*cwn Approved Presidential Hopeful Fred Wins Debate Nobody Saw*

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. Fred made some headway yesterday afternoon in the, *Debate Nobody Saw*.
2. He beat down the Neo~Liberal asking questions.
3. Which was heart warming.
4. He stood there and told her, *We don't need to raise no stinking hands*, to her questions.
5. That propelled him in the race, and all the other candidates followed his lead.
6. It was a *Great Day* for my *Presidential Candidate*, *Fred Thompson*.
7. Read the story, thusly:http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-12-13-debate-analysis_N.htm


"


Fred Thompson came out on top in Wednesday's debate among the Republican presidential candidates in Iowa. Of all the candidates, he did himself the most good.
Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney also scored well. They avoided any last-minute derailments of their front-running candidacies in Iowa and shored up the support they've built.

But it was Thompson, the former Tennessee senator, who was specific, good-humored and exuded an executive persona during the low-key, 90-minute session that was sponsored by The Des Moines Register and broadcast by Iowa Public Television.

He had several high points. One of them came when he flatly refused to play the "raise your hand" game in answering a question about global warming. Another came when he said the biggest problem facing education was the National Education Association. (Bashing teacher unions is always popular with Republican audiences.)

Thompson also gets credit for being a stand-up guy willing to take on entitlement programs that threaten to bankrupt the country if left unchanged. He made it clear that wealthy, older Americans could no longer expect full Medicare benefits if he's elected. Thompson also teased Romney about his wealth and how the former Massachusetts governor is "getting to be a pretty good actor."

Had Thompson performed this well earlier in the campaign — and had his campaign started earlier — he might be doing better than fourth or fifth in the polls today.

Because he's so far back, he had the most to gain Wednesday by turning in a presidential performance, and he produced. With three weeks until the Jan. 3 caucuses, it may help him pick up some last-minute support in Iowa.

His campaign is promising to spend more time in Iowa until that date, and Wednesday's performance gives him a little spark to fan.

Huckabee was also a winner. He has surged enough in recent polls of the race in Iowa that he now leads the GOP contest here. None of the other candidates did anything Wednesday to knock him from that position.

He was folksy, warm and conservative, qualities that have helped him win over Iowa Republicans in recent weeks. His performance should firm up the support of caucus activists who are starting to move toward him. By telling the audience he "won't forget where I come from," he cleaved a neat class difference with the more prosperous Romney.

Romney also turned in an excellent performance. Until recently, he led the contest in Iowa and is counting on an organization superior to Huckabee's to put him over the top on caucus night. Romney was optimistic and polished. He didn't seem rattled by the recent shift in polls, and his performance should go a ways toward quieting the jitters that have occurred in his ranks as Huckabee has soared. He politely thanked Iowans for their hospitality and asked for their votes in the caucuses.

The biggest loser of the day was Alan Keyes. He is simply not a credible candidate for the Republican nomination, and his hyperventilating performance illustrated why nobody takes him seriously. In one of the few debates he's invited to attend, he complains about how he's not getting enough time. Including him proved to be a distraction that took time away from the other candidates.

The rest of the candidates performed in the middle. Ron Paul seemed calmer than he had been in many debates — perhaps because he didn't have to shout above a crowd booing at his opposition to the war in Iraq.

This debate was intentionally focused away from the war since that has been a big topic in many of the earlier debates. That gave Paul a chance to talk more about his economic conservatism and libertarian ideas, which are more appealing to mainstream Republicans.

Rudy Giuliani and John McCain were OK, but they were sort of off to the side. They didn't mess up, but they didn't score, either. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are credible political figures, but their chances of winning the GOP nomination rank right up there with Keyes'. The two basically said the same things they've said in every other debate.

The biggest problem with the debate was that it wasn't really a debate. Candidates got almost no opportunity to grill one another. Often they ran out of time and were cut off just as they started to probe an opponent.


"



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Hagbard Celine]

Sorry bout that,

2. He beat down the Neo~Liberal asking questions.
3. Which was heart warming.
4. He stood there and told her, *We don't need to raise no stinking hands*, to her questions.

