Open thread: Hey, how does three and a half hours of debate on a Saturday night sound?
posted at 6:00 pm on January 5, 2008 by Allahpundit
The fun begins at 7 p.m. ET on ABC. I believe it’s the GOP up first followed by the Hillary-Obama death match at around 8:30, so if you want to catch the Republicans and then switch to Jags-Steelers, you won’t miss much of either. Fred may go after Huck to try to start peeling away evangelical fencesitters in South Carolina; everyone else will be gunning for Mitt, with the exchanges between him and St. John promising plenty of acid highlights later.
Sound off in the comments and please pass along tips about video-worthy moments. In the meantime, for your reading pleasure, here’s (a) Bob Novak whispering that it was Mitt who was behind the Fred dropout rumors last week, (b) Slublog analyzing Huckamania, and (c) word from New Hampshire that the state GOP has dropped out of the debate tomorrow night due to Fox’s Ron Paul snub. With Paul bringing out independents and various donation-happy kooks for the primary, I guess they had no choice but to go to bat for him.
Update (Bryan): You may already know this, but if you want to keep track of the game while you’re watching the debate, hit the NFL’s site and click on the game score and you’ll get a page that’s updated every few seconds. Washington just took the lead as I was writing this update.
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 … 11 12 13
Stupidest quote of the nite: HC when she said she’s about 35 years of change. Doesn’t that mean she’s never taken a consistant position?
meandchi on January 5, 2008 at 11:09 PM
@ MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Exactly. Its uncanny.
muyoso on January 5, 2008 at 11:09 PM
There is no law saying there cant be two parties. In fact we have had numberous times where more than two parties have run.
The complaint seems to be that we dont create more parties and give them an advantage to compete. So now we need affirmative action for polticial parties ?
There is nothing to prevent another party from being formed
William Amos on January 5, 2008 at 11:10 PM
1787
The constitution doesn’t mandate two parties, but it does mandate a single president, and it (brilliantly) ensures that this president will be elected by a broad, national coalition of voters drawn from a majority of the population, not by narrow regional or other interests.
LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 11:11 PM
Yep and that shows that dems cant win without the south. And neither Hillary or Obama have good southern connections
Kennedy only won because he had a strong Southern VP.
William Amos on January 5, 2008 at 11:12 PM
@ William Amos on January 5, 2008 at 11:10 PM
No, i am not saying affirmative action for political parties. What I am saying is that when a third party candidate runs, he should be included in debates, not have to fight tooth and nail to get on ballots, etc. We are so entrenched in two parties, that we dont even let another party compete.
muyoso on January 5, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Don’t give the Dems any ideas if they do win and control the congress and the white house. The Republican party might be split up like MaBell.
krabbas on January 5, 2008 at 11:13 PM
I’ll send you my mailing address.
joewm315 on January 5, 2008 at 11:14 PM
@ LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 11:11 PM
Why and for what reasons do we have the most successful political system in the history of civilization? What are the conditions?
muyoso on January 5, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Every position of Obama’s is dangerously naive, and worse, he actually believes in them.
LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 11:06 PM
Yes, but I see signs he’s a quick study. Equally important, I see signs that his values are far closer to traditionalist values than Hillary’s are, and his regulated capitalism is not nearly as Marxist as Hillary’s.
petefrt on January 5, 2008 at 11:15 PM
A southerner on the ticket certainly helps the Dems, but let’s not kid ourselves. Kerry could have easily won, even with Edwards delivering nothing south of Mason-Dixon, and Gore came within a hair even while losing his home state.
LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 11:15 PM
The problem with 3rd parties is that they cant get enough money to compete. Ross Perot was only able to do that because he had the money.
Third parties dont fly because they cant compete financially. Isnt about the system as much as about the greenbacks
William Amos on January 5, 2008 at 11:15 PM
More importantly, he seems like a good person. Where as Hilldogg is not a good person. We know this.
