Open thread: The highest, lowest debate expectations evah; Video added: Rudy vs. Romney

posted at 3:35 pm on October 9, 2007 by Allahpundit

4 p.m. ET on CNBC, the elephant in the room finally speaks up. Why they decided to hold an event as momentous as this in the middle of the day, I have no idea. It’ll re-air tonight at 9 on MSNBC but highlights will be all over the web by then, I’m sure. If you’re not in front of a TV but want to watch, the livestream is being carried at CNBC.com.

The question of the hour: Are expectations for Fred sky high or knee high? I figured he’d need a star turn to rehabilitate himself with disappointed Republicans but the CW I’m seeing today is that if he doesn’t bore the audience into a stupor it’ll be considered a moral victory. Which is another way of saying that an unusually strong performance could turn the race on its head and an unusually weak one could sink his candidacy, which is why he’ll probably proceed cautiously to protect his second-place position and go for broke at a later debate if he has to.

While we wait, here’s Howard Kurtz theorizing that Rudy’s rudeness (i.e. pugnaciousness) is a major draw for Republicans, which is silly given that he’s gone out of his way not to show that side of himself during the campaign thus far. If he’s nominated and faces Hillary, you’ll see it in spades. Although I’m not sure it’ll matter — check out the trend in this Angus Reid poll. What was it Bill Kristol was saying yesterday about electability?

He’s still got a fairly healthy lead over Fred, though, whose own trends aren’t encouraging. We’ll see how that looks tomorrow. At least one important number is about to change dramatically — or is it? Mitt’s been in every debate thus far but judging from those figures the public must think he’s part of the set.

As always, sound off below if you’re watching and e-mail us if you see something that deserves to be clipped. An unlikely but possible subplot to watch out for: the candidates smacking Chris Matthews for his comments about Republican “criminals” last week and Matthews, eager to prove his alleged independence, smacking back. Even money says that if anyone does it, it’s Huckabee.

Update: The Rudy/Mitt feud bubbles up over the line-item veto, culminating in a clever applause line for Giuliani. I think he’s right about the LIV.

Link: sevenload.com


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 7 8 9

See here is another example of you making a choice to lie. You make the assertion that Fred was helping terrorists
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 11:52 PM

Link to the post where I asserted ‘that Fred was helping terrorists’.

Drew on October 9, 2007 at 11:57 PM

Sorry fellas. Game. Set. Match.

You can provide NOTHING but he-said-she-said. You got the SEC filing? No? GET IT. FOIA will gladly provide it for you.
When you get it….post it. We will be waiting.

Limerick on October 9, 2007 at 11:57 PM

csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 11:54 PM

I know but in real life yanking the chains of people like this is considered unkind. Sometimes it’s fun on the internets. In person it would just be cruel.

Drew on October 9, 2007 at 11:59 PM

Limerick on October 9, 2007 at 11:52 PM

Please see my comment at 11:54.

So, you are accusing the chairman of lying, yet Fred has confirmed his work for the terrorists. WHY are you trying to shoot the messenger? Do you really think that truth is dependent on political party? That is just plain silly.

Not that it gives the truth any more or less validity, how does his contributions to republicans Chafee and Talent fit into your pet theory that no democrats can be trusted to tell the truth?

csdeven on October 10, 2007 at 12:01 AM

Link to the post where I asserted ‘that Fred was helping terrorists’.

Drew on October 9, 2007 at 11:57 PM

Oh please…you entire junket about the 3.3 hours is just that. Claiming that you haven’t said something because you didn’t use the exact words is so second grade childish. Implication innuendo guilt by association… You are really pathetic.

doriangrey on October 10, 2007 at 12:03 AM

Limerick on October 9, 2007 at 11:57 PM

You know you are wrong, but I for one will allow you to claim victory and leave so you don’t have to eat your words because I respect you. But you have giving me reason to be cautious of your arguments in the future.

L8R.

csdeven on October 10, 2007 at 12:05 AM

I know but in real life yanking the chains of people like this is considered unkind. Sometimes it’s fun on the internets. In person it would just be cruel.

Drew on October 9, 2007 at 11:59 PM

Oh OK. I thought you were seriously trying to reach them. I understand chain yanking.

