Can a Standing O Shake a Worldview? UPDATED

If you did not see the standing ovation given Newt Gingrich when went “smackdown” on John King during last night’s debate, here it is:

YouTube Preview Image

I came to the debate a few minutes late so I didn’t see it live. At the end of the debate, when CNN replayed “highlights” the standing-O wasn’t included (it certainly seemed like a “highlight” whether one liked it or not), so I only became aware of it thanks to the internet, and social media.

This morning I got an email from a friend who scours the papers, and he wrote:

AP and others did not even mention the standing O

I took a quick look around at various mainstream reports and discovered that my friend was correct. Even pieces identifying themselves as analysis of “winners and losers” or “views from the bleachers” made no mention of the standing ovation that accompanied Newt’s smackdown of King. From the bleachers, this is what it looked like to CNN:

He opened by offering Newt Gingrich a chance to respond to his allegations from his ex-wife in an interview on ABC. Gingrich delivers a flat “No” and the segmented crowd becomes uniform in its applause as Gingrich attacked the media.

The writers, Soledad O’Brien and Rose Arce (two sets of eyes!) were in the bleachers and saw the crowd “become uniform,” but they can’t bring themselves to report what they actually saw.

Several reports did make mention of the other unusual moment of the night, when John King asked Santorum, Gingrich and Romney about their pro-life positions and then then moved on. The audience (and even my husband and I at home) yelled at the moderator, “what about Paul! He’s a doctor!” And King was forced to allow Paul to be part of the discussion. The press was right to mention the moment, but — as my friend said — they seem to be determined to ignore Newt’s standing-o, which is something completely foreign to debates; in my memory it has never happened before. That alone makes it news-worthy and yet it’s not considered mentionable. To the press, it was not a “highlight.”

Which means we must ask, why is that?

Perhaps they are in denial. They have a very tidy playbook about how to go about destroying Republican candidates: you call them stupid; you call them crazy; you feature ugly or unflattering pictures of them; you delve into their trash and their college transcripts (but only theirs) or you expose their sins (but only theirs), confident in the knowledge that people are sheep, susceptible to gossip and the media’s leading leash; conservatives, after all, are judgmental “values voters” who will (according to the playbook) be repelled by tawdry stories of narcissistic (Republican, only) politicians who serially cheat on their wives!

And last night, John King asked a question about Newt Gingrich’s past marriage issues — this is a big gun that’s supposed to do serious damage — and the thing backfired on them; it blew up in their hands as the audience “became uniform” in expressing its disgust not for the tawdry politician, but for the press that has become so nakedly overt in its bias, and so selective in what it finds newsworthy and what it does not.

The standing ovation for Newt’s remarks were not an endorsement of his behavior — many conservatives are troubled by Gingrich’s past and character does matter to them, while other conservatives are remembering their own sins and falling back on what they know of mercy, for the time being. No, that ovation was an endorsement of Gingrich’s disdain for the mainstream media, which they share, and a declaration to that same media that their playbook is played-out. It said:

“We are done responding like Pavlovian dogs to your bells; we no longer trust you; we understand that you are no longer a press that is free, but one that is enthralled to its own ideologies and agendas. From this point on, a candidate is going to rise or fall on the substance of their ideas and abilities, not on your prosy gushes about his brilliance, or stern warnings about her stupidity. You savaged George W. Bush you savaged Sarah Palin and you got away with it. You carried your own preferred, utterly inexperienced, passionate ideologue into the White House with over-effusive rhetoric and you have buffeted him from inquiry (tax returns? Hell, we’d just like to see Obama’s college transcripts!), or what you perceive to be damaging stories, but you elevated your favorite at the cost of your own credibility, and now it comes back to bite you. Because a press with no credibility has nothing to offer us. It has nowhere to go, now, except into the arms of the political machine it has loved. Just like Pravda, actually.”

