Gingrich: I’ll “serve notice” that future debates must allow audience cheering
posted at 1:20 pm on January 24, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
In last night’s debate, Newt Gingrich never seemed to catch fire, and the consensus on Twitter last night was that the admonition to the audience by NBC not to react to the candidates hurt Gingrich more than anyone else. In the South Carolina debates, the ovations Gingrich received for his attacks on the media helped fuel his victories and the game-changing result in the primary on Saturday. After his flat performance, Gingrich warns that he won’t take part in any debates that forbid cheering:
In an interview with the morning show “Fox and Friends,” Mr. Gingrich said NBC’s rules amounted to stifling free speech. In what has become a standard line of attack for his anti-establishment campaign, Mr. Gingrich blamed the media for trying to silence a dissenting point of view.
“I wish in retrospect I’d protested when Brian Williams took them out of it because I think it’s wrong,” Mr. Gingrich said. “And I think he took them out of it because the media is terrified that the audience is going to side with the candidates against the media, which is what they’ve done in every debate.” …
Mr. Gingrich’s performance in the debate in Tampa on Monday night was far more muted. Critics noted that he seemed to be off his game. The National Journal, which co-hosted the NBC debate, compared Gingrich to “a stand-up comedian whose routine suffers without echoes of laughter egging him on.”
Mr. Gingrich clearly noticed something was off, too. “We’re going to serve notice on future debates,” he told Fox. “The media doesn’t control free speech. People ought to be allowed to applaud if they want to.”
Free speech? Meh. The media does not stifle free speech; these debates are their events, their forums, and they have every right to set the rules for participation in them, for both the candidates (with whom they negotiate) and the audience. Free speech does not mean that NBC has to broadcast cheering sections. It’s a false and silly argument. If Gingrich or any of the other candidates choose not to participate in these media events, that’s their prerogative, of course. If people in the audience don’t like the rules, they don’t have to sit there, either.
There are plenty of good reasons to question why Gingrich and his colleagues agreed to do 19 of these media game-show events. I’d start with the poor selection of questions, topics, and moderators, as well as gimmicky chimes and “This or That” nonsense. Audience hooting and hollering doesn’t make my top ten debate attributes. In fact, I find that kind of behavior off-putting for something as serious as a presidential debate. That doesn’t mean that we won’t allow the audience to participate in the Hot Air debate, but I hardly think of that as a critical, make-or-break aspect to the event.
Update: Bad news for Gingrich if he gets the nomination:
I called up the Commission on Presidential Debates, which handles the general election debates, and they confirmed that audience participation has not been allowed in the past in debates, and will not be allowed this cycle either. So, if Gingrich is the GOP nominee, he’ll have to face a silent audience during his debates with the President unless the rules are changed.
Update II: People are complaining that the original headline is misleading. I’ve changed it to narrowly fit what Gingrich said, but what was the obvious interpretation of “serv[ing] notice”? Was it that Gingrich would demand audience participation but take no action if the debate moderators didn’t comply? What about that is “serv[ing] notice”?
Update III: Actually, the Lincoln-Douglas debates did have cheering sections, or at least audience responses.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Regarding the enforced silence at last night’s debate, I’d be all for a little group civil disobedience.
Who does MSNBC think they are, telling people not to applaud or cheer? I know … but I think the appropriate response by the audience would be “STFU, MSNBC — I’ll damn well applaud or cheer whenever I want.” They will cut out the applause? They’ll stop the debate? They’ll escort us out? Sure, do it and discover that your network will have as much sympathy as Americans did for the racists who used water cannons on black civil rights marchers in the 60s.
This is just more of the same MSM manipulation of the conditions of the debate to control their narrative.
PatriotGal2257 on January 24, 2012 at 2:44 PM
That’s weird one of my posts got partially eaten. When I was trying to quote.
Raquel Pinkbullet on January 24, 2012 at 2:45 PM
What does that say about the snakes in your head? Sorry, but honestly what has happened to many conservatives today. If you can admit to yourself that you’re championing an “untrustworthy scoundrel” for the White House, you have some serious issues about integrity, credibility, fidelity…. all the key assets of the conservative brand. Just sayin.
DumboTheAvenger on January 24, 2012 at 2:46 PM
Awww, what the hell.
Put up an “Applause” sign and add a laugh-track to the whole thing.
Have the moderator introduce each candidate with “Come on down!” and they all have to wear funny costumes.
Decide who won by who gets the loudest applause, hoots and hollers.
And have Ol’ Rick Perry show up to lead the audience in cheers by doing the cartwheels and somersaults he learned as a Texas A&M Yell Boy.
“I’ll take “What have I done for the conservative cause” for $500, Alex.”
Horace on January 24, 2012 at 2:47 PM
I did forget Tony Snow, God rest his soul.
Raquel Pinkbullet on January 24, 2012 at 2:47 PM
Oh good grief! And we saw how brilliantly that worked out!
GeorgiaBuckeye on January 24, 2012 at 2:47 PM
No it is much more important. It is important to realise the MSM is our enemy. We cannot let them stifle our voices no matter who our guy is.
tinkerthinker on January 24, 2012 at 2:47 PM
Why can’t the audience just do what it wants to do? Clap, be silent, whatever.
You only need to make sure the audience wasn’t stacked for one candidate.
INC on January 24, 2012 at 2:48 PM
Vote for Newt.
He will propose legislation as President guaranteeing the Right to Cheer for all Americans.
Horace on January 24, 2012 at 2:49 PM
This!
Rovin on January 24, 2012 at 2:50 PM
Seriously? What needs to be “clarified”?:
How ironic is it that the greatest debater evah needs you to intervene on his behalf, with the preposterous notion he was misunderstood?
Buy Danish on January 24, 2012 at 2:51 PM
I agree with pretty much everything you said Rogue… audience participation is a good thing (unless you’re at an Ahmadinejad speech in Tehran) but we are so far down the rabbit hole at this point… watch any news program it’s all staged so that the media can pick their candidates and narrow down the race. The higher ups know exactly what they are doing. You can have all these debates and cheer all you want. The fact of the matter is these people don’t care about that. They don’t care about audience participation in debates and all that garbage. A lot of the time they hand pick the audience to participate and ask questions anyways. So nothing’s gonna change. NOTHING. They control us. No matter what. They do what they wanna do. You know, and, so, that’s why all this stuff needs to start crumbling down. All this stuff needs to be exposed.
apocalypse on January 24, 2012 at 2:53 PM
This is a good example of what life would be like with Newt as Prez. Kind of my way or no way, tough if you don’t like, I know best what’s best for me anyway. The pseudo conservative Obama seems like. ‘Cause now we play by MY rules sucker. No wonder he was forced out as Speaker.
jeanie on January 24, 2012 at 2:53 PM
Will we all get pom poms?
Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 2:53 PM
The Newtron is SMART like that.
Gunlock Bill on January 24, 2012 at 2:54 PM
Rovin
Damn straight!
Let the debate audience use those obnoxious horns soccer fans use at their championship games.
Let each candidate have a squad of cheerleaders – “Gimme a N, gimme an E, gimme a W, gimme a T -what’s that spell….”
Have each candidate do a World Wide Wrestling-style interview before the debate begins – “I want to state here and now that I am ready to take on Romney anyplace, anytime! AARRRRRR!”
Finally, use a Big Board with Vanna White working it so the candidates have to guess the letters in the next question by the moderator – whoever gets it first can either answer it or pass.
As we have clowns running, let’s turn the whole thing into a Ringling Brothers event.
Horace on January 24, 2012 at 2:57 PM
Boils down to who to you hate the least.
jeanie on January 24, 2012 at 2:58 PM
Or maybe it means he would raise the following points
My username was chosen because I have been active in politics in the past and learned the hard way that there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between any of the politicians or political groups.
The last hope for this country is for the voice of the people to be heard. There is an unbelievable amount of anger and fear with the status quo in politics from both the left and the right.
Question for you, Ed — why would YOU want the audience in ANY of the debates to be kept from clapping, cheering or yelling if they wish?
PolAgnostic on January 24, 2012 at 2:59 PM
Cindy Munford
“Where do we get all the pom-poms?”
Easy.
-Newt’s will be donated by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
-Romney’s will come from pom-pom companies Bain capital “vulturized”
-Santorum’s will used ones from his severely awful Senate loss
-Paul’s will be gifts from Iran
Easy as pie..or cake, depending upon your preference.
Horace on January 24, 2012 at 3:01 PM
No, actually Yours is the “Bigot” trick again. Dodging the fact that the bigotry is real.
Bigots are reticent to admit that they are bigots. They like to pretend that they aren’t bigots and that their form of bigotry isn’t an issue. That way, they don’t have to confront it.
Gunlock Bill on January 24, 2012 at 3:02 PM
You only need to make sure the audience wasn’t stacked for one candidate.
