Video: Newt wins the debate … against the moderators

posted at 9:25 am on September 8, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier, I wrote that the Republican frontrunners won’t soon push Newt Gingrich out of the primary debates after his second attack in as many events on the moderators, and here’s why. Greg Hengler brings us the clip from last night’s debate where Gingrich rips into NBC’s Brian Williams and Politico’s John Harris for their attempts to create rhetorical mountains out of insubstantial molehills of differences in the policy positions between the GOP candidates, declaring himself uninterested in “puffing up” attempts to make Republicans fight each other in order to take the focus off of Barack Obama:

The Boss Emeritus has an interesting point in disagreeing with Newt:

Debates are supposed to be illuminating, vigorous exchanges of ideas and vetting of records. (Unlike Newt “The Peacemaker” Gingrich, I find NOTHING wrong with internal battles between candidates over policy and ideology.) In the end, of course, politicians are all still…politicians. The Big Biz/Big Govt rent-seeking racket never ends.

It’s still worth it to put them up on stage and make them defend and explain their flips, flops, and double-half-twists.

I agree, but Gingrich did have a point.  Every question from the two moderators to both Rick Perry and Mitt Romney seemed to be a rephrasing of the same basic question — “Tell us why your state sucks.”  From the opening bell, Harris and especially Williams seemed to take their cues from Team Obama talking points, and that was nowhere more true than when Perry got quizzed about education.  Instead of asking a pertinent question like “What kind of involvement in education will the federal government have under your administration” — a question fraught with enough peril for Republicans in both the primary and general elections — the moderators prefaced their questions with a series of unsourced and cherry-picked statistics in order to create a “when did you stop beating your wife” context for their eventual question.  The two did much the same on health insurance, and in this case they talked about the ratio of uninsured without ever talking about the insurance rates for policyholders in comparing Texas and Massachusetts, which have soared in the latter and has insurers bailing out.

Jazz Shaw, writing at Pajamas Media, also tweaks the moderators:

The biggest question may not have been what the two “top dogs” might say, or what those trailing might do to get ahead, but how the moderators would handle it. That answer came quickly when Brian Williams turned the first two questions — directed to Rick Perry and Mitt Romney — into six or seven additions before anyone else got a chance to speak. Each query was an accusation. First, Perry was hammered about the number of new jobs in Texas which were minimum wage. Romney got the next dip at the fountain, asking why his state was 47th in job creation.

These questions were clearly fair game, but the phrasing and tone of the moderator made them seem far more akin to a scene from the Spanish Inquisition. Honestly, by the end of the evening I had lost track of the number of questions which were far less solicitations of opinion and policy than accusations. It was as if Brian Williams and company were looking for the candidates to apologize for being conservatives. As the night progressed, it became clear that the hosts would be severely disappointed.

Jazz also called Perry the clear winner:

As debates go, this was actually a good one in spite of the moderators. The candidates were put through their paces and given a fair opportunity to shine. But unlike the previous engagements we’ve witnessed, this one seemed to have a clear winner. Rick Perry came out looking the most presidential, while Mitt Romney appeared to be searching for a way to recover from the upstart’s sudden popularity. How that will translate in the general election remains to be seen, but for one Wednesday night at the Reagan Library, Governor Rick Perry raised the bar in this primary to a new level.

Clearly, NBC and Politico did not.  But Newt Gingrich may have a spot on the debate stage long after he runs out of gas otherwise if he keeps attacking the media rather than the frontrunners.

Addendum: I’ll agree and disagree with Michelle on another point:

Pet peeve: Why are the GOP front-runners all still bragging about their records “creating jobs.” Get it straight and be consistent. Government — federal or state — does not “create jobs.” Governors do not “create jobs.”

Private individuals, entrepreneurs, and companies innovate.

Private individuals, entrepreneurs, and companies take risks.

Private individuals, entrepreneurs, and companies create jobs. Create capital. Create wealth and prosperity.

Not government. Not governors.

She’s right about job creation in direct terms, of course.  However, governments and executives do a great deal to shape the economic environment for job creation.  They decide on regulatory aggressiveness, for instance, and decide whether to block or pass legislation that gets in the way of job creation.  “Creating jobs” is a shorthand way of talking about this, and let’s face it, we score the executives by the results of the job-creation numbers.  We’re doing that with Barack Obama now; I don’t hear anyone on our side blaming entrepreneurs and businesses for not hiring under the Obama administration’s economic environment.  The answers given by the candidates indicate that they understand the difference, and I’m comfortable with the shorthand.

