By Charles Hurt
The Washington Times
NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. — There is growing consternation in Republican circles and among conservatives over why Republicans keep allowing the various Communist, leftist and otherwise anti-American TV networks to host GOP debates.
The ickiness of Diana Sawyer asking questions in her cloying voice is more than most can bear. The utter cluelessness of the questions these people think actual American voters care about is mystifying. The shameless and ham-handed pandering to conservatives by the networks is revolting.
Indeed, the entire phoenix rising candidacy of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich can be attributed to America’s abject hatred of the left-wing media. He was destitute and written off by the press when he tapped into one of the most visceral political reactions coursing through the veins of regular Americans. And once be began beating up the media, America gathered around him.
Last night, we saw once again why Republicans need to keep allowing fakers and Communists to moderate their GOP debates. Because without the leftist, elitist snobs to beat the ever-living crap out of every couple of weeks, the debates would be so much less fun.
Now I realize that what we watched last night was not a simple beating and perhaps it was wrong of so many of us to enjoy it with such bloodlust. It was more a public evisceration. A man’s entrails were picked out and drawn far out from inside him and left for jackals to chew on before his living eyes.
If John King of Communist News Network were not, in fact, a cardboard cutout of a blockheaded jock, it would have been much more gruesome. Because then human blood would have been spewing all over the stage and the fine people watching the debate live. Instead, it was just minced corrugated cardboard stuffing floating in the flood lights.
From the moment the debate began, Mr. King tried setting the tone of the debate by lobbing unsubstantiated claims about Mr. Gingrich made by an ex-wife. News flash: The ex-wife is not a big Newt fan, as is often the case in the course of human relations, especially divorces.
“I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that,” Mr. Gingrich responded, amid yet another thunderous ovation as Mr. King desperately tried shutting down the line of inquiry he began.
“Every person in here knows personal pain,” Mr. Gingrich said. “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.”
So ferocious was the rebuke of the low-foreheaded moderator that he meekly tried to back out.
“This story did not come from our network,” he whined. In full attack, Mr. Gingrich pressed on.
“John! John!” he interjected with unstoppable anger. “It was repeated by your network. You chose to start the debate with it. Don’t try to blame somebody else. You and your staff chose to start this debate with that.”
And once again, the audience roared its approval, voters watching at home leaped to their feet and whooped their approval and the elites in the media once again recoiled in disbelief and confusion.
From there, Mr. King suffered several more smackdowns by Mr. Gingrich and others. And, ever clueless, the network pressed on in its complete disdain for regular voters wanting answers to their most pressing questions. In its folly of pretending to care about these voters, CNN allowed one voter in the audience to ask a question. She simply wondered what each candidate would do to make sure that all the illegal aliens flooding the country would not take the jobs of actual legal Americans.