When Romney, NYT and Drudge attack
Newt was very subdued on stage last night.
I noted at the time that it probably was a strategy of not taking Romney’s bait, but he needs to be more aggressive in defending when Romney attacks.
The video below is being hyped by both the NY Times and Drudge as Newt threatening to pull out of future debates if the audience cannot participate, but Newt never says that. There is one garbled word on the video, but otherwise there was no such threat.
(added) Here’s how CNS transcribed the segment (h/t Gateway Pundit):
“And we’re going to serve notice on future debates, we won’t (mumble), we’re just not going to allow that to happen. That’s wrong. The media doesn’t control free speech. People ought to be allowed to applaud if they want to. It was almost silly.”
The claim that Newt threatened to pull out of future debates, at least if this video is the proof, is a fabrication of The NY Times being hyped by Drudge.
To the contrary, if I were Newt and the network set such rules, I’d show up and in my opening announce that the audience does not need to obey the network, and invite the others on stage to join him. Is there any candidate who would not go along?
Is it me, or does Drudge seem to be on an anti-Newt campaign? The day-long banner he gave to Marianne Gingrich was as over the top as anything I’ve ever seen. He even has a top link to Newt-hater Jennifer Rubin today.
Video via ElectAd:
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Newt is his own worst enemy… Now he’s threatening to pull out of future debates IF the audience is required to be “silent.”
I cannot remember a single time when debating in high school or college that the audience was permitted to applaud, boo or otherwise become a detractor of the topic being discussed.
Maybe I’m too old but common sense decorum should be the norm and these GOP debates should be no exception.
I guess that we’ve come a long way but most of that trip has been downhill…
I guess you didn’t read the post, just the Drudge headline. There was no such threat. The evidence be damned.
@GrumpyOne: Gosh, I almost regret now not signing up for WordPress using my “Blogger” Nom de Plume, OldGrouchyCranky. Ah well, such is life. Still, remember, GrumpyOne, that aches and pains are God’s way of reminding us that we’re still alive. BTW: another way is to use a mirror.
Cheers, and pray!
You apparently missed the Obama/Clinton debates in the last election cycle – where audience members clapped and cheered when both candidates made points. Here’s just one example:
To be expected. The establishment and other liberals parading as conservatives cannot defend themselves, so they go on the attack. In a way, it can be helpful. If Newt survives, he’ll be that much better prepared to handle the media onslaught in the general.
I strongly dislike both Romney and Gingrich, so I have no bias here. And no, it isn’t your imagination, the Drudge Report has clearly been out to get Newt in the worst way.
You nailed it Professor. That is precisely what Newt should do.
DRUDGE is DEFINITELY on an Pro-Romney and Ant-Newt campaign, to the extent that he is rapidly approaching Ann Coulter status in my book. It’s time for the NEW DRUDGE to arise from the ashes of Drudge’s turning on his readers with this incredible anti-Newt bias. If anyone else has nominations for the Drudge replacement I wish they’d post links.
I think it was Rush who said that Drudge is a McRomney guy.
I think the muffled word is “tolerate” or “tolerate that” – but something causes the recording to skip and it doesn’t look like “tolerate” or “tolerate that” by viewing the clip.
But “tolerate” or “tolerate that” is certainly within the context of the rest of what he was saying.
I think Newt started to say “tolerate” and changed his mind, because it is a bit over the top to say they won’t tolerate the moderator’s call – even if it’s wrong. What Newt chose to say comes off better, and makes the point, IMHO.
I’ve noticed his anti-newtness for awhile now. Stopped reading too.
Prof. you need to add HotAir to the attack team.
Personally, I would have no problem with a “SCREW THAT!!!” response as an audience member if told to keep shut.
via Katrina Trinka, NRO:
UPDATE: I called up the Commission on Presidential Debates, which handles the general election debates, and they confirmed that audience participation has not been allowed in the past in debates, and will not be allowed this cycle either. So, if Gingrich is the GOP nominee, he’ll have to face a silent audience during his debates with the President unless the rules are changed.
UPDATE II: Asked if the Gingrich campaign would ask the Commission to change the rule requiring the audience to be silent if Gingrich became the nominee, Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond e-mails NRO, “Yes, we would. If we have learned one thing it is [that] people, not the media-moderators, pick the winner.”
IMO Gingrich is wrong about cheering at the debates:
1. The political pros are trying to turn Americans into rival Pavlovian mobs. IMO they would love to turn the debates into competing demonstrations. This should be counteracted, not encouraged.
2. When the networks and “nonpartisan” organizers of Presidential debates pack the audiences with cheering leftists, what will Gingrich say then?
