E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Updated 2:48 p.m.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich helped revive his campaign -- twice -- with strong performances in GOP presidential debates.
The self-styled intellectual of the campaign, Gingrich has relied on expressions of support from debate audiences to convey strength in the gatherings, tossing red meat to the conservative audiences with attacks on the media and his Republican rivals.
And that helps explain why Gingrich, whose performance at a Monday night debate in Florida seemed subdued compared to recent appearances, is now threatening to skip any debate in which the audience is barred from participating.
"I wish, in retrospect, I protested when Brian Williams took them out of it, because I think it's wrong," Gingrich said this morning on Fox News, referring to the NBC Nightly News anchor, who moderated the bulk of the debate. "And I think he took them out of it because the media is terrified that the audience is going to side with the candidates against the media, which is what they've done in every debate."
Gingrich vowed to "serve notice" on future debate appearances, insisting that audiences be allowed to express support or opposition to candidates' answers. (A spokesman said Tuesday afternoon that Gingrich intended to attend all the debates, but would certainly protest rules barring audience participation.)
WATCH last night's entire NBC News/National Journal/Tampa Bay Times debate
The declaration wasn't necessarily a surprise, given the way in which Gingrich has made a conscious effort of playing to audiences at debates. Winning their applause by lobbing zingers at the media -- never unpopular among audiences -- is an easy way to improve perceptions of his performance, especially among television viewers.
He won his most raucous applause by assailing CNN moderator John King at a debate last week for asking a question of Gingrich about allegations from an ex-wife that the speaker had asked for an "open marriage" or threatened divorce.
“I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans," Gingrich responded, winning a standing ovation from the audience, which wasn't barred from expressions of support.
Gingrich’s indignation with the “media” was such a hit, it was a major theme of his victory speech after handily winning the South Carolina primary Saturday night, as well as his round of interviews on the networks' public affairs programs the next morning.
Americans are “just sick and tired of being told what they’re allowed to think, what they’re allowed to say,” he told NBC’s David Gregory. “The highest, the most intense passion in both debates [in South Carolina] was a head-on collision about what the news media is doing.”
Amidst cheers of "Newt can win," Newt Gingrich calls the S.C. race "humbling" and "sobering" to see so many supporters rally behind his political message.
But Gingrich has also relied on the news media, too, to help advance his presidential bid. Like all campaigns and candidates, Gingrich uses press accounts to press his attacks on his rivals and to bolster his own claims on the stump.
When his campaign was being nearly crippled by the broadside attacks made by a pro-Mitt Romney super PAC in Iowa, the former speaker frequently pointed to fact-checking work done by news outlets to support his contention that the charges were bogus, an acknowledgment that the media can get it right, at least when it supports Gingrich's claims.
More importantly, the evidence suggests that Gingrich’s campaign has largely been sustained by his performances in the 17 debates that have been nationally televised thus far. In exit polls released after voting finished in South Carolina, almost 90 percent of those voters interviewed said the two debates held in South Carolina were a factor in deciding which candidate to vote for -- and 42 percent of that group said they chose Gingrich, compared to 25 percent who picked Romney.
The debates have been so integral to Gingrich's rise that he has pledged to challenge President Obama to a series of seven, three-hour-long Lincoln-Douglas style debates. Gingrich wins laughter and applause among crowds of supporters with this line, especially when he jokes that he'll allow the president to use a teleprompter, if Obama wants to.
It's smart politics, because Gingrich has made his ability to effectively debate Obama a central selling point of his candidacy. It plays well especially in a primary environment in which Republicans are longing for someone to take a fight to the president.
There's just one problem: It won't happen.
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD)is a nonprofit organization that has set the debate sites, moderators and rules for the general election in each cycle since 1988. They have already set the parameters for this fall's debates between Obama and his eventual GOP challenger. There will be three debates, held in October in Denver, Hempstead, NY, and Boca Raton, FL. The second debate will be in a town meeting format.
Gingrich probably won't be able to skip these debates if he's the nominee. But he might be reduced to protesting since, per the rules established by the CPD in every previous debate, the audience has been required to hold its applause through the duration of the meetings.
Leave a Comment:
Translation: "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!"
Newt is only pissed because without the audience, he couldn't feed off their hatred & lack of respect!
Go ahead and 'pull out' of the remaining debates Newt...
Only wish Pappy Bush had done that with Barbara - it would of saved us from an 8 year long nightmare!
Jon Stewart said, "That's who you're gonna nominate for president? 'Can't control himself, can't stay focused, too erratic? Those last descriptions are usually followed by the phrase 'and he's disruptive at naptime and a bit of a biter."
Oh Newt Gingrich is just saying he's the attention whore we all know he is...
"I don't know what to say or do if I can't hear people booing or cheering..."
So we can look forward to a sedate SOTU tonight. No standing ovations? No Cheerleading the President?
Or is he just an attention whore too?
I, myself, demand an audience (my hubby) response when I put dinner on the table. It improves my cooking.
A debate and the SOTU?
This just in...not the same thing.
Ahh ... when it goes against them. when their shaping of the debate blows up in their face ..... libbies want to treat American voters like children .... "should be seen not heard" in the debates ... just silent props.
Lib media trying to shape the debate and when that blows up in their face shape the appearance, shape perceptions .....
What's new?
You know liberals like nisl, or noid are going to come up with some sort of a snide remark about anything a republican candidate says. Considering that this debate was held by the liberal media, they, of course won't allow any stimulus to effect their stoic style of republican hatred. Brian Williams is a twit who's afraid of any criticism...
So what's the point of an audience if they are not allowed to react? Something sacred about debates Noid? Oohh, hush now everybody, we're debating! The audience members can't give their feedback? Why have them there all? It's not like they're in some kind of a church.
If Brian Williams and NBC are so very concerned about it, have their next debate in a hermetically sealed sound proof studio with just the candidates and the moderator/panel. That might be a step above watching paint dry.
I made the bed and cleaned the kitchen. May I have a round of applause please?
