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 ...
Is Gingrich intending to encourage the audience to participate even if that is against the rules?
Is he going to stop reminding people to obey the rules by paying attention to the red light, because “free speech” is involved here?
Gingrich is playing people for fools here by using the Liberal’s crock-version of “free speech” as a sword in this situation. Anytime speech THEY want is not allowed, it’s suddenly a “free speech” issue. But when it’s speech that goes against them, well, then of course it’s not a “free speech” issue at all.
Many previous debates had rules against audience participation.
I have a feeling people would have a different take if it were Ron Paul, Romney or Santorum supporters who were being told to pipe down. That’s the first clue that this is pure theater, not a principled issue of how the debates should be conducted.
Aw, c’mon, people!! Get REAL!
These debates are in REAL LIFE, with REAL candidates, speaking about REAL issues, in REAL time, that affect YOU.
Ginggrich is right to object to NBC’s attempt at suppressing your fellow Americans’ REAL-time responses to what these candidates (and the moderators) are saying. These are not “stacked” audiences; they’re right-of-center to conservative audiences of people having a particular interest in the Republican nomination for President, and it is to our advantage to have these audiences’ responses register visibly, and audibly on a national stage. The nation needs to know what we think, and to HEAR how strongly we feel about particular issues. God knows Boehner, McConnell, and Co. haven’t the stones to do it; they’re practically deaf up there in Washington. So people like you and I need to be able to go to a debate between candidates for the Republican Presidential nomination and make our voices heard so that the world knows where we stand, and how firmly.
AFTER the nomination; AFTER our candidate is chosen, and the cross-party Presidential debates begin; THEN it will be appropriate to request that the audience restrain themselves, because THEN the audience will be a mixed audience, and we do NOT want to see a Presidential debate descend into a hooting and hollering match between markedly diverse political factions.
NOW, however, with the scope of these present debates limited to GOP/Conservative interests; let the audience loose. Americans across this country need to have it register with them, in a visceral way, how Conservatives respond to media, and to the issues the moderators bring up. In these one-party debates, audience response is both important, and appropriate. Let it be.
WELL SAID. I don’t get it why some people want the audience to be shackled. It’s not a lecture by a professor on a boring topic at a university. I bet people were allowed to sound off at the Lincoln Douglas debates, or other “live” presidential debates in history.
Has it ever.... including, sad to say, I think the original poster : |
I have been asking him to see if the mods would add at least a media spin alert to the title, but so far I have received no response at all from him : /
Guess in a few, I will take it to the mods myself and see if they can help clear things up a bit.
May God guide our course.
Tatt
He did not say this.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2837086/posts?page=99#99
THE HEADLINE IS WRONG!!!
Is that your opus?
You are desperate like the lying rino Romney. Keep proving it, I’m enjoying it.
“WE THE PEOPLE or forget it” - I know that grates your ‘gagged the audience’ liberalism.
So what DID he say? Having a hard time listening to video - super busy and all that. Just a paraphrase or something?
Aha, someone did paraphrase, sorry to bother you:
Gingrich essentially states that he regretted not saying anything last night, but that in future debates he will speak up for the audience to be able to applaud or cheer. Further, he said that he felt that what the media’s fear was the audience siding with the candidates against the media!
I consider myself a conservative and I am obeying the house rules and not posting in support of him here. The host entity has every right to decide what speech is allowed and what is not.
Please see my post back at 99, and thank you for asking!
Tatt
It made for a very dull debate and was doubtless planned to stifle ovations for Newt.
None of the other three ever get much applause except maybe Ron Paul.
Nobody would watch a debate without Newt so he will probably prevail on this issue.
Isn't it great to see Freepers pushing NYT propaganda. /
OTOH, it’s a good thing for Gingrich to try to make his points in an environment where he cannot use the audience as a crutch.
That’s what he’d be doing most of the time in the White House and he might as well get used to it now — and we might as well evaluate whether or not he can do it, and how well.
Obama was the master of using the audience as a crutch on the campaign trail. This led everyone to truly believe that he as a great orator, an inspirational speaker, The One.
Yet when he was put behind a podium and simply had to communicate — not cheerlead — he was an epic fail.
Gingrich needs to show that he can do both: communicate without using the audience as crutch AND cheerlead.
I agree completely with your comments. However, I believe Newt would be very happy to debate without audience participation if the questions asked were substantive instead of Williams’ feeble attempt to start a “fight on the playground”.
I would rather none of the candidates debate on networks that won’t ask questions that are focused on the inept president currently in office and how each candidate would govern differently.
I was watching the clock and there wasn’t a question of any substance or relevance asked until after the first commercial break. Disgusting !
EODGUY
Americans are free people and demanding people remain silent is ridiculous.
The media is trying to keep the audience from becoming a factor when Obama debates IMO.
I alerted the mods about the misleading headline too. It is either not a big deal to them...
or better yet they are going to use this thread as a bug zapper.
Negative and false nyt BLOG headline drawing the Newt haters to the light. POW! ZAP!
One can hope.
“Is Gingrich intending to encourage the audience to participate even if that is against the rules?”
You mean the rules designed to not allow the American public to see how other Americans view Newt? You mean the rules designed to make Rpeublicans in their debates seem boring? Those rules? Just who the Hell wants to obey those rules?
Newt asks as a perfectly valid question, and since you have such a strong opinion about it why don’t you answer it: Why have an audience if they are not there to participate in any way and provide feedback?
I’ll tell you why. The media wants Republicans to appear dull and boring and to show the audience as unaccepting of them by being quiet. If Obama was on stage the media would encourage applause to make him appear exciting and accepted by the audience.
So, just to be clear, you did hear Gingrich say he would skip the debates if the audience could not participate?
If so, that soundbite needs to be posted for evaluation.
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.