I am the king! Bwahahahaha!!!

csdeven on October 10, 2007 at 12:07 AM

doriangrey on October 10, 2007 at 12:03 AM

If you had bothered to read my discussion with tennmen before jumping in you would have noted my only point was this was a legitimate issue to go after Fred on and that if it were Obama, the right would be all over it.

Do you disagree with that?

Drew on October 10, 2007 at 12:08 AM

If you had bothered to read my discussion with tennmen before jumping in you would have noted my only point was this was a legitimate issue to go after Fred on and that if it were Obama, the right would be all over it.

Do you disagree with that?

Drew on October 10, 2007 at 12:08 AM

Oh I read your posts alright and I watched how you oh so smoothly morphed from how Obama or Hillary could and probably would use this to a full on guilt by association smear of Fred. The Clinton’s would be envious of your word splitting meaning parsing object/subject redirection blame shifting skills.

doriangrey on October 10, 2007 at 12:14 AM

Oh OK. I thought you were seriously trying to reach them. I understand chain yanking.

I am the king! Bwahahahaha!!!

csdeven on October 10, 2007 at 12:07 AM

the king of getting your chain yanked……… :p

doriangrey on October 10, 2007 at 12:15 AM

Anything to win is not a virtue drew & csdeven. Be suspicious of me all you want, but if you know me then you know that I want the facts and not the mud. If you feel comfortable with that then that is your business. Other then Paul I do not question that ALL of the candidates represented on that stage tonight will, and have, the right stuff to be the President of the United States. None of them have enabled terror. I disagree the most with McCain, because of his immigration stance, but nothing will blind me to the fact that these men would pull the trigger and have always been willing to do so. Your attempt to derail a candidate, based on unverified rumor, is what is wrong with our system in the first place.

Limerick on October 10, 2007 at 12:23 AM

doriangrey on October 10, 2007 at 12:14 AM

doriangrey, I’ve put up with the insults, the false statements, the refusal to debate or answer direct questions, the refusal to provide any evidence or links to back up your lies and even the constant moving of the goal posts. But now you’ve done the unforgivable, you’ve ceased to amuse me. In fact you’ve actually bored me to tears. Kind of like listening to a Fred speech.

For that I can not forgive you. But I will give you the following parting gift so that you may claim full victory…

Someone like you who has so underhandedly and yet tenaciously defended someone they’ve never met can only be assumed to be in love with that person or perhaps that persons unacknowledged love child. I hope for your sake that someday Fred appreciates all you are doing for him by fighting dirty on a blog to clear his good name. I honestly hope he rewards you with that smile or pat on the back you so obviously desire and that will complete your life.

In the meantime, you keep fighting that dirty fight here on the blog so that someday a really boring guy with a mildly successful acting career, a spotty Senate record and a smoking hot wife can sit in the Oval Office.

Now run along and tell all your friends how you had me pegged from the start and how I fulfilled your worst nightmares of decorum here on Hot Air.

Well played, sir or madam. Well played.

Drew on October 10, 2007 at 12:24 AM

Well played, sir or madam. Well played.

Drew on October 10, 2007 at 12:24 AM

How little you know or understand. I am voting not for Fred, or Rudy, or Mitt, but for whomever the GOP nominee is. And I’m not about to sit back disinterestedly while anyone trashes any of the GOP candidates. If you believe that the end justifies the means there is little to discuss with you. If you insist on playing the politics of personal destruction then you deserve what you get.

And what you have gotten so far is an accurate and honest assessment of your commitment to your politics. That is obviously victory for your chosen by any means at any cost.

doriangrey on October 10, 2007 at 12:37 AM

doriangrey, I’ve put up with the insults, the false statements, the refusal to debate or answer direct questions, the refusal to provide any evidence or links to back up your lies and even the constant moving of the goal posts. But now you’ve done the unforgivable, you’ve ceased to amuse me.
Drew on October 10, 2007 at 12:24 AM

Thanks for taking him on Drew.

That’s par for the course with the doriangrey dork-on-grey.

