• 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

So I take it you have a real issue with Newt and your ability to view objectively in the remotest sense no longer is functioning.

then you take wrong. I respect Newt's accomplishment - and think that the good he has done has been very good indeed. The man is brilliant. His actions also demonstrate that he is amoral, and his willingness to play to the crowd here indicates that he see's them as dupes (indeed, he probably sees most people as dupes, one of the problems with constantly being the smartest person in the room is that you tend to come to the opinion that you are the smartest person in any room). That is my issue with him. The man is strong ENTP - as am I; and I am fully aware that my personality type tends to come along with the intellectual versatility to justify anything you wish to do.

My issue with my fellow conservatives is that too many of us seem willing to put aside defense of their moral values in order to back a man who is an excellent attack dog towards a liberal media.

well, at least in public.






But lost any ability to objectively weigh the man because I find him wanting? :roll: yeesh. that's like the Paulites insisting that anyone not rabidly supportive of RP must hate freedom.
 
but perhaps you could answer for me: Do you buy at face value the claim that Gingrich cheated on his wife because he loved his country too much?


do you find that little piece of self-justification to be realistic? Do you think that Gingrich's claimed Catholic faith would accept it?

Gingrich has a similar problem as the President - because they are both so impressed with themselves, they are both generally unable to actually accept that things might be their fault.
 
Last edited:
I thought the best moment in the debate was when Uncle Newty said that he would debate Obama in as many Lincoln/Douglass debates as he wanted and Obama can even bring his teleprompter.. :)

Classic Reagan answer! :)


Tim-
 
My issue with my fellow conservatives is that too many of us seem willing to put aside defense of their moral values in order to back a man who is an excellent attack dog towards a liberal media.

well, at least in public.
What do you expect your fellow conservatives to do, NOT speak out when they see something that is obviously an attempt to trash one of people on the stage, because that person has had a checkered past? This isn't about comeuppance. It would have been a cheap shot no matter if they were (D) or (R) on the stage. I'm not so moral that I think people are perfect because they are not. I am also not so moral as to think people cannot be forgiven, because they can, and I'm not so obtuse to think that if a person has asked for humility and repentance that they can never transgress again because that is not realistic. We are human, and therefore fatally flawed. You're moral view of turpitude is no longer valid. You would not expect that if you made a mistake and sought new humility that you were never to be prideful again in your lifetime - it's inane to believe such a thing and unrealistic to expect it of other, fatally flawed human beings - ESPECIALLY politicians. So your way off base, in fact, you're not even in the stadium any more.

But lost any ability to objectively weigh the man because I find him wanting? :roll: yeesh. that's like the Paulites insisting that anyone not rabidly supportive of RP must hate freedom.
You have unrealistic expectations and overcompensate by ignoring what clearly was bias and ignorance on CNN and John Kings part. In some way I'm sure you feel he deserved it, and find that since he turned the tables on his punishment, maybe that makes you a little angry neh?

I don't want you to be for Newt or against him - I could care less... but I DO expect you to see a cheap shot and call it out as you've done in the past. And when you DON'T and actually take a contrary position, it's a dead giveaway. :shrug:
 
:shrug: I'd like to see how much he's learned.

Sadly: whoever he's in a debate with I think it's obvious they're going to be asked stupid questions like 'what's your favorite color' and 'did you and your wife fight in the white house yet?' and random stupid questions from "youtube" and "twitter" like that's worth anything.

i think my favorite so far was

"what has been your most enchanting moment?"

yeuarg
 
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.

Then maybe they didn't really care. You seem to be very knowledgeable though.
 
Well, you have to understand that Newt has asked forgiveness from God, he has confessed his wrong doings. His moral shortness is in his past, leave to to he and God.

What is the length of time that any act becomes untouchable. Twenty years, ten years, five years, one year, or last week?

I never understood what is the accepted time that one can just say, "Oh that was all in the past, he has changed."

Would you forgive Jane Fonda for the stupid act she did when she was young during the Vietnam Conflict?
 
What do you expect your fellow conservatives to do, NOT speak out when they see something that is obviously an attempt to trash one of people on the stage,

I expect my fellow conservatives to mean it when they claim to support a value system. I also expect them to call MSM affiliates such as CNN on their bias. However, everyone defending Newt today is setting themselves up for embarrassment the next time a Democrat tries to justify their affair to conservative derision. What Newt did was worse than what John Edwards did, a fact he does not seem to be aware of. Now, I'm all for forgiveness and redemption; but you have to repent first, and Newt demonstrates no evidence of repentance.

because that person has had a checkered past?

it's not that he has a checkered past - it's that he thinks that because it is him, it's not checkered. it's just deeply compellingly fundamentally fascinating. If the man was at all penitent, you would see me nodding along and cheering his answer. Instead he chose to turn the moment into one of demagoguery.

This isn't about comeuppance

on the contrary, you seem to demonstrate that it is about "nailing CNN" (as per our OP)

It would have been a cheap shot no matter if they were (D) or (R) on the stage.[/qutoe]

not really - it would have been a pertinent question given the circumstances to any candidate. it's just that it might not have been asked of a (D).