Update: Uninterested, not uninteresting.  Thanks to reader MC for correcting my typo.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Newt understand this: Never accept the premise of the question – if the question is asinine.

jake-the-goose on September 8, 2011 at 9:27 AM

He’s doing a good job of making sure they don’t tear one another apart. I think he’s serving a good purpose

blatantblue on September 8, 2011 at 9:31 AM

When the presidential debates are set, I hope the GOP doesn’t bend over the way it has and accept a bunch of lefty hacks for questioners. At least ask for Jake Tapper. Or better yet, Brit Hume.

I recall the 2004 debate in which Schieffer asked Bush a bunch of “hasn’t your administration failed” questions. Then he turned to Kerry and said, “Now, senator, isn’t about time we raised the minimum wage?”

Kerry of course replied, “Why yes, Bob, and an increase in the minimum wage is part of the Democratic platform….”

Wethal on September 8, 2011 at 9:31 AM

Just damn. I didn’t watch the debate but that’s a freaking Grand Slam/Hat Trick/body slam all rolled into one. Good for Newt!

rockmom on September 8, 2011 at 9:32 AM

Newt seemed to change the tone of the debate at that moment. The others should have thanked him for saving this from turning into the food fight the MSM wanted.

dirtseller on September 8, 2011 at 9:35 AM

I hope that all of the other participants take to heart what Newt did and said last night.

They should all learn a very valuable lesson – there is no such thing as an impartial moderator in these debates.

turfmann on September 8, 2011 at 9:35 AM

Never accept the premise of the question – if the question is asinine.

That’s what’s lacking in our politicos. Stop accepting the false premises, people!

Pablo on September 8, 2011 at 9:35 AM

“Newt understand this: Never accept the premise of the question – if the question is asinine.”

Exactly. One hilarious moment was when Brian Williams asked in seeming shock why the audience was applauding those executions.

If I’d been in the audience, I’d have been applauding just to shock that smarmy liberal masquerading as an objective journalist.

Williams and the other guy were trying to set up “gotcha moments” and sound bites, rather than asking something as simple as, for example, “Governor Perry, could you describe how your plans to improve unemployment differ from those of the other candidates?”

Why the heck were there so few honest questions like that? The answer is obvious.

Drained Brain on September 8, 2011 at 9:35 AM

Not surprised by these moderators……its msdnc and Politico…I just wished the gop had the cajones to refuse to attend like the dems did with fox in 08….

It may be petty but newt is right, these questions are not worth answering….

cmsinaz on September 8, 2011 at 9:36 AM

Government never creates jobs, but it does shape policies that have a great impact on the job creators. I, just once, would like to see any one of the candidates correct the jackass media on that topic.

jbh45 on September 8, 2011 at 9:39 AM

Newt MUST be a debate coach for the eventual nominee.

Marcus on September 8, 2011 at 9:39 AM

I actually cheered out loud and had a good belly laugh when Newt Ripped into those guys. That was easily the best soundbite of the whole debate.

Mord on September 8, 2011 at 9:41 AM

..if not presidential nominee, it is clear that Newt deserves a place in any new Republican administration: Bullshitt-deflector. Perhaps press secretary to the new POTUS? Man, those would be some TIVO-able press sessions!

The War Planner on September 8, 2011 at 9:43 AM

The moderators were the only clear losers of the night. Maybe the next Republican debate should be moderated by Joe Biden, James Hoffa, and Maxine Waters.

bitsy on September 8, 2011 at 9:43 AM

“Newt understand this: Never accept the premise of the question – if the question is asinine.”

Exactly. One hilarious moment was when Brian Williams asked in seeming shock why the audience was applauding those executions.

If I’d been in the audience, I’d have been applauding just to shock that smarmy liberal masquerading as an objective journalist.

Williams and the other guy were trying to set up “gotcha moments” and sound bites, rather than asking something as simple as, for example, “Governor Perry, could you describe how your plans to improve unemployment differ from those of the other candidates?”

Why the heck were there so few honest questions like that? The answer is obvious.

Drained Brain on September 8, 2011 at 9:35 AM

Good post.

If anybody didn’t watch the debate last night, I’ll save you a bunch of time reading about it.

It was 90 minutes of Brian Williams and his butt buddy verbally AND PHYSICALLY sneering at the candidates.

fossten on September 8, 2011 at 9:43 AM

“However, governments and executives do a great deal to shape the economic environment for job creation.”

Let me be clear, from the starting point of no intrusion at all, where job creation is maximized, all government can do by “shaping the economic environment” is to reduce job creation. There might be regulation created for the purpose of other issues and that may be fine, but let’s see it for what it is wrt job creation — it reduces it.

Dusty on September 8, 2011 at 9:43 AM

there is no question that Newt has a commanding & brilliant presence at a podium. i was grateful for him last night. he was a cheerleader against OBluffy too

kelley in virginia on September 8, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Did anyone else notice from that moment on, there were a lot less elbows getting thrown on stage and much more criticism of Obama? I think the other candidates took Newt’s unspoken advice to heart.

