I'm listening to the Republican debate, and wondering why they put up with this bullshit (yes, I don't use that word often on this family...sort of... blog) from the MSM. Why do they allow Democrat media types to frame their debate?

The most egregious case of this is the question that just came up--why shouldn't people vote for Barack Obama?

WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD ANY REPUBLICAN CARE ABOUT THIS QUESTION IN A REPUBLICAN DEBATE?

Romney responded with a bunch of blather that had little to do with the question, and Thompson came up next. I was disappointed.

It was a "I'm not doing no hand shows" moment, and he blew it.

The first words out of his mouth should have been, "Let me preface my answer with the statement that this is a foolish question for a debate that only Republicans are really interested in. It might be a perfectly fine question a few months from now, in a general election, if Obama in fact becomes the candidate, and I (or one of these other gentlemen) are debating him, but Republicans, or at least smart ones (and I don't know that many dumb ones) don't care why I or anyone on this stage thinks that they shouldn't vote for Barack Obama. They're trying to pick a Republican candidate. Now, having said that,...[then go on to the response he actually gave].

But instead, he just returned to Republican principles, but I think he missed an opportunity to bash the press again, which a lot of Republican activists would have loved.

One other thought overall. Mike Huckabee is one slick-talking, two-faced socialist son of a bitch. I'll have to go through the transcript to make the case, though. He's a combination of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, in Republican clothing.

Must be something about people who were born in Hope, Arkansas, and became governor of the state. If the campaigns of the other Republican candidates are worth anything, there is much fodder here for anti-Huckabee ads that will amply and convincingly demonstrate this.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Here are some related thoughts to the latter point from Jonathan Adler (though more calm than mine, though they weren't in the wake of the debate):

It's interesting that Huckabee is now stressing a limited government message, as it has not been a significant part of his platform up until now. Rather this is a guy who celebrates farm subsidies, disavows free trade, and likes the idea of a national smoking ban, and his campaign manager has disparaged the limited government ideology that motivates many Republicans in New Hampshire and elsewhere. That he can deliver such a message effectively is no surprise — he's a very smooth talker. The question is whether his newfound embrace of limited government ideals is sincere. I have my doubts.

I have no doubts. It is clearly quite insincere, to anyone who has observed his actual governing (and other campaign statements) as opposed to his mercurial and chameleon-like campaign rhetoric for New Hampshire.

[Update a little later]

Here's an example that struck me, too:

"The right to live our lives...the way we want to, and not have the government tell us how to do it."

Is this the same Mike Huckabee that wants the government to tell us how to eat?

Yes, that one really jumped out at me.

[Another update]

The Romney team, at least is loading the guns. An example:

Gov. Huckabee, January 2007: "Well, I'm Not Sure That I Support The Troop Surge."

MSNBC's NORAH O'DONNELL: "We have a Rudy Giuliani, who supports the president's plan on Iraq. We have Governor Mitt Romney, who also supports a troop surge. How are you different from any of those candidates."

HUCKABEE: "Well, I'm not sure that I support the troop surge, if that surge has to come from our Guard and Reserve troops, which have really been overly stretched." (MSNBC's "Live," 1/24/07)

One other comment, from several people, with which I agree, and should add to the glossary: "Getting into the weeds": an argument too abstruse for simpletons like Charlie Gibson to follow.

Nice for now that Thompson doesn't have to do it.

[Update a few minutes later]

Not that it's news, but McCain speak with forked tongue, too:

"'There are jobs that American workers simply won't do,' McCain said. 'As long as there's a demand for workers, workers are going to come across.' An amnesty program is vital to any immigration legislation that includes a guest-worker program, he said. 'Amnesty has to be an important part because there are people who have lived in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have raised children here and pay taxes here and are not citizens. That has to be a component of it,' he said. 'How can we have a temporary worker program if we're not allowing people who have been here for 30 years to hold jobs here?'" (C. T. Revere, "McCain Pushes Amnesty, Guest-Worker Program," Tucson Citizen, 5/29/03)

McCain maintains that anyone who says he supported amnesty is "lying."

[Another update]

Jim Gerachty notes another missed opportunity by Fred:

Thompson says he's [Obama] adopted the views of every liberal interest group in the country. He mentions the NEA.

Fred! Fred! Somebody on that stage was endorsed by the New Hampshire NEA! Mention it, mention it!

He didn't mention it.

The person being referred to here is Huckabee...