I'm not so moral that I think people are perfect because they are not. I am also not so moral as to think people cannot be forgiven, because they can, and I'm not so obtuse to think that if a person has asked for humility and repentance that they can never transgress again because that is not realistic. We are human, and therefore fatally flawed.

:) Amen. But that is why humility is so important - because none of us (yes, even those of us who are able to publicly lambast the media) have ceased to be flawed.

You're moral view of turpitude is no longer valid. You would not expect that if you made a mistake and sought new humility that you were never to be prideful again in your lifetime

Actually you should. Not just because Pride is one of the Seven Deadly Sins (Gingrich, after all, claims his faith is Catholicism), but because Humility is a trait that should stay with you always.

A simple "Yes, I screwed up in that marriage, this is how I did it, I don't pretend it was the right thing to do - it wasn't, I've asked God for forgiveness and He's granted it, I've asked my former wife for forgiveness and I'm still hopeful that one day she will grant that as well. In the meantime, this is a Presidential debate and so don't you think that people might prefer to discuss how to create jobs?" would have simply sufficed and driven home the exact same point - but Gingrich didn't do that. Instead he turned into a morally self-righteous hypocrite and pretended that asking him about adultery was the despicable act rather than the adultery itself.

it's inane to believe such a thing and unrealistic to expect it of other, fatally flawed human beings - ESPECIALLY politicians.

that is incorrect. those who claim to possess superior moral fiber to lead the rest of us need to at least demonstrate some.

So your way off base, in fact, you're not even in the stadium any more.

on the contrary. I apply to Gingrich the same standard that I apply to John Edwards. The difference being that Gingrich claims to be able to represent our values.

You have unrealistic expectations and overcompensate by ignoring what clearly was bias and ignorance on CNN and John Kings part.

I don't have unrealistic expectations at all. I expect a person who has been a serial adulterer to at least own up to it if he expects to represent Republican values.

In some way I'm sure you feel he deserved it, and find that since he turned the tables on his punishment, maybe that makes you a little angry neh?

not really. this just sadly confirms what i believed about him :(. He's decided to be a demagogue, whether he's repeating Occupy Wall Street rhetoric or hyperbolically pretending that expecting him to own up to his serial adultery is "despicable" rather than the serial adultery itself.

I don't want you to be for Newt or against him - I could care less... but I DO expect you to see a cheap shot and call it out as you've done in the past. And when you DON'T and actually take a contrary position, it's a dead giveaway. :shrug:

dead give away to what? this wasn't a cheap shot - it was the lead story on Drudge all day and a major news headline. Asking this question was perfectly salient.
 
Well, you have to understand that Newt has asked forgiveness from God, he has confessed his wrong doings. His moral shortness is in his past, leave to to he and God.

He is a serial philander now using his "confession" for political advantage. I think he is using the Lord's name in vain. Moreover, the Lord may forgive him has the Lord knows his heart. We are not assessing his candidacy to be invited into the Kingdom, we are assessing his candidacy for President. The US electorate need not forgive him, for running for President is less about your heart and more about your record.

Remember this distinction the next time a serial murderer thinks he should be spared the death penalty because he has asked the Lord's forgiveness. They are different things.
 
Last edited:
I'm pleased to see the National Review crowd wasn't taken in either

Mark Steyn:

Does Newt have an “open marriage” with John King? He gets to slap him around on TV, but after the show he’s all kissy-kissy with him? I’ve sat through too many third-rate nights on Broadway not to recognize the difference between cheap manipulative ersatz indignation and the real thing.

More fool the crowd for rewarding him for it....

Andrew McCarthy

...Your manner has to be consistent with your story. If you want people to believe a bunch of scoundrels has fabricated a perjured case to persecute your client, you can’t treat the scoundrels like they’re really nice folks whom you’d be delighted to have a beer with after court. Indignation is not an approach that works part-time — not if it’s authentic. And if it’s not authentic, then normal people are wont to think it’s a performance, which is apt to put them off.

That’s what I didn’t get about Newt last night. Sure, his righteous rage at the start of the debate struck a chord with me like it did with many viewers: The country is sinking into an abyss of debt, we have crushing unemployment, the economy’s a train-wreck, Europe is exploding, the Muslim Brotherhood is sweeping the Middle East, and yet CNN decides to begin the night by asking about Newt’s jilted ex-wife? The same CNN that continues to ignore Obama’s background and radical ties? It’s infuriating, and I took satisfaction in watching someone as articulate and cutting as Newt turn the tables on them.

But Newt’s indignation quickly disappeared. Some of that is to be expected — it is not normal or helpful for anyone, much less a politician running for president, to exude anger for two hours. I get that. But Newt’s anger seemed to shut off instantly, not linger and gradually fade like most people’s. Then, in starting his closing remarks, Newt made a point of thanking John King and CNN for what he portrayed as their steering of a terrific debate. Then, minutes later, there was Newt again — not only content to sit for an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper but going out of his way to say that “John” had done a “great job.”

