The Candidates
Featured Archives
Now, I’m not going to spin these, or take them out of context. Here is what is being said about Fred at the debate tonight:
The Campaign Blog at the Weekly Standard:
Jim Geraughty of the Campaign spot at National Review Online:
Thompson shouldn’t have won, and he had some meandering and rambling answers. But he seemed to settle in as the debate progressed, and got better on the foreign policy questions. There’s something admirable about a candidate who answers a yes or no question with a simple “no” – no pressure to shoehorn a short speech or slogan into the time allotted. And here’s what blew my mind – did anybody really take a shot at him? Not until Romney’s good, but canned line, and he deflected it by calling Romney an actor. Somehow, he managed to come through this without so much as a metaphorical skinned knee. Did his opponents think he was burying himself? I don’t think voters are repelled by answers that wander on their way to the conclusion. It was not a shining debut, but he didn’t hurt himself.
Katherine Jean Lopez- Editor of the National Review Online:
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.
No one was a disaster, which I think is an important point, too: They’re probably all plausible. (Which of course is a cause for angst if you have major problems with one or the other.)
E.M. Zanotti of the NRO:
As for the rest of the candidates, it seems they sort of disappeared after the first act, though they defied expectations that the field was going to rival the vegetable trays at the lunch buffet for personality…and no one wore an objectionable tie. Always a plus.
Chris Cilliza of the Washington Post:
Take Social Security’s long-term solvency, an issue on which moderator Maria Bartiromo said Thompson was one of the few candidates offering specific solutions. Thompson used the question to return to his larger theme for the debate – things are OK now but we are walking a dangerous line for our future. “We are eating our seed corn, we are spending their money,” Thompson said. “We’re better than that.”
Unfortunately Paul with his money influx will be around for a while.
Matt Lewis at townhall.com:
UPDATE: Not to be totally focused on Fred- the Brodyfile thought that Romney won
Sam Youngman of the Hill:
It probably answered skepticism among pundits and analysts who questioned whether the former senator could go toe to toe with trail-hardened candidates and come out looking competent on the economic issues upon which the debate focused.
Thompson provided statistics to back up answers, and warned against uncontrolled spending while suggesting that the economy is doing well and “there’s no reason to believe we’re headed toward an economic recession.” He stuck to the well-worn but traditionally effective GOP theme of advocating lower taxes and spending.
And of course, Hugh Hewitt says exactly the opposite of everyone else. Big suprise. I guess you can’t please everybody:
And since Hugh gets his say, here’s what Erick from Redstate had to say:
With those words, Fred Thompson resolved any doubts that he would bring his game to the debate. Taking on Chris Matthews, who cut him off, was a brilliant move that the right side of the aisle has been clamoring for.
I thought he started off slow with the first answer, but by the end, Thompson was holding his own, throwing zingers, and by the luck of the draw, looking very statesman like standing between Romney and Rudy as they squabbled with each other.
Matt Towery, CEO of Insider Advantage:
Most “Presidential”: Romney and Thompson. (His answers didn’t blow anyone away, but they most tracked that of the realities an actual president must face.)
October 9th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
I was at work during the debate…
They’re replaying it at 9, I just saw on MSNBC.
New open thread for those that didn’t catch it before? Or wouldn’t there be enough people to make it have a point? Speak up if you’re interested, people, I hate missing these things.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
I’ll set one up for you. No problem.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
I don’t know what debate they were watching, but Thompson looked the least impressive of the front runners. He says Uh way too much and still doesn’t seem well versed on the issues. I would say it was a Rudy-Mitt toss up, Duncan Hunter did well, and then Thompson. Mitt only had one gaff, but he was great on the economics questions. I find it interesting that there were no negative reviews posted here by the way, I find it hard to believe that everyone thinks Thompson won, yet the commenters on other websites have all voted for others. http://www.dryflypolitics.com
October 9th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Swint,
Of course there isn’t going to be any negatives from me (actually, I just posted one). I’m a Thompson guy, jsust like others here support other candidates.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Also,
Commenters on sites don’t decide the winner of a debate, especially in online votes.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
[...] post by Tommy Oliver and software by Elliott [...]
October 9th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
You know, I wish I could believe that the negative interpretation by the Weekly Standard was an honest misunderstanding of what Romney said. If Barnes & Kristol weren’t so negative about everything he says, it would be easier.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Tommy….
You can’t really think that Fred compared to Rudy or Mitt in this debate?
