Conventional wisdom is that debates don’t decide nominations, but that notion is as antiquated as the paper route. This is, after all, the media age.  It’s the era of YouTube, Twitter, and the 24-hour news network.  Fear the candidate who can beat the media at their own game, and right now, that candidate is Newt Gingrich.

Their imperfect track-records aside, the former speaker has been able to distinguish himself from Governor Romney in two crucial ways.  The first difference is in who, or what, they are campaigning against.  The foundation of Mitt Romney’s campaign is keeping a narrow focus on Barack Obama.  This isn’t a bad strategy, per se, but it doesn’t comprehensively address the problems we are facing as a society.  After all, Barack Obama is a product of the American left.  He was raised in academia, sold to us by Hollywood, and elected by the mainstream media.  The President is the tip of the iceberg, and the Republican candidate should understand that Obama is a symptom of what ails us, not the cause.

Newt has decided to run a broader campaign, addressing crony capitalism at length and waging war against Obama’s palace guards in the mainstream media.  Needless to say, the media criticism in particular has resonated with South Carolina voters:

Yesterday Gingrich spoke out, yet again, against the philosophies and influence of Saul Alinsky, the patron saint of postmodern leftism.  This isn’t merely how the GOP nominee should campaign, it’s also how he should govern if elected.  In the battle for America’s future, our primary adversary isn’t the man in the White House, it’s the ideas and values that put him there.

Another reality in the media age is that the most articulate candidate will have the best chance to succeed.  In the past couple debates, Mitt Romney has stumbled when backed into a corner on relatively minor issues such as the request to release his tax returns.  Newt, on the other hand, has taken gotcha questions and skillfully and confidently rebutted them.

This is not to say Mitt hasn’t been a competent debater.  He most certainly has been.  But recently, Newt has presented himself as the clearer thinker.  His rhetoric can soar–as Obama’s did in 2008–and in the media age, that may be what voters care about most.

The irony is, of course, that the principal beneficiaries of Gingrich winning South Carolina in such convincing fashion are the media (both old and new), because nothing boosts ratings and page views like a horse-race.

So, now we look to Florida, and that should be another wild ride.  The polling there has been, for lack of a better term, schizophrenic.  Newt had a monster advantage over Mitt a few weeks ago, then Romney erased that and is currently way out in front.  Can Newt come back again again after blowing a big lead already?  It seems like the Sunshine State is susceptible to swings in momentum, and Newt has all of it right now.

Mike Flynn, Editor Big Government:

Little known fact; during the last GOP debate in Iowa, the RNC held their holiday party at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in DC. There weren’t any TVs among the open bars. So, no one at the RNC was actually watching the debate among candidates vying to be the standard-bearer of the party. Perhaps the RNC has throw parties during all of these debates. How else to explain its continuing acquiescence in letting the legacy media pay inquisitors to its nominees? The GOP field actually did well combatting some of silliness from Diane Sawyer, Snuffleupagas and some guy we’ll never hear from again. But, the American public was short-changed in getting 1 hour and 41 minutes (!) of chatter on issues that almost no one outside of the hard left cares about. (2 questions on the economy…kinda?) Et tu RNC?

The obvious big winner of the night was Mitt Romney. Inexplicably, he largely escaped criticism from his fellow nominees. Weirder still, as Romney is vulnerable to at least 25 attacks from the right, is the fact that Newt, et al decided to attack him from the left. Being in the same room as Snuffleupagas will do that to you I guess.

The other big winner was Ron Paul. One would have thought he were the front-runner given the attention he received from the moderator and other nominees. Santorum, inexplicably finding himself in the big leagues, reverted to form and acted like a candidate who is simply trying to get attention. His initial statement that America doesn’t need a CEO or manager, but a leader is frankly baffling. I think it speaks to a personal insecurity that he has virtually no private sector experience and no executive experience. Making awesome speeches on the House or Senate floor is not a leader. He was like a player called up to the majors who whiffed at every at-bat. Santomentum is fading.

Newt seemed neutered. He did a great professorial turn at times and reminded me how great he is in this medium, but he need to draw distinctions. He didn’t.

