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 ... 6 7 8 9 Next »
Let’s be honest here. If it turned out that Hillary!, Obama, or any other Democrat had done what Fred did, we’d be killing them.
Drew on October 9, 2007 at 7:04 PM
Get back to the real world. The real world where regular folks who find out that Fred had ANY connection to terrorists, will recoil with disgust. I’ve seen it and you are projecting your rationalization onto others. You should know better than to think people like lawyers or lobbyists.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 7:04 PM
You tell me what it was that Fred did first. Minute by minute.
Tennman on October 9, 2007 at 7:05 PM
Some people here react like liberals when confronted with a differing opinion.
infidel on October 9, 2007 at 7:05 PM
THANK YOU!
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 7:05 PM
Oh there is no way he will. He already set his course and speaks now with the air of bemused condescension. I’m just saying if he came out of the gate and said that a couple weeks after that interview with Cavuto and didn’t traipse up to the SC to defend CFR, well it’d be a whole different story. Of course, that would mean he would be a whole different man.
Easy answer. You will begrudgingly support Fred as an anti-Hillary should he be the nominee. Plus Fred can take what you are dishing out, though what you did here on HA has had an impact, there is a lot less of the grandiose comparisons that were so prevalent earlier. (Though I do laugh at some of the spin – the he talks slow because he is talk was especially amusing – I’ll have to tell some of the giants I know to sloooooow down as they are not pc:)) But yeah, Clintons will get him in a much more brutal way. The question is, can he fight back?
Spirit of 1776 on October 9, 2007 at 7:06 PM
Again, you wouldn’t demand that Hillary prove what she did minute by minute. You be nailing her mercilessly.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 7:07 PM
I looked at the cnbc poll and saw the obvious and it is probably pretty much the same in other polls.
The percentages for:
Which candidate won the debate?
and for
If the GOP primary was to be held today, which candidate would you vote for?
were just about the same.
For example Rudy got 3.5 in the first question and 3.6 in the second question.
Pretty much inescapable conclusion: Whomever someone is for, they think that person won the debate.
MB4 on October 9, 2007 at 7:07 PM
talk=tall, apologies
Spirit of 1776 on October 9, 2007 at 7:09 PM
Lawyers are some of my favorite people. Lobbyists are a necessary component of the way we do legislation. All Fred has to do is confront the bilge head-on, like he did with Jim Cooper back in ‘94 when Cooper made the same type of accusations. Cooper was ahead in the polls by 20 points. Fred called Cooper a liar for that characterization and the people believed him. It wasn’t an explanation, it was the truth.
Fred won that election by 20 points.
And he’ll do the same to the Dem candidate when he wins the nomination.
Tennman on October 9, 2007 at 7:10 PM
Don’t play debaters games. You know the issues is the help he gave a lawyer in his firm who was supplying advice to the Libyan lawyer representing the Libyan Intel agents accused of bringing down Pan Am 103.
Drew on October 9, 2007 at 7:10 PM
I don’t see how he can admit what he has done and present himself as the better choice than Hillary. He advised the attorney of terrorists. Game over. The American people WILL NOT buy the attorney representation angle that the groupies use rationalize that indefensible behavior from Fred.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 7:11 PM
I taped this and it’s still going on (Kerist, is there a contest going on for the longest debate?) but here are my impressions –
There are too many people on the stage. How can we compete with Hillary/Edwards/Obama like this?
Both Mitt and McCain were having trouble hearing.
Mitt should not have dipped his toe in the global warming swamp.
Mitt should have said that ethanol is using up our food supply and is not the solution.
Ron Paul probably got more face time than anyone. What gives here? Get this crackpot off the stage. I’m beginning to think Soros is sending him money to take soundbite time away from the legit candidates.
McCain did pretty well, but I still can’t support him.
Rudy wasn’t as sharp as usual, except for the line item veto thing which I can’t comment on because I don’t know the answer.
Fred was okay but not dy-no-mite.
The rest is a blur, although compared to the Dems they all sound like geniuses.
