Show of hands on the climate change question: Who was for it before they were against it?
posted at 12:03 am on December 13, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
People are wondering in the comments to the Krauthammer thread which candidates actually went ahead and raised their hands before Fred objected, whereupon they all collectively decided it was a bad idea. Here’s the answer, just for giggles. From left: Giuliani, Hunter, Paul, Tancredo, Thompson, Romney, Huckabee, McCain, Keyes.
Rudy, Huck, and Maverick are all loud and proud, but is that Mitt I see at half-hearted half-mast? And then clapping after Fred takes a stand? Kind of the whole Romney dynamic in a nutshell, huh? Maybe I’m wrong, it’s hard to tell. You be the judge.
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: [1] 2 »
He went half up, put his hand down, hand up a little again, then down, looked over at Fred, then looked back. He proceeded to look back at Fred, raising his hands to clap a few times.
That’s what I saw, at least.
amerpundit on December 13, 2007 at 12:09 AM
Looks like Romney’s hand goes up, down, up, down very quickly before he agrees with Fred and claps. Don’t know what that means. Maybe his answer to one part of the question was yes, and his answer to the other part was no.
I was amused by Rudy’s reaction, too, which is to kind of throw his hands out in a pseudo-shrug when he realizes Fred just made him look stupid for raising his hand like a trained monkey.
aero on December 13, 2007 at 12:10 AM
You are right. Mitt’s at half mast. Sums up lots of people’s support for him, too. Half mast.
Mine included; he seems like he is what you want him to be. Give him a dollar and he’ll sing any tune you want.
lorien1973 on December 13, 2007 at 12:12 AM
Actually, I took that to mean Rudy didn’t really mind the show of hands question.
I think Mitt just didn’t want to commit to the issue either way and was relieved that Fred bailed him out. Weak.
Allahpundit on December 13, 2007 at 12:12 AM
Who is this local cable access woman they’ve got moderating?
Tzetzes on December 13, 2007 at 12:13 AM
Why would the moderator, knowing the camera is going to be at her back all night, wear pants that are riding half up her ass crack?
lorien1973 on December 13, 2007 at 12:13 AM
The editor of the Des Moines Register.
amerpundit on December 13, 2007 at 12:14 AM
By the way, that whole excuse Huckabee gave about not knowing much about Mormonism? Uh…
amerpundit on December 13, 2007 at 12:16 AM
Ah. I think you’re right. That clapping was definitely relieved clapping.
aero on December 13, 2007 at 12:17 AM
Is that the state we want picking our candidate? Sheesh!
Tzetzes on December 13, 2007 at 12:17 AM
Oh, that needs a new thread. Can we make it eleven? (Seriously…)
Tzetzes on December 13, 2007 at 12:19 AM
You are correct sir.
Limerick on December 13, 2007 at 12:22 AM
Good, Ace’s post gets some attention. Busted!
Bad Candy on December 13, 2007 at 12:24 AM
As for the raise hands question, pretty much everyone had their hands up, except teh Fred!
Bad Candy on December 13, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Surprise, surprise the three least conservative on the stage.
libertytexan on December 13, 2007 at 12:26 AM
lorien1973 goes right to heart of the matter. Well it’s better than trying to figure out the thought/pandering process that goes through these guys minds.
lowandslow on December 13, 2007 at 12:27 AM
I think Mitt was waving at his lawyers trying to get an opinion before he actually raised his hand…
d1carter on December 13, 2007 at 12:28 AM
Nail on head Allah.
Griz on December 13, 2007 at 12:28 AM
McNeil/Leher CUT the clip. They showed him saying ‘no hands’ but not her response and his finish.
Limerick on December 13, 2007 at 12:28 AM
Does clapping count!
canopfor on December 13, 2007 at 12:28 AM
When Romney Sr. ran for president Mormonism wasn’t an issue because nobody knew about it. Now, due to books like “Mormonism Unmasked” Christians do know about it. THAT is why it’s an issue for Romney Jr.
When Joseph Smith calls Christianity an abomination to God it’s no wonder that we take umbrage. According to Mormonism, Joseph Smith will also judge whether or not you get into heaven.
This thread also speaks to the Huckster’s duplicity.
