Did Thompson Quiet His Critics?

Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 6:02 PM by Chuck Todd

From NBC's Chuck Todd
This debate will be known for two things: 1) an uneven debut for Thompson; the opening answer he gave was that of a VERY nervous first-time candidate and there was a noticeable pause that was striking in a bad way; every evening newscast grabbed that moment and because of that some may believe Thompson's performance was worse than it actually was. 2) these candidates were ALL uncomfortable having to answer some detailed, non-soundbite applicable questions. The candidates better be glad most of the rest of the debates will be on general topics rather than focused on the economy where clearly these guys didn't do their homework.

Outside of the Thompson debut (which did get better as the debate went on but was still unsteady at too many moments to quiet critics), it's hard to see how any of the other candidates will go up or down based on their performance today. Giuliani and Romney stood out as they just seemed more comfortable with the main topic of this debate, the economy. Plus, the two clashed a bit over the line-item veto, a fascinating distinction that apparently will be decided in the courts instead of the ballot box.

McCain was less a part of this debate than others because this debate was NOT about national security issues. In '00, McCain hit a roadblock when the debate turned to economic issues. It's clear that this topic isn't his passion. Still, he had a few good moments.

But it's important to go back to Thompson because this debate was about him. Bottom line: he's got a lot of work to do. He did get better but I doubt he quieted critics; He was more on top of the issues than some may have tought but was he really a frontrunner when it comes to knowing what the issues are? That's the BIGGER question.

BTW, a few bad moments for Rudy and Romney to point out because I think we'll hear about them from each camp: Romney's comments that he'd consult "attorneys" on whether he'd attack Iran is going to be mocked by his opponents for a few days (if our email inbox is any judge). It, POTENTIALLY, opened up an inexperienced argument against Romney. As for Giuliani, his answer about policing the internet culturally probably didn't resonate on a personal level to parents and McCain picked up on it. That's why he jumped in and attacked those predators and pornographers personally. It was one of McCain's stronger moments. Giuliani was a bit technocratish.

We'll have more later, see you on the tube tonight and online VERY early tomorrow.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

My vote is that Romney and Thompson won. (Funny that they were also the two tallest candidates). Romney was certainly comfortable and had a good use of humor. Thompson (I didn't see the beginning) seemed to settle in. And he didn't shy away from setting himself apart from the others and getting more specific on the issues.

Sadly, John McCain is my big pick for loser. He looked so darn angry when he couldn't hear the question. It made his age stand out that much more. Plus he wasn't very confident (which Romney projected well). Finally, what's with the Bernanke (sp?) question? McCain said something like, 'I don't know much about the economy, that's why I trust those smarter than me? Sure, he did okay.' First, I agree, Ben Bernanke is doing okay, he's watching and keeping matters in check. But is that really what the USA wants in a leader, somebody who doesn't know or have any intuition on what's best for the economy? I keep being driven further from McCain, which is sad because 7 years ago, he was my favorite.

Now I like the Huck and Romney for the republicans.

*Finally, that was a fascinating debate. It was really one of the more interesting ones to watch. I think the democrats would be wise to stop counting their chickens before they are hatched. Because their issue the war, which isn't going so well for them. Well, the republicans are probably going to start changing there mind during the general and with the senate elections. Force a compromise, and wind up looking like the good guys. I can see it now . . . "We have tried in Iraq, but they just don't want to reconcile. It is no longer worth the lives of our soldiers." Of course, they will do it in the most hawkish way. And I don't respect a politian's swinging with the election winds. Ron Paul may still be able to support a candidate yet.

Sorry for the poor grammar and misspelling.

Nicholas, Minneaps, MN (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 6:17 PM)

Sounds like this "debate"--if it was one--was "Much Ado About Nothing". EXCEPT THAT McCain really lost ground and neither Giulani nor Romney gained anything. Thus, status quo.

Stu, Saginaw, MI (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 6:20 PM)

The important question is what was the count on flag lapel pins? I predicted 7.

nuanced (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 6:20 PM)

I was very upset with the rudeness that Chris Matthews showed Fred Thompson in the Republican debate. I am not voting for Mr. Thompson but was offended nontheless. I would also like to hear your News Channel address all of the other candidates and their issues. Not just Hillary Clinton & Rudy Guliane. Thank you for accepting my mail.

