! Way too much of that crap I have to scroll over here on HA lately.

More signal. Less noise.

Thanks

FloatingRock on September 6, 2007 at 2:42 PM

Hahahahahahaha. Was about to logoff but couldn’t without responding. Great imagery, great writing, very funny, and not without a whiff of truth.

Can you think of any use a person with such attributes could be put to? Rudy’s of no use without an enemy. But if you’ve got one, you’d like him there fighting alongside you.

Are you electing a wartime or peacetime leader?

Thanks for the clarification.

I’m still not sure what he’s supposed to talk about other than to go further back in time and talk about his record as a Prosecutor.

I’d much rather hear about someone’s accomplishments than listen to them fantasize about a New Utopian Order like the Dems always do.

Noting your experience is fine, but beginning every answer with something like “When I was mayor of New York…” gets tiresome.

Weebork on September 6, 2007 at 1:58 PM

Every time Rudy mentions his record in New York I’m struck with an image of Rudy invading my home and taking my guns by force and then melting them down and pouring the mixture into a mold forming a statue of himself. The statue has a disapproving look on its face and the right arm is extended out front and is wagging its index finger, while the left hand is tightly clenched in a fist around the Constitution, which is being held over it’s left shoulder where nobody can reach it.

asc85 on September 6, 2007 at 2:26 PM

Basically agree, but also with your sentence that you aren’t sure how well that will translate to governing the country. Apart from the terrorism issue, isn’t that the point?

As for the whole NY thing, it’s like Romney knowing not to press the whole Mass thing. He knows conservs/republicans don’t like MA. Same here. A lot of people dont’ like what NY stands for, politically at least. If there are ethnic undertones, then they’re out of line.

There’s a reason Rudy keeps talking about New York. He was an absolutely fantastic Mayor and, other than Ronald Reagan, I cannot think of another executive who produced such profoundly positive results from his actions.

When he took over New York was a freaking disaster, thanks to decades of liberal rule, beginning with John “Limousine” Lindsay through David “Disaster” Dinkins.

He turned the economy around, cut taxes substantially, improved what were abysmal services, and reduced crime – all of which made New York not only livable again, but restored it’s standing as one of the greatest cities in the world.

It had gotten to the point that you could not walk down the street without being accosted by intoxicated and deranged homeless people whose “rights” the ACLU thought it was their most somber duty to protect.

Buy Danish on September 6, 2007 at 12:59 PM

Well said, Buy Danish. Although I now live in Mercer County, NJ (the DMZ zone between New York and Philadelphia), I grew up and lived in Northern NJ most of my life. Rudy is 100% correct when he says that people referred to New York City as “ungovernable.” He said he’d cut crime in New York, and everyone thought that was simply an empty campaign promise. Before Rudy, there was constant chatter on Sports Talk Radio in New York that the Yankees should move out of the Bronx, because people were afraid to go to the games.

I don’t know how well that will translate to governing our country, but he’s got my vote. He’s by far the greatest New York mayor in my lifetime. And it’s silly now to think that prior to Rudy, people were comparing ED KOCH as the greatest NYC mayor since La Guardia.

Hunter was directly asked two questions, I believe. Brownback, Tancredo, and Ron Paul had about the same time given to them.