"The neo-liberal?" You mean Carolyn Washburn, the editor of The Des Moines Register? Yesterday a bunch of you idiots thought it was proof of the "Vast Liberal Media Conspiracy :tinfoil:" that CNN aired the debate in the middle of the day. In reality the debate was hosted by the Des Moines Register and was part of the Iowa Caucus--a fact that made little difference to any of you frothing "conservative" Rush groupies chomping at the bit to crucify any and all people deemed "libs" by your group-think bandwagon--airtimes were hardly under CNN's control. I guess even asking a question about global warming makes someone a "lib" nowadays even though every one of the 'pub candidates answered the question right after their knuckledragger "no hand shows" response. Using bad grammar (we don't be no ain't gonna stinkin' hands no) and making moronic, meaningless gestures in regard to important topics may be enough to make someone a conservative hero in your book, but in my book it makes them a throwaway joke for David Letterman. Get real.

[Little-Acorn]

Little haggy said:

a bunch of you idiots

the "Vast Liberal Media Conspiracy

tinfoil

you frothing "conservative"

Rush groupies

chomping at the bit

to crucify any and all people

your group-think bandwagon

I guess even asking a question about global warming makes someone a "lib"

their knuckledragger

we don't be no ain't gonna stinkin' hands no

moronic, meaningless gestures

a throwaway joke for David Letterman



...and then little haggy complains that others engage in "moronic, meaningless gestures" and not addressing important issues!

If anyone still needs to know whay Democrats have lost so much support over the last dozen years, the answer lies in the proliferation of hysterical rants like little haggy's, and the dearth of coherent goals and leadership. Not just from such unimportant kooks, but from the actual leaders of their party such as Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy, Howard Dean etc.

The American people mostly want serious, and limited, government. The Democrats offer somewhat-dignified versions of little haggy, whose only goal is to "get" Republicans, and to a lesser extent conservatives, and pandering to special interests while appeasing our self-declared enemies. Who can blame the people for abandoning them as they have?

[nevadamedic]

Sorry bout that,

1. Fred made some headway yesterday afternoon in the, *Debate Nobody Saw*.
2. He beat down the Neo~Liberal asking questions.
3. Which was heart warming.
4. He stood there and told her, *We don't need to raise no stinking hands*, to her questions.
5. That propelled him in the race, and all the other candidates followed his lead.
6. It was a *Great Day* for my *Presidential Candidate*, *Fred Thompson*.
7. Read the story, thusly:http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-12-13-debate-analysis_N.htm


"


Fred Thompson came out on top in Wednesday's debate among the Republican presidential candidates in Iowa. Of all the candidates, he did himself the most good.
Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney also scored well. They avoided any last-minute derailments of their front-running candidacies in Iowa and shored up the support they've built.

But it was Thompson, the former Tennessee senator, who was specific, good-humored and exuded an executive persona during the low-key, 90-minute session that was sponsored by The Des Moines Register and broadcast by Iowa Public Television.

He had several high points. One of them came when he flatly refused to play the "raise your hand" game in answering a question about global warming. Another came when he said the biggest problem facing education was the National Education Association. (Bashing teacher unions is always popular with Republican audiences.)

Thompson also gets credit for being a stand-up guy willing to take on entitlement programs that threaten to bankrupt the country if left unchanged. He made it clear that wealthy, older Americans could no longer expect full Medicare benefits if he's elected. Thompson also teased Romney about his wealth and how the former Massachusetts governor is "getting to be a pretty good actor."

Had Thompson performed this well earlier in the campaign — and had his campaign started earlier — he might be doing better than fourth or fifth in the polls today.

Because he's so far back, he had the most to gain Wednesday by turning in a presidential performance, and he produced. With three weeks until the Jan. 3 caucuses, it may help him pick up some last-minute support in Iowa.

His campaign is promising to spend more time in Iowa until that date, and Wednesday's performance gives him a little spark to fan.

Huckabee was also a winner. He has surged enough in recent polls of the race in Iowa that he now leads the GOP contest here. None of the other candidates did anything Wednesday to knock him from that position.

He was folksy, warm and conservative, qualities that have helped him win over Iowa Republicans in recent weeks. His performance should firm up the support of caucus activists who are starting to move toward him. By telling the audience he "won't forget where I come from," he cleaved a neat class difference with the more prosperous Romney.

Romney also turned in an excellent performance. Until recently, he led the contest in Iowa and is counting on an organization superior to Huckabee's to put him over the top on caucus night. Romney was optimistic and polished. He didn't seem rattled by the recent shift in polls, and his performance should go a ways toward quieting the jitters that have occurred in his ranks as Huckabee has soared. He politely thanked Iowans for their hospitality and asked for their votes in the caucuses.