CSetzke, Brookfield, WI (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 6:21 PM)

Fred was boring and looked really tired.

http://www.newyorkforhuckabee.blogspot.com

Peter, Amityville, NY (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 6:26 PM)

I'm not sure about you guys, but Romney sounded like the only one who had a clue about the economy. All the others, especially Paul, had no idea!

TLB, Aurora, Colorado (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 6:33 PM)

Given the way the 2007 campaign is going, one can conclude that getting into the race in the fall is now for the first time really "too late", and beyond all considerations of organization and fundraising; the true death knell of announcing last means you have the spotlight on only you out the gate, making the next few weeks a referendum on just you.

Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 6:34 PM)

All of the Republican candidates played their "fiscal conservative" card, each vying to cut taxes and more government programs and spending than the next guy. But no one word about the cost of the Bush war in Iraq. It's as if the billions spent on unending wars don't count as "spending". Where is the money coming from if not from taxes already in place? And if those taxes are cut as each one of the Republicans promises, how are their wars to be financed? Do they plan on keeping war spending "off budget" as Bush has done, or will they realize that they can't have their wars without paying for them ? It seems the Republicans can always find money for their wars, the military industrial complex, no-bid-contracts with likes of Haliburton and Blackwater, but are determined to cut as many domestic programs as possible so that they can wear the mantra of "conservative". Supporting Bush's veto of children's healthcare while supporting his demand for another $190 BILLION for his war in Iraq is a prime example of this crowd's priorities.

R.Merrell (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 6:37 PM)

At least Fred isn't in favor of gun control. He is a fresh breath of polictics.

William Dimmitt Twin Falls ID (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:00 PM)

Judging from the reaction online, the consensus seems to be:

Paul: A
Huckabee: B
Guiliani: C
Thompson, Hunter: D
Romney, McCain, Brownback, Tancredo: F

It seems like Romney's answer about checking with his attorneys on whether to go war with another country may be the biggest wound suffered at this debate; it makes it sound like the ONLY thing he knows is business, and that he's a complete idiot when it comes to foreign policy, federal government, and the Constitution.

Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:01 PM)

Fred was impressive and he certainly trashed that little dolt, Matthews.

R Platt, Universal City, TX (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:03 PM)

Why don't the Democrats recognize it was their fault that the children's program did not move ahead. They should not have added known VETO items. They should have renewed the existing plan and then negotiated the alternatives in preparation for the next approval event.

Rafael, Hampton, VA (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:06 PM)

Ron Paul of course is not being talked about again. What are they (MSM) afraid of?

Jim Lundberg, San Diego, CA (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:08 PM)

Fred Thompson did well for his first debate. He seemed somewhat nervous at first but settled in. I was impressed with Huckabee also. Chris Matthews showed his true colors as a ultra liberal. I wish he would he would own up to than rather than saying he's independent.

Dan G. Camarillo, Ca (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:09 PM)

Ditto on Mr. Merrells comment!!! Republicans/conservatives = war/death!!! I think everyone needs to watch Ken Burns "The War" and just see how horrible war really is and how it should only come as a last resort!

Richard Gazinya, Milton, Fl. (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:11 PM)

I like Thompson, he seems to really shoot from the hip. I think he would be a really good President.

Jeff Davis San Angelo Texas (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:12 PM)

Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air in the Republican Party, but he'd get more support if he ran as a Democrat! We need more questions about the cost of the Iraq War and how WE are going to pay for it. Seems like Social Security and Medicare are the answer.

Frank Weston (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:13 PM)

As I see it, Romney is far and above rest the republican candidates. He has the best management credentials of any and a proven track record. And I do believe he is the most honest of them all. And I like the fact that being a Mormon; I know he is a christian. His closest competitor is Giuliani. But for a republican, he has a democrats views ! But Paul could be a fark horse in this race. And I being a republican could switch parties very easily. Romney will bring me back to the republican side if he can bring back the old republican party.

D. Padelford (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:14 PM)

re: Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:01 PM)

Ron Paul: A?

Are you high?

Brian Davis, Irvine, California (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:22 PM)

Their are sadly no choices from either party. Our country needs a great leader to step forward and I dont see one!

Jerry ,lolo Montana (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:24 PM)

Rudy was right when he pointed out that the (Federal)line item veto was unconsttutional. The Supreme Court ruled so during the Clinton Administration. Romney should have known that yet he kept hammering away at that. Figured he could control spending that way. He's (Romney) usually smarter than that. Score one for Rudy who will need it when the chips are down.