It may be true that Fred didn’t bomb, but he was nowhere near the other two.
They are being judged on two different standards. Don’t you agree?
October 9th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Not going to spin these? That may be true, but the selection of “these” is fairly careful.
Not meaning to throw a cat amongst the pigeons, but Politico is less than complimentary about FDT. http://www.politico.com/rogersimon/
Opens with: “I thought that in his first debate Fred Thompson would come across as either bright or dumb. I forgot about dull. He wasn’t terrible. He wasn’t great. He was just “eh.†“
October 9th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Is there anyone on this blog that would disagree with Romney that if President, one should consult lawyers prior to making a decision, of which its constitutionality is questioned by many. That seems only bright and responsble for him to do. Agree or disagree?
October 9th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
ilfigo,
Honestly, I don’t think there really was a winner. I think Thompson did exactly what he needed to do. You guys have to realize that some of us see things through different glasses. For example, the way Thompson talks turns some of you off. To me, he just sounds like my next door neighbor.
Thompson didn’t perform any miracles, but he had a very strong performance, and had his act together. I don’t think Rudy or Mitt did anything to distinguish themselves from Thompson, which they needed to do. It’s impossible when you have 9 people on the stage.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
JayPe,
Roger Simon, I know what he said. He said it on the air as well. Granted, not everyone will love him, but you can’t argue with the overwhelming majority. Politico is an arm of msnbc, so what else is new? The english guy didn’t like him either. Hey, at least I posted Hugh Hewitt’s thoughts, as much as it pained me to do so.
Of course, Jennifer Rubin will probably blast him as well, but… that’s expected.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
I agree…I have my candidate, but I don’t dislike the other candidates.
However, I feel that many people are judging Fred on whether he bombed tonight or as some are saying “fell asleep during the debate.”
My personal opinion is that there were only two men (tonight) that would do an excellent job in a 1-1 debate against Clinton. I was hoping to support Fred, but he has not done anything that would provide a reason to depart any of the two frontrunners, who are more energetic, optimistic and seem to have some specific plans.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Hugh Hewitt, as he very often is, is right. Romney and Giuliani were head and shoulders above the rest. I would like to be able to say that the Brody File was right, but if Mitt had an edge on Rudy, it was slight. Before this election season, I had a reaonably high opinion of The Weekly Standard, but they haven’t had a clue since Day One. I thought Fred did ok, but to give him the debate would be tantamount to begging for involuntary commitment. Paul and Tancredo should be automatically disqualified from any further debate s because of their refusal to support the party’s nominee, to say nothing of their intrinsic insignificance. Hunter and Brownback should also be banned because the campaign is starting to get serious, and it can’t with those clowns participating.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Well, I think Romney narrowly won – but, in general, I think this race is firmly between three people. Maybe it is because I am already a dedicated Romney supporter, but I didn’t find Fred impressive at all – and that is not entirely something I am happy about. I was hoping Fred could be a clear pick for my #2 – in case something happened to Romney, but I am even less impressed with him now than I was prior to the debate. I think he got a lot of softball questions, and I thought his answers were generally dull and rambling.
In the end, I don’t think this debate changes anything. Fred is here to stay, and Romney and Rudy are clearly the two most impressive candidates. We will have to see what happens, but I don’t see any big changes in the polls stemming from tonight.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Hugh Hewitt lost any respect or credibilityI had for him about a month ago when he tried to use FDT’s health against him, tried to say it was different to call on Craig to resign but not Vitter, tried to spin the Rush blowup and attach Romney to Thompson after Romney knocked Rush, and when he has repeatedly tried to spin anything to Romney. I don’t hold it against him that he supports Romney, but he’s turned into a shill.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Tommy (#12)
If Politico is just an arm of msnbc, does that mean his views are irrelevent? Surely not. You didn’t have comments from him because he didn’t support Thompson. If you were looking to post articles on Thompson, you somehow “missed” an article on the debate that focused on Thompson (unlike the others, which were paragraph excerpts).
I don’t mind that, you’ve got to back your candidate. But I just took exception to the “I won’t spin these” comment.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Whoa Tommy that is not fair…
1. Why is no one upset about comments on McCain’s age, but Fred’s health is off limits.
2. I think there is a difference between someone who has pled guily to a CRIME and someone who made amoral indiscretion (even though I think both are wrong)
If Hugh’s spin is unwarranted, why did people continue to spin Romney’s comments tonight re: the attorneys.