INC on January 24, 2012 at 2:48 PM
And that will be determined HOW? Body scans, pat-downs, sworn affidvits?
Details. Ya gotta pay attention to details.
Horace on January 24, 2012 at 3:04 PM
Yeah!!!!!
And watch the backpedaling/spinning begin!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gunlock Bill on January 24, 2012 at 3:05 PM
HA!!!!!! I’ve been served notice!!!! This from the blooming idiot who just agreed with this nonsense (emphasis mine):
Hilarity ensues…. Denying Newt the right to an whooping/hollering audience is like using water cannons on “racists”? And you’re all for demanding the ‘right’ of an audience to cheer boorishly, but you want me to stop commenting? Will you “escort me out”? I guess that makes me kinda like Rosa Parks, or something.
You may want to refrain from commenting just to spare yourself further embarrassment.
Buy Danish on January 24, 2012 at 3:05 PM
I have to agree. Applause, boos, moans and groans are a way of communicating with one another and our candidates. Seems like a way to isolate us from another. Why?
lynncgb on January 24, 2012 at 3:06 PM
Overreach much?
Oy.
whatcat on January 24, 2012 at 3:06 PM
But, but, but, the Newtron is SOOOO SMART!!!!
Gunlock Bill on January 24, 2012 at 3:08 PM
Have theme songs or sing-a-longs for each candidate, too.
For instance, Newt runs on the stage with his arms in the air while the theme from “Rocky” plays.
Or, sing-a-longs:
“Merrily we cast our vote,
And vote for Rom-N-ey!
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,
He’s our cuppa tea!”
So many ways to show this is real American politics!
Horace on January 24, 2012 at 3:09 PM
Some major bizarre over-the-topness there. And, actually, I think most folks approve when screaming nutballs are removed from such public events.
whatcat on January 24, 2012 at 3:11 PM
I wonder if the folks at Freddie Mac and Fannie may were allowed to cheer while Newt was lobbying…er…peddling influence…er..teaching history lessons to them.
And Newt: If cheering is allowed, is booing also allowed”
Inquiring minds want to know.
Horace on January 24, 2012 at 3:11 PM
I miss Tony. Maybe it’s just a coincidence, but it seems that Tony’s death marked the decline of FoxNews.
NoNails on January 24, 2012 at 3:13 PM
Well…bye.
cicerone on January 24, 2012 at 3:15 PM
Buy Danish
Newt will have a post on his website tomorrow clarifying his position on cheering.
It will be right after the post on why lobbying and influence peddling are the same as the history classes you sat through in high school.
“A pays B to talk to C to convince C to do something that will benefit A.”
Why, that’s just like In fourteen-hundred and ninety-two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue.”
Horace on January 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM
I’m picturing something like this –
Statement from Gingrich 2012 Campaign: Newt Gingrich appeared on Fox and Friends this morning. Because of deplorable media bias on the part of the partisan hosts he was pushed into saying some things he now regrets and asks for the right to revise his comments:
Buy Danish on January 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM
Yes, and they should have carnival ppl on hand selling popcorn and beer. What kind of candidate demands audience feedback during a debate? It sounds like another of Newt’s socialist plots- let’s create a sense of popular support for his ‘vulture capitalist’ attacks on free enterprise.
bayam on January 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM
Newt’s big line in support of his lefty attacks against Romney has been that we need full disclosure in the primaries so that we will know how the candidate will fair in the general. Well, last night we got full disclosure at to how Newt will perform in the only debate format Obama will agree to. He sucked, which is why he is getting his panties in a wad over audience participation in future debates.
Let Gingrich whine, and call him on it. There is no way in hell Gingrich will skip the only forum that is holding up his candidacy. Debates are his lifeline. During the last extended period of no debates he dropped 20 points in the polls, as the electorate had the opportunity to examine his record and character without the artificial stimulation of Newt’s rhetorical bombast.
Since the MSM wants Newt to win the nomination, they’ll cave on this. It’s a no brainer.
Mr. Arkadin on January 24, 2012 at 3:18 PM
PatriotGal2257
Will you be singing “We Shall Overcome” when the ushers with the nightsticks drive you from the auditorium where the debate is held”
They might turn the firehoses on you, too.
And dogs. Watch out for the dogs.
Horace on January 24, 2012 at 3:19 PM
Hey, let’s all just make certain the rest of the debates are packed with Romney supporters so we can dispense with this silly notion that Gingrich might be a more formidable candidate. And let’s add in some canned applauses for Mittens and some boos for Newt.
Seriously, I really find it depressing that some of you here would condone the silencing of the audience by the liberal media to advance your candidate of choice—at all cost. If you’re honestly advocating for a silent response from the people—in either direction—where does this precedent end? Do we all become silent sheep only to nod our heads before we are sent to the slaughter house? What’s next? Oh, you’re missing some of the text you just posted because the owners of this site decided to edit out what they didn’t like? Not likely with Hot Air, but does this road some of you are jokingly slamming Gingrich about really the one you care to travel—in silence—controlled by anyone?
Rovin on January 24, 2012 at 3:22 PM
Gee, I don’t know… maybe they think they are the people who rented the room?
JohnGalt23 on January 24, 2012 at 3:23 PM
Intended as a different way to express ‘the Bronx cheer’ don’t cha know.
And, yes Prince is quite gifted.
And…
captn2fat on January 24, 2012 at 2:33 PM
I’ll have to give a listen.
mickytx on January 24, 2012 at 3:25 PM
Then they should pay for potted plant prop-audience, too.
de rigueur on January 24, 2012 at 3:25 PM
When
NeroNewt is asked a tough question he should really be able to give the thumbs down sign and have the asker run through on the spot by an armor-clad gladiator. It’s only fair.whatcat on January 24, 2012 at 3:26 PM
bayam
“Newt-dogs! Gitcher Newt-dogs! Got ‘em here!”
Anything organization, entity, corporation, group, club, association, league or whatever that puts on a debate has the right to set the rules, including audience behavior.
This isn’t a “civil rights” or “Freedom of Speech” issue. There is no “March on Selma” involved.
Don’t get it? Go to the next meeting of the Executive Board of your local American Legion and start whooping and hollering when someone speaks. Hope your medical insurance is paid up to date.
Horace on January 24, 2012 at 3:26 PM
What? Are they not allowed to set the rules in the room they rent?
How wonderfully progressive of you!
JohnGalt23 on January 24, 2012 at 3:29 PM
Even though I support Newt, I am not upset about this on his behalf. I think that because of the obvious bias in most of the questions, the audience should boo them. I remember when Sarah Palin was on her bus tour, she only gave time to people in the press who had treated her fairly up to that point, and suddenly she got a pretty fair Newsweek cover. I believe that these media hacks can be trained to provide fair coverage, but you don’t do it by letting them get away with what they’ve been doing.
Night Owl on January 24, 2012 at 3:29 PM
Look out! RRRRRUFF! RRRRUFF! Grrrrrrrrroowwwwwl!
Buy Danish on January 24, 2012 at 3:31 PM
whatcat on January 24, 2012 at 3:26 PM
Funny. We need more comedy gold and cowbell.
Lots more cowbell!
mickytx on January 24, 2012 at 3:32 PM
I think the whole problem ties into how coarse our society has become.
People do not accept just sitting quietly and listen anymore.
They seem to think that at any event, including these debates, they need to be there with painted faces, no shirts on, drunk and yelling like idiots at an NFL play-off game.
Everytime the camera pans the audience, the want to stick their faces in it, lift up one finger and scream, “Newt! No.1, Man! “Effing No.!
ARRAAAAGHHH!”
Serious decline.
Horace on January 24, 2012 at 3:33 PM
Boy, did you ever miss the point. Not to mention, you don’t grasp analogies.
You don’t think it’s the least bit troubling that the MSM in this country not only has been in the tank for the Democrats for decades, is and has always been rabidly liberal, and by selective omission have always slanted their presentations, whether broadcast or print, to favor their politician of choice? The MSM could revert to the position they took at the beginning of the last century and admit that they are Democrat or Republican and they will support only those candidates and save us the trouble, but I think they are much too intellectually dishonest to admit that they are in fact biased.
My analogy to the civil rights movement was to say that it’s long past time for us average citizens to stand up and fight back via civil disobedience. Who is MSNBC to tell anyone in the audience how they should respond? They don’t have that right — they obviously think they do, and that’s the main problem. Unless, of course, you are in favor of their not-so-subtle attempt at quashing it.
PatriotGal2257 on January 24, 2012 at 3:33 PM
CC: Rovin
Buy Danish on January 24, 2012 at 3:33 PM
If Newt’s that worried about the questions, why doesn’t he just rent a place and hire friendly questioners? Then he can do a righteous “I’m paying for this!” line instead all his whining and crying about it.
whatcat on January 24, 2012 at 3:34 PM
The reason why there needs to be debate rules regarding the audience is the contest would basically comes down to who can get the most as#holes in the door.
How would you feel if a bunch of Paulites chanted “War Monger” every time a different candidate answered a question about Iran?
Regardless of what you think regarding the debate having a “Jerry Springer” vibe to it, the real debates that actually matter for the General Election will not tolerate audience participation, which is a good thing, unless you want a bunch of Union Goons heckling the GOP nominee.
Newt needs a friendly crowd to perform, and he’s not going to get one with Obama, which really takes away the entire rationale for his candidacy.
BradTank on January 24, 2012 at 3:35 PM
We shall overcome, we shall overcome, we shall overcome some daaaaaay.
Buy Danish on January 24, 2012 at 3:35 PM
Didn’t seem to bother any of the other networks.
PatriotGal2257 on January 24, 2012 at 3:35 PM
Gingrich is quite the cry-baby when he doesn’t get his way. He is always demanding that the other candidates do something. Last night he looked like a deer in the headlights when Romney attacked him, and he had to answer without a roudy bunch of supporters to encourage him. I hope he stays away from the rest of the debates. As Gingrich would say: Let me make this perfectly clear (just the way Obama would phrase it), it is fundamentally unfair.
lhuffman34 on January 24, 2012 at 3:36 PM
You see BD, I didn’t expect to silence you any more than the man on the moon could. (And you can get off your “Rosa Parks” high horse). You obviously missed my point about any ridiculous attempt to silence you here—I wouldn’t advocate that you not comment here, yet some of you are just fine with allowing the media to silence an audience as if it’s no big deal. To me it’s a big deal.
Rovin on January 24, 2012 at 3:37 PM
Three reasons why audience participation is a necessary and vital element for public debates:
1. Civil society is not built on silence.
Take a look at any dictatorship. The voice of ‘the people’ is always quashed. In so-called public events, and even what passes for ‘debate’ in such tyrannies as the Soviet Union, Chavez’s Venezuela, todays China, the voice of the people are kept silent, or, if allowed expression, is only as affirmation of the dictator’s policies and positions. The extreme of this is seen in the infamous Sadaam Hussein video, where, from behind a lectern, the Supreme Leader benignly calls out some names as thugs escort the named persons outside where they are executed immediately, with little protest. This is how power is cemented and consolidated.
2. The dynamics of a silent room aren’t what comes across on TV.
People in the hall at the Kennedy/Nixon debate thought Nixon had won the debate. People on radio too. But television viewers thought Kennedy won. The dynamics of a silent room don’t come across well on television. This gives those in control of the TV feed all the power to frame the narrative. If a silenced audience includes a lot of other forms of disapproval or approval – like head shaking or mouthing the word no – then it is impossible for viewers to know this and can be ‘shaped’ by the media. Candidates reveal more about their skills when confronted with immediate expression. If booed, do they get flumoxed or stand mightily, if cheered, are they capable of turning the affirmation into solid debate points? There’s a reason why sitcom producers went to the live audience format – it simply brings the viewer into the room. This is better than shutting them out to some degree.
3. Voters are entitled to a seat at the table.
One of the biggest problems with today’s media and politics is the white-out filtering that goes on, almost universally benefitting the left. The Commission on Presidential Debates was formed in 1987 to ‘control’ presidential debates (and control who gets in the debate). It is run by establishment insiders from both parties, who have every reason to exclude voter expression from debates. The Republican establishment certainly doesn’t have an appreciation for the rough and tumble of Tea Party participants. Of course, Democrats haven’t been democratic for a long time. One way to get through media filters is with immediate expression by an audience. The candidates are at the debates to put their records and ideas for the future out there for public consumption. Without being able to boo, hiss, cheer, laugh or EXPRESS opinion, voters simply don’t have a seat at the debate table.
JonPrichard on January 24, 2012 at 3:38 PM
Rovin on January 24, 2012 at 3:22 PMWhat’s most telling is that this decree was issued shortly after and specifically because of one instance of the pro-Dem MSM getting stepped to for trying to throw the debate for the Dem’s Repub favorite, Romney.
They can’t even let people have one “in yer face!” moment, without overreacting. This will backfire on them.
Christien on January 24, 2012 at 3:38 PM
s/b quote, not strike. Sorry, Rovin.
