E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
CHARLESTON, S.C. – The audience at a presidential forum here Saturday booed Newt Gingrich for criticizing Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital after Mike Huckabee, the host, told the crowd that candidates would not be allowed to attack each other.
Before the five candidates (Ron Paul was not there) came out one by one for approximately 12 minutes of audience questions, Huckabee explained that they were “not to mention, and not to attack the other candidates.” (The audience, prompted at first by the Huckabee show’s executive producer, clapped and cheered at the directive.)
Gingrich, the third candidate to speak, responded to question about how he could “defend the vilification of companies that are willing to put capital at risk in order to save failing companies” -- a reference to attacks by Gingrich and his super PAC over Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital.
Pushing back on the claim of “vilification,” Gingrich said, “I haven’t done that.”
He began to say he would be visiting the city of Georgetown, which used to be home to a steel mill whose parent company was bought out by Bain in 1993 and went bankrupt in 2001 with more than $500 million in debt according to a Myrtle Beach Sun News account.
“Georgetown has a steel mill. Which was closed. Capital wasn’t put at risk; capital was drained out of that company,” Gingrich said. “Governor Romney ran saying he created 100 thousand jobs in the private sector…”
The audience started booing Gingrich after he said, “Governor Romney.”
Huckabee interrupted Gingrich, saying, “Mr. Speaker, we said we will not allow negative…”
Then Gingrich, retooling, continued, “I’m just trying to answer his question. So let me say it differently.”
“OK,” Huckabee replied.
“I believe that it’s fair to ask the records be clear and that people reveal what happened,” Gingrich said. “But I think to ask questions about a particular company is not the same as attacking capitalism and I don’t see how you can expect us to have a presidential campaign in which an entire sector is avoided."
Several audience members at the forum told NBC News they were displeased at Gingrich’s singling Romney out.
“I think Gingrich lost my respect,” said Janice Shumpert, 57, of West Ashley, who said she was leaning towards Rick Santorum. “It was a bad moment for him. I’m not saying he can’t recover but at this point, I wouldn’t vote for him”
Randy Hinson, 56, of Charleston, said the booing was “appropriate” because “that wasn’t the format.”
“Gingrich actually ruled himself out today for me,” Hinson said. “I guess Romney was at the top for me; I wanted Gingrich, and Gingrich kind of talked himself out of it today.”
Pat Neumann, 58, of Edisto Island, who said she favored Perry, noted the enthusiastic response Huckabee received when he said the forum was to be devoid of negativity.
“We weren’t going to put up with that,” she said of candidate-on-candidate aggression. “It’s going to happen because unfortunately negative campaigning works, and they know it. But people just weren’t going to put up with it today.”
Leave a Comment:
I see all the liberals are posting nasty comments tonight on this vine.
As a conservative, I have not settled on a candidate yet. I have concerns about each of them, but I will not vote for Obama in November, that is a fact. I also believe it is not good when the GOP candidates attack each other. For once can BOTH parties and all the candidates run positive campaigns about their position on the major issues versus slinging sh!t at each other.
Peace!
Positive? Are you serious? I fail to see anything "positive" in that "group".
This is not "debating".
OBAMA 2012
raleigh dolly - since you didn't vote for Obama the first time nobody will miss you
Ali Weinberg forgot to mention that in that time frame over 40 steel mills went bankrupt and that China was dumping steel products on the U.S. market (dumping means selling below cost) since 1995. Clinton was president during that time and did not place import taxes on the Chinese steel. Bush finally put tariffs on the Chinese steel in 2002.
What sense does it make to pay U.S. Union Labor costs when Chinese steel is purchased below U.S. production costs.
If you leftists/socialists would spend some time looking into the history of steel costs and steel mill profits and not take the word of UNION bigmouths who don't want to reveal the truth then you will remain the unintelligent dolts you are.
When the government works against a business as Clinton did against the steel industry and Unions will not cooperate in reducing costs, a business or company can work to be profitable, but when product can be had on the open market below the cost of manufacture, a company cannot stay in business.
Is that so far for you socailist/leftist to figure out? You can buy a U.S. lamp for $50 and the same lamp is produced by Thailand for $30, are you going to spend $50 or $30.
And you all know that Chinese labor costs is well below U.S. Labor costs. How much?