Buy Danish on October 9, 2007 at 7:11 PM
You have absolutely no idea what I’d do. Don’t try projecting my mindset with yours. We don’t think the same way.
Tennman on October 9, 2007 at 7:12 PM
You keep telling yourself that.
Do you even understand the smear the Clinton’s are capable of? Cooper is not the Clinton’s.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 7:13 PM
Yeah, but he doesn’t need to answer to that in the general if he gets there. He just needs to degrade the credibility of the charge and he might just might be able to do that by saying ‘oh that’s just the Clinton smear machine, I’m not going to even answer those charges’. Tough road, but might be possible.
Spirit of 1776 on October 9, 2007 at 7:14 PM
Was trying to do you a favor csd….but guess it is wasted on you.
No…I do not believe the American people will think any more about your ‘connection’ then I do. If you are going to center your arguments against Fred on that then you’ll be the loser. I’ll talk about anything else in world with you but as far as I’m concerned this subject of Fred and terrorism is over.
Limerick on October 9, 2007 at 7:15 PM
It’s not a debater’s game. As was said previously by someone else, it was short call on paperwork. It wasn’t representing the terrorist, wasn’t as a team member of a terrorist organization, wasn’t as part of the legal team. He was giving information to a lawyer about procedures that he charged for.
Any other explanation that you try to infer about a terrorist connection is total obfuscation of a perfectly acute event.
Tennman on October 9, 2007 at 7:15 PM
Whewww. That is a tough row to hoe. The minute the Clinton’s produce the billing records what does Fred do?
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Hillary isn’t Bill. Don’t forget that.
Tennman on October 9, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Call Karl Rove.
Spirit of 1776 on October 9, 2007 at 7:17 PM
Spirit,
OK, I’m off to make dinner. Thanks for the reasoned thoughts. I’ll check back later.
I’m not gonna bother with the Fred groupies anymore. They have their heads so far up their a$$es, they need to install a porthole in their bellybutton just so the can see where they are going.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Tennman,
How about instead of trying to debate the merits (others maybe interested in this, I am not), stick to the comment I actually made. I stand by the statement that if any of the Democratic candidates had done what Fred did, we’d be killing them. Fairly or not, conservatives wold bury any Democrat that came with 100 feet of working on this case.
Do you deny that?
BTW…He billed 3.3 hours for advice on jurisdictional issues.
Drew on October 9, 2007 at 7:23 PM
Worst moments – Fred’s feeble joke, Mitt going down the global warming rabbit hole, and Rudy speculating about the need for an FCC for the internet.
Rudy lost MAJOR points for me for that. Between that, guns, illegal immigration, abortion… if the Dems hadn’t moved so far left, he’d be a democrat.
Laura on October 9, 2007 at 7:26 PM
Give credit where credit is due: The Paulites are even more adept at skewing (and screwing up) polls than the Dems are.
It is like they have no other lives than to try to make fantasy seem like reality…… I’ll bet their Dungeons and Dragons games really suffer for it.
——————————————————–
Had to be in and out during the last half hour of the debate, so I may have missed some important parts (fortunately I DVRed it all for later viewing), but from what I saw, everyone but Paul seemed to do pretty well overall, with answers that prove they actually know how economics and related matters actually work.
Some gaffs, some foolishness, but overall, they did pretty well, with no clear winner IMO.
Paul was as nutty as ever, the clear loser to anyone that has the slightest grasp of world affairs in the Prime Material Plane.
McCain had his usual ratio of half really good stuff and half near-lunacy. Next to last place. But I do have a little more respect for him politically than I did 6 months ago. (I will NEVER vote for him though.)
Brownback was mediocre at best. He should drop out NOW.
Tancredo has done much better before; His reputation as a one-trick-pony was reinforced tonight.
Huckabee; a few good points, but he is really just taking up space. Should drop out now.
Hunter has done better in earlier debates, but did well overall. I still want him to stay in the game and get the VP slot for whoever gets the nomintion.
Guliani: I’m even less inspired by him than before, he did OK, but other than a couple of times, his performance was not as good as I expected.
