• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Gingrich nails CNN at Presidential Debate

Peter Grimm said:
If we put him up against Obama, he will steal the show just as he has done in these debates. That makes him electable..
Click to expand...

Many of you righties seem to be selling Obama short as a debater. He can hold his own rather well.
 
Members of our media represent network profit versus network integrity."Shock" is now the foundation of the vast majority of talk shows. The moderators of the current debates have been revealed for what they are, little spineless punks with alot of makeup and no courage. Our media has become way too Hollywood. I don't support Newt but I stand and applaude his response to the little CNN coward.
 
I didn't think Newt had a chance. Now? Not so sure. The American people are sick to death of this crap. He scored big-time points. Combine that with his just releasing his 2010 income tax forms showing he pays an effective rate of almost 32%, and Romney may get a real run for his money.

Inside Newt Gingrich's tax return - Jan. 19, 2012
 
Newt's response was entirely predictable -- he's been doing it throughout the debates. If he gets a question that he doesn't like his reaction is to attack the press. Obviously that feeds into the right's whole "lamestream media" narrative, to which Newt is perfectly attuned. It plays well to the base. Otherwise ... not so much.

Generally I would say that someone's personal life is off limits, but where, as here, the person has made a career of attacking others for the same conduct that he's accused of, it is absolutely fair game. Here's a blast from the past:

Friday, October 30, 1998; Page A1

The GOP's multimillion dollar ad campaign invoking President Clinton's relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky was devised by House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and tested before more than three dozen groups of likely voters before Republicans unleashed the assault, party sources said yesterday.

In reviving the presidential sex scandal just one week before Election Day, Gingrich and his chief strategists aimed to energize their most loyal supporters, whose enthusiasm appeared to be waning after House conservatives lost the budget fight and the Clinton scandal fell off the front pages.

Washingtonpost.com Special Report: Clinton Accused
Click to expand...
 
AdamT said:
Newt's response was entirely predictable -- he's been doing it throughout the debates. If he gets a question that he doesn't like his reaction is to attack the press. Obviously that feeds into the right's whole "lamestream media" narrative, to which Newt is perfectly attuned. It plays well to the base. Otherwise ... not so much.

Generally I would say that someone's personal life is off limits, but where, as here, the person has made a career of attacking others for the same conduct that he's accused of, it is absolutely fair game. Here's a blast from the past:
Click to expand...

it plays more then to the base. I hate Newt, but even I liked him for the second he was scolding the media for turning a debate into a soap opera.
 
ARealConservative said:
it plays more then to the base. I hate Newt, but even I liked him for the second he was scolding the media for turning a debate into a soap opera.
Click to expand...

Um, you ARE the base, ARealConservative. :lol:
 
Crosscheck said:
You got to admit it was pretty ingenious of Newt to turn the tables on the accusations. He went from culprit to victim with a stern lecturing of the debate host and immediately the audience was giving him a standing ovation.
I have seen that such ploy in a few comedy movies before. It was a gamble on his part to try that twist. Once he felt the audience bought it he went full attack on the host.
I think if he had slammed his podium to the floor the audience would have gone nuts with applause and cheering.

Give the guy credit for having the balls to pull that off.
Click to expand...

It was typical Gingrich. He has adopted the tactic of attacking the questioner and expressing his moral outrage as a way of ingratiating himself with the right who hates the media as a knee jerk reaction that is instinctive.
This is not the first time he has done this and he will continue to do this.
 
cpwill said:
No.

Moral Failure by Newt. Failure, for example, to be able to distinguish between asking a candidate about a major issue that has strong salience in a key demographic (not despicable) and the actual act of serial adultery itself (which is despicable). Newt was acting "outraged" in order to try to force the discussion off the topic, and the audience was stupid enough to lap it up.
Click to expand...

This is how it sure appeared. It was him trying to be so prickly as to keep people off the topic.
 
Normally, I hate when people bring up politicians personal lives, but given this is Newt we are talking about and the huge deal he made about Clinton getting a blowjob, I am actually okay with it. That said, Newt had time to come up with his answer because we all knew the question was coming. At least they got it over with early, so they could move onto things a bit more important.
 
American said:
Until they start asking Democrats these kinds of questions on a regular basis, the Reps should be outraged. Whether these questions have a point or not, the fact that the media kisses Obama's ass, is enough for me not to get too upset about how Newt handles this.
Click to expand...

They kiss Obama's ass? Right. I suppose you are massively upset because they haven't asked Obama about his previous two wives or something like that. Moar playing of the victim card by the right.
 
poweRob said:
This is how it sure appeared. It was him trying to be so prickly as to keep people off the topic.
Click to expand...

I don't believe the MSM should run with character attacks from ex-wives and ex-girlfriends in a national debate. This time should be spent dealing with issues, not drama.

So Newt was right to show anger, even if it was contrived.
 
