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.

[Yaelle]

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.

[cripplecreek]

I think the Huckabee forum format is a winner.

[austinaero]

It’s a debate! There is supposed to be noise. If the noise is so offensive or such a problem, then tape the darn thing and get rid of the audience all together? Why have a live audience at all?

[hannibaal]

I feel the same way, I find it disrespectful that the audience can interrupt whoever may be talking in the debates, especially since they have a time limit to answer and/or respond. This is for the position of the presidency not a freaking game show..

[VanDeKoik]

Maybe the audience is applauding what they like.

If it was just all phony then they would be applauding everything.

If mitt and rick said anything great they would get the applauses.

[LuvFreeRepublic]

Listen to the video to hear Newt's exact words. The headline is not accurate.

[LostInBayport]

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.

[austinaero]

Exactly Van! The people at home like us, watching it on tv, get a huge boost out of seeing the people in the audience responding to the lies and supporting the good guy! It’s a very important part of the process. These candidates have microphone access 24/7 so it is not critical that every single syllable they say is heard ....but how the people in the audience feel is critical,,the debate is for the people!

[tobyhill]

We will no longer be called the “Silent Majority”, we will be heard and the Lame Stream Media will hear us.

[hannibaal]

i take it if a comedy show doesnt have a laugh track then you dont laugh? You shouldnt give a flying fck what the audience thinks and applaud to yourself on which positions you agree with. I dont know about the rest of the people here, but the only opinion that matters to me is my own.

[Rational Thought]

I agree that no audience reactions (or perhaps even no audience) does allow people watching on TV (or listening) to form their own opinions without influence.

Does it make for more entertaining TV? No, but it shouldn't be about entertainment. If we're to take debates seriously in determining our nominee, I'm all in favor of negating distractions.

[World'sGoneInsane]

Audience applause was never an issue until Newt got three historic standing ovations.

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.

[ari-freedom]

Newt should be able to handle any debate format. They’re not going to want to help Newt and it gives the impression that they’ve found a weakness.

[duffee]

The media, being in the tank for Romney who will help them re-elect obama, would probably rather have Newt miss the debate. I think this is a strategy by Newt that will bring a degree of scrunity to this and he will participate and have audience participation.

[mquinn]

I’d rather hear what they have to say rather than feel like I’m at a Jets game, honestly.

[GingisK]

Using populism against the media.

If he does this, he will not get the nomination. That behavior would be like pouting, or taking his toys and going home. He quit on us when he was Speaker of the House. I'd hoped he had developed beyond that sort of thing.

Then we'd be stuck with Romney; and, I won't cast a vote for him, Obama not withstanding.

[Jedidah]

If they allow applause on Thursday night, watch for competition between the Paulites and Gingrich people.

Who needs politics and policy when there’s a riot in the back of the room?

[Lady Lucky]

he is always bragging on himself as a superior debater..

No he isn't. In the victory speech after the SC win, he pointedly said just the opposite.

[justsaynomore]

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.

[TomGuy]

I thought it made for a more professional debate. No screaming or interrupting the speakers.

I agree.

It actually was better to have the debate without the interruptive Ra Ra Pep Rally each time a candidate responded to a question.

The debate is to elicit candidate responses, not elicit populist hoopla from the audience.

==

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



Conservatives are trying to sell the 'angry Newt.' While it may be cutzie now for the Newtbots, it won't be in the general election.