Open thread: The highest, lowest debate expectations evah; Video added: Rudy vs. Romney
posted at 3:35 pm on October 9, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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
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 ... 5 6 7 8 9 Next »
CD I’m absolutely convinced you have some kind of special eye wear to come up with some of things you do.
Anyways, no “bring the house down” moments from Fred but that’s why I have come to like him. Truth freely spoken isn’t always going to knock your socks off.
CTDeLude on October 9, 2007 at 6:02 PM
From what I saw (5:15 on) Rudy did the best. Still voting for Fred though.
- The Cat
P.S. Who lost the debate?: csdeven
MirCat on October 9, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Seriously, I like McCain as a man, but not as a President.
If we can’t poke each other in the ribs now-and-then, how can we trust each other to run this country?
Again, I meant no disrespect.
unamused on October 9, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Go Laura, with the fingertip info.
abinitioadinfinitum on October 9, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Better……
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 6:03 PM
It was a tossup until Fred’s last remark. He wins the personality award. And he did not hurt himself at all by showing up. Still my man!
Mitt knows his stuff. But he’s not catching on.
McCain? He’s going to gain back enough to be competitive in the next couple months.
Rudy is losing ground and his liberalism will slow him further.
Tancredo and Brownback just didn’t make any impression with me, nor, surprisingly, did Huck.
Ron Paul is really scary.
Tennman on October 9, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Fred did good for his first debate. The other guys did seem more comfortable with a few already under their belts.
infidel4life on October 9, 2007 at 6:03 PM
McCain looks like the kid no one is picking to be on their team.
MirCat on October 9, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Ok cs…….Fred!bot checking in….
I give him a B. Same with Rudy, Mitt, McCain, and Hunter. Brownback a C, Tanc a D. Paul goes back to middleschool.
Limerick on October 9, 2007 at 6:04 PM
Oh, geeting ready for an interview DOAH on me!
MirCat on October 9, 2007 at 6:04 PM
Niceeee job Laura. The cdseven loves facts, and politicans that know specifics.
cdseven becomes a FredHead in 5…4…3…2…
Sultry Beauty on October 9, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Hehehe, he’s giving cnbc direction.
MirCat on October 9, 2007 at 6:05 PM
I’m not a Fred-head, but he very much held his own. I agree
“Timothy S. Carlson” excellent throw away line. Oh my God, CNBC now has that little midget Reisch doing analysis.
mustang1 on October 9, 2007 at 6:05 PM
I’m starting to like Fred more now that I seen him debate
abinitioadinfinitum on October 9, 2007 at 6:05 PM
The only correct answer to “who won” is: nobody.
These things are set up so that they are all losers. It’s orchestrated to maximize the sniping of each candidate by the media.
I truly think Fred was able to minimize his political surface area and avoid most of the sniping in the coming weeks.
Oh, and I guarantee SNL will open this Saturday with a Tanc bit involving him saying “illegal immigration” every-other-word.
unamused on October 9, 2007 at 6:05 PM
My Google-fu is strong. ;-)
Laura on October 9, 2007 at 6:05 PM
I would have to agree that Rudy did the best. Huckabee did not do as well as before, but did ok. Thompson did well, but didn’t offer much that was new. McCain got applause, but he’s zero chance. I like Hunter and Tancredo, but they aren’t going anywhere. Ron Paul needs to just go back to the Libertarian Party and be forgotten.
Weebork on October 9, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Fred did okay, I was worried he might be way too sluggish and tank. He can do better, but a okay start, he’s gonna be a player.
Bad Candy on October 9, 2007 at 6:06 PM
Now there we can completely agree.
Slublog on October 9, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Rudy was very, very good.
Fred survives very nicely.
Romney was smartly slick. Nothing new.
McCain was good.
Debate was calm, no surprises, no shocks, pretty boring, but given economics for a topic it was ok. Chrissie was on downers. His laugh at the end was precious “like home”.
csdeven was in his top (incoherent) form. Love you anyway, ’cause you need loving :)
Entelechy on October 9, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Nobody’s going to knock Fred for charisma.
His problem is substance.
But he likes him some national parks.