Fred: He did about what I expected, but not as well as I had hoped. Except to the Fred h8trs, I think he proved that he will be a force to be reckoned with. I’ll probably send him a check this week, but it won’t be as big as it could have been.
Mitt: Did fairly well, but not as well as he had done previously. I’m just not inspired by him.
To echo what someone said up-thread: The Republican party won tonight’s debate, no one individual.
I suppose that by not being as bad as many people expected, Fred won if you have to have one person to award the debate to. I think that he earned not having the Fred? appellation amongst rational people, but he hasn’t yet earned the Fred! that we were giving him a few months ago.
———————————————
I have uploaded the entire debate to Veoh if you missed the original airing and miss the replay too, or if you just want to refer to it later. It is still ‘processing’ now, but will be available at:
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v1289920JRGkTFhR
in a while.
LegendHasIt on October 9, 2007 at 7:28 PM
I always enjoy the conversation. Later.
Spirit of 1776 on October 9, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Thompsons “legal advise” couldn’t have been too substantive, considering Libya was found liable for hundreds of millions of dollars.
captivated_dem on October 9, 2007 at 7:29 PM
Excellent. I forgot about that word…the boxing term. I was thinking of this word.
The Race Card on October 9, 2007 at 7:29 PM
It was a push, a draw. Fred did fine for his first one and will do better the next. They all did okay. I’m suprised Chrissy didn’t embarass himself to much. Looking forward to the next one. Fred’s people will make sure he wins the next with improvement of delivery – polish and conviction, you might say.
countywolf on October 9, 2007 at 7:37 PM
Where do you think Paul is getting his $ from?
Spirit of 1776 on October 9, 2007 at 7:40 PM
Promises, promises.
Attacking people that merely say something nice about Fred, much less being Fred groupies, is as the breath of life to you. A crack-head would have have an easier time stopping the crack.
LegendHasIt on October 9, 2007 at 7:43 PM
Pretty good summary. Was hoping Fred was going to prove to be a Newt-type philosopher in a likeable package. So far, likeable enough, but light on the philosophy. Not as good as some others in the debate tonight, and so far, not the great conservative hope.
JiangxiDad on October 9, 2007 at 7:44 PM
It was 3.3 hours and clearly that is much more than a phone call, and it was part of a much larger effort by his law firm that billed over $800,000 on this matter. He was consulted and gave advice on jurisdictional matters to the Lybian terrorist lawyer that was fighting extradition. We do not know exactly what he said (that is sheilded by the attorney client privilege), but we now he was giving the terrorists advice on jurisdictional matters to help them avoid extradition to Scotland. He helped the Lybian lawyer make sure that if the terrorists were ever tried, it would be in a Lybian (terrorist friendly) court. Fred’s services enabled these murderous terrorists avoid justice for 11 years. Eventually the US and Britain got the UN to impose sanctions. After much hardship on the Lybian people, Momar finally agreed to allow a Scotish trial, and one of Fred’s clients was convicted of more than 100 murders. GOOD JOB FRED!!! LET’S ELECT YOU POTUS.
ANYONE WHO WILL CONSIDER THIS TERRORIST ENABLER FOR PRESIDENT GETS NO RESPECT FROM ME
tommylotto on October 9, 2007 at 8:05 PM
This is a lie. You will attack anyone who even remotely considers FDT a viable candidate. Most likely before midnight tonight, if not sooner.
Sadly, you can’t help yourself.
It’s just like when you lied and promised you’d shut up once Fred officially announced he was really in the race.
Your word means exactly dick.
When are you going to realize you are not making yourself look good here at all?
techno_barbarian on October 9, 2007 at 8:22 PM
John McCain came across strongest to me. He is back in the race, as he should be when you consider that the President is the Commander in Chief. Fred Thompson did fine, although I think McCain has a much stronger resume. Rudi did O.K., but was less effective than McCain and Thompson. Mitt Romney is competent, but for some reason, he leaves me a bit cold.
Phil Byler on October 9, 2007 at 8:28 PM
Do you really think that Billary would win a war of dredged up scandals? Just think of ANY scandals involving Billary in the last year, and then try and think of one on Fred in the last 10. Now…. go!