Off topic: I can’t believe Jacksonville is blowing this game.
krabbas on January 5, 2008 at 11:17 PM
@ William Amos on January 5, 2008 at 11:15 PM
It isnt about the system? They cant get into debates. Which means they cant get their message out. None of those things have to do with money. They also have to fight state to state to get on the ballot. Again, not about the money. The system isnt fair to third parties, thus there is a 2 party system bias. Of course money helps, but you have to get rid of these obstacles before a third party even has a chance.
muyoso on January 5, 2008 at 11:18 PM
That’s the easiest question of the night. We revolutionized the ability for opposing parties to hand over power to their ‘enemies’ without force of violence. Revolutionized the world.
Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 11:20 PM
@ Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 11:20 PM
That isnt a measure of success. If you want to measure greatness, sure that is a quality and I agree with you. But I would argue that a political system that lasted for several thousand years is much more “successful” than our system.
muyoso on January 5, 2008 at 11:21 PM
If a third party has a sufficiently compelling message, and attracts non-negligible support, they will not have to worry about being included in the debates.
The problem is not money, it’s that a third candidate can result in a skewed outcome. Bill Clinton would have lost in ’92 if not for Ross Perot sapping votes from GHWB. Nader had the same impact on the 2000 election. Why is that, objectively, good?
When the (unofficial) two-party system works, it ensures that the voters will vote for their first choice between the two most candidates with the most support.
LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Obsticles ? Ross Perot was in the debate because he was getting alot of support. Any third party only has to get significant enough support to make debates. Like tonight Hunter and Kucinich and Gravel were kick out of the debates not because they werent democrat or republican but because they were doing so poorly.
Your argument is that any party should get into the debate no matter what. I think that is foolish. By your estimation David Duke should have been allowed in a presidentual debate simply because he was a member of a third party.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says third parties deserve breaks because they dont have enough people backing them.
William Amos on January 5, 2008 at 11:23 PM
What’s the solution to the problem then? Just let any person who wants to join the debates? “My name is Joe Blow from the NAMBLA party. Let me debate!”
The reason they have those obstacles is to make sure that the people appearing on these debates and who are on the ballots belong there and actually have some support.
If there is a demand for a third party, it has to come from the ground up. Ross Perot ran as a third party candidate, but in reality, there wasn’t really a party there. There was just an individual running.
krabbas on January 5, 2008 at 11:23 PM
I have just heard McCain spinning and lying about shamnesty.
Romney whacked him good.
McCain is a piss ant.
If he gets the Republican nomination I will vote Democrat even if Kucinich were to get the dim nom.
And I don’t care if Juan McVain lost 10 aircraft to the NVA and spent 60 years in an NVA prison camp.
MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 11:24 PM
So it’s been all downhill since the Pharaoh’s, eh?
LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 11:24 PM
@ LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Because, obviously in those situations, the people who voted for Perot and Nader felt that he was the best of the three candidates. They should not be forced to vote for someone who doesnt hold their views because they have a “better chance of winning”. This isnt a popularity contest, this is voting for the ruler of the free world, and people should vote for the candidate who BEST represents them, no matter what party they are in.
muyoso on January 5, 2008 at 11:25 PM
muyoso: To answer that requires a prefacing question: What do you think the will of a government (or political system if you prefer) is?
Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 11:25 PM
I definitely agree with you there.
krabbas on January 5, 2008 at 11:26 PM
@ LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Downhill? You are mixing the definition of success and greatness. Our current system is one of the greatest if not the greatest political system to ever emerge. But to say it is successful when we have slightly over 200 years of experience is a little naive. There were systems in China that lasted for thousands and thousands of years.
muyoso on January 5, 2008 at 11:27 PM
@ Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 11:25 PM
The will of a government? I don’t understand your question.
muyoso on January 5, 2008 at 11:28 PM
I am not prepared to judge whether Obama is a good person or not, but I understand what you’re saying.
Unfortunately, the pages of history are littered with good people who did tremendous harm because they sincerely believed in really, really bad ideas.
LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 11:28 PM
@ MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Wait for it, McCain looks like a total ASS by the end of the debate, with his stupid little jabs at Romney.
muyoso on January 5, 2008 at 11:29 PM
Wow, I think this thread is near the biggest.
Bad Candy on January 5, 2008 at 11:29 PM
Fred, with the best line of thought, stands out well above the fray. McCain and Rudy are no slouch in debate; but shamelessly they play RHINO games. Mitt and Huck both suffer chronic TALKITIS like Hillary. Insert foot into mouth; shoot self in foot. Huck and Hillary are dialectically dysfunctional. Mitt and Hillary suffer persecution complexes. Speaking of which, Ron Paul’s got balls; too bad they’re loose.
Obama can take the Demo ticket. Sob, Hillary talks of hurt feelings like a pull-string chatty cathy wallflower.
Fred will take Obama hands down!
maverick muse on January 5, 2008 at 11:29 PM
I mean purpose. No idea where will came from. Announcer on from football maybe. Sorry:) What’s the purpose of a government or political system in your eyes?
Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 11:31 PM
Hey Hot Air, how about an open thread where we vote on the best commenter of 2007? Should be pretty good. I think you owe us after tonight.
Huh? Anybody else behind this idea??????
conservnut on January 5, 2008 at 11:31 PM
There is everything wrong with him saying that.
Islam is not a great religion.
Islam is a hideous religion.
Why enable it by saying otherwise?
At least just say nothing either way.
BTW, the radicals in Islam are the apostates who are not a danger to us, although they are in danger themselves.
MB4 on January 5, 2008 at 11:32 PM
@ krabbas on January 5, 2008 at 11:23 PM
How about have it where the endorsed candidate of an existing political party and whom has a certain level of funds raised, and whom has a certain level of national support, is automatically in, and automatically on the ballot? That seems like a fair system right? At least set SOME sort of bar that the candidate has to reach, and not make them jump through hoops to get into a race.
muyoso on January 5, 2008 at 11:32 PM
My gut says Romney is toast, as is Fred, once my hope. It says the GOP race will be between Giulianni and McCain, and it won’t be predictable for a couple of weeks.
It also says Hillary is wounded gravely, hopefully mortally but not yet, and that Obama will rescue the Dems from the throws of the nutroots, at least temporarily.
petefrt on January 5, 2008 at 11:33 PM
We’ll hear Obama talk CHANGE when he cries, “uncle!”
maverick muse on January 5, 2008 at 11:34 PM
And then what? Do we let all the candidates serve a fraction of the four-year term proportional to the votes they received?
You really need to think this through.
Suppose there are twenty really, really great candidates, each of whom would make a superb president, and one really, really bad candidate who, say, wants to make us all into property of the government. If vote for the equally good candidates is split evenly between them, the bad guy only needs to convince 5% of the voters of his crazy ideas to win.
Explain to me how that is an improvement, please.
LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 11:35 PM
If you want multi party systems check out Europe. And tell me if you think their system is superior to ours.
The euros change government more often than underwear using that system.
William Amos on January 5, 2008 at 11:37 PM
Actually this is how Hitler came to power in a democracy. And why the multi party system is ultimately a failure
William Amos on January 5, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Sorry for the interruption…
GO JAGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pachyderm on January 5, 2008 at 11:39 PM
That’s what made George Washington such a great man, as well. He set the example that made it all possible, and suppressed the first great threats to our democracy.
joewm315 on January 5, 2008 at 11:39 PM
Oh, that is simple then. I got confused with the whole “will” thing.
A government exists for certain and specific reasons. It exists to protect the people who agreed to form it. Its the whole social contract thing, Thomas Hobbes and the like. A group of people band together to form a great power, because together they can greater defend themselves than if they were seperate. A government should really have no function other than protecting its people. That includes, protecting domestic and foreign threats. Police, fire dept, army, navy, etc.
