• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A well deserved thrashing

You failed to answer why the moderator should not open with the question about a news that break that day.

No I didn't. "No one knows whether or not it's true." That story could have made the front page of the National Enquirer.

How was the moderator not neutral?

Because "No one knows whether or not it's true."

Gingrich handled it like the ass that he is.

Very intelligent wrap-up, my friend. His base certainly didn't think so. And, of course, you wouldn't vote for him regardless.

It was released to coincide with the debate and put pressure on Romney, see that's okay, but when the pressure is on him, it's the media being "negative", the hypocritical whiner.

I'm not a fan of Newt. Won't be voting for him. Dirty pool is dirty pool.

So speculation that reflects negatively about her is okay.

She's made herself fair game. And if you equate my statement on this site to the lead question in a presidential debate, then you've lost all perspective due to your blind partisanship.
 
Last edited:
You failed to answer why the moderator should not open with the question about a news that break that day.

His ex-wife chose to give the interview close to the SC primary - so he should go to the source. How was the moderator not neutral?

Gingrich handled it like the ass that he is.



It was released to coincide with the debate and put pressure on Romney, see that's okay, but when the pressure is on him, it's the media being "negative", the hypocritical whiner.




So speculation that reflects negatively about her is okay.

The moderator should not have opened with that question because, as liberals have pointed out in the past, sex doesn't matter. If the moderator were neutral, we would expect him to ask the same question to the other candidates. Do you think he would have if Newt hadn't slam dunked him? Newt handled the question very well...he put the moderator, and any others, on notice that he won't tolerate such questions.

End of issue. (or it should be)
 
You failed to answer why the moderator should not open with the question about a news that break that day.

His ex-wife chose to give the interview close to the SC primary - so he should go to the source. How was the moderator not neutral?

Gingrich handled it like the ass that he is.



It was released to coincide with the debate and put pressure on Romney, see that's okay, but when the pressure is on him, it's the media being "negative", the hypocritical whiner.




So speculation that reflects negatively about her is okay.
And Redress said it was going to be the conservatives that were going to start going on about "liberal" conspiracies. She probably never saw those equine glutes coming................

So you think that his view on marriage is not important to Republican voters - the party that is all about the "sanctity of marriage"?
Oh sure! Why that is exactly what I said! Hidden among the two or three post of mine where I did say what I think, I also said that. Sure, why not. Why did you ignore the part where I called for cats and dogs to start living together?
 
Last edited:
And Redress said it waq going to be the conservatives that were going to start going on about "liberal" conspiracies. She probably never saw those equine glutes coming................


Oh sure! Why that is exactly what I said! Hidden among the two or three post of mine where I did say what I think, I also said that. Sure, why not. Why did you ignore the part where I called for cats and dogs to start living together?


Know what a question mark "?" is?
 
The moderator should not have opened with that question because, as liberals have pointed out in the past, sex doesn't matter. If the moderator were neutral, we would expect him to ask the same question to the other candidates. Do you think he would have if Newt hadn't slam dunked him? Newt handled the question very well...he put the moderator, and any others, on notice that he won't tolerate such questions.

End of issue. (or it should be)

It's not about sex but open marriage. The Republican party holds a platform that claims to protect "the sanctity of marriage" and one of their candidates allegedly requested for a form of marriage that's basically an open adultery - is that supposed to be not important to the conservative voters in SC suddenly?

If Romney is accused by his wife of asking for an open marriage or a polygamy, or Santorum by his clerk of asking for a blow job, I have full confident that it would be a presidential debate question - it highlights the character of the candidate on an issue that is important to the Republican Party. That's neutrality.
 
1. It's not about sex but open marriage. The Republican party holds a platform that claims to protect "the sanctity of marriage" and one of their candidates allegedly requested for a form of marriage that's basically an open adultery - is that supposed to be not important to the conservative voters in SC suddenly?

2. If Romney is accused by his wife of asking for an open marriage or a polygamy, or Santorum by his clerk of asking for a blow job, I have full confident that it would be a presidential debate question - it highlights the character of the candidate on an issue that is important to the Republican Party. That's neutrality.

1. The "sanctity of marriage" as part of the Republican platform???

Preserving Traditional Marriage

Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.

Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character. Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems. We support the courageous efforts of single-parent families to provide a stable home for their children. Children are our nation’s most precious resource. We also salute and support the efforts of foster and adoptive families.

Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex “marriages” licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage.

As the family is our basic unit of society, we oppose initiatives to erode parental rights.
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm

I don't see "sanctity" mentioned here...do you? Could it be you are applying a position to them that the Republican Party has not adopted?

Frankly, I don't see anything in Newt's personal life that contradicts the Party platform. Other conservatives...whether in SC or not...can make up their own minds.

2. The very fact that Romney and the other candidates DO NOT have this issue means that any question towards Newt on this issue is NOT neutral. Now, if the moderator had asked Newt...and all of the other candidates...what they think about open marriage, that could be considered neutral. But he didn't. He specifically referenced the statements from Newt's ex-wife and Newt's relationship with her. THAT is not being neutral.

Look, this wasn't a press conference...it was a debate. The moderator should have avoided questions that apply to only one candidate and focus on issues that are of concern to all the candidates.
 
I am not a Newt Gingrich supporter, but it's incidents like this that make me almost wish I were. CNN got exactly what they deserved, and all the other liberal media outlets deserved to have gotten this too.

OUTSTANDING



The look on that moderators face is priceless.


I gotta disagree. This isn't outstanding - it's embarrassing. The man is defending himself for serial adultery. The fact that he does it in a confrontational tone doesn't excuse him. Given his friendly interaction with the moderator afterwards, it's obvious the man was feigning outrage, and the entire audience was therefore just 'played' like a violin by a guy who has no moral center other than a conviction of his own importance and an ability to speak that outstrips his competitors. He made them into chumps, and worse, he made them into chumps that would defend him for pretending to moral outrage that he might be held up and asked to account for having a six year affair with a staffer and being (currently, at least) on his third wife.

No, Newt. Asking you about serial adultery isn't despicable. Serial adultery is despicable.
 
It is too bad the OP did not use this clip, the full clip. It is far more damning. In fact, despite the complaints of Redress and others, it is not Gingrich who "blames" anything on the media, but the moderator who does! He starts trying to lay the blame for his oh so relevant and professional journalistic "question" on ABC at the 4:30 mark. As Gingrich notes, "John it was repeated by your network, you chose to start the debate with it, don't try to blame someone else, you and your staff chose to start this debate with it. Now let me be quite clear.........the story is false. Every personal friend I had who knew us in that period says the story is false, we offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false, they weren't interested....". From there he goes on a typical stump speech. Almost as typical as the horses arses that are popping up to defend the "open marriage" question as not only truly important but deserving of placement not only in a presidential debate, but as the opening question. Iranian situation? The economy? The looming health care bill and immigration? Nah, start with the really "journalistic" stuff, we are CNN! The most "trusted" name in cable news.

Of course IF his campaign staff did in fact offer "rebuttal" witnesses to ABC and ABC did not use them? I have no doubt that the "champions" of journalistic etiquette here in the thread will be all over them for that. The day after the supposed Mayan "Apocalypse" proves to be not so big a deal.
 
Last edited:
Exactly!! Newt is very smart he played to his base. He's done this before, even in one of the Fox debates. BTW, in a PPP poll, Newt is up by 6 over Romney.

The victim card: Not just for liberals any more.

And let's be honest a bit... sure ask him the question, but the 1st question? LOL. CNN got spanked baby...
 
I gotta disagree. This isn't outstanding - it's embarrassing. The man is defending himself for serial adultery. The fact that he does it in a confrontational tone doesn't excuse him. Given his friendly interaction with the moderator afterwards, it's obvious the man was feigning outrage, and the entire audience was therefore just 'played' like a violin by a guy who has no moral center other than a conviction of his own importance and an ability to speak that outstrips his competitors. He made them into chumps, and worse, he made them into chumps that would defend him for pretending to moral outrage that he might be held up and asked to account for having a six year affair with a staffer and being (currently, at least) on his third wife.

No, Newt. Asking you about serial adultery isn't despicable. Serial adultery is despicable.

It's old news cpwill... trying to make this some big issue that no one knows about is ludicrous. Opening up a Presidential debate when the country has serious issues like, energy, foreign wars, economy, JOBS and unemployment... and the 1st question out of the gate is a question from the grocery store tabloids? CNN deserves their rotten ratings for blunders like this. It was precious though to watch Newt slap around CNN and by proxy the rest of the media at will.... this is why he's getting a bump.
 
HOLY ****! A political candidate got asked about something in the news! STOP THE PRESSES!

I do love how conservatives have one answer for everything: it's not my fault, it's the media.

Newt can play a crowd like the fiddle.

Many conservatives, rightly or wrongly, see the mainstream media as having a liberal slant, and have a strong mistrust for outlets like CNN.

For a political debate, Newt's answer was incredibly sharp, and very very shrewd. And he clearly won the crowd with it.

It is my belief that Newt just won South Carolina, folks.
 
I gotta disagree. This isn't outstanding - it's embarrassing. The man is defending himself for serial adultery. The fact that he does it in a confrontational tone doesn't excuse him. Given his friendly interaction with the moderator afterwards, it's obvious the man was feigning outrage, and the entire audience was therefore just 'played' like a violin by a guy who has no moral center other than a conviction of his own importance and an ability to speak that outstrips his competitors. He made them into chumps, and worse, he made them into chumps that would defend him for pretending to moral outrage that he might be held up and asked to account for having a six year affair with a staffer and being (currently, at least) on his third wife.

No, Newt. Asking you about serial adultery isn't despicable. Serial adultery is despicable.

The timing of the question was despicable. There is no good reason to lead off a presidential debate with a question like that... except that the liberal media wants to hit Republicans with the "gotcha" question.

The media are out for blood. Brian King thought he had a "gotcha" question and that he was gonna have Gingrich on the ropes. Cry me a river that he got smacked right back.

The fact is, this is a personal matter that concerns only Newt Gingrich and his family. Who are we to pass judgement? And the timing of ABC to interview Marianne Gingrich 2 days before the primary could only be done if they were trying to inflict as much harm as possible.

So no, I say to hell with the media... they got what they deserved.
 
Newt can play a crowd like the fiddle.

Many conservatives, rightly or wrongly, see the mainstream media as having a liberal slant, and have a strong mistrust for outlets like CNN.

For a political debate, Newt's answer was incredibly sharp, and very very shrewd. And he clearly won the crowd with it.

It is my belief that Newt just won South Carolina, folks.

I dearly hope you are correct and Gingrich wins SC. However, I suspect that the interview with his former wife will not go over well with some and even if that is a small number, 2 or 3 points could be the difference in this race. This is not like JFK trying to convince the nation that being Catholic disqualifies you from office. This is a moral and ethical problem for him caused by his own decisions and his own behavior.
 
I dearly hope you are correct and Gingrich wins SC. However, I suspect that the interview with his former wife will not go over well with some and even if that is a small number, 2 or 3 points could be the difference in this race. This is not like JFK trying to convince the nation that being Catholic disqualifies you from office. This is a moral and ethical problem for him caused by his own decisions and his own behavior.

He's got it.
 
CNN lost it's last remaining thread of decency and and claim to any objectivity whatsoever. They are now a joke and anyone who defends what they did here is also a joke. Talk about mind numb robots, sheeesh.
 
I find this pretty humorous. This guy made a career about the evil nature of Liberalism and how it's supposedly breaking the moral fabric and our nation apart. Now he's SHOCKED! that someone would ask him a personal question while running for President.
 
It's the news that breaks that day, why shouldn't the moderator open the debate with the question?

Agreed. I think it was highly predictable that CNN was going to bring it up. Heck, I wanted them to. I also am certain Newt was locked and loaded to shove that pile of manure, and it is a pile of liberal media manure, right back in their faces. It reminded me exactly of Babe Ruth pointing his bat to where he was going to hit the home run, and then doing it.

Gingrich behind a podium is Babe Ruth at the plate.
 
OMG you gotta be kidding me. The guy orchestrated a witch hunt over a friggen blow job. And now he is getting popped.
Now now...the witch hunt was organized because the democrat president lied under oath on trial for sexual harassment of a campaign staffer. He was on trial for whacking off on a couch, asking a trooper to escort said staffer into his hotel room, then stood up and asked her to kiss his dick. Lets keep the facts in place and dont go to the convenient dem dodge. He wasnt on trial for the rape of Juanita Broderick. He wasnt on trial for groping Katherine Wiley on the day they buried her husband. He wasnt on trial for the 12 year Flowers affair nor was he on trial for the many MULTIPLE affairs. He wasnt on trial for a blow job from a WH intern 40 years his junior, nor was he on trial for using his cigar as a dildo and then smoking it. He was on trial for sexual harassment. He lied under oath during that trial.

Lord, son...if you are going to bring up Clinton...you have to at least bring up the facts.

Edit: Oh...and I should add...Clinton also wasnt on trial for the recorded attempt to subborn perjury by telling Flowers to lie either. Gingrich has, to my knowledge, never denied any of his affairs. Clinton denied it under oath...and was especially convincing looking right into those cameras and telling the American people..."I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."
 
Last edited:
I gotta disagree. This isn't outstanding - it's embarrassing. The man is defending himself for serial adultery. The fact that he does it in a confrontational tone doesn't excuse him. Given his friendly interaction with the moderator afterwards, it's obvious the man was feigning outrage, and the entire audience was therefore just 'played' like a violin by a guy who has no moral center other than a conviction of his own importance and an ability to speak that outstrips his competitors. He made them into chumps, and worse, he made them into chumps that would defend him for pretending to moral outrage that he might be held up and asked to account for having a six year affair with a staffer and being (currently, at least) on his third wife.

No, Newt. Asking you about serial adultery isn't despicable. Serial adultery is despicable.

Were either of his first two wives "adulterers". Was Newt in two bad marriages ? So JFK did a lousy job and never should have been President ? SO Bill CLinton did a lousy job and never should have been President ? So Newt is just all talk, and never accomplished anything of consequence while a member of the House ?

Cause he "is a despicable serial adulterer", or is it "was a despicable serial adulterer", and is there a distinction between those two ?
 
I find this pretty humorous. This guy made a career about the evil nature of Liberalism and how it's supposedly breaking the moral fabric and our nation apart. Now he's SHOCKED! that someone would ask him a personal question while running for President.
Shocked? You are kidding...right? YoU CANT be that stupid. He knew the question was coming...had his response fully prepared and in one short minute the CNN reporter gave him EXACTLY what he wanted and he got a standing O for his response. Talk about playing into his hand...thats like stepping into the ring with Tyson and telling him where your jaw and hands are going to be. Shocked? Try 'thrilled'.
 
Shocked? You are kidding...right? YoU CANT be that stupid. He knew the question was coming...had his response fully prepared and in one short minute the CNN reporter gave him EXACTLY what he wanted and he got a standing O for his response. Talk about playing into his hand...thats like stepping into the ring with Tyson and telling him where your jaw and hands are going to be. Shocked? Try 'thrilled'.

Oh...I'm sure he was well prepared for the question and expected. I should of used *sarcasm* near the shocked.
 
Oh...I'm sure he was well prepared for the question and expected. I should of used *sarcasm* near the shocked.
Well...yeah...that would have made more sense. Really...its like CNN ASKED him what question he wanted to be asked first and how stupid would you like the questioner to look?
 
Jesus Christ, I've been hearing screaming conservatives talk about how Obama won't release his transcripts but don't care that Romney hasn't released his tax returns yet, I've heard them complain that Obama wasn't vetted on the Bill Ayer's story, yet he was aksed about it in a debate and interviews, meanwhile if you ask Gingrich about something that just came up it's the evil liberal media, lol.

Conservatives, it's not the media's fault that about half of your candidates come across as bat**** crazy and it's not the media's fault that your current "not Romney" candidate ****s everything that moves. If you're looking for someone to blame, blame Gingrich.
 
Jesus Christ, I've been hearing screaming conservatives talk about how Obama won't release his transcripts but don't care that Romney hasn't released his tax returns yet, I've heard them complain that Obama wasn't vetted on the Bill Ayer's story, yet he was aksed about it in a debate and interviews, meanwhile if you ask Gingrich about something that just came up it's the evil liberal media, lol.

Conservatives, it's not the media's fault that about half of your candidates come across as bat**** crazy and it's not the media's fault that your current "not Romney" candidate ****s everything that moves. If you're looking for someone to blame, blame Gingrich.
I agree...CNN certainly had the 'right' to ask the question...they simply dont have the right to not look like morons when they did. Asked...answered...they gave Gingrich the high ground (strategically though not morally) from the opening question.
 
Back
Top Bottom