Posted on 08/12/2011 9:33:54 AM PDT by xzins
Newt Gingrich has had just about enough of these process questions.
Asked to address concerns that his campaign has been "a mess" that reflects badly on his leadership abilities, the former House speaker hurled the question back at moderator Chris Wallace.
Continue Reading
"I took seriously Bret’s injunction to put aside the talking points. And I wish you would put aside the gotcha questions," Gingrich said, vowing again that he'd forge ahead with his campaign: "Like Ronald Reagan, who had 13 senior staff resign … and his new campaign manager laid off 100 people … I intend to run on ideas.”
Wallace pressed Gingrich, saying he had to be responsible for his own record.
Gingrich swatted back: “There’s too much attention paid by the press corps to the campaign minutiae," and not enough attention "to the basic ideas that distinguish us from Barack Obama.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61156.html#ixzz1Upbset90
Wallace's questions were largely of that variety. He was intentionally targeting petty and personal things.
Newt called him on it; Good for Newt!
York's question to Bachmann was far more egregious. Her religious sentiments about "submission to her husband" have to do with a religious sentiment that I think she was right on the money in answering with the word "respect." (The Apostle Paul uses the same word.)
Beside the point, though, is York's sense that that had something to do with Bachmann's qualifications for the presidency. If it did, then we have a religious test, imho. If it didn't, then York was slumming for sensationalism, gotcha, and the label of "king maker/king killer."
Ping.
You are right and I agree with you.
They just don't get it. They are NOT part of the story and every time they try to interject themselves into the story instead of doing their jobs they make themselves look even more clownish.
I hope Newt hangs on just so he can continue to spank these morons for their idiotic behavior.
I agree with you.
I kept sitting there thinking “where’s this guy been?” last night as I listened to Newt.
Still, Newt, whats with having your old lady drag you off to Europe right after you stuck your foot in your mouth and then your whole staff quit? Why cant you answer the damn question? And why are you running if you have no supporters?
I’ve always liked and respected Newt Gingrich. He has a sharp mind and an historians grasp of national and international affairs. Also he is a damn good author. Although the MSM is largely to blame for his drop in the conciseness of average Americans, lately he has become his own worst enemy. He showed us the old and probably real Newt at last night’s debate. Good job Mr. Gingrich.
Too little too late, he has been with the other side too long.
There was no one out there with a better command of the issues, the solutions, and the systems that Newt. He was the best spoken of all the candidates, and he was the best communicator.
Slap for man for damning his chances at victory by deserting ill wives hanging to life by a thread.
He committed presidential suicide years ago, and it renders him unelectable. Is this peripheral, gotcha stuff? I think it's relevant because it speaks to loyalty and fidelity. It's even more relevant because it can and will be used against him....viciously.
His campaign shakeup? Peripheral and says nothing other than he wanted to go a different direction.
Newt hit a home run with that response. I hope the other candidates all learn something from that exchange and follow suit. There are serious issues and there are gotcha questions. Every time one of these clowns asks a gotcha question, the debaters should call them on it and refuse to answer the question and instead go after the motives of the moderator.
York’s question to Bachmann about submitting to her husband is reflective of the insanity of this whole debate forum. What they ought to do is just sit the candidates down at a table and let them at each other. No questions, just statements from the candidates and responses from their fellow candidates. No topics. No gotcha questions.
I don’t watch these debates because they are so silly and painful to watch. They exist for the sole purpose of catching these guys with some soundbite that will destroy their careers. They are an utter waste of time.
Note also that the previous question had gone to Herman Cain and covered the possibility that he found Muslims and Mormons distasteful. Was he a bigot? Did he have a relgiious litmus test???
Cain handled that one well.
Then, it's over to Bachman where they asked her a bigoted question which implied that she was failing the media's litmus test on religion.
Grrrrrrrrr.
Although not a Newt supporter I applauded him last night. His answer about this jackass super committee was outstanding.
“Too little too late, he has been with the other side too long.”
Newt in a nutshell.
He’s only running to increase his future speaking bookings and fees.
Seems like we need to keep Newt Angry in order for him to be effective, he needs someone with a basket of Hornets and tweezer to put one in his shorts everytime he talks or gives a speech, then he is guaranteed to win.
In the process he even slapped the s**t out of the seasoned leftist media types.
and to sell his latest book.
Amen, brother Marlowe. These are not debates. They are media-driven, group Q&A’s.
I agree: give them a topic, turn on the camera, sit them at a table, have them make opening statements, and 1st and 2nd rebuttals, and have them go at each other in a wide open format...with only a timekeeper/moderator.
And, even then one must remind himself that we aren’t choosing America’s Debater in Chief.
A Debate gives insight. So does personal history, leadership opportunities and ratings, writings, decisions, etc.
York was on Fox and Friends this morning and he came across as very reasonable - when quizzed about asking the question, he opined that it was something that was hanging out there that was going to be asked sooner or later. He seemed very impressed with her answer (as was I) and thought that she explained herself very well. He just didn't have the aura of a guy who was out to get Bachmann. I think he did her a huge favor by raising it in a forum where she had time to answer fully and explain her position. Her explanation was clear and came across as genuinely felt and not "damage control".
I personally don't think it was a petty thing - and for any fair-minded person I think Bachmann gave an answer that wasn't double-speak and should have disposed of the issue permanently.
In any case, Bachmann handled it beautifully.
After the debate, Hannity came on and asked Frank Luntz his views and Frank said exactly what I just said here. Made me feel good that my analysis was right on.
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.