Posted on 01/24/2012 7:16:24 AM PST by teenyelliott
In the general election debates can be moderated by an equal number of conservative and liberal moderators, but this system is nuts. Is there anyone who thinks democrats would EVER debate with Rush and Hannity asking the questions? And setting the rules?
I disagree. For too long Americans have sat idly by while politicians and journalists have had free reign. We need emotion put back into the conversation about our future.
I love that audiences want to participate and we need people to be passionate and get involved.
And it is super fun to watch Romney and random talking heads get booed when they say something stupid.
Then Newt should tell them to cram it and he won't participate until the American people are allowed to be involved int heir own political process.
That would get people to the point of torches and pitchforks at the media's door, I would think.
Then Newt should tell them to cram it and he won't participate until the American people are allowed to be involved in their own political process.
That would get people to the point of torches and pitchforks at the media's door, I would think.
Agreed.
Really? I thought it was Pelosi filing the the multitude of ethics complaints. The only one that didn't get thrown out was the book deal. I would submit the GOP wanted Gingrich out so they could take advantage of their majorities and spend like Democraps to buy votes. Gingrich was in the way of that, so they were more than happy to let Pelosi do the dirty work that she is soooo good at.
That is why I am worried about the future of our country. I'm not sure we can overcome the damage that has been done because most people go along to get along.
But last night, all it would have taken is one person to stand up and say, "Obey if that is what you want to do, but we do NOT have to be obedient to the media."
Nothing but crickets from an auditorium full of zombies.
Don't you know? They are saving that for the general election debates.
Seriously, though, excessive displays of applause can be distruptive to the tight schedules of debates and, in the extreme, can even be used to shout down other candidates.
If the debate moderates actually acted like baseball umpires rather than the ultra-partisan hacks which they are, then I would have no problem with limiting applause.
A decent compromise might be a Star Trek type solution where each audience member is equiped with a traffic light type device which could flash red lights (for disagreement) or green lights (for agreement). That way, you have visual feedback evidence without the time disruptions.
If the media hacks were truly interested in tight schedules, they would be asking substantive questions.
Exactly right. People keep saying Newt should have said something at the time, but he was not the one being told to sit down and shut up.
The responsibility lies at the feet of the dummies in the audience. I canNOT imagine keeping my mouth shut when some talking head tries to tell me what I can and can't do.
I’m in complete agreement.
If it hadn’t been for “the cheering in South Carolina”, Newt might not have turned things around so decisively in the short time he had to do so. Like it or not, it was those who _watched_ the debate, heard the cheering, and perhaps had their logic jostled by it, who went to the polls and made the difference.
Newt has stated his thoughts on this quite well — that is, the media has no monopoly on free speech and the ability to express it.
By controlling audience response, guys like Brian Williams (and the guys behind him) are trying to control the atmosphere and tenor of the arguments. It’s like the old “Outer Limits” intro — “sit quietly, and WE will control what you see and hear.”
Newt shouldn’t have said he’d skip the debates, though. He should wait until the issue comes up again -IN- one of the debates, and then use it right then and there as a “teachable moment of truth” before the audience that is watching. To wit, the response should be something like “No, Mr. Williams, I will not accede to your demands that the audience not respond to the candidates, because for too long Americans have been told to take what government gives them and keep quiet about it!”
If the mainstream media is so out-of-joint that a conservative candidate could rouse a debate audience into cheering during a broadcast, perhaps they should only have future debates in a studio with only cameras, moderators and WITHOUT an “audience”.
Otherwise, I’d tell ‘em right on camera to go to hell.
Folks, boo and cheer away!
“time - to insist debates be moderated by conservative journalists.”
Sure we would like that, but Newt wouldn’t like it.
First, he wouldn’t have the MSM to berate.
Second, he would have to defend his past apostasies.
Third, I don’t even know who is a conservative journalist these days.
Much easier for the republican candidates to swat away the typical mindless MSM parries that they think will embarrass our guys.
Why not have a debate in writing? No need for live candidates that way...
Look here's the deal...most people don't give a rip about the debates because generally they are boring, stuffy snoozefests with suits spouting rhetoric. Last night was a good example of that, and only the die hards among us sat through the entire tedious ordeal.
If we want the general public, who don't really pay a lot of attention to politics (Oh, I've heard of that guy, I'll vote for him!), to give a damn about elections and be interested in having their voice heard, then we want emotion brought into it.
When people feel like they have a voice they will get more involved.
You have absolutely NO IDEA how much liberal journalists hate us. Have you ever known a journalist? Met one? Spoken to one for more than an hour? Had one over to your home for dinner? Do you believe a bunch of democrats would EVER - under any circumstances - debate in front of Rush and Hannity? Even if they attempted to ‘sound’ objective? Your answer was stunning... You have no idea what we’re up against.
Reality is that John Boehner was part of that group of "conservatives" who said Gingrich was not looking like a conservative.
What Gingrich did was work with Clinton to get welfare reform, balanced budgets, and paid down debt.
So, yes, he did work with the democrats. He said he did so from the standpoint of advocating conservative solutions and principles, and that it succeeded.
John Boehner, however, is the champion of bluster, the government shutdown, the last minute cave-in, the announcement of fake cuts, and the overall realization that he's accomplished very little.
Maybe Boehner should consult with Newt Gingrich.
Hopefully a Gingrich administration will smash him.
I guess you didn’t understand my take on how Newt uses liberal journalists to his advantage. I’m glad he takes it to them.
I am not defending liberal journalists. I hate them just as much as you if not moreso. I welcome their hate, but I do fear how they have subverted our PC culture.
My point is that liberal journalists are the perfect foil for Newt. I don’t think Newt would have vaulted to front runner status if he was confronting conservative journalists.
I find myself rooting and cheering for Newt, because he takes it to the media. I love that, but then my head kicks in, and I wonder if I can trust Newt in the long run.
Newt missed a golden opportunity in challenging Brian’s “All Quiet” edict to the audience. He should have said that the audience in the Lincoln Douglas debates were not intimidated by a liberal media journalist.
If time constraints were a concern, then the silly puff piece at the end of the debate showing the so-called embedded interns should not have been included. It was utterly worthless but not surprising realizing that it came from the little-watched NBC, Nothing But Communists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.