3. If cheering becomes part of the debates, soon booing will too.
4. UPDATE II: Asked if the Gingrich campaign would ask the Commission to change the rule requiring the audience to be silent if Gingrich became the nominee, Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond e-mails NRO, “Yes, we would. If we have learned one thing it is [that] people, not the media-moderators, pick the winner.”
Blatantly disingenuous. A reputation, fair or not, for this kind of stuff is what got Gingrich so disliked during the Clinton years. (Yeah, yeah, Clinton was worse. Life is not fair.) My tentative support for Gingrich just got wobblier.
Wow, you REALLY do not like people…or their rights to expression…much at all.
Much less trust them.
For the record, although the audience was reserved and disciplined compared to previous debates, they were not bound and gagged last night.
Below is a list of all moments of laughter and/or applause during and/or after each candidate spoke throughout the entire debate:
laughter /applause 40:41
Draw your own conclusions.
I love watching the audience clap and cheer. However, I also agree with GS and would expect #2 and #3 to start happening. And then we will all be here clamoring for ‘decorum’. Besides, if they can’t cheer or even clap, what’s stopping them from raising their arms up and doing that crazy “silent clapping” we saw at the OwS rallies?
DocWahala-suspects if the left had their way, they would start throwing shoes like that Iraqi did.
you mean “up twinkles”?
The audience should simply ignore the moderators en masse. Let ’em bitch. The security staff or ushers – whatever – can’t throw them all out and they might cause a major ruckus if they just single out a few people to make examples of.
I can’t comment, and can’t really put in any stock in it except as another zany theory, but John Zeigler pushes the meme that some conservative media outlets do not want a conservative win because its not good for business. Their site traffic, advertising revenue, etc. is much higher with a liberal in the White House.
By that notion, MSNBC should be pulling for Gingrich big time. 4 years of heads exploding in liberal land (figuratively speaking) from all the Gingrich quoteworthy salvos.
“some conservative media outlets do not want a conservative win because its not good for business. Their site traffic, advertising revenue, etc. is much higher with a liberal in the White House.” Zip, bang and pow! nail was hit squarely by the hammer! I recall Rush saying, after Clinton won re-election, “folks, it is ok, it works for me….four more years of good material!”
Everything is about the money, always has and always will. If you believe that someone out there has a truly vested interest in your well-being then go down to the corner Walgreen’s and wait for the unicorns to come by and offer you a ride home.
What caught my eye in the center link to the NYT that Drudge has up on his homepage now was…
“The National Journal, which co-hosted the NBC debate, compared Gingrich to “a stand-up comedian whose routine suffers without echoes of laughter egging him on.””
Sure enough, that was a line in the opening sentence of a piece (can’t tell if it’s opinion or not, but that’s irrelevant since the NYT just attributes it to The National Journal”)
It is true that the first primary is against the GOP field and the media. Either the GOP field is going to win, or the media is going to win. Newt is the only guy in the GOP field that is working at winning that first primary.
Not only should the audience be allowed to respond to the candidates, they should be able to respond to the moderators line of questioning.
Drudge’s bias this cycle really caught me off guard- pretty blatant.
Do you even believe some of the pictures they use of Newt? Good grief- after all the dust settles some day, I’m really curious if there’s some JournoList type setup or just a wink wink nudge nudge with this Romney axis of Drudge, Coulter, Krauthammer, Will, et al. Sure do stick to all the same Gingrich-thrashing talking points.
Yet how ironic ‘conservative’ rebels Drudge and Coulter decide to hook up with the GOP establishment just when the revolution is under way- talk about bad timing.
I agree with you, it does appear that there is some kind of JournOlist anti-Newt thing going on with what I once thought were conservative outlets/blogs/news etc. Maybe it is the vast moderate conspiracy?!
The Wall Street Journal chimed in today with an editorial by their light weight, Bret Stephens, who headlined their column “The GOP Deserves to Lose. That’s what happens when you run with losers.” There are no bigger losers than those who go into the game having proclaimed themselves “losers.” It is the very definition of a loser. The game’s not even on yet and these people have surrendered. There’s not an ounce of backbone in the lot of them never mind something a fundamental as faith in the process and American people.They are frightened little people.
It becomes clearer each day that there are two groups in the United States; the self-appointed elites who come in all stripes and sizes – Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative, with their various camp followers, groupies, and hangers-on – and the rest of us. As to the good folks in Florida who permitted NBC and its drone, Brian Williams, to dictate their behavior, I doubt any audience in any debate from now on will permit that to happen.
Stay the course Professor.