Perry did well, but he was mostly irrelevant tonight. He started with a great theme about Washington insiders, but pulled his punches in the end. He didn’t screw up, but he needs to quickly put points on the board.

Huntsman spoke Chinese.

Whatever happens in November, whomever at the RNC approved these debate formats needs to find a new line of work.

Alex Marlow, Managing Editor, Breitbart.com:

Fitting for a Saturday night, the tenor of the New Hampshire debate was decidedly business casual. The remaining Republican presidential candidates intermittently discussed some of the most important issues of the day between answering questions on the constitutionality of contraception and whether or not they believe it’s the government’s job to “invest” more in “infrastructure” (presumably so we can get more of those American Recovery and Reinvestment Act road signs). George Snuffleupagus was an utter embarrassment as a moderator; his gotcha line of questioning was as ineffectual as it was transparent. I don’t hold it against him, though; after all, he is a Clintonista. The blame lies squarely with ABC, who thought he was an appropriate moderator for a GOP primary debate. Diane Sawyer wasn’t exactly professional either, giggling like a school-girl getting her tootsies tickled throughout much of the night. Yep, it was the MSM vs. the GOP again, and I’m happy to say the GOP won this round handily.

Regarding the candidates, we’re officially at the point in the campaign where if Romney doesn’t obviously lose, he’s the winner by default. He was steady as usual and no one landed a clean blow to him. Mitt’s take-down of Snuffy over the bizarre contraception question was the highlight of the night. Newt was also impressive, particularly when he drew attention to bigotry against Christians. Curiously, Rick Perry said he’d send troops back to Iraq and Santorum wasn’t able to capitalize on his Iowa momentum. Towards the end of the festivities, we were finally reminded that Jon Huntsman was a member of the Obama administration, just before the Mongolian Candidate broke into Chinese to order some Szechuan Shrimp (I think…).

Joel Pollak, Editor Breitbart.com:

This was one of the best debates for the Republican field, because the candidates finally defeated their media inquisitors (they’re not “moderators” when they demand the Republicans meet left-wing standards). Gov. Mitt Romney absolutely squashed George Stephanopoulos’s attempt to use a bizarre question about contraceptives to cast him and the rest of the candidates as religious extremists. Speaker Newt Gingrich stood up to Diane Sawyer on the issue of gay marriage by challenging the anti-Christian bigotry of the left and the mainstream media. Sen. Rick Santorum challenged the premise of the term “middle class,” insisting that the United States is not a class-based society. It was amusing to watch the post-debate analysis on ABC as the journalists described their dismay that the candidates didn’t do more to attack each other, and to attack Romney in particular. There were a few attacks–Santorum did very well defending his record in response to Rep. Ron Paul–but the candidates have learned that Republican voters will not reward them for playing to the mainstream media’s tune. They know (most of them, anyway) that the main target is Barack Obama, and the candidate that wins will be the one that shows the strongest, most effective contrast to the president.

(Reuters) – The knives will come out at back-to-back debates this weekend as Republican presidential hopefuls frantically jockey for position days before New Hampshire’s key primary.

Debates are once again the main show in the 2012 race after candidates spent two weeks on the road campaigning in coffee shops and pizza places through Iowa and now, New Hampshire.

The six contenders will go at it twice within 12 hours, first on Saturday night and then again on Sunday morning. It is their last, best chance to sway large numbers of voters with New Hampshire set to vote on Tuesday.

“The debates are their opportunity to be seen by tens of thousands of voters,” said former state Republican Party chairman Fergus Cullen. “They are critically important.”

More than a dozen debates thus far have led to defining moments in the race to find a Republican challenger to Democratic President Barack Obama.

Rick Perry’s “Oops” moment when he could not list all three government agencies he wanted to eliminate contributed to his collapse in polls. Romney’s offer of a $10,000 bet with Perry made him look like an out-of-touch high flier.

This weekend’s debates may breathe new life into Newt Gingrich, who has fallen apart under the weight of negative ads and attacks in the weeks since he built a lead in the polls based on strong debate performances.

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who often complained about not being asked enough questions at debates, will now literally be at center stage and may have to face tough questions about his record in the U.S. Senate and his anti-gay rights stance.

