Subscribe
RSS
Mobile
GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is blasting NBC News for the way it handled Monday evening's debate. In particular, Gingrich threatened to boycott future debates if audiences were forced to hold their applause and remain silent. NBC News' Brian Williams instructed the audience that they could applaud only on commercial breaks. Can we really tell humans to stop being human? Adding to that... does a debate audience even serve a purpose?
As reported on The Caucus blog, Gingrich is up in arms over the attempted silencing of Monday night's debate audience:
Gingrich said that he should have "protested when Brian Williams took them out of it because I think it's wrong."
Gingrich added: "And I think he took them out of it because the media is terrified that the audience is going to side with the candidates against the media, which is what they've done in every debate."
So what do you think? It's simple human nature for someone to react to a statement, comment, joke, zinger, or whatever. The audience reaction is often a solid indicator of the strength of the comment (or lack thereof). There have been plenty of times during these numerous debates where a candidate tried a zinger that fell flat. You could hear crickets instead of applause.
To ask an audience to hold back something that is inherently spontaneous is just asking for frustration. People can't do it. So, NBC News or any other organization is wrong to make such demands or requirements.
But there is a larger question here. What is the point of an audience? They often indicate their pleasure or displeasure with a statement, but does that make the statement any more accurate or inaccurate? Should audience reaction be a factor in how the television audience grades the candidates after a debate?
Here's a novel idea. How about if we do away with the audience completely? Just have a moderator or panel of questions and the candidates. Ask them questions and get answers. There would be no boos, no laughter, no applause. All a viewer would have would be the candidates' responses. Granted, a person watching the debate would likely have to think about the questions and answers a little bit more, and perhaps investigate if a response was accurate, but isn't that what we want out of a voter?
There's too much emphasis on sounds bites and zingers. Rather than playing to the audience, shouldn't the candidates play to the voters?
January 24, 2012 @ 2:26 pm
The audience is a manipulative device by media. If media think the crowd reaction will be favorable to media they are encouraged to participate loudly. If media think the crowd reaction will be favorable to the GOP candidates, they are encouraged to stay silent.
January 24, 2012 @ 4:13 pm
The media think it’s about them, instead of about the candidates and voters!
January 24, 2012 @ 9:16 pm
Audiences are more apt to be manipulated by the speakers than the media in ANY debate.
Ann Coulter wisely pointed out that when you read Gingrich’s debate words in print they are ordinary, when you hear them they appear extraordinary which is just the sign of a very good actor. Gingrich Demands a Lincoln Douglas type debate with Obama. He is the complete opposite of Lincoln whose 3 minute Gettysburg Address was blandly received by a confused audience, but when put into print became enshrined in History.
Make sure it is not YOU who are being manipulated! And as Lincoln warned become one of the SOME of the people who are fooled ALL of the time.
I was born in the Land of Lincoln and my ancestors voted for him and supported him with their blood and treasure. I can assure you Newt Gingrich is no Abe Lincoln but more of an elite Stephen Douglas and a man of the Old Democrat South which is why he did so well in the Land of Fort Sumter and the civil war which like New will divide the nation.
January 24, 2012 @ 2:28 pm
I personally like the fact that debate audiences are asked to remain quiet. It keeps the event from turning into a circus. It keeps the event dignified. Candidates are less prone to smirk and to come up with zingers and one-liners in an effort to draw cheers from the audience. Unless I’m mistaken, the famous Nixon-Kennedy debates took place in a television studio without an audience, and an estimated 70 million Americans tuned in for the first one.
An infringement on free speech? I don’t think so. Just as privately-owned newspapers are not obligated to print every “Letter to the Editor” they receive, so privately-owned TV networks should have the right to set the rules of conduct for an audience.
January 24, 2012 @ 9:25 pm
Without the aid of the audience, disingenuous candidates will have to succeed on talent and the meat of the arguments rather than just the sizzle. Debates with Obama should be also held without a live appluding audience.
January 24, 2012 @ 9:43 pm
On the other hand how is it acceptable for the Liberal media to tell a Conservative audience to shut-up and not comment on their perceptions of Republican candidates? I thought it was outrageous and I was very offended. This tactic was directed at only one person and that was newt and it was purposely done because they did not want to be embarrassed. The RNC Machine does not want Newt. You can be certain that the DNC does not want Newt. The news media are now afraid of him and even FOX commentators have gone out of their way to denigrate Newt because he spanked Chris Wallace and Juan Williams. Personally if the GOP Machine does not want Newt that is, for me, a reason to consider him. By accepting the media imposed rules and not considering the response by the folks, the media is driving your opinion. So far as electability is concerned, Conservatives should be primarily concerned about ensuring that the electability of Obama is their primary issue.
January 24, 2012 @ 2:29 pm
I dont like NBC, actually I hate them, but since they are hosting the debate, it is up to them to set the rules. If Speaker Gringrich do not like the way the debate was being handled, he can boycott, that is his choice and perrogative. I like to see him not attend. I guess he wants participation from audience because then he can manipulate the audience and get standing ovation which is very obvious to his advantage and that catapulted him to win in SC.
I guess since he was rather flat yesterday and certain times rather pitiful, trying to rise above it and calling Gov Romney’s challenge, trivial. Gingrich is the King of Triviality from his constant bashing of Gov Romney to release his tax returns when 2 other candidates have not released theirs. What Gov Romney did regarding his tax returns is legal and if the law is x% for capital gains why would anyone want to pay more? Gov Romney is rich but do i care? Not really, I like to be successful like if possible. Isnt that what the American dream is all about? Gingrich is acting as if it is a sin and wrong to be successful. Somehow Gingrich forgets that investment is good for the economy!