Opa2 (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:25 PM)

I haven't even seen it yet;I'm on my way home now to see the debate repeated @ 9pm & my expectations are very low...Not because of the candidates, but because of that BOOB, Matthews!!! How they picked an obnoxious, egomaniacal NON- JOURNALIST who is 200% biased, I will never know...I am soooo looking forward to Thompson, though.

Marlene Costa, Putnam Valley, New York (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:27 PM)

I sincerely like Fred Thompson and I plan to vote for him. He looks like a president. He is fresh to the scene and hasn't made a career of politics, he's done other interesting things and brings a fresh prespective to the table. He is reminds me of Regan a bit....maybe its the acting thing? Looking forward to his next debate.

Maria Sanarov, Bend Oregon : age 28 (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:28 PM)

most of the candidates want to bomb Iran, but what will happen if after that, chavez of Venezuela stops sending oil to us. after all they are friends. Will we be ready to invade Venezuela and take over the oil fields? somebody did not ask the right Que.....

Juan J gutierrez, hayward CA. (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:37 PM)

Ron Paul, A. Right.

One dimensional.
If that's an A, everyone else gets A+.

George Carl (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:38 PM)

Brian - I was simply reporting on what people are saying; see for yourself. Ron Paul wins the MSNBC online poll by a landslide, and the right-leaning RealClearPolitics has a post debate review from Tom Bevan that also gives Paul a very strong rating. The stuff he was saying about monetary value was so dead on, and I am not a Paul supporter.

Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:40 PM)

Thats right another actor in the white house, Oh joy. Tax cuts will not pay for the deficit, or the needs of the military, who will be in Iran soon. Draft the bums and send them over to guard the state department employees, that will save money. Part of the economy is the defense budget, when will that be brought up to the Rebumlikans candidates, also do we like owing all that money to the Chinese and Saudis?

John S. Alexander, Edinboro, PA (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:40 PM)

In Re: Rafael from Virginia:
Doesn't that seem to be typical "srtategy" of the Donkeys?? Add things known tp be VETO items, load up the congressional bills with pork or unacceptable provisions and then blame the GOP party for not passing "their" program!!

Jim (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:40 PM)

Not terribly impressed by anyone. Wish hard questions were asked of each candidate, such as why did Mr Guliani oppose the 9/11 Commission and is it true that Fred Thompson gets into a pick-up truck (purely for show)when he leaves Capitol Hill, drives a few blocks and then climbs into a limo? Have concerns about Mr. Romney that have NOTHING to do with his religious beliefs, but more with the fact that he puts his Irish Setter's crate on the roof of his truck when the family drives to their cottage in Canada - how is that for common sense (or lack thereof....)?

J. Fauchere (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:41 PM)

I really liked listening to the presidential class of Mike Huckabee. I think he has more right answers that all the others. But, frankly I'm ashamed of the Republicans and Democrats in Washington. These so called leaders are all suppose to be Americans first and looking for the good of our nation and our freedom. We should never have gone to war in Iraq, but now that we've screwed them up, we need to finish the job and give them a strong government, but most of all we need to stop our bickering and support our troops. I listen to the elected senators that want the top job and most of them voted to go into Iraq. Now they want to cut and run. That tells me, and the world they never thought they could win to start with and now to get elected they will say anything to get votes.

I sure would like to see a candidate from either side that would stick to their word and if they don't resign and get out of Washington. We don't need liars, and fill my palm with green back representatives running America, we just need a strong American that isn't looking for popularity to make some radical changes to the way our government spends money and protects our freedoms.

Bill Bryson, Milton, NH (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:42 PM)

**Romney - Mormon, for crying out loud, he believes he can become a god if he is good enough on earth.
**Thompson - very conservative, but tells you how it is!
**McCain - wishy washy, but has good views, shoots himself in the foot at moments.
**Paul - wasting his time.
**Guiliani - NYC, he's got that going for him.
**The rest - who???

Jon Zanders, New York, NY (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:43 PM)

I DID NOT WATCHNOR WILL I WATCH THIS OR ANY OTHER DEBATE, REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT. IT'S MORE LIKE WATCHING NAME THAT TUNE (IF ANYONE CAN REMEMBER THAT GAME SHOW). EACH CANDIDATE TRYS THEIR BEST TO OUT BID THE OTHERS. ATLEAST WITH NAME THAT TUNE, SOMEONE OTHER THAN A POLITICAL SLUG GETS TO WIN. WHAT WE NEED ID A GOOD STRONG THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE AND TOTALLY DISSOLVE THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE ALLOWED TO FESTER ALL THESE YEARS. AND NOW YOUR ASKING YOURSEL, "WHO WILL HE VOTE FOR IF HE DOES'NT WATCH THE DEBATES"? THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE, I HAVE RESEARCHED EACH CANDIDATE FAIRLY WELL AND I WILL VOTE FOR THE PERSON WHOM I FEEL IS THE BEST CANDIDATE RELYING ON THEIR PAST PERFORMANCES. AND IF THAT DOES'NT SEEM TO WORK, I DO WHAT EVERY OTHER AMERICAN WILL PROBABLY END UP DOING, VOTING FOR THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS. WE NEED CANDIDATES THAT WANT A GOVERNMENT THAT BELIEVE THIS COUNTRY AND ITS CITIZENS COME FIRST AND FOREMOST ABOVE ALL OTHER COUNTRIES. POLICIES ABROAD NEED TO BE REPLACED WITH POLICIES ABOARD. OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS NEED TO FOCUS MOST IF NOT ALL OF THEIR ENERGY ON ISSUES AFFECTING THIS COUNTRY. PULL OUR TROOPS BACK AND PLACE THEM ON OUR BORDERS. PUT GOD BACK IN OUR LIVES AND TO HELL WITH THE IDIOTS THAT DON'T AGREE WITH OUR PRACTICES. ALLOW PARENTS TO BE PARENTS, TEACHERS TO BE TEACHERS AND KIDS TO BE KIDS. LIFE IS A CONTINUAL LEARNING AND GROWING EXPERIENCE. I CAN HONESTLY SAY, I DO NOT NOW OR HAVE I EVER NEEDED ANYONE IN GOVERNMENT TELL ME HOW TO LIVE MY LIFE, ESPECIALLY WHEN MOST OF THEM CAN'T CONTROL THEIR OWN LIVES. I LOVE THIS COUNTRY AND SERVED AND RETIRED PROUDLY FROM THE UNITED STATES NAVY AND I WILL NOT LET ANYONE DESTROY THIS COUNTRY OR ITS PEOPLE.

JERRY Q., LAPORTE, TX (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:44 PM)

Just look at the towering figure of Thompson at centerstage...He's the only one that looks like a President. He will be the nominee. McCain has lost all his steam. The evangelicals have threatened to start a third party if Gulianni is chosen and Romney is a morman...c'mon, most people are very suspicious of mormanism. Thompson is 2008's answer to Ronald Reagan. If they don't pick him they will lose terribly.

Harry Vest, Winnipeg, Manitoba (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:46 PM)

Mitt made Giuliani seem like a used car salesman, I was completely unsure of who I was going to vote for before this debate and now I am even more unsure. I would say that Romney and Thompson are at the top of my list. I don't believe McCain really wants this thing.....I mean who would? I think alot of candidates are going to tank this because no one wants to take up where Bush is leaving off.
But I do think we need a line item veto at the fed level as well.

Matt, Atascadero California (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:46 PM)

I think Fred Thompson did well. My question is if republicans are willing to debate with Idiot Chris Matthews, why will the democrats not appear in a debate on Fox News. Are you a little afraid demo's that you might have to answer hard questions?

C.Wortham, Greeneville,TN (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:46 PM)

Fred Thompson got my vote. Not only did he answer the questions but he supported them with facts and figures.
He also put that Stalinist Chris Matthews in his place.

Gomez (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:46 PM)

Wow, all you have to do is let republicans talk. The POSITIVES of Thompson are that he "hasn't made a career of politics" and he "looks like a president." Wow. Why dont all you republicans just move to Russia, they appreciate personality cults in politics over there.

Colin Harding (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:48 PM)

Why can't I get Fred Ziffle out of my mind while listening to, and watching, Fred Thompson???

Buzz (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:49 PM)

I haven't seen it yet as it is 4:45 pm in the southwest but I think Matthews was an extremely poor choice as moderator. Perhaps, Sean Hannity and Rush would be good moderators for the Democratic debate! I wish Newt Gingrich would run: he is fair, balanced, clear minded, and is able to articulate his views with determination and intelligence. I'm tired of people who talk around issues and appear to be timid in stating their views.

Judie Lincoln (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:50 PM)

I won't be voting for any of these candidates, but I find it interesting how a career politico like Thompson is seen as an outsider. Yes, he's an actor now, but the majority of his adult life has been spent in government, including lobbying. Also, I wonder when the CEO-for-President model will be recognized as wholly inappropriate? The United States government is not a corporation, and should be run on entirely separate, often divergent, principles. I guess the bar for "presidential" has been set pretty low, but right now I don't see either party offering a candidate worth supporting.

N M, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:51 PM)

I am glad to see all the positive references to thompson, my favorite candidate. Yes, he did look a bit tired in the beginning, but perked up quickly. He was the only one who did not seem to be in the pocket of the trade unions. One of them even said that trade unions are gaining in strength, when they have the biggest loss of membership in their history. Gotta go back and see who that was.
I prefer Fred Thompson, he is experienced, has been "around the block" and won't accept any nonsense from foreign leaders. He even mentioned elsewhere that it is time for Europeans - those know-everything-better-and-therefore-hate-America-people, well, for those to shoulder a bigger burden in their defenses. Won't they make long faces ! I would give Fred 08 an A+ . (It seems like the women like him. Yes, he is confidence-inspiring.)

Montanbear (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:54 PM)

As an American who worked in the middleast for 12 years, I can tell you that anyone who claims they know or understand the Arab mind is either a lier or the messiah! To get right to the meat of the subject, the candidate "I " would vote for is the one that will make a sincere attempt at dialog with our enemies. They are enemies because of our pro Jewish inclinations. You don't need a crystal ball to see that the Arabs have good cause not to trust a country that gives such an enormous amount of weaponry to a state that has occupied Palestianian land since the end of WW2. How would anyone feel if some soldiers came to your house and told you to leave. Come on people, put your intelligence to work, figure it out. This has been going on a long time, and "I" personally can understand why the Palestianian people hate Israel. Even some jews understand the problem and sympathise with the Arabs. How many fathers,sons,daughters,uncles and aunts, etc. have to die before you get the picture. Are they angry, do they want retribution, do they want the land back that was forcefully stolen, yes,yes and yes. Can you blame them for gods sake. Wake up America, we need to chart a new path to reconcileration.

Tigerman/An American citizen

Harold Strauss Tempe,Az. (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:55 PM)

I think the fact that Fred looked nervous is a good thing. It shows he is not a professional politician. I think this country did pretty well the last time a conservative actor was President. I plan to vote for Fred.

Liam Butler (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:56 PM)

Fred did not get into the race too late, everyone else started early. Hillary started campaigning 8 years ago when she left her office. Previously, the campaigns did not really get going until, right about now. Rudy and Romney had to start campaigning to fight her lead. I like Fred Thompson, he is straight forward, andnot a Clinton.

People like Matthews, and the rest of the Liberal journalists and "MC's" should not be permittedto moderate a Republican Debate. Let them moderate the Democratic Debates, however, they won't be here in the "Swing State" - Florida, Florida, Florida.

Ray Bierweiler, Tarpon Spings, Fl (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:57 PM)

How many of you think that a lot of these commenters are plants? It seems to be a favored tactic these days.

Mike, West Palm Beach, FL (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 8:00 PM)

You guys don't get it. The Democrats intended to pass a SCHIP bill that Bush would veto, so that they could beat that drum next fall. As Carville was wont to say "The 'publicans ah killin' the chillun!" The Democrats have learned that you can take any issue from any part of the spectrum and, if you dress it up in children's garb and paint the issue as being insensitive to the needs of children, middle America will eschew analysis and condemn the perceived cruelty.

Paul Ground, St. Louis (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 8:03 PM)

MSNBC needs to ask the democratic candidates about their views on abortion (late term), religious personal views, prior marriages or problems, hard questions, yet they get away with questions on Iraq, very easy answers for them, which is intended to bring down Bush and Republicans in general. Very partial media and very obvious.

Frank Kurley (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 8:03 PM)

Well I actually like Fred and Duncan. Voting for any of the D's is like voting yourself a cut in pay and limiting where you can go for your health care. As it is now no child is being refused care! As far as the economy it's a free market accept where Gov. has interfered (which is always disaster) the market will has to work itself out. Any economist worth his credentials will tell you more taxes is bad bad bad for the economy.

Burcher (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 8:04 PM)

Is the this the best our great country can do? And the same goes for the democrats!

Max Johnson (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 8:08 PM)

I guarentee you it will not be the Independents who elect any of these "idiots"

HMect, Galesburg, IL (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 8:08 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=404257