Now things a government does NOT exist to do:
Go out and fix other governments
Protect the people from themselves
Regulate the economy
All of those things, our government does. We go out and police the world, when we as the people gave them no mandate to do any such thing. The government starts a “war on drugs” which arrests 735,000 people anually for marijuana offenses, 88% of which are for possesion only. The government should have NO say on what I want to do with my body, and that includes abortion in my view(not that I can have one). And the government has no reason to regulate the economy with institutions like the Federal Reserve and programs like welfare and social security. Our government has grown WAY too big, and it needs to be scaled back.
I hope that answers it for you.
muyoso on January 5, 2008 at 11:40 PM
We are agreed.
Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 11:43 PM
Indeeed, the beauty of our system is two-fold.
First, because we are a democracy, people have a say in who governs.
Second, and equally important, because we are a federal republic, it produces a government that works well enough to do the most useful things (usually) but in which it is nearly impossible to do fatally flawed things.
LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 11:43 PM
@ LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 11:35 PM
Stop posing stupid scenarios that are the extreme. Of course you wouldnt cut up the presidency. Our current sytem plus third parties. That is it, you know follow the constitution???
@ William Amos on January 5, 2008 at 11:37 PM
I know Europe and their system. They dont have a constitution like ours though, so the comparison is null IF you still believe in the constitution, which sadly it seems like a majority of candidates this time kinda dont. Also, the Hitler analogy is nice, cant ever have a discussion without him being brought in. You might want to examine HOW he actually got into power, as always, it wasnt in a vaccuum with the third party systems. It was of course as a direct result of WWI, but I am sure you know that.
muyoso on January 5, 2008 at 11:44 PM
I can’t believe you guys kept me from watching two NFL playoff games tonight,
8astards!!!!!
conservnut on January 5, 2008 at 11:44 PM
Obviously, but I was trying to avoid a premature end to this record thread by triggering Godwin’s Law…
LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 11:45 PM
@ LagunaDave on January 5, 2008 at 11:43 PM
No, i dont think their system is superior to ours, but I do think that our government needs a reset button. It has grown too large, and has completely lost touch with what the function of government is suppossed to be.
muyoso on January 5, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Yes, exactly the type of answer I was hoping for. And sorry about the ‘will’ thing – total brain vacation moment typing that I guess.
Is there any place in the world that comes closer to your particular ideal in that regard then the United States? (I understand your critiques of US current policy, setting that aside for now)
Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 11:47 PM
No. United States is the ideal. It is the greatest form of government ever conceived in my view. Let me clarify though. It WAS the greatest form of government ever conceived, but I think it has become perverted over the last century, mainly in the last 60-70 years. Ever since FDR really.
muyoso on January 5, 2008 at 11:49 PM
Every candidate should be mentioning the word “constitution” as often as the democrats said the word “change” tonight.
muyoso on January 5, 2008 at 11:51 PM
Exactly. That is why it is the greatest. Because even ‘perverted’ you are dedicated to its principles. And that’s why the blimp, etc are cool. Because this system of government allows you to modify it and its policy by your voice.
Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 11:54 PM
I think Obama is not jaded like Billary. I think he wants to do his best for America, rather than manipulating America into doing its best for him/her. Like you, I disagree with Obama on almost every issue. But I think Obamam is honorable. I think he has integrity.
petefrt on January 5, 2008 at 11:54 PM
How about if he got on the ballots of 1/3 of the states then he’s automatically on all 50 ballots?
krabbas on January 5, 2008 at 11:55 PM
You can pick as many “what ifs” as there are stars in the sky. Sure, if a candidate gets on ballots in 1/3 of the states, he should automatically be on all of the ballots. The ballots should be inclusive instead of exclusive. If a candidate has a big following in the US, measure that however you want, they should be included on the ballot.
muyoso on January 6, 2008 at 12:03 AM
The fact that he has managed to convince you of that, merely by vacuous oratory, is a tribute to his political skills.
And that is frightening.