Winner? All those who googled “hillary, fundraiser, court”
;)
Califemme on October 9, 2007 at 8:33 PM
While I hate lawyers in general as much or more than the next guy, but the lack of understanding of the profession is astounding.
My father was a lawyer; In our very rural area, all the lawyers in the three neighboring counties were required to rotate as pro-bono public defenders. So, my father defended a few murderers, a few burglars, a few con men, a few wife beaters before he was elected to a judgeship. He also had a junior partner that was (and still is) a big time criminal trial lawyer, and my father had to help him out on a few high profile, really nasty cases because of the standard partnership agreements that most law partners nation wide enter into.
Doesn’t mean that my father approved of the actions of the people, or wouldn’t stop them in the act if he could. If you are an attorney, even an honest, decent one, it is a fact of life that you have to occasionally handle work for people that you despise.
At least Fred got paid for his… all the scumbags my father had to defend, he had to do it for free. ;-)
LegendHasIt on October 9, 2007 at 8:33 PM
George Soros? Someone on the Left is feeding this monster and every time he talks it’s less time for the legitimate candidates to get their points across.
That helps the Dems.
Buy Danish on October 9, 2007 at 8:39 PM
This all makes me think of a girl who wants to go to the prom but is in a dilemma.
She wants Tom or Duncan to ask her, but it looks like they will not even be going to the prom. In that case, she would not mind going with Mitt, but he may not be able to go either. She knows that there is no way in HELL that she would even give the slightest consideration to going with Rudy or John, so she has to keep Fred on the string.
MB4 on October 9, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Military support for the republican candidates
MB4 on October 9, 2007 at 8:46 PM
I think it very likely that liberals are supporting him.
Spirit of 1776 on October 9, 2007 at 8:48 PM
No offense meant personally, but I have to say I take that with a shaker of salt. It is in the interest of the Paul campaign and the Paulites to present themselves as funded by the military. Since it is unverified, it is means as little as a online poll.
On a side note, while I enjoyed our conversation the other day regarding Iraq, I do believe it dishonest not to label AQ in Iraq as AQ when AQ dispenses videos that claim it is the central front. I understand you may disagree for whatever reason, but I just want to add I think that is a false and artificial distinction.
Spirit of 1776 on October 9, 2007 at 8:52 PM
None take.
if anyone has other sites that report such info, I would be interested in seeing them too.
MB4 on October 9, 2007 at 9:05 PM
He honestly doesnt care..
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 9:06 PM
While they have many things in common, like being VERY nasty, AlQ in Irag and AlQ itself are two separate organizations. Sometimes they get along, sometimes they don’t. Kind of like various Shiite factions.
MB4 on October 9, 2007 at 9:10 PM
They will be quick to call them themselves the same on anything that resembles victory. But, we can argue it on the next Iraq thread that we meet up on. I just didn’t want to leave that unsaid since I never got back last time we talked.
Spirit of 1776 on October 9, 2007 at 9:18 PM
I know. And I should use Entel’s example and just stop responding to him at all. Or Lim’s and just scroll over his Fred posts.
techno_barbarian on October 9, 2007 at 9:18 PM
I don’t know, tommylotto. If he could do ALL THAT in 3.3 hours, he must be the best lawyer to ever make a phone call. Oh, my goodness!
Lawyers are my favorite people, but if you persist in that argument, you’re a fraud. No offense.
Tennman on October 9, 2007 at 9:23 PM
Apropos of somebody mentioning the Dan Bartlett op-ed today: A guy who couldnt or wouldnt forcefully communicate our national interest if you put a gun to his head should be listened to about the presidential horserace, WHY exactly???????
Mike D. on October 9, 2007 at 9:28 PM
I can’t speak for “conservatives.” I am one, but I speak only for myself.
Yes, I deny that. I know the legal profession, have worked closely with it for 30 years. You do not, you cannot impute the motives of the client to the lawyer. Everyone gets a fair shot at the apple. Especially the guilty and especially those with whom we disagree.
