Gingrich Threatens to Skip Debates if Audiences Can’t Participate [another NY Slimes lie]

NYT ^ | Tuesday January 24, 2012 | Gingrich Threatens to Skip Debates if Audiences Can’t Participate

[Bigtigermike]

Newt Gingrich insists his fans will not be silenced.

Mr. Gingrich, a former House speaker, on Tuesday morning threatened not participate in any future debates with audiences that have been instructed to be silent. That was the case on Monday, when Brian Williams of NBC News asked the audience of about 500 people who assembled for a debate in Tampa to hold their applause until the commercial breaks.

In an interview with the morning show “Fox and Friends,” Mr. Gingrich said NBC’s rules amounted to stifling free speech. In what has become a standard line of attack for his anti-establishment campaign, Mr. Gingrich blamed the media for trying to silence a dissenting point of view.

[be-baw]

Sorry I wasn’t clearer. He was petulant saying he will skip debates if audiences can’t participate, if that is what he truly said.

[ConfidentConservative]

Jim Robinson’s site is FOR conservatives and he chooses how the forum runs.

The Media ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FOR ALL OF US.

When they place rules, they are stifling free speech and representing only those they want to have win. (in this case obama)

[onyx]

GO Florida!

VOTE FOR NEWT!

DIRECT DONATION LINK
NEWT 2012!

WooHoo!!

GO Florida!

VOTE FOR NEWT!

DIRECT DONATION LINK
NEWT 2012!

WooHoo!!

[napscoordinator]

You are the biggest liberal on FR and EVERYBODY knows it.

[caww]

Newt is right. Free speech IS the reason for elections and silencing the audience is nothing more than censorship.

People need to think on this who want a "sit still and shut up" audiance. It's "OUR" Primary...not Obamas/Romneys media pimps!

[toddly]

Newt said no such thing. It’s just a lieing blogger headline.

[presently no screen name]

No-/s needed. The media certainly doesn’t hide their in-your-face bias and their desire to control. Glad to read Newt gave them some in-your-face “WeThePeople or Forget it”!

[Flint]

I urge all here to watch the video.

The headline is not accurate at all. He did not say he wouldn't participate. He did say that stifling the audience is not going to happen again.

[onyx]

You’re dreaming. Newt Gingrich doesn’t need notes, doesn’t need a teleprompter to deliver inspirational speeches and he doesn’t need audiences either. Maybe you’ve forgotten all the years he spoke after hours to the empty chamber with only the CPAN camera running.

Sheesh. You don’t like him, but at least try to attack on him on something valid.

[FreeReign]

Gingrich complaining about the debate format is reminiscent of Gingrich complaining about setting at the back of AF1 when Clinton was president:

Cool.

A Freeper citing Democrat propaganda circa 1995.

[onyx]

You’re dreaming. Newt Gingrich doesn’t need notes, doesn’t need a teleprompter to deliver inspirational speeches and he doesn’t need audiences either. Maybe you’ve forgotten all the years he spoke after hours to the empty chamber with only the CSPAN camera running.

Sheesh. You don’t like him, but at least try to attack on him on something valid.

[mkjessup]

The nominating contest is one of the few times that Americans have the opportunity to directly interact with, and express themselves to those who would deign to be the nation's Chief Executive.

Once these people ascend to the heights of elected office (especially the presidency), they're effectively insulated from the voice of the people, and are much more difficult to reach.

We're supposed to have a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." I think it's entirely appropriate that we have an opportunity to add our voices to the mix in the public debate leading up to choosing our nominee - even if all that amounts to is applause in an auditorium.

***BUMP*** and BRAVO!!!

That needs to be repeated as often as necessary. This is allegedly still a free Country, with the right to express yourself as you so choose, regardless of what some pack of pinheads in the media seem to think, they want the American people to cow tow and behave like those pour bastards in North Korea, i.e., 'clap when prompted', 'be silent when cautioned', and always 'show reverence to your superiors' (which means never talking back to the left-liberal unintelligentsia or their sh*t-brained messiah 0bama-lama-ding-dong)

To these would be censors of free speech? I say:

FUNBC!

FUCBS!

FUABC!

FUDOX!

FUPBS!

FUNPR!

FUCNN!



(did I miss anybody?)

[for-q-clinton]

Well you know the next trick right? They will stack the audience with Mitt and Ron Paul supporters. Paul supporters will be the loudest and Mitt supporters will boo Newt.

[Scythian]

Moderator : Sit there and be quite, no applauding.

Audience : Okay

---

Goverment : Sit there and be quite until we ruin the country

People : Okay

[mkjessup]

Well to bad that hardly anybody agrees with you. So go back in your hole.

Come right on over here sonny boy, and make me.

[drpix]

Here's a transcript excerpt of a Reagan moment from a 1980 debate:

BREEN {moderator}: Would the sound man please turn Mr. Reagan's mic off -- (crowd response/boos)

REAGAN: Is this on?

CROWD: Yes!

REAGAN: Mr. Breen... (crosstalk)

BREEN: Will you turn that microphone off, please?

REAGAN: I am paying for this microphone! (cheers and applause)

At that time many (in both parties) called it "unpresidential." The American public thought the opposite.

If you're a Conservative, instead of throwing around names like "jerk" try grounding your opinions and perceptions in some actual American Conservative history rather than the Leftist and RINO rewrites of that history.

[fightinJAG]

Ronald Reagan was a truly inspiring speech-giver long before he participated in a handful of presidential debates.

He remained an inspirational speaker throughout his presidency, where he gave speeches that were 180-degrees out in tone and content to answers given in the debates.

Newt has never been an inspirational speaker. He’s a major policy wonk and that is all that comes through when he’s not on in his practiced “Simon Cowell” mode.

Again, that doesn’t mean he would be an epic fail as a communicator in the White House. But if one thinks they’re going to see the Simon Cowell schtick then, they’re dreaming. At least I hope so.

I do not want a person who does the Simon Cowell schtick in the White House. And I don’t believe Gingrich does either. Thus, his “fans” will be sorely disappointed on this one aspect, I’m afraid.

[ConfidentConservative]

“I’m thinking that courtroom trials would be more entertaining if everyone, including the jury, got to applaud or boo witness testimony and every motion.”

That is the stupidest comment made on this Thread so far.

Comparing a TRIAL to a debate? ;)

[wardaddy]

Sherwood arrow split post!

[fightinJAG]

BTW, don’t you find it rather crybaby-ish to complain about rules against audience participation?

Had that participation been going against Gingrich, I’d wager he’d be all about the “dignity” of the occasion and how “it’s not a sporting match.”

Threatening to pull out of the debates over this is way over the top.

Let’s see if Newt will back up his mouth with action if the rules are not changed.