Is that spin ok, while we criticize the spin of others?
October 9th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Also if we people who have committed a moral indiscretion is not allowed to serve in office, 1. I dont thin kwe would ahve too many people who could satisfy such a bar, but 2. wouldn’t Fred, Rudy and McCain be barred?
October 9th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
ilfigo,
Because he linked to an article that was written by a hack, that had not done any research. It was covered by Bloomberg.
Ilfigo,
Also, you notice that I didn’t spin Romney’s answers on lawyers. i don’t think they are relevent.
Jaype,
I’m not going to post a bunch of negatives from a left leaning writer. Sorry. Simon has been all over Fred for quite a while. Would you like me to post Huffington post’s reaction to Mitt Romney???
October 9th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Meanwhile, TIME magazine grades as follows:
A- Rudy Giuliani
B+ Mitt Romney
B John McCain
C+ Fred Thompson (”Initial breaking voice and long pauses in early answers eventually smoothed out. Seemed a bit uncertain, and appeared to rely more on crammed notes and stock phrases than his famous confidence and big brain….Adequate for his first time out, given the pressure, but no great shakes.” i.e. ok, not a winner)
C Mike Huckabee
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1669812_1669813,00.html
October 9th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
I think that, if this debate says anything (besides the fact that Thompson will be with us for a while), it is that the field needs to be cut. If we had kept this debate between the top four or five candidates, it would have been much better. Besides the first twenty minutes, Romney and Giuliani got very little air time. If we had only included Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, and Huckabee, I think the debate would have included a lot more “beef” – the one thing that a lot of analysts said the debate lacked.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
ilfigo,
Divorce is not an indiscretion, or you’re going to offend half the country, basically including me.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
JayPe,
Remind me to show up on Romney blogs and post negatives as well. Of course I’m going to focus on the positives, adn I’m not going to give much thought to Time or politico, because in conservative circles… their opinions don’t carry much weight.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Politico is accused of being too liberal by the right, and by being too conservative by the left. I reckon that means they’re probably getting it right.
If someone is “left leaning” they are therefore irrelevent? Logic escapes me here. Especially as you had no problem putting Hewitts view when you say “he lost all respect and credibility with me” – does that mean Politico has even less respect?
October 9th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
I am not talking about divorce as the indsicretion…
Rudy was committing adultery, McCain left his 1st wife who waited for him as a POW after she got in an accident and I am not sure about Fred (maybe you know more)
October 9th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Jaype,
Also, I’m sure Jason or Matt will show up soon with all the great Romney reviews for you to get excited about.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
The interesting thing about this debate is that, more than anything, it seems to have simply reinforced people’s views of their favorites. Romney supporters generally think Romney won (or tied with Giuliani), and Thompson supporters generally think he did very well.
Like I said, another debate that failed to produce a clear winner, and will likely have no lasting impact on the polls – in otherwords, a wasted two hours.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
ilfigo,
Rudy’s divorce could be considered an issue, since it spilled out into the public, but I refuse to pass judgement on mistakes someone made when they came back from Vietnam, or 35 years ago in their personal life.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Tommy,
I’m just guessing that you haven’t read Hewitt’s book; A Mormon in the White House? If you had, you would know why he was Mitt. BTW, what’s the difference between shilling for someone and being for some one?
October 9th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Jaype,
Hewitt is a right winger, so I do consider him relevent in that sense, even though I don’t like him or his opinion.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Dave,
Yes. There’s a huge difference. I had a long post about hewitt a while ago, and he lost me for good with some of his tactics.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
ACT might have the post of the evening in 28.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Tommy (#27) that is doubtless true, and the Paulites will be flooding the internet allowing him to win every online poll about “who won”.
Given most conservative posters have made their mind up about who to support, its obvious that Romneybots will post Mitt loving pieces, FDTites like yourself will post pro-Thompson pieces.
Actually that means that TIME & Politico are probably quite good at gauging the debate because they’re not against any one particular party.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
ACT (#28) I think thats about right. Except for the wasted two hours. Debates are always fun, IMO.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
I must compliment you, Tommy. In this post you are (almost) fair and balanced about your candidate and others. That’s the kind of thing that makes you such great guy!
October 9th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Tommy, p.s. I only said (almost) in my previous post because there were more favorable Thompson articles mentioned than for anyone else — but then, again, you’re entitled! It’s your post!