So not only do I deny that, I emphatically deny that. If it had been a pattern of a 20-year retainer and sleazy dealing, that’s one thing. But at most a 3.3 hour consult? And imputing the motives of that client to the lawyer? It’s absurd.
Tennman on October 9, 2007 at 9:30 PM
For those of you who say that you can’t vote for McCain, I ask you to reconsider that position. McCain is the strongest candidate with respect to having knowledge of the military and national security issues; being Commander in Chief does matter — at least it does to me who has sons in the military. He is pro-life and has pledged to nominate traditionalist strict constructionists to the federal bench. He is a fiscal conservative. His books on character and courage reflect his outstanding history of service to the nation. Finally, think about how important it is to defeat the socialist, anti-military Hillary Clinton. McCain can. I am not sure that any of the others can.
Phil Byler on October 9, 2007 at 9:40 PM
‘CS’ must be related to or is a very good friend of AP. Why else would he be allowed to call people names and use profanity. This used to be a very respected site. I know people have left or stopped responding for fear of being called ‘moron’ or ’scumbag’ by CS. It only defines him as the moron or scumbag. Somebody said he was a shill for Mitt or Rudy. I think he’s shilling for KOS or Huffpo to bring this site down in the gutter where they are and he is. Respectable posters don’t call others names or curse them for disagreeing. This isn’t a street fight or gang war. It’s supposed to be civil discourse. I left for a while and returned to find CS still here acting the fool. The other non-Fred aricles here are a pleasure to peruse and participate in because they CS free. I guess I could come up with choice names for his initials, but won’t, just stay away from the Fred articles. Wouldn’t that be something if Fred wins the nomination and becomes President to boot.
countywolf on October 9, 2007 at 9:41 PM
You’re correct. My my mistake. Sorry.
jaime on October 9, 2007 at 9:44 PM
Sory Phil. McCain squandered any support I may have had for him years ago. He is who he is because he is willing to trash Republicans for media airtime. John McCain is the definition of a RINO. Look at how he behaved BEFORE he was campaigning for prez. And he is toast now for the way he has dissed conservatives when it mattered.
edgehead on October 9, 2007 at 9:48 PM
Tennman,
Are you always this obtuse or is something new for you? I never imputed the motives of the client onto Thompson. I simply said conservatives would kill a Democrat who had anything to do with this case. Especially one running for President.
In fact one Democrat apparently resigned her partnership because her firm agreed to work for Libya in this matter and she wasn’t even asked to do any work on the case. That Democrat? Ted Kennedy’s wife.
It’s kind of sad when I have to say that in at least this one case I have more respect for Ted Kennedy’s wife than I do for a Republican running for the party’s presidential nomination.
Drew on October 9, 2007 at 9:51 PM
Bwahahahaha!!! I wait and watch for the day I can point out that you just stuck your foot in your mouth.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 10:08 PM
No, I’m pretty much always this obtuse.
Again, to reiterate, I can’t say what all conservatives would do. I know I wouldn’t.
One further thing. You said her partnership, her firm.
I believe that all the work Fred did in lobbying was as of counsel of a heavily left-leaning Democratic firm. ’twasn’t a partnership; ’twasn’t his firm.
Your Obtuseness,
Tennman on October 9, 2007 at 10:14 PM
It wouldn’t be a life-shattering event for me, my Idaho friend. I’ve stuck my neck out in the past as to who I think will win and how big.
Time will tell whether I’m Mr. Right or Mr. Potatohead.
Tennman on October 9, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Hooray for you! You wouldn’t make a stink about Obama doing work on a terrorist related case. You and Ron Paul are the last two true conservatives. Trust me on this, it would be big news on the right and properly so.
So because he wasn’t a partner it’s okay that he failed to take a stand on principle? That’s quite an interesting argument. Not particularly convincing but interesting nonetheless.
Oh, one thing about your earlier post, you wrote:
Does that include the detainees at Gitmo? I don’t think they do but your argument holds a lot more water when applied to them. At least they are being held by US authorities. The Libyans weren’t in US custody or under US jurisdiction, were they? Yet you seem to think they get ‘a fair shot at the apple’.
