Video: Gingrich schools Pelley on “rule of law” on terrorists

posted at 10:59 pm on November 12, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

I missed tonight’s CBS debate, mainly because I spent a great evening with some of my blogging friends here at FreedomWorks’ BlogCon2011.  When I returned, though, I got a few messages about one particular moment in the debate, where CBS moderator attempted to lecture Newt Gingrich on the “rule of law” regarding American citizens who join the enemy to wage war against the US.  Big mistake.

The two worst aspects of this exchange?  The smug look on Pelley’s face when he challenged Gingrich on this point, and the “no” you can hear him utter just as Gingrich started his smackdown of Pelley.  Regardless of the context of this exchange, this is a perfect encapsulation of why these media debates are utterly worthless, and why the Republican Party needs to force a format change.  Pelley isn’t running for President, and we don’t need to have Pelley debating the presidential candidates.  We need them to debate each other.  It’s only made more ridiculous when a moderator-turned-participant ends up as far out of his depth as Pelley was on this question.

As I mentioned, I didn’t watch the debate, but from my Twitter feed and a few e-mails, it seems that many thought that Gingrich and Romney were strong as usual, Rick Perry did surprisingly well, and Herman Cain spent too much time deflecting with promises to have a team of experts look at the issues once he’s elected President. I don’t know how Rick Santorum did in the debate, but his team sent out their spin e-mail with the subject line, “Draft Template,” which leads me to conclude that he at least flunked the post-debate.  Either that or he’s looking to back a new candidate named John R. Template for the Republican nomination.

We already have one open thread for the debate, but feel free to add your opinions on the debate in this thread, too.

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 3 4

These “utterly worthless” debates are galvanizing the nation, and qualifying the candidates. I agree Pelley was an ass, but as long as there is a candidate on the stage that has the wherewithal to confront moderators gone wild and put them in their place, this is not a problem.

It is being proven, again and again, that there is one candidate on the dais that has that wherewithal, and I believe he will be the next president, after he wipes the floor in debate with the current one.

paul1149 on November 13, 2011 at 12:17 AM

I’m starting to like a Gingrich/Bachmann ticket. He’s the brightest on the stage and she’s no slacker herself. Also, she would help moderate some of that ‘women problems’ talk about the Newt.
-
In fact, I think I could actually smile while pulling that lever.
-

RalphyBoy on November 13, 2011 at 12:23 AM

Newt would destroy PBHO in a debate, DESTROY him.

Bishop on November 12, 2011 at 11:05 PM

Probably, but there’s more to it than just being a good debater and talker. Gingrich used to smack down liberals in those C-SPAN-aired soliloquies on the House floor, too. Gingrich is a good talker and good at throwing ideas against the wall, but not all that great where the rubber hits the road. I’m not sold on him at all as a presidential candidate.

ddrintn on November 13, 2011 at 12:26 AM

But his record as a conservative leader in the mid-to-late 90′s is very solid.

Doughboy on November 12, 2011 at 11:52 PM

Bill Clinton skinned him alive and tacked the hide to the wall.

ddrintn on November 13, 2011 at 12:30 AM

I was surprised that Newt pulled a TPaw tonight, though, when he refused to repeat his criticism of Romney. One of the main reasons TPaw left the race was that he folded on the debate stage and wouldn’t repeat his criticism of Mitt.

Aslans Girl on November 13, 2011 at 12:34 AM

Does anyone know the date of the next debate? I know there are two more in November, but I can’t recall the date. TIA!

Aslans Girl on November 13, 2011 at 12:37 AM

Bill Clinton skinned him alive and tacked the hide to the wall.

Only with a lot of help from the same people who are tacking our candidates’ skins on the wall now – and I think it is also fair to say that any victory Clinton had over Gingrich was, in the long term, a Pyrrhic victory.

Knott Buyinit on November 13, 2011 at 12:47 AM

RalphyBoy on November 13, 2011 at 12:23 AM

Idunno. A Gingrich/Cain ticket makes more sense since they compliment each other so well. Newt has the academic and intellectual chops, but is bad at handling systems. Cain has a proven talent for systemology, but has little political experience. Each can cover for the other’s shortcomings. What does Bachmann bring to the table for Gingrich?

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on November 13, 2011 at 12:50 AM

I was surprised that Newt pulled a TPaw tonight, though, when he refused to repeat his criticism of Romney. One of the main reasons TPaw left the race was that he folded on the debate stage and wouldn’t repeat his criticism of Mitt.

Aslans Girl on November 13, 2011 at 12:34 AM

And the main reason Gingrich is surging is because of his intelligent and positive performance in the debates. Newt was smart not to take an unnecessary swipe at Mitt while his own poll numbers are on the rise. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Perry seems to be studying what is working for Newt and Cain too, his last two debate performances (that gaffe aside) have been much more positive and focused on making his case instead of attacking Romney and Cain. Everyone who isn’t sold on Mitt yet is already well-aware of Mitt’s deficiencies, there is no need for Perry to re-visit those right now. Like Cain and Gingrich, he needs to focus on building a positive case for his own candidacy.

Lawdawg86 on November 13, 2011 at 12:51 AM

No one has enough money to buy the air time. And even if you did, they would decide not to sell it to you. Since we have foolishly given them control over what most people get as information, we’re stuck with them.

CrazyGene on November 12, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Huh.

C-SPAN and Fox came to us on Nov 5th.

Sincerely, Texas Patriots PAC.

Troll Feeder on November 13, 2011 at 12:51 AM

I’ve got a fevah, and the only prescription is more Newt.

mankai on November 13, 2011 at 12:52 AM

Only with a lot of help from the same people who are tacking our candidates’ skins on the wall now – and I think it is also fair to say that any victory Clinton had over Gingrich was, in the long term, a Pyrrhic victory.