Christien on January 24, 2012 at 3:38 PM
On the contrary, I’m a capitalist. In my business, the extras and silent bits get paid.
de rigueur on January 24, 2012 at 3:39 PM
You forgot to put a muzzle on one of them Ruffs. :)
Rovin on January 24, 2012 at 3:41 PM
PatriotGal2257
All of the alphabet networks and their news division, except PBS, and all of the cable networks and their news divisons, are privately-owned corporations, accountable to their stockholders, not the gubmint or you.
They can, and have the right, to hog-tie Newt and stuff a sock in his mouth during one of their corporate-sponsored debates if they want to.
Don’t like it? Buy stock in one of them and go to the next stockholders meeting and beetch and whine.
This ain’t the March on Selma, Mississippi Burning, I Have A Dream stuff.
Horace on January 24, 2012 at 3:41 PM
No, because a correct analogy would be a team that got whooped in a game and blames it’s loss on the crowd not cheering.
Because they picked up the tab.
whatcat on January 24, 2012 at 3:43 PM
Newt not getting his way is just like slavery or something.
whatcat on January 24, 2012 at 3:44 PM
Typical liberal/progressive. It’s all fine as long as you’re doing the attacking. Pitch loaded questions to GOP candidates, distort their positions, denigrate them and their supporters constantly, stack the deck against them via the MSM and we’re just supposed to sit back and take it.
No.
PatriotGal2257 on January 24, 2012 at 3:46 PM
Sure, they are private corporations but their franchise is built upon the First Amendment. They have a duty as the Fourth Estate and as licensees of the public’s airwaves to host debates of candidates for high office. They gain money and prestige for hosting these debates, and actually don’t have a right to quash audience expression unless it is disruptive, like some frothing at the mouth code pink idiot or the’Don’t taze me bro’ guy.
JonPrichard on January 24, 2012 at 3:47 PM
JonPrichard
BFD! Take it up with the stockholders of NBC, a privately-owned corporation.
There is no “Right to Cheer” or “Audience Participation” in privately-sponsored events put on by privately-owned corporations in either the U.S. or Florida Constitutions that I know of. If there are, links please.
You can’t sit quietly and listen for 60 or 90 minutes without jumping up and screaming, “No.1, Man! “Effin’ No.1! Aaarrrrr?”
If not, your problem is more than your “rights.” Exercise your rights at the ballot box, not in whoopin’, hollerin’ and yellin’ like a moron.
Horace on January 24, 2012 at 3:47 PM
There you go again.
Ed’s update included this:
If he wasn’t sure what the interpretation of Gingrich’s comments were he should have gotten clarification before using the original headline in this post, which was,”Gingrich: I won’t do debates where audiences can’t cheer”. It was misleading because that’s not what was said.
But then it shouldn’t surprise me that it wouldn’t matter to you, since you are perfectly happy to accept and excuse misleading statements made by Governor Romney as long as they are directed at another candidate.
Flora Duh on January 24, 2012 at 3:48 PM
Cheer/boo regardless. What are they going to do? Whine more? Take their debate and go home? Threaten to stop holding pro-Dem Repub debates with pro-Dem moderators? Go to the UN and demand a sternly worded letter?
Christien on January 24, 2012 at 3:49 PM
okay why are newt and all of his fans overreacting to this? seriously? if newt is so amazing, then he shouldn’t need an excited, loud audience to cheer for him. says a lot about newt that he doesn’t feel confident in his own words enough that he needs a cheering crowd to make him look good on camera, so he can throw out cheap red-meat applause lines.
and then people are acting like this is stufling free speech or something? ridiculous. the person sponsoring the debate has the right set the rules of the debate, it’s perfectly fair. and during award ceremonies where they say “please hold your applause until the end” is that controlling free speech too? again, people are just overreacting.
i dislike crowds cheering at debates, it’s annoying and interrupts everything.
Sachiko on January 24, 2012 at 3:50 PM
Poor wittle Brian Williams. How hard it would be for he and his liberal network to actually hear and see people actually stand and applaud a conservative! We know how that just doesn’t fit your template, Mr. Williams….
jfs756 on January 24, 2012 at 3:50 PM
On Newt “you are the Washington insider– when Washington gets its prostate checked, it tickles you.”
- Jon Stewart
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 24, 2012 at 3:50 PM
What’s most telling is that this decree was issued shortly after and specifically because of one instance of the pro-Dem MSM getting stepped to for trying to throw the debate for the Dem’s Repub favorite, Romney.
They can’t even let people have one “in yer face!” moment, without overreacting. This will backfire on them.
