Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Newt Gingrich and Debates

The big news of the morning is that Newt Gingrich won't play at the debates unless there is a lively audience. He claims that the "free speech" of the people are being stifled. I've heard a similar line of attack from Ron Paul supporters on forums where they are banned for
spamming. (This says nothing about Ron Paul himself. I don't judge a candidate based on their supporters.)

I realize that Romney's campaign let leak that they weren't interested in the debates that are substance-less. A frustration from the week of SC debates that didn't go quite as planned. However, Romney himself stated he would attend future debates as scheduled.

There is a problem with Newt Gingrich's tantrum: 1. He has challenged Obama to seven "Lincoln-Douglas" debates. Of which Obama will likely politely decline and would likely not have audience feedback. 2. The three scheduled debates are audience participation free. There will be no enthusiasm for Gingrich to build from. Even if the audience were allowed to be stacked, who would guarantee that Obama would not bring in legions of his own supporters.

Therein lies the problem. If crowd participation were allowed, we'd get candidates trying to stack the audience, playing to their whims. We would get no substance from the QnA session (as noted, Gingrich attacked the moderators and the questions, but never gave any answers.) While the debate last night has been panned as "boring", we got some real answers. As real of an answer as one gets from a politician applying for a job, anyway.

I fully suspect that Speaker Gingrich will attend the next debate. It would be devastating for his campaign if he did not. If he wants to be President, this whining has got to stop.

Related video:



Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

While we Romney fans missed the applause that he would have received last night - I thought on balance, it was a better debate with the audience being silent and civil. Newt could not play to the audience, and was forced to answer the questions. He lost last night. Big loss. If he does not do a debate because he does not like a civil audience who is acting like an adult - then it's at his peril.

Ellie

Anonymous said...

It is obvious that Newt feeds off the crowd, because he needs to have his ego fed and reassured. And he says exactly what a crowd wants to hear, expecting to get his ego fed. (This would explain why he always needed a younger and prettier wife; it made his ego feel grandiose)

Newt loves to be loved.

Let's say he's the president. He would be the first one to cave in to congress, because of his insatiable desireto be liked.

Anonymous said...

Good points Ellie and anon.

Newt was clearly at a loss last night when Romney challenged him with his own record. All he could mutter is that Romney is lying and to go look at his website. BTW, does he have that up yet today--refuting the lies? HA HA.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

Does anyone else wonder if Newt brought up the debate thing to distract everyone from the issue of his deal with Fannie and Freddy?

I see that everything written about Newt right now is about whether he wants cheering in the debates. The real questions are about how he got $1.6 million from these quasi-government entities and what the ethics violations were that caused him to resign from being the Speaker of the House. Maybe I just don't have the right news connections. Any ideas or suggestions?

AZ

Anonymous said...

I'll tell you what is sickening. Watching the fox and friends hosts slobber all over Newt. The song "You've got a friend", really does apply to Fox's love for Newt. HUGE difference in how they treat Mitt when he's on their show. He really does sound confident saying Mitt lied, he's a liar, etc, but almost seemed taken off gaurd by Ducey's question about the specific lies Mitt has supposedly told about Newt. So, he lied. Let's hear you refute every so-called lie Mitt has told about you. I can't wait to hear it. I really think that it's the truth you can't stand.
-Matt

Anonymous said...

AZ. Exactly. Newt is so good at that. Romney surrogates need to keep the subject on track and not let Newt deflect like he did on the open marriage.

-Martha

Arlen Williams said...

Pretty basic Gingrich and kind of a mole hill.

He never denied being a big "grandiose," now did he?

I doubt Churchill denied it either, for that matter. Each have had their good points and bad points.

Arlen Williams said...

Actually, Gingrich comes across very well here, including his accuracy about Romney being not unfamiliar with dishonesty.

Let's grill all of them, with essential questions (unlike those in these debates).

http://gulagbound.com/25337/now-comes-the-time-to-press-gingrich-not-promote-him/

Terrye said...

Newt is just a big fat cry baby.

Anonymous said...

Arlen, why don't you familiarize us with some of Mitt's brushes with dishonesty?

I'm all ears.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

the Commission on Presidential Debates, which handles the general election debates, and they confirmed that audience participation has not been allowed in the past in debates, and will not be allowed this cycle either. So, if Gingrich is the GOP nominee, he’ll have to face a silent audience during his debates with the President unless the rules are changed.

Terrye said...

Arlen Williams..well there is one difference between Churchill and Gingrich..Churchill was a man and Gingrich is a worm.

And considering the fact that we have been told over and over again that conservatives do not support the idea of statism and crony capitalism, I would think the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae lobbying was very important.

Anonymous said...

haha love the cartoon pic of crybaby Newt.

Publius Nemo said...

Great analysis! The presidential debates will be silent and free from interference. How will Newt Gingrich cope with that? He isn't reliable.