January 24, 2012 @ 3:05 pm
Investment is ‘best’ for the one doing the investing. In Romney’s case some of his ‘investing’ was obviously to make money off the backs of others who were going through a bad stretch. Buy cheap, liquidate and take the profit to the next gig.
Why should different income be taxed at different rates? Take the young doctor who goes to school for years and spends a tremendous amount of money to obtain those degrees, certifications, etc. He/she then opens a practice which pays rent, provides jobs, pays vendors for supplies and equipment, etc. IF they’re lucky enough to get all that covered and actually make money they can be taxed at over 35%. At the same time the ‘investor class’ gets up goes to the country club or plays on the computer at home, etc., and they are taxed at 15%? They haven’t really provided a single job and are responsible for nothing other than making sure they hired the right investment gurus.
All the while scum like Buffett and Romney are waiting on the sidelines waiting for companies to falter so they can rush in and get what’s left on the cheap that they can sell for a profit and pay 15% or less on.
January 24, 2012 @ 3:24 pm
I quit watching NBC entirely. Watched that lame debate last night on the net.
January 24, 2012 @ 4:11 pm
RobertR you obviously know nothing about tax rates. Governor Romney initially paid taxes on his money when he earned it. He is now paying taxes on his investments. We need people to invest in companies. The investor is taking the risk. Actually they should not even be taxed on the earnings from their investments.
January 24, 2012 @ 7:26 pm
WTG, pypypypy!
RobertR, just curious: Did you get your information about investing from Obama, or from Gingrich and Perry? Even the investors you imagine, who do nothing but visit the country club, risk their capital. Whether they invest in the stock market, a business, or whatever, they stand to lose every *****. But they shouldn’t get any reward for their risk? Is that your position? Or is it ok if they pay a higher rate of taxes and/or spend their profit how you see fit? Do you ascribe to Elizabeth Warren’s view that all wealthy people made their money on the backs of the poor? Just curious how far along the liberal left line you sit. And just so you know, your hypothetical doctor, if incorporated, pays corporate tax rates on his corporate earnings, income tax on whatever he pays himself (after deductions), and pays the same 15% rate on his capital gains as does everyone else, whether a millionaire or not.
By the way, last I heard, Bain/Romney had a net of over 100k jobs created. (Staples, Sports Authority, etc.)
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/workers-speak-out-against-anti-bain-documentary-we-had-no-idea-the-film-was-about-bain-or-romney/
Only a hypocrite could support Gingrich while decrying the moral decay of our society.
January 24, 2012 @ 8:30 pm
Why should the ‘investor’ class get a break on taxes versus the one that actually builds a business and RISK EVERYTHING they have to provide jobs and to make a living? The money they invest in their own business has already been earned and taxes paid on it as well. Yet they are risking everything in ONE basket where the investor class spreads theirs around and risk losing a portion.
The mentality that the working people should be taxed at a higher rate than the investor class is simply wrong. Either way it’s money that’s made/earned.
I know both classes of people and I don’t see where the investor is risking any more than the small business man/woman who invest their life savings in a business and if it makes money they are punished for their success while the investor makes money off the backs of others and is rewarded with a reduced rate of taxation.
Ya’ll have been hoodwinked by the investor class with this nonsense that that money was already taxed and shouldn’t be taxed if it earns anything. Like I said, what’s the difference between them and the people who work and risk everything and are then punished for their success? The ones who put their money up so others can work in their business. This one hits home with me because I know more of them that have worked most of their lives and went broke because of the economy. I know very few ‘investors’ who have gone broke. Most are in fact doing very well.
And Lin there are a lot of people who are small business people and are not incorporated. I certainly wasn’t when I had my business. So talk smack to somebody who hasn’t been there. I know what it’s like to have borrowed huge sums of money and worrying about making it all work. Hiring people and dealing with customers, insurances, taxes and all the other overhead with being in business. So with your attitude you continue to punish those that DO and reward those that live off the others. I get the message.
It isn’t a wonder that I don’t bother with this bunch much anymore. And it’s obvious that come November we’ll manage to re-elect the worst president in history. So until the attitudes change we’re stuck with the ultra far wacko right running the party. And the center of the country doesn’t want any part of your world. BTW be sure to get your plane ready to fly to Obama’s second inauguration. Wouldn’t want you to miss it.
January 24, 2012 @ 10:53 pm
RobertR, my comments to you earlier were quickly typed out just before I was out the door for a very long drive. (Just got in.) I was thinking about it while driving and it occurred to me that my words may have come out much more harshly than they were meant. I often agree with your comments and usually when I don’t, your opinion seems soundly based, though different from mine. My purpose was to reflect back to you what you seemed to be saying. If I went too far and offended you, I apologize.
Don’t know if you listened to the State of the Union, but as I mentioned, I was driving and figured it would help to keep me awake, in a blood-boiling sort of way. Obama said something in his speech tonight with which I agree: Stop insider trading in congress and a personal stake in the outcome of legislation. And I even had a Joe Wilson moment! It was when Obama uttered the words, “…and no one was thinking of themselves…”
January 24, 2012 @ 11:20 pm
RobertR, you seem very frustrated. Here’s some information about Capital Gains taxes that you might enjoy reading. It’s at the Heritage Foundation which is a conservative organization that provides a lot of good information.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/10/capital-gains-tax-cuts?query=Capital+Gains+Tax+Cuts:+Myths+and+Facts
Btw, in Newt’s tax plan the capital gains tax rate would be cut from 15% to 0%. As Romney pointed out to him in the debate, he would have paid no taxes under the Gingrich plan.
January 25, 2012 @ 12:53 am
No problem Lin, I did take it as a defense for the wealthy that have either made it or inherited it and don’t have the struggles that the little guy does. No need to apologize but thanks! No hard feelings.
I’m pretty much burned out on these boards and on Facebook where it’s just as hopeless. I think we’re all frustrated and seeing the village idiot re-elected because the republicans will have destroyed each other isn’t making the situation any better. With the damage he’s done in 3 years what can he do in 8? What will be left when his terms are up? I don’t like any of the options that are there for us and feel that whoever the nominee is will lose the general election. Between Obama’s “Billion” and the media it would be mission impossible for a good candidate.
Years back someone told me that our system was set up for the wealthy to retain and grow their wealth and for those wanting to climb the ladder to that level to find the journey close to impossible. After 58 years on this earth I can verify that argument is so true it’s frightening.
The bottom line is there is no candidate that is actually fighting for the working people. The demos use the ignorant ones for their votes and do everything they can to destroy their ability to succeed with high taxes and even higher cost of living. We just had the highest average price for fuel in 2011 that we’ve ever had. And if it were up to Obama it would be higher. What does that do to the working class? They have no choice but to drive to work or many of them that are self employed drive their own vehicles and eat all the additional cost. I know a lot of people on very limited fixed incomes that are struggling to make ends meet. People who worked for a living and don’t believe in the welfare state are finding it next to impossible to survive in their retirement. Some are sharing homes with their children since neither can swing it on their own. I’ve never seen this so prevalent in our society.
And Leonidis thanks for the link but I already got my Capital Gains message loud and clear from my CPA who informed me that I’ll be paying dearly on a rental property when I sell it. The reduced capital gains taxes that are in force don’t apply to recaptured depreciation. Spent a small fortune and lots of labor to rebuild it to maximize the price and the market collapsed in the meantime. And the labor won’t be deductible since it was MY labor. So I’ll be paying the taxes and have done the work for nothing. Yet again some ‘investor’ who put his money in the stock market and managed to not get ripped off will benefit with lower capital gains taxes. Again the working stiff gets stuck.
One more little hitch with the capital gains is I plan on dividing some property I have and selling it the next few years to invest the money in something that pays more than $20 an acre. (It’s currently farmland.) The CPA says that once you split the property 6 times you won’t be taxed as a capital gain but as regular income. One more shaft for the little guy to sit on. So yeah you read me right. I’m very frustrated with this system that penalizes the working man and rewards the tycoon. The recently released figures on how much the wealthy’s assets grew versus the working class spelled it out loud and clear. Either you have it or you won’t get it. All those people who think their hard work will result in them reaching that goal are kidding themselves.
The only real benefits are for the very wealthy who have the tax lawyers and the CPAs that can find and utilize all the loopholes. The working class pays and pays until you’re dead.
January 25, 2012 @ 10:12 am
Since when should it be up to liberals to set the debate rules for Conservatives? Isn’t that exactly what Obama & Co. are doing for the entire nation? Do you think the Marxists would stand still for a minute if FOX set the rules and agenda for all Presidential debates? Absolutely not. In the GOP Primary debates it should be up the the candidates to set the rules otherwise, as we’ve already seen, the Socialists are more inclined to ask “gotcha” questions designed to denigrate and embarrass our candidates. As evidenced by Newt’s aggressive retorts to the media and the people’s obvious approval, the news media will continue their tactics if they are not stopped. We no longer have a free press so let us set the rules when we can and give our people the opportunity to embarrass them in return.
January 25, 2012 @ 8:47 pm
Thanks for the reply, RobertR. I spent 15 minutes typing out a very detailed response and then ‘poof’ it was gone. Bottom line is this: I agree with most of what you wrote. Where we disagree is where to place the blame. In my opinion, it’s not the fault of generic ‘rich people’ or specifically Romney, who I am not supporting, by the way. It’s the fault of every congress that put all those loopholes in the tax code to help themselves and their supporters, every president that didn’t veto those loopholes, and every congress that didn’t fix the code. I’m sorry you’re getting shafted on the depreciation but you got the benefit of it in prior years. It’s comparing apples and oranges, to me. You’re still going to pay the same 15% on your capital gain. You chose where to invest your money, just as others have chosen other vehicles. Hopefully your hard work increased the value of the property, so you’ll get that much, if you got it before Barney and the other socialists decided to stick the middle class with the bill for houses for those who couldn’t afford them, in order to buy their votes and keep the lemmings dependent.
People like Warren Getting-Even-Richer-From-No-Keystone-Pipeline Buffet and Bill Gates like to kick the door closed behind them when they make it. Gates has said there is no way he could start Microsoft in today’s world. I say he likes it that way because it makes it impossible for a new product to challenge his market share. One of the ways Buffett amassed his fortune was getting family farms and small businesses when heirs had to sell at bargain prices in order to pay the death taxes. That’s why Buffet advocates high death taxes. I work hard for what I have and have paid every dime of tax owed. I hate that my heirs will be taxed on it again or that anyone would suggest they don’t deserve what I worked hard to enjoy while alive and be able to pass along to them.
We’re both conservatives and we generally agree that free markets should be free, I would think. I also think crony capitalism, a big part of where the blame should be placed in my opinion, should be prosecutable and prosecuted.
Good luck, RobertR.
Only a hyppocrite could support Gingrich while decrying the moral decay of our society.
January 25, 2012 @ 9:35 pm
RobertR, just saw your other post. Apparently I misunderstood some of your other comments and came to the wrong conclusion thinking you were conservative. Some of your comments in this thread are similar to OWS. We all make choices and take risks in this world. Sometimes they work out and people get unbelievably rich. Sometimes they don’t, and people should keep trying, in my opinion. Again, I agree that there shouldn’t be special rules for special people, or special campaign contributors. We, the people, should hold our reps accountable. As far as Obama’s next inauguration, that’s almost a certainty should Gingrich get the nomination.
Only a hyppocrite could support Gingrich while decrying the moral decay of our society.