The mainstream press does not want to discuss last night’s standing ovation because it shakes their worldview. They were supposed to be able to control the narrative; they were supposed to be able to corral the sheep. And last night, the sheep indicated that they’re no longer willing to be herded, no longer going to allow their own moral judgments to be exploited in a time when the nation is facing serious issues. They’ve decided they’re going to make up their own minds, thank you, about who they think is up to dealing with those issues. They’re looking at the press and saying, “Scallywags, heal thyselves!”

This has to be a true shake-up for the press. No wonder they don’t mind, so much, the idea of the government being able to shut down the internet at will. Without it, it will be so much easier to hide what they’d rather not have to discuss.

Which is precisely why we really need to make sure the internet remains unencumbered. Shutting it down may be the only play the mainstream media has left.

Understand, this is not about loving or hating Newt; this is simply a look at the press and where it’s at and how it got here.

UPDATE: In the combox, Kathy Shaidle from Five Feet of Fury has a different interpretation of the ovation, one that I admit did not occur to me, likely because I am (as usual) part of the stone-throwing rabble, and I think her point is certainly one that is worth consideration:

To me they are the equivalent of the OJ jury:

Yeah, we know he’s guilty, but THIS is for all the innocents (we think) were “wrongly accused”/roughed up by cops, etc

That is not the dignified, intelligent position, no matter how deeply tempting it is and no matter whose side adopts it.

The response was one of a team scoring a touchdown. And the Blue/Red “team” mentality of electoral politics is part of what’s wrong with it, not something to be encouraged.

Yes, the media is hopelessly biased and corrupt. I’ve been blogging for 12 years and bow to no one in my championship of alternative media. Everything you’re saying about them is 100% true. I don’t even believe in “not stooping to their level” — I say stoop away. Anything else is a mug’s game.

And yet: that standing o was so “reptilian brain” it curdled my stomach.

A bit of conscience-singe for Christians? Perhaps. As I said, it’s worth pondering, and asking, “is it me, Lord?” We are, after all, supposed to be better than all that.

Meanwhile Francis Beckwith,
who before the debate wondered if some think it’s better to be an adulterer than a Mormon, has a followup: on Gingrich, Romney and the Evangelicals

The slings and arrows of Christianity, kids — we have to ask these questions seriously and answer them honestly. Otherwise we’re just clanging gongs.

A look back: at how we got here

More reactions to last night, as I find them:
Rich Lowry: An overview
Ross Douthat: So what are Newt’s big ideas?
Ed Morrissey: Santorum Wins: is it too little too late?
Krauthammer: GOP Suicide March?
Barone: A good night for Santorum and Romney
James Taranto: “No-Fault Newt?”

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • kevin

    In addition to the post, I love the picture of the herd of sheep. That is what is going on here. There is utter and total groupthink going on in the American media with the exception of one or two outlets. They all seem to think exactly the same way, all the time. I’ve never seen anything like it in real life.

    It’s like their members of a cult and get their talking points each morning from the same source.

  • Klaire

    If there is one thing learned from last night, it’s that, as lame as it may sound, the right can win by simply using the MSM the way Newt is now doing. I mentioned yesterday that the crowd goes wild (as most Americans watching) everytime the press gets it handed to them.

    Imagine if Sarah Palin had done something similar with Katie Couric?

    It finally occured to me that we can now be as or more competative with the MSM. Let them ask their gottcha questions, because the right “gottcha back” will win the day, and the presidency.

    The worse that can happen is that they start asking serious questions and or vet our sitting president as he needs to be vetted. Until then, I would advise every candidate to throw back the question “I’ll answer it when Obama does.”

    That said, I just listened to a a few minutes of Rush. He things it was a set up, to put all the attenion on Newt, taking away from Romney. He also thinks it was a “badge of honor” for John King. I don’t agree, but then, those types have no shame it seems.

  • kevin

    “Don’t try to blame someone else!” was the true Reagan-esque moment. “I’m paying for this microphone!” Good for Newt.