Yes, Owego, I think you are right. The situation is described very well indeed in this article by Angelo Codevilla, in the American Spectator.
Angelo Codevilla from July, 2010
“America’s Ruling Class”
p.s. ditto! to stay the course, Professor.
I cannot imagine why an audience would obey such an unforceable dictat. What are they going to do, toss everyone out?
I’m guessing, yes, Henry. That’s exactly what they were going to do. Most of us may be pretty good about following the rules Ron Paul’s rabid supporters were also subdued.
How would that look?
A large group of people applaud, and in swoops some bouncers who sternly order them out of the door..
The rest of the audience are stunned, some would leave in solidarity, then more will decide to follow – and what an image that leaves in the minds of the viewers.
Because even if we weren’t allowed to see such a thing happening on camera, it would be mentioned by the candidates.
Why are these jerks treating the primary debates as though it is a debate in the general anyway?
And BTW, these aren’t “debates” in the proper sense of the word. These are heavily peppered with accusations and innuendo. It’s more of a firing squad.
This is a good point. These are not debates. They are media directed mass interviews. Like speed dating.
Still wanting to know who was sitting in that invitation-only audience.
As I have stated in the past, Drudge is friends with Ann Coulter, I have heard them on the same radio show in the past, Drudge has drunk the moderate cool-aid and is as anti-Newt as they come. I used to think that Drudge was one of the more fair outlets for information, he had a conservative slant but he posted pieces from the liberal and conservative media. Now he is slam Newt 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Yes, Drudge is definitely anti-Newt. It’s gotten more blatant now that Newt is winning and it irritates me to no end. Isn’t he mostly just the “Link Man?” He has been known to link to liberal and conservative articles. This is hurting his reputation whether he knows it or not.
I used to go to Drudge 3-4 times a day to see what was happening in the world. Now I only go once or twice a week just to see what hate he is displaying toward Newt. I will vote for either Newt or Santorum, but I will only vote for congress if either Mitt or Ron Paul wins the nomination. Mitt is as big a hypocrite as there is, last night he was punching Newt for earning a living by advising Freddie and Fannie all the while he has $500,000 invested in them. Are his lies a tenet of Mormon practice?
FWIW, I don’t think Drudge is anti-Newt so much as anti-establishment. All we are getting from the GOP are recycled discredited liberal establishment B-listers when we are looking for NON-establishment choices.
It’s like the GOP is giving us a list of Yankee players to pick from in electing one to the Red Sox Hall of Fame. How about giving us some Red Sox players? We are in the middle of a RINO stampede and no matter how many RINOs we shoot, they just keep coming. And now they are floating rumors of Mitch Daniels re-considering and even a call for drafting Jebbie! Please stop!
That is why Ron Paul won’t go away. The GOP keeps feeding the beast.
Your premise may be correct–but a lie on “Drudge” is still a lie.
How far we have come. Newt saying “we’re not going to let that happen” is headlined on one of the largest internet news sites as he threatens to quit the debate. It proves you can’t automatically believe what you read–no matter the source.
Drudge is my home page…hmmm–maybe I should change it to L.I.
Yes, garfman. I stopped reading Drudge a month or two ago.
Drudge, Coulter, S. E. Cupp, Glenn Beck? A mystery for the ages. Have they lost their minds?
Why they would prefer Romney to Newt is an enigma hidden in a riddle wrapped in a fortune cookie that has rolled under the table and is lost forever.
Ann Coulters’ books that I have read are well-researched, groundbreaking, opinion-changing works of extreme excellence. Apparently Ann hasn’t watched any of Newt’s speeches and has no teeny tiny idea what Newt is proposing.
Drudge is a news and internet genius. How can Matt Drudge be so uninformed?
Glenn Beck is a visionary genius. I learned SO MUCH from him on his tv show. How can Glenn Beck be this ignorant? I just delete his emails now. He seems insane to me.
S. E. is smart and I would expect her to know better. She is against the man who is doing the very thing she purports to want. HOw can she allow herself to remain in the dark?
If Ann, S.E., Glenn or Drudge understood what Newt is placing before the American people as an opportunity, a CHANCE, to team up and restore our country, I can’t think but that they would support it enthusiastically.
They’re smart, cutting edge, hipper than most, AND YET, they are on the wrong side, and WHAT a wrong side, Obama-Lite. What? What? Why they don’t see that Romney is Obama-Lite is for me forever wrapped in the lost and forsaken fortune cookie, and the fortune cookie is gone and it turns out, the mystery is not important.
BECAUSE. BECAUSE. BECAUSE.
Because Newt is ahead nationally. Sean Hannity said today on the radio that Rasmussen told him that he, Rasmussen, has never seen anything like it.