Seriously, cheering or no cheering, let the candidates and the folks setting up the debate decide. And if the candidate doesn't like the format - I don't see a gun pointed at his head - don't attend. Wow! Simple.
On the hand, Bob 1805084 and JAS1, the debates shouldn't be reduced to a Jerry Springer show. It should have decorum at the very least. Don't you agree?
Watching the debate last night, I thought, this is the moment the Republicans lost the election. All they did was make bombastic generalizations and point out each other's flaws. Frankly, I've heard more insightful conversation waiting for the bus.
Love how the rightwingers are bending into pretzels defending the simple fact that these have NOT been debates but just free televised stump speeches designed to stir up the grunts in the trenches.
A REAL debater does NOT need an audience to be affective and to score points, he or she just needs a better argument. Newt is admitting he has no argument and needs an audience to deflect that reality.
From the ashes of disgrace once again rises the Phoenix of narcissism.
It's all about the applause.
You want to gather around the TV and hoot and holler every time Newt throws you red meat and empty rhetoric, go for it. Otherwise you play by the rules and keep your mouth shut.
"I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans," Gingrich responded, winning a standing ovation from the audience, which wasn't barred from expressions of support.
Last Time I checked Newt, The bulk of NBC, MSNBC, CBS and ABC were owned by very large and very powerful corporations. These are not owned by a bunch of liberal hippies.
These companies present material that audiences want to see, otherwise they would have no advertisers.
Have you noticed every other advertisement is Pharma or E-Trade? These guys pay the fees to make these companies exist. Again not a bunch of commie hippies broadcasting form their moms basement.
Stop with the Red Herrings and debate! Stop complaining and consider NutriSystem you big baby!
True that AM -
Yeah, too bad Pelosi is gone from immediately behind the President at the SOTU. I thought it was fantastic a couple of years ago when she jump up and down with each of his words.
Sadly now we are left with Boehner who is disdainful. BUt he's the polite one of the two - Biden fell asleep last year.
And really AM - not all about the applause. You gots to have some greek columns also.
So Amy - that was the momment? Up until then you had them winning, eh?
That wouldn't be your showing of hatred and lack of respect for the Americans attending their debates, would it Betty?
So a girl named Stanley gets knocked up by a Kenyan Marxist she met in her Russian studies class, pops a kid out, dad splits, she hooks up with another guy, moves to Indonesia -sends the kid back to be raised by others ....
Ever dawn on any lib what kind of "Planned Parenthood" candidate Ms. Dunham would have been?
What if that worthless collection of cells, (or to most people - a human fetus) had been scrapped away and thrown in the trash like libs so vehemently defend and campaign for today.
Stanley's abortion could have aborted the president we have today .... aborted the worst recovery since the Great Depression.
Ironic, huh Betty Redhead?
When in doubt, blame the media. And I suppose you think that this isn't a "snide remark," calculated to poison the well, just as much as Gingrich's baseless attacks on Brian Williams and John King were designed to be?
Who does he think he is, anyway, that he is not subject to questioning about anything?
Or does he not really believe it, making it all nothing more than theatrics.
ryoushi12 has it exactly right. And anyone who buys what Gingrich is selling was either predisposed to buy it -- you, for example -- or too stupid to get it. I'm not sure which is worse.
And Gingrich counts on both. I hope he sends you a thank you card.
It's time for you to stop telling liberals that we don't think for ourselves. You've got absolutely no highground to stand on.
Not to fear, Spanks. If Gingrich is elected, I'm sure that togas, and laurel leaves -- not to mention gyros and spanakopita and baklava -- in short, all things Greek -- won't be too far behind.
The guy no doubt sees himself as some sort of Zeus. I'm just delighted to see that he finally found his Hera.
The Left just cannot help themselves when they are not in control of the situation. "People should do this, audiences should act like that, you should say this, they shouldn't say that!".
Control freaks. Micro-managing control freaks.
It's less than thinking. It's more primordial, more like just a spontaneous reflexive reaction.
The "media" has a lot to answer for. It's good to see someone hold them accountable. Didn't ever hear them ask a Democrat about their extra-martial affairs, even though they knew Edwards was involved in one. Didn't ever hear them harp on tax returns and how they made their money when Kerry was the Democratic nominee. Those questions seem reserved for just the GOP.
Newt = South Parks Cartman
The spoiled brat now needs audience attention in order to debate well. Who'd a thunk the spoiled brat needs approval from Polly Prissy Pants to feel success.
Not really .... the clueless "baby daddy" / Jerry Springer crowd no doubt votes for the clueless democrats.
You mean like biting commentary or a swift kick wherever it's needed?
Because then you're right.
A comment on HuffingtonPost:
I think they should allow swords.
So funny.
Let's look at this for a moment and see if what Gingrich did and said was wrong, or right:
He won his most raucous applause by assailing CNN moderator John King at a debate last week for asking a question of Gingrich about allegations from an ex-wife that the speaker had asked for an "open marriage" or threatened divorce.
Michael O'Brien failed to state that it was the OPENING question. John King chose to open the debate with a personal question designed as an attack. King deserved what he got - a solid smackdown. The crowd reacted accordingly. Newt didn't attack the media, he made a point that the moderator shouldn't be choosing personal questions designed to sensationalize a personal event in the life of the candidate. If a democrat candidate was in the same position and he responded in the same manner, he should be applauded as well.
I don't think there should be a problem with the audience reactions. It wouldn't matter to me what sort of a debate either... republican or democrat.
Oh, they brought their swords, Pat, but on network TV they were not allowed to unzip them.
Oh, pish. Gingrich was waiting in the weeds for that question, and he had prepared exactly what he would do. King had a perfect right to ask it -- or aren't candidates accountable for their characters, anymore? especially those candidates who think they're so much better than everyone else -- although I don't know that I would have made it the very first question. And Gingrich, predictably, did EXACTLY the same thing to King that he did last night both to Williams AND to Mitt Romney -- divert and deflect from questions that he can't -- or won't -- answer. Only he didn't raise his voice last night.