Mord on September 8, 2011 at 9:44 AM

I hope the GOP at least insists on the choice of moderators for debates:

No one who has bowed to Obama can be a moderator.

So much for Williams…

Wethal on September 8, 2011 at 9:45 AM

ooooh. press secretary for Newt. damn good suggestion.

kelley in virginia on September 8, 2011 at 9:45 AM

Newt may have a point, but it’s irrelevant to the topic of which candidate is the best. He’s grandstanding. He’s appealing to the anti-media sentiment of Republican voters, and it’s a rather cheap tactic. It doesn’t show his positions or values to be any better. It shows him to be rather petulant. It’s the kind of whining I’d expect from Obama, frankly.

MadisonConservative on September 8, 2011 at 9:45 AM

Perry was liking what Gingrich said too, and finally applauded when Gingrich said the main thing to do was to defeat Obama and get rid of Obamacare.

Gingrich wrote the forward to Perry’s book. There seems to be a connection between the two.

juliesa on September 8, 2011 at 9:46 AM

Newt’s still running?

Why?

pilamaye on September 8, 2011 at 9:48 AM

Watching this moment in the debate last night, my spontaneous utterance was “Da-yum! Newt for Press Secretary!”

Wouldn’t that just make WH press briefings a WHOLE lot more fun?

Noocyte on September 8, 2011 at 9:48 AM

I like seeing the candidates being held accountable but the only headline you see from the obviously state run media is Romney and Perry battle, Newt is right and doing a service to all GOP candidates, force moderators to treat the Right better, ask better questions and show the public what passes for debate questions when much more important issues should be on the table.

Hit the moderators between the eyes, they deserve it and maybe they’ll get a clue or at least do a better job because they have to try to keep up.

Speakup on September 8, 2011 at 9:50 AM

My biggest problem with the debate was that it truly was no more than the Mitt and Rick Show with an occasional, pacifying bone thrown to the others. Had I been one of the “other” candidates, I would have been livid. Annoying.

princetrumpet on September 8, 2011 at 9:50 AM

Newt may have a point, but it’s irrelevant to the topic of which candidate is the best. He’s grandstanding. He’s appealing to the anti-media sentiment of Republican voters, and it’s a rather cheap tactic. It doesn’t show his positions or values to be any better. It shows him to be rather petulant. It’s the kind of whining I’d expect from Obama, frankly.

MadisonConservative on September 8, 2011 at 9:45 AM

Maybe in a fair setting you’d have a point, but all things were not equal last night. The entire debate was a sham and a setup with cheap tactics from the beginning. So Newt was fighting fire with fire. Good on him for not accepting the absurd premises of the lamestreamers running that ambush. And “frankly,” his response rang with leadership and whipped everybody on that podium into line. Hell, even Mitt got sick of it after a while and started defending Perry from Williams’ attacks.

fossten on September 8, 2011 at 9:51 AM

Good post, Ed.

flyfisher on September 8, 2011 at 9:52 AM

I hope Newt sticks around, just to remind us not to tear each other to shreds over a candidate, and that the real target should be Obarfy and the left.

blatantblue on September 8, 2011 at 9:53 AM

She’s right about job creation in direct terms, of course. However, governments and executives do a great deal to shape the economic environment for job creation.

And states are working against federal policy.

Dukakis was working in a Reagan economy. The business environment at the federal level was far more beneficial to job creation than it is in 2011. Like all stats, the numbers have to be compared to others competing in the same era.

mankai on September 8, 2011 at 9:55 AM

Noocyte on September 8, 2011 at 9:48 AM

If he could avoid making it about himself, I think you’re right.

His previous debate sparring with the mods smacked of pettiness, but last night I thought he showed moxy and highlighted his tenure. He knows the game, and while he gave himself a boost with the base, he did afford a little breathing room to his fellow competitors which I thought was gracious. Plus, directing attention back to Obama was smart.

Overall, well played.

Bee on September 8, 2011 at 9:59 AM

Using shorthand is fine if you’re taking dictation. The problem here with is people end up equating govt/govs with the power to actually create a job, whether by voting for a bill or asking for more money to fund ‘jobs’. Businesses create jobs when the need for a worker exists. Maybe the candidates could expound on that fact a little in their answer.

Kissmygrits on September 8, 2011 at 10:00 AM

I personally thought on that exchange alone, Newt won the debate.