It looks like the American people may get it. I hope so. And that is all that matters. The American people will bring their intelligent, their genius, to bear on this and restore our country to its Constitutional principles.
If you want to hear Newt describe the proposals for the American people in his own words, speaking for himself, here are links to 17 complete speeches.
It’s not just you. The day after South Carolina, I wondered what kind of sinister looking picture Drudge was going to use to headline his victory. Sure enough:
In fairness to the cheer-ban on the crowd last night, President Obama’s State of the Union should also use the cheer-ban for the crowd in attendance, excepting when they cut-a-way to commercial breaks.
Oh, no – the Dems will cheer, shout, and clap on command!! Have no doubt.
I am wondering if any of the SCOTUS will attend. And if so, which ones……
Otherwise, there is no reason for me to listen to Obama’s clap trap. Lies, lies, and more lies. I’ll wait for the highlights on here, Rush, Mark Levin, etc. 🙂
Gingrich will have to respond — very succinctly — point by point to the Romney lies in the next debate. He can’t just say generally that there are falsehoods. He has to identify them and smash them down.
The MSM just cannot abide for citizens of this Great Republic to participate in the political process! What are they going to do, throw out people who clap? Get real! The entire audience should have threatened to get up and walk out!
I only use Drudge as a convenient go to site from which to hop to other sites that interest me. His bias has been obvious for a while now and the sensationalism is a bit much, so whatever I read there I read with a grain of salt. My favorite site now is this one, which I believe to be fair and balanced, despite what our friend Retiro05 says!
I just came across this on another site. Wonder if it is true?
Congressional Republicans to Wear Red “1,000 Days” Buttons at SOTU Address Tonight
I’ve been getting most of my news from CNS News, The Blaze, and/or Big Government/Breitbart. These have more information on what’s going on that Drudge.
I used to go to Hot Air more, and Red State, but I’ve stopped going there more than a couple times a week, typically, because of the pro-Romney posts, as well as snarky commentary.
Often I go to NewsBusters, as well, since they report news and highlight the media bias at the same time.
Just a few suggestions.
I think we can assume that any future debates hosted by the usual liberal suspects (CNN, NBC, ABC, et al) will do everything possible to dampen audience participation and negate any chance at enthusiasm for any candidate. First, they’ll minimize conservative presence, then mandate silence. Without audience response, and being considered unable to judge for ourselves, we’ll have to depend on their post debate analysts to find out who won. Of course, they’ll continue to ask questions that might be a teensie weensie bit loaded and biased, such as:
“Your turn, Mr. Gingrich. Why do YOU think Republican presidents always fail the country?”
If the audiences at debates are supposed to be quiet – why do they have live audiences? What purpose do they serve?
I’m glad you said that about Newt, or any of the candidates, telling the crowd to not listen to the moderator. I can even think of a couple of great lines to use that would include phrases like “America is not a nation of sheep YET” and “Barack Obama and his media minions want us to sit down and shut up”.
Me thinks the Beta Male Dickless Wonders on the so-called “conservative” blogs wouldn’t be so agreeable to silent audiences to avoid the “game show” aspect of the debates if it was their guy getting all the cheers.
The jury and spectators are not allowed to cheer during a trial.
When the field is down to only two THEN the crowd should be quiet, to better focus on the message. until that point….I love the crowd reactions, it shows, as with the Newt/John King debacle, that America is aware of the media bias!
I’ve got a thing up at my place pointing out that Bachmann claimed that Drudge was tight with a top Romney adviser way back when:
Not being able to express emotion during a debate will benifit Obama more than anyone. Journalists can spin his responses any way they please. Or his opponent’s. I mean, laughter after an Obama response would be difficult to explain wouldn’t it?
[…] Post, CNSNews, Wonkette, The Gateway Pundit, The Star-Ledger Editorial Page, Outside the Beltway, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, Hot Air, Mad Kane’s Political Madness, Daily Kos, National Review, Connecting.the.Dots and […]
Whatever Drudge means to do, as John Nolte pointed out, Drudge’s headlining of the ABC story not only ruined its impact, but gave Newt a boost.
John Nolte January 21 @noltenc tweet: Never forget that @abcnews intended to drop their hit-piece Monday to HermanCain any momentum Newt gained out of SC. God bless Drudge.
The best laid plans . . . .
After Pelosi’s other episodes the Drudge “There is something I Know” banner http://www.drudgereport.com/ was like gasoline on my fire.
I forgot the Drudge leanings, but I also have no doubt that a Romney Presidency would not take out “Obamacare”
[…] is wrong […]