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.
“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.
“I have a feeling people”
not this one..