Knott Buyinit on November 13, 2011 at 12:47 AM

Clinton left office immensely popular and to this day the orthodoxy is that HE was responsible for the balanced budget, welfare reform et al. The problem is that Gingrich was ham-handed, and then there was the (in my opinion) idiotic attempts to get Clinton removed from office. There was your Pyrrhic victory.

ddrintn on November 13, 2011 at 12:54 AM

Regardless of the context of this exchange, this is a perfect encapsulation of why these media debates are utterly worthless, and why the Republican TEA Party needs to force a format change. Pelley isn’t running for President, and we don’t need to have Pelley debating the presidential candidates. We need them to debate each other.

Ed, we already did this. Nov 5th. It’s archived at C-SPAN, since you seem to have missed it.

You ask, someone produces, you pretend it never happened. That is not the recipe for changing the world.

It’s not that hard (if you’re credible), and it’s not that expensive (maybe $60K — sell tickets).

There weeks left until the first primary. Host your own debate. It’s really a lot of fun.

Troll Feeder on November 13, 2011 at 12:57 AM

Bill Clinton skinned him alive and tacked the hide to the wall.

ddrintn on November 13, 2011 at 12:30 AM

Not really. He had a habit of going off on his own as Speaker and leaving the rest of the Caucus trying to catch up. I think he’d be a better President than Speaker, but he needs to avoid arguing with himself in public. He suffers from sporadic outbursts of intellectualitis, the horrible affliction that makes one try to find a logical reason to believe in anything.

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on November 13, 2011 at 12:58 AM

RalphyBoy on November 13, 2011 at 12:23 AM

Idunno. A Gingrich/Cain ticket makes more sense since they compliment each other so well. Newt has the academic and intellectual chops, but is bad at handling systems. Cain has a proven talent for systemology, but has little political experience. Each can cover for the other’s shortcomings. What does Bachmann bring to the table for Gingrich?

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on November 13, 2011 at 12:50 AM

Either ticket would be a disaster. Gingrich would be good as a policy advisor, and Cain is good as a businessman and radio host. Bachmann should jut try to concentrate on staying in the House somehow. The field as it is leaves me with a sick feeling.

ddrintn on November 13, 2011 at 12:58 AM

For what it’s worth, the county Republican party did their best to ignore it, too.

A presidential primary debate in their own backyard, and they just blew it off.

Troll Feeder on November 13, 2011 at 1:00 AM

Bill Clinton skinned him alive and tacked the hide to the wall.

ddrintn on November 13, 2011 at 12:30 AM

Not really.

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on November 13, 2011 at 12:58 AM

Yes, really. Gingrich left the House in semi-disgrace, and the Republicans in the aftermath were lucky to hold onto the House for as long as they did.

ddrintn on November 13, 2011 at 1:01 AM

Anyway, Gingrich has advocated far too many moonbatty positions for my liking. Smacking down a lib reporter in a debate just doesn’t erase that.

ddrintn on November 13, 2011 at 1:04 AM

Bill Clinton skinned him alive and tacked the hide to the wall.

ddrintn on November 13, 2011 at 12:30 AM

I disagree with you.

Clinton had the benefit of a bully pulpit, supported by a fawning media – Gingrich was limited to CSPAN, because few media would challenge him on air without being humiliated.

You’re comparing apples & oranges – Clinton was President while Gingrich was Speaker.

If Gingrich was President, the media would be forced to engage him, and just like above, if they’d try their BS, he’d expose them like he did the moron above. Gingrich using a bully pulpit would pound liberal BS where he’d see it, and people would hear it. Reagan abused liberal BS from the bully pulpit, and was re-elected.

I’m also not sure why you think he isn’t good where “the rubber meets the road”. If you are implying that he lost his Speaker position, keep in mind that he had “soft” support from career Republicans who’d wilt under pressure. I worry less about him, he is more than capable for the job. Rather, I worry about GOP squishes such as McConnell, Coburn, and Boehner, and those on the “super committee” who won’t stand in the face of liberal BS & propaganda & call it that. You saw it again during negotiations last summer to avoid the federal gov’t shutdown. McConnell was pussified next to Obama.

If Gingrich becomes the GOP nominee, and if he becomes President, you’d probably see other Republicans who aren’t squishes (e.g. Graham, McConnell, Boehner) lose some influence and see people like Ryan, Rubio, and Rand Paul would gain influence – because they aren’t afraid to promote tough new ideas – which is what leaders do.

Danny on November 13, 2011 at 1:05 AM

Wow. Based on Newt’s down to earth, practical and common sense answers in the last two debates plus this one, and his fantastic tone of utterly rejecting the questionable premises put forth constantly by the Liberal MSM and moderators at the debates….

I’m taking a second look, and may have to completely change my whole thinking about what I would like to see in a Republican candidate.

If Newt were to carry that hard-hitting, no-nonsense approach into the White House, things might actually start turning around for this country. Hmmmmmm.

KendraWilder on November 13, 2011 at 1:08 AM

I disagree with you.

Danny on November 13, 2011 at 1:05 AM

You don’t, really. You’re just offering explanations or excuses as to why it happened.

Look, Gingrich has flip-flopped more than Romney has, and more recently than Romney has. He can snark about Paul Ryan and entitlement reform, then when the excrement hits the fan he’ll completely backtrack a couple of days later and all is forgiven. Romney would be SKEWERED if he did that. I’m going to judge both using the same standards.

ddrintn on November 13, 2011 at 1:10 AM

I think you would win with Gingrich. I like Perry, Romney, Cain Santorum, I like them all except for Ron Paul. They all have good qualities, bad qualities. Newt has flaws sure, people can criticize all these candidates to no end.. Same for any candidate.

I just hope you can all unite in the end, stop arming the opposition, defeat Obama, and get America back on track. If it’s gingrich at the helm, I think his experience, political savvy and clearly his intellectual abilities will serve America well.

Regards, have a nice weekend!

saus on November 13, 2011 at 1:10 AM

ddrintn on November 13, 2011 at 12:58 AM

Everyone has their weaknesses. You have to remember that in the office of President it is the underlying philosophy and one’s ability to hire competent people to implement it that counts. If Romney had an actually definable philosophy other than “whatever gets me votes”, I’d probably like him. Unfortunately, I have been watching him for years and it seems the only reason he wants to be President is that he wants to. There is nothing he wants to do that he could only do as President, he just wants to be The Man.

