Brian Bolduc questions the feasibility of Gingrich's challenge to Obama if nominated:
The Commission on Presidential Debates organizes these events every presidential-election cycle. The tradition is to hold three presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate, each 90 minutes in length. For security purposes, the commission begins planning about two years in advance. In fact, the commission has already announced the dates and locations of this year's debates.
While the commission could add more debates, it would be difficult. Debate planners work within a six-week window. They can't hold the debates until after Republicans nominate their candidate at the end of August. They also are reluctant to hold debates too close to the election itself; they like to allow voters' impressions of the candidates to simmer. (The last debate is currently scheduled for October 22.) … And the logistical problems shouldn't be overlooked. The commission starts working so far in advance to prevent the technological catastrophes that bedeviled earlier efforts. For instance, in 1976, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter stood mute onstage for 20 minutes after a power outage stopped the debate cold.
Newt is spluttering that he might skip future GOP debates if the crowd is prohibited from cheering or applauding. Jennifer Rubin adds:
Newt Gingrich's top rationale for his candidacy (I know, it's silly but it's his argument) is that he is the best debater and will stalk President Obama until he relents to a series of Lincoln-Douglas marathons. … The Presidential Debate Commission rules say no applause or crowd reaction. Newt says he won't show unless his pom-pom gals and guys can have outbursts. And his top rationale for his candidacy is his debating prowess. Do you see a problem here? The modified version of Gingrich's campaign rationale is now this: "I'm the best debater so long as I have my cheerleaders so I can level Obama provided they change long-standing presidential debate rules."
The Dish 