Mojave Mark on December 13, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Fred could really be a powerhouse in this campaign, if he only gave it some effort. He has the qualities of a natural born leader.
bnelson44 on December 13, 2007 at 12:31 AM
So? What the heck does that have to do with anything?
Limerick on December 13, 2007 at 12:31 AM
Mojave Mark, meet me over here.
Tzetzes on December 13, 2007 at 12:32 AM
If polling suggests “climate change” (whatever that means) is popular with voters, then they will all be for it. OR against it. Does it really matter if its called “climate change” whether you are for it or against it since it could mean anything really?
Fred wanted to elaborate on why he disagreed with the question, not whether or not they should raise hands in a photo-op for tomorrows paper.
Neo on December 13, 2007 at 12:32 AM
He should be trying to be Mitt’s VP. He’d be good.
Tzetzes on December 13, 2007 at 12:33 AM
Climate change is great!
The Vikings once had farms on Greenland.
Henry VIII grew wine in England.
Those were great days…
Tzetzes on December 13, 2007 at 12:34 AM
Kudos to Fred for wanting to talk and debate instead of waving hands.
I won’t hold it against Giuliani and McCain for raisign their hands. They believe we can do things better, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Let’s be honest here, lots of recycling and environmental laws have gone a long way in this country to clean things up, and lots of laws have just costed us money.
Vincenzo on December 13, 2007 at 12:35 AM
Why would the moderator…
Lorien1973 on December 13,2007 at 12:13AM
Lorien1973:Maybe she was hopeing Hillary was
watching!haha
canopfor on December 13, 2007 at 12:36 AM
On Romney:
Either way he thought about..which means he is on the fence which is probably aligned with much of the uninformed public. Its possible he agreed to the first part and thought wtf is this bit$% doing when he actually thought about the second part….who knows.
No Plants…the moderator was the plant! Dont the clintons control the lame dead trees and the MSM.
InstantNemesis on December 13, 2007 at 12:37 AM
But hey, seriously, it is a threat…
Tzetzes on December 13, 2007 at 12:37 AM
It’s a feature of the Liberal “pants suit.” It says “Why yes, I do have something up my butt.“
geckomon on December 13, 2007 at 12:39 AM
How deep to you plant the corks? My wine crop sucks.
lowandslow on December 13, 2007 at 12:39 AM
Yep, where I come from we call it winter and it gets SEASONABLY cold around that time…a reoccurring threat.
ColdBore76 on December 13, 2007 at 12:41 AM
You’ve got to be kidding! That would be like Ronaldus Magnus accepting the VP slot from Bush 41. PLEEEEESE!
edgehead on December 13, 2007 at 12:41 AM
Okay, okay, grapes. (Or, rather, had people grow them for him.)
Tzetzes on December 13, 2007 at 12:43 AM
I’m lmao! School kids taking a lesson from the teacher.
Connie on December 13, 2007 at 12:45 AM
Well what d’ya know!
Connie on December 13, 2007 at 12:47 AM
Lemmings. The Disney version.
geckomon on December 13, 2007 at 12:48 AM
Wine? One container of frozen Welches grape juice, five cups of sugar, two cubes of yeast. Put in a gallon jug of water. Shake. Place a balloon with a rubber band securing it to the neck of the bottle. When the balloon inflates, then starts to deflate….PARTY TIME! Carbon footprint…ZERO. Problem solved.
Limerick on December 13, 2007 at 12:50 AM
I love recipe recipe threads.
Connie on December 13, 2007 at 12:51 AM
YW
Limerick on December 13, 2007 at 12:54 AM
So…what is prison like?
Bad Candy on December 13, 2007 at 12:54 AM
No comment.
Limerick on December 13, 2007 at 12:56 AM
Heh.
Bad Candy on December 13, 2007 at 12:58 AM
I think Mitt realized quickly that Fred was going to let fly with something turned toward Fred and raised his hand (palm up?) as if to say be my guest and then agreed with him and clapped.
Or no?
Speakup on December 13, 2007 at 12:58 AM
no
Connie on December 13, 2007 at 1:00 AM
A bit more about the convention here.
amerpundit on December 13, 2007 at 1:01 AM
Disclaimer…I’m a Fredhead.
That wasn’t my take. Honestly. It looked like a half hearted ‘I better raise my hand’ then a quick retraction when Fred growled.