Why exactly do foreigners being held in another country get the benefit of US protections and representation? And how is a US lawyer duty bound to assist in their defense?
Drew on October 9, 2007 at 10:22 PM
Reference your ‘facts’. Please provide sources. This ought to be rich.
Limerick on October 9, 2007 at 10:23 PM
Good trick tommy. We don’t know but we do know.
Limerick on October 9, 2007 at 10:26 PM
OK, I watched the debate from the beginning. The exchange between Rudy and Mitt was a good one. But I don’t see it as a win for Rudy except for the fact that Mitt wasn’t allowed to respond to Rudy’s last remark. If you listen he tries to but isn’t allowed to have the mic uninterrupted to explain his point.
Rudy’s last point was that he felt the line item veto was unconstitutional and had to do what was best for NYC.
Mitt’s response was “yes, but that is the problem in Washington”. I surmise that Mitt meant that Rudy was only interested in how the LIV affected NYC, but that the president has to do what is best for the country.
Had Mitt been allowed to finish his remark and then had the discussion stopped, Rudy would be scrambling to rebut.
All in all it was a good, no a great exchange!! We need more of those because neither candidate looked bad, but it had the potential of making them both look great but one better than the other. This is what we need.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 10:27 PM
You’re wasting your time. It’s clear that there are certain people who refuse to make judgments about Fred in the same way they have already made them on other candidates.
The facts are Hillary (remember, the one who is Teflon coated and has the MSM covering her butt), will expose Fred’s work for a lawyer whose clients were terrorists. Fred can only say “Yes, but”. That is where it ends. The “but” don’t matter because we all know he could have declined to work for the terrorists lawyer. The MSM will crucify him. The American public hates attorney’s and lobbyists and Fred is not only both, but he consistently helped the scummiest scumbags this earth produces.
Tommylotto nailed it in one of his posts. The “but” only matters to the groupies because they refuse to see the truth for what it is. It is absolutely disgusting that they are defending Fred for aiding terrorists.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 10:38 PM
Ouch. Want to raise the punch above the beltline?
Hey. I wasn’t there on that phone call. I don’t know what advice was given, other than one lawyer charging another lawyer for document help on a jurisdictional matter. Don’t interpolate that into anything else. Consulting is not representing. Not in any lexicon I know of.
BTW, who’s wildly extrapolating 3.3 hours into helping terrorists? Not me, Bucko.
The “fair shot at the apple” comment was for those who live here and are in the jurisdiction of the U.S. Had the Libyans been extradited to the U.S. and tried as criminals — because that’s how we handled terrorists at that time — getting help from the local jurisdiction on rules of the court, et cetera, is a common practice.
Go forward in time. We are at war with an organization that doesn’t fit the Geneva Convention Rules of War. Gitmo doesn’t apply in that example. They are soldiers of a foreign power that has no recognizable boundaries. That’s why they’re called “illegal combatants” and not POWs.
So to be more pointed, you can’t mix the apples and oranges like you’re doing to come out with bananas. One does not follow the other. In other words, your argument is not relevant — at least to me.
But maybe I’m just being dense.
Tennman on October 9, 2007 at 10:39 PM
I’ve yet to see any ‘facts’, any sources. Lots of jaw flapping, no gonads.
Limerick on October 9, 2007 at 10:41 PM
Let me help you guys out…..here is your ’source’
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/politics/09thompson.html
Now please cut/paste/and highlight where Mr.Thompson provided legal advice related to defending the terrorists.
Limerick on October 9, 2007 at 10:50 PM
Hey take what you can get, as in that was him raising above the belt line, he usually just prefers to lie, then when called on it use personal insults.
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 10:50 PM
Oh wait….Tommy,…..maybe this is your PROOF from the NY Times piece:
Limerick on October 9, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Tennman,
I take it back. You aren’t obtuse, you’re just in the bag for your candidate. I guess there’s nothing wrong with that but you really are going to need a better line of defense for a serious charge. The whole “Everyone gets a fair shot at the apple. Especially the guilty and especially those with whom we disagree.” is weak since they weren’t in US custody or subject to US charges.