Christien on January 24, 2012 at 3:38 PM
Conspiracy! Conspiracy! Everyone on line – tilt your tinfoil hats to SSW, 45 degrees, 4 minutes. The incoming info has better reception there. Conspiracy!
And I’ll bet that dang Oswald is involved in this, too. And the FBI, the CIA, military intelligence, Jack Ruby, LBJ, the Cubans and all of ‘em!
Horace on January 24, 2012 at 3:51 PM
You see BD, I didn’t expect to silence you any more than the man on the moon could. (And you can get off your “Rosa Parks” high horse). You obviously missed my point about any ridiculous attempt to silence you here—I wouldn’t advocate that you not comment here, yet some of you are just fine with allowing the media to silence an audience as if it’s no big deal. To me it’s a big deal.
Rovin on January 24, 2012 at 3:37 PM
Ha! I’m not on a “high horse”. I was mocking the idiotic comment you thought was super duper stuff.
You and your gal pal are engaging in ridiculous hyperbole. It’s already been clearly articulated that the Presidential debates don’t allow cheering either. Perhaps you could organize a march on Washington.
Buy Danish on January 24, 2012 at 3:51 PM
Why do you not vote for Catholics? Bigoted much? LOL!
Al-Ozarka on January 24, 2012 at 3:52 PM
Please – NO MORE primary debates!
Pork-Chop on January 24, 2012 at 3:53 PM
Well, that’s certainly a novel addition to the latest in the series of new-found “Constitutional rights”.
whatcat on January 24, 2012 at 3:53 PM
I’m glad you pointed out the ridiculousness of Gingrich’s “free speech” complaint. But, I think the Wall Street Journal perfectly explained Gingrich’s performance when it described it as “a stand-up comedian whose routine suffers without echoes of laughter egging him on.” When you watch him in debates, his entire performance consists of punchline after punchline and he relies on the crowd cheering for him after each one. But, during a debate he says almost nothing of substance, yet he gets huge cheers because of how he says nothing–loud, confident, sarcastic. When the cheers do not follow, his lack of substance is glaringly obvious and that is why he is whining.
Conservative in NOVA on January 24, 2012 at 3:56 PM
If you sit on a hot stove and burn your butt, don’t sit on hot stoves.
If you don’t like the rules in a privately-sponsored debate by a privately-owned corporation, then don’t go to the debate.
It really ain’t all that complex, Newt.
And this is the guy who taught history to Fannie and Freddie?
Sheesh!
Horace on January 24, 2012 at 3:56 PM
Of course, nobody is advocating football game type expression here. And we have more than just the right to vote. The 1st Amendment guarantees our rights to free speech, and yes, even in venues hosted by private entities – especially those regarding public office.
JonPrichard on January 24, 2012 at 3:57 PM
I think we should carry the “no clapping/cheering” rules out further. How about not allowing it when the Prez gives his SOTU address tonight? Fair is fair.
MomInLatteland on January 24, 2012 at 3:58 PM
sobincorporated on January 24, 2012 at 3:59 PM
Old and Busted: Kneel before Zod!
The New Hotness: Bow before Brian!
Christien on January 24, 2012 at 3:59 PM
What’s newfound about the 1st Amendment? And broadcast networks are required to host debates and addresses such as SOTU. Its in their license agreements. What is your point exactly?
JonPrichard on January 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM
To be honest, you make me wonder how the audience is selected, which would have a lot to do with my bias question. There is no way to be sure who they are, is there? Well, unless you rent a place and invite the audience you want in addition to the questioners. Which would make it an infomercial. But if he hired friendly questioners, there would be no need to do the righteous “I’m paying for this!” Hmmm…
Night Owl on January 24, 2012 at 4:01 PM
Sure, they are private corporations but their franchise is built upon the First Amendment. They have a duty as the Fourth Estate and as licensees of the public’s airwaves to host debates of candidates for high office.
JonPrichard on January 24, 2012 at 3:47 PM
Obviously, you know nothing about constitutional law.
When I was back there in seminary and law school, we were taught that First Amendment issues only arise when there is action by government or those acting under color of law to limit free speech.
There is no such thing as a “Fourth Estate” duty. The media, except PBS, is all privately-owned. They are not the government nor are they acting under color of law. Their licenses are privately-owned by private corporations.
There is no duty, via these privately-owned coporations, via their privately-owned license, to host any debates at all ever.
When the U.S. government, or a state government, sponsors a debate and therefore acts under color of law and limits Freedom of Speech, then you have a point.
As it stands now you lack both any knowledge of constitutional law and a clue. You can obtain the first by studying – you’ll have to figure out on your own how to get the latter.
