Newt Gingrich: I Will Not Go to Debate With Olbermann or Matthews Moderating
Newt Gingrich on Sunday said that if he runs for president in 2012, he would not participate in a debate that had MSNBC's Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann moderating.
Instead, the former Speaker of the House told C-SPAN's Steve Scully that he'd prefer to just have an open, informative dialogue between the candidates with only a timekeeper (video follows with transcript and commentary):
NEWT GINGRICH: I think that the candidates and the Party ought to organize the debates not the news media. I think that the unending tendency of the news media is to play gotcha games, and I think that we’d be much better off to have a more serious and a more substantive style of talking with each other about what we’d do to help America rather than the sort of, “You now have 30 seconds to describe your policy on Pakistan,” which is an absurd way to try to run the country.
STEVEN SCULLY, HOST: Can you do that?
GINGRICH: Of course you could.
SCULLY: Can you tell NBC you’re not going to participate in the debate?
GINGRICH: Of course you can. You say to NBC, “How would you like to cover our debate?” You can say, there’s no possibility that I would ever go to a debate and have Olbermann or Chris Matthews asking questions. I, I watched the debate a couple of years ago, and it was an embarrassment because they were so relentlessly hostile, and they were so left wing, that every question they asked of the Republicans was designed to embarrass and divide the Republicans and every question they asked the Democrats was designed to make them look good. Well why would we participate in that?
SCULLY: Would you do it without a moderator or just among the candidates?
GINGRICH: I think you can do it with a timekeeper. Reagan and, I mean not Reagan. Lincoln and Douglas debated seven times for three hours and they had a timekeeper. That’s all they had. And I, I, I’d feel very comfortable, you know, I’m not saying, if we got to that point, and I was a candidate and they were candidates, people like Mitch Daniels, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Gov. Romney, I’d feel very comfortable having an agreement to behave like adults, and observe the time, and just, and figure out what the topics ought to be, and actually have a dialogue not a debate. How are we going to solve our country’s problems, and how are we going to move ahead? And I’d be glad to do it at the Reagan Library, but without the kind of Mickey Mouse, you know, questions asked by hostile news media.
SCULLY: So the debate announced this past week by NBC News and Politico at the Reagan Library if you are a candidate would you participate?
GINGRICH: I’d want to see what the terms were and who’s going to be there. I mean, but I would not participate if it was a hostile reporter asking gotcha questions with an absurd time limit.
Just imagine how much the public would really learn about the candidates if this were to happen.
Unfortunately, it seems impossible to imagine any network allowing so much air time without being able to market its anchors and on air personalities.
(H/T Mediaite)
*****Update: To give readers an idea what Gingrich was talking about concerning "the debate a couple of years ago," here is NewsBusters report concerning the May 2007 GOP presidential debate with Matthews and others asking really silly questions.
A few days later, the MRC compared and contrasted the questions asked at the Democrat and GOP debates.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Good for Newt
Submitted by octavioj on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 8:40pm.
Also I think this debate so early in 2011 is stupid and useless. No one should participate.
Newt Gingrich: I Will Not Go
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 8:48pm.
Newt Gingrich: I Will Not Go to Debate With Olbermann or Matthews Moderating Now, there's a headline you don't usually see - one with "Olbermann" and "Matthews" used in conjunction with "moderating".Finally Newt has an original idea
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 8:54pm.
It won't help him though. I wish he'd just crawl back in his hole and write books.
He shot all credibility with me when he sat on the Global Warming sofa with Nanny Pelosi.
It's a great point, however. Under no circumstances should any Republican candidates agree to participate in liberal media moderated debates. I'd rather have a debate professor moderate, with a pre-determined set of questions (neutral), with a three minute each response, then mutual rebuttals. On to next topic. Time keeping only.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde, I'm thinking that
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 9:12pm.
Blonde,
I'm thinking that maybe it's time for these Republicans who have been hanging around politics for too many years to leave us all alone and give it a rest in 2012. I like Newt okay as far as it goes, but after seeing him umpty umpth times on the Fox News primetime shows, I think I'm suffering from "Gingrich Fatigue". I think we've heard him out.
Exactly, Chris
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 9:38pm.
Starting with McCain (and his twit of a daughter).
They could all do us a favor and do a MacArthur.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Newt blew this one.
Submitted by daddysyk on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 9:45am.