January 24, 2012 @ 2:46 pm
Now Bobby, you are getting ridiculous. Who is the audience? The voters! In fact, it is the voters who are either supporters of one of the candidates, or those who feel the primary is important and are undecided and want to see their candidates in person.
I think the best solution is: 1)Don’t gag the audience. 2) Let the organizers of the debate choose their own moderator. 3) Don’t televise a local debate nationwide.
January 24, 2012 @ 2:48 pm
We are not just talking about an ‘audience, we are talking about American citizens participating in a very important process. What good is a debate if no one watches? Because if you took away the audience, along with the reactions as they did last night, it makes for an extremely boring event that most would not even bother to tune into.
The audience reaction adds to the debate experience, it feels good to hear a candidate say how they would handle a particular issue and have the audience let them, and the country, know exactly how they feel about what was said. It is invigorating and adds an element of fun and anticipation to the entire process.
I don’t know about anyone else, but as I watched the two S.C. debates at home, I stood up and cheered for Newt when he dressed down the media, and I cheered with the crowd when he explained to Juan Williams that making money was a GOOD thing, and teaching our children work ethic and the value of money is a GOOD thing! The audience punctuated his point and others watching at home felt good that there are still many people in this Country who BELIEVE in this Country and BELIEVE in our system of Government if it were properly instituted!
After those events, the debate in Tampa was a major let down and I went to bed before it was over. Many people I have talked to said the same. It is part of the process, let citizens participate and encourage others to do the same.
January 24, 2012 @ 3:22 pm
Agreed!
January 24, 2012 @ 3:34 pm
Thank you for the comment! You said what I would have. I have no idea who would vote against your comment with a 1, 2 or 3 but their choice and mine was a 5.
January 24, 2012 @ 3:59 pm
SAnn, the trolls come through this site daily and click one star for most of the comments. It’s a badge of honor.
January 24, 2012 @ 4:07 pm
Newt is only effective when he is boisterously attacking someone.
He didn’t get a chance last night; Romney masterfully and quietly dissected him.
Comments by those who said the debate was boring were obviously looking for “blood.
Unlike Newt, Romney doesn’t need to leave blood to be effective.
January 24, 2012 @ 4:16 pm
Indeed!
January 24, 2012 @ 7:31 pm
I’m with Christina and Eberle on this. I don’t need a laugh track to tell me what’s funny and I don’t watch debates to be entertained.
January 24, 2012 @ 9:32 pm
You’d be surpised to find out how many “Pablum for the masses” comedic Dog and Pony shows would go right off the air without the phony dubbed in Mind manioulating Laugh Tracks. We had our Dog and Pony show in South Carolina, Now it is time to bring our the thorough Bred Ponies that will actually win this race with speed and strength, not just talk us to death with misdirected indignation pointed at the messenger who brings a true but disturbing morality question.
January 24, 2012 @ 2:50 pm
Yes, we need an audience and that audience needs to be free to react to what the candidates say. A better question would be..”Do the Republican Candidates need any more Liberal Moderators directing these debates towards the person they want to win, towards making them fight with each other or to help the Obama campaign, and do we need to watch even one more of these stupid liberal-run events?”
January 24, 2012 @ 3:24 pm
Right!
January 24, 2012 @ 2:51 pm
I’m kind of surprised that the media, as low-life as most of them are, are not using laugh-tracks. And by the way, who would do ANYTHING that an elite media lackey like Brian Williams would tell you to do?
If that Chicago Hoodlum currently in office can use a teleprompter even when answering the phone, then why not free up the audiences to give a reality check to the candidates? Oh well, why on earth would they have allowed NBC to even run a GOP debate?
For those of you wishing for silence, pray for Debbie Washurhiney Schultz to come down with permanent laryngitis, (and locating a proper dog groomer). Other than that, leave the audiences alone. How else would viewers find out that Ron Paul might be a lunatic or the greatest President in history?
Note to NBC: I stopped watching your network over 10 years ago. I occasionally let sponsors know that I do NOT watch any NBC TV, (there are a couple of once a year exceptions). I do not trust NBC, nor do I respect any of their staff or management.
January 24, 2012 @ 2:54 pm
Bobby,
I believe that audience response is a good thing regarding these debates. Of course, we all know that these audiences in the Republican debates are biased toward Republicans, but, they are also a belweather as to what the Republican voting constuancy is in agreement with, or disagreement with a debating candidate.
This form of immediate fedback is, it seems to me, would let them know whether their concepts and ideas are on track with voters.
The standing ovation that Newt Gingrich got, when he lashed out at the MSM, was not necessairily a show of popularity for him, but more of an angry condemnation of Obummer, his sycopantic czars, and the water carrying MSM stooges.
All the three leading candidates, should take heed of these audience reactions and And become aware of the seething, under-the-surface hatred, growing for Obummer, his minions and the MSM.
What happend to Gingrich at the debate can and should be used, to hammer Obummer and evict him from the White House. Public anger and discontent is and always will be, a valuable tool to fight the Socialist and Communist scourge that is creeping over our nation. Obummer uses it all the time.
Instead they are busy hammering each other and giving the bum in the White House plenty of ammunition to use against them. The idea is to use Obummers tactics and weapons against him.
It’s the only way to oust him.
January 24, 2012 @ 3:00 pm
Just as comedy programs use a live audience or get canned audience response, the debates lose the nature of being live TV if there is no audience response. It then becomes a lecture rather than a show and the ratings would die. That is what the NBC execs and talking heads didn’t seem to understand when they called for no applause. They don’t want to be ridiculed by the audience but they don’t want no ratings either. If TV is not entertaining, no one will watch.
January 24, 2012 @ 3:01 pm
I like the audience. The only reason the leftist NBC didn’t want the audience is that they don’t want to show Obama doesn’t have all the support he keeps saying he has. I also like to know if an audience is attuned to my thinking or not. I think it is good for the candidates also, to let them know where they might be going off base.
When Obama makes an appearance, they always get a hand-picked audience that are on his side. At lease, I am hopeful, that these audiences are open minded.
I thought last night’s debate was the most boring yet.
January 24, 2012 @ 3:03 pm
NO ! Debate audiences in a presidential debate are not necessary. Since so much importance is inferred and given to audience outburst by the msm, The outburst are totatly invalid. We do not know who is in the audience, nor how the audence is populated. This is because the audences are have a danger of being populated by adherents of the candidate with the wrong philosophy for how to run our country.
January 24, 2012 @ 3:13 pm
Excellent copakman. I thought last night’s debate was the best so far because the candidates finally got into telling us a bit about their philosophy and proposals for improving government. When Brian Williams finally got over baiting the candidates, he asked some good questions as did the other 2 questioners. I don’t need an audience howling and stomping to tell me how to think.
Newt likes the aaudience because he is a natural-born showoff.
January 24, 2012 @ 3:30 pm
You bring up an interesting point about the audience being hand picked. Although I know these are not, since it is a Republican debate, but what is going to happen in the debates with Odumbo? You KNOW they are going to pack those events with as many far left loons as they can bribe to come! Just like Odumbo’s Town Halls, all hand picked and asking only ‘approved’ questions.
January 24, 2012 @ 4:11 pm
I agree completely – we don’t know who’s in the audience. Newt likes the ability for the audience to respond because he likes the attention it gives to his one-liners, look what it did for him in South Carolina! It is human nature for us to be influenced by the crowd’s reaction – that’s why they invented the laugh track for situation comedies. The best debates I’ve seen happen when the candidates sit around a table with the moderator and have a meaningful discussion rather than standing on their feet trying to get the best applause as if it was a variety show. I also believe that the best debater is not necessarily the best candidate to beat Obama; the Republicans will miss an important opportunity if they don’t nominate a candidate who can win in the general election and that means attracting the independent voter. We simply can not afford four more years of Obama.
January 24, 2012 @ 3:07 pm
The Audience outside the debate rooms are literally the only ones who count. We are the only ones unbiased by flash cards, the moderators, the media, government, or party. We hear the questions and answers, and make up our own minds when to applause or not within our own minds. After all, is it not a individual thing to whom the answers appeal?.
I am actually sad to hear that the audiences at the debates can be lead by the show.
January 24, 2012 @ 3:17 pm
Unfortunately, the questions asked by the lamestream media are not directed toward the pressing issues and the ones voters care about. Rather the leftist moderators seek to inflame with the irrelevant and absurd. Voters want to hear what the candidates’ specific plans are to turn this country around but are not given that opportunity by the obama lamestream media.
January 24, 2012 @ 3:42 pm
I did not mean to imply that there should be no audience, but if they can be lead by the show to only applause or laugh when the que signs come up telling them to do so, then they in effect have lost their value, because they are following the pattern being set by the show for them to follow. They should ignore the flash cards, and feel the freedom to applause, cheer, laugh, or jeer to the answers of the candidates. Their response will likely not be that of everyone, but their response should be genuine where it relates to the answers given in honesty.
January 24, 2012 @ 3:17 pm
A debate without an audience isn’t the same. The liberal MSM wants the audience silenced after what Gingrich did to them last week. Gingrich knocked the MSM out of the park and they didn’t like it. Thus now the audience has to ‘shut up’ like little kids in recess. That is nonsense and not realistic.
Bottom line is the Republicans need to quit showing up at all when the liberal MSM stations host these silly debates. The intent is to turn them against each other and make them look like little kids and it’s worked extremely well for the MSM.
I wasn’t a Gingrich supporter at the beginning but did like the fact that he refused to be drug into the gutter. It wasn’t until all of Romney’s cronies started lying about him to the degree that they did, did he fight back. And he had to fight back or those lies would become ‘truth’ to the clueless wonders we call voters. At this point I’ll support Gingrich because he’s the only one who has the gonads to take on the MSM as well as Romney and his ‘paid’ liars. Romney and his ilk have been sniping at everybody who was a threat to him and his ‘destiny’. Hopefully he’ll be roundly defeated this time and we won’t have to put up with him 4 years from now. Rush pointed out yesterday that Mr. Electability had won 9 out of 25 elections. Any coach with a won/loss record that bad would be fired!
January 24, 2012 @ 4:18 pm
Well said, RobertR.
January 24, 2012 @ 4:40 pm
RobertR,
Couldn’t agree more. The MSM doesn’t like it when the truth be known. They only want to make the Republican candidates look bad.
I agree with others here with the question, Why, are these debates controlled by MSM liberal, Obummer water carriers? Why, do the Republican candidates put up with not having the prescence of conservative moderators, to balnce out the debate questions?
I am sure that the FOX or ESPN networks would see to it that the moderators were fair and balanced. Why do these Candidates not insist on this? Why does the Republicn party not insist on this? It is obvious that NO REPUBLICAN will get a fair shake from networks like NBC and CNN.
I have a sneaking suspition that when you dig down to the bottom of these questions, you will find the Washington establishment calling the shots.
January 24, 2012 @ 5:00 pm
Truthteller, you must have missed the first and second Fox News debates when Chris Wallace asked the worst gotcha questions I’ve ever heard.
In their last one they substituted Juan Williams for Wallace and we got the racist slurs against Gingrich.
I’m not sure why ESPN would want to do a political debate.
January 24, 2012 @ 3:23 pm
The audience seemed like zombies or robots. HOW DULL! The S.C. debates were entertaining, and one tended to pay attention. I turned off the NBC debates. Bo….ring.
January 24, 2012 @ 3:26 pm
Chicago (IL) Press and Tribune, “The Charleston Debate,” September 21, 1858
In towns across Illinois, the debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas were the highlight events of 1858. The fourth debate at Charleston was no different and the Chicago Tribune reported the presence of a large and enthusiastic crowd. According to the Republican paper, the debate itself was a “great triumph” for Lincoln and his strongest effort yet. The Tribune described Lincoln’s speech as a “wholly new argument” while Douglas’ was old and rehearsed. The paper concluded its introduction to the debate text with a comment on the affordability of Douglas’ speaking practices; although the reporter admitted it was their business. (By Ben Lyman)
January 24, 2012 @ 3:36 pm
Good communication skills are vital to anyone who would be elected President of the United States. You are living under a rock if you don’t think that the ability to crank out some well-timed sound bites is not an asset to a world leader. There is a reason that President Reagan, probably one of the best presidents our country has ever had, was known as the “great communicator”. I go back to the fact that Osama is quivering in his shoes at the possibility of facing someone as verbally adept as Newt in a Presidential election showdown debate. Of course the MSM would like to take the crowd “out of the game. Isn’t that what losing teams attempt to do in the Superbowl? Leave the audience alone – they are doing their job which is to determine which candidate is most effective at communicating their ideology and message. I can’t help but wonder if the proponent of “no audience” would be a Romney supporter since even when Newt is having a “bad” day, Mitt still comes across as stilted and phony? Europeans still remember “Mr. Gorbachev, bring down this wall”. We need someone who can clearly and effectively communicate their ideas – someone who can get the populace to buy into their programs, even when the going gets tough. I say, game on – let the candidates face off to real folks, not just the MSM moderators and a blank screen. You can bet that Osama will have all of his sound bites ready when the time comes – he is probably practicing daily in front of his mirror now!
January 24, 2012 @ 5:15 pm
Osama, as you call him, will never agree to a fair and balanced debate with Gingrich, or any other Republican candidate. His criminal Chicago handlers, will see to it that the questions put to him will only be those determined to make him look good. The moderators will be the best the liberal water carrying media has to offer.
The “audience” will be packed with liberal Obummer fans and Sycopants, clapping, cheering and slobbering over Obummer’s every word. After the debate, the MSM will sing the praises of Obummer and his great visions for the future. Ahhh, Orwell would be proud.
Newt Gingrich might be able to eat Obummer for lunch, in a debate. Because of this, he won’t get the chance.
January 25, 2012 @ 3:10 pm
Hi TRUTHTELLER –
You are absolutely correct that Osama and his Chicago minions will do their best to “pack the house” for debates with their insiders; however, I credit Newt with enough political savvy to be able to counter their efforts. They will also attempt to “stuff the ballot boxes” come election day – after all, the slogan of Chicago elections is “vote early, vote often and never underestimate the power of the graveyard vote”; however, that is where WE THE PEOPLE come in. If we want fair and balanced elections, then we need to work the campaigns and volunteer to work the polling places. Our republic system of government was designed to work with each of us taking our right to vote and our electoral process as a serious responsibility and not as a chore to get out of the way. As for the MSM, they can be dealt with as well – WE hold the power unless we forfeit it or give it away.
For the record, I always enjoy reading your posts!
January 24, 2012 @ 3:39 pm
Situation comedy TV shows use laugh tracks to inform the audience of what is funny and when they should laugh. Are we that stupid? And I certainly do not need, nor want to hear, a debate audience’s reaction to candidates. I don’t care who they are supporting and I don’t want to hear them. It is intrusive.
If Newt is complaining about the audience not being permitted to shout, whistle, hoot, much like they do at a wrestling match, then he won’t care for the rules of presidential debates which also do not permit such behavior.
Newt needs to stop the whining.
January 24, 2012 @ 3:43 pm
Well-stated christina. I agree.
January 24, 2012 @ 3:57 pm
Why?
January 24, 2012 @ 3:53 pm
Gingrich has been under attack by the media since he announced his candidacy. They have been trashing him since he began his run. First they tried to trash him by bringing up his history. When that didn’t work, they highlighted poll numbers that showed little support. Next it was his consulting at Fannie/Freddie. Then they bring out his ex-wife. Last night, just before the debate, there was a story by Andea Mitchel on NBC about possible improprieties with campaign (PAC) money. They have predicted Romney as the leader of all three contests so far and have fallen short on 2 of these three. Romney was the projected leader in FL until Gingrich pulled off the upset in SC. Having failed miserably at trying to trash Gingrich through half truths and inuendo, they are now trying to limit his gains by restricting the audience participation. Could this not be more blatant? Now I have said before, that I don’t support Newt’s entire platform, however, I can’t help but enjoy the fact that the voters in SC told the media elite that they are not going to go along for the ride. They told them where to stick their (unbiased?) polls.
I believe we should have audience participation. As we have seen, the audience can be manipulated by both the media and the candidates and if there is free speech the moderators can be taken to task for some of their more desperate attempts at manipulating the debate. Afterall, who are these people who are chosen to report and moderate. What gives them the right to manipulate their reporting and information in their stories to suit their radical bent? (oh yeah, it’s the Constitution and the right to free speech. But hear me out). How is it that when it comes to candidates, the media can pry into every aspect of their lives? I believe we should have the same standard for the media. These people feed us information into our living rooms every day yet we know nothing about them. Who are these people?
I would like to see a standard that requires reporters to divulge everything about themselves so we can clearly see the bias in their reporting. What political party are they registered to? Are they socialists? marxists? Do they receive money on the side from politically influential figures? How much money do they make? What kind of investments are they involved in? Are they married? Divorced? Gay? Straight? Do they have children? Do they practice a religion? Have they had an abortion? Do they favor abortion? Have they ever served their country? Lets see who these people are who are asking the questions and then we can have a real debate. If we could have this information publically disclosed, then the public could clearly see them for who they are instead of having to read between the lines of each and every one of their stories. It must be extremely comforting to these reporters to know they have the power to raise or lower the fortunes of others while they themselves are insulated from scrutiny.
January 24, 2012 @ 3:53 pm
I forgot to comment on ”The Charleston Debate” before I posted this from the internet : Chicago Tribune 9/21/1958–why not let the American People show their support or their disapproval in a good old-fashioned American show of interest in their country? Romney vs Newt in a battle words and ideas –from what I have seen and heard from Romney – his “pre-buttal” on CNN and etceteras this morning was depressing. This is the man who is going to share stage with the guy now in the WH? Depressing depressing. The man is a robot full of platitudes and a lame mode of trying to express himself – he simply cannot relate to me because he really has nothing to say I guess..like he means it! like he has convictions!
that he can..pretend? Ah I don’t want him anyway. Newt goes in clear and concise with purpose and wit and the only one who can hit Obama where it hurts..right in his bushel of proposals that are bringing us to our knees-
January 24, 2012 @ 4:08 pm
There is something to be said about the nature of how a debate is handled. I agree the debates should have a certain decorum indicative of the office for which the candidates are seeking. In regards to the mainline media, i.e., ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, etc., I quit watching the news on these networks years ago. I watch Fox News exclusively for any news plus I read other news sources on the internet. When I did watch mainline media news in the past, I saw through their “liberal-left” agenda and merely ignored it. However, I do not think it is appropriate for the audience to engage in “rowdy” or “rude” behavior in such a setting, although there are times I can probably understand the motivation. The fact is, the mainline media is extremely prejudiced and bigoted against anyone not sharing their world view. I would not put anything past them in putting a candidate in an “unfavorable” light to suit their ends. And this I think is the essential problem….a huge distrust of mainline media in being fair and equitable. They are just not capable of that in my opinion.
January 24, 2012 @ 4:55 pm
The Democrats used to be the party of emotion. They were the ones who needed entertaining and who chose their candidate based on their heart, not their head. Apparently some conservatives have caught up with them.
It’s downright embarrassing to see people who claim to be conservatives comparing debates to situation comedies and demanding that they have to be entertained by debates. Some complain about debates being bor…ing! I suggest to you that if you are unable to focus on the issues, instead of the wisecrack, that you may not be mature enough to vote.
We are deciding the future of our country. This is important. It is not a comedy, it is not entertainment. The future of your children and your grandchildren depend on voters understanding the issues and choosing the candidate that has the best solutions to our problems.
The presidency will not be conducted by one liners. A candidate’s policies, not his ability to snap back with a smart assed answer, is what will save or lose this country.
So, getting beyond the wisecracks, what policy positions does Newt have that you support? Is it his desire for amnesty? Perhaps it’s enacting the DREAM Act for aliens who have served in the military. Maybe it’s his tax policy where capital gains rates will be ZERO, meaning that under that plan, Mitt Romney would nave paid ZERO taxes, instead of 15%.
January 24, 2012 @ 5:35 pm
Since you favor boring debate performances, I gather you are a Santorum supporter?
January 24, 2012 @ 5:59 pm
I don’t find serious answers to serious problems boring, danedon. We are going to lose America if we don’t elect a president and a Congress that take our situation seriously.
January 24, 2012 @ 5:17 pm
This article is the most common sene analyss of these staged sideshows called debates I have read. Play to the voters not the audience! I can do without the cheers, boos,jeers and standing ovations as if Newt Gingrich were royalty or a real Miliary hero or something.
The presidential commission allows no cheers during he debate and O will get half the seats. If
Newt is the nominee he can not rely on a group to jumo and yell on cue to sound bite quite as much as in the primary.
January 24, 2012 @ 8:38 pm
Not normally one to pick on grammar but maybe you should write your comments in Word and do a spell check before posting. Then again maybe it’s just being a supporter of the liberal from Mass….
It should look something like this – provided I figured out correctly what words you were trying to use:
This article is the most common sane analysis of these staged sideshows called debates I have read. Play to the voters not the audience! I can do without the cheers, boos; jeers and standing ovations as if Newt Gingrich were royalty or a real Military hero or something.
The presidential commission allows no cheers during the debate and “O” will get half the seats. If Newt is the nominee he cannot rely on a group to jump and yell on cue to sound bites quite as much as in the primary.
January 24, 2012 @ 5:19 pm
Oh, some of these comments are absolutely hilarious! Can ANYONE imagine how hussein obama would do if he didn’t have his audience to perform for? He would be up on the stage having to laugh all by himself at his own stupid one-liners. And for those ragging on Newt for using one-liners, one-liners is all hussein obama can do, and Mitt has done quite a few of his own!
January 24, 2012 @ 5:22 pm
The other candidates can now fill the debate hall with supporters willing to be as loud as Newt’s supporters How far will this go?
January 24, 2012 @ 5:31 pm
You said, “Rather than playing to the audience, shouldn’t the candidates play to the voters?”
Aren’t the people in the audience voters? Great pains have been taken to get a good mix in the audience of people supporting all candidates, so why not play to them?
January 25, 2012 @ 12:47 am
Sorry Danedon,
The presidental debates, will have rigged audiences. Do you think Obummer’s handlers, will not connive their way into stuffing those audiences with drooling, Obummer fans. Half of them will be allowed, much of the rest will be a mix of a small number of Constitutional Conservatives, a few Teapartiers, and mostly Republican RINOS and “moderate” appeasers, who will take a wimpy attitude when interviewed afterward.
We are dealing with the Obummer Chicago machine. The wickedist bunch of gangster crooks that ever darkened a political campaign. Most Americans can’t even imagine the evil these people are capable of. They lie, steal, intimidate and frame their opponents. If that doesn’t work, they destroy their credibility with false witness testimony and trumped up charges. (see Herman Cane)
These gangsters did it in the 1920s and 1930s and they are still at it today, minus the Tommy guns.
The 2012 campaign will most assuredly be the dirtiest in American history.
Buckle your seat belts, folks, it’s going to be a very rough ride.
January 24, 2012 @ 7:51 pm
The media likes having an audience because it makes for a more lively program. We must never forget that the first and by far most important goal of any media outlet is to boost ratings. For them it’s not about the substance of the debate it’s what a 60 second ad can sell for. In the last few debates the audience has not been a cheering section for their bottom line so it was time to cut their mic.
January 24, 2012 @ 7:56 pm
Oh this is perfect, just the kind of manipulative behavior the Left loves so well, and the Right have not perfected, or even tried!
What is the next step, issuing masks to people before they are seated? Fitting each person with a padded glove so as not to allow a clap? Removing larynxes?
This has nothing to do with interruptions and time constraints, and everything to do with control and appearances. God forbid the mindless masses believe people are applauding the words and ideas of the GOP! We can’t have that!
Really as frightening as the agendas and actions are of the radical Left, the media scares me just as much. How weird and eerie to see the media are control freaks, obsessively steering public opinion in the direction THEY deem appropriate! This type of thing is really disturbing. And what is more, it’s so BLATANT! They aren’t really hiding it. I already see, in advance of the State of the Union speech by Obama, networks “framing” Obama’s picture (flattering of course) with his expected statements, as if we were receiving a message from God Himself.
I agree with Newt completely on this. Refuse to participate until they allow people to be people, and respond to what they hear! I agree with you too, Mr. Eberle, if they don’t, remove the audience entirely. It will require more thought on the part of the people, but most are up to it. Well, some are up to it.
January 24, 2012 @ 10:00 pm
Gingrich was elevated to a win in S.C. only because of his debating skills. However, debates are only for the purpose of getting voters acquainted with each candidate’s stance on issues and policy. Debates are not for the purpose of deciding our next president, based on a candidate’s debating skills. A good debater does not equal a good president. A candidate is best judged by his character, voting record, stance on policies and issues, and his plan. In addition, a candidate’s plan should be consistent with his voting record. If a candidate’s voting record is inconsistent with his plan, it should send up a red flag – something fishy here – an insincere candidate. I’m voting for the only candidate who measures up. View Ron Paul’s “Plan to Restore America.”: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
January 25, 2012 @ 11:11 pm
Ron Paul is about as liberal as Obama. They both want open borders, legal drugs, abortion on demand, repeal of the Patriot Act, Iran to have nuclear weapons, little, or no, military, and think the U.S. provoked the 9/11 attack. The ACLU gives him very high ratings
January 24, 2012 @ 11:43 pm
Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address was not blandly received by a confused audience, they were just stunned that it was so short. They had just heard another speech almost two hours long by some other speaker that was on first. Later, I forget who it was and I am not going to go look for his name at this minute, the guy told Lincoln that Lincoln had said more in his three minutes than he had in almost three hours.
January 25, 2012 @ 2:24 pm
I’ll go back and watch the beginning again, but I understood the instructions at the beginning to be “react to what the candidates say. Don’t boo at my stupid questions or someone who starts a question with the words ‘I’m a gay soldier and. . .’”
But as to the bigger questions, audiences at debates are like the laugh tracks on old tv shows like I Love Lucy and Welcome Back Kotter. The producers figured that viewers wouldn’t realize something was funny unless they heard someone else laughing at it.
January 25, 2012 @ 8:14 pm
the audience is the voice of America and will not be silenced by any media. Whether you like Newt or not, he is spot on! The Republican Party has sat by idly far too long and has allowed the media the opportunity to create a negative impression of good men and women in the political arena. Newt is the first Republican I have seen on a national level that can not only diffuse the media, but also orate the absurd hypocrisy the media has depended on to make the Republican Party and its values look non-American!
January 25, 2012 @ 8:45 pm
We should all remember the last candidate the Republican Party selected to run against now President Obama! As a veteran of 2 services, He was a nice guy whom I respect dearly,
but the media walked all over him while he and the Republican Establishment refused to engage; and in turn, made a PROUD VETERAN look weak, timid, and out of touch with the rest of the country. It takes a very intelligent man to beat the media at their own game and Newt is just that type of man to finally put the media in its place! Remember “THE 100 DAY CONTRACT WITH AMERICA” if you are concerned whether Newt can accomplish getting our country back on track or not. He definitely made a lot of enemies on both sides of the isle, but one thing is for sure. He got the job done and made our country debt free and prosperous for years to come. We don t need another John McCain ie. Mitt Romney to roll over on his back so the media can tear him apart with NO RESPONSE! I AM NOT IN LOVE WITH NEWTS PAST CHARACTER ISSUES BUT I AM NOT IN LOVE WITH MY OWN EITHER! PEOPLE CHANGE. I WANT AN ACCOMPLISHED SERVANT WHO WILL PUT OUR COUNTRY BEFORE HIMSELF AND SACRIFICE HIS CAREER AGAIN TO MOVE THIS COUNTRY IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION REGARDLESS OF HIS PAST DISCREPANCIES!
January 25, 2012 @ 11:05 pm
There are too many “debates”. They serve no purpose after one or two. Just an opportunity to trash your opponents and try to look tough. None of them talk about the real problems cofronting this country. They meticulously avoid saying anything that might offend the minorities, because of all the threats they receive. Donald Trump can summarize the economic problems facing the country and explain how to solve them in less than ten minutes. The candidates we have now are just doing the personal attack polka. After the trashing that they have given Romney, I doubt that even he can defeat Obama. Gingrich certainly can’t, unless he settles down on the issues and quits talking about what he did 30 years ago