Skip to main content

Newt vs. Moderators

Some people want to believe that Republican presidential candidate, Newt Gingrich, is a top-of-the-line debater, that he's superior to Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama. I've seen the guy debate. He doesn't bring substance to the debate. He brings noise and lots of it. This is why some make the claim that he's a good debater - he's not afraid to be loud and obnoxious, much like the talking heads on conservative radio and Fox "News". Want talking points? Newt's your guy! Want interruptions? Newt's your guy! Want loud and obnoxious? Guess what? Newt's your guy! Want someone who thinks he can and should moderate the debate he's talking part in? You guessed it - Newt's your guy!

This is all it takes for some people. When Juan Williams asked Newt to clarify upon his "food stamps" comment, asking if he thought it was disrespectful to the African-American community, Newt simply responded with "no". That's all it took. He turned the Newt-disrespecting-African-Americans question back onto Williams by claiming that he was being disrespected by the media. Newt's the victim here, not those he disrespected. When John King asked Gingrich about the claim his second wife made about him wanting an open marriage and if he'd like to respond to that, again, Newt said "No" and went on to suggest that King was out-of-line for asking that very question, once again, turning around the question about Newt's alleged disrespect for women unto the moderator for supposedly disrespecting Mr. Gingrich. Gingrich complained after another debate about moderator Brian Williams asking that the crowd not get involved and allow the candidates a chance to speak without interruption. Gingrich didn't care for this and let his voice be known following the debate. When Wolf Blitzer asked Gingrich about Mitt Romney's tax returns and if he was satisfied with its level of transparency, Newt shot back with, "Nonsense!" and stated that he feels the four candidates should "agree for the rest of the evening to only talk about issues that relate to governing America."

Ah, I love this. Newt is acting like a Fox "News" or conservative-radio talking head. It's him against the world, him against the liberal media, him against the liberal elites, etc.

I find this very comical. When Bill Clinton was accused of having sexual relations with in-tern Monica Lewinsky, what did the Republican Party focus their attention on? How to best govern the country and move it forward or on Lewinksy and possibly impeaching Clinton? Who was at the front of that attack line? Mr. Gingrich. Also, it's not like these candidates can deny words they've spoken at this point in the ever-expanding technological age. Their quotes are recorded and can be showcased everywhere from the radio to YouTube to late-night comedy shows to the news and beyond. It's not like they can deny ever saying it without the truth coming out following the lie(s).

These kinds of questions come with the territory, Mr. Gingrich. While I personally want to know about a politicians specific policy and general ideas of how to move this country forward, I also want to garner a decent feel for his or her character, with their consistency. A big reason why Gingrich is probably despising of these questions is because the whole "family values" image is far more important to the conservative base than it is to the moderates or liberals, generally speaking. Due to this, he knows it won't play well with the base when he's asked about his three marriages and his leaving two sick women behind for something "better". This will also hurt him with just women in general. The other questions/topics will harm him with minority communities. The guy can speak just about as loud as a person can, but that volume will begin to lose its power if there's no substance behind it and all it does is continually block questioning and re-direct it at the questioner. Newt will have to alter his strategy some if he wants to last in this race and potentially win the Republican nomination. No matter how long it lasts, though, I certainly am enjoying the ride. It's comedy gold! Rumor has it that a mime will be moderating the next Republican debate and Gingrich is prepared to lash out at the moderator for his line of liberally-skewed and personal attack questions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/newt-gingrich-kids-janitors-south-carolina-debate_n_1209476.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/newt-gingrich-ex-wife-cnn-debate-south-carolina_n_1217633.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/24/newt-gingrich-brian-williams-debate_n_1227436.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/wolf-blitzer-newt-gingrich-cnn-debate_n_1235529.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"