ConservativePartyNow on September 8, 2011 at 10:01 AM

Only real loser last night was MSNBC. Clearly partisan hacks, and their hijacking of Reagan was utterly distasteful.

rbj on September 8, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Was Ron Paul there? You wouldn’t know it from HotAir coverage thus far. I don’t agree with him on some things but the obvious attempt to omit him from the primaries through lack of coverage is pretty telling. The guy is one of the top choices in just about every poll but you wouldn’t know it from the media.

Just for the record, my own choice would be Herman Cain if I actually voted for Republicans. He’s the obvious choice for a country having huge economic problems since he actually helped businesses recover from near disaster. I just wish he was running on a third party ticket.

Benaiah on September 8, 2011 at 10:08 AM

[fossten on September 8, 2011 at 9:43 AM]

Yup. I wish Perry had suggested at the end of his response on the Texas executions of murderers that liberals trying to impose their anti-gun rights, self-defense impugning, criminal coddling attitudes used to keep him keep him awake a night or two.

Dusty on September 8, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Seemed to me, the only reasons for the questions was to make the particular candidate look bad.

Go Newt! Flay ‘em!

Too bad Brian Williams didn’t ask the same “piercing” questions of one Barack H. Obama 3 years ago.

GarandFan on September 8, 2011 at 10:13 AM

Only real loser last night was MSNBC. Clearly partisan hacks, and their hijacking of Reagan was utterly distasteful.

rbj on September 8, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Makes you wonder who’s really running the Reagan Library.

Of course, MSNBC didn’t REALLY lose last night. They pandered to their tiny audience, who probably thought this was a fair, impartial event. I fully expected this debate to be sort of a witch trial in wolf’s clothing, if you will.

hawksruleva on September 8, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Did anyone else notice from that moment on, there were a lot less elbows getting thrown on stage and much more criticism of Obama? I think the other candidates took Newt’s unspoken advice to heart.

Mord on September 8, 2011 at 9:44 AM

except Herman Cain.

IowaWoman on September 8, 2011 at 10:14 AM

You wouldn’t know it from HotAir coverage thus far.

[Benaiah on September 8, 2011 at 10:08 AM]

He’s been mentioned several times in various other posts.

Dusty on September 8, 2011 at 10:15 AM

I personally thought on that exchange alone, Newt won the debate.

ConservativePartyNow on September 8, 2011 at 10:01 AM

- I agree. Newt made the most of his limited debate time.
BTW The only thing missing last night was for Williams to ask for a “show of hands.”

diogenes on September 8, 2011 at 10:18 AM

Why the ?!?@!? do Republicans keep allowing partisan media hacks to “moderate” internal PRIMARY debates!?!? Whoever the heck is in charge of organizing these should STOP using the MSM in this roll — there’s nothing but an obsolete and now hazardous tradition of doing so. Surely they can find a skilled set of CONSERVATIVE moderators (who do not have to be from the media) who respectfully put the candidates through their paces without having an alternative agenda in mind.

And the same goes for the Presidential debate — the GOP candidate should be intensely involved in making sure that a real set of objective moderators get queued up. No more of the same-old same-old where the “moderator” hard-balls the GOP candidate and puff-balls Obama.

EasyEight on September 8, 2011 at 10:19 AM

IMHO Newt’s remarks were the high point of the night. Too bad he runs such a crappy campaign and had a string of wives.

Viator on September 8, 2011 at 10:20 AM

Of course honest debate is important. Who could argue against that?
I would argue, however, that the leftist media has been the most willfully destructive force in this country for the last 50 years.
So if Gingrich calls them out for their usual tactics, it’s more than fair.
And it’s about time.
I’d like to see more Republicans directly and openly confront them on their bias and subterfuge. What’s to lose- bad press?

justltl on September 8, 2011 at 10:21 AM

Government creates a climate for business to create jobs and also creates a negative environment for job creation. Why is Michelle Malkin always pissed off?

Vince on September 8, 2011 at 10:24 AM

Only real loser last night was MSNBC. Clearly partisan hacks, and their hijacking of Reagan was utterly distasteful.

Don’t forget Pollutico, enemy of everyone on that stage. Was that Ron and Nancy bit ever craven. Those people hated Ron and Nancy when they were in office and running for office.

Viator on September 8, 2011 at 10:24 AM

His previous debate sparring with the mods smacked of pettiness, but last night I thought he showed moxy and highlighted his tenure. He knows the game, and while he gave himself a boost with the base, he did afford a little breathing room to his fellow competitors which I thought was gracious. Plus, directing attention back to Obama was smart.

Overall, well played.

Bee on September 8, 2011 at 9:59 AM

Here’s the thing: why is it petty with FOX, but not with NBC? I’m not in any way defending Brian Williams. The guy is a self-absorbed c**khair. However, in both instances, Newt avoids talking about his own positions, his own ideas, and his own values, and it’s not by accident. He crashed and burned earlier this summer when he tried laying his views on the line. If you’re saying he’s taking one for the team, I don’t agree that he’s that noble. He’s just looking for an angle that will boost his rep without referencing the fact that he’s a RINO. It’s important not to get too enamored with somebody who scores political points purely through a confrontational attitude. Chris Christie is proof enough of that.

