Here is a picture outside of my office window right now. I don't think it made it to 75 degrees today. View attachment 362
I think that clip ended too soon. His continuation from there was even more poignant. And then John King asked each of the other candidates if they agreed with Gingrich response and guess what? They all did including Mr. Paul.
I would tend to agree. Is it news? Yes. Plaster Newt's sex life all over the front page of Huffington Post's website and make it the lead story on MSNBC. I would not complain at all. Is it something appropriate for a political debate. Not in my opinion and not by a long shot. It is a reflection of how low our political system has sunk that a moderator can ask a question like that in a nationally televised, supposedly serious, political debate and not feel shame. And as the lead question, none the less? Gimme a break. Even sadder.
John King is a liberal and I'm certain he didn't even give a second thought about asking Newt Gingrich a question like that. Do you think he would have asked Obama a question like that had Obama been the subject of such tabloid-like slander? No. No way.
If you want to know the truth, it was a stupid "question". Actually, it wasn't even a question. John King simply threw out the headline of the day and asked Gingrich if he'd like to respond to the issue. Gingrich, of course, said "No" and then responded anyway. The reason that it was a stupid "question" was because it was so easy for Gingrich to yet again blame the media for asking a question, or in this case simply asking for his opinion on the story of the day, instead of simply asking Gingrich to justify his family values positions with his personal life. In other words, how is he not being hypocritical in calling out the work ethic of poor black kids, denying marriage rights to gay couples because he feels that a man and a woman raise children better than same sex couples, and chiding the adoption regulations that enforce nondiscrimination of gays all while being a practicing adulterer himself? CNN couldn’t articulate a competent question to a third grader on a playground.
Jo, I'm not quite sure how you justify dignifying proceedings such as these as "debates". Even without any awkward questions about personal morals and values these could hardly be called debates.
Hmmmmmm . . . good point. What if I said, "these events that are advertised as being presidential debates, but lob soft questions at candidates we're supposed to like, lob hard questions at candidates we're supposed to dislike, and typically descend to the level of RHoA when the candidates are not otherwise posturing?" Better?
I *really* hate it when people post a video to prove a point and say *absolutely nothing* in their post. Honestly, I really don't care to click a link and sit there to listen to a video and then try to parse out a point to the whole effort, when all someone has to say is, "hey, remember the Dukakis/Bush debate when they talked about the death penalty? This whole situation reminds me of when [someone] made a comment/observation/insulting statement about [something] or [someone]. You can see it at 2:24 of the following video." Anything else seems kind of a waste of my time and a lack of respect, as well.
It's called letting people make up their own minds. I could throw out my take or spin on the video but I really would rather people take from it what they want rather than me telling them what to take form it. But for you, I'll gladly oblige. Asking tawdry questions in a presidential debate is nothing new. Even long before we had videos, there were questions asked during presidential debates that anyone could claim didn't belong being asked in that forum. Gingrich isn't the first one by any stretch. That is the point. If you know history, none of this is anything new.
Thanks for the clarification. The reason that I hate being told to parse a meaning from a video is not because I hate making up my own mind, but because I can't see the point of playing guessing games with what the person posting the video wants me to see. In my opinion, it's an inherently dishonest means of opening a conversation, one that allows far too much wiggle room for the OP (oh, I didn't *mean for the viewer to [be offended/upset/disturbed/come away with that perception] It's not my fault that it happened when I meant to make this different point over here!"). It also allows the person posting the video to tear a dissenting viewer apart for seeing something different than what the OP wanted people to see. Just by way of an example of the second, the animal rights people I *cough* debate *cough* with use that tactic all of the time. They'll post a picture of a saluki sitting in a kennel looking into the distance with squinty eyes or a picture of a NYC carriage horse with a decorative harness and plume on its head and maybe post a single word like "disgusting" or not comment at all. If you ask what is "disgusting" they will say "tell us what you see." So somebody posts the obvious--what s/he sees in the picture or his/her perception (that's a really nice blue brindle saluki relaxing in its kennel, sitting in the sun" or "that's a really good-looking horse with a proud owner that likes to present an attractive appearance"). The ARA, seeing an opening, comes back and says, "WRONG! That animal is starved--you can see its ribs and hip bones! Dogs should roam free and it has a severe eye infection of both eyes--see how it squints?! You must be a puppy miller if you can't see how that dog is suffering!!!" or "That is DISGUSTING ABUSE! Horses aren't supposed to drag heavy humans around in carriages in an urban environment! And look at how its dignity is assaulted by being MADE TO DRESS UP!!! Clearly you favor animal abuse!" At that point, it doesn't matter what you post in response: you're wrong, the video poster is right, even if the facts don't bear that out. Yeah. So, you'll forgive me if I don't like being asked to go on nothing but a video link. I just think it's wrong to set someone up that way.
This too is true. I'm sure that even before televised debates came onto the scene that tawdry questions were asked--we, the public, were simply less aware of them because they didn't travel worldwide in a matter of seconds. Certainly people haven't changed that much over the millenia, otherwise Mary Magdalene wouldn't have been (smeared as, depending on your PoV) a prostitute.
I guess I tend to look at things from a historical perspective. Today's latest outrage isn't anything that hasn't been seen before. I think that coming from a historical perspective on any issue tamps down the need for or automatic knee jerk reaction because it is nothing all that new. It is important for people like Gingrich to rile people up so that he can get elected but it is unnecessary to go through all that dancing like a puppet on a string at his behest if you have a good grasp of the past. Gingrich, this political season, and all that which makes our blood boil today will pass. Why get excited about it?