The dissonance made me wince. To be sure, most people don’t watch the debates. When they see the news, they are only going to see Newt’s righteous rage at CNN, not his cozy embrace of CNN as the night wore on. But I think you’ve gotta make up your mind: Your story is either that King embodies the lapdog Obamedia out to destroy Republicans while protecting the president, or that King is a superb journalist who did a great job handling a very significant event. It can’t be both...

Jonah Goldberg:

Gingrich’s rage was well articulated, but it seemed canned to me. If he really believed that John King did one of the most despicable things imaginable, why did he rush up to King to congratulate him on a great job immediately after the debate?

Part of it is just me. When I lose my temper at someone, when I’m convinced they’ve done something bad — never mind close to the most despicable thing I can imagine — it stays with me. I suspect the same is true with Gingrich. So when he (and, I believe, Callista) ran over to do the post-game chit-chat, it struck me that the term “post-game” isn’t just an expression — it really was a game. I have to hope at least some of the people who gave Gingrich a standing ovation for his theatrical outrage recognize that...

as to that last point... no, in fact, it looks like many do not :(.
 
and this hits it on the head


...Yes, the liberal media is displaying an extraordinary hypocrisy in how they are treating Newt Gingrich vs. how they treated Bill Clinton and even Barack Obama (not investigating Jeremiah Wright and so on). BUT so are conservatives. They have long made the case that character counts, and private lives matter. Gingrich is being so arrogant and defiant in the wake of the latest charges against him, given how much he’s admitted is actually true, it’s ugly. Social conservatives who support him are embarrassing their own cause....
 
Rachel Maddow said it perfectly last night - anytime a GOP'er gets his ass in the wringer, the easy way out is to attack the mainstream media and the crowd will lap it up like hungry lions going after red meat. It works even better that that little rubber hammer on somebody's knee.
 
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.

Ronald Reagan thought "Born in the USA" was some kind of mindless patriotism.
 
yes. but we should be upset that they aren't asking Democrats, not that they are asking Republicans.

I'm going to make a wild assumption that if a Democrat's ex-wife went on national TV the night before and said he wanted an open marriage, they might ask about it.
 
Gingrich Nails CNN at Presidential Debate! - YouTube


Wow, that's all I've got to say. Home run by Newt.

Classy answer by Romney as well.
Newt is excellent at acting affronted. His response was "pious baloney" (not to mention hypocritical, given Gingrich's response to the Clinton scandal). Most people would be glad to have the opportunity to set the record straight. This will serve him well in the general election, though. I can't say it is not an effective strategy.

Also, Jon King should not have made it the first question of the debate. I'm sure Gingrich would have had the same response no matter where it had been placed, though.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to make a wild assumption that if a Democrat's ex-wife went on national TV the night before and said he wanted an open marriage, they might ask about it.

If Obama had an affair, they would try their best to cover for him!
 
If Obama had an affair, they would try their best to cover for him!

Oh bull****. The press hit Clinton with Jennifer Flowers during the debates. There was pratically a lynch mob when Edwards was caught cheating. Anyone running for president who has this baggage is going to be called on it.
 
Oh bull****. The press hit Clinton with Jennifer Flowers during the debates. There was pratically a lynch mob when Edwards was caught cheating. Anyone running for president who has this baggage is going to be called on it.

the press didn't claim to have warm tingling feelings for Clinton. If Obumble had been given the same level of scrutiny as Willy, Obama would have lost to willy's wife
 
Oh bull****. The press hit Clinton with Jennifer Flowers during the debates. There was pratically a lynch mob when Edwards was caught cheating. Anyone running for president who has this baggage is going to be called on it.

The liberal media tried their best NOT to mention the Bret Girl.
 
The liberal media tried their best NOT to mention the Bret Girl.

Sure, that's why the drummed him out of the race and out of politics altogether. :roll:
 
the press didn't claim to have warm tingling feelings for Clinton. If Obumble had been given the same level of scrutiny as Willy, Obama would have lost to willy's wife

He should've anyway. I haven't forgotten how the media treated Hillary, and I'm not sure that this country is ready for a woman President. Sadly.
 
And democrats didn't care that Clinton had a rape charge against him or that he had cheated on Hillary multiple times, including his escapade in the Oral Office that stained someone's certain blue dress. They also defend charges of Holder lying and blame the opposition by pulling out the race card. Those were just unfounded attacks from the right.

But old Newt is guilty as sin, isn't he? :spin:
 
the press didn't claim to have warm tingling feelings for Clinton. If Obumble had been given the same level of scrutiny as Willy, Obama would have lost to willy's wife

The press did not claim to have warm tingling feelings for Obama either. A political commentator did. Darn facts getting in the way...
 
Last edited:
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060131034 said:
And democrats didn't care that Clinton had a rape charge against him or that he had cheated on Hillary multiple times, including his escapade in the Oral Office that stained someone's certain blue dress. They also defend charges of Holder lying and blame the opposition by pulling out the race card. Those were just unfounded attacks from the right.

But old Newt is guilty as sin, isn't he? :spin:

Generalizations are stupid.
 
Back
Top Bottom