  • Mutnodjmet

    Anchoress: It is as I wrote in my comment yesterday — the American people have learned to get their news from alternative sources. So, the standing ovation has become known to the country. This is why I do not think Obama will be re-elected: The elite media can no longer completely cover-up what he is and what he does.

  • friscoeddie

    LOL.. you guys think the media will be on the 2012 ballot??!
    Start comparing Newt to King David… as some have done already.. I have been to Florence and saw What David looked like..and David was a warrior not a draft dodger.

  • Liz

    “You guys think the media will be on the 2012 ballot?”

    No, they’re on Obama’s re-election team.
    The Morning Joe team discussed Newt’s response and the standing ovation – and they were clearly stunned by the audience’s reaction.

  • Momma Kyle

    The media that has told us over and over that all sex is great–gay/illicit sex —everything is great—and if your name is Clinton sex and perjury is personal—-but when a Republican might, just might, have a scandal—then the media turns into Victorian Maidens demanding their smelling salts.

  • Rich

    “In a campaign cycle where debates have had direct consequences on the ebb and flow of the race, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich turned his contempt for the media into one of his strongest performances yet. When CNN Chief National Correspondent John King opened the debate with a question about open marriage, following an interview by Gingrich’s ex-wife saying that he had sought one, the Republican chastised him.

    “To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine,” Gingrich told King, the moderator of the debate.

    Gingrich’s response elicited loud applause from the audience.”


  • Rich
  • Rhinestone Suderman

    No, the media won’t be on the ballot.

    They’ll just be manipulating it.

    They don’t need to run for office to gain power.

    (And, no, you didn’t see the actual David; you saw a statue. A lovely statue, yes, but a statue. You do understand the difference, yes?)

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Momma Kyle, LOL, yes! I love it when the Left suddenly becomes all puritanical, and Guardians-of-morality when it comes to Conservatives, and sex.

    (Caine had to drop out of the race because of rumor and innuendos—whereas Democrat Barney Frank can get away with. . . you get the picture.)

  • Todd

    Clearly a case of wanting cake and eating it too.

    Mr Gingrich was happy to play up an adversary’s marital infidelities when it suited him. Whether he likes it or not, his own immorality is an issue for many voters. It speaks of his character, his commitment, and the fortitude necessary to hold this office.

    That said, his ethics violations are more of a concern. If I were Mr King and wanted to raise a tough issue, I’d go with that one: his own party fined him $300K.

    I would wonder how many of those ovating in South Carolina do without television. I think many anti-media folks are fine as long as the talking heads parrot agreement with what they like. Or will buy from them. It’s wishful thinking to presume conservative Americans are giving up the tube to get their news pajama-style. Or otherwise. Everybody’s in a base to get played to. And somebody out there will do it, especially if they can sell you something for the spectacle. Many liberals have given up on the corporate media for a decade or four now. You don’t think we’re tuning in Rush to get our news fix, do you?

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Two words!

    Barney Frank.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    And two more words!

    Anthony Weiner!

  • Pingback: Elizabeth Scalia gets it | Catholic and Enjoying It!

  • Gerry
  • Micha Elyi

    “Imagine if Sarah Palin had done something similar with Katie Couric?”-Klaire (6:34)

    If Governor Palin did, we’ll never know. That was an hours-long taped interview. Most of what Governor Palin said didn’t fit the time Katie Couric had allowed for The Narrative so it was left on the cutting room floor.

    The standing ovation those social conservative South Carolinian Republicans gave to Speaker Gingrich’s “no” to the establishment media is The Applause Heard ‘Round the World.

  • Liz

    Two more words:
    Ted Kennedy

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Liz, :)

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    I saw that, Gerry, and the Anchoress will probably say something about that soon.

  • kevin

    Four more words:

    Jack Kennedy

    Joe Kennedy Sr.