The rest of the pack could turn against Mitt Romney, the front runner by far, whose objective at the twin sessions is to simply hold his own and not make any mistakes. He urged his supporters not to get complacent.

Read more at Reuters.

Just a few months ago, ABC News revealed that one of the major financial backers for Solyndra is also a major donor to the Obama campaign.

The donor, Steve Westley, has subsequently been named to the President’s Energy Advisory Board. Solyndra was supposed to have produced 4,000 jobs with the loan guarantee. Now all of the company’s employees have been laid-off. Mr. Westley is still on the advisory board.

Congressman Cliff Stearns, Chair of House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Oversight Subcomittee, released the following statement this afternoon:

“In an apparent rush to push stimulus dollars out the door, the Obama Administration wasted $535 million in taxpayer funds in guaranteeing a loan to a firm that has proven to be unviable in the global market,” said Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. “For months, we have been investigating how and why nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money was committed to this financially troubled company.”

According to The Center for Public Integrity, one of Solyndra’s major investors was George Kaiser, an Oklahoma oil billionaire who raised large sums of money for Obama during the 2008 election. This raised concerns that politics my have played a role in putting taxpayer dollars at risk in making this loan guarantee. In addition, last year the Government Accountability Office issued an unusually blunt assessment of the Energy Department’s loan program, concluding that the department had “treated applicants inconsistently, favoring some and disadvantaging others.”

Using stimulus funds to promote job creation, the Department of Energy awarded a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra and the Obama Administration was supposed to review the loan to ensure that taxpayer money was not put at risk. Stearns has been investigating this loan program, and specifically the loan to Solyndra, and was forced to subpoena the Administration for records involving this loan guarantee.

“Although the Administration has been uncooperative with this investigation, this decision by Solyndra does not end our inquiry and we will continue to look into how this loan guarantee was approved and why the American taxpayers are mostly likely out $535 million,” added Stearns. “In addition, this brings up concerns if taxpayers were adequately protected during the restructuring of the loan to Solyndra.”

Similarly, a CBS News poll regarding the debt talks, conducted with 810 random adults- 24% who gave their political affiliation as “Republican,” 35% “Democrat,” and 41% “Independent-” found that 43% approve of the president’s handling of the debt talks, 31% approve of the Democrats, and only 21% approve of the Republicans’ management of the negotiations. This survey also found that half of Republicans, 51%, disapprove of how members of their party in Congress are handling the negotiations. It should be noted that, while the poll did not obtain responses from equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, some Americans who identify themselves as “Republicans” are indeed disapproving of their congressional representatives- but because they believe they are not being principled enough.

Keep in mind that likely voters are not representative of the general population of telephone owners. Likely voters are generally more aware and informed about the issues, enough to commit to get out and vote.

Enter Rasmussen Reports, which, this week, finds that a generic Republican presidential candidate earns support from 47% of likely voters, as President Obama earns 41% of support. Similarly, for the second week in a row, Republicans were shown to have a six-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot, 44-38%. Unaffiliated voters prefer the Republican candidate by a 40% to 25% margin.

If “most” Americans disapprove of how the Republicans are handling the debt talks, why would “most” Americans support a generic Republican candidate for president or Congress?

Perhaps the “traditional” media would like to help along the notion that “most” Americans want “compromise,” not “rigidity,” or “stubbornness,” as epitomized, in their view, by conservative Republicans. Not that we have too many of those around.

The House Republicans have followed through with their promise to “Cut, Cap, and Balance.” Some Senate Republicans are more interested in compromise, rather than promise. “Compromise” sounds like a nice word, doesn’t it? Compromise is what you do with your ex-spouse about which day is yours with the kids. It’s what you do when the family discusses where to go on vacation. It’s what you and your spouse do to decide which relatives you’re going to visit for Christmas.

But you don’t “compromise” when a loved one is really sick and you need to decide the best treatment, not just anything that’s readily available, or, for that matter, everything that’s readily available. You do your homework, educate yourself, talk to the doctors, and make the best decision for your loved one. This is where we are now, with this ailing country.

