Everybody Was Good; Fred, Rudy, and Huck Were Best

The Campaign Spot ^ | October 21, 2007 | Jim Geraghty

[jellybean]

Everybody Was Good; Fred, Rudy, and Huck Were Best

Wow. By far, the best debate of the cycle in either party. Just about everybody came out swinging, took some lumps, countered, made the crowd laugh, spurred applause, and jabbed at the moderators. The crowd was fired up, and the moderators took an aggressive tack that shook any lingering lethargy out of the candidates. Feel confident, Republicans. One way or another, the GOP is going to have a good debater representing it next year.

Winner or winners? Tough to call, because I think we saw just about every candidate at their best tonight, even the no-hopers like Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo. So I’ll classify the participants a bit differently this evening:

Helped Themselves a Lot Tonight:

Fred Thompson: Frankly, he needed it. He really should have gotten a bigger chunk of the vote at the Family Research Council summit straw poll, and let’s face it, we had been waiting for any speech, any debate appearance, any event with Thompson to be a “wow, that was fantastic.” Well, tonight was that moment we’ve been waiting for, maybe none better than his answer to Wendell Goler’s question/accusation of laziness. His answer on the lobbying for the abortion group was strong, too – ‘look at my votes, and the pro-choice folks I worked for are pulling this out now because they fear me.’ Finally – finally! – we’re seeing what we wanted to see in Thompson – homespun, able to make his case simply, directly, and clearly, and with a bit of humor here and there.

Rudy Giuliani: The first time I thought Rudy Giuliani could be president was at his 2004 convention speech, where he hit all kinds of emotional notes just right. Similar performance tonight – maybe heavy on laughs - but it worked. Pugnacious, quick thinker on his feet, engaging. And, as usual, if you lead the polls, and nobody walks out of a debate talking about your gaffes or bad answers (and other than a slightly weird joke about not being sure that he didn’t accidentally perform a gay marriage, Rudy didn’t have many bad moments) you won. Rudy won’t lose ground; this is a candidate and a campaign hitting all cylanders at just the right time. He took some shots, but the attacks were probably old news to those following the race day in, day out.

Mike Huckabee: After the FRC summit, he’s the social conservative choice, and if he gets the nomination, Hillary won’t know what hit her. This guy can sell ice to Eskimos. Kept his momentum, and played against his "the funny one" typecasting with his argument, "there's nothing funny about Hillary Clinton as Commander in Chief."

Probably Helped Themselves a Little Tonight:

John McCain: Some great lines, and once again, a candidate felt the need to salute McCain’s service in the miltiary as well as in the Senate. We’ll see if this performance does him good in the polls – he did a great speech at the FRC, and it got him nowhere. I think the aspect I liked most was that he could jab at his rivals, but it never seemed too nasty or cranky. He’s got stature. He’s a well-established brand name, and I wonder if he’s turning into everyone’s second or third choice.

Mitt Romney: One of his strongest performances, but it seemed like somebody put a “kick me” sign on his back right before he went on. On the other hand, it’s a sign of where he is in the race that Thompson, Giuliani, and McCain see value in attacking him at this moment. Kathryn said he could have used the PowerPoint slides on one answer. But great jabs at Hillary, and seemed to feed off the crowd's energy.

Oh, and I vote for the mussed-up hair.

Thanks For Playing: Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Ron Paul. Come back when you’re at ten percent in one of the early primary states or a national poll.

UPDATE: In my e-mailbox, every campaign thinks their guy won. I know this will come as a great surprise to you. I pledge, any campaign that sends me an e-mail: "EXPERTS AGREE: OUR GUY LOST, BIG-TIME; PUNDITS CALL PERFORMANCE 'CATASTROPHIC' AND 'EMBARRASSING" I will print in this space in its entirety.

---

---

[redangus]

Well being from a southern-midwest community(southern Indiana which is a southern as it gets north of the Mason-Dixon) I know exactly what you are saying. I do not believe Fred is slow in his thought processes. I am concerned that the slow deliberate approach doesn’t work in today’s political arena of 30-60 sec sound bites. If the media is willing to give the candidates the opportunity to actually answer a question rather than give a sound bite then I think Fred is very competitive, but I don’t see that happening. Conservative ideas, while right take time to explain, liberal emotional appeals are perfectly suited to today’s MTV world.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you.

[Kevmo]

I thought it was especially interesting that, according to the second link, the markets using play money tend to be as accurate as those using real money.
***I was hoping that would stay quiet because of the Paulestinians. But it would offer a lot of insight into how these kinds of markets can get spoofed, so they will let the chips fall where they may.

