AP
AP
In last night’s debate it was brought up that Romney had stock in Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac among other controversial investments. He told the audience that his stock was not picked by him and it was taken care of through a blind trust. Hands clean? Well, not quite. Here is
More here:
Romney on Blind Trusts: “Age Old Ruse”
Media, take heed. Following last night’s NBC presidential debate in Tampa, Florida, Republican candidate Newt Gingrich has announced that he won’t allow debate moderators to prevent the audience from applauding. But could it be a moot point? As the New York Times reports , the catalyst for these comments originated on Monday evening when debate moderator Brian Williams told the 500-member audience to withhold their applause until the commercial break. On Tuesday, Gingrich responded to this action in an interview with FOX News’ “Fox & Friends,” during which he said that the audience members’ free speech was impeded by NBC’s policy on debate silence. Additionally, he seemed to indicate that the ban on audience noise was somehow tied to the medias’ own self-preservation. The action, Gingrich said, was likely employed out of a fear that the audience would turn against Williams. “I wish in retrospect I’d protested when Brian Williams took them out of it because I think it’s wrong,” 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.” Watch Gingrich’s FOX interview, below: Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com The Times blog piece was entitled, “Gingrich Threatens to Skip Debates if Audiences Can’t Participate.” The article read , “Mr. Gingrich, a former House speaker, on Tuesday morning threatened not participate in any future debates with audiences that have been instructed to be silent.” While the candidate did, indeed, share his displeasure with the process at last night’s debate, nowhere in the FOX interview did Gingrich make this proclamation. Instead he said that he wouldn’t allow any crackdowns on audience expression. “We’re just not going to allow that to happen. That’s wrong,” he said during the interview. “The media doesn’t control free speech. People ought to be allowed to applaud if they want to.” On the Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin weighed in, writing : This is one more indication that Gingrich is not a general-election candidate. In the presidential debates they don’t allow audience reaction either. At the start of the Sept. 26, 2008, debate Jim Lehrer explained: “The audience here in the hall has promised to remain silent, no cheers, no applause, no noise of any kind, except right now, as we welcome Senators Obama and McCain.” Considering that the Presidential Debates Coalition, which oversees general election debates, often forbids applause as well, it will be interesting to see how Gingrich reacts should be secure the GOP nomination. (H/T: Drudge )
See the rest here:
Gingrich: I‘m ’Not Going to Allow’ Media to Stop Audience Applause During Future Debates
If you watched the debate last night, you likely noticed that the audience was eerily silent. They had been asked/admonished by Brian Williams not to be hootin’ and hollerin’ like they have in past debates. Regardless your thoughts on Williams and NBC and the liberal media and their desire to silence the Right, this was a major problem for ONE candidate: Newt Gingrich. It was the rowdy crowd — in both the Fox News debate when Newt took on Juan Williams’ race-related questions and the CNN debate when he lectured John King for the media’s “shameless” use of the interview with his second scorned ex-wife, Marianne Gingrich. Because Newt knows that without the rowdy crowds his campaign suffers, the gentleman from Georgia has decided that if the rules can be HIS rules, then he’s not going to play . Newt Gingrich insists his fans will not be silenced. Mr. Gingrich, a former House speaker, on Tuesday morning threatened not participate in any future debates with audiences that have been instructed to be silent. That was the case on Monday, when Brian Williams of NBC News asked the audience of about 500 people who assembled for a debate in Tampa to hold their applause until the commercial breaks. 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. Sounds a lot like Tinkerbell, who also required audience applause to survive:
The rest is here:
What Newt Gingrich and Tinkerbell have in common
Is it debate fatigue or was CNN’s pre-South Carolina primary debate intensely boring? Thank God for THE BLAZE’s live chats. Here are the kibbles and bits: 1. How awesome was the audience? It forced John King , who moderated, to get with the program and allow Ron Paul to answer a question about abortion, given Paul’s background as a medical doctor. If it weren’t for the audience, King would have coasted by the obvious choice of letting a doctor talk about health care. 2. But speaking of Paul, someone get him a new tie. This was the third debate in a row in which he wore same terrible 1970s-patterend necktie. On the other hand, Paul called Rick Santorum “overly sensitive” at one point , and that was pretty funny. 3. Santorum did very well for himself. “Grandiosity has never been a problem with Newt Gingrich . He handles it very well,” Santorum said, responding to a question about a suggestion by Gingrich that Santorum should drop out of the race. It’s about time someone called Gingrich out on that, am I right? He also accused Gingrich of not having “cogent thoughts.” 4. Gingrich consistently performs well in the debates. He sticks it to the moderator(s) and the audience loves it. But his outrage over being asked about the new interview his ex-wife granted to ABC News was a bit of pious baloney . Most Americans care more about jobs, I’m sure. But it was an issue that would have inevitably been brought up and better sooner than later. 5. Finally, Mitt Romney stood up for himself and his record as a CEO at Bain Capital. “I’m not going to apologize for being successful,” he said. But it would have been more impressive had he kept his hands out of his pockets. 6. Rick Perry : Gone but not forgotten.
Original post:
GOP debate on the surface: S.C V.2.0
Newt Gingrich is just ahead of Mitt Romney for first place in Real Clear Politics’ average of polling data in South Carolina. Even so, Gingrich couldn’t get a enough people to show up in support of him at an event in Charleston. He had to cancel the event. From the AP: There were just a few dozen people in the audience at the College of Charleston’s arena, where the event was taking place. The conference has suffered from low attendance all week but Gingrich rival Rick Santorum went ahead and addressed the group on Thursday. Gingrich’s spokesman said skipping the stop would give the former House speaker more time at his next scheduled event, a tour of a children’s hospital. South Carolina’s primary is held Saturday.
Go here to read the rest:
Gingrich fails to draw crowd, cancels event
Terry Etim, from the UK, right, is kicked by Edson Barboza, from Brazil, during their lightweight mixed martial arts bout at the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) 142 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Sunday, Jan. 15, 2012. (AP Photo/Felipe Dana)
AP
Link:
Have You Seen the ‘Most Incredible Knockout In UFC History?’
You can watch the video of Amy Holmes easily handling David Shuster here . One question he asked was: “Amy, I’m curious, at GBTV, did you dig down to the fact that Bain Capital, they actually pay fifteen percent carried interest rate as opposed to the rest of Americans who pay 25, 28, or 33 or 35?” While Amy is far too smart and classy to bother engaging Shuster’s idiocy on a point by point basis–I am neither. While Amy said she didn’t go into that much financial detail in that particular segment, we have talked about the 15% rate numerous times on GBTV, mainly when Warren Buffet was bringing it up. To our audience, it’s just an old, stale point which has already been defeated. One of those times, I even did it in drag. Or here, for a less disturbing version.
They just couldn’t help themselves. This weekend’s one-year anniversary of the Tucson massacre passed quietly and respectfully. And then femme-a-gogue Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to open her big mouth: Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., speaking in New Hampshire this morning, reminded her audience of the tragic Tucson shooting last year — and also insinuated that the Tea Party, which she said regards political opponents as “the enemy,” has enhanced divisiveness in Congress and had something to do with the shooting, at least indirectly. “We need to make sure that we tone things down , particularly in light of the Tucson tragedy from a year ago, where my very good friend, Gabby Giffords — who is doing really well, by the way, — [was shot],” Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic National Committee chair said during a “Politics and Eggs” forum this morning. “The discourse in America, the discourse in Congress in particular . . . has really changed, I’ll tell you. I hesitate to place blame, but I have noticed it take a very precipitous turn towards edginess and lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement.” How dare her. How dare her. After a year of unhinged Tea Party-bashing and false accusations from New Tone Democrats, the DNC and DWS have done nothing to tone down their own poisonous , hypocritical vitriol. “Tone things down?” Practice what you preach, trash mouth. *** Previous: “Civility Watch” post archive. “New Tone” post archive. “Civility police” post archive.
Here is the original post:
Femme-a-gogue Debbie Wasserman Schultz smears Tea Party, exploits Tucson massacre anniversary