BKennedy on October 9, 2007 at 6:07 PM
ok, this is more fun to watch (the livestream stuff) than the debate. Dang I hope someone caught that
Dude “You were joking about the zero intrest rate? I mean comeon.”
McCain “No I wasn’t kidding.”
- The Cat
MirCat on October 9, 2007 at 6:07 PM
That debate was pretty good. Giuliani did really well against Hillary; Fred seemed competent; Romney was polished as always; Huckabee seemed to have some good quotes; McCain was better then other debates; And Duncan Hunter seemed more presidential then ever before.
Complete7 on October 9, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Oh SNAP! ;)
He gave it hell, though, didn’t he?
techno_barbarian on October 9, 2007 at 6:08 PM
Finally an assessment posted here I totally agree with.
Spirit of 1776 on October 9, 2007 at 6:09 PM
Yeah, I hope Mitt pays him well.
- The Cat
MirCat on October 9, 2007 at 6:09 PM
I liked Rudy except for that whole “FCC for the internet” thing – bad enough that he agrees with Hillary on the eventual need for that, but I can’t believe he was unwise enough to say it out loud. Stupid opinion, and terrible judgment.
Laura on October 9, 2007 at 6:09 PM
I have to say that the overall jovial feel of the debate left me feeling good about the party.
I like that our candidates feel comfortable enough in competition with each other that they can trade barbs and laugh about it.
They all seemed to enjoy the debate. I’m proud of that.
unamused on October 9, 2007 at 6:09 PM
Early CNBC poll results………Show…shocka…Ron Paul moonbats pressing buttons like there is no tomorrow…
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 6:10 PM
McCain seems to be getting back in the game, he’ll lose, but I thought he would totally collapse soon. I think Tanc effed up royally, trying to force the debate to immigration too aggressively, I realize that’s why he’s running, to force that issue to the front, but you can’t try to bludgeon it that way.
Bad Candy on October 9, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Wow, as someone who wrote off Fred as…well…”clueless,” he did fairly well.
Mitt’s joke about Law & Order (and Fred’s response back about him being an actor) was hilarious!
Rudy was pretty good too, although putting him next to Fred made him look like a “wee little man.”
Note: I’ve noticed that throughout US history, Americans have had a tendency to elect tall presidents (basically over 6 feet).
If the current trend continues, will it mean that Fred or Mitt are our only options?
Darnell Clayton on October 9, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Rudy wins by default – he’s the front runner, and this debate will not change that. Otherwise, Fred did well, Mitt was fine, McCain said great things but was a little slow, Brownback was better than usual, Huckabee was worse than usual, Duncan Hunter is obsessed with foreign steel, Tancredo got a good laugh at his own expense, and Ron Paul will always be a nut.
My 2 cents.
Big S on October 9, 2007 at 6:11 PM
I know I’m just a lowly “troll” in your eyes, so pardon my intrusion into your kingdom of comments. But, is it possible that you mean feign. In either case you are using the word as a noun which is incorrect. Faint is an adjective, feign is a verb.
The etymology suggests that these words are related, and may actually be interchangeable in some romance languages.
***
Obviously, faint is also a verb as in: I will hyperventilate then faint when Hillary is elected.
The Race Card on October 9, 2007 at 6:11 PM
But of course. He’s the only man who can save America.™
Slublog on October 9, 2007 at 6:11 PM
I don’t like dudes, let’s be clear. But I really feel that Mitt Romney is just far too sexy for President.
unamused on October 9, 2007 at 6:11 PM
Drew on October 9, 2007 at 5:57 PM
Protectionism? National security both economic and military is not protectionism. It makes no sense to send our money to people that want to kill us. Free trade was started after WW2 to fight the Soviet threat and to reward those that stood with us.
It is in the NATIONAL interest to have a strong thriving ethanol industry that can in a pinch help fuel our military or economy and help with the gaoline shocks that will come.
There is nothing wrong with selective protectionism to defend and promote certain industry for the benifit of our nation. All of our trade partners do it. We are being blind to the national security issues that our “total” free trade mindset is causing.
unseen on October 9, 2007 at 6:11 PM
Ron Paul didn’t seem to jovial?
abinitioadinfinitum on October 9, 2007 at 6:12 PM
With a seance.
