Monday night's debate may have burst Newt Gingrich's bubble

Telegraph [UK] ^ | 1/24/2012 | Dr Tim Stanley

[FryingPan101]

Last night we learned the secret of Newt Gingrich’s debating success: audience participation. With it, he’s the king of the jungle. Without it, he’s a mouse’s squeak. Therefore, NBC did a cruel and terrible thing during Monday’s debate when it decided to gag the audience. Lacking the usual “Hell yeahs!” and “Yo mommas!” that accompany his jibs and jabs, Newt came across as mean and shifty. Had Romney not helpfully self-destructed during a conversation about “self-deportation”, Gingrich might have walked away from this debate a much reduced candidate.

[FryingPan101]

For what it's worth. Constructive criticism? Hit piece?

[US Navy Vet]

A little of BOTH!

[CaptainK]

William’s thought he was being so smart, by banning audience participation I think most people tuned out on William's snooze fest and I don't think it will hurt Gingrich at all.

[cbvanb]

An off night for Newt is still better than a good night for Mitt.

[Reagan69]

Ha. Who is Dr. Tim Stanley and why should I care about his opinion?

Newt did fine last night. I even went to bed half way through because it was a snoozer.

NBC failed.

[nathanbedford]

The question is whether Florida will look more like Iowa or more like South Carolina? In other words, will Romney succeed in deconstructing a substantial Gingrich lead with a blitz of negative advertising?

It is to be noted that in South Carolina Gingrich successfully defended against these negative ads with two of the most remarkable debate performances our system has ever witnessed. In the wake of the Florida debate it now becomes clear that Gingrich will not succeed in defending his lead, if he succeeds at all, by boffo debates which galvanize the party, including women as well is independents, and catapults him into the lead.

But then Gingrich already has the lead.

Instead in this debate Gingrich has chosen to go into a prevent defense while Romney threw Hail Mary passes. I believe Gingrich's main objective was to deprive Romney and the and the media of the soundbites they sought with which to make Gingrich look like Goldwater as he models himself after Reagan.

So our question remains unanswered, assuming Gingrich does not have the money to wage a very expensive air war in Florida combat Romney's negative ad blitz campaign, will he be able to hold his lead? He failed to do so in Iowa and he got little traction in New Hampshire. What does he intend to do in Florida?

Perhaps the assumption that Gingrich does not have money enough to engage in a media campaign in a large state like Florida is wrong. Yesterday's headline was that he had received $1 million in hours and I have no doubt that his well-heeled backers in Nevada will provide more now that he is showing the rest of the field his heels. The money should now flow in, but will it flow fast enough?

I understand that Gingrich intends to make a series of major policy speeches in Florida beginning of the Space Coast. I think this is wonderful, but I do not think that it will come close to being adequate against the kind of negative media campaign we saw in Iowa which no doubt will be put on steroids in Florida.

I would like to see Gingrich mount a slashing attack on Obama in the wake of the state of the union address. This then might go viral on the Internet or it could be the source of soundbites for a longer add. Somehow, Gingrich's got to get the subject onto Obama and off his own history. He need not attack Romney, make Obama the target and ignore Romney to death. But if Gingrich does not seize the momentum and dominate the scene, he will be put on defense by Romney and at best be able to squeak out only a narrow victory in Florida.

The prevent defense might work late in the fourth quarter but we just had the opening kickoff.

[KansasGirl]

Too bad for the media that the people they gagged are the voters.

[ILS21R]

“Last night we learned the secret of Newt Gingrich’s debating success: audience participation.”

Ridiculous. The secret of Newt’s debating success no secret at all. It’s just decades of experience. Which is why Puppet Obama is cr*pping in his pants everyday.

[vicar7]

Wishing and Hoping does not make it so there was no “Out Of The Frying Pan Into the Fire Moment” here. They all looked very tired though the whole things was a snoozer.