  • doc

    More words: Chris Dodd, Cold Cash Jefferson

  • Michael O.

    Words, words, words.

  • Todd

    There are a lot of words to throw around. Not to mention names. Or sins. Neither conservatives nor liberals have the moral high ground on the other. We all fall short of the high bar of virtue. Conservatives might get called on it with a bit more glee in some circles, but usually because some of them trumpet they’re more virtuous than liberals. Not quite the story of Luke 15, but what have you.

    Most telling is how we act or react when caught. Mr Gingrich blamed his sexual sins on the pressures of high office. As a fellow Catholic, maybe my reaction to that is to tell him to retire from politics, for the good of his soul.

    Getting back to the tv media, I don’t know why y’all give it such truck. Liberals have been tuning out on it for a long time. A lot of us are deeply critical of the poverty of journalism, and the alarmingly few big corporations that control things these days. Y’all are welcome to the party, by all means, but realize that the good wine’s already been drunk.

  • Liz

    Todd, this wasn’t a wake up call for conservatives, it was a wake-up call for the press. The post points out how the media reacted to the audience’s rebuke – by not reporting that Newt’s response received a standing ovation.

    They have been denying the reasons for the ever-dwindling readership and viewership of the mainstream media outlets (due to bias, insularity), and this moment was an in-your-face illustration of their irrelevance. And their response is denial, yet again.

  • Kathy Shaidle

    The Anchoress, being a truly decent person (I’m not being sarcastic) places far too much faith in what the standing o-ers were thinking.

    To me they are the equivalent of the OJ jury:

    Yeah, we know he’s guilty, but THIS is for all the innocents (we think) were “wrongly accused”/roughed up by cops, etc

    That is not the dignified, intelligent position, no matter how deeply tempting it is and no matter whose side adopts it.

    The response was one of a team scoring a touchdown. And the Blue/Red “team” mentality of electoral politics is part of what’s wrong with it, not something to be encouraged.

    Yes, the media is hopelessly biased and corrupt. I’ve been blogging for 12 years and bow to no one in my championship of alternative media. Everything you’re saying about them is 100% true. I don’t even believe in “not stooping to their level” — I say stoop away. Anything else is a mug’s game.

    And yet: that standing o was so “reptilian brain” it curdled my stomach.

    [To me they are the equivalent of the OJ jury:

    Yeah, we know he’s guilty, but THIS is for all the innocents (we think) were “wrongly accused”/roughed up by cops, etc

    That, Kathy, is some brilliant stuff, right there. My head didn't go there at all, likely because I am as tainted as the audience (to my shame), whether you're wrong or right. Truly, ass-kickingly brilliant! -admin]

  • Paul A’Barge

    Kathy Shaidle: why we are losing the fight against the MSM propaganda wing.

  • werbaz neutron

    The media CANNOT with hold events on TV when they occur during a nationally televised debate. It is there for ALL to see. That is why NEWT should be the person confronting obama in those events.

  • Tim

    Here’s the problem. MSM does not CARE.

  • Tim

    How times have changed! Just try to imagine a political figure railing at Walter Cronkite and a crowd giving a standing ovation to the politician! The public trust gap between Walter Cronkite and John King — or any of today’s MSM figures — is as large as the Pacific Ocean is wide.

  • Leonard210

    I know that we still want to believe that there is such a thing as “The Press” but those days are far gone. Every reporter should be identified on political blogs by their actual affiliation. George Stephanopoulos (D. ABC News) and Bob Schieffer (D. CBS News). There is no such thing as a “mainstream press” but rather a left-wing press or a right-wing press. And if you wanted to be more accurate, the Democratic Press Corps or some other appropriate identifier. Instead of MSM you’d say the DPC. It may seem nitpicky but it’s like calling a bank robber an unauthorized assets collection specialist.

  • Pete

    The Anchoress gets results:

    Someone just mentioned the Standing O on Hardball.