As for,
Feel free to point to where I made that case, other than in your imagination. If you had followed the link I gave, you would have seen that 3.3 hours and the information that it was about jurisdictional matters came from the Chairman of the firm Thompson worked for. I didn’t make it up. Nor did I ever claim he was ‘helping terrorists’, so you can give that straw man a rest.
The bottom line and all I’ve ever claimed, is that this is a legitimate issue. The right would make a stink about it if it were a Democrat and rightly so. 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
Except for the comment about Mitt, I agree.
2Brave2Bscared on October 9, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Care to point out where I have ever done that? I am pretty sure this is the first blog fight I’ve gotten into here but don’t let that little bit of reality get in the way of a good story.
Drew on October 9, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Helloieeeeeee, the post in question is a perfect example……
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Just a note, childish snark isn’t an acceptable substitute for an argument or proof.
Drew on October 9, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Your post is right there in black and white, nobody forced you to behave in that manner, you did so because it is in your nature to do so. Suck it up and live with it.
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 11:05 PM
doriangrey,
I’d happily debate you on the merits of your argument but since your first and only contribution to my disagreement with Tennman was an ad hominem attack, I didn’t have anything to work with.
If and when you offer something of substance to the discussion I will be happy to treat it with all the respect it is due. Until then, don’t expect more than insults when that’s all you offer.
Drew on October 9, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Thats as dishonest and disingenuous as your original statement. There is nothing to debate, pretending there is is pathetic. Your comment is right there for everyone to see. No one forced you to post that, you did it entirely of your own volition.
Would that be similar to the respect your comment is due? Or the attitude you have expressed since making that comment? Because if it it I’m not interested because your idea of respect as shown in these posts just plain sucks.
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 11:23 PM
So where is the proof guys? Come on! You got ol’dumb Limerick right here….ya got your boot on his throat…all you have to do is push down….
The ‘proof’ is the statement of a Libyan lawyer that he ‘remembers’, after 15 years, that Thompson’s name was ‘mentioned’? THAT is your proof? That is price of your honesty? Tells a lot about your ability to think things through.
No records. He-said-she-said-they-said memos ‘exsist’. Just wow. Earth shattering Dan Rather moments are hard to come by.
Please provide the records or shut the heck up.
Limerick on October 9, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Fred. The scumbag lobbyist that gave legal advice to benefit terrorists using his inside knowledge of the legal system in the US. I am sure the groupies will assert that had Fred asked the American people if they cared, they would have said “Yeah, no prob Old Fred!”.
Meanwhile…….
Fred will have to try to live down this disgusting behavior and try to fool as many people as possible that the terrorists deserved the benefit of his insider experience in order to deny justice for American citizens. Fred did this with the asbestos case also. He used his contacts in the congress to thwart the efforts of the victims of unscrupulous companies who didn’t want to be responsible for the damage they inflicted on United States citizens.
Fred is a scumbag. Period.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 11:29 PM
4 posts now doriangrey and not one of them contains anything about the topic at hand. And yet you claim I am the one who resorts to lies and personal attacks.
Drew on October 9, 2007 at 11:29 PM
Follow the link Limerick, as I pointed out it came from the chairman of Fred’s firm, not from a Libyan lawyer.
Drew on October 9, 2007 at 11:32 PM
Not statements csdeven….proof…the records…..the NY Times doesn’t present the records, it only presents the statements. No records….NONE……you provide the backup to the statements. Give us something other then he-said-she-said. Make your case. Provide something other then the NY Times report on unsubstantiated statements.
What is that? You can’t? Damn! Who woulda thunk it.
Limerick on October 9, 2007 at 11:36 PM
And 3 for you and all you have done is prove that my assessment of you was 100 percent accurate. You attacked someone here’s personal character with a lie, when confronted about it you lied and resorted to personal attacks. Nothing I have said about you has been shown to inaccurate or untruthful.