[Kevmo]

It’s my understanding that Americans can no longer participate in Intrade betting.
***I’ve heard otherwise, but Intrade is taking a bit of a hit because they do not accept credit cards, which is how most Americans choose to do these things and they lose a bit of business as a result. The reason for not accepting credit cards is obvious: they don’t want to get tied up in arbitration when their clients lose money. Also, look at their disclaimer, they’re not a recognized “investment exchange”, so it is quite close to gambling. But at the very least, this is a snapshot of how the gamblers see it. The fact that they’re picking up on Huckabee doing well in the debates is evidence that this market pays attention to what’s going on.

Disclaimer

Intrade is not a recognised or designated investment exchange as defined by the Financial Services Act 1986 of the UK, the Stock Exchange Act, 1995 of Ireland or the Central Bank Act, 1989 of Ireland nor an investment business firm as defined by the Investment Intermediaries Act, 1995 of Ireland. Trading contracts on-line on the Intrade exchange involves risk. There is no guarantee or warranty whatsoever that if you trade any contract you will be able to liquidate or cover your position at any price let alone the price that you want. You should only trade a contract if you are willing to hold that position until expiry.

[longtermmemmory]

(s)yoour post must be deleted because it does not follow the MSM template. Postive Thompson stories are not allowed(/s)

[Sadecki]

I just don’t see how it can be said, after nearly every debate, that Rudy won when he cannot distance himself from his record.

Well, he's not trying to distance himself from his record so that isn't really a salient point.

Rudy wins by putting his record in the context of his whole package.

Rudy wins because he is the best at going for the jugular and hammering his points home in a way that is easily understandable. I mean, Conservatives can break his positions down into minutiae, but when it comes right down to it -- this is a guy that is hated hated by the Left, hated by the NY Times, so to call him a "liberal" is pretty ridiculous. And when he laughed at the suggestion -- he won the argument.

But most of all, Rudy wins the debate because he wasn't boooed. Republicans cheer him. He knows that religious conservatives are hopelessly divided among the other candidates, that vote is split. And Rudy has a lock on the GOP moderates. All he needs is about 10% of religious conservatives and he wins the nomination.

[infowarrior]

Feel free to disagree if you like.

To the contrary, Doughty One, I agree wholeheartedly. We cannot accept "the lesser of two evils" anymore as a viable philosophy. It is a luxury we simply can no longer afford...

the infowarrior

[2nd Amendment]

This was the first time I watched the debates. I agree many of the candidates looked good. My criteria is who would do best if terrorists again attack the U.S.? I thought Mitt was excellent , telegenic, and looked maybe a little slick. Rudy is quite the confident professional that is comfortable with power. Fred was commanding and terse. McCain instilled confidence in his being a commander and chief. Huckabee is genuine and scored well. I dismiss Tancredo, Hunter, and Paul because of their narrow focus and unelectability. Right now AI’m a Fred Thompson fan that looking seriously at Huckabee but would probably vote for any of the above versus Hillary.

[papasmurf]

Cars, and auto associated parts, accessories, electrical systems. Computer chips. Machinery such as Cat dozers, mining systems, earth movers. (google cat 797b) which had added 10000 jobs in In and Il.

I sourced made in America fittings and attachments for an absorber mixing system made in WV and exported to China for strip mining last year. China is the largest owner of shipping containers in the world, yet I sourced 1000 used 20 footers for export.

In the transportation industry, while our manufacturing is down, and truckers are facing their hardest times in many, many years, our transportation of imported goods from China was the only light in the whole sector. Small guys like us can find ways to make money on this deal.

It’s building, slowly, but it is building. We need some smart and honest folks in DC, writing and negotiating FAIR trade agreements, eliminating red tape, and taking a very hard look at tax, tariff, and subsidy comparisons.

BTW, what is PLA?

[TigersEye]

Martin Sheen!?! Aiyeeeeeeeee. There's a scary thought. The only upside to that scenario would be that he might be too stupid and too stoned to do anything.

I'm just not sure how anyone could have missed the Civil War. Has she ever heard of slavery or the '60s civil rights era? Lincoln? Black people? Never saw Dances With Wolves? Gone With the Wind? Nothing?

[codercpc]

Fred was commanding and terse.

That is the most spot on description I have heard all day.

I thought that this was Freds best performance in a long while, and he did quite good, but there was something about his delivery that I couldn't put my finger on. Compared to the other guys (which is after all what the debates are) he was "terse" in his answers. It was almost like at times he thought he shouldn't have to be there. It necessarily wasn't offending, but it was a little off putting at times. I also thought that Huckabee did the best.

