Work prevented me from watching the debate tonight but judging from the reactions across the blogosphere, Fred appears to have won the thing:
On points, Fred Thompson won the debate.
Every answer was thoughtful and well-crafted; his tone matched the
tone of the question; he wisely refrained from interjecting in the back
and forth squabbling. He very deftly reminded viewers that he served on
key Senate national security panels and is bringing his experience to
bear. Even his insults were subtly and gently constructed In some ways,
Thompson did McCain’s bidding. You skeptical readers can tell me that
if Thompson had finished a solid fourth in Iowa, I might not be writing
about Thompson at all, that said, he’s still a candidate, and his
performance tonight tells me his mind is not elsewhere.
…he came to play tonight.
…Fred Thompson talking some serious substance too — man, maybe I underestimated him.
Let me join the bandwagon: he was good tonight.
Rich and Mark Steyn are right, and I was wrong. I always think it’s
strange when the great athletes talk about letting the game come to
them. But that’s how this format worked for Fred, and when called on he
did great. I thought his explanation of healthcare economics was
staggeringly good — I don’t see how you could do it better in this
format. And when he went into trial lawyer mode, cross-examining the
other candidates, he did in the effective way — no screaming, but
pressing (patiently but insistently) for an answer. Very nicely done.
A man of few words, Fred Thompson, but the few words he does uses, he
uses well.[…]Fred wins. He said the least but what he said was most worth listening
to. He managed to come across as the sage in the race, too wise to get
into the fray but not above smacking the kids around when he has to.
Fred was at home in this format and showed it. He was
sharp as a tack and actually quite eloquent at times. He skewered
Romney on health care, flustering the former governor to the point that
he actually said he liked health insurance mandates. And his dismissive
answer about oil company profits was vintage Fred.I wish Fred had engaged the other candidates more in the sidebars
and back and forths. Nevertheless, many, including Marc Ambinder,
thought Fred won. Perhaps, but it won’t do him any good in New
Hampshire. Elsewhere — like South Carolina or even Michigan — we’ll
have to see.
With respect to Brother Jonathan, in my judgment Fred Thompson turned
in a very fine performance, the more effective for proving underplayed.
The others fought, bickered, attempted to demonstrate their brains.
Naturally enough, they commanded the viewer’s immediate attention. But
did they look like chief executives of a great nation? Or like
candidates for a student council? Thompson stood, in effect, to one
side, quiet and dignified, speaking less often, perhaps, but with
cogency and principle. Thompson alone conveyed a sense of gravitas. He
looked, spoke, and comported himself like a president.
Still, the night belonged to Fred. Tonight’s performance is what I envisioned when I first started talking about Fred 23 months ago. I told my fring King Banaian that Fred’s depth of knowledge on all the issues would make him a great debater. Tonight, Fred showcased his debating skills.
I will be reading as much as I can about the debate tonight but Gary’s rundown of a few questions were interesting:
When Mike Huckabee was asked what he meant when he said that President Bush’s foreign policy was too arrogant, Gov. Huckabee explained that he meant that we should’ve sent in more troops into Iraq.
Fred immediately pounced on that, saying that “I think the Governor has rethought what he said because now he seems to be saying that we were arrogant because we didn’t go in with enough troops.” It isn’t the type of thing that changes the course of the rest of the debate but it’s something that Fred will use when the campaign moves to South Carolina. It’s something that Huckabee will have to ‘rethink’ again.
Another great Fred moment was one of Mitt’s low moments. Charlie Gibson asked, in the context of talking about Mitt’s health care plan, if Mitt liked mandates, to which Mitt said “Oh no, I like mandates.” Fred jumped in, saying “I didn’t think you’d admit that tonight.”
When Ron Paul talked about health care, he said that Charlie Gibson had provided the answer why we don’t have universal health care. Paul said that we don’t have health care because we’re waging a “trillion dollar war” and that we need to “stop printing new money.” Fred’s response was direct. “So you’re saying if we stopped printing more money, we could get out of Iraq and give everybody health care”?