Nothing to be gained….. move right along here…
…come back with an appreciation for anybody who can truly debate you here….

dork-on-grey is Fred’s illegitimate, unacknowledged love child, blood runs deeper than intelligent gray matter.

Mcguyver on October 10, 2007 at 12:40 AM

Mcguyver on October 10, 2007 at 12:40 AM

Yea, but your Forest Gump’s dim witted retards offspring. Sucks to be you huh…

doriangrey on October 10, 2007 at 12:44 AM

Honestly, some of you are acting like old married couples arguing over driving directions!

Bradky on October 10, 2007 at 12:46 AM

Mcguyver on October 10, 2007 at 12:40 AM

Cheapest shot of the thread. No grey matter indeed. Thanks for putting the spot light on the subject.

Limerick on October 10, 2007 at 12:46 AM

Limerick on October 10, 2007 at 12:46 AM

Someone gets the honor of a good limerick, as we are approaching 900 comment posts of intelligent debates.

Mcguyver on October 10, 2007 at 12:49 AM

arguing over driving directions!

Bradky on October 10, 2007 at 12:46 AM

We all know you are good with directions.

Mcguyver on October 10, 2007 at 12:54 AM

I finally realized why I’m connecting with Rudy in the same way I connected with W back in ’99: they talk straight, and from the heart. A rare and precious trait in a politician, people.

Halley on October 10, 2007 at 1:10 AM

I thought Rudy came off better than Mitt that round.

What is it about Mitt? I always feel like I walked off a used car lot without buying a car when I hear him talk.

Mojave Mark on October 10, 2007 at 1:39 AM

We all know you are good with directions.

Mcguyver on October 10, 2007 at 12:54 AM

Yes Dear, whatever you say.

Bradky on October 10, 2007 at 2:10 AM

Feel free to point to where I made that case, other than in your imagination.

Fred will have to deal with it at some point. My guess is if he starts to hurt Rudy, Rudy will hit him with it.

Drew on October 9, 2007 at 10:56 PM

I never said that. Don’t put words in my mouth — or words on my posts, more to the point.

Look, you can call me in the bag or whatever you want to. I’ve made no bones about who I’m for, and I don’t apologize for my viewpoint. I’m not a paid political hack. I’ve never given any money to any candidate until now.

Just because I don’t agree with your perception doesn’t lessen the merits of my argument. You don’t want to agree, fine with me. Have a nice day.

Tennman on October 10, 2007 at 2:29 AM

How come Chris Matthews didn’t ask Fred about enabling Lybian terrorists to evade justice for 11 years? I would have asked him.

Has this topic already been covered?

I heard Fred billed 3.3 hours of attorney time advising terrorist how to avoid extradition as part of a major effort by his law firm earning the firm in excess of $800,000 of terrorist money. We are not talking about a legitimate defense that any defendant would be entitled to, we are talking about making sure that the Lybian terrorists (who were agents of the Lybian government) were only tried in Lybia — even though the Lybia government was a co-conspirator in the bombing. Fred’s efforts for these scumbag terrorists were not as an advoacte in a system of justice, but as an advocate against a system of justice. There was no defense for these terrorist other than to avoid trial in an unbiased courtroom. No wonder lawyers all over Washington were submitting their resignation rather than being associated with such odious legal work.

Hey, let’s elect an islamic terrorist enabler POTUS during a war on islamic terror.

So, no one is curious why Mrs. Kennedy showed more scruples than Fred?

Here is what Fred has to say:

As often happened, at the firm there I was affiliated for a couple of years, one of the senior partners came in and asked me for some legal technical advice. I believe it was a venue question, about where a trial would probably be held and whether or not there would be a change of venue, things like that. It was several years ago. I gave them my opinion, and that was the long and short of it. That’s all I know about it.

Now that is a white wash if I ever heard it. It was not a question about venue or whether there woud be a change of venue. It was whether the terrorists would be tried in Lybia by a government that was also involved in the attack or whether the terrorist could be extradited to be tried in an unbiased court. This was not a question of venue, it was a question of jurisdiction between a terrorist nation and a Western government.

So, Fred speaks on the issue… and lies.

tommylotto on October 10, 2007 at 2:49 AM

Has this topic already been covered?