Tonight is the first time I have ever listened to him for more than a 5-second sound bite, and he made me like him (as long as he’s not the President) too.
LagunaDave on January 6, 2008 at 12:04 AM
@ Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Sure, the US still is the best form of government. However, it was much better, and it is def on the downfall. America in 50 years will not be a world superpower. With the constitution we have, we should be able to maintain a superpower status for centuries. Of course if you disagree with this contention I can and will provide why I believe it is true. America will not make a change to its immigration policy, because the government is completely bloated and no candidate will vote for something that will alienate a section of the voting class from their message. The American dollar is dying a fast death. The world as a whole is not pleased with us because of our foreign policy, where we instruct other countries what to do. We have a history in the past half century of HORRIBLE foreign policy decisions that have come back to bite us HARD, and I see the reestablishment of the Soviet Union in under 15 years. There are several other reasons, but it is late and I am getting depressed writing this.
muyoso on January 6, 2008 at 12:09 AM
Yes!!! All Democrats lack integrity and are without honor!!!! How could anyone be fooled into thinking anything else!!!
Nonfactor on January 6, 2008 at 12:09 AM
Go Jaguars. Great game.
I watched the Republican debate. Here’s my take. All of the candidates had their moments where they looked good and I would vote for any (even Paul) before I’d vote for any of the Dhimmicrats running. Overall here’s my order of how well they did.
Giuliani: best overall
Thompson: very good ideas but not forceful enough
McCain: heartfelt performance + best one liner* at Romey’s expense
Romney: slick but stumbled when it came to substance
Huckabee: seemed out of his league
Paul: ABC put him on to diminish the other candidates
*Governor Romney you ARE the candidate of change!*
Mojave Mark on January 6, 2008 at 12:11 AM
I don’t mean to concede to your view, but I’m don’t want to argue it at this juncture. The only constant is change as they say.
Clinton. Clinton has traumatized Republicans.
Spirit of 1776 on January 6, 2008 at 12:14 AM
I really like the flag film on your link, as well as your impassioned defense of American exceptionalism here.
joewm315 on January 6, 2008 at 12:15 AM
I think that gentleman’s point was that we really don’t know Obama, but his oratory thus far has convinced us that we do. That’s a compliment to him, really, considering his chosen profession.
joewm315 on January 6, 2008 at 12:17 AM
You are very kind, thanks.
Spirit of 1776 on January 6, 2008 at 12:18 AM
I like all of my liberal/”progressive”/communist/Marxist friends too. That doesn’t mean that I would even once consider voting for them for public office.
Likeability should not be a high factor in choosing a President. Unfortunately, it seems that many are placing it as one of their top requirements, at the expense of ideology and policy. Pretty depressing.
Michael in MI on January 6, 2008 at 12:27 AM
Hitler got into power because Germany had lost a war and the powers in control were seen as out of touch with the people. The Nazis ranted that the powerful parties were set on keeping other parties out of power and were working with Big Business and Jews to keep the German people poor. The Nazis blamed the warmongering Political class for starting wars that it couldnt afford.
That sounds more like a certain Congressman from Texas than anyone else.
William Amos on January 6, 2008 at 12:43 AM
for a while ive liked giuliani… but after tonight ive taken a giant second look at fred. Of all the candidates…hes the one i wanna see in the head to head debate. hes who i want advocating small government, free markets, and a strong defense to the entire nation.
his answer to the windfall profits tax sealed the deal for me. simple, matter of fact, and the totally right answer…even while it being totally obvious that the moderator and helper guy were almost offended by the mere mention of oil profit.
ernesto on January 6, 2008 at 12:53 AM
I have no problem with Thompson’s positions, but he lacks any ability to convey a sense of energy and connect with average voters (like Reagan did, and IMO Rudy does).
If you watched the Democratic half of the event, you see what we may be up against in Obama. Only Romney (who I otherwise find unappealing) and Rudy (who I support) are articulate and assertive enough to face off against him, IMO. That’s not a knock against Fred – it’s apparently just the nature of his personality.
