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.
He was just being nice and making sure McCain isn’t the only one laughing.
That was an extremely embarrassing goof by McVain. But then again he knows best how to level those insults.
“I know more about this f**king bill than you do”.
He’s old big A. He’s lost his edge a long time ago. He’s always been insulting and screaming at his colleagues.
You know, on second thought, I just plain missed the joke.
Flipper..change. I’m a little slow.
The audience was chuckling, and so did Fred, but McCain laughed at his own joke not just before the punchline but before he even started. lame lame lame. Plus which, it came out of no-where, seemingly. Gotta drop those one-liners when they happen, not five minutes later when you have to do the set up yourself.
I’m seeing a bunch of people around the ’sphere say Romney won the debate
I agree, but part of that ironically is because of the format. He got a lot of face-time he might not otherwise have had because of the multiple attacks.
Just a comment on Mitt that I found over at StoptheACLU, which I thought was a pretty good summation of Mitt Romney:
It’s all part of the same personality package that prompts Romney’s incessant flip-flopping; namely, an ambition that lacks principles.
I read that last part and it resonated with me. Mitt has a lot of ambition for political power, but he lacks the principles to achieve it. Based on his record, he seems to say and do and spend however much money and put out whatever attack ad to achieve his ambition. But he has to do this, because he knows his principles do not stand on their own.
I think this will ultimately sink Mitt Romney and will leave us with Rudy, Huckabee and Thompson as the choices. A Giuliani/Thompson ticket (if Fred goes back on his word to not be a VP choice) would be interesting.
I enjoyed the “deer in the headlights” look when Romney kept getting reminded of his past record and positions.
Also, how about Hillary’s meltdown when Edwards tagged her as the status quo. I’m glad to see the real, angry Hillary emerging once again in front of a large audience – and on videotape.
I read that last part and it resonated with me. Mitt has a lot of ambition for political power, but he lacks the principles to achieve it. Based on his record, he seems to say and do and spend however much money and put out whatever attack ad to achieve his ambition. But he has to do this, because he knows his principles do not stand on their own.
I think this will ultimately sink Mitt Romney and will leave us with Rudy, Huckabee and Thompson as the choices. A Giuliani/Thompson ticket (if Fred goes back on his word to not be a VP choice) would be interesting.
Michael in MI on January 5, 2008 at 9:54 PM
I don’t know about that. I suppose it’s all relative. I don’t see how you can knock any one running for President as being too ambitious. I mean, your running for frickin president. That’s pretty ambitious.
krabbas, doesn’t ring for me either. Considering he was at top level of Corporation and top of Olympics. That might be meritocracy. If it were political ambition why would he not have spent his life in politics?
I support Romney so it’s no surprise that I was very turned off the cheap shots, and really, a general snarky hostility towards Romney by pretty much everyone on the state with the possible exception of Giuliani. Even Thompson was going after Romney hard. With McCain continuing to be a total prick I’m having a hard time seeing myself eventually supporting him. Thompson should stay above that shit, and I don’t think he did that tonight. Having said that, he did come off well, and I think for the average idiot that watched tonight and will vote on Tuesday, Romney did NOT have a good night. Perception is reality, and the more they trash him on supposed flip flops (and that’s news to me because he’s been consistent this entire time) the more they become true.
I agree, Romney won this debate, looking very cool under fire, and sounding very presidential again. If this is as bad as it gets for him, Tuesday will be a cake walk.
I thought Mitt did very well, although I thought his summary was boring. Didn’t Fred interrupt that too? Fred totally turned me off with his rude, smartass comments, and constant interrupting. He did nothing to endear me to him tonight.
McCain was the big loser though, and that’s target number one through New Hampshire.
I don’t know about that. I suppose it’s all relative. I don’t see how you can knock any one running for President as being too ambitious. I mean, your running for frickin president. That’s pretty ambitious.
krabbas on January 5, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Agreed, and the idea that Mitt is more ambitious than the rest of them is just silly anyway.
If anything, he is less motivated by personal ambition than the rest of them, particularly Huck and McNasty. Mitt wants to make the world a better place for his children and grandchildren and thinks he can make a difference. He has been raised to give back to the “community”. It’s far more a case of noblesse oblige than personal ambition.
I thought Mitt did very well, although I thought his summary was boring. Didn’t Fred interrupt that too? Fred totally turned me off with his rude, smartass comments, and constant interrupting. He did nothing to endear me to him tonight.
McCain was the big loser though, and that’s target number one through New Hampshire.
Buy Danish on January 5, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Oh poppycock…You’ve been hating on Fred for a long time now. Nothing Fred could possibly have done was going to change that. Quite pretending to have anything even remotely approaching objectivity in this.
McCain is a bitter old man. He has been consistently dead wrong on taxes and dead wrong on immigration. He continues to flat-out lie about his position on AMNESTY for illegals — I don’t care if he gets shot down again tomorrow, I’m not voting for the geezer.
Fred totally turned me off with his rude, smartass comments,
Buy Danish on January 5, 2008 at 10:39 PM
That seems to be all Fred has the energy for anymore. He gets really animated and excitable when he gets to get all snarky and wise-a$$ed, but he is all lethargic when it comes to policy. He completely underwhelmed me in the way he presents his stances. He seems lazy.
Mitt clear was the class of the field, stayed on topic, and had the clearest detailed answers of the group. He turned all the attacks into calls for a discussion on the issues. I especially enjoyed it when he told Fred to put up or shut up. To Mitt’s credit he answered the question. To Fred’s discredit, he didn’t reciprocate. Mainly because Fred doesn’t have a policy on the issue.
Rudy did OK.
I’d vote for RP in a second if he were running for domestic policy in chief. But as the job gives all the foreign policy decisions to the president, he wouldn’t get one second of consideration.
Huck’s lack of depth on the issues was clearly evident. Hopefully Rudy and Mitt can keep the debates on the issues and not how we FEEL about Jesus.
McCain lost big time. He stumbled on immigration and his silly personal attacks were classless.
That is unadulterated BS. I have faulted him for running a horrible campaign which is pretty hard to argue with, but I have said I like his policies. The only thing I have said that bothered me about him was his support of McCain-Feingold, and I have said I prefer executives to legislators.
He has done nothing to spark any enthusiasm with me, and the only positive thing that I can think of that he’s done was to say he wouldn’t raise his hand during the Iowa debate. That was great, but it’s not enough.
His snide, performance tonight was a total turnoff for me.
He turned all the attacks into calls for a discussion on the issues.
csdeven on January 5, 2008 at 11:15 PM
I noticed that and it was very classy indeed. He did that with McCain too. Something along the lines of, okay if I have it wrong, what was your policy on immigration?
He looked presidential, while McCain and Fred came off looking like a couple of punks.
Wow…just watched the second clip. Amazing how much you could see in Mitt’s eyes his desire to just cold-cock Huck for nailing him there.
MadisonConservative on January 5, 2008 at 9:30 PM
You’re projecting. That’s the Fredhead in you coming out. :-)
What you were seeing in Mitt was disappointment that most of these guys came to level personal attacks rather than address issues. Probably because they don’t have the issues figured out yet. But, that didn’t stop Mitt. He continued to discuss the issues. Especially when McCain tried to nuance his position on immigration.
Sorry, I don’t get the joke. Insider jokes don’t win votes.
Perhaps he is insinuating that Romney is changing his rhetoric to mimic Obama. Or is it that he is a clear symbol of the establishment – rich, white? Maybe it is that his negative ads are a sign of politics as usual. Or is it an insider Mormon joke?
Seems the two DINOSAURS laughing (trying to keep their teeth in) doesn’t suggest they are agents of change (unless it is their Depends underwear).
That is unadulterated BS. I have faulted him for running a horrible campaign which is pretty hard to argue with, but I have said I like his policies. The only thing I have said that bothered me about him was his support of McCain-Feingold, and I have said I prefer executives to legislators.
He has done nothing to spark any enthusiasm with me, and the only positive thing that I can think of that he’s done was to say he wouldn’t raise his hand during the Iowa debate. That was great, but it’s not enough.
His snide, performance tonight was a total turnoff for me.
Buy Danish on January 5, 2008 at 11:16 PM
I see what you are trying to sell, but I have been watching you so I’m not buying, unadulterated BS is what you are selling. Try selling it to another Mittenhead, they love that kind of cr@p…
He asked questions of other candidates during the time he was given to speak? Pointless and reckless.
Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 11:30 PM
I wonder though. Asking them the questions put them on the defensive. McCain fell for it and Mitt skewered him and Fred refused to answer. Now I noticed when Mitt quizzed Fred that he backed down and sat way back in his seat. It looked like he didn’t have an answer.
You’re projecting. That’s the Fredhead in you coming out. :-)
What you were seeing in Mitt was disappointment that most of these guys came to level personal attacks rather than address issues. Probably because they don’t have the issues figured out yet. But, that didn’t stop Mitt. He continued to discuss the issues. Especially when McCain tried to nuance his position on immigration.
csdeven on January 5, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Nice try, and wishful thinking, but no. You know how certain people here like to claim that if a candidate can’t raise money, they can’t win an election? Obviously Huck is breaking that rule. However, the rule in this day and age is that style continues to rule over substance. Mitt was thrown off track over and over by others, and it showed. He used to be able to volley those remarks, and those make for big impressions on the average voter. In the above clip, Huck came out as much better, and Mitt came off as the 1950s next door neighbor scolding a child down the street. A lot of Americans really have not learned from amnesty-shilling Jorge, and still have a thing for the snark. Hell, so do we. Otherwise us Fredheads wouldn’t come back for more from Allah all the time.
You Fred heads are headed to the koolaide detoxification program any day now.
Take. It. Easy.
If only Fred wanted the presidency as bad as Mitt.
If only Fred wasn’t pushed into this campaign and decided to do it on his own.
If only….
You have to learn to keep politics an arms length away, and therefore enabling oneself to be more critical and not feel so bad about yourself and your decision to support a particular candidate.
I wonder though. Asking them the questions put them on the defensive. McCain fell for it and Mitt skewered him and Fred refused to answer. Now I noticed when Mitt quizzed Fred that he backed down and sat way back in his seat. It looked like he didn’t have an answer.
Maybe you are right, but I think it’s a bad idea when you have 5-6 people there. What the other guy will say is unpredictable and you may not even get a chance to follow up dependent on the moderator. 2 people then it’s totally different. But maybe you are right…I don’t see it that way though.
We are at war. The LAST thing we need is a President with a video of him in drag in the minds of the evil doers that we want to defeat. VP – ok. He is a bulldog.
As for Obama – face it we are ALL PC. We go out of our way to find an apostate loop hole for him. Our enemies will not. Their will be a Fatwa against him on day one, and we should expect many of those leaders he plans to “talk to” will not shake his hand. How’s that for a headline.
As it happens our enemies are still on the move. While it could have been foreseen that another attack could be avoided from 9/11 till now – it is a near certainty that something major if not spectacular will occur before the election.
Since we are talking about the future – imagine the “comments” from the candidates. Ron Paul makes me sick NOW for what I know he will say then. What about the others?
You know how certain people here like to claim that if a candidate can’t raise money, they can’t win an election? Obviously Huck is breaking that rule.
Ah but what does Huck have? What the money tries to buy! An ground organization and people who proselytize for him. Huck is in a special category.
Hugh Hewitt told me the joke was objectively crass, but I think, like “sanctuary mansion” from Giuliani, it’s intended to leave a mark, and in this case it may really do so. Actually, I think sanctuary mansion also hurt Romney, reinforcing the “phony” theme, but not in a way that helped Giuliani very much.
Romney has, typically, and tellingly, and very ironically changed his message overnight after Iowa. Suddenly, he’s like Obama, Mr. Change, when all along he’s been Joe Conservative. It’s as though he’s throwing the kitchen sink at this thing since he’s slow and steady buy the first two states strategy seems in danger of failing. So the Change theme is one thing he’s trying now. It’s going to be a bit embarrassing for him to keep it up.
I don’t dislike Mitt. I just don’t want him to be the R candidate. I think he approaches these debates with a collegial attitude, but at this particular moment in the race, it doesn’t work to treat these guys like colleagues at a brainstorming session. This is big presentation time, and the other guys are looking for a chance to slip a knife in.
That’s not true doriengrey, and I challenge you to find something in the vaults to prove your hallucinatory assertions.
My energies have been focused on Mitt and Rudy. I have not attacked Fred except on those issues I have already described. A few days ago I came to a realization that the fact that his campaign was being run so poorly did not give me confidence in his executive and leadership abilities. I made one comment to that effect, but that was it.
Yesterday (?) I said how great his nomination speech was (Rush read it on the radio) and suggested it should be part of his stump speech. I’ve done that sort of thing on a number of occasions and given him credit where credit was due. Up until tonight I did not dislike Fred in the least, I just wasn’t head over heels in love with him like the Fredheads.
There are plenty of people who have repeatedly attacked Fred on the issues, but I have not been one of them.
MadisonConservative on January 5, 2008 at 11:44 PM
The candidates that don’t have the ground support (translate…money) always complain about the guys who have the ground support (translate….money).
Everyone of them spend every dime they can get on their getting their message out to as many people as possible. Mitt has been outstanding at getting name recognition. Now all he has to do is get the message to resonate with the voters.
AND as spirit pointed out, Huck has the ground support that money can buy, but he gets it for free. Good for him, but I don’t think there is a rational person here who thinks that the shallow evangelical support he got in Iowa will be enough to propel him to the nomination.
And remember this you people who always translate attacks into fear of the candidate that is attacked. Mitt was attacked by every candidate up on stage. Obviously they all fear Mitt. A LOT.
Bla bla bla whatever…Just because you are smiling when you stab someone in the back doesn’t mean that you are a nice person. You are and have been for a long time a Mittenhead, nothing wrong with that. It’s the false pretentious attitude that you have the capacity to listen objectively to what anyone else says that is disgusting.
Your dishonest statement that Fred really turned you off is just plain objectionable. Like I said, nothing Fred could have done or said would have caused you to give him serious consideration. What you did was no different that smiling while you stabbed someone in the back. Dishonest and disingenuous.
AND as spirit pointed out, Huck has the ground support that money can buy, but he gets it for free. Good for him, but I don’t think there is a rational person here who thinks that the shallow evangelical support he got in Iowa will be enough to propel him to the nomination.
I’m glad you said that because I’m not trying to say it will carry him, but clearly in Iowa it did and that is the measure of success we are currently attributing to him. And he is endeavoring to raise 10mil by NH primary.
And remember this you people who always translate attacks into fear of the candidate that is attacked. Mitt was attacked by every candidate up on stage. Obviously they all fear Mitt. A LOT.
I was actually pondering this a second ago. They either fear him or dislike him. I can’t tell for sure. I think McCain is genuine in his animosity and I think Huck is too to a lesser degree. I though Rudy’s line was more funny then spiteful, but my point is this. Mitt obviously is recasting himself as an agent of change – I think that’s a mistake b/c it’s Johnny-come-lately after Obama won with that message. BUT the fact that all the career politicians on the stage attacked him makes that message have instant credibility. Kind of weird dynamic playing out because of the timing.
AND as spirit pointed out, Huck has the ground support that money can buy, but he gets it for free. Good for him, but I don’t think there is a rational person here who thinks that the shallow evangelical support he got in Iowa will be enough to propel him to the nomination.
It won’t just be Iowa. That bible belt, small number of delegates though they may be, can respond to that pious approach, as may some of the south. It can still make things difficult for everyone else.
And remember this you people who always translate attacks into fear of the candidate that is attacked. Mitt was attacked by every candidate up on stage. Obviously they all fear Mitt. A LOT.
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 12:02 AM
And I think that is because everyone is expecting Mitt to come out as frontrunner as Huck continues to stick his foot in his mouth spouting off false facts.
Still waiting to hear about the reaction to the piece about Mitt’s clan being behind the Fred dropout piece. If true, guess who THEY fear?
And remember this you people who always translate attacks into fear of the candidate that is attacked. Mitt was attacked by every candidate up on stage. Obviously they all fear Mitt. A LOT.
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 12:02 AM
Heh heh heh, no like sharks they all smelled blood in the water…And it was Mitt’s blood, so of course they attacked him. It was an opportunity they all could not resist to take one of the major players down a couple of notches.
Still waiting to hear about the reaction to the piece about Mitt’s clan being behind the Fred dropout piece. If true, guess who THEY fear?
MadisonConservative on January 6, 2008 at 12:09 AM
Well considering who csdeven has been attacking all along it really comes as no surprise. I guess Mitt is just like his militant Mittenheads after all.
I think the “change” strategy sucks too, and for the life of me I don’t understand what the point is except perhaps to get Independents.
As far as Mitt not handling the other guys, it’s very difficult when you’re being tag-teamed by that many people. I don’t know what he could have done other than what he did do which was to remain above the fray.
Doriengrey,
Kerist. I have said positive things about my candidates; that is not the same thing as attacking Fred.
It is not dishonest in the least when I say that Fred turned me off. I am nothing if not honest about my opinions.
Think back to the other night when I talked to you about what I thought was a melodramatic reaction to what you perceived was an unfair attack on Fred. I suggested that you might want to redirect your energies into something positive for his campaign. I did not attack you for supporting Fred; I did not attack Fred.
Are you serious? Romney tried to sink Fred with a misinformation campaign. He fed his lies to Novak, (and probably Politico), indicating that Fred was going to drop out and endorse McCain, (who Fred supporters don’t like). Romney is spending millions of dollars on negative campaigns against McCain and Huckabee.
Look at all the nasty things I’ve said about Fred!
We need an executive and a decision maker who can lead the nation. I’m not saying that Fred can’t do that, but it takes more than having good positions on the issues.
Buy Danish on January 1, 2008 at 4:06 PM
For the record I support Romney and Rudy equally with Fred in third place.
I did not attack you for supporting Fred; I did not attack Fred.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 12:15 AM
And I am not attacking you for being pro Romney. But your pretending that Fred could have not offended you is phony and dishonest. Face the truth man, Romney got clobbered yesterday and today he got beat up on by everyone and you are lashing out because of it. you are lashing out at Fred because Romney your man of choice has had a couple of pretty tough days. Furthermore how are you going to act when it turns out the Robert Novak is right and it was Romney that started the Fred is going to drop out cr@p?
And it was Mitt’s blood, so of course they attacked him. It was an opportunity they all could not resist to take one of the major players down a couple of notches.
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Well that certainly explains all the attacks on Fred. The guy has single handedly destroyed his early support and his detractors are sharks in the water trying to finish him off.
Look at all the nasty things I’ve said about Fred!
[…]
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 12:32 AM
If your point is that Mitt supporters only say nice things about the other candidates and therefore their supporters should return the favor, you should take another look at your candidate and his supporters. He’s spent millions of dollars attacking other candidates.
Still waiting to hear about the reaction to the piece about Mitt’s clan being behind the Fred dropout piece. If true, guess who THEY fear?
MadisonConservative on January 6, 2008 at 12:09 AM
I was putting all our Christmas (yeah CHRISTMAS!! I said it!!) decorations away and have not read it yet. I just heard about it a few minutes ago and people were arguing whether it was true or not. Bleh. I’ve had enough of the “he said, he said” stuff. I will eventually read it, but the debate was more interesting.
And you missed the point. I think it is usually completely irrational to claim a candidate is “feared” just because you attack the candidate. Sometimes they need to be dealt with. That’s politics.
My point is nothing of the sort. It has nothing to do with what “Mitt supporters” say, it has to do with what I have said about Fred Thompson. My point is that my positive support of my favorite candidates, Rudy and Mitt, does not translate into negatives about Fred.
I am responding to a personal attack that doriengrey is making against me, where among other things he is calling me a liar. Please read the thread…
I thought it was juvenile, but I like Mitt and despise Huckabee. I also thought it was telling to see the entire field attacking Mitt. Knock him out of the race? He was the most feared man on the stage.
Fred certainly says all the right things. I have read your comments to that effect many times. The problem I have with him is, like you, the excitable snarky snide remarks are no substitute for passionate policy explanations. His insistence on doing things his way comes off as elitist and stubborn. His policy positions are fraught with details that show he doesn’t understand executive responsibilities.
And lastly, and frankly, his rhetoric is just that. Rhetoric. His record doesn’t support what he says now. He is not candid about his conversion from pro-choice to pro-life.
But, having said that, he certainly is a conservative and I would vote for him if he were the nominee. I just wish he wouldn’t leave it up to his supporters to have all the FITB.
I said that Fred totally turned me off tonight with his snide remarks. What is dishonest about that, pray tell?
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 12:43 AM
You are falsely implying that you were not already turned off by Fred. You are being dishonest, you are kicking someone who you already did not like and claiming that now you don’t like them when the truth is you already didn’t like him and are making excuses to paint him in a negative light.
In order of quality of performance I put the candidates in this order:
Giuliani: best overall
Thompson: very good ideas but not forceful enough
McCain: heartfelt performance
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
I’m trying very hard to be objective. I’m an evangelical but didn’t think the Huckster did that well. I’m a Fredhead but I didn’t think he won. This is just my 2¢. I’ll take any of them over the Dhimmis.
I preferred ABC’s format but they just couldn’t resist the stupid loaded questions.
I preferred ABC’s format but they just couldn’t resist the stupid loaded questions.
Mojave Mark on January 6, 2008 at 1:20 AM
I liked it also. Except for the stupid way the doctor tried to define the health care issue the way he did. I think it was Fred or McCain that called them on that one.
What the heck happened there? I think doriengrey has cast a voodoo spell on me. Let’s try that again.
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 12:58 AM
There is a huge difference between not having avid enthusiasm for a candidate and disliking him. Until tonight I had no personal animus towards Fred, none whatsoever.
If you are going to call me “disgusting” you might want to have something concrete to back up your claims lest I think you are disgusting for making reckless charges.
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 Next »
Ironically it plays to two stereotypes: Mitt as a flipper and McCain as an old crank.
Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 9:07 PM
I thought it was funny, but overall I thought McCain came off badly overall.
FloatingRock on January 5, 2008 at 9:08 PM
That was funny, you could see Romney “figuring it out”.
Ha Ha!
omnipotent on January 5, 2008 at 9:11 PM
Ol’ McCain thought it was pretty funny himself.
BJ* on January 5, 2008 at 9:11 PM
Ummm…I’d have to say McCain was the only one laughing – uncomfortably so if I might be so bold.
cordeiro on January 5, 2008 at 9:11 PM
I agree. Mitt was also very apt not to laugh at that. Makes McCain look worse.
MadisonConservative on January 5, 2008 at 9:11 PM
SECOND LOOK AT
MOLDY FLIP FLOPPERSMCCAIN!wccawa on January 5, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Regardless how funny I thought it was, It really fell flat.
Weight of Glory on January 5, 2008 at 9:12 PM
I didn’t really care for that. I thought it was classless and unnecessary. McCain comes off as a real jerk when he does stuff like that.
CP on January 5, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Hey, Madison. Gimme your run down of the debate. I just got back home.
wccawa on January 5, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Yeah, he seemed to be the only one laughing.
Weight of Glory on January 5, 2008 at 9:13 PM
That fell as flat as a puppet smash by the Hillary train.
Mcguyver on January 5, 2008 at 9:13 PM
Let’s see, these people are running for What job?
mustang1 on January 5, 2008 at 9:14 PM
Click the link, boys. Fred was cracking up, too.
Allahpundit on January 5, 2008 at 9:14 PM
Fred was great, stellar even. And ‘pr1ck’ isn’t a profanity;)
/Madison
Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 9:15 PM
Oh! Did he? Then, that was the funniest joke I had ever heard.
Weight of Glory on January 5, 2008 at 9:16 PM
Yep, my boy cornpone has got a sense of humor still.
omnipotent on January 5, 2008 at 9:18 PM
He was just being nice and making sure McCain isn’t the only one laughing.
That was an extremely embarrassing goof by McVain. But then again he knows best how to level those insults.
“I know more about this f**king bill than you do”.
He’s old big A. He’s lost his edge a long time ago. He’s always been insulting and screaming at his colleagues.
Not funny.
Mcguyver on January 5, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Ok. I’m getting caught up now. Fred’s got a bigger sack than the rest of them combined. Am I on track?
wccawa on January 5, 2008 at 9:20 PM
You know, on second thought, I just plain missed the joke.
Flipper..change. I’m a little slow.
The audience was chuckling, and so did Fred, but McCain laughed at his own joke not just before the punchline but before he even started. lame lame lame. Plus which, it came out of no-where, seemingly. Gotta drop those one-liners when they happen, not five minutes later when you have to do the set up yourself.
Way too late to learn how to tell jokes McCain.
TexasDan on January 5, 2008 at 9:21 PM
Being a jerk isn’t a good look for McCain. It’s exactly why he turned me off in 2000 and pretty much ever since.
CP on January 5, 2008 at 9:22 PM
Considering I was busy during the debate, thanks for the backup.
And say prick with pride. ;)
MadisonConservative on January 5, 2008 at 9:27 PM
Wow…just watched the second clip. Amazing how much you could see in Mitt’s eyes his desire to just cold-cock Huck for nailing him there.
MadisonConservative on January 5, 2008 at 9:30 PM
I agree, but part of that ironically is because of the format. He got a lot of face-time he might not otherwise have had because of the multiple attacks.
Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 9:30 PM
Not only did I not think it was funny, it’s so unfunny that I’m not sure I get the joke.
Now, don’t get me wrong….I GET the joke, but it’s one of those things where its lack of humor makes me wonder….
Nessuno on January 5, 2008 at 9:31 PM
You’re welcome:) and it’s a pity.
Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Much obliged. I think have the gist of it thus far.
wccawa on January 5, 2008 at 9:34 PM
But cheer, cheer.. at least the big A gets blog hits, thanks to McVain. He’s good for something.
Mcguyver on January 5, 2008 at 9:37 PM
PRICK WITH PRIDE!!!!
wccawa on January 5, 2008 at 9:44 PM
wccawa: lol. I hope TD knows what she is getting with the two of you! :)
Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 9:48 PM
Fred was laughing at Mitt and McCain. Mitt because of what McCain said and McCain for being dumb enough to say it.
doriangrey on January 5, 2008 at 9:50 PM
She does…Thats why she has been flirting with me of late… ;P
doriangrey on January 5, 2008 at 9:51 PM
SHE has a pretty good idea, Spirit! :)
That’s my boys!
tickleddragon on January 5, 2008 at 9:51 PM
Teehee. Cute. :)
tickleddragon on January 5, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Okay…We need Rushbaby and Entelechy…and we have another party.
tickleddragon on January 5, 2008 at 9:53 PM
Just a comment on Mitt that I found over at StoptheACLU, which I thought was a pretty good summation of Mitt Romney:
I read that last part and it resonated with me. Mitt has a lot of ambition for political power, but he lacks the principles to achieve it. Based on his record, he seems to say and do and spend however much money and put out whatever attack ad to achieve his ambition. But he has to do this, because he knows his principles do not stand on their own.
I think this will ultimately sink Mitt Romney and will leave us with Rudy, Huckabee and Thompson as the choices. A Giuliani/Thompson ticket (if Fred goes back on his word to not be a VP choice) would be interesting.
Michael in MI on January 5, 2008 at 9:54 PM
oooo! burn!
McCain should’ve followed up with “applesauce, bitch.”
John from OPFOR on January 5, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Playing with the boys before talking to the man, huh? ;)
Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 9:59 PM
I enjoyed the “deer in the headlights” look when Romney kept getting reminded of his past record and positions.
Also, how about Hillary’s meltdown when Edwards tagged her as the status quo. I’m glad to see the real, angry Hillary emerging once again in front of a large audience – and on videotape.
blackrepublican on January 5, 2008 at 10:02 PM
I don’t know about that. I suppose it’s all relative. I don’t see how you can knock any one running for President as being too ambitious. I mean, your running for frickin president. That’s pretty ambitious.
krabbas on January 5, 2008 at 10:12 PM
krabbas, doesn’t ring for me either. Considering he was at top level of Corporation and top of Olympics. That might be meritocracy. If it were political ambition why would he not have spent his life in politics?
Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 10:14 PM
I support Romney so it’s no surprise that I was very turned off the cheap shots, and really, a general snarky hostility towards Romney by pretty much everyone on the state with the possible exception of Giuliani. Even Thompson was going after Romney hard. With McCain continuing to be a total prick I’m having a hard time seeing myself eventually supporting him. Thompson should stay above that shit, and I don’t think he did that tonight. Having said that, he did come off well, and I think for the average idiot that watched tonight and will vote on Tuesday, Romney did NOT have a good night. Perception is reality, and the more they trash him on supposed flip flops (and that’s news to me because he’s been consistent this entire time) the more they become true.
Patriot33 on January 5, 2008 at 10:15 PM
Angry Hillary clip! Angry Hillary clip! {banging highchair}
Cuffy Meigs on January 5, 2008 at 10:22 PM
SECOND LOOK AT TICKLEDDRAGONS PARTY…
Whistles softly to self…
doriangrey on January 5, 2008 at 10:32 PM
I agree, Romney won this debate, looking very cool under fire, and sounding very presidential again. If this is as bad as it gets for him, Tuesday will be a cake walk.
paulsur on January 5, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Great screencap. McCain laughing, Fred trying not to and Mitt looking like a schoolboy getting picked on
Gatordoug on January 5, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Heh. Poor kids aren’t going to know what hit ‘em.
Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 10:38 PM
I thought Mitt did very well, although I thought his summary was boring. Didn’t Fred interrupt that too? Fred totally turned me off with his rude, smartass comments, and constant interrupting. He did nothing to endear me to him tonight.
McCain was the big loser though, and that’s target number one through New Hampshire.
Buy Danish on January 5, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Agreed, and the idea that Mitt is more ambitious than the rest of them is just silly anyway.
If anything, he is less motivated by personal ambition than the rest of them, particularly Huck and McNasty. Mitt wants to make the world a better place for his children and grandchildren and thinks he can make a difference. He has been raised to give back to the “community”. It’s far more a case of noblesse oblige than personal ambition.
Buy Danish on January 5, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Oh poppycock…You’ve been hating on Fred for a long time now. Nothing Fred could possibly have done was going to change that. Quite pretending to have anything even remotely approaching objectivity in this.
doriangrey on January 5, 2008 at 11:06 PM
McCain is a bitter old man. He has been consistently dead wrong on taxes and dead wrong on immigration. He continues to flat-out lie about his position on AMNESTY for illegals — I don’t care if he gets shot down again tomorrow, I’m not voting for the geezer.
D2Boston on January 5, 2008 at 11:13 PM
That seems to be all Fred has the energy for anymore. He gets really animated and excitable when he gets to get all snarky and wise-a$$ed, but he is all lethargic when it comes to policy. He completely underwhelmed me in the way he presents his stances. He seems lazy.
Mitt clear was the class of the field, stayed on topic, and had the clearest detailed answers of the group. He turned all the attacks into calls for a discussion on the issues. I especially enjoyed it when he told Fred to put up or shut up. To Mitt’s credit he answered the question. To Fred’s discredit, he didn’t reciprocate. Mainly because Fred doesn’t have a policy on the issue.
Rudy did OK.
I’d vote for RP in a second if he were running for domestic policy in chief. But as the job gives all the foreign policy decisions to the president, he wouldn’t get one second of consideration.
Huck’s lack of depth on the issues was clearly evident. Hopefully Rudy and Mitt can keep the debates on the issues and not how we FEEL about Jesus.
McCain lost big time. He stumbled on immigration and his silly personal attacks were classless.
csdeven on January 5, 2008 at 11:15 PM
That is unadulterated BS. I have faulted him for running a horrible campaign which is pretty hard to argue with, but I have said I like his policies. The only thing I have said that bothered me about him was his support of McCain-Feingold, and I have said I prefer executives to legislators.
He has done nothing to spark any enthusiasm with me, and the only positive thing that I can think of that he’s done was to say he wouldn’t raise his hand during the Iowa debate. That was great, but it’s not enough.
His snide, performance tonight was a total turnoff for me.
Buy Danish on January 5, 2008 at 11:16 PM
I noticed that and it was very classy indeed. He did that with McCain too. Something along the lines of, okay if I have it wrong, what was your policy on immigration?
He looked presidential, while McCain and Fred came off looking like a couple of punks.
Buy Danish on January 5, 2008 at 11:21 PM
I agree with what several have said:
Romney won the debate in more ways that one.
First – the attackers came off bad, while Romney stayed respectful.
Secondly – Romney managed to be the center of attention of the debate one way or another the whole time.
grtflmark on January 5, 2008 at 11:26 PM
You’re projecting. That’s the Fredhead in you coming out. :-)
What you were seeing in Mitt was disappointment that most of these guys came to level personal attacks rather than address issues. Probably because they don’t have the issues figured out yet. But, that didn’t stop Mitt. He continued to discuss the issues. Especially when McCain tried to nuance his position on immigration.
csdeven on January 5, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Romney made a couple of rookie mistakes though. He asked questions of other candidates during the time he was given to speak? Pointless and reckless.
Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Sorry, I don’t get the joke. Insider jokes don’t win votes.
Perhaps he is insinuating that Romney is changing his rhetoric to mimic Obama. Or is it that he is a clear symbol of the establishment – rich, white? Maybe it is that his negative ads are a sign of politics as usual. Or is it an insider Mormon joke?
Seems the two DINOSAURS laughing (trying to keep their teeth in) doesn’t suggest they are agents of change (unless it is their Depends underwear).
ROMNEY/THOMPSON. That’s the ticket.
Agrippa2k on January 5, 2008 at 11:32 PM
Question mark was accidental of course.
Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 11:32 PM
I see what you are trying to sell, but I have been watching you so I’m not buying, unadulterated BS is what you are selling. Try selling it to another Mittenhead, they love that kind of cr@p…
doriangrey on January 5, 2008 at 11:32 PM
Or ROMNEY/HUNTER – just as good.
Agrippa2k on January 5, 2008 at 11:36 PM
I wonder though. Asking them the questions put them on the defensive. McCain fell for it and Mitt skewered him and Fred refused to answer. Now I noticed when Mitt quizzed Fred that he backed down and sat way back in his seat. It looked like he didn’t have an answer.
csdeven on January 5, 2008 at 11:42 PM
Nice try, and wishful thinking, but no. You know how certain people here like to claim that if a candidate can’t raise money, they can’t win an election? Obviously Huck is breaking that rule. However, the rule in this day and age is that style continues to rule over substance. Mitt was thrown off track over and over by others, and it showed. He used to be able to volley those remarks, and those make for big impressions on the average voter. In the above clip, Huck came out as much better, and Mitt came off as the 1950s next door neighbor scolding a child down the street. A lot of Americans really have not learned from amnesty-shilling Jorge, and still have a thing for the snark. Hell, so do we. Otherwise us Fredheads wouldn’t come back for more from Allah all the time.
MadisonConservative on January 5, 2008 at 11:44 PM
You Fred heads are headed to the koolaide detoxification program any day now.
Take. It. Easy.
If only Fred wanted the presidency as bad as Mitt.
If only Fred wasn’t pushed into this campaign and decided to do it on his own.
If only….
