The debate last night would have bored people who love snore-fests. Mitt was declared the winner, but it really didn’t matter. No one can be influenced when they are put to sleep.
Newt’s usual debate performance was absent also, and today he is blaming it on the prohibition on applause:
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.”
Honestly, I don’t recall any answers from Newt that warranted any standing ovations. But the, with the questions that were asked, it was difficult to get excited about them. Not one question about abortion on the day of the March for Life. Not one question about the TSA on the day a sitting US Senator is detained by the TSA. Not one question on Fast and Furious.
But at least we know where the candidates stand on the Terry Schiavo situation.
Perhaps Newt should have called out Brian Williams et al. for their lack of focusing on what is really affecting the American citizens rather than what they will do if Fidel Castro dies while they are president.
If he had, that would have inspired someone to cheer.
This ban on cheering is yet another reason to vote for Romney, according to Jennifer Rubin, who has never strayed from the Romney camp and has no clue what is in the minds of the average American:
There are, of course, bigger problems with selecting Gingrich based on his debating skill. In a general election, his bread-and- butter — attacking elites and especially media elites — will be useless. Moreover, his incendiary rhetoric about liberals, judges, the president and just about everything else will be a burden and not an asset.
Completely clueless.
A majority of Americans think the media in America is too liberal. Conservatives are tired of candidates who stand and take it rather than fight back against a system clearly bias against them.
American is a conservative country. They are tired of liberalism being forced upon them, whether it’s in the elementary schools or in the court room. They are just as tired of activist classrooms as they are of activist courtrooms.
And in what world would incendiary rhetoric about a political opponent be a burden? In a world where the political opponent has the entire media in his pocket, willing to spin whatever Newt says into a racist “dogwhistle?”
Newt could just attack that as well, because people are tired of being called racist for whatever they do and also want someone willing to stand and say, “ENOUGH!” Someone who will point fingers and say, “You’re part of the problem, and here’s why!”
That’s why Newt gets cheered. He’s what happens after someone says, “I’M MAD AS HELL AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!”
I have never been a Newt supporter, but given what I have seen from him in the debates, I would be more willing to support someone willing to take a brickbat to the accepted practice of misinformation, overt bias in the media and character assassination than I would someone who was willing to tolerate it. I love it when Newt says, “This is what you are doing and here’s why it won’t work.”
I would enjoy watching Newt shuffle through the media constructs and Obama’s empty Marxist rhetoric like Godzilla walking through downtown Tokyo. And I think a majority of Americans would as well.
