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.

[drpix]

Before you take an exit, or are shown the door, here's something for your (re)edification, on what it takes to win debates, primaries and presidential elections. Clue: It ain't RINO "composure."

---

The Ronald Reagan "Nashua Moment" during a 1980 GOP debate: He defied the media. He agitated the crowd. Many, in both parties and the media, called it unpresidential. But enough Americans thought otherwise and gave him the Presidency over Jimmy Carter, by a landslide margin of 440 electoral college votes.

Youtube Video>

[ConfidentConservative]

“I have a feeling people”

not this one..

[hoosiermama]

I’ve never witnessed a zot before....at least not in recent time.

[ConfidentConservative]

:)

I wasn’t saying you were not a conservative. I was Saying this site is Conservative.

I was saying the the media are supposed to be non bias, give you the fact’s, which is far from the case and their motives this time was not pure.

[Old Sarge]

You don't like Newt much, do you?

[onyx]

Several of this thread don't like Newt, but that one has a sketchy posting history.

[ConfidentConservative]

Am I reading this right?

You are saying we show be happy with a media that stifles truth, Slants things to go liberal view, tell half truths?

Play gotcha games? Play with the time, give Mitt all he wants and run the red light or give only one or two questions to one candidate and more to another?

Ok,

I say they showed their true colors last night and people all over the country are unhappy with their actions.

[drpix]

"Is Newt or any of the other candidates “paying for this microphone”?"

Your point may be relevant in a courtroom, but in the court of public opinion - were the media is now on trial - the only point is defiance of a bias media dealing from the bottom of the deck.

[longtermmemmory]

The MSM moderators only want “how often do you beat your dog” questions. Cheering crowds expose agreement that the MSM is biased.

The moderators could stop this issue by not being biased.

[RFEngineer]

“You are saying we show be happy with a media that stifles truth, Slants things to go liberal view, tell half truths?”

No, I’m not saying you should be happy with it, just that that is the way it is, and there is nothing in the Constitution that says they have to be otherwise.

“I say they showed their true colors last night and people all over the country are unhappy with their actions.”

Their colors are shown every day of the week. You act as if this is some sort of new development.

[napscoordinator]

Why not be useful and donate to Free Republic you cheap creep. I noticed you don’t donate you ingrate.

[mkjessup]

Re: The Gipper's "I'm paying for this microphone moment" in 1980:

In the YourTube video graciously provided by DrPix, notice who ends up heartily applauding Reagan's smackdown of that bozo Breen, i.e., John Anderson, Howard Baker, Bob Dole and Phil Crane, but conspicuously silent like a deer in the headlights is George H.W. Bush, aka 'Poppy RINO', who didn't know whether to crap or get off the pot.

The same Poppy RINO supporting Romney today.

And that audience wasn't ABOUT to be shut up or cowed by some media chowderhead.

[ConfidentConservative]

Not hardly, A debate is parties explaining their point a view on a subject then the country decide what point and person they like the best.

In a court one person is fighting for their life about something that someone else is trying to prove guilty.

HUGE difference.

In a court of law you have a lawyer to represent you, In a debate you are trying to show your ideas are the best ones.

It isn’t a popularity test of the “RIGHT” ;) Ideas in the courts.

[ConfidentConservative]

So absolutely right! The more fire the better the debate.

[caww]

Good Link to Newt’s speech onyx...I missed that before. And just for the record I was researching Newt when it looked to me that maybe Palin wouldn’t run. It took some time because I wanted to get at the truth and there was alot of nonsense out there to wade thru, not to mention his years of service to this country. The more I saw the more I wanted to see him rise above the rest...and He did!!!!!!

[onyx]

Because Zots are not free
(Click the pic!)

[mkjessup]

Why not be useful and donate to Free Republic you cheap creep. I noticed you don’t donate you ingrate.

The knowledge of who donates and who does not, is way above your paygrade pal. Not only that, but when a FReeper DOES donate, the listing of their screen name on the list of donors is not automatic, nor is it mandatory.

If you have any personal integrity at all, you'll apologize here and now to FReeper 'Presently No Screen Name'.

(pardon me if I don't hold my breath for that)

(*pinging* Onyx as she knows as much about FReep-a-thons as any poster on this site)

[dforest]

There is one undeniable truth. It just ain’t no fun unless the audience can emote.

Everyone should be for letting the voters show approval and disapproval.

[caww]

Yep....none of anybodies business but the owners who does and doesn't donate...or how much ....unless they choose to share that information. Not only that but some donate "for" others who cannot at the time. That remains private as to who does the giving and who does the receiving..as it should be.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

A debate is parties explaining their point a view on a subject then the country decide what point and person they like the best.

And a trial is parties (a prosecution and a defense) explaining their point of view on a subject (the guilt or innocence of the accused) and then the judge or jury deciding which one convinces them.

HUGE difference.

Not really. And the basic elements of proposition or question, affirmative statement, cross-examination, rebuttal and summary is the same.