I would assert that Newt has just emboldened these 2 clowns. He has elevated them to a leveI of importance that they will now exploit. I would love to see one of them as a moderator. We cannot act like the other side and be afraid to engage because on the issues, Repubs are right most of the time (even if some of the RINOs are shaky). What needs to happen is that the debate participants should take every opportunity to ridicule ridiculous questions and call out Matthews or KO. Throw in a few pre-written zingers about "tingling" or routinely crefer to KO as "sir" in the loud condescending manner he uses the term. A debate would be the perfect stage to humiliate these 2. I think Newt is missing an opportunity here. These guys, and that he/she Maddow should be recruited to moderate - not excluded.
I disagree, daddysyk
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 10:07am.
In the current televised debate style, the candidates are given such a short period of time that they really don't have the time to smack down the stupid liberal premise of the questions, and then get to their debate points.
It's designed that way to put the republican candidates at a disadvantage.....present the "question" with a liberal premise as fact, without enough time to refute the "fact" of the premise.
To compound the outrage, the liberal media "insists" they are neutral questioners, i.e. Donna Brazile(!) for these media events.
I understand your point perfectly, but the venue to embarass these azzclowns isn't in the middle of a political campaign. Every single one of our conservative (to a lesser extent republican, because we know we're riddled w/RINO's) politicians need to adopt your tactic every time they're in front of a camera. IOW, make the liberal media so gun-shy about posing the liberal questions and behing humiliated for it that they stop it. Furthermore, they need to accuse the person questioning them of being a democrat partisan hack for doing so....
I'm sorry Contessa, I reject the premise of your question, and wonder why , as a so-called journalist, you would promote a partisan democrat agenda by phrasing it that way. Now, if what you meant to ask was.....here is my answer.
HIT THEM WHERE IT HURTS.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I see your point. However,
Submitted by daddysyk on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 10:22am.
I see your point. However, the quote to Contessa would be the perfect way to approach each question. Quickly mock the question and demean the motives of the moderator, then simply answer however you please. Of course this only works if all involved agree to do it as a group. Probably hard to pull off. As Ron Burgundy says, "agree to disagree"
daddysyk
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 10:28am.
We can do that (agree to disagree). I'd like to see the blatant media dishonesty stopped before the next election, alas....I'm probably dreaming.
While you were writing your post, I was hunting down this old clip of John Zeigler on with (acting like he's methed up) David Shuster. This is a classic example of slaying these idiot media talking heads....although Shuster is (was? LOL, GONE!) too stupid to know he'd been had, badly.
Calls Shuster a joke, "your opinion", etc. I love this clip, although it took a while to hunt it down here with the new search format.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
That is a classic clip.
Submitted by daddysyk on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 10:31am.
That is a classic clip. Thanks. How great is it to have easily accessible video evidence of the bias of these a-holes? This is why people like Ted Koppel are so bitter. They no longer hold the monopoly on information.
Too true, hadn't thought of it that way before.
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 10:38am.
Wow, I'm glad that posted, I got hung up here (again!) and had to totally close down Explorer.
That's one of my favorite clips, BTW. Must admit, it took me a few minutes to remember old Shuster's last name, finally searched on Noel's blogs to find the clip.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
How could a 'moderator'
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 9:30pm.
How could a 'moderator' (oxyMORON, anyone???) like Keef or the Leghumper actually be taken seriously??? Both of these clowns are rabid..............
I like Newt just fine, and he's a smart guy, but I agree with what you said, along with some other things he's stated or done....................and, besides that, the MSM would have a field day with all of the baggage that Newt has, and - unlike Boy Blunder or some of the other libs - they WOULD play it up bigtime!!!!
Would any Dem debate if Rush was the moderator?
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 10:22pm.
Not to put Rush on the same level as Matthews or Olbermann, mind you; but can one imagine a debate between Obama, Hillary, and Newt.. with Rush holding the cards?
The D's don't want real questions.
(:~> gary
By not putting Rush on the
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 10:30pm.
By not putting Rush on the 'same level' as these two delusional dweebs, I'm assuming that you mean Rush could NEVER stoop that low??? Hell, Rush could eat Boy Blunder AND Nurse Ratchett for lunch without them being able to defend themselves............then they would just resort to 'fat, drug-addled, wind-bag, right-wing king of hate radio', or something along those lines...............
I agree with you in theory, Gary...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 10:49pm.
But even though I didn't catch the Olbermann moderated debate in '08, my recollection is that NewsBusters--and Noel in particular--actually praised the surprisingly tough questions posed by KO to the Democratic candidates.
So, either I'm wrong, Noel was wrong, or Gingrich is wrong.
Jer
Jer..
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 11:05pm.
