I thought it made for a more professional debate. No screaming or interrupting the speakers. I guess if Newt must bow out of the debates, then you must do what you must do. He will be missed. He is the only entertaining one in the group that much is for sure.
Using populism against the media.
Lovin’ it.
Brian Williams: OK then they can applaud when Gov Romney speaks
Do I need the /s ???
bad move to demand an audience.. he is always bragging on himself as a superior debater.. if he is such a great debater then he should be more than willing to debate anyone anywhere with or without an audience
Sorry, Newt is wrong on this one. This isn’t a town meeting, its a Presidential debate. Now we are going to have every primary and general election debate be a clap fest with the candidates packing the audience. Yuck.
It was a boring debate. If the audience can’t participate, then why have an audience? Newt is right.
If the audience must remain silent, why even have an audience? Hold a debate on the “The Five” set on Fox News, with one moderator and four candidates sitting around the table.
Great. /s
This means Romney will challenge Newt to 7 3-hour debates with no audience.
State-Run Media will just see to it the audience is filled with Occupy Wall Street and Move-on dot org people.
Lead Newt, lead! It’s like being told not to cheer at a football game.
Commanding the audience to sit on their hands to avoid standing ovations or other signs that Americans are sick of the media attack debates on Republicans was stupid.
Ron Paul got several moments of big applause anyway; were all those clappers taken out back and shot?? What NBC meant was, no clapping for Gingrich.
But Newt was definitely not thinking to pout for his applause this morning. That is pointing out one of his huge personality deficits to the world: that one of his big motivations in this contest and in life is for love and adoration. We want a solid, strong, self-assured Newt that would debate before even a roomful of paralyzed veterans with poise, facts, and confidence.
Last night’s debate was the dullest by far. Why have an audience at all if they are not offered the chance to ask questions or a few opportunities to applaud? Why not just have the stage, the imperious moderators and bunch of potted plants?
The rules last night were to protect Brian Williams, so he could without embarrassment steer the debate away from Obama without any audible objections from those pesky commoners who insist on not being liberal. I hope future debate audiences show the leftist media that we will not be silenced by them.
I'd much rather see the audience's real-time reaction rather than Luntz's post debate survey.
Back to what many have said, there is no reason to have an audience if they aren't allowed to react.
Some people need an audience because they take cues from audience reaction to know what direction to steer conversation or debate.
People who speak from the heart don’t have to do this - they are driven by inner conviction and conscience. It can be narcissistic trait.
¨We, the People....¨
Sigh.
Mistake by Mr. Gingrich. His SC debate and subsequent win had nothing to do with the audience, it was the power of his words.
Gingrich/Santorum 2012
Santorum/Rubio 2018
Really not sure if this is a smart move. Now everybody else will start disallowing clapping so Gingrich won’t participate!
This could backfire on him. Calling for participation is fine, but to threaten to not debate is silly...