Limerick on December 13, 2007 at 1:03 AM
With five cups of sugar in a gallon jug the alcohol production would end up being something like grape flavored white lightning.
Speakup on December 13, 2007 at 1:04 AM
OK, I do think Fred did real well here (and where ever substance is the prime prerequisite).
Speakup on December 13, 2007 at 1:06 AM
I’ll be rich it seems.
Limerick on December 13, 2007 at 1:07 AM
Quotation from the article:
So, why be a Baptist? Why not be an actual Orthodox Christian? (Not a filioque-believer or an apostate from the filioque-believers?)
Tzetzes on December 13, 2007 at 1:09 AM
Speakup…
I’d vote for Mitt…if he gets the nod. I just want the best man, as most do here. We quibble (hell we fight) but push comes to shove we all know what side of the column we come down on.
Limerick on December 13, 2007 at 1:09 AM
As I said, that needs a new thread…
Tzetzes on December 13, 2007 at 1:09 AM
I watched it again, I think you guys are right Mitt half raised his hand.
Speakup on December 13, 2007 at 1:09 AM
Not at all, with a few rare exceptions(and those don’t go too much higher) yeast will only survive in about 13-14% alcohol maximum, any higher and they’ll start dying off.
Bad Candy on December 13, 2007 at 1:10 AM
Yeah, I’m most worried (at this point) that if we don’t nominate the strongest candidate (my opinion Fred or Mitt) that Ron Paul will see the weakness as a go ahead signal to run in a third party and he ends up electing a closet communist POTUS Clinton just like Perot elected a closet socialist Clinton POTUS.
Speakup on December 13, 2007 at 1:15 AM
Yeah, it has to be Fred or Mitt. Rudy or Huck will split the coalition.
Bad Candy on December 13, 2007 at 1:16 AM
Still Fred! Yea thee of little faith, you are all welcome to Iowa to represent Fred! in the caucus, or at least to wave banners in the face of the caucuc goers, and shake your fists at the RP blimp.
AZCON on December 13, 2007 at 1:21 AM
That’s true unless you use a super high gravity yeast.
Its just a whole lot of sugar for a one gallon jug.
Speakup on December 13, 2007 at 1:22 AM
IMHO if Huck is nominated we’re guaranteed a Ron Paul Split.
Speakup on December 13, 2007 at 1:24 AM
I think in an independent run, Paul would draw bi-partisan wackos and not cost the GOP much. Besides, his support is a mile wide and an inch deep.
edgehead on December 13, 2007 at 1:26 AM
I disagree, it would just make the alienated groups in the coalition stay home, and that would be all the damage needed.
Bad Candy on December 13, 2007 at 1:31 AM
You could well be right although the same was said about Ross Perot who was a third party run from the start and he succeeded in shafting George I which is what he intended to do all along.
Speakup on December 13, 2007 at 1:31 AM
I saw this segment live at a pizza place today. I’m sometimes unsure about Fred, but when he did that I wanted to jump up and cheer. That show-of-hands crap has no place in a presidential debate; an elementary school, maybe.
JimRich on December 13, 2007 at 1:33 AM
Same difference I suppose, it could depend on how disaffected conservative voters feel, if Huck gets the GOP motivated, who knows.
Speakup on December 13, 2007 at 1:36 AM
Huck wouldn’t be able to motivate the base, fiscal cons, immigration/law&order types, hawks and libertarians/small gov’t types would all be alienated, they’re already PO’d with Bush/Congressional Pork, growth and spending. Rudy of course is the opposite, he’d alienate most of who support Huck.
Bad Candy on December 13, 2007 at 1:43 AM
Just look at last 4.6M years climate history of this Earths climate swings and then try to convince anyone with any brains that the +0.6C assumed average warming in the last 200 years is “MANMADE” or is relevent. Man can certinly do things to improve “Pollution” of our enviroment, but neither man nor wasted dollars are going to change the Climate of the Earth. It’s been alot “Hotter” and alot “Colder” long before “MAN” was here. Enviromentalists should “Get a Life” and a “Real Cause” to support!
bucko36 on December 13, 2007 at 1:47 AM
Rudy of course is the opposite, he’d alienate most of who support Huck.