Oh give it up.
Please.
You know darn well it has been covered.
You aren’t as sly as you seem to think you are.

LegendHasIt on October 10, 2007 at 3:25 AM

Again, skepticism is good but it seems you are taking a harder stand than Fred is.

Drew on October 9, 2007 at 11:45 PM

Exactly. It’s probably because they want him to be President more than he does.

Big S on October 10, 2007 at 4:54 AM

tommylotto on October 10, 2007 at 2:49 AM

Debbie Schlessel has an article claiming that Fred still has the terrorist supporter Senator Spencer Abraham as a lead campaign staffer.

C’mon you guys! I don’t like Fred but he clearly is not a stupid person. Why does he continue to make these unforced errors?

Is it possible that he is attempting to scuttle his campaign from the inside so he can transfer all your hard earned contributions ($8 million worth) into another Fred Thompson PAC and then hire his family to “administer ” it just to get the cash in their pockets? He’s done it before. Shouldn’t that fact be enough to consider the possibility that his entire campaign is a sham? Admittedly, that is pretty cleaver and that is more along the lines of what you’d expect from someone as experienced as Fred is.

Question: Did the McCain/Feingold CFR act (that Fred was a major writer of) have any provisions in it that would make what Fred has done a lot easier to accomplish?

csdeven on October 10, 2007 at 10:17 AM

Gud morning Fred shills, Debbie Schlussel has a special message for you:

Pan-Jihadist Spencer Abraham Still Heads Fred Thompson Campaign

Quotes from yesterday’s and today’s editions of The Detroit Newsistan confirm it:

The Thompson camp has a Michigan tie. Former Michigan GOP chairman and U.S. Sen. Spencer Abraham is co-chairman of Thompson’s national campaign.

***

“His answers showed tonight he’s more than ready to run this country,” said former Michigan Sen. Spence Abraham, a top official in Thompson’s campaign.

Then, there’s this from Associated Press:

Abraham, Allen and Cheney to head Thompson campaign

McLEAN, Va. – Former Virginia senator George Allen is joining former Michigan senator Spencer Abraham as a cochair of Sen. Fred Thompson’s 2008 presidential campaign.

And The New York Times confirms it, too.

Have at it Gregors, chumps, dorks, those who make hollow points and write lame limericks.

Mcguyver on October 10, 2007 at 10:32 AM

Good morning everybody,
Debbie Schlussel has a special message for you all:

Pan-Jihadist Spencer Abraham Still Heads Fred Thompson Campaign

Quotes from yesterday’s and today’s editions of The Detroit Newsistan confirm it:

The Thompson camp has a Michigan tie. Former Michigan GOP chairman and U.S. Sen. Spencer Abraham is co-chairman of Thompson’s national campaign.

***

“His answers showed tonight he’s more than ready to run this country,” said former Michigan Sen. Spence Abraham, a top official in Thompson’s campaign.

Then, there’s this from Associated Press:

Abraham, Allen and Cheney to head Thompson campaign

McLEAN, Va. – Former Virginia senator George Allen is joining former Michigan senator Spencer Abraham as a cochair of Sen. Fred Thompson’s 2008 presidential campaign.

And The New York Times confirms it, too.

Mcguyver on October 10, 2007 at 10:42 AM

Two comments in moderation?

How does this work, AP?

After all these discussions above and you won’t allow a critical word about Fred penned by Debbie Schlussel?

What the hell?

Mcguyver on October 10, 2007 at 10:46 AM

O.K.

So you allow me to link Debbie Schlussel but not copy the whole article?

What the hell?

You’re not biased are you?

Bovine scatology!

Mcguyver on October 10, 2007 at 10:48 AM

Two comments in moderation which are Debbie Schlussel’s article copied in their entirety you will not allow?

Male bovine scatology!

I thought better of you.

Mcguyver on October 10, 2007 at 10:54 AM

O.K.

Finally……

What was the hold up with those first two comments in moderation, AP?

Mcguyver on October 10, 2007 at 11:04 AM

Mcguyver on October 10, 2007 at 11:04 AM

Don’t copy a whole article. It’s very poor form. I don’t know if that’s why your comments were axed, but could very well be.