It's all phony baloney passive-aggressiveness, but like I said, you're pre-disposed to buy it, and by this alone, you reveal that you are, sir, no moderate. You are as partisan, and even more partisan, than the rest of us, if you can't see through this forest to the trees.
In court people know to keep their mouths shut. The audience is supposed to make up their own minds on what they like and don't like in a debate. The Republican candidates won't have cheering to fall back on in debates against the president, and should be preparing for that now by standing on their own two feet and not leaning on applause from the extreme fringes of society.
Oh, they brought their swords, Pat, but on network TV they were not allowed to unzip them.
Anna, haha.
I don't think there should be a problem with the audience reactions. It wouldn't matter to me what sort of a debate either... republican or democrat.
I agree. Doesn't matter which party. Debates need to have a little life in them. Perhaps with Rick Perry and Herman Cain gone, we're all just a little bored. It wasn't Brian Williams, it's just the set up. Audiences should participate in some fashion.
Why shouldn't audience members be allowed to ask a few questions themselves? It would be mighty interesting.
Of course cheering was allowed and was just perfectly fine when Barack and Hillary were debating:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C4qLuaItUI
Who does he think he is, anyway, that he is not subject to questioning about anything?
Or does he not really believe it, making it all nothing more than theatrics.
Anna - think back 4 years ago... did Obama have to face such questioning from the liberal media? Was Obama placed under such a magnifying glass? Obama got a free pass all the way through the debate process. In fact Obama wasn't vetted in the least. Now back to today... How strong are the microscopes the republican candidates are being gazed under? The double standard is alive and well in our country... and liberals love the double standard because they use it to their advantage every time.
If Newt can not imaging anything as despicable as the question he was asked about his second failed marriage, then he should stop considering himself an intellectual. It is pretty clear that his actions, cheating on his first two wives when they were ill, are far more despicable than being asked about his cheating. He says these kinds of questions makes it impossible for our government to work, when he was the one chasing after Clinton for his affair while Newt was cheating on his won wife. he scores a double-hypocrite on that one! He pretends that character matters, as long as no one asks about his character.
"Why can't they get up and ask a few questions themselves?" They are not press conferences, they are debates.
Yes Rick I realize that. I believe during 2008, video questions were allowed from Americans to the candidates.
And all you can do is respond with even MORE regurgitated talking points.
By that point, and you know it, President Obama had already published a book that told the full story of his background. His American birth was being questioned by Hillary Clinton, who also accused him of not being qualified to take a 3 a.m. phone call. I guess we can see that both of those stupid accusations were false. He was accused of associating with a communist -- Bill Ayers -- and downright corruption involving Tony Rezko. His pastor, the Reverend Wright, was vetted so thoroughly that President Obama was forced to quit his church -- only to be accused by the same people of not being a Christian at all. Remember the woman who asked John McCain about his being a Muslim? Well, I'm no admirer of John McCain, but in that one shining moment, he showed a lot more character than Rick Santorum did the other day when he said nothing in response to a similar accusation by another ignorant right-winger. And a lot more character than you're showing now.
You got that much right, at least. Newt Gingrich perhaps summed the double standard up best when he said, in response to his wife's question about his own philandering at the same time he was hounding Bill Clinton (paraphrasing) - "do as I say, not as I do."
If we can use that to our advantage, surely we should.
Brianb, that's a rather selective memory. The first question by Charlie Gibson of the ABC debate to candidate Obama was about his former pastor...even though he'd given a very eloquent speech on race. But that wasn't enough to satisfy the media's feeding frenzy, so yes, he did face such questioning from the liberal media.
I wonder if Newt felt that way when they wasted all that time going after Clinton for what amounted to a blow job?
If that was a crime and required prosecution Newt would be buried under the prison..
I think they should allow swords.
Best comment of the day!
So Obama and the wife from 2000 - 2004 gave a paltry 1% of their income to charity while Mitt give 15% in charitable donation.
WHO"S GREEDY?
As always, the libs are best at spending other people's money!
if these blogs are a preview of what it will be like come the real presidential debates come september. september and october will be very interesting...
Rob,
The Obamas were making a hell of a lot less annually than Mitt was, so what's your point? Mitt was paying 11% less in taxes after 2003.
Smiffy's right. We should be following the Republican example since they are such champions of freedom of expression.
Oh I see when it comes to taxes it's about percentage but when it's charity it's not about percentage.
"Senator Obama, since you last debated, you made a significant speech in this building on the subject of race and your former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. And you said subsequent to giving that speech that you never heard him say from the pulpit the kinds of things that so have offended people.
But more than a year ago, you rescinded the invitation to him to attend the event when you announced your candidacy. He was to give the invocation. And according to the reverend, I'm quoting him, you said to him, "You can get kind of rough in sermons. So what we've decided is that it's best for you not to be out there in public." I'm quoting the reverend. But what did you know about his statements that caused you to rescind that invitation?" - Charlie Gibson, Democratic Debate, Philadelphia, PA - 4/16/2008
"I want to give Senator Clinton a chance to respond, but first a follow-up on this issue, the general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He's never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in The New York Times saying, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough."
An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?" - George Stephanopoulos, Democratic Debate, Philadelphia, PA - 4/16/2008
Yeah, no, you're right...the media totally gave him a free pass.
Checking in at FR this afternoon.
wow , I thought I was "back to the future" with Nixon/Spiro talking about the liberal media.
This is what Newt is peddleing this week?Attack the media, attack the debate format.
And everyone follows and discusses process. not the substance of what ole Newt was peddling last night.
Looking forward to the SOTU address tonight.
And it is good be be back on US soil and reading my favorite blog...
Welcome Back Northstar!
Trust the vacation was fabulous...
Feisty,
Vacation was perfect: sun, ocean breeze, mango marguritas, chicken with mole sauce, and fish tacos!!
Tonight dinner is chicken noodle soup and cheese...back to the ordinary.