  • Gerry

    Geez, that is the dumbest analysis I’ve read by a Canadian pipsqueak today.

    1) Wow, you can “mindread” an entire crowd just by watching a video.

    2) Those applauding including many – in fact the majority of the audience – who did not support Gingrich for President. They aren’t on the same team

    3) Did it cross your feeble mind that those applauding likely included some of have had unfaithful spouses?

    4) The O.J. jury had no concern for any “innocents” – it was as simple as black and whit.

  • Jason

    Er, Kathy’s comments are not ass-kickingly brilliant, they’re ass-kickingly assinine.
    What Newt did is this:
    1) He did something (or he didn’t). If he did, he’s wrong, if he didnt he’s in the right.
    2) ABC and especially CNN use it as a cheap political trick just before a debate. Which was wrong.
    3) Newt called them on it.

    Compare this with the OJ trial:
    1)OJ did a bad thing (or he didn’t). But we all know he did. So, he’s in the wrong.
    2) The jury did a bad thing, in thinking in their weak-minded way they were doing some sort of “social justice.”
    Where’s this so-called equivalence?

  • Manny

    All I can say is that if Republicans nominate Newt Gingrinch, we deserve to lose. The man is a walking dysfunctionality. Media bashing will not work against the general electorate. And only Republicans will over look his marital problems (just like Democrats overlooked Clinton’s) but the general population. And actually it’s even worst than Clinton’s. Hillary stood by Bill; Newt has ex-wives who are bitter.

  • Mark

    Todd says “Liberals have been tuning out on it for a long time.” The liberals have been tuning out of programs where their liberal idiocy is shown for what it is, a determined program to drive America into a third world country. How many times has Todd bashed Rush and Fox news here and wherever else he comments. Please show me where he has bashed NBC or ABC or MSNBC or the liberal blogs where he gets his talking points.

    If the Republican Party wakes up finally and goes after the media as Obama’s protector and the PR wing of the Democratic Party over and over and over between now and election day the standing Ovation both in the hall and around the country will escalate into a landslide. If the media continues to protect the democrats and their boy Obama, they lose all credibility forever. If they react by doing what they should have done last time and really look into everything in Obama’s past and his policies and take on his czars and behind hidden door legislation, he is cooked.

    I am writing my representatives in the Republican Party and the chairman that I want more of what we saw from Newt in this debate. The media want to come and ask gotcha questions and support democrats, great, but expect to be challenged as the enemy you are to the party and to the country. I also want them to stop trying to select our candidate for us by the party rino elites. When elected, I want the battle to be continued to push through actual conservative principles and take on major problems in this country.

  • Mark

    Manny, if anyone does not stand by our nominee against Obama, they are voting for Obama. Vote as we like in the primary, our right, but vote against Obama if you care about America. 4 more years with Obama and we are in serious trouble for a generation and we are dooming millions more babies to certain death. I note his administration again came out after the Catholic Church with the ruling on mandatory birth control. Forced Catholics out of adoption with no protection of religious freedom. Now trying to force Catholic institutions out of providing healthcare to their employees or to start killing life. We have to end divisions and support the nominee. I have issues with Romney, but if the people chose him as our nominee, I will work to have him in office.

  • Recovering Lutheran

    “To me they are the equivalent of the OJ jury: Yeah, we know he’s guilty, but THIS is for all the innocents (we think) were “wrongly accused”/roughed up by cops, etc.”

    Equivalent to the OJ jury? Really? What Kathy Shaidle seems to have missed is the fact that the media has a long, ugly history of lying and trying to manipulate the political process in order to gain power for those whom it favors. What we saw in the unrestrained applause last night in response to Gingrich’s comments is the deep, boiling anger many people feel towards our self-anointed moral and intellectual betters in the media. People who are constantly being stomped in the face by the media tend to get a wee bit ticked off about it sometimes.

    I don’t support Gingrich or condone marital infidelity, but the former Speaker told the truth with his broadside against the media. We need more people who are unafraid to speak truth to media power, not fewer. American journalism is deeply, profoundly sick, and has been for decades. Remember that too many journalists truly believe that lying and manipulating is not only permissible but morally mandatory if it helps them achieve their political goals of one-party welfare state fascism. Corruption and an unrestrained lust for political power is the distinguishing feature of modern American journalism.

  • Larry Sheldon

    I have not seen this question, much less an answer:

    How is that the accusations of an adulteress, or a prostitute, or any of a number of people who have done wrong by some measure are accepted as Truth, but testimony of the person, or of his daughters, or of common sense is discarded as proving the point, some how.

    How about an easier question? Why are these thing only wrong if a Republican (or a “Republican”) does them? Why did Barney Frank get off? Ted Kennedy (murder in his collection!)? John Kennedy? Bill Clinton?

  • Pingback: GayPatriot » Newt surging* because he’s standing up to legacy media

  • Larry Sheldon

    I don’t buy the OJ jury thing. (For openers, I don’t buy the notion that the jurors believe–then or now–that he is guilty. The evidence is so contaminated that absent a confession we will never know.)

    Gingrich has testified that the charges are wrong. Family members have testified that the are wrong. The things he has admitted-to do not affect his ability to govern (or so we are told — Kennedy, Kennedy, Edwards, Frank, ……).

    The “moderator was wrong and got called out. People have been begging for that for a long time. At last, apparently, they got it. Let us hope that a new day dawned.

  • Liz

    I see this as more like that viral video of the chubby schoolkid, who had been relentless bullied by another (smaller) kid, who finally got fed up smacked the bully to the ground. No one though that violence was good, but it was understandable and just a teensy bit satisfying to see the bully get a taste of his own medicine.

  • JeremyR

    Bashing the media won’t work in the general election. It also puzzles me how Cain had to drop out of the race because of this issue, but Republicans are just fine with Newt’s serial infidelity and apparently how his current wife is just fine with an open marriage…

    Supporting Newt basically shows that Republicans don’t care about values (they’re the social conservatives after all, not the Democrats), they just only care about their “team”

  • Greta

    Kathy. “that standing o was so “reptilian brain” it curdled my stomach.”

    This thinking is what hurts the GOP. It also loses wars and poltics on a national level is very close to war.

    The MSM is the PR arm of the Democratic Party. Looking at them in any other way or trying to treat them with respect is like having a rapist break into your house and thinking if I treat them in a dignified respectful way they will simply leave with not harm done. They come with the intent of having their way with you and we lose when we do not give them everything we have to stop them from their mission. What was the intent of katie couric in her interview? Was she there to have a dignified and intelligent conversation with Palin to learn her positions so the American people could understand and vote? No, she arrived with the intent to rape and plunder. Palin should have turned to her stuck it to her just like Newt did with his answer. The bear claws should have been raked down the side of perky Katie hide.
    In WWII, we won because our leaders put people like Patton on the Germans and were willing to fire bomb entire cities and use atom bombs to stop evil with the least damage to our troops. We lose Vietnam because our leader LBJ managed the war and bomb targets and war conduct based on poll numbers at the expense of our troops and victory. Politics is very much like war. You have to win the election to govern. McRino refused to allow anyone to attack Obama while they were raping his VP partner. They were coming after her because when she was added, McRino’s numbers went up for the first time and she had huge crowds and energy building toward victory. Elections are won by getting your supporters out to the polls with high energy that they stop along the way and bring a friend. This election has to be about issues that get the supporters united and energized. Those standing in unison were from many different camps, but united in their visceral hatred of a media they correctly see as the enemy willing to rape them and Newt shot an arrow into their limp spine. Newt also took on Ann the liberal curry.

    We need to approach this election as if the future of our country and in many ways or religious beliefs are on the line and victory is essential to their very survival. I see again today where team obama again came after the Catholic Church on birth control mandates. Like adoption attacks a short time ago, team obama wants the Catholic Church to be forced to kill babies or stop providing benefits to employees of Catholic instiutitons by bashing our religious freedoms. If we do not approach this as defending our very home from murders and rapist, we will see more court justices who will keep the abortion mills running for another generation and our freedoms thrown into the trash. This is not just another election, but one with major consequences. I want to see someone with the will and ability to attack the PR arm of the democratic party as well as the lies and distortions of the Obama team. Lets face it, when the leader of the other team is the type person to go after an infant who survived the murder attempt of abortion to finish the job, you have somone who will stop at nothing to do the same to a country he hates.

  • HoosierHawk

    Kathy Shaidle says:
    January 20, 2012 at 11:26 pm .. Yada yada yada

    That, Kathy, is some brilliant stuff, right there. My head didn’t go there at all, likely because I am as tainted as the audience (to my shame), whether you’re wrong or right. Truly, ass-kickingly brilliant! -admin]

    I don’t think that it’s a brillant analysis at all! Newt is no saint, but OJ’s wife won’t be doing any interviews, Newt’s did. it’s not like that at all. I think Kathy is coming up with this explaination for what happened because it’s difficult for her to face the fact that she is one of the sheep the media is trying to herd (it wasn’t about Newt, we know he’s guilty (and really deserves it), it was about the “innocents” (who don’t deserve to be treated like Newt)).

    There are a whole lot of conservatives who are very concerned about what is happening in and to our country, but aren’t concerned about peoples private lives. I believe that Mitch Daniels was correct – in this election, let’s not worry so much about social conservativism, things are coming unglued and we want someone who can and will fix it. Romney isn’t the guy for “sudden and relentless change” or who will “put government back on the side of the people” (that’s Palin talk), Santorum is a big government social conservative.

    “And yet: that standing o was so “reptilian brain” it curdled my stomach.”

    Her comment affected me the same way. That ovation was because Newt stood up to the MSM when they tried to play the adultery card – you know, the one Kathy dances to.

  • RebeccaH

    Reptile-brain or not, I believe the standing ovation was important for the message it sent to the media: we’re mad as hell (AT YOU), and we’re not going to take it anymore.

  • daisy

    Kathy is amusing but don’t take her seriously. If half the stuff she says about herself are true then she is a terribly damaged person. Read some of the things she says about Irish, Italians, Indians and black people some time. She has a personal animus towards Newt for some reason and frankly, she’s Canadian so her opinion is irrelevant.

  • Thomas R

    The “To me they are the equivalent of the OJ jury” could sort-of work in a way, but in a different way. More like

    They suspected he was guilty.
    They still believed people are innocent until proven guilty.
    They didn’t think it was proven.

    Although I think what was maybe more meant is the people who supported the OJ jury’s decision rather than the jury itself. In that case it’s more like.

    They suspected he was guilty or even just believed in his guilt.
    They felt the prosecution didn’t make its case.
    They felt blacks are often “railroaded” by “the judicial system.”
    The ruling was a victory against racist cops and those who presume guilt.

    So to analogize.

    The audience suspected Newt was guilty. (I don’t know that I believe this part, it just flows from the analogy)
    The audience felt the media didn’t make a good case he’s guilty.
    The audience felt Republicans are often “railroaded” by “the media.”
    The ovation was a victory against biased journalists and those who presume guilt.

  • Bill M

    It’s time to quit calling them the media, reporters or even news readers. They are Democrats. They will do what ever they can to help other Democrats win. Call them what they are.

  • Michael Snow

    No, I don’t think “Kathy’s” view is worth much consideration when she begins, “Yeah, we know he’s guilty”…that is stooping low indeed.
    I am not a Newt fan, would not vote for him in a primary. But my respect for him rose a few notches in that moment.