Bad Candy on December 13, 2007 at 1:43 AM
They aren’t the only ones…
Gianni on December 13, 2007 at 1:50 AM
Yea but Ross had (and spent) millions and appealed to a very broad base of normal people including many conservative Republicans. He was a nut but that didn’t really surface until after the election (unlike w/Paul). I’m a Texan and Paul used to represent me when I lived in the Houston area. 25 Years ago I thought he was OK.
edgehead on December 13, 2007 at 1:51 AM
And once again, Fred shows why he is the only true conservative on that panel that is worthy of the President of the United States.
I cannot stress this anymore… I feel that my fellow conservatives have failed in every way in not supporting Fred Thompson.
We weep what we sew.
msipes on December 13, 2007 at 1:53 AM
Personally I hope we won’t be worrying about Huck in the long run at all but he’s been getting an awful lot of support for not getting some from the various enclaves of Republicanism.
He’s a slick talking Arkansas Gov. like its in the water or something.
Speakup on December 13, 2007 at 1:55 AM
There are differences between Paul and Perot and Paul incorporates some of that lovable originist but he’s a perfect example of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
If he thinks he has enough on the ball to overhaul our financial system including the Fed he’s making a very very big mistake.
Speakup on December 13, 2007 at 2:02 AM
I have had enough of any candidate from any state that ends in ass or york.
Go Fred!
AZCON on December 13, 2007 at 2:02 AM
I agree. Even if Huckabee somehow manages to motivate a sizable portion of the Republican base to vote for him in the general, which seems unlikely, his power to draw Democrats to the polls in opposition to a stereotypical right-ring Christian candidate will be greater still.
FloatingRock on December 13, 2007 at 2:09 AM
What was that Onion headline a few weeks back “Bullshit continues to be the number one campaign issue among voters,” or something?
Seriously AP, You’re going to lambaste Mitt for subtle hand movements on the dopiest kind of question in existence? You’ve been spending too much time on the tabloid crap.
What’s next?: “Rudy seen lurching slightly like Frankenstein monster, could be a robot.”
BKennedy on December 13, 2007 at 2:32 AM
So, at least one adult in this race.
Good for Fred.
A show of hands?
profitsbeard on December 13, 2007 at 2:47 AM
Too bad Fred didn’t show moderator lady the Pimp Hand.
sulla on December 13, 2007 at 3:02 AM
I watched that tape from the You Tube site, playing, replaying, starting. stopping. At 00:15 this is what I saw:
I saw Rudy’s hand “shoot” up.
I saw McCain’s hand “shoot” up.
I saw Huck’s hand oooooze up.
I saw Mitt’s hand… what? I saw Mitt’s hand.
And Mitt’s answer was so generic his adequately covered his ass either way!
So…?
Vote for Fred!!!
leepro on December 13, 2007 at 3:05 AM
Mitt was always against the idea of man-made global warming. But, he voted for global warming even though he was against all those years. He says now that this was a mistake and he apologizes for being for it even though he was against it. How many TIMES does he have to apologize to you damn people!!?? HE DIDN’T MEAN IT, MAN! Heck he was against global warming all his life… even though he only said so twice before. Well, until now, that is.
Man you guys are harsh!
Warner Todd Huston on December 13, 2007 at 4:57 AM
The real problem with a Mitt nomination is he’s unacceptable to the hard-line social con evangelicals. It could lead to a Huckster third party candidacy or more likely a protest “no vote” situation. Either gives us another Clinton minority presidency.
theGimp on December 13, 2007 at 5:11 AM
I’m not a psychologist, nor do I play one on TV, but “global warming” reveals so much about a person’s needs and motivations.
The science that estimates the Earth’s age at around 4,500,000,000 years is better established than that suggesting manmade global warming. But you driving an SUV to work for the last 10 has changed the planet. And if you don’t trade in that SUV for a hybrid by next Tuesday and vote for a Democrat next fall, the damage is irreversible.
Here’s a question for the next debate: if you believe Ted Danson is correct that all the Earth’s oceans will be “dead” by 1990, raise your hand. C’mon… you would have in the 80s. “Well, we should care about the oceans.” Fine, then say that.
Seriously: who is the number-one name associated with the global warming crisis and “awareness” of said crisis? Is it a climatologist? Hell no. Does crying and whining about it get him a shedload of attention and awards and influence? Oh, yeah.
saint kansas on December 13, 2007 at 5:23 AM
Oh, and P.S. I finally thought of my YouTube debate question:
“As President, how do you plan to address the threat of the entire population of China jumping off of kitchen chairs simultaneously and thus splitting the planet in two?