By that point, and you know it, President Obama had already published a book that told the full story of his background. His American birth was being questioned by Hillary Clinton, who also accused him of not being qualified to take a 3 a.m. phone call. I guess we can see that both of those stupid accusations were false. He was accused of associating with a communist -- Bill Ayers -- and downright corruption involving Tony Rezko. His pastor, the Reverend Wright, was vetted so thoroughly that President Obama was forced to quit his church
And though everything you mentioned was completely ignored by the main stream media. Who brought up all this stuff? The same people that the liberals hate... Fox News. None of it is answered to this day. It has been completely whitewashed. You don't think people lie in their autobiographys?
Tell me Anna... How come Obama has a social security number from a state he never lived in?
Uh...tell me, how would someone be able to get the President's Social Security Number in order to determine how and/where it was issued?
...but, anyway, perhaps you should read this...
The problem is the people they've included in the past are the loud mouthed minority - The ones with the stupidest opinions and biggest mouths. But actually this is good for Democrats so I ain't complaining..
I have to agree with Da Noid, before even reading any comments the "First Though" ( :D) that came to my mind was a title "Newt whines about no audience participation. Stomps foot and threatens to take his ball and go home."
On the SOTU, I do wonder if President Obama invited VP Biden over for a case of JOLT while previewing the speech.
I think what Gingrich is seeking is many legion of brown shirts just outside the Reichstag all furiously applauding until the big crescendo and the raising of the palms. Perhaps if we could just ensure that over the next four years he gets occasional applause and some rides on Air Force One (culiminating in arrival strolls down red carpet and welcoming bands), he will go away. The peanuts provided him would have to be embossed with the presidential seal (the lack of which irked him on an Air Force One ride with Clinton). You can't buy those at Tiffany's.
The little man demands to have an audience, no doubt he needs one in bed to perform also. We do not need grandstanding from Newt we have all seen enough of that since the 90's. Newt just needs to take his tent and trailer act and go home.
How old did you say you were Season? Are you hung up on Newt's sexual proclivities? If you are an adolescent, I can understand your remarks... if you are older, maybe you should mentally grow up.
Conservatives are so quick to dismiss the former Speaker's sexual proclivities, but pounce on Bill Clinton like they're getting paid to do so.
My how double the standard.
When a president uses the oval office as his personal harem, I would think most people should jump on that one. Maybe your boss would enjoy the fact that you use your office to entertain sexual favors... eh?
Brianb,
Leave me, my job and my boss out of this. We are talking about Newt and your defense of his adultery while SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.
Stay focused Brianb, althoough difficult, it's necessary for this conversation to continue.
well bryanE - if the democrats want to make such an issue of it, why shouldn't we of clinton? Turnabout is fair play right, especially when both occured at approximately the same time.
Because Clinton isn't running for president?
And because he doesn't lecture everyone else on proper moral conduct, nor did he try to impeach a President over conduct he was engaged in.
newdaydawning - Newsflash - Clinton wasn't impeached over sexual misconduct. He was impeached for lying. The way you liberals keep forgetting this is beyond understanding.
Brianb,
Leave me, my job and my boss out of this. We are talking about Newt and your defense of his adultery while SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.
Stay focused Brianb, althoough difficult, it's necessary for this conversation to continue.
Focused like a lazer Bryan - Didn't you bring up Clinton? Isn't he the one that used the Oval office for his sexual prowess? You mentioned it... I commented on what you said.. so maybe you are the one with a problem keeping focused.
Riddle me this, brianb: How in the name of all that is holy do you have an affair without lying? Gingrinch lied his pants off, if you will forgive the image.
Takes one to know one.
No, he didn't lie, he told his wife he was having an open marriage. He just lied about actually telling her that.
Kind of like his lying about his not being a scumbag Washington DC lobbyist whore.
Newt just needs to pander to the hatred and bigotry of his audience.
If you people want to nominate this clown go ahead. Just don't expect the majority of Americans to vote for this vengeful little twit. Most of us remember his blind hatred and stupidity when he was speaker. Him getting run out on a rail is the best thing the Republicans have done for this country in decades.
Bryan E., PA-
How dare you doubt the conversion of Newt and Calista to traditional monogamous marriage. I am appalled. Calista does not have a single medical malady at this juncture. And she looks a bit better than Newt at present (albeit in the most plastic way). And it's hard to find new campaign staff to go down on a pudgy 68 year-old man. So options are waning. So it's death till they part - which might not be that long if Newt doesn't cut down on the carbs.
We should encourage audience participation at Republican debates as much as possible. So far we've got tape of people cheering letting an uninsured person die, cheering executions even if the person may be innocent, cheering the idea that blacks don't have a work ethic, and booing an active duty soldier just because he is gay. If Newt gets fired up by the crowd, who knows what bone-headed things he will spew. They are free commercials for the Democratic Party.
Typical. Newtie can't build up a head of steam unless he is feeling the audience show their hatred for any American ideal.
That's the way to make things up dawning. You are becoming an expert with putting words in other people's mouths. You don't speak for my ideals. In fact you don't have any way of comprehending any conservative ideals. They go way over your head.
Says poor brianb; putting words in my mouth. My goodness you are overly sensitive are you not? Perhaps when you can post with some real ideas....
Brian, newt is ADMITTING his skill is as rabble rouser, NOT that of skilled debater. Without an audience to applaud his little bon mots, his "debating" style just falls flat. He's not a debater, he's a lounge lizard huckster inthe style of an Elmer Gantry, all show an dzero substance.
Yep.
And all the while Newt is rousing the rabble, he is annoying and setting the liberal world ablaze. Now Newt is a man I can admire for this course of action. It's about time a member of the republican party started throwing it back in liberal faces. For all the hate speech, the insults, the false innuendo and the spin liberals throw out there, they fear Newt the most. If you weren't afraid of Newt, you would remain silent about him. He wouldn't matter one iota to you. Since you choose to marganalize him, it speaks volumes about your fear. Imagine... Newt beating Obama... just put that one thought into your brains... The day after the election all your fears were then realized... this is what you dread the most. You won't be able to contain yourselves... I am imagining that day, and the amount of nastiness that will permiate these boards... If Obama wins... it won't effect me in the least... I'm already living under his lies and deceits. It won't change for me, but it will change for you liberals.
