hardly a tantrum. He had a point, one that everyone else followed. A tantrum is what Alan Keyes did.

Tantrum? If ABC wasn't part of the GW con game would they be calling Fred's response a tantrum? He had a very valid point. How the HELL do you let the public know the substance and cause for your position if your answer is reduced to a hand raise.

What next, "who here wants to be president?"

lol,

You call it a tantrum, i call it refusing to take crap from the moderator..

These guys are running for president, this is a debate, not a 3rd grade classroom..

Tantrum?!!?!?!?! Surely you jest. If a democRat had had the same reaction you'd call it "courageous". Your liberal slip is showing...as usual. When are you "journalists" going to actually start acting like journalists and telling a story using ALL the facts, rather than the cherry-picked facts that promote the liberal agenda? You're all doing it againg over the NIE report. You are all spinning the Bush is a liar routine while the real journalists, the evil bloggers, are ferreting out information related to the final arbiters of the contents of the report, showing that they are left-leaning political hacks who are infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome. This information should have been presented as a caveat to any of the stories presented the the MSM...IF you were real journalists, that is. You should return your degrees to the liberal universities who indocrinated you into the liberal mind-fog and start over again.

The debate was a joke. All it needed was internet questions posted by snowmen.
The moderator opened by saying she would not discuss the top two issues for Republican voters--the war and immigration. The bulk of the questions dealt with how the GOP candidates would ask the American people to "sacrifice" (a kindler, gentler term for raise taxes).
And where did they find Nurse Mildred Ratched from "Cuckoo's Nest" to moderate this debacle? Evil.

Also, Alan Keyes DID NOT meet the criteria for participation in the debate--no Iowa campaign to speak of and does not rate 1 percent in any poll. So why was he there?

Thompson showed he has onions. The stern school master wanted the good little president people to follow her instructions. I thought I noticed a ruler in her hand waiting to whack the onions if there was a step out of line.

"Whack the Onions" would make a great name for a Rock band.

I always thought the teachers and media types were dumbing down America. Now I see they are teaching 'all they know' and they are too stupid to breathe.

It's about time someone (with a voice louder than mine) stood up and said "Enough of these pathetic 'yes or no' type questions!" This isn't the first instance where a...ahem...neutral moderator tried pull this sort of nonsense (the Scooter Libby pardon issue, belief in evolution).

What sort of moron would ask a yes or no question during a DEBATE?!? Even little children know how to debate with more than a single word (You're stupid! Am not! Am so! Am not!).

Real leadership. All of the others put their hands down when they say what Fred did. It's a microcosm of the campaign. Fred is the only one who hasn't had to move to the right.

"if they thought climate change was a serious threat caused by human activity"

This question is symptomatic of a shallow, intellectually corrupt media organization, and the halfwits in charge of it.

The question was a trick question because it had two parts to it. You mistated the question in your article. The question was, "Do you think global warming is a serious threat AND caused by human activity?" By only answering yes or no, you are either denying both or agreeing to both and the fact is that most people in this country only agree with half. A lot of people believe that the earth is warming as I do, but I don't think it is a serious threat and I doubt the level of human activity is that influential on it or can be changed significantly for that matter.

Furthermore, it was a two-part question. Question 1: Is global warming a serious problem? Question 2: I global warming caused by human activity? If one thinks that global warming is caused by human activity but is not a serious problem, or that global warming is a serious problem that is not caused by human activity, how does one answer that question by raising one's hand? Raising it halfway?

The very nature of the question displays the bias in the entire global warming debate. If global warming was a natural phenomenon, we would be looking at ways to adapt to the change, like we had to adapt to cooler temperatures in Victorian times when Krakatoa exploded. But it is the supposed status of global warming as being caused by humans that gives proponents of the theory the ability to make people feel guilty about their fossil fuel consumption. And with guilt comes the need to assuage guilt. And with the need to assuage guilt comes mucho dinero for the folks out there peddling absolution.

If balking at MSM silliness from time to time is a 'tantrum', then we need more of these. Fred has more class in his little finger than the school marm has in her entire body. And certainly more leadership.

And here's when I stopped paying attention:

"right-wing troglodytes"

Typical moronic comment which is wholly indicative of the political mindset of the "progressive" folks.

Thanks for adding absolutely nothing to the argument.

Hardly a tantrum. It was the high point of this lame excise for a debate.

For those of you who think this "two-part" question didn't lend itself to an easy yes/no answer, let me explain: if you agreed with both, you raised your hand and, otherwise, you didn't.

Any questions? I didn't think so.

And in response to the comment from "Yo" about "adding absolutely nothing to the argument", there is no argument here to add anything to. It's just the usual toadies jostling to be the first to spout the talking points they've carefully memorized from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Insanity.

I think "troglodytes" accurately described the knee-jerk response of those on the right that have bought the simplistic and incorrect assertion that the MSM is "liberal". If you have a better description, I'll be glad to hear it.

So, Johnbo, there are three different answers that are all signified by the same action, which is not raising one's hand.

Don't you think that is a pretty poorly worded question, if the same action can indicate three very different answers?

Even a dumb troglodytes like myself can figure that out.

All the moderator was doing was idendifying for the audience the candidates who agreed with the statement. Those that don't agree - either partly or entirely - were identified as well. Not rocket science, sparky.

But, I will agree that, for the most part, the debates - both the Republican and Democratic - have been disappointing in part because of the moderators and the questions they've asked. It's not a format that has lended itself to nuanced answers to complicated issues.

The stupidy of the left-wing posts on this issue are a hoot. They are indeed an ignorant bunch.

I have always liked Fred. Today proved one good reason why.