LegendHasIt on October 9, 2007 at 6:12 PM
Oft quoted. What does your math say on taller candidates during primaries?
Spirit of 1776 on October 9, 2007 at 6:12 PM
Who doesn’t like national parks?
He said before the debate that he was going to try and avoid going after the other candidates, and that he viewed this as something of an introductory type of thing with more detailed policy to come soon.
Don’t underestimate likeability and charisma when it comes to elections- a lot of voters simply go for whom they like better without much regard to policy specifics. Most aren’t the political junkies that you find around here.
Hollowpoint on October 9, 2007 at 6:12 PM
I believe he meant feint. It’s a defensive combat move used to disarm or distract an opponent.
unamused on October 9, 2007 at 6:13 PM
Ya’ll should see my floor. I got up from the computer to catch the last bit of the debate, grabbed my coffee, clipped the edge of the wall, and dumped the dark nectar all over my floor.
Weight of Glory on October 9, 2007 at 6:13 PM
Actually, it’s “feint.” :-)
Slublog on October 9, 2007 at 6:13 PM
NOTE to HOT AIR staff. This blog makes the debate so much more interesting. Thx MM BRYAN and AH
mustang1 on October 9, 2007 at 6:13 PM
Ron Paul was in the debate?
unamused on October 9, 2007 at 6:14 PM
Kennedy won because Nixon needed a shave.
- The Cat
P.S. Actually Nixon won the polular vote.
MirCat on October 9, 2007 at 6:14 PM
Fred “what’s a dollar” Thompson, AGAIN had very little specifics and is in love with fooling people with vague platitudes. That fools the groupies, but it wont cut any muster/mustard with knowledgeable folks like me. There was nothing there that should give anyone any more confidence in him. Especially since he does the same thing on the trail. Vague platitudes.
Blehhh!
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 6:15 PM
I’ll second that.
Weight of Glory on October 9, 2007 at 6:16 PM
It is funny how easily I can imagine Ron Paul saying during a debate: “I like turtles!”.
Weebork on October 9, 2007 at 6:16 PM
If you knew csdeven the play on words would be a little more obvious. Faint, as in his comment was designed to make someone faint…
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 6:16 PM
We heard you one-trick pony. Now go back to daddy’s bus, Tagg.
omnipotent on October 9, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Actually it was a tongue-in-cheek play on words. Consider csdeven vitriolic hatred for all things Fred and you’ll get it.
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 6:19 PM
648 comments on this thread. Is that a record?
Weight of Glory on October 9, 2007 at 6:20 PM
How many point will Rudy take out of Fred’s hide after this?
tommylotto on October 9, 2007 at 6:22 PM
No, I remember a religion post going over a 1000.
Laura on October 9, 2007 at 6:22 PM
You have me there. ;-)
Either way, I think people (for some strange odd reason) prefer their leaders to be tall for some strange reason (it gives them a commanding presence perhaps?).
Exit Question: Who won the debate? Rudy, Mitt!, Fred! or Ron Paul?
Darnell Clayton on October 9, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Nah, this joint’s busted 1k before.
Spirit of 1776 on October 9, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Meaning Hillary is toast, eh what?
Always Right on October 9, 2007 at 6:23 PM
As somewhat of a political noob, how much longer do we have to put up with Paul? He’s really stinking up the place.
synycalwon on October 9, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Except unseen, it’s not ’strong’ or ‘thriving’. It exists and has existed only because it’s been subsidized by the government for over 30 years.
People can go on and on all they want about the problems of oil but nothing will change as long as it is the most economically viable form of fuel. And ethanol is only ‘viable’ if you maintain the subsidies and government mandates.
Our security economic or otherwise is not enhanced by ignoring economic realities.
Drew on October 9, 2007 at 6:24 PM
None, but from the looks of the online poll as to who won the debate Fred is going to take about 15 out of Rudy’s…
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Until the primaries are over.
Laura on October 9, 2007 at 6:26 PM
CNBC’s online poll has it as a statistical tie between Fred and Mitt, which means Fred won hands down…
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 6:26 PM
Y’all watching the follow up stuff? Huckabee’s being quizzed about how he’ll “deal with unequal income.” Good stuff.
Laura on October 9, 2007 at 6:27 PM
We should be so lucky. He’ll still run 3rd party or independent after he loses the nomination. Worst case scenario: He runs, and the networks allow him to debate with the Republican and Democratic nominees. Don’t think it’ll happen, but… ((shudder))
Hollowpoint on October 9, 2007 at 6:29 PM
There is no evidence of god!!!
Oh wait, I saw 600 Comments and assumed this was a religion thread.
Speaking of godlike, how about the way that Rudy smacked down Romney.
I like the line item veto too, but I like the constitution more.
Poor Mitt probably thought he was gonna win that exchange. :()
JayHaw Phrenzie on October 9, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Now, now, leave doriangray alone. He’s my 8itch and he gets confused sometimes.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Yeah, I think it really comes into play in the general when you have two stand side by side.
Rudy won pretty easy. Hunter played strong. Fred did well enough. Mitt did pretty good too, but he got hit a few times re: taxes and the attorneys thing. Tancredo spirited, but not impactful, and for once Huck didn’t have the soundbite of the night.
Spirit of 1776 on October 9, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Drew on October 9, 2007 at 6:24 PM
drew check your figures again. Ethanol is the reason your gasoline has stayed the same price over the last month while oil has skyrocketed to all-time highs. I personlly think biodesiel will be the fuel of the future. also the ethnal indutry has never in the last 30 years have had the infrstructure to compete with oil from transportation, refineries, cars that run on it, or gas stations. that is changing and a critical mass is forming with ethanol.
the oil infrastructure was governmentally created by use of tax policy. If you take all the tax breaks the oil industry has gotton over the years than ethanol becomes cost effective on a gallon/gallon basis in its present form
unseen on October 9, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Solid point, Hollowpoint. :-) But even if he runs 3rd party, you think it’ll matter?
Laura on October 9, 2007 at 6:33 PM
No actually according to the on line poll over at CNBC Rudy got mopped. The statistical tie between Mitt and Fred seems to be tipping Fred’s way.
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 6:33 PM
On-line polls mean nothing. You know it, I know it, the America people know it.
Spirit of 1776 on October 9, 2007 at 6:35 PM
The Ron Paul Nut jobs have gotten a hold on the CNBC poll.
Freaking trolls
americaslaststand on October 9, 2007 at 6:35 PM
And i might add that illustrious poll was 72% Ron Paul pre-debate so make of it’s authority what you will, ie spin anyway it suits you.
Spirit of 1776 on October 9, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Unfortunately ethanol has far less energy content per gallon than gasoline, and takes a lot of petroleum to produce. Ethanol exists as an option only to please the farm lobby and agricultural state politicians. It’s simply too energy inefficient to produce for it to be a viable replacement for foreign oil.
Hollowpoint on October 9, 2007 at 6:37 PM
They always do that, just ignore the Ron Paul results…
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 6:38 PM
Actually, I’m getting tired of Rudy and the 9/11 shtick.
I’m tired of Mitt’s one dimensional polish. It was awesome in the beginning and isn’t really a detriment, but I want some passion out of the guy.
The best candidate can’t get any traction. Hunter seems to have the entire package except the money and respect. Heck, that ignorant loon Paul gets more press than Hunter does.
Last and least…..Again, nothing from Fred that would lead me to change my mind about his activities as a lobbyist and adviser to terrorists. He is good at faking an image. He always has been, but we need substance and reconciliation. Fred will never be able to reconcile his lobbying, CFR, and his connection to terrorism.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 6:39 PM
If anyone would have thought of something like ethanol back way back in the olden days, Sun Tzu would have written, “It’s never a good idea to burn your food. You’re enemy’s food yes, but not your own.”
- The Cat
MirCat on October 9, 2007 at 6:40 PM
I no longer trust any ONLINE polls… and especially an online poll on CNBC after a debate.
Always Right on October 9, 2007 at 6:40 PM
Only to the extent that he’ll be around that much longer to annoy us. I don’t believe he’d have much impact on the general election, though pot dealers near college campuses will have a slow night that day because all lot of their customers will all be at the polls instead of smoking.
Hollowpoint on October 9, 2007 at 6:40 PM
I think it was a misspelling. I think CS meant feint, not faint.
jaime on October 9, 2007 at 6:40 PM
The party needs to can Paul from any future debates. It is PC nonsense to keep him in. Kick him to the curb and let him start his third party run.