The cost of Chinese factory labor is a paltry 64 cents an hour. For comparison, hourly factory compensation in the U.S. in 2002 was $21.11, and an average of $14.22 in the 30 foreign countries covered by the existing BLS report.
http:// www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_50/b3912051_mz011.htm
Reason enough to demand Union Concessions and government assistance that didn't arrive until 2002 3 years after Romney left Bain?
Republicans should be booing the establishment who has picked a moderate like Romney to be their candidate. Funny how no one came to Gingrich's side when Romney used lying attacks in Iowa. Romney has no chance of beating Obama. We don't need a rich man to be President. Where are the real conservatives? If Romney wins nomination then I won't feel half as bad if Obama wins again. The rich establishment folks are fixing to lose another election like 2008. Vote for Newt!!!!!!!!!!!!
I' with you...Vote Gingrich...At least he asks the questions!
"Asks the questions"?
Like: "My wife's gone, right?"
BWAAAAHAHAHAHA!
Good luck with that turd...
People, people, go back and look up Newt's record ! Wasn't he found wanting by the ethics committee or something, and driven from office.? He was terrible when he served last time, so I don't know why anyone would believe anything he says, or want him serving in our Govt ! I'd rather see Lady Gaga as President, LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If we were so concerned about the ethical frame of our Presidents Bill Clinton would be in prison for lying to Congress and having sex with subordinates; something that is punishable by jail time in the Federal Government. Gingrich pushed though the most impactive legislation during the Reagan era and his record in terms of tangible contributions as Speaker was superlative. You need to read Congressional proceedings that are archived for all to read.
JP - I guess you mean Poppy Bush should be jailed also for having sex with Jennifer Fitzgerald who was his subordinate
What a refreshing idea, no negative attacks, all evil doing swept under the rug.
Actually, I like the idea. I'd like to know what a candidate stands for, and negative campaigns are no help.
Unfortunately, politicians are so caught up in blasting the competition that they really have no plan or anything to offer, so they just keep blasting away.
I concur with your overall post, Ed. The biggest challenge re: credibility of the so-called GOP debates is establishing and enforcing ground rules.
I have watched the 3-Ring Circus that is someone's idea of a debate process. What is sorely missing, IMHO, is the Moderators insisting that direct questions receive direct answers. In the case of the clown parade of the GOP, there is little but oral diarrhea of prepared tag lines.
Hosting organizations of the debates, if they are to have any credibility themselves, must let each "debater" know up front: answer the questions or be cut-off. Refrain from direct answers twice, and you're asked to leave the dais.
saftgek - how soon you forget when Sarah Palin never answered a direct question
Pretty nice of the Republican clowns giving Obama so much ammo.
It nevers ceases to amaze me how left-wing liberals and pin-heads can turn the context of an article around so they can expunge their utter BS on everything from Mormans to Class Warfare. If ever there was a reason to revert to the most radical conservative running for office it is these people who can't separate sh— t from shinola when looking at the susbstance of a candidate. Somewhere in the ire of the anti-Gingrich crowd there is are several facts that are totally being ignored. First, Gingrich is about the only Republican that is telling the truth about issues, has real solutions to this nations probles, and is an open-book. Second, he is the only one that held off on spending millions of dollars in attack ads via SuperPacs that some candidates had the gall to say they didn't know about it until he had no other choice. Makes me want to puke. How many moronic commercials to we have to see saying stuff like "I'm Elmer Fudd and I approve this message"? Third, he is perhaps the only candidate that has the intelligence, experience, and brain power to take on the POTUS in media debates, and the next election WILL be won on the TV and in the media - unfortunately. Lastly, most Republican politicians dislike him because when he was Speaker of the House he told many of them to go suck an egg secondary to their playing the same type of games they have played with Obama. Because of this tenacity, he managed to push through some of the most impactive legislation during the Reagan era. Democrats and uber-progressives hate Gingrich for the obvious reason that they know he can tear apart bit by bit anything Obama could pull out of his snake-oil bottle in a debate. The current POTUS is tearing this country apart morally, economically, socially, militarily, and ethically and just about anyone running on the Republican side could do a better job; but FIRST they have to beat his silver-tongued rhetoric, his teleprompter, his army of advisors, his billions in election money, and his army of droids that believe he's the Messiah reborn. I'm afraid a multi-millionaire moderate Morman turned pseudo-conservative is going to, as Gingrich implies, be laughed at by Obama, Axelrod, and the other spin-meisters who are hoping that he keeps hiding his relationship with Bain etc. so they can enviscerate come election time. Enough said.