Yea.. well they very well may have put up tough questions -- but from the far left. Perhaps like, 'so can you assure us that no matter what, the troops will be home in two weeks, and that corporate America will be banned by the end of the first year?' Or/ 'Will you bring Bush to trial?"
Olbermann and Matthews generally do not ask questions from the mainstream Democratic POV - certainly not of Democrats.
And, no national mainstream media figure ever asks questions of Republican pushing them to hold the conservative line. We all see every day, how that shoe fits on the other foot.
(;~/ gary
Gary...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 11:58pm.
Without having seen the debate or a transcript of the questions, I'm really not in a position to comment other than to repeat my recollection of the perspective of tthe NB blog [which I believe was Noel's] the day after; and add that I thought the tough questions were not the anticipated product of the questioners' ideology,that is, implicitly critical or provocative from the left (of a type similar to the examples you listed.) But I may very well be off base here.
Again, as a general rule, I don't think the Olbermanns [or the Hannitys or Limbaughs] have any business being debate moderators. {And, for the record, I believe it was a serious mistake for the Dems to boycott Fox}. If truly independent moderators are in too short supply, then go with a couple of center/left and a couple of center'right questioners.
Jer
Of course, it could be that Bathtub Boy...
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 11:11pm.
took a more middle-of-the-road tact in the 2008 debate (assuming you're correct on your assessment- I don't recall the debate itself) knowing that the tide was firmly behind the Democrats. I think it's likely that he'd not be quite so even-handed in 2011.
BK...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 12:54am.
Don't you think the pressure to counter the perception of being an ideological "ally" would outweigh any tendency to toss up demonstrably softball questions? I do. Moderators so perceived have nothing to gain but a massive outpouring of criticism--and a good deal of credibility to lose--if political partisanship seeps into the content of their questions.
Bernie Shaw, while not a raving liberal, was probably a little left-of-center, and yet his capital punishment question to Dukakis was--as framed--of dubious fairness and tripped him up badly [as CO2Maker notes below].
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Samshile on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 6:07am.
Duke was not the Marxist light Liberals of today. The landscape has gone NASCAR. (left turn). I liked Hubert Humphrey. They called him a liberal.
But, by todays standards, MSNBS would snarkily call him a right wing racist extremist.
Old School Dems were proud of the USA and had respect for Christians. Not this OH the Muslim victims and Christians are all Jerry Falwell regurgitation
A Rather Unnecessary Question, LOL
Submitted by Clyde Gatton on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 10:54pm.
Well, since the Dems refused to participate in any FNC debate last presidential election cycle, I guess your question, tongue-in-cheek though it was, has already been answered.
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
Any republican I want to vote
Submitted by Ryan Mc. on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 10:28pm.
Any republican I want to vote for will stop the old debate system with the Gwen Ifell moderators and the silly 30 second sound bites. If Obama had to use up 3-5 minutes in a single topic he would be completely exposed. He sailed through the debates with McCain because he couldn't be pinned down in 30 seconds or a minute. Also he could say HopeChange a few times and for the simple minded, it sounded good. Make him talk for 5 minutes on taxes and grab a bag of popcorn.
You mean even the vacant
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 10:33pm.
You mean even the vacant minded TV viewers would be wondering why he was just stammering and stuttering and searching for a coherent thought, while trying to sound 'smart' at the same time??? I think a lot of people are starting to notice that - about 2 years too late!!!
The quintessential gotcha question
Submitted by CO2Maker on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 12:43am.
was asked by Bernard Shaw of CNN to Mike Dukakis in the 1988 presidential debates,
GHWB and Duk faced a panel of journalists. Shaw drew the short straw and got to ask the first question, and boy was it a gotcha question.
The Republicans were trying to portray Duk as soft on crime (Willie Horton, remember?) and soft on defense (Duk in a tank), so Shaw started with the famous, "If your wife had been raped and murdered, would you want to impose the death penalty." Duk said no. (WRONG ANSWER! He should have said, "I'd kill him with my bare hands if I could, but they probably wouldn't let me.")
Anyhow, that's what you get when the press are running the show, asking the questions, and doing the televising of the debate. It's all about the press. And if you think it's because the press tilts to the left (as Bernard Goldberg writes in his book Bias), then just remember that they'll pounce on a liberal Democrat straggling behind the pack just as quickly as they'll attack a conservative Republican.
HOW ARE YOUR WIVES DOIN', NEWTY BOY?
Submitted by Rod Patrick on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 11:10pm.
Of course, that would be embarrassing for Newt if the MSM has its way during the debate.
The side track: So, Newt is running for 2012, eh?
But Newt would be a mile better than Obambo !
Whoever wins the primary, I will totally support!
Uh, no....
Submitted by tampamom25 on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 11:30pm.
He has a right to try another run, but if he's the best the Republicans can do they are in big, deep, doo-doo. Gingrich is warmed over, same old, same old stuff and what we need is someone like Chris Christie who doesn't pull punches, says what he means, and carries through on it.
I realize Newt has an ego
Submitted by Thoreau on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 11:55pm.
I realize Newt has an ego investment in this, but he should understand that he doesn't have the votes. I'm sure he's an ambitious guy, but we need somebody that will take a bullet to the head to keep this Country from collapsing.
And that isn't him. It never was.
Sorry Newt. You're an idea that's time will never come. The fact that you want to run for your own ends, means you shouldn't be doing it. We are hell and gone past your ego bullshit. If and when you do something worth the trust of the People, you'll be the first to know it.
I won't fly any commercial flight where Streisand is the pilot.
Submitted by Texndoc on Sun, 11/21/2010 - 11:56pm.
What kind of a statement is that from Newt? Who in a million years would put Keith Olbermann in the role of debate moderator for the office of President? Not NBC. Not MSNBC, even.
It's NBC not MSNBC
Submitted by goldwaterfan on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 12:17am.
The Reagan Library debate is being put on by NBC News, not MSNBC. Olbermann and Matthews wouldn't be moderating, David Gregory and Brian Williams would. It's surprising a smart guy like Newt couldn't figure that out.
Amanda Carrington
You don't understand, he
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 12:23am.
You don't understand, he wants a free for all with no moderators. We can see the true mettle of a person in that situation.
Dan, I understand his point
Submitted by goldwaterfan on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 5:54am.
I just don't think it would work. I think the candidates would evade any issue that doesn't serve them personally.
Amanda Carrington
Gold
Submitted by Samshile on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 6:14am.
Ay that newt is a moron. Seeing an oppurtunity to smack the Libs reall good is goofy. Yuk Yuk. Ya that Nut Gingrich is a doofus for backhanded sarcasm.
Gold dont blink again you will miss the fun!
What?
Submitted by goldwaterfan on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 7:33am.
Translate in English, Please do that. Your comment is nonsense.
Amanda Carrington
I would like to see free for
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 12:21am.
I would like to see free for all debate style with just the timekeeper. But, Obama would not allow it niether would his sychophant networks cronies.
A free for all debate with
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 10:16am.
A free for all debate with only a timekeep is the political equivalent of a steel cage match.
Who cares what Newt wants?
Submitted by big.league.slider on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 12:51am.
Who cares what Newt wants? He blew his big chance in '94, and he hasn't gotten any smarter since.
On November 2nd, conservative voters made it clear that we would not accept business-as-usual from Republicans. Yet, just 19 days later, the Republican congressional leadership gives us the same old crap: Boehner and McConnell.
The only Republicans that have demonstrated the will to do what it takes are guys like Gov. Christie and Rep.-elect West. They're the only ones that I care about seeing in a debate.
Get lost, Newt
Submitted by Tenebrous on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 1:47am.
While Newt may have good ideas now and then, he doesn't have my respect after the Global Warming endorsement. That tells me that he cares more about power than he does about truth, and anyone who thinks that way can shove off.
Will he run? Unfortunately, he has an ego problem, and so he probably will. He doesn't have a chance, though, once people start bringing up his infidelity and his policy flips. If he wins the primary, I won't support him even then. It's not a matter of "my guy/gal didn't win." It's a matter of "this is an untrustworthy person."
Visions and Principles blog
I agree with you on the
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 10:14am.
I agree with you on the points that Newt will probably run but has almost no chance of winning the GoP nomination. A lot could happen in the next 2 years that would influence that a bit but not to the point of giving Gingrich the edge. Too many stronger candidates already in the spotlight with some that may establish themselves along the way.
Newt's right about refusing
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 10:12am.
Newt's right about refusing to participate in any debate moderated by Matthews or Olbermann but "an open, informative dialogue between the candidates with only a timekeeper"? Ya gotta be kidding! That would turn into a mess rather quickly.
BRAVO NEWT!!
Submitted by Patriot II on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 11:28am.
Kind of like getting into a battle of wits and the dummies are witless...or is it like getting into a butt kicking contest with a one legged man (men) LOL
Ol' Newt doesn't want the
Submitted by Cowboy on Mon, 11/22/2010 - 1:25pm.
Ol' Newt doesn't want the set-up so-called debates ? Doesn't want to be Palinized ? Still has some brain cells left...