C’mon, Obama would beat Gingrich in a debate
The more time he gets to talk, the more likely he is to say something outrageous. Throughout his career, his speeches and extended interviews have been spawning grounds for odd or even grotesque Gingrichisms.
Shortly after the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Littleton, Colo., Gingrich blamed liberals for the killings, and he threw in the Balkans conflict as well. “I want to say to the elite of this country — the elite news media, the liberal academic elite, the liberal political elite — I accuse you in Littleton, and I accuse you in Kosovo, of being afraid to talk about the mess you have made and being afraid to take responsibility for things you have done, and instead foisting upon the rest of us pathetic banalities because you don’t have the courage to look at the world you have created.” This was his first major speech after leaving Congress.
Eight years later, after the Virginia Tech massacre, George Stephanopoulos asked him on ABC if he still stood by his Columbine comments. Gingrich said that he did, and when Stephanopoulos asked what liberalism had to do with violence and dehumanization, he answered: “Well, who has created a situation ethics, essentially, zone of not being willing to talk about any of these things?”
If Gingrich made such remarks in a presidential debate this fall, the public would recoil. If he didn’t, Obama could still use the Georgian’s long history of verbal overkill to paint him as divisive and destructive. When he’s under criticism, Gingrich’s standard operating procedure is to interject that people are taking his words out of context. In a Lincoln-Douglas format, he would just have to sit and seethe until his turn came. As we’ve witnessed several times during the current debates, Gingrich is very good when he’s pretending to be angry; he’s very bad when he is angry for real. After his poll numbers fell late last year, he hurt himself by using scarce debate time to complain about attacks by a pro-Romney super PAC; his peevishness compounded his fall. Knowing this history, Obama would try to play with his head.









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
And he won’t beat Romney?
besser tot als rot on January 29, 2012 at 6:18 PM
Hey … let’s set up a debate and find out!
darwin on January 29, 2012 at 6:18 PM
Knowing Obama’s history, Gingrich could destroy Obama. He would say things to him no one has ever said. Obama would become angry, twitch, spit, then collapse as he tries to walk off the stage.
darwin on January 29, 2012 at 6:20 PM
Dude, Santorum just beat Newt AND Mitt and one could claim that was the second time in a row: what does that say about who should be considered to be the nominee (hint: how about a nice guy with a lot less baggage and DOESN’T support individual mandates?)
michaelo on January 29, 2012 at 6:20 PM
Does he get to use his teleprompter?
If not, he would not beat an 8th grader in a debate.
SFH on January 29, 2012 at 6:20 PM
As Newt gets madder and madder, a sample debate…
Obama: Newt is a much better debater than I am. But I didn’t debate Osama Bin Laden, I delivered justice to him.
Newt: That’s all well and good…
Obama: Let me continue, Mr. Speaker. Newt might have been busy planning a trip to the Moon instead of getting Bin Laden, but I’m sure he would has some lofty ideas about the events, so let Newt explain how we get around the current law, which states that 13,000 people… the number of his mythical Moon colony, would qualify for statehood when you actually need to have as many as the minimum number in the least populated state in the Union, which is in the hundreds of thousands. Explain that Newt.
Newt: Well, the law would have to be changed…
Obama: So respect for the existing law is not on your radar, but Moon colonies are?
Obama has so much to work with with Gingrich, he must be salivating at the comic possibilities.
profitsbeard on January 29, 2012 at 6:25 PM
Ok, that’s fixed.
Hannibal Smith on January 29, 2012 at 6:26 PM
This is an unfortunate reality as Newt himself admitted. Obama is so fundamentally dishonest, Newt’s astounding debate prowess would be profoundly and utterly Newtered.
msmveritas on January 29, 2012 at 6:28 PM
The opposite is also true. The problem for Obama however, is he’s never been ridiculed or challenged in public. Gingrich can go for the jugular and Obama will get flustered and lose his cool.
darwin on January 29, 2012 at 6:33 PM
I thought the Lincoln-Douglas style debates he did with Herman Cain and Henrietta Huntsman were the most informative we’ve seen thus far. I didn’t notice any “seething” coming from the Speaker.
Flora Duh on January 29, 2012 at 6:33 PM
I am not sure about that. Give Newt a not too hot, and not too cold audience, have John King and Juan Williams as moderators, take away Barry’s teleprompter, and not allow Barry to sing or tap dance while on stage, Newt may well win.
galtani on January 29, 2012 at 6:43 PM
Newt 2012. That is all.
alwaysfiredup on January 29, 2012 at 6:46 PM
Obama would beat Gingrich in a debate? He’s told too many lies to beat anyone in a debate. He has no credibility.
rickv404 on January 29, 2012 at 6:52 PM
Lots of interesting Comments at the WaPo Cesspool…
Del Dolemonte on January 29, 2012 at 6:58 PM
The presidential debates are just joint press conferences. Obama has an answer memorized for every possible question to fit the time allowed. The debates should not decide the election. It should be a referendum on Obama’s actual performance.
Ted Torgerson on January 29, 2012 at 7:08 PM
Obama will beat either, but I’d pay big bucks to watch Newt/Obama.
Schadenfreude on January 29, 2012 at 7:09 PM
Are you talking about O, Newt, or both? Easy arguments for either way.
Boomer_Sooner on January 29, 2012 at 7:12 PM
Newt would expose Obama to independents. I really believe they’d finally ask, “What the phuck did we do in 2008?”
Romney won’t lay a glove on Obama. He’ll be like the nervous middle manager from HR fumbling for words to tell Obama, the quintessentiall AA hire, that he’s fired after demonstrating for years that he’s incompetent.
BuckeyeSam on January 29, 2012 at 7:23 PM
Obama will beat anybody in the debates if the RNC doesn’t demand an impartial venue and an impartial moderator. If they play along and let Bill Clinton’s former mouthpiece ask the questions, before a college student audience, yes, Obama will win. No matter who he’s debating.
Rational Thought on January 29, 2012 at 7:32 PM
Stop. A qualified debater can easily pick apart an argument that is “fundamentally dishonest”. Newt does not have “Debate Prowess”, Newt has the ability to bully his opponent, IF that opponent doesn’t have the stones or the ammunition to bully back. We all saw what happens to Newt when he gets challenged; He immediately goes to his fall back position of creating excuses. He’s a sorry, pitiful excuse for a qualified candidate.
BettyRuth on January 29, 2012 at 7:49 PM
“Obama is a clean, articulate Black guy”.–Harry Reid
“What Reid said”—John Pitney
Clink on January 29, 2012 at 8:10 PM