The biggest loser of the day was Alan Keyes. He is simply not a credible candidate for the Republican nomination, and his hyperventilating performance illustrated why nobody takes him seriously. In one of the few debates he's invited to attend, he complains about how he's not getting enough time. Including him proved to be a distraction that took time away from the other candidates.

The rest of the candidates performed in the middle. Ron Paul seemed calmer than he had been in many debates — perhaps because he didn't have to shout above a crowd booing at his opposition to the war in Iraq.

This debate was intentionally focused away from the war since that has been a big topic in many of the earlier debates. That gave Paul a chance to talk more about his economic conservatism and libertarian ideas, which are more appealing to mainstream Republicans.

Rudy Giuliani and John McCain were OK, but they were sort of off to the side. They didn't mess up, but they didn't score, either. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are credible political figures, but their chances of winning the GOP nomination rank right up there with Keyes'. The two basically said the same things they've said in every other debate.

The biggest problem with the debate was that it wasn't really a debate. Candidates got almost no opportunity to grill one another. Often they ran out of time and were cut off just as they started to probe an opponent.


"



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Screw phoney Fred. He should go back to doing episodes of Law and Order and leave politics to the grownups.

[avatar4321]

Screw phoney Fred. He should go back to doing episodes of Law and Order and leave politics to the grownups.

seems to be doing much better than McCain. I know id be much more excited to vote for Thompson than McCain.

[Hagbard Celine]

...and then little haggy complains that others engage in "moronic, meaningless gestures" and not addressing important issues!

If anyone still needs to know whay Democrats have lost so much support over the last dozen years, the answer lies in the proliferation of hysterical rants like little haggy's, and the dearth of coherent goals and leadership. Not just from such unimportant kooks, but from the actual leaders of their party such as Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy, Howard Dean etc.

The American people mostly want serious, and limited, government. The Democrats offer somewhat-dignified versions of little haggy, whose only goal is to "get" Republicans, and to a lesser extent conservatives, and pandering to special interests while appeasing our self-declared enemies. Who can blame the people for abandoning them as they have?

I see your crusade to add the word "little" to everyone's name is still in full swing. :rolleyes: I'm glad you felt compelled to address what you percieve to be the democrat party's shortcomings in your rambling, incoherent non-sequitur, however it might behoove your attempt at being taken seriously to address the topic at hand, which is of course Fred Thompson's lamebrained "gesture" during yesterday's "debate."

[Hagbard Celine]

seems to be doing much better than McCain. I know id be much more excited to vote for Thompson than McCain.

I'm almost there with you. McCain is pretty weak, but Thompson is too caustic and dumbed down for my taste. I prefer Romney, Paul and Giuliani over those guys right now.

[avatar4321]

I'm almost there with you. McCain is pretty weak, but Thompson is too caustic and dumbed down for my taste. I prefer Romney, Paul and Giuliani over those guys right now.

you support any Republican?

[Hagbard Celine]

you support any Republican?

Is it so hard to believe? Elections are about choosing the lesser of two evils, not strict adherence to party lines. The smart thing to do is to evaluate ALL the candidates and judge them accordingly. I like a lot of the stuff Giuliani, Paul, Tancredo and Romney are saying. Romney is the more "namebrand" or frontrunner candidate so most of his answers are very vague and middle of the road, but these guys are definately worth a look in my book.

[Little-Acorn]

I see your crusade to add the word "little" to everyone's name
Not everyone's. Only those who make a great effort to deserve the title, little haggy. No charge! :coffee:


(The rest of little haggy's followup off-topic rant mercifully deleted)

[manu1959]

you work for cnn.....you can't be trusted.....


"The neo-liberal?" You mean Carolyn Washburn, the editor of The Des Moines Register? Yesterday a bunch of you idiots thought it was proof of the "Vast Liberal Media Conspiracy :tinfoil:" that CNN aired the debate in the middle of the day. In reality the debate was hosted by the Des Moines Register and was part of the Iowa Caucus--a fact that made little difference to any of you frothing "conservative" Rush groupies chomping at the bit to crucify any and all people deemed "libs" by your group-think bandwagon--airtimes were hardly under CNN's control. I guess even asking a question about global warming makes someone a "lib" nowadays even though every one of the 'pub candidates answered the question right after their knuckledragger "no hand shows" response. Using bad grammar (we don't be no ain't gonna stinkin' hands no) and making moronic, meaningless gestures in regard to important topics may be enough to make someone a conservative hero in your book, but in my book it makes them a throwaway joke for David Letterman. Get real.

[Hagbard Celine]

you work for cnn.....you can't be trusted.....

Exactly :rolleyes:

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. In my *CWN APPORVED* opinion.
2. You have to ask yourself, who is going to stand up the strongest for *AMERICA*?
3. I have no doubt that Fred is the strongest.
4. Its going to take a strong hand these next 8 years.
5. A weak President, in the days ahead are not an option.
6. This world is facing the most perilous times.
7. And Fred is just the right guy for the job!
8. Lets all pray he gets there, for mankind's sake.
9. Mankind being the key word, who is mankind?
10. Men who are kind in nature.
11. Islam does not apply.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[avatar4321]

"The neo-liberal?" You mean Carolyn Washburn, the editor of The Des Moines Register? Yesterday a bunch of you idiots thought it was proof of the "Vast Liberal Media Conspiracy :tinfoil:" that CNN aired the debate in the middle of the day. In reality the debate was hosted by the Des Moines Register and was part of the Iowa Caucus--a fact that made little difference to any of you frothing "conservative" Rush groupies chomping at the bit to crucify any and all people deemed "libs" by your group-think bandwagon--airtimes were hardly under CNN's control. I guess even asking a question about global warming makes someone a "lib" nowadays even though every one of the 'pub candidates answered the question right after their knuckledragger "no hand shows" response. Using bad grammar (we don't be no ain't gonna stinkin' hands no) and making moronic, meaningless gestures in regard to important topics may be enough to make someone a conservative hero in your book, but in my book it makes them a throwaway joke for David Letterman. Get real.

i dont know, i think i prefer neo-communist to neo-liberal myself. Atleast in regards to the idealogy. Not necessary the woman involved who i know absolutely nothing about.

[red states rule]

"The neo-liberal?" You mean Carolyn Washburn, the editor of The Des Moines Register? Yesterday a bunch of you idiots thought it was proof of the "Vast Liberal Media Conspiracy :tinfoil:" that CNN aired the debate in the middle of the day. In reality the debate was hosted by the Des Moines Register and was part of the Iowa Caucus--a fact that made little difference to any of you frothing "conservative" Rush groupies chomping at the bit to crucify any and all people deemed "libs" by your group-think bandwagon--airtimes were hardly under CNN's control. I guess even asking a question about global warming makes someone a "lib" nowadays even though every one of the 'pub candidates answered the question right after their knuckledragger "no hand shows" response. Using bad grammar (we don't be no ain't gonna stinkin' hands no) and making moronic, meaningless gestures in regard to important topics may be enough to make someone a conservative hero in your book, but in my book it makes them a throwaway joke for David Letterman. Get real.

It was the "raise your hand" BS, and the fact she would not let Fred answer the question

Given how CNN has such low ratings, not to many people saw it

[Hagbard Celine]

It was the "raise your hand" BS, and the fact she would not let Fred answer the question

Given how CNN has such low ratings, not to many people saw it

It doesn't have anything to do with CNN idiot. CNN wasn't in charge of the debate, they only covered it. If it wasn't for CNN, nobody would've seen it outside of Iowa. A debate is a formal affair that has rules. It's like a game. The rules are set up by the moderator. Apparently Freddy can't follow simple rules. :dunno:

[red states rule]

It doesn't have anything to do with CNN idiot. CNN wasn't in charge of the debate, they only covered it. If it wasn't for CNN, nobody would've seen it outside of Iowa. A debate is a formal affair that has rules. It's like a game. The rules are set up by the moderator. Apparently Freddy can't follow simple rules. :dunno:

Given the ratings of CNN, not to many saw the debate - period.

It was Wolf Blitzed who started the stupid "raise your hand" bullshit

Fred was not going to give a yes or no answer as far as the myth of global warming - and he was not going to play the raise your hand crap as well

[actsnoblemartin]

raise your hand if your sure.


Given the ratings of CNN, not to many saw the debate - period.

It was Wolf Blitzed who started the stupid "raise your hand" bullshit

Fred was not going to give a yes or no answer as far as the myth of global warming - and he was not going to play the raise your hand crap as well

[red states rule]

raise your hand if your sure.

or if you did not use Sure this morning

What a fucking lame way to run a debate