Posted on 01/24/2012 8:21:28 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ...
And a small group clapped loudly for a good answer on the Schiavo issue.
It’s time to ignore the liberal media and bring back the Trump debate and then another debate by the EIB. Let Trump and Rush be the moderators.
Why not be useful and donate to Free Republic you cheap creep. I noticed you don’t donate you ingrate.
Wow. That was foul, and uncalled for. How do you know who does, and does not donate anyway? You really need a time out, Naps.
msNBC had no problem with the applauses 4 years ago when the democrat candidates were doing the same
There you go again, naps..Over the line..way over.
Yes, we have. And thanks.
The ones that haven’t already been taken care of are walking on a very thin thread the last week... They are projecting without making it direct :p
“So watch wrestlemainia”
Why not. Wrestlemania is far more informative and substantive that debates held by liberals who love to hear themselves talk.
The reason the press wants the audience silenced is so they can control the conservation. They want their liberal propaganda presented but all the other voices silenced. That’s typical liberalism for you. Freedom of speech terrifies them.
She nodded affirmatively as if I just woke her up.
I was listening to the debate on live radio, and following the live thread here. I don't know how many times I began to doze off, and then caught myself.
NBC created a snooze-a-thon.
IBTZ
Not sure which airstrike pic to use though >.<
I vaguely recall some of the high points. I tried to pay attention when either Newt or Mitt were speaking, but Paul and Santo put me to sleep.
I slogged all the way to the end, but it was so boring that I didn't even know when it ended, exactly.
What a snooze-fest.
I tried very hard to listen to Newt Gingrich, but I was getting too angry when he wasn’t permitted to reply to the fatuous attacks and junior high sniping by his other rival.
NBC gets an F for their debate. I lost interest early and I’m certain a whole lot of others did, too.
Yeah, that pissed me off too. Brian Williams let Mitt rail on about Newt for what seemed like two minutes, then cut Gingrich off after less than a half minute of rebuttal. I wanted to scream.
And if you can't see the rhetorical similarities between the debate format and trial format, it's fine by me.
the focus is on the people of the united states in a debate for president, what THEY want.
And I would say that the that the focus of a debate is the question of who would make the better president.
In court the focus is on the defendant.
And I would say that the focus is on the question of the defendant's innocence or guilt. In some trials (in absentia), the defendant isn't even there.
In a court you have chosen people or the judge listening to EVIDENCE.
And in a trial, you have the chosen people (the public) listening to the different candidates present evidence that supports their argument that THEY are the better candidate.
The audience is not involved at all and shouldn’t be. (and you know that.)
The judge and/or jury IS the audience to be swayed to a decision by evidence and rhetoric.
I think a money issue was brought up as if ‘I donate so I can be given a pass’ for obvious liberalism. Like that’s their ‘right of passage’ when everything else failed and that failed, also. Just like romney, he’s failing so he turns to Newt’s ‘money’ and makes claims that are false!
LOL! can’t give it up can you?
So there are no audiences in courts?
You are completely missing the point. Newt is doing this for America and Americans to retain it's right for free speech and not be controlled by the media. Anyone can hear Newt and what he says without an audience or clapping - his message gets through! He used to that - he teaches!
So Newts does NOT need to show anything - His Patriotism and love for America is KNOWN! And he is putting it into action! Different than the other candidates - they haven't voiced anything on this. He knows when Americans are being wrong or robbed of their rights and when he sees it he immediately tries to correct it. Too back if that grates you but Americans who value their freedoms back the one who has a voice and uses it for America.
..didn’t the Lincoln-Douglas debates have loud boisterous crowds?—I think it was and still is cool—it’s American!
I guess the Sun Tzu book also said to say everyone is in the tank for Romney but Palin or whoever is the only one not chewed up and spit out remaining.
Special Report on Fox tonight covered Gingrich’s complaint that not allowing audience participation denies free speech. I do not agree that it denies free speech. However, NOT allowing the audience to display approval and enthusiasm puts the MSM in the position of interpreting public acceptance of the candidate’s message. Stated another way, it allows the MSM to spin support for a candidate to their liking.
Audience participation cuts into the power of the MSM. The MSM has controlled information way too long. I am with Newt on audience participate, but for a different reason. We MUST defeat the press at their games.
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.