Frankly, Ron Paul is giving libertarianism a bad name with some of his answers. When he talked about the terrorists’ war against civilization, Rep. Paul asked why the terrorists haven’t hit Canada. He said that terrorists aren’t hitting other nations. Rudy jumped all over that, saying that terrorists had hid Bali and London, then asking why the terrorists had hit the 1972 Munich Olympics or killed Leon Klinghoffer. Mitt Romney cited the Madrid train bombings.
Sounds like it was an interesting debate and even better, Fred did well. On the Democrat side it appears this best illustrates it:
![](https://floppingaces.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/curtlogo.png)
See author page
Fred was great last night. He was the man everyone WANTED him to be months ago. I dunno if it was Fred or McCain who “won” the debate last night, but Ron Paul actually managed to look even older, slower, and more exhausted than Fred on a bad day, and Mitt took it hard. Huck didn’t do too well or too bad-his most mediocre debate to date. The sit down and discuss forum was definitely the best yet imo.
Like I said, a McCain/Thompson ticket-were they to announce it today-would seal it for them.
Even his insults were subtly and gently constructed
This is an interesting observation. I would say the same thing, but I think it’s a double-edged sword. On the one hand, Fred scores big points with people who get the insults – and this isn’t the first debate where he’s offered a comeback that I think was lost on more than half the audience. But unfortunately I think the easy zingers may win more votes.
McCain/Thompson
The logic of age sinks the ticket. Everyone (including and maybe especially the VP himself) wants a veep who’s young enough to be a plausible presidential candidate next time around. Anyway, to my eyes McCain is a specialist on foreign policy while Thompson is a generalist, which would make Thompson/McCain more logical – but again McCain would be too old.
So true Bbart…’course, that logic of yours nixes a Ron Paul VP potential.
Remember, I agree with 2 of Ron Paul’s pts:
1) AQ used US war on Iraq in the 90’s as excuse for 911 (happily, he even used the word “excuse” last night)
AND
2) The President should almost never have to take military action without seeking a Congressional declaration (shy of a nuke armageddon scenario…it takes as much time to convene Congress as it does to plan, prepare, and initiate a military action.
HOWEVER…while all the candidates looked tired last night…RP looked like nursing home or hospice potential. Thompson may be baggy eyed, but RP’s gone into the old folks home of puffy eyed. It was sad. When all the candidates (D/R) got together, I thought someone was going to pull him aside and ask if he was ok. Not healthy looking at all.
I’m sorry, but here comes another McCain rant. His insults, then hideous snicker. He shows his serious mental problems, but nobody seems to care. The man is a serious wacko, wake up every one he’s dangerous.
nixes a Ron Paul VP potential
Ha! Like this was ever even a remote possibility. *Nobody* would put Paul in a VP slot, even if he was twenty years younger. But then, the only one of the Republicans that looks like a plausible VP pick to me is Huckabee.
“Ha! Like this was ever even a remote possibility. *Nobody* would put Paul in a VP slot, even if he was twenty years younger. But then, the only one of the Republicans that looks like a plausible VP pick to me is Huckabee.”
If he’s not a remote possibility as VP, then it’s equally hard to see him as any more than barely a possibility for P.
VP…I’m gonna go with (in no order)
Rudy (gotta carry the big four states: Fla, NY, Ca, and TX)
Voinovich (Ohio’s bigtime in play this time)
some retired general
Lieberman
McCain reminded everyone about where he stands on Shamnesty. If that doesn’t do it, than nobody really cares and the almost miraculous last-minute retreat from the brink of Amnesty last summer was just a fluke. Rudy fessed up to being not very different on the topic.
Fred demonstrated once again that he is the only true conservative in the race. If his relatively laid-back style is what people care about, then conservatism, substance, knowledge of facts and issues don’t mean a damn thing.
Why do you guys think the VP is going to come from this group?
History finds that very unlikely.
What Fred would need is someone to expand the appeal of the ticket and the geographical areas of potential support.
Working that premise I could live with a Fred/Mike Steel run.