LMAO! Come september both sides will be rabble rousing. The best rabble rouser takes the WH!
Brianb,
I will agree, as a FORMER Republican, that your ideals go WAY over my head and I will gladly admit it. The lunacy of the GOP over the last 18 years has gotten to the point of complete Zombie-like admiration for people who feel that those of us making less than $1 million per year are their slaves. Including OTHER Republicans who are too simple minded to see what they are doing to THEMSELVES.
I for one don't feel that it is the RIGHT of wealthy Americans to run this country FOR the wealthy at the sacrifice of everyone else.
Newt is an absolute hypocrite. It's not the "Libbies" who are the only ones who feel that way. I do too. I didn't care for Clinton, but when Newt and the "Moral Majority" started attacking Democrats for morals issues when they, themselves, were guilty of EXACTLY the same issues, I left the Republican party and went Idependent. Whether Clinton had extra-marital affairs in the White House, or not, he gained MY support against people like you, who would blindingly follow someone like Newt Gingrich, simply because he can talk himself out of almost any nasty hole he digs himself into~!
You see military man, that's exactly what I am talking about. Liberals using spin and lies to promote their beliefs. Liberals have latched onto the thinking that republicans are ONLY for the rich person. This started way back when it wasn't true... liberals have built upon this lie so much so that they now actually believe it to be true... and nothing can change their thinking about it. You have convinced yourself without any proof, any cause and any reason... it has turned into a talking point and believe it or not, conservatives completely dismiss it. The only ones you are trying to convince, are yourselves. Conservatives know it's not true and conservatives also know that you only use it for class envy.
The Moral Majority as a phase outdated in the 90's. You don't ever hear the republicans using that phrase these days... don't you think it's time to catch back up to the here and now? Liberals really need to bring themselves back up to speed. Republicans know it's better to be like democrats - debased and immoral people.
You haven't a clue why I like Newt. I've never stated why I like him on these boards. It's useless to conjure up my reasons, when you don't think like me or for me. The only thing you can do is state your reasons for not liking him... You aren't fooling anyone.
See you have just tightened your blinders. It's NOT that the Democrats have convinced me of anything. It's because of what I see the GOP doing. They are absolute ARTISTS at distorting the truth and fabricating issues that don't exist to distract everyone from the real problems at hand.
FOX is just an example of the distortion the conservatives have allowed themselves to believe.
It's truly unfortunate that the people of this country would allow Education to be sacrificed and to become a "for Profit" enterprise. You must have seen that the number 1 debt catagory in the US is the Student Loan...?!? The only people who currently receive educations without loans are the wealthy.
Nearly all of the tools that have been used by US citizens to promote developement of our society and encourage economic growth were eliminated by the Bush administration and the Republican controlled Congress from 2000 to 2003, allowing the growth of corporations into collossal monopolies sucking the life out of our society. 10 years ago monopolies were illegal.
People call Obama a Socialist when all I've seen him do is try to advance the access so those of us who don't make a boat load of money, can afford it. Unlike some of the programs in years past there is a differed cost to the recipient. If anything the Republicans should be applauding the SUBSTANTIAL boost it has to the Insurance industry.
Your argument doesn't hold water, guy, you may want to go back and think about where your life is headed. The drain is waiting for all of us, if we can't change the direction Bush started us on.
Paul Krugman said it best and Newt's defenders prove it every day:
Newt Gingrich Is ‘A Stupid Man’s Idea Of What A Smart Person Sounds Like’
You're channeling krugman?? Krugman is so far to the left in ideology that he has trouble when driving in making a right turn, it is against his nature...
So the moderator can't ask personal questions (that's inappropriate for a presidential debate) and Gingrich needs a cheering section (because that's appropriate for a presidential debate)?
Ursula - Don't tell me that reading comprehension is a problem... wait.. I get it, you didn't actually read the article. Now your nonsensical comments have the true liberal meaning they were intended for.
Brianb,
What clues you in to the fact that Ursula didn't read the article? Did Newt not act as the child at the playground and threaten to skip future debates if he didn't get his way? Because that is what's going on Brianb.
Even my 2yo knows when to play by the rules.
Because Ursula chose to obfuscate the points Newt was making. Her remarks were based only on the headline and not what was written in the article. I guess that's pretty hard to pick up on, isn't it?
Brianb,
Ursulas Comment:
Headline:
I'm sorry. I still don't see how you draw your conslusion. Perhaps my comprehension is suspect too? Or maybe your just a blowhard with nothing better to do.
That's right Bryan - I just love pissing off liberals... especially those with your set of noids.
By the way, brianb: learn the difference between "effect" and "affect".
Brianb,
Your Lobotomy is showing...the fact is; no one understands your view point, because you don't seem to have one of your own. I have read most of your posts, and it appears you want to make issue with a number of things that DIDN'T have anything to do with the topic at hand, which appears to be exactly what the title of the article stated.
Newt is threatening to do what the GOP/TP has been doing for the last 9 years, if things don't go their way, they want to take their toys and go home! There is NO compromize left in the Republican party. They will take the "It's my way or the highway," approach EVERY time, no matter what the topic or circumstance. Usually to the detriment of the entire country.
You and people like you are why I left the GOP.
Our country is supposed to be about debate and compromize. The collective agreement on what WE need to do to make our country the best it can be. The GOP ideals, and Oxymorons are NOT what this country needs.
Very well put Military Man. I used to be a Republican too. That was prior to Reagan.
Well, my opinion is that Newt needs the dam librul media more than they need him. They can leave him off the debate roster and allot more air time to his opponents. Who does this guy think he is the King of England??