LagunaDave on January 6, 2008 at 1:03 AM
I would agree, and though it is unpopular to say so, discounting the media’s role as moderator, Huck might also have the ability.
Spirit of 1776 on January 6, 2008 at 1:08 AM
Yeah, some pundit (I forget which one) recently put it well. He/she said something like, “This is turning into the election of who you’d most like to have a beer with.”
aero on January 6, 2008 at 1:16 AM
Hey, AP, Huck’s sounding pretty good tonight on FNC, post debates. Not to worry, though, I’m hanging still with Rudy.
BTW, I’m suing you guys tomorrow for causing a bad hangover.
Question: Who best to run against Obama, to challenge him on the issues with minimum vulnerabiulity to the PC bigots’ counterclaims of racism?
petefrt on January 6, 2008 at 1:22 AM
There were times tonight that Huckabee looked (briefly) like a deer in the headlights though.
Romney had several bad moments too tonight, when he got pissy and said nobody was allowed to characterize his positions. Even his fan-boys at National Review noted it.
I think Rudy was in good form tonight. He made a well-articulated rebuttal to Thompson’s attack on him. He didn’t get ruffled and just insisted on making his points when Thompson then repeatedly interrupted him. I was generally impressed by Thompson on substance, if not delivery, but this was a low point for him tonight.
LagunaDave on January 6, 2008 at 1:31 AM
I’m watching the WMUR debate from New Hampshire live, and John McCain and Rudy Giuliani have permanently lost my vote (as if they hadn’t done so already!)
In the teeth of Republican primary opposition, both insist on letting every illegal alien stay in the United States forever. They insist that that’s not an amnesty, because the illegal aliens would have to pay a fine.
If this is McCain and Giuliani’s position now, at the height of the Republican primary season, then it can only get worse if they ever end up in the White House. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for either of them for any office. If one of them is the Republican party nominee, I will vote third-party.
I am, however, open to supporting Mike Huckabee. He has clearly improved on the immigration issue.
Huckabee made the case most forcefully that having the government deport 12 million people isn’t the only way to end illegal immigration; we can get them to deport themselves.
- PoliPundit
MB4 on January 6, 2008 at 2:14 AM
Got back late and missed the debate – but I have a good excuse: attended a Republican function/dinner which ended with a straw poll:
Paulnuts (with handmade signs left over from their last Libertarian campaign) gave their idol 39%
Republicans, dividing the rest of the 61%:
McCain – 16%
Thompson and Hunter – both at 15%
Mitt – about 10%
Huck – 5%
Rudy – ZERO! No votes. Nada.
I enjoyed the debate vicariously from all the comments here;
thanks all! Hotel cable could not get the debate during our breaks!
Fred/Dunc – 30%!!!
fred5678 on January 6, 2008 at 4:59 AM
Unfortunately, our electorate HAS become a veritable “beauty contest” with the one who performs on stage the best winds up getting elected. It’s sad but true, and it’s very disheartening.
MsUnderestimated on January 6, 2008 at 5:40 AM
Was it just me, or does every other candidate really, really not like Romney? I’ve seen more civil blanket parties.
sulla on January 6, 2008 at 6:11 AM
Rudy said no such thing.
He said you start by deporting the felons as a priority while physically securing the border and setting up a tamperproof system to track everyone who comes in. Then in a few years, once you’ve accomplished that, you decide about what to do next.
He did say we should be humane. Anyone who has a problem with that, Rudy is probably not your guy.
LagunaDave on January 6, 2008 at 6:26 AM
Romney, because he and his father marched with MLK!
krabbas on January 6, 2008 at 9:01 AM
Mitt: Do you know what mandates I support…?
