So he's saying that he has no inner compass and needs the audience to tell him whether he's doing it right?

Well, that's interesting.

So, he wants the debates to be a right-wing version of Maher's show? That will sure be enlightening.

So let me get this straight.

he's such a wussy that he needs a fawning, sycophantic audience or else he can't debate, yet he thinks he is mentally up to the job of being president.

OK, that makes sense.

Please please let him stay on the street corners babbling incoherently like the other nuts attempting conversion of passing cars not on stage to an audience to dumb to know newt would cause mass destruction. Both sides pack debates with rabid supporters not for their sense but for their wiliness to show up and listen to dribble for a prolonged period.

You know who else got off on large crowds of vocal supporters cheering him on while he was in a full-on spittle-flecked apoplectic fit of rage?

He does realize that, if elected, there's not going to be a crown to cheer or boo every policy that comes across his desk, right?

markie_farkie: You know who else got off on large crowds of vocal supporters cheering him on while he was in a full-on spittle-flecked apoplectic fit of rage?

Obama?

/too easy

he does realize the "media" is not a government agent, and therefore the media's rules about whether or not you can applaud at a private event are not rules that would constitute a violation of anyone's "free speech" as that term is understood from a constitutional perspective, right?

i mean, if this guy is a credible candidate for federal office, he should know that right?

Newt might be a pathologically lying, serial adultering, pompous bag of douche with messianic delusions of grandeur, but this shows that he is basically a petulant little boy who makes Eric Cartman look civilized.

First Submitter, that is the worst point you could make. I'm astounded at your brazen lack of morality and character. I'm appalled and ashamed of America today because of your pompous and outrageous characterization of Mr. Gingrich. I'm unbelievably distraught at the (checks thesaurus) bewildering bounty of blusterous vitriolic, and downright stupifying....wait...what was the question again?

Yeah, like Newt would pass up a chance to do the only thing he's good at.

This (new window) needs to be played before Newt is allowed to speak publicly, for the rest of his life.

teto85: Newt might be a pathologically lying, serial adultering, pompous bag of douche with messianic delusions of grandeur, but this shows that he is basically a petulant little boy who makes Eric Cartman look civilized.

That's a false analogy; he's the adult version of Eric Cartman.

/Screw you guys! I'm going home.

Uh..Newt? The debates are all you have. You're an angry old white man, and you are good at riling up other angry old white men. If you have to run without taking mean spirited pop shots at the media, Obama, liberals, women, gays, Mitt Romney, Iran, Fidel Castro, Muslims and people who only have the one wife, you aren't going to win any more primaries.

Marcus Aurelius: Yeah, like Newt would pass up a chance to do the only thing he's good at.

He's not even good at that.

It's pretty stupid to give President Obama a very simple way of keeping Newt out of any future debates, but it would solidify his commitment to a future book contract and TV commentator job.

markie_farkie: You know who else got off on large crowds of vocal supporters cheering him on while he was in a full-on spittle-flecked apoplectic fit of rage?

Helen Keller?

WaltzingMathilda: he does realize the "media" is not a government agent, and therefore the media's rules about whether or not you can applaud at a private event are not rules that would constitute a violation of anyone's "free speech" as that term is understood from a constitutional perspective, right?

i mean, if this guy is a credible candidate for federal office, he should know that right?

My guess is that he understands that all too well...My fear is that the teatards that he is pandering to, do not.

WaltzingMathilda: he does realize the "media" is not a government agent, and therefore the media's rules about whether or not you can applaud at a private event are not rules that would constitute a violation of anyone's "free speech"

Of course he knows that--the reporter should have had the balls to point this out and report his (non) answer.

And not to belabor an old cliche, but this is exactly how a sort of guy like Aldolf Hitler takes power in a democracy. With a huge, ignorant crowd cheering him on with his bluster.

The ego must be fed.

Calista's slacking.

