COMMENTARY | Apparently, Newt Gingrich fares better when his cheerleaders are urging him on. And if any of the debate moderators ask for silence from the audience, Gingrich may go quiet as well. Does this come down to a simple act of defending freedom of speech as Gingrich contends? I don’t think so.
Gingrich “served notice” that he would refuse to participate in any further debates if moderators ask audiences to be quiet. Reuters reports that before the Tampa debate began, NBC News moderator Brian Williams asked crowds to remain silent during the Tampa debate. Gingrich now accuses Williams’ request of being designed “to stifle free speech and prevent the audience from turning on the media.”
That particular Florida debate didn’t go so well for Gingrich. Mitt Romney attacked him on several issues and he was left having to defend himself without the distraction and support of a cheering audience. He is now attacking the Fox News and CNN moderators’ questions as being “out of bounds.” Having cheerleaders seemed to have been effective for Speaker Gingrich. His popularity increased after the crowd cheered him on.
CNN is hosting the Jacksonville debate on Thursday. Its moderators will not be asking for silence before the debate begins. However, it’s not going to allow shouting or booing to interfere with the debates themselves.
One huge problem with Gingrich threatening not to debate now is that it makes him seem weak. If he does receive the Republican nomination, sticking to his guns might lead him to refusing a debate with President Obama. The moderators at the presidential debates don’t always allow the audience to cheer their candidates on. If he didn’t debate, it wouldn’t be an unprecedented move, though it would be the first time a candidate refused because they couldn’t play the game without their cheerleaders loudly backing them.
Since the first televised debate in 1960, candidates have opted out for various reasons. In retrospect, they all seemed to be making excuses in situations where it appeared that debating would give other candidates the upper hand.
Lydon B. Johnson, according to AllPolitics, wouldn’t debate Barry Goldwater. Richard Nixon wouldn’t debate Johnson’s Vice President Hubert Humphrey. He said it was because right-wing third-party candidate George Wallace would be there.
In the Gingrich case, it seems like there may be more motivation than simply trying to defend freedom of speech. He’s also defending, among other things, his need to have his quips precede an applause track in order to go over well. I’d like to think, however, that his Christian supporters wouldn’t have wildly applauded the suggestion that Fidel Castro is now burning in hell. It certainly seems like he’s leaving options open for himself so he can easily exercise his freedom to not speak should he need to do so. Newts do have a wiggly way of easily escaping dangerous situations. In many cases, it seems Gingrich is better off when he remains silent.