He also demanded that stations in Iowa pull Romney's Super Pac ads and that the state GOP in Virginia change the rules so that he could get on the ballot for their primary even though he failed to get the required number of signatures. Virginia is where he lives, LOL.
Maybe he needs a timeout so that he can have his tantrum without disturbing the electoral process!
Gingrich vowed to "serve notice" on future debate appearances, insisting that audiences be allowed to express support or opposition to candidates' answers.
Gingrich is a race baiting hate monger; he feeds off the hatred and prejudice of his crowd.
I say, if that is what he wants, give it to him. Gingrich's race baiting may help Gingrich win primaries, but it will hurt the GOP all up and down the ticket in the general election.
That's how much you know nisl. Right now, it's the anger that's bringing out the republicans and many independents. They are angry against a president that is showing at every turn how much he is anti-capitalist, andi-Constitution and we are angry that this president hates the American people... and believe it or not, you are one of the ones he hates. Righteous anger is a good thing... and the expression of it will bring about change... badly needed change. Get rid of Obamabush.
Twist and dodge away brian, but the TRUTH is out of newt's mouth, he's a carny barker and rabble rouser who can't hold his own in a REAL debate. And for your information, brian, REAL debates DO NOT allow ANY commentary from the audience, which you'd know if you'd ever been to one in high school or college.
I was angry in 2008, and I wanted to see Obama throw verbal punches at Charlie Gibson and Geroge Stephanopolis dyrung that awful ABC debate, but he didn't. Now, I realize what would have been a moment of satisfaction at seeing my candidate lose his temper would have cost us the election. Obama kept his cool, behaved rationally and won.
They are angry against a president that is showing at every turn how much he is anti-capitalist, andi-Constitution and we are angry that this president hates the American people.
The only people that believe that are brain dead morons that get their news from Fox and hate radio.
Anti-capitalist? The guy who gave control of the Fed to Goldman Sachs?
Anti-Constitution? Obama is a constitutional scholar; it isn't his fault America's wingnuts change what they think the Constitution says every time Rush Limbaugh tells them to.
Hates the American People? You crackhead, that doesn't even warrant a response.
If you wingnuts really want Gingrich to win the nomination, I'm with you. Nothing would lay bare the putrid nature of the GOP quicker than a Gingrich nomination. Of course, we will have to start a new political party if Gingrich wins, because the GOP would go the way of the Whig party of old.
well put, nisl.
I just read Frank Bruni's column on Gingrich in the NYTs, you might be interested:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/opinion/bruni-the-gusts-of-gingrich.html?_r=1&hp
Thanks Amy, I'll give it a read.
Tell me nisl - where are all the improvements that you state are happening... I'd be real interested in knowing exactly where they are. They definitely aren't in my career sector. Tell me, are the prices of homes rebounding or are they still falling. How does that effect construction workers. How about all the manufacturing sector jobs... what new manufacturing is being developed in this country? How are the 4000 new regulations effecting business around the country? Tell me, how many unemployed people have fallen off the compensation roles over the last couple of months? Have you ever worked for McDonald's corporation?
Tell me this... if after another 4 years of Obama (Total of 8) will you still blame Bush for our economic woes and a national debt somewhere near $30 Trillion? I'm just curious how far your loyalty to him will go after this nation is completely trashed under his administration. If there weren't presidential term limits would you continue voting for him well into the future?
BTW nisl - Obama thinks YOU'RE lazy!
where are all the improvements that you state are happening
You didn't even bother reading my comments, did you?
They definitely aren't in my career sector.
Oh, is the "Rodeo Clown" industry not treating you well? So sad.
BTW nisl - Obama thinks YOU'RE lazy!
I trust your take on what Obama thinks like I trust your reading comprehension. By which I mean you don't have a clue.
PS - It is Republicans, not Obama, who have been calling Americans lazy. They say they want to stop unemployment insurance because people on unemployment insurance (Americans) are lazy and would rather collect UI than get a job. That is, in case you are slow, the REPUBLICAN party that is saying that.
I don't know, I have to disagree with you guys - people I talked to kind of like audience reactions. I'm not saying cheer for the ugly stuff. But I think it might be important to these candidates to hear what the voters are thinking on any given issue, good or bad once they've finished explaining them.
It's a debate. Not a church service.
Church is emotional - debates should be thoughtful.
Pat, you know I love you, but for once, I'm going to disagree with you! It's a debate - not a pep rally. You can't tell an audience they can't "cheer for the ugly stuff" but CAN cheer for a point they agree with, because who - other than the moderator or the debate sponsor - gets to decide what's "ugly" and what's not? At what point do we decide that clapping and cheering isn't strong enough and we need to start letting people yell out "You lie!"?
Oh, wait - that wasn't a debate, either. It was a Congressman at the State of the Union address.
Look, our entire election process has already been dumbed down too far. We let pretty much anything slide in stump speeches and tv ads and at the conventions. The debates are almost all we've got left that still has a shred of dignity. Let's try to keep it that way.
Church is emotional
Ursula, I was referring to the "quietness" of the debate. I wasn't equating it to a religious service, although I don't think I was very clear on that point.
JoAnne, good points. I prefer the instant feedback, but it has gotten ugly, no question about it.
There was applause during last night's debate but I was glad we did not hear the wild cheering for outrageously disrespectful comments. These rules have been accepted by candidates for years because they also recognize it works in their favor not to have boos and cheers interrupting and distracting the comments they are making.
The cheering at the debate reminds us all of how nasty the fringe right Republicans are. Remember what they have cheered for. It is a good reminder to the American people of what they stand for. Hate. I am with Pat, I say let the Republicans be Republicans.
Me too!
No one does it better! ;o)
You really wonder why they put it on display like that!
Pat, I think I got your point - my thought was that a vocal audience lends an air of emotion to what should be a serious discussion. And when we start electing presidents based on a "gut" feeling, we're in a world of trouble. As Sargeant Friday used to say, "Just the facts, ma'am!"
Ursula, I guess I'm looking for more spontaneity. I think the audience should be more involved, rather than just sitting there. Otherwise, why bother going?