JP, you're deluding yourself if you actually believe what you write. Like it was for Bachmann, Palin, Perry, and Romney, Gingrich is a very desireable candidate for progressives to campaign against. Many vulnerabilities and several thousand quotes from past brain farts would easily do Newt in.
JP-345944
To understand your perspective as a Republican, all you have to do is Google search the word "santorum."
It now applies to all of the GOP candidates.
Right on JP...well said!
JP - learn to write in paragraphs - Each new thought deserves a paragraph or were you not taught that - you give me a headache - Your run on words are distracting - what school did you go to?
Barbara, you are giving jp way too much credit when you suggest he has any thoughts. He was merely parroting the drivel the puppet masters at faux told him he was supposed to repeat.
I would venture to guess that 99% of the commentors would do exactly the same as the candidates if given the chance to. Lets not be getting the Holy Train running with no passengers. The candidates are playing politics as usual by pointing to why everyone else is worse then they are instead of why they are the best. Every candidate slants the pros and cons of each issue to suit their own needs. Flipping a coin would be more beneficial than listening to Gingrich speak. Santorum is standing there in the middle of somewhere and nowhere and seems to be enjoying himself. Perry is still fighting for independent nation status for Texas and Huntsman and Romney are trying to show you that they dress just like you do. Lastly, attacking a persons religion is the sign of a small, petty person who can probably not speak a single language because the brain is not big enough to handle two.
I don't understand how people who consider themselves to be a conservative back Mitt Romney when if you do any research at all you find what he really stands for. I can understand changing your postion on 1 or 2 issues, but not on the majority of them as he does. Watch these videos and you'll meet the real Flip Romney.
Has the Presidential Primary become a contest based solely on popularity and electibility, so much so that we are willing to exclude qualifications and consistency in our decision process? What good will this do if the person we end up electing is not much further to the right than Obama? Now do you really believe you can trust Romney, that you want to vote for him?!
Gingrich is right. No one was beating Romney over the head to say he created 100,000 jobs if he can't prove it. Gingrich and every other candidate have not only the right, but an obligation to call Romney on the carpet and let him explain what he meant regarding those job numbers. Either he did create 100,000 jobs or he didn't.
Me:) He didn't - read today's Washington Post - Bain Capital became ethical after he left - and Sports Authority which he touts had five Equity firms, Bain being the least
Staples never mentions Bain, and Domino Pizza was a favor because the CEO is a Pro-Lifer -
What a bunch of BS.
I am so glad the Religious Right has finally decided who to support, and is now in a position to be able to come out to tell the rest of the voters of the United States as who their "Anointed One" really is. The problem I have is that both Romney and Santorium both have serious questions to answer, questions which if cannot be fully answered with legitimate explanations as to why certain actions were taken in their past totally disqualify them as legitimate presidential candidates. In Romney's case, there is a world of difference between someone who acquires control of a troubled, undervalued corporation for the purpose of stripping it of its assets, as apparently Bain has done, contrasted to those who have created value though investments. As Ricky Ricardo once put it: "Lucy, you have some 'splaining to do"!
Likewise, more information is coming out on Santorium, which if correct, renders his use of charitable institutions more of a vehicle for funding his friends and associates. As his support grows, he will become vetted much more thoroughly, which is needed, based on his "anointing" by the Christian Right.
I am of the opinion none on the current crop of the GOP Candidates have comprehended what it will take to grow our economy, as all the "solutions" they claim will get us out of this mess are in fact the same failed GOP economic theories which got us here under Bush II, following the Reagan, and Bush II deficits and blind adherence to "trickle down theory" which time has proven to be nothing but a massive scam on the Middle and working classes, a real "trickle up" program which as grossly rewarded the top 2% with the accumulation of over 40% of the total assets of the US, and over 275% increases of annual income, compared to the rest of us who have suffered income losses. Now, the GOP and the Candidates want more Deregulaition and more tax cuts for the job creators, who are now sitting on over 3.5 Trillion dollars of Corporate profits on and off shore, and have created no jobs. Why? They are making more profits than ever before. the US population is working longer hours, and is more productive than other Western Nations, We are working part time jobs so Corporate America can avoid benefits, increasing profits.
