Two Moments from CNN South Carolina Republican Party Presidential Debate That Could Change The Narrative: Gingrich and Romney
Most analysts agree there were two moments from last night’s CNN South Carolina Republican Party Presidential Debate that could change the narrative about former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as front-runner. These two segments are the ones that would be shown in the future by networks when they talk about debates, if these segments have the impact that many think they will.
#1: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich blasts CNN’s John King for asking him about his ex-wife’s ABC interview as the first question. This got Newt Gingrich a standing ovation from GOPers who supported any of the candidates:
Some thoughts:
#2: Mitt Romney blows it again on the tax return issue and gets booed by the auidience:
This clip shows Romney’s response in the context of how others answered:
Some thoughts:
14 Responses to “Two Moments from CNN South Carolina Republican Party Presidential Debate That Could Change The Narrative: Gingrich and Romney”
I think Gingrich made any and all relationship questions fair game when he wasted taxpayer money to go after Clinton for cheating on his wife, while he was cheating on his wife.
That being said, part of Gingrich’s shtick is about how poor wittle him is persecuted by the media. King did him a favor, here.
Yes, King picked the wrong time for the right question. King could have easily waited a bit…and I bet one of the other candidates would have brought it up.
The question was hovering over this debate and had to be asked. King did Gingrich a favor in getting it out of the way – and giving him a lot of time to answer it. And boy, was Newt ready! What a wonderful chance to bash the media – as only Newt can do. Was there collusion? Hopefully not.
Ms. Palin may have been right (as the standing ovation showed) – this could help him. We’ll see how the polls change.
dmf is right. When the decision to try to impeach a sitting President over a private sexual encounter was made, the media’s inclination to leave private lives alone was breached. Before that, pretty much only public hi-jinks were persued.
Mr. Gingrich was one of the leaders of that impeachment process while he was doing the exact same thing in his own life. HE was the one who defined “despicable”.
What dmf says about Gingrich’s rotten credibility is true enough, and it’s an understatement to say I’m no Gingrich fan. Nonetheless, I was happy to see him go after John King for asking a stupid gotcha question about his personal life. I get sick and tired of an immature and irresposible MSM that cares more about fluff, sensation, and the horserace than about the shifting nuts and bolts that hold the whole thing together.
As for Romney, he just keep showing more and more how disconnected he is from the rest of the country. Why on earth would anyone want someone like that for president? How can he possibly represent their interests? That, btw, doesn’t even begin to address his recurring problems with being able to tell the truth. Oh well, I’m sure feeding the ODS will help republicans forget just about everything else. So it goes..
I would like to thank John King for asking Newt the question about his, “open marriage request”.
Newt Gingrich was relentless in his attacks on President Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky episode. Now we see Newt’s wife publicly calling out Newt for the same thing, or worse. Newt’s daughters, ever so cognizant of the potential perks of the presidency have a different take than the ex-wife, whom will gain nothing. Yes, families ripped apart by sexual greed and it is this filth and hypocrisy that permeates politics and in this particular circumstance exposes the hypocrisy of the “family values” Republican party presenting Newt Gingrich as a candidate for President of the United States.
All of this Newt family values business is, and has been, WELL KNOWN by all the media for a decade, yet it is only CNN that brings it forth as it should be in the time and place that it should be for the people to see and remember.
Newt’s desperate defensive attack on King was disgusting.
For Romney, I’m a little and tired of hearing him cut off the questioner saying: “No you quit, now it’s my turn to speak”. If I were the questioner, I would answer this by saying: No, sorry next.
Or the reporter: “No sorry, you had your chance, camera off….see ya”.
It incenses me terribly that a man that gets so much from this country pays such a smaller tax rate than I do. It also incenses me that the Republican party continues to demonize the poor for paying “no tax”. Of course they pay no tax because they couldn’t EAT if they did!
Filthy Republican selfish pigs make me sick.
The question was inappropriate but it was no surprise the liberal media (no question which way CNN leans!) would to this to him.
Gingrich handled it well, except for including “decent” in the description of people (whom he expects to be included in) to be turned off from seeking public office because of such nonsense.
Allen can be happy, though, that at least one person thought King was excellent, not only for asking the question the way he did and defending it later, but in doing it right at the start of the “show” like Ed Sullivan with the Beatles: Allen’s pal in this regard is Rush Limbaugh, who said this.
I call it inappropriate, and it was a liberal media attack that has been a flop to the mainstream because it’s nothing really worse than what we already know about Gingrich.
There are a number of legit ways and reasons to criticize Newt Gingrich. However, Gingrich never criticized Clinton over risque behavior with Lewinsky. Urban legend. I went to Wikipedia and to Google, just to test my memory. Nothing. No Gingrich criticism of any private risque behavior. By the time of the impeachment trial in the House of Reps, Gingrich was on his way out, and did not even run that trial: the Republican majority elected other Republicans to oversee that process.
Also, “impeachment over private behavior” was propoganda which was marketed, by James Carville and by other Clinton defenders, in order to gain sympathy for Clinton and to keep public polling numbers on Clinton’s side. Many Senators refused to seriously consider convicting Clinton because public polling showed that the U.S. public had no stomach for convicting Clinton. The U.S. public had no stomach for it, in part, because Carville and others had convinced the public that the issue was about private behavior. So, the Clinton and Carville et al “private behavior” strategy did win out in the end, and was part of the reason Clinton was never close to being convicted.
I could barely remember the specific impeachment charges against Clinton. They were: obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and two counts of perjury.
I was all set to go on about how this just didn’t happen but DM has taken care of it in a better manner than I would have. I will say that Gingrich was involved in adds in 1998 attacking Clinton but none I remember directly commented on his “private” behavor. They focused on how Clinton went on tv and lied to everyone while wagging his finger at us.
dm
Newt was Speaker of the House during the whole year of 1998 when the Starr investigations and impeachment proceedings were ongoing.
The articles of impeachment were based on perjury and obstruction of justice charges based on Clinton’s testimony to a grand jury about his sexual behavior.
Newt was expecting to gain from 6 to 30 seats during the election in November 1998 – they lost 5.
Larry Flynt published stories about Newt’s adultery and he resigned in 1999 as did Bob Livingston who took over from Newt following the disastrous election results. Livingston was exposed by Flynt also and resigned before Newt and was followed by David Vitter. David Vitter still hasn’t resigned.
Here are the eleven reasons given for impeachment.
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/starr-excerpt.htm
Ohioan, thanks for the good info. I had never before read the Star Report recommendations for impeachment.
Wikipedia (which is fallible) does say this: “Gingrich resigned from the House on November 5, 1998, under pressure from his Republican colleagues.”
I remember Livingston resigning, on live television, during the session during which the House was to vote about some aspect of impeachment. I also remember, on the same day in which the U.S. House of Representatives impeached President Clinton, a large group of Democratic Representatives went straight to the White House lawn for a photo op and pep rally for Pres. Clinton. I remember Al Gore called Pres. Clinton “one of the greatest Presidents in American history”. I had voted for President Clinton, but I thought Gore’s statement was too much. It was blatant public relations ploy, and I didn’t like it. Looking back, I am glad Pres. Clinton was impeached, and I am glad the Senate acquitted him. I am glad he was forced to pay $850K settlement to Ms. Jones, and that his law license was suspended for however many years. The entire result seems just about the right penalty for his transgressions.
—If we do not understand both sides: are we moderates or extremists?
BJ, your belief in a “liberal media” is amusing (but obsolete). Easter bunny much? The problem with the media is it’s lack of a logical and moral compass, not any ideological preference. Do yourself a favor and drop the dinosaurish meme.
dm
I erred. Flynt had the information on Gingrich but didn’t publish it – waiting to see if he would actually resign. But he probably knew they had it and that’s why he was so circumspect. We all know Newt is rarely circumspect.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/kausfiles_special/1999/12/the_pornographer_who_didnt_bark.html
Gingrich resigned his Speakership the day after the election and his house seat in January 1999.