Spirit of 1776 on October 10, 2007 at 11:26 AM

In the Spirit of the constitution enacted in 1776 here is
the second half of Debbie Schlussel’s artcle:

When your man continues to employ a pan-Jihadist as his top advisor–after he’s been informed of the man’s frightening views–that means your man has no problem with those views and gives you a good idea what he would do as President. I mean, would you vote for a guy who employed CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper as his top campaign guy? Would you want him in the White House? Abraham is basically the same thing as Hooper (and was very close to Hooper as a U.S. Senator and Bush Secretary of Energy).

You’ll recall that this past summer, as soon as Thompson announced that Jihad Spence was his new campaign manager, I reposted and updated a past column I’ve written about Abraham’s work on behalf of Islamic terrorists, including sending billions of our money directly to Hezbollah and refusing to condemn Yasser Arafat’s homicide bombings. This caused a lot of conservatives to dump Thompson and sent his campaign reeling.

So–in addition to attacking me (Debbie Schlussel) personally–the Thompson campaign stepped back from Abraham, naming a new “campaign manager.” But, as I pointed out, that was all for show. A big fat lie . . . kinda like Fred.

Now we have the confirmation. Spencer Abraham–the pan-Jihadist Senator and Energy Secretary–is still running Fred Thompson’s campaign.

Mcguyver on October 10, 2007 at 11:35 AM

I looked and looked and looked and I didn’t see one single tie to terrorists.

csdeven on October 10, 2007 at 11:36 AM

In the Spirit of the Constitution enacted in 1776, I am flashing three fingers (with the index finger being in the center) at you….can you read between the lines?

Mcguyver on October 10, 2007 at 11:38 AM

Mcguyver on October 10, 2007 at 11:38 AM

I think it would be respectful to Debbie to send people to her site to read it rather than post the entire article. She has a lot of other stuff there that is very interesting.

csdeven on October 10, 2007 at 11:47 AM

I think it would be respectful to Debbie to send people to her site to read it rather than post the entire article. She has a lot of other stuff there that is very interesting.
csdeven on October 10, 2007 at 11:47 AM

Everybody please go…no you MUST go over to Debbie Schlussel’s website…or else I’ll duct tape you to the wall.

Mcguyver on October 10, 2007 at 12:02 PM

Question: What is more disturbing?

1) That B. Hussein Obama is named B. Hussein Obama
2) That B. Hussein Obana may have been educated in a madrassa,
3) That Fred Thompson has himself confirmed that he provided legal advice to enable terrorism and lied about the nature of his work (its not venue stupid); or
4) Fred’s continued association with “Jihad Spence”

Frankly, I find the terrorist connection to Fred much more persuasive.

As Bush said, you are either with us or with the terrorists. It seems Fred picked the wrong side.

tommylotto on October 10, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Male bovine scatology!

I thought better of you.

Mcguyver on October 10, 2007 at 10:54 AM

He doesnt like you you dude. So why dont you do the Jonny Fairplay jumpy huggy chest humpy thing so we can all watch Allahpundit pull a Danny Bonaduce on you….

doriangrey on October 10, 2007 at 12:17 PM

Fred can be bought by terrorists. Rudy, not so much…

tommylotto on October 10, 2007 at 12:18 PM

As Bush said, you are either with us or with the terrorists. It seems Fred picked the wrong side.

tommylotto on October 10, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Thus speaketh the lawyer who sues people for a living…

doriangrey on October 10, 2007 at 12:19 PM

In the Spirit of the Constitution enacted in 1776, I am flashing three fingers (with the index finger being in the center) at you….can you read between the lines?

Mcguyver on October 10, 2007 at 11:38 AM

Hey, pat yourself on the back for your cleverness. I was merely trying to help. AP has made an issue of it before, clearly expressing his disapproval. Since you had a problem with your post, I was merely trying to help. You seemed to be asking a question of why you comment didn’t post.

Trust me, if I had anticipated your response I would have left you to yourself.

Spirit of 1776 on October 10, 2007 at 1:03 PM

And just so you know:) Constitution wasn’t enacted in 1776. Google it.

Spirit of 1776 on October 10, 2007 at 1:03 PM

Everybody please go…no you MUST go over to Debbie Schlussel’s website…or else I’ll duct tape you to the wall.

Mcguyver on October 10, 2007 at 12:02 PM

No. I’ve already had my daily dose of crazy.

Hollowpoint on October 10, 2007 at 1:19 PM

Mcguyver on October 10, 2007 at 11:38 AM

sigh … another government educated citizen.

AZ_Redneck on October 10, 2007 at 9:45 PM

Since you had a problem with your post, I was merely trying to help. You seemed to be asking a question of why you comment didn’t post.
Spirit of 1776 on October 10, 2007 at 1:03 PM

I appreciate the help…..

But that was really a very small post in comparison to the average length here. And really if AP had such a problem with big posts you’d hear it a lot more often, just judging from your insinuation.
So no, I still don’t understand how the moderation works…
….is it certain words…is it when he happens to be watching you or what it is.

But I was clearly a just a little ticked off at the notion that I was posting anything out of the ordinary in terms of size or whatever.

Ultimately kinda ridiculous from any standpoint,IMO.

In other choice words, pure bovine scatology.

It sure shut this hulabaloo Fred shill debate down….probably for good….which really doesn’t shed tears on my part.

And by the way, you are all very welcome….anytime I can be of assistance in any way.

I’m never far away, just tap me on the shoulder….

Cheers.

Mcguyver on October 11, 2007 at 12:16 AM

And just so you know:) Constitution wasn’t enacted in 1776. Google it.

Spirit of 1776 on October 10, 2007 at 1:03 PM

Or, if you’re real lucky, reminisce back to 1987 when this monstrosity was first performed – at the bicentennial – and subtract 200 years…

RD on October 11, 2007 at 1:08 AM

Or, if you’re real lucky, reminisce back to 1987 when this monstrosity was first performed – at the bicentennial – and subtract 200 years…

Um, RD thanks for that link. I’m not even sure what adjective applies.

And really if AP had such a problem with big posts you’d hear it a lot more often, just judging from your insinuation.

Mcguyver, I don’t think it’s the size, it has something to do with fair use. I don’t know how it works, I don’t blog, but I know it bugs AP because everytime I’ve seen a full article dropped in comments he’s said something about it – in line with please don’t do that, a cya thing I think. So wouldn’t surprise me if they somehow tricked up moderation to screen for that.

Spirit of 1776 on October 11, 2007 at 1:40 AM

Um, RD thanks for that link. I’m not even sure what adjective applies.

Just thank the Lord you didn’t have to perform any part of it! You can take my word for it, not that it’s needed :-).

RD on October 11, 2007 at 1:51 AM

RD on October 11, 2007 at 1:51 AM

Haha. That got a good laugh out of me. Cheers.

Spirit of 1776 on October 11, 2007 at 1:54 AM

Thx Spirit :-) – I’m having trouble getting the Amazon sample tracks to play on my box, but if they’re as unbelievably bad as I remember, there’s an outside chance this could go viral at some point.

The emphASSis is definitely on the wrong syl-LAB-le in this native German speaker-inspired masterpiece:

“We hold zees truths to be self-evi-DENT!”
“…life, li-ber-ty; and the PURR-sui-t of happiness!”

Not that I’m complaining; at least this guy is pro-American. Gotta take our friends where we can find ‘em these days :-)

Over&out

RD on October 11, 2007 at 2:16 AM

sigh … another government educated citizen.

AZ_Redneck on October 10, 2007 at 9:45 PM

And just so you know:) Constitution wasn’t enacted in 1776. Google it.

Spirit of 1776 on October 10, 2007 at 1:03 PM

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Thanks for the correction.

I knew it wasn’t, I just didn’t take the time to check the actual date, because I was in a hurry to get an appointment and I was ticked off as well.

It was in the spirit of it.

So here’s the corrected cleverness:

In the Spirit of our freedoms enacted in 1776, I am flashing three fingers (with the index finger being in the center) at you….can you read between the lines?

I….sure do hope you’re happy!

Mcguyver on October 11, 2007 at 2:48 PM

Jim DeMint endorses Mitt Romney.

csdeven on October 13, 2007 at 5:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9