Still think “compromise” is the way to go? Well, remember, there are several definitions of the word, “compromise.” The one most Democrats, some Republicans, and some media outlets are pushing is, “a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.”

But, the other meanings of “compromise” are: to reduce the quality, value, or degree of something; to impair by disease or injury.

I suggest that those Republicans, Democrats, and presidents who are pressing for a “let’s just get along” attitude as a way to put an end to the debt and deficit debates, are, indeed, compromising the ability of our free nation to remain in existence.

Make no mistake: this is a calculated “astroturf“ intimidation campaign by the well-funded and frightened-for-their-political-lives institutional left to quash dissenting voices. It’s what they do.

What was ABC News’ response?  Not standing up for free speech and the 1^st Amendment.  Not sticking by their original invitation.  Not standing up for diversity of opinion.

Instead, on Saturday, ABC News issued an official statement that was immediately heralded as a victory by the anti-free speech forces on the left:

Since conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart announced on his website that he was going to be a participant in ABC’s Town Hall meeting at Arizona State University, there has been considerable consternation and misinformation regarding my decision to ask him to participate in an election night Town Hall event for ABC News Digital. I want to explain what Mr. Breitbart’s role has always been as one of our guests at our digital town hall event:

Mr. Breitbart is not an ABC News analyst.

He is not an ABC News consultant.

He is not, in any way, affiliated with ABC News.

He is not being paid by ABC News.

He has not been asked to analyze the results of the election for ABC News.

Mr. Breitbart will not be a part of the ABC News broadcast coverage, anchored by Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos. For the broadcast coverage, David Muir and Facebook’s Randi Zuckerberg will contribute reaction and response gathered from the students and faculty of Arizona State University at an ABC News/Facebook town hall.

He has been invited as one of several guests, from a variety of different political persuasions, to engage with a live, studio audience that will be closely following the election results and participating in an online-only discussion and debate to be moderated by David Muir and Facebook’s Randi Zuckerberg on ABCNews.com and Facebook. We will have other guests, as well as a live studio audience and a large audience on ABCNews.com and Facebook, who can question the guests and the audience’s   opinions.

George Stephanoplous quickly tweeted, “Breitbart NOT on ABC network broadcast http://bit.ly/bgkseJ.”

I can state with absolute certainty that the verbal pitch to me to participate was punctuated by the opportunity to appear as part of ABC News’ broadcast television for the night.  I was also aware that the majority of my participation – seven long hours – would be online.

Here is the email from ABC confirming their invitation for me to participate in their online and network broadcast election night coverage:

Andrew,

So great speaking with you, and I cannot thank you enough for joining us in Arizona on election night. We truly appreciate it.

NY is booking your travel right now, and want to make sure your name on your ID reads “Andrew Breitbart”.

I really look forward to meeting you, and would love to take you out to lunch or dinner before our election coverage.

See below about ABC New’s coverage on election night.

Cheers, and will see you soon.

XXXX

XXXX XXXX

Producer

ABC News

ABC News is conducting a live event from Phoenix, Arizona for our election night special on Tuesday, November 2nd 2010. I am looking for political figures and newsmakers to appear in our Town Hall style panel.

ABC News is providing live coverage of the midterm elections hosted by Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos in New York, and correspondents across the country.

ABC News has partnered with Facebook and The Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University to live stream the entire event on abcnews.com, ABC News Now and Facebook.

The Town Hall is hosted by ABC correspondent David Muir and Randi Zuckerberg from Facebook, as well an ASU student leader.

The audience will consist of 150 students equipped with laptops and Ipads who will participate in online political conversations.

The issues include health care, the economy, immigration, terrorism, and the environment. We will have panelists who will contribute to these conversations remotely from Washington, DC, New York, NY and Los Angeles, CA.

This program will broadcast on the ABC Television Network, abcnews.com, ABC News Now, and ABC News Radio.

The show will be live on the web and ABC News Now as well as on the network from 4:00pm till 11:00pm MST.

We would love for you to be a part of our program, and please let us know what we can do to accommodate your needs.

I am booking the guests for the event and will be in Phoenix starting Thursday, October 28th.

Feel free to email me back or call me at the following number with any questions.