You have to learn to keep politics an arms length away, and therefore enabling oneself to be more critical and not feel so bad about yourself and your decision to support a particular candidate.
Koolaide drinkers cannot be objective.
GET. OVER. IT!
Mcguyver on January 5, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Maybe you are right, but I think it’s a bad idea when you have 5-6 people there. What the other guy will say is unpredictable and you may not even get a chance to follow up dependent on the moderator. 2 people then it’s totally different. But maybe you are right…I don’t see it that way though.
Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 11:49 PM
I like Rudy. Really I do. I’m from New York. But…
We are at war. The LAST thing we need is a President with a video of him in drag in the minds of the evil doers that we want to defeat. VP – ok. He is a bulldog.
As for Obama – face it we are ALL PC. We go out of our way to find an apostate loop hole for him. Our enemies will not. Their will be a Fatwa against him on day one, and we should expect many of those leaders he plans to “talk to” will not shake his hand. How’s that for a headline.
As it happens our enemies are still on the move. While it could have been foreseen that another attack could be avoided from 9/11 till now – it is a near certainty that something major if not spectacular will occur before the election.
Since we are talking about the future – imagine the “comments” from the candidates. Ron Paul makes me sick NOW for what I know he will say then. What about the others?
Agrippa2k on January 5, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Ah but what does Huck have? What the money tries to buy! An ground organization and people who proselytize for him. Huck is in a special category.
Spirit of 1776 on January 5, 2008 at 11:51 PM
Hugh Hewitt told me the joke was objectively crass, but I think, like “sanctuary mansion” from Giuliani, it’s intended to leave a mark, and in this case it may really do so. Actually, I think sanctuary mansion also hurt Romney, reinforcing the “phony” theme, but not in a way that helped Giuliani very much.
Romney has, typically, and tellingly, and very ironically changed his message overnight after Iowa. Suddenly, he’s like Obama, Mr. Change, when all along he’s been Joe Conservative. It’s as though he’s throwing the kitchen sink at this thing since he’s slow and steady buy the first two states strategy seems in danger of failing. So the Change theme is one thing he’s trying now. It’s going to be a bit embarrassing for him to keep it up.
I don’t dislike Mitt. I just don’t want him to be the R candidate. I think he approaches these debates with a collegial attitude, but at this particular moment in the race, it doesn’t work to treat these guys like colleagues at a brainstorming session. This is big presentation time, and the other guys are looking for a chance to slip a knife in.
CK MacLeod on January 5, 2008 at 11:57 PM
That’s not true doriengrey, and I challenge you to find something in the vaults to prove your hallucinatory assertions.
My energies have been focused on Mitt and Rudy. I have not attacked Fred except on those issues I have already described. A few days ago I came to a realization that the fact that his campaign was being run so poorly did not give me confidence in his executive and leadership abilities. I made one comment to that effect, but that was it.
Yesterday (?) I said how great his nomination speech was (Rush read it on the radio) and suggested it should be part of his stump speech. I’ve done that sort of thing on a number of occasions and given him credit where credit was due. Up until tonight I did not dislike Fred in the least, I just wasn’t head over heels in love with him like the Fredheads.
There are plenty of people who have repeatedly attacked Fred on the issues, but I have not been one of them.
Buy Danish on January 5, 2008 at 11:59 PM
The candidates that don’t have the ground support (translate…money) always complain about the guys who have the ground support (translate….money).
Everyone of them spend every dime they can get on their getting their message out to as many people as possible. Mitt has been outstanding at getting name recognition. Now all he has to do is get the message to resonate with the voters.
AND as spirit pointed out, Huck has the ground support that money can buy, but he gets it for free. Good for him, but I don’t think there is a rational person here who thinks that the shallow evangelical support he got in Iowa will be enough to propel him to the nomination.
And remember this you people who always translate attacks into fear of the candidate that is attacked. Mitt was attacked by every candidate up on stage. Obviously they all fear Mitt. A LOT.
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 12:02 AM
Bla bla bla whatever…Just because you are smiling when you stab someone in the back doesn’t mean that you are a nice person. You are and have been for a long time a Mittenhead, nothing wrong with that. It’s the false pretentious attitude that you have the capacity to listen objectively to what anyone else says that is disgusting.
Your dishonest statement that Fred really turned you off is just plain objectionable. Like I said, nothing Fred could have done or said would have caused you to give him serious consideration. What you did was no different that smiling while you stabbed someone in the back. Dishonest and disingenuous.
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 12:07 AM
I’m glad you said that because I’m not trying to say it will carry him, but clearly in Iowa it did and that is the measure of success we are currently attributing to him. And he is endeavoring to raise 10mil by NH primary.
I was actually pondering this a second ago. They either fear him or dislike him. I can’t tell for sure. I think McCain is genuine in his animosity and I think Huck is too to a lesser degree. I though Rudy’s line was more funny then spiteful, but my point is this. Mitt obviously is recasting himself as an agent of change – I think that’s a mistake b/c it’s Johnny-come-lately after Obama won with that message. BUT the fact that all the career politicians on the stage attacked him makes that message have instant credibility. Kind of weird dynamic playing out because of the timing.
Spirit of 1776 on January 6, 2008 at 12:08 AM
It won’t just be Iowa. That bible belt, small number of delegates though they may be, can respond to that pious approach, as may some of the south. It can still make things difficult for everyone else.
And I think that is because everyone is expecting Mitt to come out as frontrunner as Huck continues to stick his foot in his mouth spouting off false facts.
Still waiting to hear about the reaction to the piece about Mitt’s clan being behind the Fred dropout piece. If true, guess who THEY fear?
MadisonConservative on January 6, 2008 at 12:09 AM
Heh heh heh, no like sharks they all smelled blood in the water…And it was Mitt’s blood, so of course they attacked him. It was an opportunity they all could not resist to take one of the major players down a couple of notches.
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Well considering who csdeven has been attacking all along it really comes as no surprise. I guess Mitt is just like his militant Mittenheads after all.
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 12:12 AM
I think the “change” strategy sucks too, and for the life of me I don’t understand what the point is except perhaps to get Independents.
As far as Mitt not handling the other guys, it’s very difficult when you’re being tag-teamed by that many people. I don’t know what he could have done other than what he did do which was to remain above the fray.
Doriengrey,
Kerist. I have said positive things about my candidates; that is not the same thing as attacking Fred.
It is not dishonest in the least when I say that Fred turned me off. I am nothing if not honest about my opinions.
Think back to the other night when I talked to you about what I thought was a melodramatic reaction to what you perceived was an unfair attack on Fred. I suggested that you might want to redirect your energies into something positive for his campaign. I did not attack you for supporting Fred; I did not attack Fred.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 12:15 AM
Are you serious? Romney tried to sink Fred with a misinformation campaign. He fed his lies to Novak, (and probably Politico), indicating that Fred was going to drop out and endorse McCain, (who Fred supporters don’t like). Romney is spending millions of dollars on negative campaigns against McCain and Huckabee.
Mitt is anything but innocent.
FloatingRock on January 6, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Look at all the nasty things I’ve said about Fred!
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 12:32 AM
Somebody should tell Huck that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
2Brave2Bscared on January 6, 2008 at 12:34 AM
And I am not attacking you for being pro Romney. But your pretending that Fred could have not offended you is phony and dishonest. Face the truth man, Romney got clobbered yesterday and today he got beat up on by everyone and you are lashing out because of it. you are lashing out at Fred because Romney your man of choice has had a couple of pretty tough days. Furthermore how are you going to act when it turns out the Robert Novak is right and it was Romney that started the Fred is going to drop out cr@p?
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 12:38 AM
Well that certainly explains all the attacks on Fred. The guy has single handedly destroyed his early support and his detractors are sharks in the water trying to finish him off.
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 12:39 AM
Oh my! Here’s another nasty comment about Fred! Shame on me!
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 12:39 AM
If your point is that Mitt supporters only say nice things about the other candidates and therefore their supporters should return the favor, you should take another look at your candidate and his supporters. He’s spent millions of dollars attacking other candidates.
FloatingRock on January 6, 2008 at 12:40 AM
What? I have trouble following double negatives.
I said that Fred totally turned me off tonight with his snide remarks. What is dishonest about that, pray tell?
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 12:43 AM
I was putting all our Christmas (yeah CHRISTMAS!! I said it!!) decorations away and have not read it yet. I just heard about it a few minutes ago and people were arguing whether it was true or not. Bleh. I’ve had enough of the “he said, he said” stuff. I will eventually read it, but the debate was more interesting.
And you missed the point. I think it is usually completely irrational to claim a candidate is “feared” just because you attack the candidate. Sometimes they need to be dealt with. That’s politics.
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 12:43 AM
Does HA have a thread about this link to Romney and the rumor about Fred dropping out? I don’t see it in the headlines or the main blog.
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 12:49 AM
My point is nothing of the sort. It has nothing to do with what “Mitt supporters” say, it has to do with what I have said about Fred Thompson. My point is that my positive support of my favorite candidates, Rudy and Mitt, does not translate into negatives about Fred.
I am responding to a personal attack that doriengrey is making against me, where among other things he is calling me a liar. Please read the thread…
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 12:51 AM
I thought it was juvenile, but I like Mitt and despise Huckabee. I also thought it was telling to see the entire field attacking Mitt. Knock him out of the race? He was the most feared man on the stage.
Jaibones on January 6, 2008 at 12:51 AM
Fred certainly says all the right things. I have read your comments to that effect many times. The problem I have with him is, like you, the excitable snarky snide remarks are no substitute for passionate policy explanations. His insistence on doing things his way comes off as elitist and stubborn. His policy positions are fraught with details that show he doesn’t understand executive responsibilities.
And lastly, and frankly, his rhetoric is just that. Rhetoric. His record doesn’t support what he says now. He is not candid about his conversion from pro-choice to pro-life.
But, having said that, he certainly is a conservative and I would vote for him if he were the nominee. I just wish he wouldn’t leave it up to his supporters to have all the FITB.
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 12:57 AM
You are falsely implying that you were not already turned off by Fred. You are being dishonest, you are kicking someone who you already did not like and claiming that now you don’t like them when the truth is you already didn’t like him and are making excuses to paint him in a negative light.
doriangrey on January 6, 2008 at 12:58 AM
Sorry, thought I had, but maybe not. I think I’m getting two threads mixed up.
FloatingRock on January 6, 2008 at 1:03 AM
dorian, don’t you think you should let BD define herself? I know for a fact that Fred isn’t her fav, but she certainly does not hate him.
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 1:20 AM
In order of quality of performance I put the candidates in this order:
Giuliani: best overall
Thompson: very good ideas but not forceful enough
McCain: heartfelt performance
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
I’m trying very hard to be objective. I’m an evangelical but didn’t think the Huckster did that well. I’m a Fredhead but I didn’t think he won. This is just my 2¢. I’ll take any of them over the Dhimmis.
I preferred ABC’s format but they just couldn’t resist the stupid loaded questions.
Mojave Mark on January 6, 2008 at 1:20 AM
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 1:22 AM
dorian,
When was the last time you gave Mitt credit for anything? You know he won Wyoming tonight right? Don’t you think kudos is in order?
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 1:23 AM
I liked it also. Except for the stupid way the doctor tried to define the health care issue the way he did. I think it was Fred or McCain that called them on that one.
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 1:24 AM
What the heck happened there? I think doriengrey has cast a voodoo spell on me. Let’s try that again.
There is a huge difference between not having avid enthusiasm for a candidate and disliking him. Until tonight I had no personal animus towards Fred, none whatsoever.
If you are going to call me “disgusting” you might want to have something concrete to back up your claims lest I think you are disgusting for making reckless charges.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 1:29 AM
**Not safe for doriengrey**
For what it’s worth, I see that Dick Morris and some other strategist (Laura something) on FNC both said Mitt won the debate.
Buy Danish on January 6, 2008 at 1:34 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »