Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Gingrich: I wouldn't accept debate versus Obama moderated by reporters
By NBC's Jamie Novogrod and msnbc.com's Michael O'Brien

Newt Gingrich threatened Monday to skip any debate as the Republican nominee versus President Obama that's moderated by a member of the media.

"As your nominee, I will not accept debates in the fall in which the reporters are the moderators," Gingrich said at a rally in Pensacola. "We don’t need to have a second Obama person at the debate."

The threat is in keeping with the scorn with which the former House speaker has treated the press throughout the campaign, particularly at debates. Gingrich most notably won a standing ovation by angrily dismissing a question at a South Carolina debate having to do with extramarital allegations made by an ex-wife.

Moreover, Gingrich has made his debating prowess a central selling point of his candidacy, promising fantastical showdowns with Obama in the general election. A frequent applause line for Gingrich, for instance, is his promise to challenge the president to seven, three-hour Lincoln-Douglas style debates.

As a reminder, though, presidential debates are governed by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which have organized the general election debates since 1998. The commission has already set the number of presidential debates in 2012 at three, slated for this October. The moderators in these debates have not been announced, but will almost certainly be members of the media.

While I feel like it's a little presumptuous, perhaps, for him to dictate terms at a debate he almost certainly will not be attending anyway, I feel like someone needs to call him out on his shenanigans, and I'm going to do so. His most popular narrative for his campaign has been that the librul media is attacking him because they hate seeing a strong conservative in the race. Here are just some of the many people that have attacked Gingrich on TV, written, linked, or published hit pieces on him recently:

George Will
Ann Coulter
Rush Limbaugh
Emmett Tyrrell
Charles Krauthammer
Matt Drudge
Elliot Abrams

As well as non-media people Bob Dole and Tom Delay.

None of these people are liberals. To a one, they are hardcore conservatives (well, maybe not Bob Dole, and Ann Coulter is more of a professional troll than a legitimate talking head, but anyway....).

I truly doubt any of them are "in the tank" for Obama. I don't know why Newt hasn't been called out yet on pretending that there is a vast left-wing conspiracy to ruin him, but it's, as they say, utter bollocks.

Professional Troll, now there's a career to aspire too.

Eh, it's all part of Newt's attempt to make himself look like the put upon outsider. He's trying to position himself as the conservative renegade the establishment doesn't want you to vote for and Romney as the the liberal media's attempt to sabotage the election.

You've got to give it to the guy. Rather than try to justify his past actions, his status as the Washington insider the insiders go to when they need an insider, and the fact that he is a reprehensible human being, it just didn't happen. He was Reagan's right hand man, an upright and moral husband and father, a Washington outsider, and most importantly the only real conservative in the election. This is really Baghdad Bob levels of denial and the killer is an even larger percentage of conservatives are buying it than Ron Paul's bs. At least Paul has always been nuts and isn't trying to pretend he's not.

Gingy (his nickname, or so my fevered brain has concocted) is not fit to be president, and perhaps may never learn so.

He carries too much baggage and is too alienating to the left to gain sufficient votes to get elected, let alone become the presidential nomination.

If there wasn't a right leaning moderate like Mitt Romney running, perhaps there would be a snowball's chance in hell he could get the nod from the Republican nomination.

Such as it is, he is much better suited to be a behind the doors sort of deal maker, not the guy running as president.

Ouze wrote:I truly doubt any of them are "in the tank" for Obama. I don't know why Newt hasn't been called out yet on pretending that there is a vast left-wing conspiracy to ruin him, but it's, as they say, utter bollocks.

I don't think Newt has made the case that there's a "vast left-wing conspiracy to ruin him," he's making the well-founded argument that the media is liberal and most reporters are in the tank for President Obama.

The big '08 debates were moderated by Jim Lehrer, Gwen Ifill, Tom Brokaw, and Bob Schieffer.
- You only need to see Lehrer's 2000 and 2004 moderator performances to be convinced of his bona fides.
- Ifill was in the process of writing a book about then-candidate Obama when she moderated the '08 debate.
- Brokaw is left-leaning, and has made no secret of his belief in the legitimacy of bias in the media.
- Bob Schieffer lavished praise on Obama during the campaign, and then pretended to be a neutral moderator for the debate.

Is there any reason to expect that media members who have praised and publicly supported the President's goals are going to be fair moderators in a political debate?