[Clara Lou]

Newt said this morning on Fox that he would not participate in any more debates with gagged audiences.

[C. Edmund Wright]

To call the secret of his success “audience participation” it to miss most of what the true success is. It is called tapping into real passion and real righteous anger. Life is not a sit on your hands and be quiet exercise. Life is real and life is emotion and life includes righteous anger.

It is the debates WITH audience responses that are real. Last night was the fake, the handled, the flat.

Newt does well in “real” situations.

[livius]

One thing I think the Gingrich campaign should do is get the terms of the debate clear with the moderators to start. Romney, as usual, was asked most of the questions and permitted to run over with his non-answers, while Gingrich (who should have gotten more questions, since he was the leading candidate) was pretty much sidelined.

Preventing audience participation was a blow to everybody except Romney, who gets very little positive response anyway because he is such a poor speaker, and it was completely intentional on the part of the moderators.

[TexasFreeper2009]

let me get this whole freedie fannie thing straight...

Romney is getting on Newts case for accepting money from a company he partly owned?

lol

sort of a weak argument.

[hampdenkid]

First of all, let me encourage everyone to go to the link and read the piece. Like the guy or not, his column is hilarious. I’m sitting in a Starbucks, and I was laughing out loud.

Now, as to whether he is a liberal or a conservative, I’d guess lib, based on this sentence alone: “Both of them accepted money from the “one percent” that the country hates so much right now. They are both “influence peddlers” of one sort or another.”

Personally, I don’t think the country hates the so-called “one percent.” And I further think the guy is just projecting his own bias.

As to whether it is a hit piece on Newt, I really don’t think so. It’s more of a hit piece on both Newt and Mitt. And the fact is, he picks the right spots to vent his sarcasm.

It would be interesting to see what the guy has written, or will write, about the abominable Obama. If he goes after Obama as he did Newt and Mitt, the guy could be well worth reading well into the future.

[JaguarXKE]

NBC did a real disservice to the voters with this snoozer format. Gag the audience? Really? And NBC wonders why their ratings are in the toilet.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Newt said this morning on Fox that he would not participate in any more debates with gagged audiences.

Shame on Newt and the audience and everybody for allowing Brian Williams to dictate that behavior. Shame on all of them for allowing Williams to ignore Obama. Remember Obama anyone? I was going livid watching this trash.

[eeriegeno]

Ha. Who is Dr. Tim Stanley and why should I care about his opinion?

Dr Tim Stanley is my proctologist. He has a real s***** outlook on life. And I have learned to never trust him since he has two first names.....

[bmwcyle]

Dr Tim Stanley is wrong and Rush is real Doctor is right.

[bereanway]

The silence was a little unnerving. But from what I saw Flip came off the worst. He sounded very petty and repetitious. Endlessly repeating the same phrases about lobbying, influence peddling etc. He also spoke way too quickly, he was anything but measured. I thought Newt remained calm and poised and handled the attacks well. He didn’t attempt to respond tit for tat but simply deflected the half-truths Flip was flinging.

Right now the MSM assumes that just because Gingrich didn’t get any standing O’s he somehow lost. Very shortsighted as there’s much more to Newt than sharp one-liners.

Gingrich has the momentum and Flip did nothing to change that last night.

[nathanbedford]

I did not hear Newt's remarks on this score, but it is abundantly clear that the motive for gagging the audience was not directly to neuter Gingrich (no pun intended) but to insulate the celebrity newsreader conducting the debate from immediate criticism by the audience.

The media cannot conduct its bias if it is exposed in real time.

FReepers often question why conservatives expose themselves to the moderators of the biased establishment media in these debates. Certainly as a quid pro quo they should get protection of a live audience in exchange for the eyes and ears which the networks promise to provide.

[Earthdweller]

No one gained or lost anything..it was disappointing. I want to see this over early.

[livius]

Good. I think the whole idea of gagging the audience (obviously to protect Romney) was completely unfair...and made for a dull “debate” that essentially just became a talk show where Romney was allowed to drone on, making unsupported personal attacks on Gingrich, for as long as he wanted.

[FryingPan101]

“Like the guy or not, his column is hilarious. I’m sitting in a Starbucks, and I was laughing out loud.”

Exactly. It WAS hilariously sarcastic.

[McGruff]

Last night we learned the secret of Newt Gingrich’s debating success: audience participation...

What an idiotic conclusion. You don't know if people were hooting and hollering in their living rooms Dr. Tim. Don't quit you day job.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

A lip curling Limey sneer.

[G Larry]

Doesn’t matter, nobody saw it.

Here in Denver it was not on TV.

I think the media wants to limit Newt’s airtime.
May have backfired if he didn’t do well last night.

[cuban leaf]

Audience participation merely amplifies his success.

[biggredd1]

It was a snoozer and people were falling asleep. Next debate CNN thursday jan 26, same day as Georgia ballot hearing for hussein dunham.

[KansasGirl]

Newt did well. Just not as well. Of course, if people didn’t see it, that allows the media to spin it however they want.

[Jane Long]

No, last night's debate did not burst Newt's bubble. Last night's debate was a prime example of the media owning the discussion, setting the rules and pushing their agenda/candidate.

The Paulbot's are usually the most "vocal"...so, Paul's bubble was burst, too?

Too bad the audience didn't defy Williams-the-Lib and use their clapping hands and shouts to overrule his ridiculous order.

[Wizdum]

Have to disagree on the 'prevent' defense.

When you are in the room with a hostile press, that includes NBCABCMSNBCCNN, you know they are going to go for the 'gotcha' comments.

Muzzling the audience, just indicates the level with which they will stoop to not be criticized.

[hampdenkid]

Glad you agreed. I went back and read some of his other columns, and I would say that he is pretty much down the middle, maybe leaning right. And an absolute wit. His column on the SC resurrection of the Tea Party contained the gem that concludes the following paragraph:

“The UK’s Guardian newspaper (a sort of Pravda for public sector workers) was gleeful. Ewen MacAskill wrote, “The noise and energy associated with the Tea Party since it exploded on to the US political scene three years has been stilled, overshadowed in recent months by the youthful enthusiasm of the Occupy Wall Street protesters.”

“He put this down to an “improvement in the economy” but mostly the Tea Party’s “inability to agree on a candidate to support for the Republican nomination.” The movement was over and its supporters were an irrelevance. The Tea Party was dead – long live the Beltway Cocktail Hour!”

[nathanbedford]

Actually, it sounds as though you have to agree rather than disagree on the "prevent defense."

[Hostage]

So symbolic of the reality they create, the MSM cutting out the expressive response of the American people.

[Earthdweller]

Only people who fear the people having a say will limit the audience...not surprising of the Marxist simpatico news.

That said..there wasn't really any highly stimulating points in the debate. It was an anticlimax to the SC debate.

I hope the next one is better.

[SharpRightTurn]

Despite what the moderators “demand”, I think the next crowd to attend a debate should be as raucous as they want to be. Let Brian Hussein Williams try to throw them out of the auditorium one by one if he thinks he can do it.

Since when should effete leftist media presstitutes be allowed to dictate to a conservative audience?

[Servant of the Cross]

For what it's worth .... here's Nordlinger at NR:

Newt is just superb, I think — in complete control of his thoughts and words. Graceful, interesting, effective. He manages to come off as both rebel-like, or maverick, and presidential — a neat trick.

[dforest]

Last night was an eye opener that you can’t base everything on debate performance.

Those debates can be controlled, and controlled it was.

It started with a question that gave Romney all the time he needed to go on a diatribe against Newt. There was no light, buzzer, or bell to limit Romney’s time as Newt stood there waiting for him to finish.

It wasn’t that Romney was accurate or good, it was just tough for Newt to mount a good retort to a ten minute attack.

Very little time afforded Santorum, who did well in a few answers. Paul had his humor and odd sort of “charm”, as long as he wasn’t talking foreign policy.

In the next debate, I hope the audience is allowed to respond and I hope Newt will spend his time making it clear that Mitt is good at attacks on conservatives, but is unable to articulate and show a genuine “from the heart” understanding, for the fears of the electorate of a second Obama term.

[Rennes Templar]

“It started with a question that gave Romney all the time he needed to go on a diatribe against Newt.”

The perfect response for Newt at some point in Mitt’s diatribe would have been for him to look at his watch.

[libh8er]

“..the 1% that country so hates right now”

The country does not hate the 1%. Only 2% of the country hate the 1% as Rush pointed out sometime back. It’s the *media* trying to create the impression that the country hates the 1%.. to deflect public anger away from Obama.

[staytrue]

“Newt said this morning on Fox that he would not participate in any more debates with gagged audiences.”

Yes but Obama will insist on gagged audiences “in the interest of fairness” and will call Gingrich a chicken for refusing to debate.

[bray]

Yep, they realized Newt feeds off the crowd so they took them out. It was a snoozefest and turned it off.

Pray for America

[cizinec]

Note that the *only* way for the left, including the Republican left in leadership, is to deny the people a voice.

Nothing new. Same old autocracy, new millennium.

Unfortunately for the elites, the people have recently begun to realize their rights were protected 200 years ago. This is the last time you will see Newt Gingrich in a debate where the peoples’ voice is gagged by threats from the increasingly irrelevant media.

[fightinJAG]

And if this happens during the presidential debates, should they occur, what happens to the rationale that Gingrich must be nominated because “he’ll mop the floor with Obama at the debates”?

No one will even be watching.

No one will care.

Those who have made up their mind to vote for Obama, will.

Those who have made up their mind to vote against Obama, will.

There are not and will not be very many people in the middle.

What this debate proved is how ridiculous it is to support a candidate because of the fleeting pleasure of, perhaps, seeing him attack Obama in the debates.

It also shows that, without the “hit him again, Joey!” soundtrack in the background, the LSM is going to be quite successful in making Obama the victim and Newt the meanie everyone “knows” him to be.

There are many reasons to support Newt, but his debating skills, and what they might bring to the general election campaign, are very low on the list.

[The_Media_never_lie]

It makes me want to gag just thinking about a debate with a silenced audience. The media is trying to fix the election again.

[cizinec]

“Yes but Obama will insist on gagged audiences “in the interest of fairness” and will call Gingrich a chicken for refusing to debate.”

And Gingrich will call Obama an anti-American despot so afraid of the people he governs that he wants them silenced in a public forum.

You tell me which one will play better.

[Beagle8U]

IMO all Newt has to do is win Fla. It is winner take all, so nobody else gets anything. That will put Santorum out of the race, and Romney can't beat anyone in a one to one race.

When Mutt loses in Fla his elite RINO supporters will dump him in a frantic attempt to find someone else to jump in.By then it will be too late.

[traintown57]

Why do Europeans feel free to inject themselves into our presidential election? What do I care what the London Telegraph thinks?

[Mom MD]

It was on in Denver, just delayed by an hour. It started at 8 pm.

[MinuteGal]

I wanted to gag, also. What gets me is that the candidates had to sign an agreement/contract way ahead of time proposing the terms and rules of the debate. So why didn't the terms leak out to the public, deliberately or otherwise?

Why didn't Newt and Paul or their staffs purposely leak this machiavellian rule of muzzling the audience? It would have been to their advantage. They know very well that standing O's and such during a debate not only make the speakers look good, but it personally pumps up the speakers to higher levels of performance.

No wonder this debate was so flat.

I'm sure there would have been at least some public outcry about this had anyone known about the restrictive terms prior to the debate.

I know I would have outcried!

Leni