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 11:37 PM
Which was?
Drew on October 9, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Drew…..your LINK is MY LINK. Or can’t you read that the MSNBC (real impartial reporters there BTW) is a direct link back to the exact same NO BACKUP report by the NY Times.
Limerick on October 9, 2007 at 11:39 PM
I don’t think it was so much about the constitutionality of it. I wish Mitt had been able to finish that comment. He said “That’s what it was about”. Meaning Rudy couldn’t let Clinton take $250 million from NYC.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Get used to it. Now you see why people laugh at him when he complains about the language that others use.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 11:41 PM
You want me to define the meaning of “is” while I’m at it too???
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 11:42 PM
Look whose talking……Mister the end justifies the means…Thank you csclinton………
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 11:44 PM
Limerick,
Boy you Fredheads are loyal. I’ll give you that. I’d be more skeptical about it if it were some anonymous source but the guys the head of a major DC law firm and he’s on the record. Do you really think he’s making it up?
Has Fred denied it? While a lack of denial is not proof of course, one would think that if someone sad something so slanderous about Fred he would want to clear the record.
Just out of curiosity, do you not believe every attributed statement you see in the media or online unless you have the primary document in your hand? For example, here’s a story on Alcoa’s reported earnings. Do you believe it or are you skeptical about it until you read their SEC filings for yourself?
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
No just for once I’d like you to back up your personal attacks against me with um, what’s the word I am looking for? Proof. Yeah, that’s the one.
Drew on October 9, 2007 at 11:47 PM
Oh wait….the PRIMARY source in the NY Times article is this guy….Marc Fleischaker……a partner at the law firm…
I wonder what his political contributions are….hmmmmmmm
http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?zip=20815&last=Fleischaker&first=Marc
Limerick on October 9, 2007 at 11:50 PM
There is no “he said, she said”. The chairman confirmed it and the lawyer said he didn’t recall.
The lawyer did not say it never happened. Besides, Fred’s camp has already confirmed it and he makes no excuses for his lobbying. Even for scum. Of which there were many.
You are trying to convince me that Fred’s involvement was A-OK. Well, it is for you, but in my experience, every person has reacted with absolute disgust at Fred’s involvement with helping terrorists. It disgusts me because it is wrong and he has a long history of dealing with these scum. That makes him scum. It’s people like Fred that give lawyers and lobbyists the bad name they have and he will be held accountable by we thinking conservatives now, or by Hillary and her ilk in the general. Fred will lose in the general. Period.
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 11:51 PM
See here is another example of you making a choice to lie. You make the assertion that Fred was helping terrorists, all you have is a second hand report that Fred Charged 3.3 hours to consult on jurisdictional matters. You have no idea what advice Fred gave or how it may or may not have impacted the actions of the lawyer representing the terrorist. Thus to assert something you have zero knowledge of is a flat out lie.
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 11:52 PM
please see my above comment csdeven
Limerick on October 9, 2007 at 11:52 PM
Wow….included in the ‘list’ is William Jefferson Clinton…who woulda thunk it?
Limerick on October 9, 2007 at 11:53 PM
Oh, you ain’t seen nothing yet. It wont be too long before they attack the chairman as a commie or a democrat or something like that. It’s ALWAYS a conspiricy against Fred. Poor little Fred. The guy that chose to lobby for scum for most of his entire life.
JEEZE!!!!
csdeven on October 9, 2007 at 11:54 PM
If Fleischaker’s politics makes him unreliable and unscrupulous, why did Fred (rock-ribbed conservative) go to work for him?
Seems Fred must have thought he was a decent enough fellow or he wouldn’t want to be associated with him or his firm. Again, you are taking a harder position than Fred did and apparently does.
Drew on October 9, 2007 at 11:54 PM
It’s in your post, I do not have to and will not continue to repeat what is right there in front of everyone reading this blog. To do so would be a foolish attempt to define the word “is”. I’m not attacking you, your own post is attacking you, I’m just rubbing your nose in it.
doriangrey on October 9, 2007 at 11:55 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 6 7 8 9 Next »