I think the same can be said for Huntsman. He wants to lead, but doesn’t want to go anywhere. No one will follow a banner without a cause.

All any candidate needs is to tell the public four things:
1. This is who I am.

2. This is what I believe.

3. This is what I want to do.

4. Come, follow me.

If anyone can make a convincing case on any 2 of the first 3, then they will respond to the forth.

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on November 13, 2011 at 1:13 AM

If Gingrich becomes the GOP nominee, and if he becomes President,

Danny on November 13, 2011 at 1:05 AM

That won’t happen, by the way. The not-Romney vote will be dispersed among Gingrich, Cain, Perry and Bachmann with none of them having the force of personality or the overall following to take Romney down, and Mitt will waltz to the nomination.

ddrintn on November 13, 2011 at 1:14 AM

Don’t know how old it is, but some of us now call it “Church Lady” because all he’s done for the past couple of weeks is call Herman Cain an immoral man or some such nonsense.

Do yourself a favor and ignore it.

Knucklehead on November 12, 2011 at 11:29 PM

Your just in a bad mood because Herman “The Inappropriate” Cain is losing his traction about about to be 4 points behind Bachmann. Yeah, the presidential candidate I am looking for is one that loves to spend his time alone with the lovely ladies.

astonerii on November 13, 2011 at 1:19 AM

Bill Clinton skinned him alive and tacked the hide to the wall.

ddrintn on November 13, 2011 at 12:30 AM

Yup. For all of Newts smarts and bravado, he’s weak.

rickyricardo on November 13, 2011 at 1:21 AM

Gingrich left the House in semi-disgrace

ddrintn on November 13, 2011 at 1:01 AM

That’s like calling Sarah Palin a quitter because she stepped down in the face of so many lawsuits. Believe that, and the liberal legal attack dogs win again.

John the Libertarian on November 13, 2011 at 1:23 AM

I’m starting to like a Gingrich/Bachmann ticket.

I wouldn’t want Bachmann in that capacity at all. Lets see if she can win an election outside of a little House district first. I doubt she could win a state wide office in her own state.

Newt would make a good VP for any President. I am not yet convinced he would make a good President. I am starting to lean more toward Romney.

crosspatch on November 13, 2011 at 1:29 AM

Your just in a bad mood because Herman “The Inappropriate” Cain is losing his traction about about to be 4 points behind Bachmann. Yeah, the presidential candidate I am looking for is one that loves to spend his time alone with the lovely ladies.

astonerii on November 13, 2011 at 1:19 AM

I’m not in foul mood, I got laid tonight and last night too. I hope that doesn’t offend your sensitive eyes with my blunt talk about having sex with someone I’m not married to and lives in the U.K.

Knucklehead on November 13, 2011 at 1:31 AM

Maybe you think the president should be less powerful and more constrained by advisers. And there’s a lot to be said for that viewpoint.

But that’s not how our government is set up. The president has the ultimate power in cases of war according to the Constitution. He can have as many advisers as he finds useful or practical, but he doesn’t give up any authority to them.

Ultimately, the president is very much like a monarch in his sphere of authority, and that’s the way the Founding Fathers intended it.

Which is why it’s a shame someone unworthy like Obama was elected, but we can’t change the whole Constitutional government just because a sorry man was elected president.

There Goes The Neighborhood on November 12, 2011 at 11:57 PM

Kind of funny. We have been at war for 10 years on this. Awlaki was doing all these things for 9 years out of the country. Yet in 2009 the government was still trying to assess how to handle and take care of him. None of your arguments were laid out to the public saying, this is why we have the right to target for killing Awlaki or any other citizen, they kept/are keeping it secret. You are presupposing that the president has the right to do this. But look at our history and find a kill order by the president for an American Citizen. Yes, people can be killed on the battle field, and it was always considered in the Supreme Courts argument that belligerents can be killed, that they were not being deliberately targeted because they happened to be American citizens on the battlefield. Awlaki was not on a battlefield, he was in a nation our country was not at war with. No direct hostilities were possible. We were not attacking some training camp, we were attacking directly an American Citizen. Based on all the evidence, he deserved to die. Based on all the evidence, we do not have a process by which this type of action can be considered anything less than tyranny and could not be developed to target pretty much anyone the single unaccountable person Obama wants and be done in secret.

astonerii on November 13, 2011 at 1:32 AM

I’m not in foul mood, I got laid tonight and last night too. I hope that doesn’t offend your sensitive eyes with my blunt talk about having sex with someone I’m not married to and lives in the U.K.

Knucklehead on November 13, 2011 at 1:31 AM

You are quite the person for people to look up to. I am sure that if everyone lived their life as you do, the quickly degrading society and culture would be summarily replaced by one that has better people than you. You are allowed your pathetic existence because other people with morals hold your culture and society up above what people like yourself could ever bear.

astonerii on November 13, 2011 at 1:36 AM

You are quite the person for people to look up to. I am sure that if everyone lived their life as you do, the quickly degrading society and culture would be summarily replaced by one that has better people than you. You are allowed your pathetic existence because other people with morals hold your culture and society up above what people like yourself could ever bear.

astonerii on November 13, 2011 at 1:36 AM

I’m 60 years old, raised 2 great boys, with great careers, divorced and am going blind. I don’t need someone like you preaching to me about morals.

Who in the hell died and made you the moral authority king?

Knucklehead on November 13, 2011 at 1:52 AM

this is a perfect encapsulation of why these media debates are utterly worthless, and why the Republican Party needs to force a format change.

RIGHT ON!!!

There is absolutely no value in having ignorant leftists asking questions based on a false premise…and then demanding that we accept the premise and debate the question.

