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.

And the least nuanced answer for all is when one is not even permitted to speak.

Global warming is a complicated issue. It is an issue that has the potential for wasting tremendous amounts of the World's wealth. It deserves more than a hand raise.

Is this how all progressives are?

Well, think about it for a minute, stlpatriot. If you had to make their arguments, how long could you do it with a straight face, without resorting to namecalling?

When you're losing the game, sometimes your best move is to flip over the board.

I think that Fred did the right thing. I think this debate has exposed a major liberal media bias. I think Alan Keyes was there just to make Republicans look bad. No one (not even the candidates) even knew Keyes was running. He failed 2 of the qualifications to enter the debate. He acknowledges that he doesn't have an office or a staff in Iowa (or anywhere else). The liberal media will not allow Kucinich or Gravel in the Democrat debate and they stated 2 reasons - the same 2 that should have eliminated Keyes. Keyes is basically a lunatic that hates 90% of the country. The ONLY reason that I can think of for him to be there is bias against Republicans. When is the national media going to report these types of facts? The candidates didn't even know that Keyes was running for president until they showed up for todays debate. The media needs to report the facts and quit trying to influence elections.

"The media needs to report the facts and quit trying to influence elections."

If they did that, a Republican might win, and that will just not do...

Yeah, Gridlock, a complicated issue indeed. But, it would have been a good first step to see who among the Republican candidates agreed with the moderators statement - especially given the depth of denial in the conservative community on the issue of global warming.

Thanks to the conservatives in the U.S., the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that hasn't signed on to the Kyoto accords on global warming. ONly in the conservative community do you have people that still deny that global warming is a reality or, if they do agree it's happening, don't agree that humans are contributors. And, this level of incomprehensible denial comes after YEARS of near-unanomous agreement in the scientific community.

Even the idiots in the Bush Administration agree with both those statements even though their response is to do nothing. Reports out of the meeting in Bali on global warming going on now are that the U.S., once again, is the lone holdout resisting mandated reductions. Add to that, they refuse to sign on to the industrialized nations helping the poor third world nations to cope with the problem AND, for their grand finale', they blocked a proposal asking the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for an updated report before the next round of talks in 2009. Yeah, that's our President!!

All of this while the U.S. is the GREATEST contributor of global warming emissions: with 5% of the world's population, we contribute around 25% of the emissions. Do you think that, as the world starts to deal with catostropic consequences as this unfolds that the U.S. is going to be seen as a pariah nation intent on pursuing it's own good at the expense of the world? And, what do you think will happen when that comes to pass? Love to hear what all you smart, articulate right-wingers have to say to that.

Fred Thompson was GREAT in today's debate! He will do better than anticipated in Iowa, then on to South Carolina, sweep the South, garner the GOP nomination and on to the White House! Poor Hillary, she won't know what hit her!!

Were you aware that the United States has come closer to meeting the goals of Kyoto than any signatory nation other than the nations of the former Eastern Bloc, who have failed their way to success?

Fred's performance in today's debate shows why he IS the only candidate to vote for.

Why didnt Clinton/Gore sign Kyoto when they had the chance?

"Why didnt Clinton/Gore sign Kyoto when they had the chance?"

Why did the Senate vote unanimously, 99 to 0, to refuse authorization to the Clinton Administration to negotiate the Kyoto Treaty? Not only every Republican in the Senate, but every Democrat voted against Kyoto.

But there was a Democrat President back then. The Democrats did not want to saddle their President with a turkey of a treaty, and the Republicans were not willing to destroy the US economy in order to score cheap political points.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, and there is a Republican President, the Democrats are showing no such unwillingness. They are more than happy to destroy the US economy if it means they have a chance to demonize the Bush Administration.

BTW, did you know that the United States has the lowest CO2 generation per unit of GDP of any nation on Earth?

I think that Fred Thompson could see that this was a biased debate. The moderator was unbelievable. The candidates walk in and see someone they didn't even know was running for president or going to be there. I want to know why Alan Keyes was at the debate. I am going to write every internet column, news channel, and newspaper until someone looks into this. It is well known that he is an off the charts radical. Why would the liberal Des Moines Register allow him in a debate when he did not comply and not allow Kucinich and Gravel in the Democratic debate? I think that most people know that Kucinich and Gravel are running for the office. I don't think any Republican knew about Keyes until he appeared on the stage.

yes i did Gridlock, and TY for the "Articulate" answer...

India and China are exempt i believe.. whys that?

I wonder if ABC would have referred to this as a tantrum if Obama or Clinton had done it?

