Gingrich Doesn’t Want Debates With Gagged Audiences

Newt explained to Fox and Friends why he may not attend debates in which audiences are stifled and gagged by the media. The Debate in Tampa on Monday night included a strictly-enforced prohibition on applause and general audience feedback.  Like Speaker Gingrich, I wonder why the media wishes to silence audiences, but I think the answer is clear:  The media gains, and liberals do well when they don’t have immediate feedback from crowds, and it gives the television audience an impression of sterility that makes the events boring.

Watch Newt’s interview with Fox and Friends below:

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.1010930&w=425&h=350&]

Leave a comment ?

7 Responses to Gingrich Doesn’t Want Debates With Gagged Audiences

  1. jan says:

    This is amazing that the audience cannot clap or whole heartedly show their approval for any of the candidates remarks. I think that the media is fullfilling the Obama Administration on the reduction of liberties.

  2. oldtexasgal says:

    Some may not appreciate Glenn Beck, but I think it might behoove all to read his latest article:

    • eyetooth tom says:

      Clicked on and message was site not found. No applause, what a joke. Reverse of hiel hitler. Just following orders.

    • CPB says:

      FYI oldtexasgal: the last word in the string is mistyped – "election" is missing the "i". I actually heard most of this on Glenn's show this morning and while I agree that Newt is somewhat of a progressive, the goal at this point is to defeat Obama. I think the Dems have been setting up a class-warfare strategy for the last few months because they thought they were going to be up against Romney. I don't think Mitt is tough enough to stand up to the rich-envy mud they are going to sling and all of those unemployed people and 49% that don't pay any taxes are going to vote for Obama because he'll make Romney look like the devil. Add the hard-headed environmentalists, union crazies and minorities that will only vote D – boom! BO is re-elected. Newt can at least fight back. As much as I hate the choice, a conservative progressive is less worse than a marxist. We really, really need to focus on getting "real" conservatives in both houses of Congress. Maybe, just maybe, they can reign in a progressive in the White House. Putting our head in the sand will NOT make it go away. We didn't get all of these progressives in the GOP leadership overnight and it'll take a while to get rid of them.

      • eyetooth tom says:

        Thanks link was corrected and I read. CPB is correct in last sentence…including getting rid of puppets as well.
        Been watching since Nixon went to China…hope you will get as long to observe coming of NWO. Maybe you can do better at averting it. I don't think it is likely. Think you're going to live with it. I think all contestants in politics and government expect it and hope to reap benefits from it.
        Just my looking at it over a few decades.

  3. Sam Osborne says:

    Dub, flub and flubdub: Newt Gingrich has gone too far and responsible Republicans interested in a discussion of the issues facing our country have discovered how to negate Newt Gingrich’s capacity to provoke the lynch-mob instincts of a few members of the debate audiences and sidetrack meaningful display of the candidates’ leadership abilities.

    When the cowardly inclined cannot get their hot air pumped into a blowtorch by jeering toadies, they are quickly looked upon as a loathsome inconsequential that is easily avoided. And the harsh voices of echoed support also fade away as rapidly as do the would-be sources that can no longer hide in a thinning throng.

    Once discredited because of his own conduct, Speaker of House Newt’s closest henchmen soon mumbled in total disinterest, “Newt who?”

    • Greg Hindbo says:

      I don't think you get it. Let me explain:

      Americans are looking for someone who will start throwing some handcuffs on the people who are looting your country. The fact that the crowd was silenced is evidence that someone is getting close to being able to do just that.

      "The ruling class's appetite for deference, power, and perks grows. The country class disrespects its rulers, wants to curtail their power and reduce their perks. The ruling class wears on its sleeve the view that the rest of Americans are racist, greedy, and above all stupid. The country class is ever more convinced that our rulers are corrupt, malevolent, and inept. The rulers want the ruled to shut up and obey. The ruled want self-governance. The clash between the two is about which side's vision of itself and of the other is right and which is wrong. Because each side — especially the ruling class — embodies its views on the issues, concessions by one side to another on any issue tend to discredit that side's view of itself. One side or the other will prevail. The clash is as sure and momentous as its outcome is unpredictable."
      – "America's Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution" by Angelo M. Codevilla (

      Incidentally, does anyone here remember what Codevilla's ideal candidate would be? (hint: It was a hybrid of two well known politicians.)