Fred: Yeah, the ones you propose…
right2bright on January 6, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Ok, I’m back, with a hell of a hangover from that “every time you hear the word change in the democrat debate take a drink” game last night.
conservnut on January 6, 2008 at 10:18 AM
If I had watched the debate last night, I wouldn’t be voting.
moonsbreath on January 6, 2008 at 10:31 AM
It looks like we have a new winner for most comments :)
Nihaody on January 6, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Fox News wants you to email them questions to the candidates at this web site:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271356,00.html
Email: debate@foxnews.com with “Question to candidate name” in subject line
bnelson44 on January 6, 2008 at 10:51 AM
If we keep this same thread for the debate tonight, it’ll push 2500 comments.
TexasDan on January 6, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Holy crap…almost 1300 comments! New record?
flipflop on January 6, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Debate is currently re-airing on ABC News Now in case anybody (like me) missed it last night. Go to http://www.att.net and click on ABC News Now.
bigbeas on January 6, 2008 at 11:07 AM
WHAT: Fox News Presidential Debate
WHEN: 8-9:30 pm ET
WHERE: Saint Anselm College, Manchester, New Hampshire
bnelson44 on January 6, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Don’t forget to donate to Fred, he needs it now more then ever: http://www.fred08.com
bnelson44 on January 6, 2008 at 11:12 AM
I’ve never seen so many garbled comments, ever on HA.
Must’ve been a lot of alcohol involved among our commentators.
What does that tell you about our political climate?
Mcguyver on January 6, 2008 at 11:13 AM
I couldn’t watch the debate last night. I’d be interested in knowing who everyone thought won, and who tanked the most.
I’m watching tonight though, definitely.
Darksean on January 6, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Nah, we should get a seperate thread. Just start an off-topic religious debate and this one will be up to 2000 in no time.
Hollowpoint on January 6, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Obama won. Hillary tanked the most. That’s out of both debates.
On just the Rep side, I think that Romney won, but it’s very difficult to tell from the sideline ’cause I don’t know how McCain and Huck’s potshots will play in NH. He played the role of front-runner in this debate and got a lot of airtime. That will help him.
Fred did good, but he didn’t talk much and I was really surprised because I thought this debate he would really put himself forward. He is a candidate that expects his words to resonate with the voters, but he doesn’t educate or rally undecideds with him. In other words, he is compelling if you know where he stands and agree with him.
Rudy did fine I thought. He explained some things I was curious on and I thought presented himself in the context of detail tonight.
Huck and McCain if their performance has an impact, it will be negative on Mitt. This was Huck’s worse performance I thought.
Spirit of 1776 on January 6, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Emailed to Fox News:
Senator McCain,
I agree with you – your plan on illegal immigration is NOT amnesty, because you include a minor fine.
But your plan is WORSE than amnesty – you REWARD illegal aliens by offering them the ill-gotten goods they came here to steal – residency in our country and the most precious gift in the world – a pathway to American citizenship.
How do you expect to stem the flow of illegal immigration when your plan encourages MORE future illegal immigration?
fred5678 on January 6, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Fred pwnd them all. He was the only adult on the stage.
I thought the rest of the candidates came off like 7th grade girls argueing.
Fredalanche!©
TheSitRep on January 6, 2008 at 12:44 PM
When a politician says, “we should be humane”, hide the women and the booze!!!
MB4 on January 6, 2008 at 1:31 PM
I’ll never get tired of that. :)
RushBaby on January 6, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Yeah, you’re right.
If a kid whose parents are illegals tries to get an education, lock the parents up and put the kid into a foster home.
If an illegal alien with a ruptured appendix walks into a hospital, take him to jail and let him die there.
If an illegal alien reports being raped, arrest her.
Any mayor like Rudy Giuliani who won’t order his PD to do these things is running a SANCTUARY CITY!!!1!!one!1!
I think we should also send SWAT teams door-to-door to search for illegal immigrants. The real Americans aspiring to be gardeners, janitors, dishwashers and bus-boys are counting on us…
LagunaDave on January 6, 2008 at 5:12 PM
I’ve just been catching up with these debates as I was on the road. McCain was a real jerkwad.
Griz on January 7, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 11 12 13