From Johnbo: "All of this while the U.S. is the GREATEST contributor of global warming emissions: with 5% of the world's population, we contribute around 25% of the emissions..."

It depends on what the meaning of "GREATEST" is.

China produces more CO2 than the United States.

Every nation on Earth produces more CO2 than the United States per unit of GDP.

The emissions of CO2 of every industrialized nation outside of the former Eastern Bloc is going up faster than the United States.

True, our per capita production of CO2 is reletively high, but that is merely a reflection of our extremely high levels of productivity. Productivity is a good thing. If a certain amount of goods are to be produced in the World, it is better that they be produced cleanly in the United States than someplace else that is less efficient.

Anyone who stands up to someone from the MSM is thorwing a tantrum.

Fred wasn't throwing a tantrum. He was putting you in your place.

You pitiful ABC liberals... I bet if the same thing happens today and Hillary or Obama refuse to "raise their hands," the headline would read:
"Hillary/Obama takes charge of debate from moderator" or something along those lines.

Wonder why your ratings are dropping?

Stop editorializing your news, and start reporting the facts, or see your ratings fall just like NBC's have.

The only reason I FOUND this site was a link on a trusted conservative website.

"Tantrum." How pitiful.

Tantrum? I have a 5 year old and I know a tantrum when I see one.
How in the world are these people getting away with this. We see something with our own eyes, and they come right out and tell us we didn't see it.

Well, who are you going to believe? An ABC blogger, or your own lyin' eyes?

Cuz I'm an ignernt conservative and never lernt nuthin... I had to look up troglodyte, and as I expected its used in Dungeons & Dragons.

ABC and the left-wingers are just plain nuts. They are so in the bag for the dems, they will lie like the dogs they are. Good Thompson for calling out the librarian like creator who served as a debate moderator, who looked like the one woman even Bill Clinton didn't grope. The raising hands thing is so juvenile, so un-American, so misplaced in a DEBATE, that it was about time it was challenged. I guess the feminists at the Des Moines Register and PBS think free speech applies to everyone but white republican men.

I find it revealing that people who buy into the whole Global Warming hoo-ha are fixated on the United States as being the worst actor. They focus on our per-capita production of CO2 as if this were a negative, because we emit more than our "fair share". As if all the CO2 generation in the World should be divided up evenly, with each individual receiving no more or no less than his individual fraction.

You gotta say one thing for Communists... they certainly are consistent. They see anything, and their first inclination is to break out the eyedroppers and the tin cups to make sure everything comes out the same.

Of course, it has been proven, time and time again, that equal distribution of anything winds up with everybody having nothing. But what is a thousand years of experience when set against the latest fad? Surely we'll get it right this time, because we are just so much smarter and more dedicated than all the people who have gone before.

Our CO2 generation is greater in the US because we are wealthier. We are wealthier because we are more productive. We are more productive because we use resources more efficiently. As with all things, the more efficient producer winds up with a greater share of the market, and resources are allocated to the most efficient distribution.

This is pretty basic stuff.

That was Trick question like Q: Have you stopped beating your wife?? Which is an impossible question to answer with a Yes or No. ---I'm a "Fred-Head".

ABC hates it because Fred reminded them of Reagan's, "I paid for this microphone!" remarks that helped him win the nomination.

In that magic moment we saw four candidates raise their hand like good school boys. But the man in the middle said no.

Then the school boys gleefully agreed with the man.

It was a seminal moment. If Fred wins the nomination, that moment is likely to be the turning point. Before then, his candidacy looked woefully lackluster.

But through his toughness, that came out with natural strength, he stole the momentum hands down.

It'll be real interesting to see how he does in Iowa because of his demonstration of true leadership when everyone else acted like a child.

Funny, I thought it was the Democrats who believed that the Republicans use short slogans and cliched speech to get their support; which many don't support liberal positions because they are too complex and nuanced.

So why is it that Republicans want to allow an actual answer and the liberals are ok with a simple yes/no with no discussion, no explanation, and no debate.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems very counter-intuitive. It's like the Republicans aren't willing to be forced into a corner without having a chance to give their explanation or something.

Well hell, not being willing to be set up by a "non-partisan" moderator? That sounds like we'd better call him names.

Calling this a "tantrum" might work, but if you called him a "doodie-head" as well I think you'd get across the point that you're not a serious pundit, and shouldn't be taken seriously in a more clear and concise manner.

Or was that not your goal?

There was no "tantrum" - how dare ABC post a misleading headline such as that!

If I were Fred, I'd demand a retraction of that - it is nothing more than an attempt to smear his reputation and character.

He'll have the last laugh, sitting in the White House. Go Fred!