MadisonConservative on September 8, 2011 at 10:25 AM

I disagree with Michelle’s contention about Newt. I disagree with her assertion that no one spoke about how government doesn’t create jobs — Herman Cain did, and eloquently so. I disagree with her assertion that Rick Perry should be judged on his Gardasil moment and nothing he says or does after this admitted mistake should matter, because Michelle has decided he’s some sort of crony-capitalist hack.

I don’t know what happened to her. She doesn’t seem to have the grasp of events that she used to have, or the vision that she portrayed so eloquently before. I find myself skipping over her articles now instead of reading them closely, and that makes me sad.

bonnie_ on September 8, 2011 at 10:25 AM

I thought Newt won the debate. His points were right on. I thought Mitt and Rick did very well too. Honestly I’d be happy with any one of them as president. (and Sarah)

tinkerthinker on September 8, 2011 at 10:27 AM

Just for the record, my own choice would be Herman Cain if I actually voted for Republicans. I just wish he was running on a third party ticket.

Benaiah on September 8, 2011 at 10:08 AM

Part of the problem.

Vince on September 8, 2011 at 10:28 AM

Gotta give Newt credit for this. He said what we all wished we could say to the liberal/commie msm’s.

I for one, still can’t figure out why these candidates agreed to do a debate with msnbc, who makes no secret, or makes no apologies for their liberal bent. It was apparent before the debate started, or even agreed to, where msnbc stood, and how this would try to make conservatives look bad.

If anything, Newt gave them a dose of what’s good for ya, and hopefully millions saw it.

Doesn’t make me want Newt as a President, but he was defending last night…and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

capejasmine on September 8, 2011 at 10:31 AM

I don’t know what happened to her. She doesn’t seem to have the grasp of events that she used to have, or the vision that she portrayed so eloquently before. I find myself skipping over her articles now instead of reading them closely, and that makes me sad.

bonnie_ on September 8, 2011 at 10:25 AM

She has the same grasp she’s always had. She’s resisting identity politics. She’s resisting the appeal of grandstanding. Other people don’t try to resist these things, and get fired up over them, and so when someone like MM recognizes it as kabuki, they think something must be wrong with her.

MadisonConservative on September 8, 2011 at 10:32 AM

If Republicans were truly serious about their Republic, Newt would be atop our polls.

SlimyBill on September 8, 2011 at 10:32 AM

Chris Wallace whining about Newt on FNC right now…

jbtripp on September 8, 2011 at 10:38 AM

Part of the problem.

Vince

Care to elaborate on that statement?

I ask because I consider anyone that still votes for Republicans or Democrats despite all the evidence that both parties have sold us out to be part of the problem.

Benaiah on September 8, 2011 at 10:42 AM

It doesn’t show his positions or values to be any better. It shows him to be rather petulant.

MadisonConservative on September 8, 2011 at 9:45 AM

He answered the questions after correcting the premise.

SlimyBill on September 8, 2011 at 10:44 AM

It was the debate’s best moment by far, but really, shouldn’t the moderators be exploring differences among the candidates’ approaches? The question asked was fair.

But then, the questioning overall was intensely adversarial. That’s what made Gingrich’s response so satisfying. Those tools deserved the thrashing they got.

paul1149 on September 8, 2011 at 10:46 AM

Care to elaborate on that statement?

I ask because I consider anyone that still votes for Republicans or Democrats despite all the evidence that both parties have sold us out to be part of the problem.

Benaiah on September 8, 2011 at 10:42 AM

Don’t have to as you already did.

Vince on September 8, 2011 at 10:47 AM

I don’t know what happened to her. She doesn’t seem to have the grasp of events that she used to have, or the vision that she portrayed so eloquently before. I find myself skipping over her articles now instead of reading them closely, and that makes me sad.

bonnie_ on September 8, 2011 at 10:25 AM

Malkin is always angry, smarmy, sarcastic, and, ummmm, petulant. In other words, she’s Olbermann except she gets the facts right most of the time.

I have found her to be largely unreadable for a year or so. I keep going back hoping for something better but it’s always just the same old bleat.

SlimyBill on September 8, 2011 at 10:48 AM

When Newt is good he is very good.
I wish he had run for Governor somewhere.

JellyToast on September 8, 2011 at 10:53 AM

It’s important not to get too enamored with somebody who scores political points purely through a confrontational attitude. Chris Christie is proof enough of that.

MadisonConservative on September 8, 2011 at 10:25 AM

Tell me you don’t think my appreciation of one moment in the debate indicates I’m becoming enamored with him. Oh you of little faith! ;) It was a single blip in an otherwise ordinary performance. He brought the focus away from infighting and onto Obama which I appreciated. Regarding the Fox debate, perhaps it was his tone? He seemed desperately grasping for attention. I didn’t get that impression last night, but even if he were, it allowed the other candidates some time to refocus.

Bee on September 8, 2011 at 10:54 AM

I like Michelle, but I have to agree with you, Ed. It doesn’t matter who wins the debate of ideas here in this room if the media that covers the debate portrays the entire lot of candidates as a bunch of kooks. You may win the battle but lose the war.

Glad to see Newt go meta here. It’s a dicey proposition that can easily backfire as being whiny (like Hillary complaining about the softball questions Obama as getting). Newt handled with the appropriate amounts of indifference and outrage.

pt on September 8, 2011 at 10:56 AM

Malkin is always angry, smarmy, sarcastic, and, ummmm, petulant. In other words, she’s Olbermann except she gets the facts right most of the time.

I have found her to be largely unreadable for a year or so. I keep going back hoping for something better but it’s always just the same old bleat.

SlimyBill on September 8, 2011 at 10:48 AM

MM has been a reliable conservative voice for years and the former owner of the site you’ve been given the privilege to comment at. Show some respect, even if you disagree.

Bee on September 8, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Malkin is always angry, smarmy, sarcastic, and, ummmm, petulant. In other words, she’s Olbermann except she gets the facts right most of the time.

SlimyBill on September 8, 2011 at 10:48 AM

So Michelle Malkin is the same kind of person as the guy who called Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it”. You’re a genius.

MadisonConservative on September 8, 2011 at 11:02 AM

Tell me you don’t think my appreciation of one moment in the debate indicates I’m becoming enamored with him. Oh you of little faith! ;) It was a single blip in an otherwise ordinary performance. He brought the focus away from infighting and onto Obama which I appreciated. Regarding the Fox debate, perhaps it was his tone? He seemed desperately grasping for attention. I didn’t get that impression last night, but even if he were, it allowed the other candidates some time to refocus.

Bee on September 8, 2011 at 10:54 AM

Gonna start calling you a Newton. :P

MadisonConservative on September 8, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Yes, the candidates should argue and debate, but these debates look like cross-examinations not debates.

Somebody had to call them out, and Newt finally broke the ice. They will think twice the next time.

PattyJ on September 8, 2011 at 11:03 AM

From the opening bell, Harris and especially Williams seemed to take their cues from Team Obama talking points, and that was nowhere more true than when Perry got quizzed about education.

Perfectly said, Ed, and I agree with every word Newt said and respect him for saying it. The debate format of media liberals from the Obama propaganda campaign using GOP debates to weaken GOP candidates is a farce, and they are all fools for enabling it.

NBC? Politico? Child, please. The RNC should be organizing these debates themselves. This is about one thing: electing a nominee for the general election. If the nominee’s campaign wants to subject him- or herself to the DNC Media in Presidential debates, that’s their problem. But opening our own nomination process to Democrats thinly disguised as journalists is a farce.

Jaibones on September 8, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Gonna start calling you a Newton. :P

MadisonConservative on September 8, 2011 at 11:03 AM

You do and you die. *slits eyes*

Bee on September 8, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Newt’s response is exactly what we need when our candidates are in interviews and debates with a very liberal MSM. The constant liberal bias does have an impact on voters and has to be exposed when it happens.

IMHO Newt is the most talented debater.

HellCat on September 8, 2011 at 11:07 AM

You do and you die. *slits eyes*

Bee on September 8, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Your bumper sticker:

Issues are moot! I support Newt!

MadisonConservative on September 8, 2011 at 11:09 AM

When Newt is good he is very good.

JellyToast on September 8, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Totally agreed.

I wish he had run for Governor somewhere.

Not so much. His forte is ideas, and I think he deserves a national or international forum. I wish he was working with the RNC or advising a campaign, and the sooner that he gets over the notion of himself as the candidate, the sooner the GOP can benefit from his best talents.

But he’s not going to be President, and he has no one to blame but his own lack of discipline and Clintonian sense of morality.

Jaibones on September 8, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Just damn. I didn’t watch the debate but that’s a freaking Grand Slam/Hat Trick/body slam all rolled into one. Good for Newt!

rockmom on September 8, 2011 at 9:32 AM

[Figures you'd beat me to this by hours, Mom.]

Jaibones on September 8, 2011 at 11:12 AM

MadisonConservative on September 8, 2011 at 11:09 AM

STOP MAKING ME LAUGH WHEN I’M ANGRY AT YOU.

Bee on September 8, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Graduation rates nationally are poor because of “floaters” kids who move a lot and or drop out due to movement back to messiko.
Second point TEXAS is ahead of Wisconsin on test scores for black and hispanic 4th and 8th grades.The MSM could look up National scores for each state if they wished.
2009 4th Grade Math

White students: Texas 254, Wisconsin 250 (national average 248)
black students: Texas 231, Wisconsin 217 (national 222)
hispanic students: Texas 233, Wisconsin 228 (national 227)

2009 8th Grade Math

White students: Texas 301, Wisconsin 294 (national 292)
black students: Texas 272, Wisconsin 254 (national 260)
hispanic students: Texas 277, Wisconsin 268 (national 266)

2009 4th Grade Reading

White students: Texas 232, Wisconsin 227 (national 229)
black students: Texas 213, Wisconsin 192 (national 204)
hispanic students: Texas 210, Wisconsin 202 (national 204)

2009 8th Grade Reading

White students: Texas 273, Wisconsin 271 (national 271)
black students: Texas 249, Wisconsin 238 (national 245)
hispanic students: Texas 251, Wisconsin 250 (national 248)

2009 4th Grade Science

White students: Texas 168, Wisconsin 164 (national 162)
black students: Texas 139, Wisconsin 121 (national 127)
hispanic students: Wisconsin 138, Texas 136 (national 130)

2009 8th Grade Science

White students: Texas 167, Wisconsin 165 (national 161)
black students: Texas 133, Wisconsin 120 (national 125)
hispanic students: Texas 141, Wisconsin 134 (national 131)
The cost of the wetbacks to TEXAS is huge in terms of medical,school,crime,and there is no way to sugar coat it. I had kids in class look me right in the eye ,smirk and tell me they were illegal.I would smile and tell them be careful it would come to an end at some point,most of these guys had long rap sheets that I had looked at courtesy of the school PD.
Iowahawk has a really great article on this whole line of BS.

Col.John Wm. Reed on September 8, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Government creates a climate for business to create jobs and also creates a negative environment for job creation. Why is Michelle Malkin always pissed off?

Vince on September 8, 2011 at 10:24 AM

Those two are the key and they are two separate parts of what government does.

The first is to create laws that are equally applied to all with favor towards none. A neutral legal climate with well understood rules for what happens when you break the law or go into bankruptcy that government will not step away from is essential. The greatest good is equal application of the law, let the chips fall where they may. This has been violated by both parties with TARP bailouts, auto bailouts, and such things as the harassment of certain businesses (Gibson and BB&T come to mind). All of these are contrary to equal application of the law. The positive good that government must do is negated and the negative liberty we allow government to use in our names turns purely negative, with no positives at all.

The second part is the purely negative aspect of every single rule and regulation on the books administered by any government, anywhere. Each of those rules is a burden both to those that fall under it and to the population as a whole as a larger government is needed to administer such rules and regulations. The growth of the regulatory State has no upside: it is a drain on the economy via harming companies through duplicative and often counter-productive regulations, and it is a burden to the population as a whole due to the size of government it gets. What this creates is a purely negative business climate where the more powerful get entree into setting the rules and regulations, and they all favor large businesses as they can absorb nominal cost of adhering to such rules and regulations better than small firms can.

This cannot be simply stated. To properly state this requires time, patience and the willingness of people to listen. Yet it is often boiled down to simplistic pap suitable for castigation and slurs, when the role of those asking questions must be to illuminate a problem through provocative questions that allow time for rejoinders and dialogue. To get that you don’t need a ‘debate’ but more of a roundtable discussion by the candidates with a moderate only serving to ask a few questions and then let the candidates run with it, something like the Fred W. Friendly seminars where Mr. Friendly was able to keep a topic at hand but get good discussions on it by a variety of individuals across the political spectrum.

I would, actually, WATCH such a roundtable!

Everyone would benefit from it and get us away from the pap that is presented as ‘debates’ in today’s media.

ajacksonian on September 8, 2011 at 11:18 AM

Malkin would be correct if the questions were broad ranging and not simply gotcha Liberal talking points. Funny there were no questions on Iraq, Afghanistan, jobs, etc. Couldn’t be because those questions would also raise questions about Obama? Malkin seems to think that all debates are true debates, they’re not. Why defend something that was set up as a ploy to help win the election for Obama?

Deanna on September 8, 2011 at 11:18 AM

She has the same grasp she’s always had. She’s resisting identity politics. She’s resisting the appeal of grandstanding. Other people don’t try to resist these things, and get fired up over them, and so when someone like MM recognizes it as kabuki, they think something must be wrong with her.

MadisonConservative on September 8, 2011 at 10:32 AM

Why do you suppose people get fired up over someone resisting the media? Could it be because nobody ever does it?