Limerick on October 9, 2007 at 6:40 PM
He could go a long way in my book by reversing course. But no, instead we’ll run up to the Supremes to defend the some of the objectional parts.
Spirit of 1776 on October 9, 2007 at 6:41 PM
unseen,
Then why do they still need subsidies? Even assuming you are right that Ethanol is what has kept gas prices down (and I don’t), you still have to factor in the tax money and subsidies allowing that. Whether we pay for the increase directly to the oil companies or to farmers through taxes, the price is the price, it’s just how we are paying it.
Look we can go back and forth on this all night and not change each other’s minds. Personally, I am not a fan of Ag subsidies, never have been, never will be.
Drew on October 9, 2007 at 6:42 PM
You know CS….you can hold on to the lobbyist/CFR club all you want…but the terrorism angle is making any argument you have against Fred sound like truther crud.
Limerick on October 9, 2007 at 6:43 PM
they just completly hijacked that poll!!! LOL
gberez on October 9, 2007 at 6:43 PM
CS didn’t say anything.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 6:44 PM
Trade him for Gravel and we get rid of the Paul bots
abinitioadinfinitum on October 9, 2007 at 6:44 PM
How close was my guess?
Hollowpoint on October 9, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Dang… what a great thread! I missed the debate, but loved the comments.
That is, until csdeven started puking up the place. Dude, you are whacked out. I highly suggest counseling or therapy.
Time to check the highlights, but I wanna watch this whole thing later.
wccawa on October 9, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Within the margin of error. lol.
Ronpaul is getting 76% on CNBC.
wccawa on October 9, 2007 at 6:48 PM
Fred did in fact give legal advice to the attorney who defended the terrorists who blew up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie. Helping terrorists is helping terrorism.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 6:49 PM
Cry me a river sissy.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 6:50 PM
That is soooo lame. Is it your opinion then that every attorney who defends a criminal client is helping crime?
Get a grip, deven. That’s lousy logic — or as my philosophy professor used to say, “stinkin’ thinkin.’”
Tennman on October 9, 2007 at 6:53 PM
A one hour billing on his record (which in lawyer talk is a 4 minute phone call). Not to the terrorists. Not to discuss their defense. To answer a question by the lawyer on a paperwork matter.
If you can prove otherwise CS do so. Tell us all the conversation and what was discussed. Give us Fred’s instructions to the ‘terrorists’ and give us the details of his ’support’ for terrorism.
Limerick on October 9, 2007 at 6:54 PM
I don’t see any way Fred can redeem himself. If he gets the nomination, who do you think can be tougher on Fred? Me or the Clinton’s?
If I can spin legal advice to terrorists into supporting terrorism, how much will the Clinton’s come at Fred with? The problem is that Fred can not change his past. He did all those things and even though we have a small misguided group here that rationalize his weaknesses into strengths, the regular American voter will react with utter disgust at Fred’s lobbying activities and terrorist connection. The Clinton smear machine will destroy him in the general. Hell, we’d get better results nominating Paul because he hates everyone and regular voters are about as fed up with both parties as he is.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 6:56 PM
Wow. I haven’t been called sissy in…. eleventy hundred years?
I feel so hurt now.
wccawa on October 9, 2007 at 6:58 PM
Like I have said, that rational works for you, but American people who look at a hole in the ground at ground zero are not going to accept one single minute of any connection to terrorists. And Fred is in a no win situation. The billing can be proven and if Fred defends his involvement with the lawyer talk you just gave me, people will distrust him immediately because of the lawyer talk AND because he is admitting involvement. If he tries to deny involvement, the Clinton’s will produce the paperwork. And you know as well as I that the accusation is enough. And it isn’t like Fred can point to Hillary with his standard “I know you are but what am I” response.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 7:01 PM
Seems to me that we have a very good group of people here at HA who can talk rationally to one another and disagree without rancor. Then we have a small contingent who want to name-call and make bizarre Ron Paul-like accusations against others.
I’m not naming names. But if the shoe fits…
Tennman on October 9, 2007 at 7:02 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 Next »