October 9th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Here is my point about the wasted two hours:
We are less than 100 days from the first votes being cast. This is the time where people should be starting to make up their minds, and where the party (or at least the base) should be rallying around one guy. It isn’t happening, and when you have debates like this, that only keep the electorate divided, it is counter-productive.
October 9th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
ACT (#38) that assumes that a coronation is productive. They aren’t always. Bush 43 needed a tough contest in 2000 to be able to withstand Gore. (He also learnt to take personal politics to a whole new level, which worked but it wasn’t very nice). So the fact that all the candidates are having to fight long & hard in an error free campaign to try and win the nomination will be good practice when faced with the energized Dem machine.
October 9th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Sure, but our current problem is that there is no clear frontrunner – and, unless one develops within the next eighty-odd days, we are going to be headed for a split convention.
Con you imagine how hard it would be for us to win in 2008 if Hillary has nine extra months to run ads – uncontested? Can you imagine what it would look like to have a united party facing one involved in an all-night fight at the convention?
October 9th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
#10 ilfigo: Is there anyone on this blog that would disagree with Romney that if President, one should consult lawyers prior to making a decision, of which its constitutionality is questioned by many. That seems only bright and responsble for him to do. Agree or disagree?
==========
I agree, ilfigo. Once again, Romney is misjudged because he is thinking through the repercussions of such a decision and the importance of making such a decision.
Anyone who would rush to push the button, without consulting any advisors, would be scary as a President.
It is a huge responsibility.
It may not be advantageous for Mitt to give the answer he did as a politician, but as the CEO of America, it was a very wise answer.
October 9th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
thank you beth
October 9th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
You’re welcome, Tommy. You’re doing a good job! I can’t wait until you get behind Mitt Romney!
You would be a tremendous asset to any candidate’s campaign.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Thois was not my experience. I think Thompson was not impressive. so he can debate? So what? He didn’t screw up, whoopedy doo.
I think Romney nailed it tonight. I actually in the past have not thought that he won, but tonight I thought he did.
I think those who don’t like romney only had one thing to poke at him with, that was his lawyers comment. yes that was bad. agreed. but overall, he nailed it tonight. he got what he wanted, a fight with rudy. all the headlines are going to be about him and rudy, not thompson.
that was what he needed to do.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
JayPe (#21), yours are second or third comment I came across that said something about Fred and notes. Did he actually have notes in front of him during the debate?
October 9th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
SGS Says:
October 9th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
JayPe (#21), yours are second or third comment I came across that said something about Fred and notes. Did he actually have notes in front of him during the debate?
=========
I was wondering the same thing, SGS. I don’t think he had notes, but I’m sure he was nervous and I have noticed with Fred Thompson, in this debate and his own online videos, that he has a tendency to look away to the left or the right – and look down when talking. He occasionally will look straight ahead, but his eyes wander away from the center. This may make it look like he’s looking at notes, or — it may just be his nervousness showing through and he may be doing this to give himself time to think of his answer.
Nevertheless, he is a less-than-impressive public speaker compared to the rest of the candidates.
To say that this is allowable since it’s his first debate ignores that fact that this seems to be his speaking style on the campaign trail and in his campaign-produced videos.
Some folks just do better in an “acting” situation.
Fred Thompson seems like a good, well-meaning person, but he just isn’t a dynamic speaker.
October 10th, 2007 at 8:11 am
[...] Not A Flop Not A Smash Fred chastises moderator Matthews for editorial commentary AP Analysis An extensive roundup of Fred assessments More links to links Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers [...]
October 10th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
I believe Mitt won the debate, as he has most, or all of them..but his expectations are soooooooo high compared to the other candidates. He has a reputation of being extremely intelligent and articulate, so that’s the standard they judge him by. Fred has a reputation of mumbling, bumbling, and stumbling, so that’s the standard by which he is judged, thus everyone thinks they tied!! lol Well, if there is such a thing as an unbiased intelligent observer, I would like to see them judge who won the debate. Romney nailed most of his answers, but since its now expected from him, people hardly even notice!! Oh, by the way, Rudy didn’t just divorce…he married his cousin for 14 years, then had the church anull the marriage (still don’t know how they do that) claiming that he didn’t know. lol For goodness sakes he grew up with her all his life and played together as cousins, didn’t know? I think its significant when you some of his own children won’t vote for him. The cross dressing will bother a lot of people, as will him living with two homosexual men while divorced. He’ll face all of this if he gets the nomination. No more softballs lobbed to him!! Give Mitt a chance guys and gals. He’s simply amazing!!