To me, debates are like sporting events. Pay attention of course. But there should be room for a little humor, a little booing or cheering.
After all, there are 147 thousand debates.
But everyone has a fair point, including Mr. Gingrich.
Did you all hear Howard Fineman last night talking about the Newt Factor? Howard sounded like he was giving instructions on how to catch a serial killer as he described what Mitt had to do to catch Newt. LoL.
Newt has to be cornered.
I think the reactions of the debate audience tell us a lot about the candidates and their supporters. That is something I'm interested in knowing. For example, the booing and jeering of a gay serviceman discussing DADT tells me something. Or Santorum's failure to correct obvious misstatements from a voter at his rally about the President's qualifications and background tells me something about him.
Pat - are you OK this morning? I'm feeling dizzy... ::THUD::
Newt won't feel so good when the audience isn't packed with people who think just like he does, as was the case in South Carolina. Can you imagine an audience intelligent enough to spot his lies in real time. As in ready to say, "hey, that 10.8 % unemployment rate was reached only after two years of Reagan, never during Carter's administration."
Newt doesn't like his distorted version of "history" fact checked.
Newt, if you want people to think for themselves then you should have no problem with the audience being prohibited from cheering.
Isn't the audience's applause influencing the viewer who is at home? Now, instead of simply listening to Newt's statement and formulating his/her own opinion wouldn't a round of raucous cheering influence the viewer?
...on the other hand, it's interesting to hear the audience reactions this cycle:
"Let the uninsured die!" = CHEER!!!
Gay Solder = BOO!!!
"If you don't have a job and you're not rich blame yourself!" = CHEER!!!
The Golden Rule - BOO!!!
"...wouldn't a round of raucous cheering influence the viewer?"
We have a winner!! That is exactly why Newt wants it.
Da Noid:
Gay Marriage: Boo!
Sanctity of Marriage: Yay!!
Asking Newt about how faithful he's been:
Wonder if he misses the boo's too?
While some of you are complaining about the "Liberal Media," did you actually listen to the debate itself? All they did was bash one another...or, as some are calling it: attacking. Did you actually listen to the policies they have on foreign relations? Did you hear the lies Gingrich & Romney told about 'not' raising taxes on the middle-class? They both said they would lower taxes, but their tax plans were already released. Both of them have horrible tax plans and increases for those who aren't rich!
Thank goodness some of us were able to concentrate on what they were REALLY saying, than listening to applause and outburts from the audience! I'm GLAD they were silenced to we wouldn't be distracted by the issues- which are NOT what's for me! Obama2012
"There's just one problem: It won't happen.
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD)is a nonprofit organization that has set the debate sites, moderators and rules for the general election in each cycle since 1988"
Oh, well that explains it - in Gingrich's world, it still IS 1988.
What an arrogant, pompous, egotistical jerkwad Gingrich is. If Gingrich can't make his case to viewers and the audience without a personal cheerleading squad, then he has no case to justify his being President. In other words, Newt Gingrich is an empty suit who only does well when he can skewer moderators and hear the wild cheers and applause telling him they caught the red meat he tossed.
If Newt is the great debater he claims to be, he doesn't need a cheerleading squad. My guess is he will be at any debate regardless of the rules. It seems to me that Newt is just making an excuse for a poor performance last night.
Jody---I guess it's his way of admitting he lost the debate.
"GM's alive, Osama bin Laden is dead"
Again Barack Obama 2012 ABO
Well Jody, it is good to know that President Obama's cheerleading squad is alive and well here at First read.
With, of course, NBC, MSNBC and the First Read , errr, journalists at the top of the pyramid!
Tom, I'd say you're right. Newt lost the debate; it's obvious that he is once again blaming the media and the moderator.
WCA, did I mention President Obama?
P.S. I have a low opinion of Newt Gingrich because he is a little man and his comments today prove what a little man he is.
But Jody--how will the RWNJs at home know they have been tossed red meat if they don't hear raucous cheering?
Mr. Gingrich reminds me of the class/school bully who relied on vocal backers in order to take someone's lunch money or take their dessert from their lunch trays. I think it was brilliant to squelch outbursts from the audience. Interruptions only slow down the process and steals time from other candidates. If a candidate touches folks they are going to respond, via applause, but only if it's germane. That's the way it should be!
I was having a rough day.......then I log on here and I am forced to smile and find humor!
Obama/Hidin 2012
In the last two SC debates, Newt went in you face with Juan Williams and then John King. In these two debates, Fox and CNN allowed the peanut gallery to go crazy with their cattle calls, and this seemed to fire up the Newt base within and outside the house.
However, last night in the first of the Florida debates, NBC didn’t allow this type of ruckus to break out.
In this case, I’m wondering if this kind of restriction placed on the audience may the Achilles heel to one or more of the Republican Candidates.
Then I think about the upcoming debates, any one of these four will be having with President Obama, and I realize that the same rules will apply and this loud mouth bunch want be making such cattle calls or carnival barkers, as we saw in SC.
So, not being able to have the cattle calls or carnival barkers may be an Achilles heel to the Republican Candidate that will be debating President Obama.
I have to ask again.
Huh?
At least you corrected 'carvel' barkers from the first time you posted this over on FT's but it still is an incoherent post.
Job1, it's as appropriate a comment on Gingrich's "it's the moderator's fault" thread as it was on First Thoughts. Gingrich is a carnival barker, all bark and no substance.
Jody, so true. If Newt does win the Republican nomination, we can have great pleasure in knowing that he want be able to turn the debates with the President into a mud wrestling event.