“Thank you.”
saint kansas on December 13, 2007 at 5:30 AM
Leadership
- The Cat
MirCat on December 13, 2007 at 6:24 AM
PERFECTION!
Talon on December 13, 2007 at 6:55 AM
It is sad to see Rudy, Huck and McCain genuflecting at the alter of bad science. As for Mitt, he needs to clear up his half hearted agreement with the premise that global warming is happening at all and it’s man’s fault.
Zorro on December 13, 2007 at 7:04 AM
Nah. You’re seeing things. Hunter, Tancredo, Paul, and Keyes didn’t move. Fred’s the only one that called bullshit on the moderator, though, so kudos to him. Can’t believe I said that.
Redhead Infidel on December 13, 2007 at 7:49 AM
I’ll try to post this again without the naughty word:
Nah. You’re seeing things. Hunter, Tancredo, Paul, and Keyes didn’t move. Fred’s the only one that called bull-doody on the moderator, though, so kudos to him. Can’t believe I said that.
Redhead Infidel on December 13, 2007 at 7:50 AM
Ah…boogers. What a bunch of weenies. All of the relevant candidates are global warming ninnies.
I also never knew that Fred towered over the beta males so. He must be a foot taller than Sir Tancelot.
Jaibones on December 13, 2007 at 7:50 AM
Fred is the only man there with malkins.
TheSitRep on December 13, 2007 at 8:01 AM
Fred’s justified in thinking that the debate format (due to the number of candidates) sucks. However, a show of hands on a controversial issue is a good way to identify disagreement among the candidates in order to foster further debate. Fred derailed that and contributed a lot to the further crappiness of the debate. I’m guessing he didn’t want to go on record with an answer that would please the nuttier elements of the GOP base while dooming him in the general election, if he were to ever make it that far.
Big S on December 13, 2007 at 8:10 AM
Big S, in the clip I saw, he asked twice for an opportunity to go on record. The moderaptor denied it to him, rather rudely I might add.
RushBaby on December 13, 2007 at 8:38 AM
Big S on December 13, 2007 at 8:10 AM
Climate change is a bigger issue than a raise of hands. I myself belive in climate change it just is not due to human activity. The earth has been warming for 10,000 years. Well before humans were burning fossil fuels. To try to narrow the science of global warming down to a one second answer is beyond stupid. It is the liberals view that global warming is “settled” science therefore the question and the show of hands. There is no debate in aliberal’s mind. Therefore the question itself showed that the moderator was a liberal and FREd was justified to tell her to SUASTFD
unseen on December 13, 2007 at 8:53 AM
Ok, seriously. Are we all so Beta-male-political junkie-spend hours reading blogs type of nerds that we’re examining hand raising as some sort of prophetic microcosm of the race at large?
We all need to jump in a cold shower and gain some perspective.
Fred was right to stop the hand raising, though.
Go Mitt!
HYTEAndy on December 13, 2007 at 9:02 AM
Add “helpless addict” and you’ve got yourself a HotHead!
RushBaby on December 13, 2007 at 9:07 AM
I didn’t see any indication she wanted further debate. In fact, this wasn’t even a debate. It was designed to elicit sound bites. Fred gave the best two,(her slapdown, and the NEA), and looked presidential in his grouchiness. Wish he’d get out more.
a capella on December 13, 2007 at 9:42 AM
This is exactly right, which is why even though I like Rudy a lot and think he’d make a good president, I’ve begun to think he shouldn’t get the nomination. I think Fred and Mitt would make a good team, and purely from an age standpoint, it would make more sense if Fred was at the top of the ticket. Romney with 8 years under his belt as VP would be a terrific candidate in 2016. He’s a pretty good one now as it is.
Dudley Smith on December 13, 2007 at 9:53 AM
Actually, according Medved’s running mate rules Fred Thompson should be the Veep.
Although Fred violates the “Familiar and Reassuring” rule, and the “Prior Presidential Campaign” rule.
Still, he’s older (or at least looks it), he’s an insider, and he probably doesn’t plan on running a campaign in 2016.
BKennedy on December 13, 2007 at 10:07 AM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »