Didn’t get to see the debate due to work but have read up on it a bit. It seems the consensus was that Fred did well, Rudy knocked it out of the park once again, Mitt held his own and the rest didn’t do much to advance their status in this race. Ron Paul acted like a loon as he usually does and then we have Chrissy Matthews. The man, the myth, the legend who loves the sound of his own voice.
The first debate with Fred Thompson was expected to reveal whether
the lanky actor had what it takes to make a national run for the
office. Instead, it revealed Chris Matthews as a hack of the first
order, one who tried his best to torpedo Thompson — and failed
utterly. He got so desparate that he demanded to know whether Thompson
knew who the Canadian Prime Minister was — and he did. Matthews grew
so frustrated that he openly critiqued one of Thompson’s answer for
being too detailed, which prompted a scolding from Thompson.That was the game behind the debate, and Thompson stomped Matthews into a laughingstock.
Ace:
Rudy vs. Ron Paul. Who cares. Beating up on this Ass-Puppet For Ahmadinejad is
too easy and it’s no longer satisfying.
Fred was fine, but a little flat. He perked up toward the end, and I think will
continue to perk up as he gets more debates under his belt. He needs to attack
his answers a little more and fill up the time he’s given, but he left people
with a couple good laugh lines and good, basic assurances of his free-market
conservatism. Probably a win for him, overall.Rudy was strongest for me.
He was optimistic, funny, comfortable talking about these issues. He thrives on
the little dust-ups with Romney and Paul, and continues to play presumptive
nominee by taking shots at the absent Hillary.I appreciated McCain’s
unabashed defense of free trade on a stage with a bunch of hemming and hawing.
Well done, informed history lesson for everyone. McCain is generally good in
debates, but I’m not convinced this is a comeback for him.Romney was
solid, but he’s gonna get hammered on his quote about letting “lawyers” decide
whether he goes to Congress about going to war. Too reminiscent of Kerry’s
“global test” moment.
Frankly all four top tier candidates did pretty well. Fred/Rooty tied for first.
Mitt/McCain tied for second. Rest….who cares–although Sam Brownback gets a
prize for the best “Smiling Bob” impersonation.
This debate was about Fred Thompson and how he would do and I believe that he
came out quite well, maybe a bit more than well. Overall I saw the debate as one
that showcased liberalism vs. conservatism with Chris Matthews living up to hype
as most likely the greatest partisan in media. Yet he landed no blows.But NBC should really look at sacking this clown. Could you have imagined if
Britt Hume had been this way to Democrats at their debate? Oh, that’s right,
they can’t stand in the realm of ideas – for they have none – and as we’ve seen
in the last few weeks, they can dish it, but can’t take it.
and the Winner Is…Fred Thompson.
He showed up — a big thing — and he didn’t do bad at all.
In order? Might look something like: Thompson. McCain. Rudy. Romney. ??
McCain continues to make a reluctant conservative take a second look.
Giuliani and Romney win, going away.
I think Fred held his own huh? Here is a video of different scenes from the debate, mostly dealing with Fred. Including the one where Chrissy tries to insult Fred after his GM answer:
Link: sevenload.com
See author page
Giuliani and Thompson both did well. Romney seemed to get the worse of his argument with Rudy, and also got dinged for his ‘consult the lawyers’ answer on declaring war. McCain seemed hard of hearing a couple of times, which shouldn’t matter but does leave him looking old. Also he said at one point ‘I wish interest rates were zero’, which sounds pretty batty. Huckabee was his usual self, which is to say he came off well, though he didn’t deliver any memorable jokes that I recall.
Paul set himself far apart on the war and foreign policy as usual.
Hunter and Tancredo didn’t get much air time (less than Paul, and they don’t talk nearly as fast…). I hadn’t realized quite how much of a protectionist Hunter was. There’s a constituency for that in the Republican party, but the issue doesn’t seem to have gotten Hunter any traction. I was surprised that Tancredo didn’t pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee (Paul’s refusal to do so, on the other hand, didn’t surprise me).
Brownback never makes any impression on me (except that he sometimes comes across as squinty). I can see why he lost his duel with Huckabee in Iowa despite bringing far more resources to the game.
Overall not the result I was hoping for. Thompson is much preferable to Giuliani, and if anyone gained ground here it was probably Rudy.
Christian Coalition will not support Thompson, Guilianni, McCain or Romney, and the Republicans cannot win without them.
As of right now, it looks like it’ll be another election-cycle
of “lesser of two evils”.
Why can’t the Republican party learn?
Ron Paul is like that crazy uncle that people whisper about over Thanksgiving dinner. Seriously, what a fricking loon…
@Johnnyb
You may be right that the GOP can’t win without the Christian Coalition, but increasingly it looks as though they can’t win with them either. Maybe I’m wrong, but this debate did little to relieve those doubts.
The Republican Party was not built on the Christian coalition. It was built by Northern middle class farmers and then middle class businesses. I think the winner will be the one that goes after the middle class and the upper lower class, which were the original targets of the original GOP.
Well of course Ron Paul won the Debate.
Thompson was stale, boring, and slow, mostly repeating the questions in his answers.
RP nailed Romney for his smarmy ask the Lawyers answer.
RP nailed Rudy for his “Hedge funds benefit from free market” quote – of course its not a free market phenomena, even the financial guys know this.
RP nailed Rudy again during the 911 comment. Rudy insinuated that attacking Afghanistan before 911 could have prevented the attack. Of course this is a ridiculous statement, since the terrorist trained in the US for several years, and we had in fact attacked both Afghanistan, and Sudan under Bill Clinton. So here’s Rudy copying a clinton policy that failed (though I’m sure that he will say that he will attack them better). Then, he forgets the fact that After we attacked Afghanistan, we did not get Bin Laden, and we did not stop terrorist attacks in London or Madrid. I know that the Islamofacist conspiracies theorist love Giuliani’s 911 turrets, but it will kill him in the national election, when all the antiwar folks line up against him.
Christian Coalition will not support Thompson, Guilianni, McCain or Romney
You write as if the coalition were a monolith that will either deliver or withhold all of its votes in one block. I’m sure social conservatives have their reasons for disliking any of the guys you list, but the depth of opposition varies widely. Giuliani seems to be way more unacceptable to them than the other three, which makes sense given that he’s openly pro-choice.
Liz at it again
This Liz Sidoti AP hack piece begins:
“Fred Thompson remembered his lines in his first stage performance.
The newcomer to the Republican presidential field neither stood out nor fouled up Tuesday in his inaugural debate of the 2008 White House race. He held his own but hardly came off as the Ronald Reagan-like savior of the GOP that backers have built him up to be.”
The liberal word twisters are earning their Soros dollars well…
Thompson is the man — he is the best I think of the candidates, but Guiliani is strong on the issues as well.
Ron Paul? Sigh.
The liberal word twisters are earning their Soros dollars well
Well, Hugh Hewitt was equally unkind to Thompson. I imagine he also has an agenda, but I don’t think he’s cashing checks from Soros 😉