Thanks so much,

XXXX XXXX

Producer

ABC News

In addition to the two times that an ABC News producer confirms in the email that I will be part of ABC News’ network broadcast, David Ford of ABC News confirmed to Media Matters that I “will be one of many voices on our air” on election night.

I was promised no specific amount of airtime, nor payment for my analysis, but was told that I would be a part of the broadcast coverage in addition to participating in the online event, as the email above clearly reveals.

And, clearly, I was being asked to give analysis – or, was ABC News paying for me to fly to Arizona and to foot my hotel bill so that I could perform avant-garde interpretative dance?

Apparently, a Daily Kos blogger has also been asked to participate. Daily Kos, as many of you may know, has been widely discredited for spreading malicious falsehoods and political extremism. It’s creator Markos Moulitsas is currently promoting his book, whose title says it all: American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right.

I do not ask that the Daily Kos bloggernot get air-time. To the contrary, I have a long history of trying to bring as many voices to the fore as humanly possible. One need look no further than my creating the Huffington Post – a project that’s underlying politics I never embraced – with Arianna Huffington and Ken Lerer in 2005.

During its creation I explained to many bewildered observers: “Bringing my former boss and longtime friend Arianna’s intriguing friends to the blogosphere, the ultimate level playing field, makes perfect sense to me, and I am thrilled to be committed to such a groundbreaking project. Will my pals on the right have a place to offer their two cents at the Huffington Post? Absolutely. Will I agree with everyone’s written word? Of course not. But that’s precisely the point. May the best ideas win.”

This is not really about “me.”   This is about a full-fledged assault on the 1^st Amendment and free speech.  It is an unabashed attempt to win by intimidating a news organization for daring to have a dissenting voice on its broadcast. The same forces just prevailed against Juan Williams, and Erick Erickson’s CNN gig was met with the same anti-free speech, anti-opposing viewpoints full-court press from the institutional left. Again, it’s what they do.

The Internet is the revolution of our time and new media has benefited democracy by expanding the number of people who can influence the political process. My Big sites (Big Government, Big Hollywood, Big Peace, and Big Journalism) have expanded the voice and power of the center-right, and in particular, the Tea Party movement.

As is evidenced by George Soros’s $1 million dollar re-investment in Media Matters, which led the harassment campaign to silence center-left commentator Juan Williams, the political left is doubling down on its “silence your critics” strategy.

I am no stranger to this particular kind of tactic. In fact, my business has been built on the premise of fighting it. Boo, George Soros! Bring it on, John Podesta!

Is this trend of silencing dissenting voices not wholly obvious even to the untrained eye?

I created Big Hollywood for my conservative friends in liberal Hollywood to fight back against this most un-American practice. We are making up for a lot of lost ground in a very short period of time. That is why more and more voices are starting to express themselves and there are more bodies coming out of the closet. These victories motivate me to keep the pressure on.

On Sunday Big Journalism broke the troubling KTVA (Anchorage) voicemail story that showed reporters and producers plotting how to smear GOP candidate Joe Miller. The real story here is that the Big sites have broken huge stories that have affected this election cycle, including ones that show an unhealthy collusion between the political left and America’s major newsrooms. Perhaps on election eve, as I prepare to head to Phoenix to participate — one way or another — in ABC News’s coverage, it’s no surprise that we are ending this news cycle with a clash on this bitterly contested front.

King Street Patriots is the organization that launched True the Vote, an initiative to encourage citizens to help improve elections by reviewing voter rolls and volunteering to work at the polls. Their honest intentions were met with coordinated lawsuits and an ethics complaint filing by Soros funded Leftist groups Texans Together and Texans for Public Justice, as well as the Texas Democrat Party. The ABC/Channel 13 report is only the most recent example of the mindless media coverage of King Street’s efforts, including ambush interviews of poll watchers inside of polling places.

(Note: in Texas, it is illegal for the press to be inside polling places. Wonder if the reporter “may serve jail time”? We’re betting not.) ABC/Channel 13 has apparently become a mouthpiece for the Soros funded organizations, fact checking nothing, and relying on the Democrat party as their singular source. Pathetic. Change the channel.