Wessexman said:
While perhaps John King had a right to ask the question he, and the likes of Anderson Cooper and most of his CNN pals, are undoubtedly on the liberal side of politics while pretending strenously not to be, and it was a treat to see his face at Newt's attack.
Click to expand...


Make no bones about it, CNN are assholes to the left too. I personally hate CNN. They don't go for favorable partisan sides they go to make conflict wherever they go and then report on the conflict they made. They are **** IMO.
 
Last edited:
Peter Grimm said:
Newt is a gifted debater. We know this by now.

If we put him up against Obama, he will steal the show just as he has done in these debates. That makes him electable.
Click to expand...

No.

You can't play divide and conquer in a general election like you can in when throwing red meat in a primary. He will fail in epic proportion.

What he says that gets you all fired up, doesn't work on the bulk of the rest of the population. It only works on his base. And it isn't that big. In a general election you have to reach outside your base for votes. He will fail miserably.
 
Last edited:
Crosscheck said:
You got to admit it was pretty ingenious of Newt to turn the tables on the accusations.
Click to expand...

It's not like this is a new tactic. It's just a version of blame the media, in order to deflect responsibility.
 
poweRob said:
Make no bones about it, CNN are assholes to the left too. I personally hate CNN. They don't go for favorable partisan sides they go to make conflict wherever they go and then report on the conflict they made. They are **** IMO.
Click to expand...

Got an example of this?
 
The popularity of Bill Clinton shows that voters don't care about this now.

It might actually help him in a weird way. Almost everyone who had been divorced is familiar with their ex trying to trash their reputation and, particularly upper income Republicans, also well familiar with an ex trying to dig as deeply into their pockets as possible - with the divorce fight between her and Gingrich being over her wanting more money from him. Now she is damn certain she doesn't want that other woman to get her spot as First Lady if Gingrich were to win - yet she is the bimbo home wrecker herself so it is extreme hypocrisy by her. Another woman ultimately beat her out at her own game. Oh boo hoo.

In short, alot of people, particularly men, might have a lot of empathy with him over an ex wife who, year after year, keeps trashing him like some reputation-damaging stalker who just won't get on with her life.
 
joko104 said:
The popularity of Bill Clinton shows that voters don't care about this now.
Click to expand...

Democratic voters don't. Republicans might, especially in South Carolina.
 
Top Cat said:
Frankly there's a very good reason Newt is being asked. His hypocrisy on this issue is epic. He gets what he gets. His feigned anger is pleased the guppies that follow him.
Click to expand...
Says the guppy that follows Obama's feigned leadership.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Newt is a gifted debater. We know this by now.

If we put him up against Obama, he will steal the show just as he has done in these debates. That makes him electable.

If we put him in the White House, he will get things done. Newt has always gotten things done.

Maybe he hurts some feelings along the way, but Newt is effective. I want him putting that skill-set to use and working for us.
Click to expand...

Makes me wonder if Obama would be willing to debate him (or anyone else). Obama is a pretty good debater also, but I think that the republicans would absolutely shred him on his job performance. Obama would have no choice other than to get real mean and nasty and personal, and I believe that if he did that he wouldn't have a chance of winning.

When O ran last time, he didn't have to worry about that stuff with McCain as McCain was just too nice and disinterested in personal attacks. This time, I think that any of the republican candidates would be capable of going for the jugular every time.

Have we ever had a campain with no presidential debates?
 
imagep said:
Makes me wonder if Obama would be willing to debate him (or anyone else). Obama is a pretty good debater also, but I think that the republicans would absolutely shred him on his job performance. Obama would have no choice other than to get real mean and nasty and personal, and I believe that if he did that he wouldn't have a chance of winning.
Click to expand...

No, I think he'll change the story on his job performance. We shall see.
 
misterman said:
Democratic voters don't. Republicans might, especially in South Carolina.
Click to expand...

Nothing surprises me of the southern baptist bible thumpers around here.

A few years ago one of the local churches told it's young people that they they had to make a choice between God and high school band. Apparently they thought that high school marching band was somehow evil. About ten of their kids that were in band quit band, a couple quit the church.
 
imagep said:
Nothing surprises me of the southern baptist bible thumpers around here.

A few years ago one of the local churches told it's young people that they they had to make a choice between God and high school band. Apparently they thought that high school marching band was somehow evil. About ten of their kids that were in band quit band, a couple quit the church.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they're nuts.

Reminds me of when I saw some high school band in some small conservative town play "YMCA." Did they have any idea that song is a celebration of anonymous gay sex? Probably not.
 
misterman said:
Yeah, they're nuts.

Reminds me of when I saw some high school band in some small conservative town play "YMCA." Did they have any idea that song is a celebration of anonymous gay sex? Probably not.
Click to expand...

although I am aware it has taken on that connotation, the lyrics do not speak to that end, and the person that wrote the song did not intend for such a double meaning to be interpreted. in fact, the person that penned it is on record stating it was a reflection of young black youths playing basketball at these facilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom