I missed most of the first half of the debate due to my daughter's school program and am trying to multi-task while listening to the second half. Quick impressions: These early debates which include so many candidates are informative and interesting because they include so many voices, but they are harder to follow because time is so limited for each candidate. I prefer the later ones between just a few candidates, but these early ones do give viewers a good look at the GOP approach to many different issues and help show the GOP big tent in their differences, but at the same time, show the issues that all Republicans view the same way. Some of the questions, the one on Republican corruption in particular, are pretty ridiculous. Republicans are putting up with Chris Matthews, of all people, moderating a GOP debate, but Democrats are afraid to debate on Fox. Ridiculous.
Sister Souljah, Michelle Malkin, John Hawkins, and Power Line have good debate coverage. Pajamas is live blogging the live bloggers.
Update: Ugh, the worst -- Keith Olbermann doing post-debate coverage. Republicans can handle Olby, but Dems can't face Brit Hume. I just can't get over that.
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race
Comments (3)
The questions were stupid,f... (Below threshold)1. Posted by pjaykc | May 3, 2007 10:50 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
The questions were stupid,for the most part, but I enjoyed the opportunity to see all (most) of the potential Republican candidates at once. As you said, it was interesting to see how many basic things they did agree on, even though there were issues where some differed from the others. At the present time, Guiliani is my top choice, but I have to say--Romney sure made a favorable impression! I would like to have seen Fred Thompson in there with the others to see how he stacked up against them. On the other hand, there were already almost too many.
1. Posted by pjaykc | May 3, 2007 10:50 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on May 3, 2007 22:50
2. Posted by Jim Addison | May 4, 2007 1:14 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
I didn't watch the post-debate coverage. Matthews and those other morons from MSNBC were absolutely awful in managing the debate, and I had no desire to hear their opinions about anything.
Democrats aren't afraid of Fox News. What they fear is the moonbat "nutroots" who declared Fox off-limits. With the same steadfast courage which would guide them in fighting terrorists, they all collapsed under pressure immediately.
2. Posted by Jim Addison | May 4, 2007 1:14 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on May 4, 2007 01:14
3. Posted by figaro | May 8, 2007 6:51 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Wow, if you think MSNBC has anything on Fox News as being biased, welcome to the fringe. Aside from having fiercely right wing Brit Hume as an "anchor" (unlike Matthews and Olbermann, who do commentary and opinion/debate shows), some of their sensationalism is absurd. The Obama at a massadra story comes to mind. The problem with Fox News is that their news coverage, and every pundit except for the sad Colmes, is lockstep with the Republican party (not conservatism, mind you). It is not a matter of tough coverage, or unfriendly confines, it is a combination of hostility, narrow-mindedness and party loyalty that make it a lose-lose for Democrats.
88% of Fox News viewers voted for Bush in 2004. That is more than evangelicals, conservatives, or most any other group. Would a Republican come to a debate at a Democratic Party meeting?
Lorie--I saw you signed the We Win They Lose letter. Who are they? Do we know yet? Are there Soviets over there that we can clearly indentify? As far as I see the losers right now are everyone involved and the winners are everyone who stayed out of the inane invasion.
Thanks for letting me troll.
3. Posted by figaro | May 8, 2007 6:51 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on May 8, 2007 18:51