Do people really believe that more tax cuts for the "job creators" will cause them to create more jobs? The only way they will create more jobs is to make it worth their while economically to do so. Raise their taxes, then offer tax credits for each job created, Then, and only then will you see job creation. The GOP is lying to you. Higher taxes do not stall job creation. Our own economic history proves it. Tax cuts for the "job creators" do not create jobs, otherwise, where were the jobs created during the Bush years? The economy bloomed as a result of a bubble created by the real estate boom, flipping homes, and pulling money out of homes as a result of the perceived value of each going up. The Bush Administration was too fearful of slowing the economy to enforce existing regulations on real estate, banks, brokerage firms. They had plenty of warnings, but they chose to turn a blind eye, choosing legal and "defacto deregulation as the economy continued to heat up, and finally burst.
Austerity now, as claimed to be "the solution" of the GOP will only stall the slow recovery. More tax cuts for the job creators will only transfer more wealth to the rich, and grow the deficit, Federal spending cuts will cause layoffs in the public sector, lessening cash in the economy, resulting in more private sector layoffs. Certainly, there is a place for cutting waste, and unnecessary spending. But what is proposed by the GOP is in discriminant, and reckless considering our fragile economy. Get the economy growing, building, all Americans who want jobs working, then shrink the Federal Government. They have it totally backwards.
Face it, the GOP has no solutions, only an insatiable drive to gain power, the past year of blocking every attempt to pass legislation to get America working again, simply to "beat Obama" (they can't do that if the economy is getting better before 2012) Why would any sane American, who puts country and its people first vote for putting the GOP in control of our Federal Government, much less in the White House?
Surely, these people (including "candidates") have better things to do.
What a farce.
Huckabey has been employed by Fox News for way too long. Telling the candidates to not attack each other is akin to Fox's ongoing control over how news gets delivered on their so-called news channel. It's Fox's way or the highway as far as conservative messaging goes. Huckabey's rule setting of this sort is the first and only time the republican debates have had such a muzzle put on the candidates.
It would be very difficult to argue against the points of your post.
In my experience with Fox News, perhaps the most laughable spewing from the network and its mud-slingers is when they use the phrase "Fair and Balanced!" It DOES serve one purpose, however: if one must induce vomiting, the phrase is more effective than Ipecac.
Newt was a hatchet thrower when he was speaker. It killed compromise and brought the divisiveness that is so out of hand today. It cost him his job back then and the party wanted little to do with him. History is being repeated and he is too arrogant to acknowledge it.
There are certain truths about the 3-Ring Circus of the GOP Presidential Campaign:
1) There is not one truly credible candidate in the mix. Fortunately, some have already gained a bit of sense and bailed out.
2) Of anyone who does not belong running for POTUS, Newt Gingrich is at the top of the dung heap. How any rational, sensible person can lend support to this shamed "public servant" is beyond any reason. Mr. Gingrich was driven from the Speakership, the Congress, and from Washington, D.C. in complete shame By His Own Party! Don't people have long-term memory?
As a life-long independent voter who has not missed an election since becoming eligible to vote, I look at the field of GOP "contenders" and shake my head. The voters of the U.S.A. are not well-served by this roster of extremists and self-serving individuals. Somehow, sometime, the supporters of extremism and self-righteousness need to start embracing a simple phrase from Mr. Spock of "Star Trek" fame: "The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few!"
saftgek-2020747
My congratulations to you as an "Independent."
I was a registered Republican for 40 years and now realize that in the last 12 years the Republican Party (and the Democrats are not innocent either) have done more harm to our country than the Communist Party ever did.
And if you count the financial disasters of the Cheney endorsed melt-down of Enron, or the Republican endorsed castration of the SEC, or the Cheney created Halliburton War in Iraq with the subsequent deaths of US soldiers because Rumsfeld "went to war with the resources we had" and ignored the 100,000 US soldiers in Turkey that could have suppressed the Iraqi insurgency that took place because Rumsfeld disbanded the secular Iraqi Army, then you will realize that the Republican party in the last 12 years has done more financial harm and been responsible for more wasted deaths of American soldiers than Al Qaeda.
I am no longer a registered Republican.
Spock is more famous for saying “Live long and prosper.” Obama’s goal is to stop the ones that try to prosper and make sure they are no better off than anyone else. Obama is different from Spock in that Obama only gives you ONE finger.
Gingrich can exact revenge on Romney if he withdraws from the race. One withdrawal will bump the second place person over Romney who can’t seem to get 40%. Romney scares both sides. Will he be the Mass liberal or the new conservative once elected? I believe he scares liberals more because the balance of power in the Supreme Court can change to even more conservative if he is the conservative he is claiming now. If Romney appoints a liberal to replace Ginsburg, the court makeup remains unchanged.
This is silly. This is not preschool were everybody has to be nice to everybody land! This is balls to wall politics. Come on people stop the nonsense. I like Huckerbee but he wants to be everybodies pastor I want an all out debate with negative and postive and by the way Romney started this negative crap anyway, now it's time to nicey nice! Gingrich should go after Romney do what's in his gut and not listen to all these nicey nice people they should go to a High School basketball games where it's balls to the wall and they would learn somethin! Profanity and All ! I for one like a knock out drag out fight let's stop pretending to all be above board it's ridiculous! Really spare me. I want to hear clear differences between the candidates then means you have to mention who your different then or should we all try to guess! STUPIDITY.
Why do people keep addressing someone who is a former Governor of a State still be addressed as Governor and last name? It should be Mr. Romney or Mr. Gingrich!
The reason is simple: once one has served, one retains the title. Often, the person is introduced as "former," but that is typically dropped during the course of conversation - as it is cumbersome.
It's called etiquette and decorum!
So, wouldn't they need to fully "serve"?
Or can they just get elected, and then quit when it's no longer convenient for them and still retain the title?
Wouldn't it have been proper "etiquette and decorum" for her to actually do the job that she was hired for?
I don't understand how people who consider themselves to be a conservative back Mitt Romney when if you do any research at all you find what he really stands for. I can understand changing your postion on 1 or 2 issues, but not on the majority of them as he does. Watch these videos and you'll meet the real Flip Romney.
Has the Presidential Primary become a contest based solely on popularity and electibility, so much so that we are willing to exclude qualifications and consistency in our decision process? What good will this do if the person we end up electing is not much further to the right than Obama? Now do you really believe you can trust Romney, that you want to vote for him?!
Anyone who respects Gingrich has already lost my respect.
However, when the survivors finally convene in Tampa in July, it will be known as "The Convention of Village Idiots."
Deaf, dumb and blind. Typical Republican voter: " Don't say anything I don't want to hear and don't tell me anything I don't already believe."
Ali Weinberg forgot to mention that in that time frame over 40 steel mills went bankrupt and that China was dumping steel products on the U.S. market (dumping means selling below cost) since 1995. Clinton was president during that time and did not place import taxes on the Chinese steel. Bush finally put tariffs on the Chinese steel in 2002.
What sense does it make to pay U.S. Union Labor costs when Chinese steel is purchased below U.S. production costs.
If you leftists/socialists would spend some time looking into the history of steel costs and steel mill profits and not take the word of UNION bigmouths who don't want to reveal the truth then you will remain the unintelligent dolts you are.
When the government works against a business as Clinton did against the steel industry and Unions will not cooperate in reducing costs, a business or company can work to be profitable, but when product can be had on the open market below the cost of manufacture, a company cannot stay in business.
Is that so far for you socailist/leftist to figure out? You can buy a U.S. lamp for $50 and the same lamp is produced by Thailand for $30, are you going to spend $50 or $30.
And you all know that Chinese labor costs is well below U.S. Labor costs. How much?
The cost of Chinese factory labor is a paltry 64 cents an hour. For comparison, hourly factory compensation in the U.S. in 2002 was $21.11, and an average of $14.22 in the 30 foreign countries covered by the existing BLS report.
http:// www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_50/b3912051_mz011.htm
Reason enough to demand Union Concessions and government assistance that didn't arrive until 2002 3 years after Romney left Bain?
Stop @!$%#ing spamming the same thing over and over again!
The let 'em eat cake party is having a bit of trouble sounding mainstream again....but it is hilarious watching them try.
typical gop debate, answer only the questions we want answered. Don't you dare go off script, what a sad joke republicans have become. Romney is a scum bag and the world will know it soon. He should be in Jail for what he has done to the american people.
I think it's pretty clear that Gingrich is now only in it for revenge on Romney.
What I want to know is what he's going to do when Romney is crowned the nominee. Will he back off, or keep at him?
How many Linda's are there?
Anyway, Gingrich evidently said: "Capital was not put at risk. Capital was drained out of that company."
That is where Gingrich should have Stopped.
But I guess he gets more publicity when booed.