Will you concede that the members of the media who have been most vocally anti-Gingrich of recent are not actually liberals?

Ouze wrote:Will you concede that the members of the media who have been most vocally anti-Gingrich of recent are not actually liberals?

Depends. Does Glenn Beck qualify as a liberal?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Vox-News/2012/0123/Did-Glenn-Beck-endorse-Newt-Gingrich-Not

Glenn Beck doesn’t support Newt Gingrich. Let’s get that clear right from the start. The conservative former Fox News host considers the former House speaker a “progressive “ – yes, that’s the word Mr. Beck used today in a segment of his online GBTV show. He’s also critical of Mr. Gingrich’s marital history, and his work as a consultant for government mortgage giant Freddie Mac.

Beck calling Gingy a progressive is the Conservative equivalent of a Christian calling someone Satan.

Ouze wrote:Will you concede that the members of the media who have been most vocally anti-Gingrich of recent are not actually liberals?

I will concede that some members of the media who have been most vocally anti-Gingrich of recent are not actually liberals.

There have also been vocal liberal anti-Gingrich members of the media.

I'm not entirely convinced Romney wins on "electability" over Gingrich. And those are really the only two options at this point.

I also feel like I should mention that I have enormous respect for what Newt Gingrich has done. He's made himself relevant, steered the direction of the primaries, kept himself in the public eye, successfully tapped into the conservative disdain for the media and used it as part of his vehicle - he's like a pouty, adulterous genius. Who would have thought at any point in the last 10 years there would be a significant percentage of Americans seriously considering electing him president? It's mind-boggling, what he's done.

biccat wrote:I'm not entirely convinced Romney wins on "electability" over Gingrich.

Would you elect this?



or this?

Over this:

Yes.

In a heartbeat.

Newt isn't electable. The man's baggage could fill a rail car and his skeletons could overflow a cemetary. He'd step out of the convention and onto the campaign trail and immediately be run right over by Obama and his PACs. He's going to polarize too many people and in the end you're leaving the ones in the middle with a choice between hard right and midway left. They'll likely flock to Obama and Newt will get buried.

Romney, despite being as exciting as oatmeal and about as appetizing to the far right, isn't nearly so off putting as Newt which in the general election will give disaffect independents and moderates someone they can be comfortable with after being let down by Obama turning out to be *SHOCK* a politician.

I can't imagine that Newt Gingrich of all people isn't aware of this. Makes me think this is nothing more than a publicity stunt on his point to position himself as a major "player" on the right.

Tyyr wrote:Romney, despite being as exciting as oatmeal and about as appetizing to the far right, isn't nearly so off putting as Newt which in the general election will give disaffect independents and moderates someone they can be comfortable with after being let down by Obama turning out to be *SHOCK* a politician.

If I were a Democrat and Mitt won the primary: I would create an innocuous sounding PAC and hammer down on the fact that he's a Mormon.

President Obama has a much better chance of winning reelection by alienating Romney from the Religious Right than he does by arguing on the issues. The fact is, Obama's record on the issues sucks. And I'm not sure blaming Bush or the majority party in 1 chamber of Congress is going to work.

Ugh, I'd really hope that harping on his religion would backfire. Sadly I know a lot of people who hear Mormon and assume he'd immediately force us all to have multiple wives.

...which I'd be ok with since we'd have to bring them in from latin America and Asia just to make up the difference.

Obama's record does suck and it's leaving him open in this campaign. He's really let down the wave of college kids and minorities that got swept up in his campaign by just being another politician. The problem is that if they throw and easy one across the plate like Newt he doesn't have to debate the issues. There's enough dirt on Newt to bury him before he can ever even raise an issue.

biccat wrote:

Tyyr wrote:Romney, despite being as exciting as oatmeal and about as appetizing to the far right, isn't nearly so off putting as Newt which in the general election will give disaffect independents and moderates someone they can be comfortable with after being let down by Obama turning out to be *SHOCK* a politician.

If I were a Democrat and Mitt won the primary: I would create an innocuous sounding PAC and hammer down on the fact that he's a Mormon.

President Obama has a much better chance of winning reelection by alienating Romney from the Religious Right than he does by arguing on the issues. The fact is, Obama's record on the issues sucks. And I'm not sure blaming Bush or the majority party in 1 chamber of Congress is going to work.

ABC news is way ahead of you.

That weird American thing where, despite Fox having the largest share of the media, they all claim to be underdogs in a liberal media. Very odd.
Anyway Gingrich is going to lose and Obama will be re-elected.

he's making the well-founded argument that the media is liberal and most reporters are in the tank for President Obama.

That argument could certainly be well founded, but Newt isn't making one such argument. He's crying about being persecuted in order to dodge tough questions about how he is a scumbag that constantly contradicts himself. His fanbase (as befits people of their calibur) lap it up and cry about liberal media bias (not the general yellow tone of media).

Joey wrote:That weird American thing where, despite Fox having the largest share of the media, they all claim to be underdogs in a liberal media. Very odd.
Anyway Gingrich is going to lose and Obama will be re-elected.

Where are you getting that? Fox doesn't have the largest share of the media, not by a long shot. Most of 24 hour cable news channels I can see. But we're just talking CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and maybe Bloomberg. Meh.

Frazzled wrote:

Joey wrote:That weird American thing where, despite Fox having the largest share of the media, they all claim to be underdogs in a liberal media. Very odd.
Anyway Gingrich is going to lose and Obama will be re-elected.

Where are you getting that? Fox doesn't have the largest share of the media, not by a long shot. Most of 24 hour cable news channels I can see. But we're just talking CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and maybe Bloomberg. Meh.

They have about 40% of cable news ratings which is the largest single source for news media. You could hop up a level and just lambast newscorp and his post would be true.

I'm digging Newt's latest gimmick in a big way.

I was highly amused by him lacing into the moderator on CNN a few weeks ago.

Frazzled wrote:ABC news is way ahead of you.

Ah, well there you go. I don't watch many news programs.

Funny (in a sad kind of way) that they've decided to abandon any vestige of impartiality. Or are the stories headlined: "In a story having nothing to do with Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, Former Mormon Massachusettes Governors are evil bastards."

Joey wrote:That weird American thing where, despite Fox having the largest share of the media, they all claim to be underdogs in a liberal media. Very odd.
Anyway Gingrich is going to lose and Obama will be re-elected.

That's because conservatives on average (especially religious conservatives) have a victim complex.

biccat wrote:
Is there any reason to expect that media members who have praised and publicly supported the President's goals are going to be fair moderators in a political debate?

Is there any reason to suspect that a self-declared conservative is going to have a fair mind when assessing the ability of a moderator to be impartial?

And should moderators even be impartial? Can they be?

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Is there any reason to expect that media members who have praised and publicly supported the President's goals are going to be fair moderators in a political debate?

Is there any reason to suspect that a self-declared conservative is going to have a fair mind when assessing the ability of a moderator to be impartial?

And should moderators even be impartial? Can they be?

I think I said "fair." Which is at least a step away from impartiality.

biccat wrote:
President Obama has a much better chance of winning reelection by alienating Romney from the Religious Right than he does by arguing on the issues.

Nah, that's a waste of time as anyone who cares, already knows and won't vote for Romney.

You'll see, and should see, some of it but not as much as you apparently think.

biccat wrote:
The fact is, Obama's record on the issues sucks.

That depends on the issue you're talking about, and the person you're talking to.

For example, if I were a staffer, I wouldn't bother trying to convince you, its not possible because you're dyed-in-the-wool. But if I were talking to a random guy working at an auto plant, or a guy on the dole...yeah, I'm probably going to talk about "the issues" (itself a ridiculously vague term).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
I think I said "fair." Which is at least a step away from impartiality.

Later on you mentioned vestiges of impartiality, so I assumed that's how you were defining the word "fair" which is what many call a "weasel word".

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
President Obama has a much better chance of winning reelection by alienating Romney from the Religious Right than he does by arguing on the issues.

Nah, that's a waste of time as anyone who cares, already knows and won't vote for Romney.

It's really not. If Romney succeeds in making the key issues in the election the economy, experience, or job performance, he wins the moderate vote. And probably quite a few liberals.

If Obama succeeds in making the key issues in the election foreign policy (Romney has none, Obama at least has some), hate-the-rich OWS rhetoric, or "American Values" (which Obama steered away from in '08), he wins the middle. But if he draws off, or dissuades, the key Republican voting bloc - staunchly conservative voters - while maintaining his own, he wins, even if Romney wins on the issues.

dogma wrote:You'll see, and should see, some of it but not as much as you apparently think.

I'm not sure what you mean "should see." Do you really think that religious divisiveness is a positive? Or do you think that smart politicians make religious divisiveness a key issue?

dogma wrote:That depends on the issue you're talking about, and the person you're talking to.

