[napscoordinator]

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.

[C. Edmund Wright]

With due respect, you could not be more wrong. It did not make for a more “professional” debate. It made for an awkward little food fight where the enemy - liberals in Obama’s administration and the media -were ignored.

The passion of the Republican base IS A LEGIT part of this election, and to “remove” that passion artificially actually made for a phony debate, not a real one.

Moreover, if Newt skips the debate, so will the viewers. He will not “be missed.” The debate will “be missed” because few would watch it. IT’s like TV ratings for a golf tournament without Tiger Woods. Zero.

[Jedidah]

More professional, perhaps, but dead boring.

I literally fell asleep, and I’m a political wonk.

[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..

[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.

[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.

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

Yeah I agree. I just heard on Fox news the second hint that the GOP will put Daniels in as they fear Gingrich can’t beat Obama.This is nuts.The GOP can KMA Romney would not beat Obama.Gingrich could. Daniels will pick up the independent vote.I can’t lie; I am at the bottom of the barrel supporting Gingrich.Why didn’t the tea party unite around Perry or Bachmann? Gingrich has far more baggage than Perry and he and Bachmann were true blue.Palin and her movie and bus screwed things over.She knows she could not have won so she didn’t run and all her competition was chewed up and spit out by her fans that post here.Leaving us at the bottom of the barrel. Romney running is getting so old and someone needs to inform him he is a boring flip flop Ken doll.I want someone that will truly change the DC corruption.Perry and Bachmann would have.How insane is it that Coulter is for Romney and FR for Gingrich?The bashing of Santorum on here is unnecessary.Newt not debating unless fans can applaud is ridiculous.I don’t want applause I want to hear specific ideas on fixing the America Obama is destroying.Gingrich may lose steam like all others did;I am open to Santorum or Daniels OR SOMEONE that can act like an adult.

[Chgogal]

I prefer the professional debates of the British Parliament where the professional debaters a la Thatcher have to make themselves heard above the din of the opposing party. They are damn fine debaters and that is damn fine theatre.

[mkjessup]

Give your head a shake and wake up from that nap. It's not about bring 'professional' it is all about the media (NBC in this case) not wanting the audience to voice their views and opinions regarding the statements of the candidates and/or the always biased and slanted questions of the lamestream media talking heads.

You go ahead and defend the media. Newt and the rest of us will defend the First Amendment.

[presently no screen name]

Newt’s entertaining to you? And a professional debate means gagging the audience? You certainly are lacking in conservative values. Those standing ovations for Newt have been repulsive to rinos.

I’m glad to see you are exposing yourself, finally, that no one can misread - as it’s been obvious for quite some time.

[altura]

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.