[Senator Goldwater]

Between 45 and 50% of the people who frequent this forum will not be casting a vote for Giuliani.

I am one of them.

While there are some things I like about Rudy, I simply cannot and will not vote for him.

---

Hillary thanks all one of you.

But since there aren’t enough of you, try to stay out of the way for the majority of us seeking a GOP victory in 2008.

[ejonesie22]

But casting aspersions takes so much less effort...

[ejonesie22]

Actually you are gone...

Revise that...

[TigersEye]

Excellent synopsis of the state of the union.

The last chance we have if a true conservative isn't elected, is to let Hillary in and let her destroy herself.

I recall not too long ago a lot of us on FR were talking about how B. Clinton's administration had nearly destroyed the Dem party and with it leftism. There is no doubt in my mind that the current deep divisions in this country came to the forefront because of that. The Clinton's didn't create those divisions though they just made them unavoidably visible. This country needs to decide which way it's going to go. Another 4-8 years of the Clinton MarxiMafia crime syndicate may be what it will take for Americans to wake up and see that America isn't evolving it is at the crossroads of two starkly different choices. Constitutional republic or Marxist-Maoist tyranny.

[gimme1ibertee]

I’m a Fred supporter-don’t get me wrong-but I think Fred was a bit disappointing at the debate. Could be he just doesn’t flourish in the environment of a debate (as I recall,Bush was the same way on the outset but managed to finish up ok in subsequent debates)and may prove himself once he gets into office,but, I have to say, I just was not impressed by him. The “fire in the belly” many have mentioned previously just didn’t seem to be there. C’mon,Fred...get with it! We need you!!!!

[DoughtyOne]

The slide downhill in so many ways you reference has indeed severely harmed our nation. The American people are responsible for it. At the local and state level most people have allowed this slide to happen and either bought into the philosophy that allowed it or just stood by and did nothing.

Look, you can pass this off as John and Jane Doe not paying attention, and I can agree with that to an extent.  The problem is, John and Jane Doe shouldn't have to concern themselves that this nation's sovereignty is being parcelled off.  That shouldn't even be on the table.  We essentially have traiters at just about every level of our government.

Should the public catch this?  I believe so, but is that really where the blame should go?  I mean do we bypass the elected officials ignoring them completely, and damn John and Jane over it?

Ronald Reagan was President for 8 years of the slide downward. He signed amnesty. He did not enforce the borders. He did not abolish the Dept of Education. Bill Bennett was in charge of it, for crying out loud. And yet I say, it was mostly ordinary Americans who permitted the schools for example to turn into what they have, and who did not insist that borders be enforced until somewhat insisting more recently.

Ronald Reagan signed an amnesty bill because he was told there were only one million illegals in the country AND because he was told new legislation would end illegal immigration.  I wasn't for it at the time, but let's be clear.  Cleaning up the small mess and trying to prevent an even worse one was admirable.  He couldn't know that the new legislation would never be enforced.  We have laws on the books right now that would end illegal immigration if only it was enforced.  You can blame Reagan for that.  You can't blame him for what actually happened.  During Reagan's time there was actually very little illegal immigration.  Remember that the 3.5 million that signed up for amnesty had accumulated over decades.  Amnesty didn't happen on just one day.  It occurred over time.  It actually extended up into the early 90s.  Reagan was long gone by then.  The really big numbers came over in the 90s and beyond, with it simply skyrocketing after 2000.

No, the American citizen is not responsible for the books, the education plans, the UNESCO guidelines, the introductioin of moral relevence, and more.  Sorry, not buying the damn the average citizen for all this.  Is it your theory that govenment employees can do no wrong?  This is the second issue where you've dismissed the government and blamed the public.  WRONG!

While the public can and should watch for stuff that is wrong and try to block it, it is the government that is driving this.  Parents are not going out to the UN and asking them to please develop materials that destroy respect for our nation, subvert respect for God and country.  You try telling the school officials what you want and what you don't.  We'll see how far you get.

George Herbert Walker Bush is not some evil puppet master with a master plan who was foiled by accident, any more than most of our people and leaders are. George W Bush isn’t the devil or an idiot. There are many unintended consequences of policies that many have pushed, or supported, or looked the other way on, that have cumulated over long periods of time and are coming home to roost, so to speak. In that respect you have a point that not a whole lot matters as between political parties or who’s in charge, in terms of the downhill slide continuing. You need to to include Reagan’s years to be consistent, though.

LOL, sorry you didn't know it, but the elder Bush was a part of the plan.  It's not some under the table deal either.  It's the real deal and you can bone up on it if you like.  As for the current Bush, he is an idiot.  Yep there are unintended consequences, and then there are intended consequences also.

Ronald Reagan was an outsider.  He wasn't part of the political establishment.  He had been the Governor of California, but he hadn't been a Washington insider.  He was a political loner, for all intents and purposes.  Yes he was a political animal, and he obviously had a team.  He still wasn't a part of the long range plans for this nation.  If you wish, you can dismiss this.  I don't really care.  It's still the truth.

As for the downhill slide taking place during the Reagan years, I'm sure there was some planning going on at the state department.  I'm sure there are netherious plans being hatched at a lot of places that the CEO doesn't know about.  Ronald Reagan would never have signed on to a plan to parcel away U.S. sovereignty.

Reagan stood for some good things. He did something about some of them, others he stood for but did little or nothing about. Talking on unintended consequences, Reagan did appoint Scalia to the court but he also appointed Sandra O and Anthony K to the court. See what I mean? There was no George Herbert Walker Bush conspiracy behind THAT.

If you think this is some attempt to focus on the Bush family, you're wrong.  This is a blueprint on a grand scale that isn't limited to the Bushes.  I don't see the Bushes as some monster family intent on taking over the world.  I do see them as willing accomplices to the plan to develop the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas.  They think it's a swell idea.  In reality, it will destroy the sovereignty of the United States.  Are they evil?  I don't think they intend to be, but the end result will be the destruction of our self-determination.  That would be evil.

With the appointment of judges, you honestly never know what you will get.  Yes you can look at their record.  You can narrow it down to some great candidates, but once they are appointed they don't always stay true to their past actions.  A number of presidents have been shocked to find their appointments acting diametrically opposed to what they thought they would.

Bottom line: the American people at every level are not the same as they once were. Do we need better leadership at every level? Of course. But the kind of average citizen that we need isn’t there in proper numbers either, and that is the worry that our founding fathers had. They said our form of government wouldn’t work unless we had THAT ONE THING.

In general terms I agree.  The citizens of this nation should be involved, but that is not the answer either.  A well informed populace does help, but even when our populace was informed it made very little difference.  When NAFTA was  passed 90% of the public was against it.  90% of the people calling in were furious that our elected officials would even think of this.  Bob Dole leader of the Senate at the time bragged that he had never even read the legislation.  Yep, he voted for it proudly.

I wish I could unscramble the egg, Doughty, but I can’t. When Hillary’s name appears on the ballot I will vote against her. That’s about all I can do for my beloved country at this point.

I urge everyone to do what they think is best.  I'm not here to demand you adopt my views.  I am here to express why I have developed the opinion I have.

And the Democrat party is totally corrupt and totally evil and totally cowardly in the face of our sworn enemies. We might as well put Osama’s name on the ballot and vote for him as to let the Dems have any portion of this nation’s power. Yet they’re reaching for ALL of it.

Osama won't acually have much to do with the implementation of the FTAA, the opening of our borders to Canadians and Mexicans, so you can relax.  Our own leaders will take care of this on their own.  As for the Democrats, they are not alone in pushing for this.  Both parties are equally happy to participate.

At least there are a few good Republicans (not perfect, but good).

All too few IMO.  The Senate is essentially a vast wasteland with five or less well grounded members.  The House is better, but there simply aren't enough well grounded people there either.

The voters of this nation do deserve some of the blame.  I'm sorry though, you just can't blame the public for voting in traitors.  The public just doesn't understand the concept that could vote in traitors.  We're a modern society that has supposedly learned from the past.  I don't think all democrats vote for these idiots think they'll sell us out.  I don't think people voted for Bob Dole thinking he'd sign on to NAFTA.  Our leaders are plain nuts.  I've seen some great people go back to Washington and after a few years you wouldn't even know them.

Can we blame all this on the public?  Sorry, I'm not buying it.  That would be like blaming someone who went to the super-market and purchasing an orange that turned into a lemon by the time they got home, for not being better informed.

[TigersEye]

I will do everything I can to make sure Rudy is never President.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you.

[trisham]

Fred Thompson had an opportunity to vote to convict Bill Clinton at the conclusion of his trial in the Senate following his impeachment in the House. Sen. Thompson decided that his high crimes and misdemeanors were not high crimes and misdemeanors. Not only is he a liberal apologist, he's a piss poor attorney and historian.

157 posted on 10/22/2007 2:15:53 AM EDT by PeoplesRepublicOfWA [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

******************************

Actually you are gone...

*****************************

Alas. We barely knew him..