The Republican Party should get its head on straight and remember what it is trying to do (or rather, what it SHOULD be trying to do). Ban the leftist idiots-disguised-as-moderators, establish reasonable, well-founded, relevant topics for debate (chosen by someone like Heritage), and let ALL the candidates discuss those topics.

The object of the primary is to choose the best conservative candidate to bear OUR standard…not the biggest leftist dupe who can be manipulated into bearing THEIRS!!!

landlines on November 13, 2011 at 1:56 AM

You are quite the person for people to look up to. I am sure that if everyone lived their life as you do, the quickly degrading society and culture would be summarily replaced by one that has better people than you. You are allowed your pathetic existence because other people with morals hold your culture and society up above what people like yourself could ever bear.

astonerii on November 13, 2011 at 1:36 AM

Stay classy, dbag.

fossten on November 13, 2011 at 1:58 AM

Knott Buyinit on November 13, 2011 at 12:47 AM

it wasnt Pyrrhic at all, it was very real and still resonates w/ republicans. how often in all these continuing resolution debates do repubs reference how bad they looked when clinton shut down the govt?? they still are gun shy because of that

chasdal on November 13, 2011 at 2:07 AM

You don’t, really. You’re just offering explanations or excuses as to why it happened.

Look, Gingrich has flip-flopped more than Romney has, and more recently than Romney has. He can snark about Paul Ryan and entitlement reform, then when the excrement hits the fan he’ll completely backtrack a couple of days later and all is forgiven. Romney would be SKEWERED if he did that. I’m going to judge both using the same standards.

ddrintn on November 13, 2011 at 1:10 AM

Fair critique. I wouldn’t say, however, that what I opined was an excuse for him… – he was the Speaker at the time, and took the brunt of Clinton’s bully pulpit.

I’ll concede some ignorance regarding his flip flopping. If you have a moment, please supply additional examples besides: (1) his stating a while back that he agreed with a health care mandate as promoted by Heritage, Romney just took that a step further with Romneycare, but then still believes it was the correct decision for MA – even though it has many problems; (2) global warming – was his flipping to the agnostic position after Climategate? – he at least admitted that he erred In making the ad in 2007, and also seems that Romney is rethinking the position as well – I don’t fault either for changing their views in light of new information – but it would be a good idea for them to acknowledge that a huge driving force for this is $$$ to be made trading carbon credits as being a big driver, and that the science is being debated; (3) Gingrich’s critique of Ryan’s healthcare reform plan – was primarily (?) related to also cutting funding for research.

I think it could come down to the two of them – either for nominee. What have I missed?

Danny on November 13, 2011 at 2:11 AM

what a douche that turd is! Newt spanked him!
I like Newt!!!

ColdWarrior57 on November 13, 2011 at 3:11 AM

Note to liberal moderator: Never match wits with a former history professor. You’ll get pistol whipped.
I love a good intellectual beating!!

I’m not in foul mood, I got laid tonight and last night too. I hope that doesn’t offend your sensitive eyes with my blunt talk about having sex with someone I’m not married to and lives in the U.K.

Knucklehead on November 13, 2011 at 1:31 AM

Kudos Knucklehead!!! Here’s hoping you make it three nights in a row!!! :)

Bubba Redneck on November 13, 2011 at 3:32 AM

Bill Clinton skinned him alive and tacked the hide to the wall.

ddrintn on November 13, 2011 at 12:30 AM

Remind me, was that before or after he played “Stuff The Intern With A Cigar”, lied about it with a wagging finger no less, was caught in said lie under oath by a blue dress and biochemistry, was impeached by the House and found not guilty by a Senate packed with Democrats?

Bubba Redneck on November 13, 2011 at 3:45 AM

Amen!
Take up arms against the United States of America, actively work to kill Americans, and you deserve a hellfire up your a**.

p51d007 on November 13, 2011 at 4:07 AM

GOP Debate Intell Alert!
—————————-

BachmannOverDriveTitaniumSpine,is,alledging CBS News Bias!!

Nov 12, 2011 11:02pm
GOP Candidates Blast CBS News’ for ‘Disgraceful’ Bias at South Carolina Debate
********************

SPARTANBURG, S.C. — Fireworks were few and far between at the GOP’s foreign policy debate tonight, but if any issue provoked the ire of some candidates it was not each other but rather how CBS News’ moderator Scott Pelley ran the event.

Numerous candidates from Rep. Michele Bachmann to Rep. Ron Paul complained about unfair treatment from the network, arguing that rival campaigns had received far more attention during the debate. The Bachmann campaign went so far as to release an email that they said spokeswoman Alice Stewart had “inadvertently received” from CBS earlier in the day.

In the email string, CBS News’ political analyst John Dickerson said that Bachmann was “not going to get many questions during the debate and she’s nearly off the charts,” a reference to the Minnesota congresswoman’s low standing in the polls.

After the debate Stewart said that CBS News was guilty of “a bias” against Bachmann.

“I inadvertently received an email where CBS made it clear that Michele was going to receive fewer questions than the other candidates. Clearly this is a problem,” Stewart said. “The debates are an opportunity for the candidates to share their views on the issues. This is an important issue for Congresswoman Bachmann. She’s a member of the House, the Foreign Intelligence Committee. She knows this issue unlike the other candidates on this stage and the email chain that I inadvertently received clearly indicates a bias on CBS’ part to limit the questions to Congresswoman Bachmann.

“We had discussions about [it] and they indicated that they would make sure that the level — that the playing field would be level,” Stewart added. “However she received substantially fewer questions than the other candidates and she wasn’t allowed any follow-ups.

“There’s nothing that can be done now. The debate’s over,” Stewart said. “They assured us prior to debate that it was going to be a fair and level playing field and it certainly wasn’t. We didn’t want to have to get the word out but they made it clear to us that it was going to be fair and it wasn’t.”