The reason for all this is government control, we have given the gov. to much control of our lives instead of rellying on our selfs to control our own lives, we have become dependant on government to fix it all, and in return have lost a lot of our freedoms. And its getting worse in the direction of there control over us, our country was meant for the least amount of government in the people’s liv......es, it was meant for We the People! Government has gotten big to large to expensive its time to reduce there hold on us and make our lives in more control of our own responsibility. Its tyranny the hold the government has on us, and it should not be a class warfare, rich or poor or even middle class we have to take back control and responsibility of our lives, we can not wait for the government to do it for us, or even let them control what we need or what they will give us. Capitalism is the best system for freedom in ones life just by the economic freedoms it gives the individual to improve ones life, were Socialism gives the government control to dictate the process in our lives. The American dream is not lost unless we let it be. Its not democrat or republican either or corporations and profits that determine the direction of our country, it is us! When we vote we can vote the career politician out and vote the new person in until they get it right, and why they are in office we can even petition to remove them from there jobs if need be. There should be term limits anyhow as they put on the president of America. Our constitution, and bill of rights makes our country strong, the protest should be about redress and we the people taking our country back, remember its suppose to be God, we the people, then the government, not as it has become today; the government , we the people, then God. God bless America and its people in a free country of good people..
Newt, the next American Idol.... Did you see how angry he was getting without the feedback?
Psssst someone want to tell Mr Obama "There back!!
BENGHAZI, Libya — Moammar Gadhafi loyalists seized control of a Libyan mountain city in the most serious challenge to the central government since the strongman's fall, underlining the increasing weakness of Libya's Western-backed rulers as they try to unify the country under their authority.
The taking of Bani Walid, one of the last Gadhafi strongholds captured by the new leadership late last year, was the first such organized operation by armed remnants of Gadhafi's regime. A simultaneous outbreak of shootings in the capital and Libya's second largest city Benghazi raised authorities' concerned that other networks of loyalists were active elsewhere.
Pssssssssst, that's President Obama whether you like it or not.
P.S. President Obama never said freedom was an easy fight; never said that Gadhafi loyalists would not regroup and try again; never said Libya would not face difficulties. Gadhafi, as evil a man as Saddam Hussein, is gone, and the United States did not lose one person in the effort.
jolly,
It's 74, beautiful blue sky, low humidity here in NE Florida. What are you up to today?
Why? The Libya efforts were run by the French and British. There was not one American in harms way, except for some embassy personnel.
And it's not "There back!", it should be, "They're back!".
blearyeyed, The first strike on Libya was made by F-16's US Air Force stationed in Germany. Do you think those pilots were not in harms way?
I love all of this!! He will be a great candidate for GOP. Just wait until he campaigns in the next southern state , he may use the N word and get a standing ovation.
Go Newt! I am routing for you!!! Can you imagine him as president of the U.S.? If you think W was a disaster, Newt will be a tragedy.
SNL is loving it too.
Newt wants audience participation but when he is asked a question he doesn't like the questioner is removed from the hall. The hypocrisy of Gingrich never ceases.
I may be just getting old and cranky but I do not want anyone telling me how to behave. If I feel like cheering I will do so. I have no great love for the Ex Speaker but this is still America.
I would guess there will be a lot of standing ovations tonight and no one will be told to put a sock in it.
Will they use cue-cards for the crazies?
maggie, these rules have always been in place for debates as we get further into the election cycle; it levels the playing field for all the candidates. All Brian Williams did was ask the audience to hold their applause until the end to allow the discussion to be heard. There was applause last night a number of times. This is not some new rule that NBC put into place. It's not a ball game, it's not a campaign rally. You want to cheer and applaud then don't go to the debates.
Great thanks, new music video
"Gingrich has relied on expressions of support from debate audiences to convey strength in the gatherings, tossing red meat to the conservative audiences with attacks on the media and his Republican rivals."
The term "Red meat" is condescending and snide.
Odds that President Obama's partisan class-warfare bashing of the rich and successful would ever be labelled by MSNBC as "red meat to the liberal audiences"? Zero!
Further odds that the liberal media like MSNBC would seriously address and discuss Newt's and the public's view of the elite media as partisan? Zero. They just pass it off as 'campaign strategy".
Newt uses the audience to decide what they want to hear, then tells them whatever he has to in order to get a positive reaction. Without the feedback he is lost and doesn't know what his platform should be for the evening.
It's smart politics, because Gingrich has made his ability to effectively debate Obama a central selling point of his candidacy. It plays well especially in a primary environment in which Republicans are longing for someone to take a fight to the president.
"There's just one problem: It won't happen"
Unless the President agreed to!!! So, First Read is shielding Obama and not addressing why Obama would refuse an offer for such debates.....this is journalism?
If he needs applause so much, why doesn't he just get a talk show?
That was his plan, at least until he unexpectantly became a serious contender despite all his baggage.
I'm sure Faux Noise will hire him. The place looks like a Repub junkyard...
This just shows that Newt is a bad speaker and cant hold anyone's attention. Whats up with the painted mistress at his side ? It just doesn't sit well with voters .
Oh, the one with the hair that never moves?
Newt is touted by some as a master of oratory debate. I think having the name Newton has gone to his head. He needs to pay attention to the gravity equation. What goes up must come down.
Yes the bullet proof "budget cut " !
LOL !
Guess the word moderation causes hives to erupt on Mr. G. Brian Williams wasn't there to referee a raucous pep rally. Gingrich apparently feels his self-serving agenda trumps appropriate decorum and respect for the debate process. Even more laughable is his assertion that free speech was somehow prevented by limiting audience response. Sorry your ice chest full of red meat couldn't be put to use, Bubba.
Neither Gingrich or Romney says what they feel or believe they go where the wind blows them. That is why he needs to know what the audience thinks before he can answer. If you are truthful and speak with conviction you do not need the clapping or the boos just tell the truth! Both are flip floppers just say what the majority of the people around them at the time want to hear!
OBAMA/BIDEN 2012!
Right on, Patriot!
Cheer anyway, what will they do , throw everyone out? give it back to them, in spades!the tea party is a revoulution, not a tea party!
Funniest thing i've heard all day. Thanks.
they certainly are revolting...
When you've spent the last twenty years selling BS to morons I guess its hard not having your adoring fans close to you I guess they will let you bus as many morons as you want in and put it in your contract so you can have a fifteen minute rant every debate