Somacandra: WaltzingMathilda: he does realize the "media" is not a government agent, and therefore the media's rules about whether or not you can applaud at a private event are not rules that would constitute a violation of anyone's "free speech"

Of course he knows that--the reporter should have had the balls to point this out and report his (non) answer.

I would indeed like to see one of these hosts challenge him on that. All that has to be said is "Mr. Gingrich, we're not here to argue over journalistic integrity tonight. I asked you a question about policy. Please stay on topic and either answer or decline the question. Thank you."

From now on, all debates will be set in a steel cage in a post apocalyptic wasteland with Tina Turner as the moderator.

I'm waiting for the Jerry Springer hosted debates.

/on the Maury debate, we find out if Newt or Mitt is the baby daddy.

Mr. Gingrich said NBC's rules amounted to stifling free speech

Does ANYONE know what 'free speech' means at this point?

Somacandra: WaltzingMathilda: he does realize the "media" is not a government agent, and therefore the media's rules about whether or not you can applaud at a private event are not rules that would constitute a violation of anyone's "free speech"

Of course he knows that--the reporter should have had the balls to point this out and report his (non) answer.

he was speaking on fox and friends. that's the closest thing a republican can get to having a cheering audience during a news channel interview.

The Daily Show (or someone with the resources) needs to do a megacut of all of Newt's attacks on the media. I love them. He gets such enjoyment out of them and the audience buys right into it. I can watch Newt deflect by attacking the media all day.

make me some tea: So he's saying that he has no inner compass and needs the audience to tell him whether he's doing it right?

Well, that's interesting.

I think what he's really saying is "I have red meat and my combative nature spurs enthusiasm from my moron-base of support. Without their cheers, it's more subdued and facts win the day. I can't fight that battle, so give me my roman mob"

If nothing else, the audiences at these GOP debates have proven to be more despicable than Newt is.

We're watching the death of the Republican party. The bad part is that they want to take everyone with them.

So, Newt Gingrich needs to have the same amount of audience interaction as the TV show "Whitney" to be effective?

Sounds about right.

propasaurus: I'm waiting for the Jerry Springer hosted debates.

/on the Maury debate, we find out if Newt or Mitt is the baby daddy.

This isn't the 2008 Demcrat primaries.

So when my professor said "Please hold all your questions until the end of the lecture" I could have sued him on First Amendment grounds?

I Said: make me some tea: So he's saying that he has no inner compass and needs the audience to tell him whether he's doing it right?

Well, that's interesting.

I think what he's really saying is "I have red meat and my combative nature spurs enthusiasm from my moron-base of support. Without their cheers, it's more subdued and facts win the day. I can't fight that battle, so give me my roman mob"

If nothing else, the audiences at these GOP debates have proven to be more despicable than Newt is.

Well put.

Diogenes: So when my professor said "Please hold all your questions until the end of the lecture" I could have sued him on First Amendment grounds?

by that point it would have been too late; you almost certainly would have been liberal indoctrinated by then.

thomps: Diogenes: So when my professor said "Please hold all your questions until the end of the lecture" I could have sued him on First Amendment grounds?

by that point it would have been too late; you almost certainly would have been liberal indoctrinated by then.

THEN the abortions start, and we're back to Soddom and Ghamorrah. PILLARS OF SALT AND HORSEMEN AND LOCUSTS!

It would be funny if the networks stood together, called his bluff, and said, "Fine, participate or don't; we will make our own rules for our debates".

Then watch Newt fold and come crawling back. What else is he going to do? Yell at the wall?

Newt needs to fall behind again to have any chance. He's no good at having the lead, he needs to be attacking and chasing someone.

monoski: I wonder how Newt would feel if a bunch of Fark members were audience???

why would the republicans hold their debate at dragon-con?

monoski: I wonder how Newt would feel if a bunch of Fark members were audience???

I'm sure Newt would be "rah rah my-idea-of-what-free-speech-is" if he heard:

MIC CHECK!