Other candidates also complained about their treatment during the debate.
(More…..)
================

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/gop-candidates-blast-cbs-news-for-disgraceful-bias-at-south-carolina-debate/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Random H/A Commenters,that already knew,that BIAS was
the Debate Theme,by,HuffPuff,er,Kos,er,Politico,Crap,
I mean the (Liberal)Main Stream News/DNC Proxy!!
——————————————————

National J is cutting out, we need to bombard CBS for doing this to us…would they do this if it was a Dem debate/

lovingmyUSA on November 12, 2011 at 9:09 PM
======================

CBS, you are worthless!

bitsy on November 12, 2011 at 9:09 PM
======================

Epic fail by CBS. If they can’t handle the bandwidth, then don’t stop a debate mid stream and then go to your website.

Oh well, I guess we don’t have to hear the last 30 minutes anyway.

karenhasfreedom on November 12, 2011 at 9:10 PM
===========================

Methinks Andy Rooney is grumbling from his grave over this pitiful performance by CBS.

Buy Danish on November 12, 2011 at 9:36 PM

canopfor on November 13, 2011 at 4:29 AM

pwned.

ted c on November 13, 2011 at 4:32 AM

If I thought for one minute Newt would act on these kind of words if elected President I would support him.

He won’t. His “handlers” would warn him: “Mr. President, if you do this (the correct action in the eyes of the law) thing you will not get re-elected.

End of courage of conviction for all politicians.

jarhead0311 on November 13, 2011 at 4:58 AM

Chaos breakign out at Occupy Portland. Portland PD started makign physical contact around 2am. Situation out of control. Police tactics have sucked pretty bad. They’re trying to hold the sidewalk of the two adjacent park squares, and don’t have 1/10th the officers they need to do it.
And they left the streets open to traffic until nearly 2am, the mob there is now massively reinforced. At least 5x the total size of the Portland PD.
OWS is using all the scumbag tricks. Fireworks at the police horses. Buckets of urine. Throwing punches when they think the cameras aren’t looking.

rayra on November 13, 2011 at 5:14 AM

The two worst aspects of this exchange? The smug look on Pelley’s face when he challenged Gingrich on this point, and the “no” you can hear him utter just as Gingrich started his smackdown of Pelley. Regardless of the context of this exchange, this is a perfect encapsulation of why these media debates are utterly worthless, and why the Republican Party needs to force a format change.

I completely disagree. These Leftist propaganda memes are even more important to blow out of the water than the debates themselves. Newt did us all a huge service by directly challanging this. This is the first and only time I have seen this oft pushed meme directly refuted on TV. Other times it’s been brought up, it’s been avoided or glossed over by those who disagree with the premise but didn’t know how to refute it because they weren’t sure.

rspock on November 13, 2011 at 5:17 AM

Bravo, Newt.

Pelley is beclowned by his own sense of self-importance, coupled with a big scoop of ignorance.

petefrt on November 13, 2011 at 5:58 AM

That smug look on Pelley’s face is just begging to be smacked off.

blue13326 on November 13, 2011 at 6:01 AM

… ignorant leftists asking questions based on a false premise…and then demanding that we accept the premise and debate the question.

landlines on November 13, 2011 at 1:56 AM

That’s their SOP. And our SOP is to fall for it. He who sets the terms of debate wins it.

If Newt is the only one with intellect enough to see through it, and spine enough to refute it, then Newt 2012.

petefrt on November 13, 2011 at 6:12 AM

Point
There already is a good debater in the WH.

Why do we need another?

What did the present WH debater do before he came to power?

Nothing.

What have these debaters done before they began debating?

Judge them on what they have done previously, else get another good debater who is incapeable of governing – let alone bringing any conservative principles to legislation.

Friendly21 on November 13, 2011 at 6:34 AM

From Hot Air regarding Gingrich

He promoted the return of the Fairness Doctrine.

He was for a federal individual health-care mandate, the lynchpin of ObamaCare.

He was practically spooning Nancy Pelosi in commercials about the need for government action on global warming.

He supports green energy projects [Solyndras] and farm-subsidies.

Even as late as this year he was pitching for more government intervention in the health-care system at the progressive Brookings Institution.

How is Gingrich an improvement on Mitt Romney?

scotash on November 13, 2011 at 7:00 AM

Oh by the way, this clip was a good response from Newt. I just grow really tired of seeing “Oh that was a good response!” turn in to “Oh I want him to be president!”.

scotash on November 13, 2011 at 7:02 AM

I simply do not see antagonism or PO’d-ness in Gingrich during these encounters. He’s pointed, firm and clear and then he moves on.

rrpjr on November 12, 2011 at 11:21 PM

I agree completely. All I see during these types of encounters is an assuring and confident response. The man KNOWS he knows what he is talking about, which is fine by me. I’m not looking for humility in these forums.

lynncgb on November 13, 2011 at 7:12 AM

I agree with Ed wholeheartedly. Speaker Gingrich’s response is correct because he listened carefully to the question, and responded accordingly.

The grand inquisitor did not like the answer and with a great degree arrogance tried to show the audience Speaker Gingrich does not understand the law.

Kudos, to Speaker Gingrich for straightening out the grand inquisitor and showing the audience that he knows the history under which laws are formulated.

MSGTAS on November 13, 2011 at 7:29 AM

Pseudo-intellectual liberals lik Pelley were born with one foot in their mouth and the other in a lower orifice. When challenged with undeniable facts, courage and persistence they crumble like a sand castle in a hurricane.

rplat on November 13, 2011 at 7:36 AM

As I was watching the debate, I too was amazed at the smugness of Pelley, especially when the camera panned to him after making his point — a supposed moderater making a point in a debate — amazed but not at all surprised.
I thoroughly enjoyed Newt’s subsequent take down of the moderator. I thought Romney, Bachmann, and Newt all showed themselves to be formidablt candidates. I especially liked Newt constantly reminding everyone what a HUGE improvement any one of the people on the stage would be over the current empty suit teleprompter-in-chief. OK I added that last part myself.

drewinmass on November 13, 2011 at 7:47 AM

Regardless of the context of this exchange, this is a perfect encapsulation of why these media debates are utterly worthless, and why the Republican Party needs to force a format change.

Cain – Gingrich – CSPAN

And the fun part is it doesn’t need to be sponsored by the RNC as CSPAN will take up the torch of civil discussion and presenting it to the american people. It doesn’t matter if the RNC ‘sponsors’ a debate, this is a free country and candidates can talk or debate or do as they please with each other in civil forums.

Brian Lamb has been one of the few patriots who is willing to give all sides a hearing in politics as that is part of a civic duty to our fellow citizens. CSPAN has been more than willing to host candidates on books they have written and are willing to host candidate created and led discussions on pre-arranged topics decided by the candidates involved.

You have seen the future of ‘Presidential Debates’ and it is the candidates running for President realizing that they must begin acting in a Presidential way and not as part of a circular firing squad. If you want more of these sorts of interactions amongst candidates then point them out, highlight them and laud them publicly for putting forth a civil discussion outside the environs of the alphabet soup. When the ‘moderator’ between Cain and Gingrich basically gave up and let the two men discuss topics, we all benefitted and that is not the influence of FOX but CSPAN at work: you don’t get to be partisan as a moderator and if the candidates start holding a discussion you LET THEM DO IT.

When you have an example that is actually good, then hold it up as one that IS GOOD and stop complaining about the BAD ones and, instead, contrast the BAD with the GOOD and draw conclusions based on the differences between them. Persuasion is necessary to get people used to the idea that we don’t need these sorts of ‘debates’ in the way they were invented in the 1960 election cycle. Perhaps some internet ‘debates’ or even multi-candidate discussions with streaming video and a non-partisan organization caching or hosting them would be a start? Get stuff off the boob tube and onto the small screen where interactive discussion and analysis will help others to understand what is going on.

This is the 21st century, not the 20th, and it is time we start letting the vestiges of the old, failed and bloddy ways of the 20th century go. Start now, and by the next full election cycle we won’t have the alphabets to complain about any more.

ajacksonian on November 13, 2011 at 8:03 AM

So simple and clear. Easy to understand.
Truth is often like that.

JellyToast on November 13, 2011 at 8:07 AM

I agree completely. All I see during these types of encounters is an assuring and confident response. The man KNOWS he knows what he is talking about, which is fine by me. I’m not looking for humility in these forums.
lynncgb on November 13, 2011 at 7:12 AM

Oh ya, this blustery bravado from the biggest swordsman among the GOP candidates is a real confidence builder. Follow-thru on this posturing and u start talking about our casualties in 10 to the 4th and 5th powers. We good Americans are endangered species and I don’t want us wasted.

Newt ain’t gonna happen.

gracie on November 13, 2011 at 8:08 AM

By Pelley’s standard, no courtsmartial is rule of law.

radjah shelduck on November 13, 2011 at 8:21 AM

Good gravy….when does that pandering moron Phinnaeus Huntsman stop getting invited to these debates?

csdeven on November 13, 2011 at 8:24 AM

Point
There already is a good debater in the WH.

Why do we need another?

What did the present WH debater do before he came to power?

Nothing.

What have these debaters done before they began debating?

Judge them on what they have done previously, else get another good debater who is incapeable of governing – let alone bringing any conservative principles to legislation.

Friendly21 on November 13, 2011 at 6:34 AM

Like it or not, a lot of Americans form their vote on the debates. Just picture a brain freeze like Perry’s in a debate with the Smug One. It would be over.

As far as judging them on what they have done previously… I seem to recal Newt leading one of the most conservative agendas ever through congress and forming a conservative majority in congress for the first time in decades, balancing the budget under a Dem pres. So his actual RECORD is pretty substancial.

I understand not trusting Newt. I don’t trust him either. I don’t trust any of them and shame on us for ever trusting Bush. We have to stay vigilant and watch our leaders. NEVER AGAIN !

stenwin77 on November 13, 2011 at 8:25 AM

All any candidate needs is to tell the public four things:
1. This is who I am.

2. This is what I believe.

3. This is what I want to do.

4. Come, follow me.

If anyone can make a convincing case on any 2 of the first 3, then they will respond to the forth.

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on November 13, 2011 at 1:13 AM

Bravo, Brian, Bravo!

Who is John Galt on November 13, 2011 at 8:26 AM

And, Newt seems like our only chance to save ourselves.

Who is John Galt on November 13, 2011 at 8:30 AM

This election is going to be awesome. We’re getting to see which voters are being outed as the true establishment types and which truly do care about helping out this country.

Notorious GOP on November 13, 2011 at 8:33 AM

I’m not in foul mood, I got laid tonight and last night too. I hope that doesn’t offend your sensitive eyes with my blunt talk about having sex with someone I’m not married to and lives in the U.K.

Knucklehead on November 13, 2011 at 1:31 AM

Good for you. I get laid every night by the man I love (my husband), and the prospect of choosing a candidate from this group puts me in a foul mood.

disa on November 13, 2011 at 8:35 AM

Like it or not, a lot of Americans form their vote on the debates. Just picture a brain freeze like Perry’s in a debate with the Smug One. It would be over.

Obama’s had plenty of brain freezes when he’s off the teleprompter.

disa on November 13, 2011 at 8:36 AM

Newt runs over the bus.

mike_NC9 on November 13, 2011 at 8:38 AM

Scott Pelley is what you get when you promote a middle-market, happy-talk TV anchor up out of his Peter level to the network. The depth of on-air “talent” has ebbed by magnitudes over the decades. The multinationals that own the most valuable channels have an interest in fogging facts in the US and putting pinheads like Pelley and Dianne Sawyer out there. These debates would be as valuable in front of a panel of local news weather readers, and would be a notch or two more interesting to boot. The next debate should be moderated by Al Roker.

curved space on November 13, 2011 at 8:39 AM

Just picture a brain freeze like Perry’s in a debate with the Smug One. It would be over.

stenwin77 on November 13, 2011 at 8:25 AM

And when he isn’t forgetting his main policy points, he is just spewing out a list of words that his handlers have directed him to use at some point during the debate. It’s clear that Perry doesn’t have any core beliefs that relate to the job of CinC. He makes up for it by putting in special words even if they don’t really fit in the context of his answer.

csdeven on November 13, 2011 at 8:40 AM

Wow, you go, Newt!

Regardless of the context of this exchange, this is a perfect encapsulation of why these media debates are utterly worthless, and why the Republican Party needs to force a format change.

Hear, hear! I don’t know how they’re going to force a format change, but that’s exactly what needs to happen. Good luck convincing these media types that folks aren’t tuned in to watch them, though, because in their mind that’s exactly what they think.

And now, I shall watch that clip again! Up twinkles!

scalleywag on November 13, 2011 at 8:40 AM

Pelley made an indignant face (at 33 seconds)that reminded me of another indignant face

Osis on November 13, 2011 at 8:40 AM

And This is AWESOME, thanks terryanonline.

NEWTer the bastiches!

Who is John Galt on November 13, 2011 at 8:41 AM

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on November 13, 2011 at 1:13 AM

5. This is what I’ve done.

6. This is how I have governed.

The first four items are just cheap talk.

Friendly21 on November 13, 2011 at 8:45 AM

“You do that, a quart o’ blood will drop outta person’s body.”

crash72 on November 13, 2011 at 8:46 AM

For instance, Perry’s grandstanding on the issue of Gitmo. He simply plugged in several catch phrases for emotional fodder. In reality, he said nothing of substance.

csdeven on November 13, 2011 at 8:46 AM

Why is this guy grilling Gingrich on the legality of killing Awliki instead of Obama?

Mord on November 13, 2011 at 8:46 AM

The first four items are just cheap talk.

Friendly21 on November 13, 2011 at 8:45 AM

Finding out how a candidate will deal with a problem they have never had experience with is not cheap talk.

csdeven on November 13, 2011 at 8:50 AM

Why is this guy grilling Gingrich on the legality of killing Awliki instead of Obama?

Mord on November 13, 2011 at 8:46 AM

Agreed, and I would start by asking how Pelley is even qualified to ask questions concerning foreign policy.

csdeven on November 13, 2011 at 8:53 AM

I’m not a Pelly fan but I do watch 60 minutes and I can’t wait to see his “expose” about Pelosi’s financial windfalls tonight.

scalleywag on November 13, 2011 at 9:01 AM

Gingrich left the House in semi-disgrace

ddrintn on November 13, 2011 at 1:01 AM

That’s like calling Sarah Palin a quitter because she stepped down in the face of so many lawsuits. Believe that, and the liberal legal attack dogs win again.

John the Libertarian on November 13, 2011 at 1:23 AM

Pfffft. The only similarity is that they both really did quit.

ddrintn on November 13, 2011 at 9:09 AM

As I mentioned, I didn’t watch the debate, but from my Twitter feed and a few e-mails, it seems that many thought that Gingrich and Romney were strong as usual, Rick Perry did surprisingly well, and Herman Cain spent too much time deflecting with promises to have a team of experts look at the issues once he’s elected President.

Ed, Boris Huntsman mentioned he was stuck out in Siberia, and he thanked the moderators for remembering to ask him a question GRIN. When Huntsman mentioned his service as Ambassador to China, he was careful to frame it as his service to the U.S. He doesn’t mention that his service as Ambassador was in Obama’s administration. I take that to mean his campaign team is finally figuring out they need to finesse his message for the republican audience. That’s progress. Huntsman mentioned the email question of the sailor who asked a question he responded by thanking him for his service and mentioning he has two sons in serving in the Navy. Huntsman didn’t make a big deal out of his son’s military service but it does make a difference to voters like me when I am weighing political b.s. to substance :)

I agree with Ed, about these media events. Last night was probably one of the worse. Pelley actually scolded the audience for clapping and making noise after the answers of some of the candidates. He told them to stop doing it, but I didn’t notice the audience changing their behavior after he told them to hold their applause. CBS did themselves no favors last night it was choppy to watch on television, and after they cut away for whatever the network was broadcasting, the live feed online was awful. So I gave up and missed the last half hour.

Dr Evil on November 13, 2011 at 9:13 AM

Oh by the way, this clip was a good response from Newt. I just grow really tired of seeing “Oh that was a good response!” turn in to “Oh I want him to be president!”.

scotash on November 13, 2011 at 7:02 AM

Exactly right. It’s silly.

ddrintn on November 13, 2011 at 9:15 AM

gracie on November 13, 2011 at 8:08 AM

I was merely addressing the different perceptions of Newt’s deliverance of his responses. Some see it as appearing antagonistic and being PO’d, you see blustery bravado, and yet others, such as myself, only see direct and pointed confidence. It’s a curious distinction, don’t you think? Peace.

lynncgb on November 13, 2011 at 9:18 AM

And now, I shall watch that clip again! Up twinkles!

scalleywag on November 13, 2011

Me too.

lynncgb on November 13, 2011 at 9:20 AM

Amen!
Take up arms against the United States of America, actively work to kill Americans, and you deserve a hellfire up your a**.

p51d007 on November 13, 2011 at 4:07 AM

And what liberal Pelley seemed oblivious to – was that the President of the U.S. Barack Obama (D) agrees with Newt, intellectually, and in practice :)

Score Newt!

Why has no one told Pelley that he comes off as pretentious on air? I get being confident, but he’s got so many condescending affectations. Was last night supposed to be “The Pelley Show” that’s real professional CBS.

Dr Evil on November 13, 2011 at 9:25 AM

My wife likes a man who gets pissed off when necessary and doesn’t become some sort of Kumbayah squish because he’s afraid of being seen as masculine.

But what does she know, she’s just a woman.

Bishop on November 12, 2011 at 11:30 PM

Your wife and I would be BFF’s…and yeah tell Mr. PPF that the kumbaya crap does not work in the real world. I don’t want to see mushroom clouds in this country and THEN a foreign enemy say “Yea we’re at war with the US”.