For example, if I were a staffer, I wouldn't bother trying to convince you, its not possible because you're dyed-in-the-wool. But if I were talking to a random guy working at an auto plant, or a guy on the dole...yeah, I'm probably going to talk about "the issues" (itself a ridiculously vague term).

For most moderates it's going to be a hard sell that Obama is doing well on the economy. The only people you're likely to convince are the left-wing, who are going to vote for Obama over Romney or Gingrich regardless.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
I think I said "fair." Which is at least a step away from impartiality.

Later on you mentioned vestiges of impartiality, so I assumed that's how you were defining the word "fair" which is what many call a "weasel word".

Actually, that was earlier on. And that didn't suggest that you have to be impartial, just that you should pretend to be.

biccat wrote:
It's really not. If Romney succeeds in making the key issues in the election the economy, experience, or job performance, he wins the moderate vote. And probably quite a few liberals.

There is no realistic scenario in which Romney wins self-espoused liberals, the same is true of Obama vis a vis conservatives. This is shaping up as one of the most partisan election in American history.

Romney won't voice an experience argument because, you know, he's running against an incumbent.

He can voice the economy argument, but the problem with that is many see it as a government problem, and not a Democrat problem. Partisans blame their opposition, but no one cares about them outside the nominal pleasantries.

Job performance is another dicey argument as, while unemployment spiked under Obama, it also went down from that spike. Again, partisans blame their opposition...

biccat wrote:
If Obama succeeds in making the key issues in the election foreign policy (Romney has none, Obama at least has some), hate-the-rich OWS rhetoric, or "American Values" (which Obama steered away from in '08), he wins the middle.

Regarding foreign policy, some what? Experience? Obama and Romney have basically the same foreign policy positions. Obama may run on killing bin Laden, and taking troops out of Iraq, but that's not going to be a major issue.

Obama hasn't espoused the OWS position thus far, and is not likely to do so. It would be foolish. I also suspect you're conflating "Higher taxes on the rich!" with OWS rhetoric, they're not the same; though they are similar.

Obama will run on "American values", so will any GOP nominee.

biccat wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean "should see." Do you really think that religious divisiveness is a positive? Or do you think that smart politicians make religious divisiveness a key issue?

Yes (and issue, not a key issue), if they want to get elected, and happen to be Democrats.

biccat wrote:
For most moderates it's going to be a hard sell that Obama is doing well on the economy. The only people you're likely to convince are the left-wing, who are going to vote for Obama over Romney or Gingrich regardless.

Its likely to be a hard sell for any GOP candidate as well.

biccat wrote:
Actually, that was earlier on. And that didn't suggest that you have to be impartial, just that you should pretend to be.

So you think people should lie?

dogma wrote:Obama may run on killing bin Laden, and taking troops out of Iraq, but that's not going to be a major issue.

Which is hilarious, in its own way. A guy who could've run on being the guy under whose watch bin Laden was killed would have been elected King for Life eight years ago, probably even four.

I don't see gingritch as electable, in the least. I don't see any of the republican candidates as electable, really.

eh..

Tyyr wrote:Newt isn't electable. The man's baggage could fill a rail car and his skeletons could overflow a cemetary. He'd step out of the convention and onto the campaign trail and immediately be run right over by Obama and his PACs. He's going to polarize too many people and in the end you're leaving the ones in the middle with a choice between hard right and midway left. They'll likely flock to Obama and Newt will get buried.

Romney, despite being as exciting as oatmeal and about as appetizing to the far right, isn't nearly so off putting as Newt which in the general election will give disaffect independents and moderates someone they can be comfortable with after being let down by Obama turning out to be *SHOCK* a politician.

I can't imagine that Newt Gingrich of all people isn't aware of this. Makes me think this is nothing more than a publicity stunt on his point to position himself as a major "player" on the right.

Well then i do hope Gingrich wins the primary.
Also isnt this the guys that left his wife who was just diagnosed with cancers because she wouldn't swing? Running as a republican who main demographic is socially conservative nutbags who cant look past their own religions goggles to see the truth.
Obama s more a family man then him

Joey wrote:That weird American thing where, despite Fox having the largest share of the media, they all claim to be underdogs in a liberal media. Very odd.
Anyway Gingrich is going to lose and Obama will be re-elected.

I'm in perfect agreement with this.