-
Born-Alive Infants Butchered to Death — No News Here
April 11, 2013 | 11 comments
-
Refuting the Libertarian Argument on Marriage
March 28, 2013 | 2 comments
-
New, Young Faces of the Pro-Life Movement
February 20, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Friedman: Liberals Are ‘Pro-Life’ For Banning Soda
October 31, 2012 | 5 comments
-
Will Charlotte Taxpayers Be on the Hook For Democrats’ Party?
October 29, 2012 | 6 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Since when are Republican presidential candidates so thin-skinned? As I reviewed last night’s Republican debate in Iowa, I was struck by Newt Gingrich’s umbrage to a perfectly reasonable question from Chris Wallace (see video below). Wallace drew his question from a widely reported news story (Gingrich’s campaign problems) and gave the former House speaker a chance to respond.
Gingrich’s response, though, would lead one to think that Wallace had asked him the age-old no-win question, “When did you stop beating your wife?” I understand that Newt was looking for an opportunity to differentiate himself from the rest of the pack, but objecting to Wallace’s line of questioning wasn’t the best avenue for doing it.
On that same note, Wallace’s query of Michele Bachmann on Fox News Sunday in June was in line, too. His “flake” question was widely derided, but it was legitimate. Even more, just as with Newt, it gave Bachmann a chance to respond to the criticism.
Candidates vying for the most powerful office in the world shouldn’t expect softball soup.
View all comments (31) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by David N. Bass
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/08/12/newt-gingrich-and-softball-sou
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Mel| 8.12.11 @ 3:15PM
It wasn't a legit question. It was a question designed to make Newt squirm. It should have been in an issue. Newt didn't say he expected a "softball" question, but one in the issues instead.
Alan Brooks| 8.12.11 @ 4:45PM
Newt will never be POTUS.
Bachmann? possibly, as a sop to Rightist feminism.
Mel| 8.12.11 @ 3:16PM
It wasn't a legit question. It was a question designed to make Newt squirm. It should have been on an issue. Newt didn't say he expected a "softball" question, but one on the issues instead.
Trinacria12| 8.12.11 @ 3:21PM
You're right, of course, and yet my utter disdain for the smarmy, arrogant, and marginally witted Wallace compelled me to give Newt a pass on this one. A week from now, this will be a distant (and insignificant) memory.
Solo| 8.12.11 @ 3:21PM
What did Wallace's question have to do with Newt's ability or plan to run the country? It is, after all, what we are looking to determine.
Wallace was being petty and dipping into cheap sensationalism: first refuge of a small mind.
The one least qualified to be there last night was Chris Wallace. An empty headed fool!
Trinacria12| 8.12.11 @ 3:33PM
Amen, brother! How this guy continues to be employed by Fox is a mystery of the first order.
Don Lee| 8.12.11 @ 4:06PM
You are so Right. Newt nailed Wallace to the wall. I have got a couple nails myself that would be availabe for further use. I do not think will need them!!
Wayne | 8.12.11 @ 4:06PM
I think most people loved it. We are getting tired of the press focusing on such non-sense while this country is burning. Wallace represents this press. Time he does all of us a favor and asks real questions.
Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 4:06PM
Best see how any Candidate handles unfair crap now. Obama will play dirrrrty.
simon templar| 8.12.11 @ 4:17PM
Mr. Bass,
Apparently, there must be some code of honor among talking heads and media sycohphants that requires all objectivity, honesty, and integrity be ejected when one of your one is caught not doing your job and doing something wrong.
You know the thing is you are becoming more irrevelant each day. People are running from you in droves and getting information elsewhere and beginning to see your bias, manipulation, and the irrevelance of your sensationalism.
The smarmy, arrogant, and superior attitude comes across in the face of Bretty Baire and his co-workers.
Yeah, while you and your pals have written your articles, your copy for the day..you forgot to mention the reaction of the audience. The gigs up.
You seem to think we are all idiot rubes out here that need your benevolent guidance and patronizing. Actually, we are well aware that most of you are nothing but media whores who care nothing about the average citizen. It is all about your advancement.
No accountability. No policing yourselves.
Asking a candidate if she submits to her husband?
You the critic seem to be above criticism and accountability.
simon templar| 8.12.11 @ 4:22PM
All your questions are not legitimate. They are not legitimate because you just happen to ask them. You seem to forget you work for us and the rights you enjoy are at our expense...but you abuse them nevertheless.
Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 4:46PM
No, I really see Michelle as the Submissive. Of course, to inflict the ultimate pain, Barack ties her to a chair and then turns the ipod of his speeches on. Gets them both off every time.
W| 8.12.11 @ 5:40PM
Occam, you scared me until I read the correction. Thought we would need an intervention to bring you back from the dark side
Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 4:47PM
I meant Michelle Obama, not Michele Bachmann, who is to busy for that type of nonsense.
Occam's Tool| 8.12.11 @ 4:47PM
Sorry, "too busy."
Paul McGrath| 8.12.11 @ 4:55PM
Sorry, Mr. Bass. He hit it out of the park. And I for one am sick of leaders who are too timid to state a view in forceful terms for fear that they might lose a vote or two. Gingrich, warts and all, is not afraid to lay his cards on the table and I find it very refreshing.
He has suddenly become a viable candidate.
Oldefarte| 8.12.11 @ 5:32PM
I disagree respectfully with David's point, and think Ginguich was correct to confront Wallace [whose previous question to Bachmann was equally absurd]. Newt's point to Wallace was that the questions should be about their differences with Obama's [and Democrats] policies, not some insignificant matter of his staff defections [which are his problem, not that of the country in general]. The question was stupid, and Newt was right to '''''Gibbs'''' Wallace for same!!!!!!!
Interested Conservative| 8.12.11 @ 5:45PM
If anything, Newt overdid the confrontation and missed a big opportunity. He at least got in the Reagan and McCain points, but should have jujutsued right back at Wallace by asking what candidate has run the most efficient and noteworthy campaign of modern times, and how that clearly revealed his qualifications as POTUS. Namely, our current leader.
It's a non sequitur loaded with answers.
KML| 8.12.11 @ 6:29PM
I completely agree with Newt. I could care less about the why's surrounding Gingrich's staff departing. Who cares. The questions should be about where would you take the country, and explaining how the country will get better under your leadership.
Wallace is a waste of time, and he wasted the country's time with his question.
Instead of asking Newt to explain exactly how the Obama Administration is destroying this country, why the Obama policies are destructive, and how he, Newt, would fix the disaster, he asks about Newt's campaign team. What a pathetic joke.
Mark| 8.12.11 @ 6:36PM
David, did you forget where you were posting that assessment? How or why would you post that to TAS? You really didn't think Newt clipped Chris Wallace's wings -- and that Chris was a superficial punk for asking that question? Wow, Dude. I'm no fan of Newt. But he shredded that clown. And he should have.
RUFUS LEVIN| 8.12.11 @ 6:42PM
I was disgusted with the Fox team and their weakness, but delighted when Newt handed Wallace his head in a well deserved and Presidential-like verbal rebuff. True candidates to lead do not have to cowtow to hacks like Wallace, who is merely sucking off the reputation of his father, and who drops deeper and deeper into liberal sounding snarkiness as time goes by. Newt his strong issues after explaining to Wallace what the job of a debate host was SUPPOSED to be at the PRESIDENTIAL level of the USA...as opposed to Dancing with the Stars or American Idol claptrap. The governors were ALL weak, and Mitt was glib, Cain was pointed, but trite, Paul was just Paul as usual, and Bachmann looked in the eyes like a dog loose on the LA freeway....she seemed nervous and uncomfortable the entire time, and not being at the lecturn on time was poor control.
All would be better than a McCain, and my 12 year old dachshund would be better than Obama....but, Perry might be the great unknown if he can unhook from the Bush is Texas and Perry is from Texas like LBJ was from Texas therefore Perry is Bush so vote for Obama syndrome of ignorant short attention spanned voters.
bluecollarbytes| 8.12.11 @ 10:26PM
I agree completely- Newt is a pansy.
But I thought his 'umbrage' seemed planned in advance, figuring he might get a 'gotcha' question at some point.
Newt doesn't stand out at the moment, not up against equally-capable contenders, except the paul of course.
They Lie| 8.12.11 @ 11:07PM
I am so tired of trite assinine questions by the tv know nothings. The POTUS debates have turned into a show with less interest than The Jerry Springer Show. In fact, the shows are nothing like a debate. They are more like a 3o second soundbite. I think the participants should format the debates, have broad topics and let the public submit in advance a list of questions that are screened by a independent organization and then drawn from a hat and those questions should comprise the questions to be debated. We don't need a dog and pony show or a dancing with the stars or a reality show format. While FOX did a lousy job, CNN was a farce. Pepsi or coke. Chocalate or Vanilla. Grunting between each question by the clown moderator. If the candidates cannot be showcased in a professional fashion, they should refuse to appear and just buy time and stage their own debate.
I'm glad Newt "newtered" Chris Wallace. We need to see more of this from all Republicans.
Mike 3/505| 8.13.11 @ 1:08AM
Wallace's question may have been legitimate, but it was really a politics "groupie" question. I'm glad Gingrich called him on it for two reasons, 1) Wallace should have picked a better question and 2) Every once in a while, folks gotta bring the press to heel...kinda like when the Gipper told that one wiener to shut up and sit down.
Regards,
Mike
Pelligrino| 8.13.11 @ 7:29AM
Mr. Bass, I have to disagree. And here, quite simply, is why: Can any of us name any campaign managers for the 8 or 9 in the GOP field? Or the second or third guy in charge of these campaigns?
Sure, 24-hour news pundits who follow this for their total $$ livelihood might know some of them. I suppose they can name some top campaign staffers.
Have you ever worked a political campaign? Surely you have? The paid workers/staff in a political campaign are usually opportunists. They are after 1) money, 2) a winning horse, 3) a horse that will take them on to more $$ and more future gigs. In short, they can be very fickle.
Principled? No. Often not. They bring certain needed skills to the table, but firm dedication is a rarity.
Yes, they get paid little, live out of a shoe box or a car trunk. They eat junk food for months. They have incredibly erratic schedules. Most have very “noticeable personalities.” Not the job description or work environment for calm and easy continuity. Job security for even 90 days? Non existent.
In short: These campaigns often don’t woo the best and brightest, now do they?
I watched this in Carolina just last year during primary season. Campaign workers hoping to “make it big” had their fingers constantly in the wind (daily). They were ready to jump ship the very second their “horse” faltered.
Maybe Newt thrashed some on his staff about prior to the departures? Maybe he disliked their "sound professional advice” about how to win or run the campaign? Maybe he was angry at who hired them and very disappointed in their productivity? Maybe it was a sincere but firm parting of the ways not just on strategy but substance as well?
But the real question is: Why might we know these little snippets from Newt's campaign but not from Ron Paul's, Pawlenty's, Huntsman, Cain’s, Johnson’s McCottter’s, or even Romney's?
Newt's team's troubles became a focal point for lazy media because it seemed a juicy thing 2 months ago. Fine. But do we hold the other GOP campaigns and Obama's under the same scope/scrutiny?
And do you vote for the candidate with the best campaign team or do you vote for the candidate?
You've only got so many minutes in a TV debate (and very few TV debates prior to January). Use every minute wisely. Solid questions. Not what smacks of gossip column questioning.
Gingrich was perfectly fine growling back at a dumb question.
JimH| 8.13.11 @ 8:01AM
For conservatives the media ranks below lawyers and used car salesmen so Republican candidates have learned to show indignation, real or feigned at what deem to to be inappropriate questions from the press, even Fox in order to score some points with the faithful.
Mimi| 8.13.11 @ 9:19AM
After this debate...Newt is back "IN"! He won the darn thing because he told us what he's planing to do....he was " BLUNT"...he , different from some of the Others didn't hold back and play 'Nicey" ..he told us what he's thinking...mostly he made us feel that he was the "ONE" on our SIDE!...He just may have got himself back in the RACE !!
Solo| 8.13.11 @ 9:38AM
What Wallace did was indicative of what the media at large has been doing for decades now.
Wallace was attempting to make himself, as a reporter, part of the story instead of simply asking the questions which would reveal the story.
And by the way....Newt's campaign staff were almost all former Rick Perry campaign staffers. Their defection was believed by many to be the first indicator that Perry was contemplating a run for the nomination. They are now showing up at Perry's side.
Wallace had to know this. Just about everyone else did. So....what was the relevance of his question?
Perry loyalists defected back to Perry. Does that make Newt a bad choice to replace Obama? Does that in any way diminish Newt's policy proposals to repair and rescue the country?
No!
This was purely about Wallace so he could crow to his contemporaries: "Hey...look at me. I made Newt Gingrich stutter and stammer during the debates. Aren't I clever?"
He was being too clever by half and Newt handed him his lunch.
Pelligrino| 8.13.11 @ 11:13AM
Solo, thank you. Right on. Yes, why do reporters/TV journalists/news anchors have to make themselves part of it? You made the key point.
The reporter is not supposed to be the focal point or a focal point. One does not insert oneself into the story.
That is why I cannot stand the Gretta v. Sustren questioning (Does she ever prepare her questions in advance? Write them down? As in, like, just 12 words or less?) and Sean Hannity's after the Ames event. In the 4.5 minutes he did with each candidate (Gingrich, Bachman, Santorum, Pawlenty, Cain), Hannity easily grabbed HALF the talking time warbling on before he paused so the candidate could present himself.
That is garbage. That is not journalism. It is ME-ME-ME! It is a disservice to the voters and the nation.
It also reveals terribly sloppy preparation. Professionalism?
MyGirlFriday| 8.13.11 @ 2:23PM
Hahhhhhhh! Soft-Ball Soup. Newt is one of finest thinkers and historians in this country. Yes, he can get prickly at times but Newt is the last person to "expect" a free ride from the press. He did not come to the debate to discuss his campaign (old news!) he is there to share with the American people his ideas for America and what he believes needs to be done to save our republic. The questions tossed out by these so called journalists (bubble heads) prove once again, they like the Obama administration haven't a feel nor a clue for the pulse of this nation. And that includes you too Mr. Bass, we aren't going to eat your dog food sandwich either (thank you Mitt for that one). You go Newt! And may the best Republican man or woman for the president of the United States stand out......by speaking out!
Miranda| 8.13.11 @ 2:24PM
That moron Chris Wallace regularly has Soros-paid flack/Obama hack John Podesta on Fox News Sunday.
Do you think Chrissie would ever have Mark Levin, or Mark Steyn? Hell no.
When he went on the Daily Show with Obama lap dog Jon Stewart, he just soaked up all of Stewart's attacks on Fox. He's an idiot - he has no idea what the Left has become - a Marxist movement, intent on destroying America as we know it.