Honestly, some people are never satisfied.

fossten on September 8, 2011 at 11:20 AM

Why do you suppose people get fired up over someone resisting the media? Could it be because nobody ever does it?

fossten on September 8, 2011 at 11:20 AM

Sure, because nobody goes after the media, least of all Michelle Malkin.

You should really stick to slamming commenter’s marriages.

MadisonConservative on September 8, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Why the ?!?@!? do Republicans keep allowing partisan media hacks to “moderate” internal PRIMARY debates!?!? Whoever the heck is in charge of organizing these should STOP using the MSM in this roll….

EasyEight on September 8, 2011 at 10:19 AM

Exactly.

At this early juncture, and with so many candidates, a round-table discussion with a true moderator (someone who presents topics of discussion, not someone who wants “to stir the pot” into a muck) would be more interesting… and productive.

But, we’re stuck with the MSM as the vehicle. So I cheered when Newt called them on their evil ways and will continue to do so.

itsacookbook on September 8, 2011 at 11:28 AM

ajacksonian on September 8, 2011 at 11:18 AM

Yes. We’re past the point where we can afford to treat political discussion like some sort of football game. My teams wins, your team loses. We are ALL losing right now. We need pointed discussions with real solutions presented.

How do we get this?

itsacookbook on September 8, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Perry was liking what Gingrich said too, and finally applauded when Gingrich said the main thing to do was to defeat Obama and get rid of Obamacare.
juliesa on September 8, 2011 at 9:46 AM

When Gingrich said that everyone on that stage would work together to defeat Obama, Rick Perry was the ONLY ONE who applauded.

logis on September 8, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Sure, because nobody goes after the media, least of all Michelle Malkin.

You should really stick to slamming commenter’s marriages.

MadisonConservative on September 8, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Michelle Malkin isn’t running for office and wasn’t on stage last night.

Non sequitur fail.

You should really stick to calling people retards and insulting their mothers.

fossten on September 8, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Running Home To Mamma

The “Ponzi Scheme” analogy is nuclear. The libs can’t allow it in the room. They just want to sell a worry that mom will not get her checks.

Thomas Friedman of the NYT went catatonic when asked to explain how Social Security was not such a scheme on this AM’s CNBC. He said the question was asinine. You know they are lost when they go running to mamma.

SOB’s. Terrorists. Name calling in response to questions.

IlikedAUH2O on September 8, 2011 at 11:52 AM

The Ponzi scheme relates to a problem for Governor Perry which is why I mention it.

IlikedAUH2O on September 8, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Why the ?!?@!? do Republicans keep allowing partisan media hacks to “moderate” internal PRIMARY debates!?!? Whoever the heck is in charge of organizing these should STOP using the MSM in this roll….

EasyEight on September 8, 2011 at 10:19 AM

“Internal debates.” That’s a very good point. Sure, Republican candidates are competing against each other, but it should be the REPUBLICAN PARTY calling the shots.

So who, exactly, decided that it would be a brilliant idea to let a radical liberal blogger and a radical liberal game show host “moderate” this thing? What was the thought process behind that?

logis on September 8, 2011 at 12:08 PM

Newt rocked last night.

Pablo Snooze on September 8, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Newt, Rove and Cheney all trigger my gag reflex.

They need to go softly into the night – and start by simply shutting up.

Each is irrelevant in his own way.

They are reminders of the GOP’s past, not representatives of its future.

Run along to your consulting jobs and ranches, gentlemen.

molonlabe28 on September 8, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Just beautiful

A very rare public Bi#ch slap to the scum%#@s who carry water for the Obama administration!

Opposite Day on September 8, 2011 at 1:03 PM

I’m not looking for Newt to become President but I think he is playing an invaluable role in these debates. His gift of being able to effectively articulate a thought/idea/concept helps elevate the entire pool of candidates. This clip alone is worth its weight in gold and I hope it gets wide play.

Talk about hitting a home run!!

glennbo on September 8, 2011 at 1:42 PM

And how can anyone argue against his point about Obamacare: “…It is a disaster! It is a disaster procedurally; it was rammed through after the loss of Teddy Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts. It was written badly, never reconciled, can’t be implemented and it is killing this economy. It is a monstrosity!”

A President who would allow this to ever happen in this way doesn’t deserve to be reelected!

glennbo on September 8, 2011 at 1:57 PM

I have to disagree with you, Ed.

All of these candidate need a run through “hostile grounds.”
Obama was afraid, and still is, of FoxNews, starting with the 2008 Fox News debate in Las Vegas. He still hasn’t had a real hostile moderator for one of his debates, press conferences or interviews.

J_Crater on September 8, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 2