In a nutshell: Mr. PPF does not want to be seing all these news and all these threats because this is a realm that he cannot do anything about it. As long as he has no control, yeap DC will do their job. Now do you get why in the world part of the reason I take meds is because of stuff like this? Agree to disagree is ok, but to not really care (and I wasn’t born inland!) baffles me. Love for this country does not necessarily translate to call it like it is, and be protective of the country (or protective of their women).

Nowadays, if someone hints hints that they will engage us to war, whatdoyouthink a POTUS is supposed to do? Arm all bases to the teeth, up the DEFCON alarm and all our spooks all over the world will up the ante. So this silly willy nilly notion that an enemy will blab that they will engage us to attack we’ll have at the ready more ships, crafts and missiles than all the space garbage that now surrounds Earth.

That will happen while our 30-second audience watches “Dexter”. Absolutely clueless.

ProudPalinFan on November 13, 2011 at 9:35 AM

Oh by the way, this clip was a good response from Newt. I just grow really tired of seeing “Oh that was a good response!” turn in to “Oh I want him to be president!”.

scotash on November 13, 2011 at 7:02 AM

Me too. That never seems to end well for the flavor of the month, either.

kg598301 on November 13, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Like it or not, a lot of Americans form their vote on the debates. Just picture a brain freeze like Perry’s in a debate with the Smug One. It would be over.
As far as judging them on what they have done previously… I seem to recal Newt leading one of the most conservative agendas ever through congress and forming a conservative majority in congress for the first time in decades, balancing the budget under a Dem pres. So his actual RECORD is pretty substancial.
I understand not trusting Newt. I don’t trust him either. I don’t trust any of them and shame on us for ever trusting Bush. We have to stay vigilant and watch our leaders. NEVER AGAIN !
stenwin77 on November 13, 2011 at 8:25 AM

Newt’s support of Dede Scozzafoza over the Tea Party candidate and his scolding of those who supported the TP guy gave that race to the Democrats. Scozza… ended up endorsing Owens the Democrat. That was very recent and puts a big question mark by Newt.

Yet, if he continues to run as he is now and I’m left choosing between Newt and Romney, then right now it’s Newt.

The GOP choices are depressing.

conservative pilgrim on November 13, 2011 at 9:42 AM

Ginritch F*ckin Rocked.

He in this debate hit all the points and didn’t play word games and try to dance the subjects. Torture it works and yes and oh yeah the best was when he said you defeat your enemy by “killing them and then Killing more of them” yes he did say KILL THEM.

C-Low on November 13, 2011 at 9:46 AM

Why is this guy grilling Gingrich on the legality of killing Awliki instead of Obama?
Mord on November 13, 2011 at 8:46 AM

That tells us a lot about the media, huh? Essentially, Pelley admits he doesn’t agree with Obama’s actions, but the media never went after Obama in it.

conservative pilgrim on November 13, 2011 at 9:47 AM

s/b on it

conservative pilgrim on November 13, 2011 at 9:48 AM

It’s a curious distinction, don’t you think? Peace.
lynncgb on November 13, 2011 at 9:18 AM

Although Newt can be generous, engaging and entertaining of course, he is more often an arrogant, condescending professor, reminding all of us of the books he has written and the people he has known and just how gosh darn smart he is. Newt is actually pushing me toward Romney who is very smart, sans the women problem and much richer without the proclivity for excess.

gracie on November 13, 2011 at 9:53 AM

How did Cain do in this thing? Did he answer every foreign policy question with “999″? LOL

One Trick Pony.

HondaV65 on November 13, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Yet, if he continues to run as he is now and I’m left choosing between Newt and Romney, then right now it’s Newt.

The GOP choices are depressing.

conservative pilgrim on November 13, 2011 at 9:42 AM

You’ve got that right. I tell you, I wouldn’t have imagined in 2009 that in 2012 our choices are going to come down to Romney and Gingrich. Good grief.

Me too. That never seems to end well for the flavor of the month, either.

kg598301 on November 13, 2011 at 9:41 AM

True enough. What we have here are various more conservatively-tinged candidates getting “second looks” and bumps in polling by default after some other flavor of the month crashes and burns.

ddrintn on November 13, 2011 at 9:56 AM

My take.

kingsjester on November 13, 2011 at 9:57 AM

Pfffft. The only similarity is that they both really did quit.

ddrintn on November 13, 2011 at 9:09 AM

Do you want to go there? Trust me I am not a happy camper that conservatives jumped to Cain’s defense after his incident(s) and nobody did jack to stand up for Sarah on a more cohesive, national level that reflected these sentiments via all the polls that followed.

Now it’s all “Aww, Palin chose family first and not the ambition to go for President”. Yes, Palin is selfless. After repeating the reasons she stepped down ad nauseaum, still it’s preferrable for fellow conservatives and Republithugs to see a family go bankrupt and Alaska’s surplus used for the defense of a sitting governor-even if the state law allows it. Groovy/.

Other people will spin it as corruption but heh, no worries. Newt did a wonderful smack down and for that if he keeps it up some Palinistas will support him. I hope she reconsiders because dayum a lot of those in the media will pee in their pants and skirts. What garbage can they make up or dig up?

Other than with assistance of the GOP elites, they would attempt “make up” again. Rove is our best barometer, and Obama’s camp and Obama himself have responded to Palin’s FB posts and tweets. Now that’s “fast and furious” iykwim.

Let’s watch now for the attacks on Newt from the lamestream media, shall we? As for me, idc about Newt’s baggage b/c I didn’t live through it-I was a teen and lived outside the US when he was the Speaker. True.Gen.Z. The media has to get to all the rest of the Generation Z skulls with mushes (Rush) and air out his dirty laundry from his tenure and back when he drank from a baby bottle-to show the Z’s that are not paying attention all the reasons Newt should not be the candidate of choice.

Now instead of throwing Grandma over the cliff, why not throw off the cliff the couch with Pelosi sitting on it?

ProudPalinFan on November 13, 2011 at 10:05 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4