Horace on January 24, 2012 at 4:02 PM
*facepalm*. No it doesn’t. But hey, the OWS types would no doubt love to cheer you and your wacky interpretation of the First Amendment on.
Buy Danish on January 24, 2012 at 4:03 PM
What Newt meant to say was:
“I’m actually a windbag who, while very well educated, is actually a blowhard who’s cynical enough and experienced enough as a politician to know that politics is never about substance. It’s about style, emotionalism, and appealing to people’s base instincts rather than making sound, rational arguments. So how dare you mitigate my advantage in manipulating the voters by taking the dogpound out of the mix?”
Redford on January 24, 2012 at 4:03 PM
Sorry, but disruptive people are hauled out of places of business all the time. Even from bars, where you expect people to get a bit disruptive.
whatcat on January 24, 2012 at 4:03 PM
Remember when something Gov. Romney said was misconstrued, even thought AP was skeptical from the beginning and issued numerous updates and clarifications, Romney supporters were not amused.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/30/video-newt-gets-emotional/
Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 4:04 PM
Here’s the real irony. Everyone has complained about these tv debates with their canned, constricted formats– particularly the network/cable-sponsored charades. The media moderators pretend to ask penetrating topical questions on the issues of the day, all while actually attempting to trip up the rising candidate-du-jour or set them all against each other or embarrass them all before a national audience; while the candidates pretend to engage in substantive discussion, all while regurgitating their polled, pre-tested, and scripted talking points.
The spontaneous audience reactions are the only real, completely unscripted thing that happens on these shows, the only human thing that lends even a semblance of “reality” to these denatured proceedings.
And the networks want to shut them up. Television really does kill everything it touches.
de rigueur on January 24, 2012 at 4:04 PM
If the audience were to react spontaneously, what should happen?
Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 4:05 PM
The kids playing at Chuckee’s are hardly at par with a public debate with candidates running for high office. You do have the right to heckle kids playing in the ball pool but several things can happen: A parent might slug you, or have you arrested for harassing his kids, or the owners of the place might escort you out.
Of course, the Founders didn’t include First Amendment rights in the Constitution so people can randomly heckle kids, it was so the average person could speak truth to power or petition his/her government. If not in debate forums, then where?
JonPrichard on January 24, 2012 at 4:07 PM
The 1st Amendment guarantees our rights to free speech, and yes, even in venues hosted by private entities – especially those regarding public office.
JonPrichard on January 24, 2012 at 3:57 PM
According to decisions by the Supreme Court since about 1792, your statement is totally false and displays total ignorance of the First Amendment Right to Free Speech.
You are either ignorant or dishonest. There is no other option.
Private entities cannot violate the First Amendment. Go get hired by Microsoft and loudly yell “F..k Bill Gates” every ten minutes from your cubicle and see what happens.
Airing some speech by a politician is not a First Amendment issue.
Go read Madison and the SCT decisions on government action and acting under color of law as the bases for actions involving Free Speech.
You are only beclowning yourself with this line of reasoning. BTW – I got the equivalent of a B+ in Con Law.
Horace on January 24, 2012 at 4:09 PM
I agree and it’s not like the audience is stacked to illicit a specific response. I would think the audience reaction is pretty much an equal opportunity for boos as cheers. Just another attempt to determine the agenda.
Cindy Munford on January 24, 2012 at 4:09 PM
I believe the entities that have hosted these debates have said how the attendees where selected, usually in intro remarks if nothing else. And/or at their websites. Part of the boilerplate to which most folks don’t pay much attention.
At any rate, the answer to Newt’s problems is both obvious and simple. Just don’t attend any debate where he doesn’t like the format.
whatcat on January 24, 2012 at 4:10 PM
Just a question:
If Newt is such a “Washington Insider”, why do all the Washington Insiders support Mitt Romney?
portlandon on January 24, 2012 at 4:11 PM
Using quotation marks for your interpretation of what you think someone meant to say. Guess you were absent the day their proper use was explained in English class.
Flora Duh on January 24, 2012 at 4:12 PM
That’s just so much absurd horse-droppings – you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
whatcat on January 24, 2012 at 4:13 PM
Because they know Romney has a glass jaw even more brittle than Obama’s.
Christien on January 24, 2012 at 4:15 PM
Newt needs the hollering from the peanut gallery audience the same way John Stewart needs his at the Daily Show.
It’s pathetic.
bluegill on January 24, 2012 at 4:15 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »