It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Newt Gingrich Wanted the Debate to be Opened with Open Marriage Question

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 04:26 PM
I am not posting this because I do not think it was posted elsewhere, or that people looking at this thread haven't seen it. Just posting the video for user convenience.

Ok I am posting this because I have seen things in the past few days since the debate... Has anyone noticed the ridiculous amount of media attention that has been handed down to Newt Gingrich since the debate? All that I heard on both local and national news sources after the debate was the "bold rebuttal" Gingrich was able to supply on the opening question. Now I am not even going to post links to places where you can see this occur because it would mainly consist of thousands of YouTube videos and that would more than likely waste people's time with even more Newt propaganda.

Anyway, I get this odd feeling... this feeling that Gingrich asked or paid someone off to start the debate off with that question. He was so prepared for that question, and arguably is the main thing that is bumping his campaign right now. I mean, the public loves social problem attention. I don't know, I just think it's rigged... it would make so much sense. Thoughts?

Maybe I am just going nuts lately with all the influence the media undeservably protrudes.
edit on 21-1-2012 by PhysicsAdept because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 04:32 PM
i agree! It seems completely staged. It especially looks staged judging from the guys face who asked the question right when Gingrich started ripping into him. the guy didn't show embarrassment at all and naturally that should of showed. the guy didn't flinch.

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 04:37 PM
Newt could have wanted the debate to start with that particular issue, but I think this is more of an indictment of the average voter than Newt.

Americans thrive off of "reality show" politics and this was just fuel for the fire!

I bet Snooky (whatever her name is) could get a large portion of the votes just because of her name recognition and ties to controversial reality TV. Newt's recent success is just a product of the same "drama-queen" mentality!

In other words, people are stupid and will fall for anything.

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 04:38 PM
I wouldn't doubt that. He's a very crafty man and the crowd eats everything he says up. He knows how to read his audience and give them what want. Hitler did that too.

GOP members aren't the only ones who can spin anything into "Look he's just like Hitler!"

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 04:40 PM
reply to post by PhysicsAdept

American voters eat-up theatrics in politics instead of focusing on the real issues facing this country. Of course he was prepared to answer this question before the debate. He knew the issue was going to hurt him so I'm sure his political team discussed how he could approach that question. Gingrich is comfortable in debates and he's a really good public speaker. Unfortunately, voters are swayed by this and can't look beyond a candidates questionable credentials and voting records.

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 04:44 PM
I won't lie, this was one of the first things that popped into my head when I saw that opening in the debate...2 things were accomplished by doing this:

#1 It boosted support for Gingrich significantly. (The establishment has no problem with boosting establishment candidates)

#2 It cleverly distracted from the obvious media bias on Paul and put it (the fake bias) on Gingrich. Newt, in an almost emotional outburst expressed his dis-content for the media making it seem as tho they had it out for him. Did you notice how calm the moderator was while the crowd was booing him? Almost as though it was...expected. (scripted, anyone?

Both the media and Gingrich benefited from it. Almost like a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours".
edit on 21-1-2012 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 04:56 PM
Wow they are mindless, no seriously I am stunned at how the audience could applaud that. You can even see the moment he clocks on to the hype of the crowd and uses it move himself away from the elite and media bias.

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 05:32 PM
The whole GOP dog-and-pony show is utterly nauseating. Newt is an amoral attention whore, and the way the media is playing the public like a cheap violin is just too much for my blood pressure to take.

Newt is the flavor of the week. It's like a surreal whack-a-mole game. One creep pops up, then another.

Ron Paul is the only candidate worth listening to, and of course, he gets almost zero media attention.

Of course, we have no way of really knowing what the American public is thinking, since our only source is the mainstream media, and, Lord knows, they are the biggest liars and manipulators on the planet.

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 05:36 PM
reply to post by sheepslayer247

Yes... I'm afraid you're correct. Newt didn't even make a good response - i was expecting the moderator to patiently wait for the crowd to die down and repeat the question, which he completely dodged - but somehow the audience found his self-righteous indignation more entertaining than a real answer might have been.

How is it in any way shameful to ask an honest question about a highly controversial period of his personal life? This is not an interview for part-time manager at Denny's we're talking about here, but the office of the (arguably) most powerful position on the planet. If he can't be trusted with his family, how can we trust him with an entire nation? We need details to make a good decision - if he thinks he can keep the skeletons safely inside his closet then he's not nearly as smart as I gave him credit for.

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 05:47 PM
No need for bribery or an arrangement. Perhaps the awful crowd which intimidated the questioner was paid to support Gingrich with their cheering and booing, but that's it. Shrewd Newt could expect such a question. He had all the headlines in the past week as a warning what might be asked in the debates.

Also, this debate was not the first time Newt's infidelity was dragged into the open and used against him. He is a practiced bully and politician. So instead of defending himself, he naturally responds by attacking the messenger if some unpleasant truths about his private life threaten his career. He even has used similar lines before.

Gingrich went on to win that election handily, but not before claiming he was so disgusted by the level of “filth” and “degradation” in politics that he had considered dropping out of the race.
(This quote is from an opinion piece from March 2011. I didn't try to find an actual clip from this event.)

Normally I am disgusted if the media concentrates on shortcomings in the private life of a VIP instead of focussing on important issues. But politicians like Gingrich, who lectures the rest of us about morality, claims there is a holiness in the marriage and wants to ban gay marriage should be attacked for their bigotry. The reporter was simply to meek to continue with his attack.

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 05:55 PM
reply to post by Donahue

I was just waiting for the guy to just come out and say it:

"Well Newt, that IS what you told me to ask, I am just doing my job here."

Ha, now THAT would have made things interesting. But no, seriously, the reporter took no shame, emotionless as a rock.

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 05:58 PM
reply to post by sheepslayer247

Exactly why Newt does as well as he does. Look back at nearly any previous debate. He THRIVES off of making people laugh. The only why people like him so much is because he is a comedian, not a politician. I suppose it is time to just get things out in the open, the 2016 candidates should only consist of movie stars, reality show contestants, and comedians. Hell let's go ahead and just throw Tom Brady in there as well, he can get pretty far with his pompous rich-boy smile. That's what Romney has done the whole time and it's been working nearly as good as Newt's comedy routine!

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 06:00 PM
reply to post by spinalremain

I can't say I like the guy based off of what I know, but Hitler was an amazing speaker. In fact, I took a speech class in which the teacher actually forced us to watch some of his rallies. And the people loved him! He invoked so much emotion in people. I was getting partially riled up by watching him and I did not even know what he was saying, that's how the voters are of today too I would guess, like you are saying. That's why Ron Paul, though doing very well, could do better. He speaks so intelligently that sometimes I think people won't vote for him because they just don't get it haha

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 06:02 PM
reply to post by Wookiep

Totally agree. And like I said, not only did he receive tremendous support from the crowd afterwards, but it was the only highlight of the entire two hour debate that I saw afterwards, on any news channel! Ron Paul didn't get any highlights, even though the crowd was forced to stand up for him when he was skipped on the abortion topic! WTH haha

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 06:08 PM
I remember a debate where Ron Paul was asked a question. Ron Paul's answer wasn't sufficient to the moderator, so the question was asked again.

Here I see Newt Gingrich answer a question with an insufficient answer. An insufficient answer that riled up the crowd on his side. An insufficient answer that amazingly... sufficed.

Never has it been more obvious to me, (except when Newt answered "kill them" in the previous debate and the crowd exploded), that this whole thing is a game we are all going to lose.

We deserve it if we vote in a drama queen as president.

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:08 PM
Ha Ha Ha, Gingrich was lying through his teeth. He is quite a remarkable liar. He even was asked one of the questions a second time. And again Newt countered with a masterful lie. Luckily we know that Newt is a politician. Thus we are forwarned. I believe if a normal person had given me such a show, I would have immediately fallen for the faked outrage. I would even feel really bad for asking this question. Here is the video.

edit on 26-1-2012 by Drunkenshrew because: typo and grammar

edit on 26-1-2012 by Drunkenshrew because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 07:17 PM
Matt Taibbi has written a very funny rant about the Republican primaries. The whole article is worth pasting. If you have time read it.

The Odd Couple: Romney Vs. Gingrich

How the GOP race became a showdown between a walking OCD diagnosis and a flatulent serial adulterer

In contrast, even some of the most rabid anti-Republican protesters express a begrudging admiration for Romney's surging foil, Gingrich, who throughout the campaign has demonstrated that he not only doesn't mind yapping with haters and detractors but actually seems to enjoy it. "His security people are pulling him away from us, not the other way around," says Michael Premo, an Occupy protester who riled Romney at a rope line earlier that week.

If Romney is a scripted automaton who could make it through a year's worth of marital coitus without one spontaneous utterance, Gingrich is his exact opposite – taken prisoner in war, Newt would be blabbing state secrets without torture within minutes, and minutes after that would be calling his guards idiots who lack his nuanced grasp of European history, and minutes after that would be lying to two of his captors about an affair he had with the third. In short, Newt versus Romney played out in South Carolina like a classic comic clash of pure psychological archetypes: oral versus anal, chaos versus order, Oscar versus Felix, with Felix throwing a snit and Oscar charging to a wild, messy victory.

Read more:

new topics

top topics


log in