Two questions for Newt-leaning Republicans

[gabosaurus]

(1) Why would the "Party of Moral Values" embrace a candidate with no moral values?

(2) Would would a party whose sole purpose is to defeat Obama in 2012 nominate a candidate who has zero chance to defeating Obama?

[darin]

(1) Why would the "Party of Moral Values" embrace a candidate with no moral values?

(2) Would would a party whose sole purpose is to defeat Obama in 2012 nominate a candidate who has zero chance to defeating Obama?

1) There's a problem with your statement because it's factually inaccurate. Frankly, it's only an insult, NOT a question.

2) There's a problem with your 'question' because again, it's factually inaccurate; it's speculation and insult - not a request for information.

Do you have anything to add, or is this simply a 'let's insult somebody' thread?

[revelarts]

I saw Newt this moring on the News.

Personally I pick Ron Paul 1st, Santorum 2nd Rommey 3rd and Newt not at all.

Not to start a debate here, I'm just curious.
Newt said "...I'm not a Washington insider.." among other things this morning.
Does anyone buy that? I laughed out loud when I heard it. Maybe my question should be ,
Should Newt really think that anyone's buying that line? Maybe he's thinking of the Lincoln quote "...you can fool some of the people all of the time.."

[Gunny]

(1) Why would the "Party of Moral Values" embrace a candidate with no moral values?

(2) Would would a party whose sole purpose is to defeat Obama in 2012 nominate a candidate who has zero chance to defeating Obama?

Guess my Gunny was wrong all those years ago. There ARE stupid questions.

[jimnyc]

Gabby, you have stated before that Romney is the only one who could defeat Obama. Can you be more specific and state why it is you feel Gingrich can't beat Obama?

[Gunny]

Gabby, you have stated before that Romney is the only one who could defeat Obama. Can you be more specific and state why it is you feel Gingrich can't beat Obama?

It's leftwing code for: that's who Obama wants to run against. Last election it was: "Now if it was McCain, I might consider him" from the left.

[Little-Acorn]

1) There's a problem with your statement because it's factually inaccurate. Frankly, it's only an insult, NOT a question.

2) There's a problem with your 'question' because again, it's factually inaccurate; it's speculation and insult - not a request for information.

Do you have anything to add, or is this simply a 'let's insult somebody' thread?

Dmp, this is little gabby you're talking to. You KNOW the answer to that question, since it never varies.

[gabosaurus]

Gabby, you have stated before that Romney is the only one who could defeat Obama. Can you be more specific and state why it is you feel Gingrich can't beat Obama?

Certainly. Gingrich is a liar and a serial adulterer. What makes Newt any more acceptable than, say, John Edwards?
If Gingrich ran in the general election, the media would find every skeleton in his closet and more. Instead of the focus being on what Obama failed to achieve while in office, it would be Gingrich's past.
In addition to Newt's lack of moral integrity, he has favored some of the same health care issues that Obama has.

When Shrub ran against John Kerry, the GOP ran a campaign attacking Kerry's character rather than defending Shrub's performance in office.
The Dems will run the same campaign this year, only dirtier and more vicious. The GOP will spend all their time and resources and defending Newt instead of attacking Obama.

[jimnyc]

Certainly. Gingrich is a liar and a serial adulterer. What makes Newt any more acceptable than, say, John Edwards?
If Gingrich ran in the general election, the media would find every skeleton in his closet and more. Instead of the focus being on what Obama failed to achieve while in office, it would be Gingrich's past.
In addition to Newt's lack of moral integrity, he has favored some of the same health care issues that Obama has.

When Shrub ran against John Kerry, the GOP ran a campaign attacking Kerry's character rather than defending Shrub's performance in office.
The Dems will run the same campaign this year, only dirtier and more vicious. The GOP will spend all their time and resources and defending Newt instead of attacking Obama.

I didn't say he was any more/less acceptable than Edwards. Just simply wondering why you think Romney could beat Obama but not Gingrich. Gingrich's skeletons have been out and around forever. He just showed in the last debate how he can take a skeleton and use it to his advantage to win the SC primary. The first 3 minutes of the debate is what turned things in his favor, and it was addressing what his ex-wife stated to the media.

If the media focused on his personal life and not the issues, they would be making a mistake with Gingrich. He's MUCH too smart for that crap. He doesn't need teleprompters to speak. Obama would have to be WELL prepared to debate him, as I think Gingrich would absolutely destroy him in any head to head debates.

Also, while you may look at Gingrich and health care issues, don't forget about Romney in Mass. Not much better, IMO.

All any nominee would have to do, is continually point out to the entire country just how much Obama has screwed things up in only 4 years. Continually point to the debt and what Obama has doen to that in such a short time.

I'm no fan of Romney or Gingrich - but both of them are head and shoulders smarter than Obama. I think either one has the capability of beating Obama come November.

[gabosaurus]

Romney doesn't have the character issues that Gingrich.
You have to remember that the audience watching the GOP debate in SC was hand picked to be favorable to the candidates. Thus their reaction to the question posed about Gingrich's character.
Kerry was unable to spend much time attacking Shrub Bush because the GOP machine kept launching attacks on his character. The "unfit to lead" thing was what sunk him.
Think of this situation in reverse. Romney and Gingrich are both intelligent men. But Romney won't face the wrath of women and minorities that Gingrich will.

Romney is much more mainstream than Gingrich. Newt will not play well to independent voters. Same with Ron Paul.

[jimnyc]

Romney doesn't have the character issues that Gingrich.
You have to remember that the audience watching the GOP debate in SC was hand picked to be favorable to the candidates. Thus their reaction to the question posed about Gingrich's character.
Kerry was unable to spend much time attacking Shrub Bush because the GOP machine kept launching attacks on his character. The "unfit to lead" thing was what sunk him.
Think of this situation in reverse. Romney and Gingrich are both intelligent men. But Romney won't face the wrath of women and minorities that Gingrich will.

Romney is much more mainstream than Gingrich. Newt will not play well to independent voters. Same with Ron Paul.

I don't care about the audience - but after the debates, Gingrich made up about 15 percentage points to get back into the race in SC and then ended up winning by a HUGE margin. That's what good debating will do for you.

[Mr. P]

I only notice the left and the lame stream saying "Only Romney" can beat Obama. Gotta make ya wonder, no?
My money, and the Country's FUTURE, is on Newt. Truth is, they're scared ta death of him!

[krisy]

Romney doesn't have the character issues that Gingrich.
You have to remember that the audience watching the GOP debate in SC was hand picked to be favorable to the candidates. Thus their reaction to the question posed about Gingrich's character.
Kerry was unable to spend much time attacking Shrub Bush because the GOP machine kept launching attacks on his character. The "unfit to lead" thing was what sunk him.
Think of this situation in reverse. Romney and Gingrich are both intelligent men. But Romney won't face the wrath of women and minorities that Gingrich will.

Romney is much more mainstream than Gingrich. Newt will not play well to independent voters. Same with Ron Paul.

According to CNN Saturday night,Newt won with every group except the late teen early 20's group. He lead other candidates with married voters and women. I know this doesn't mean it will be that way everywhere,but was interesting. Florida will be interesting for sure.

I don't know that I am voting for Newt and I think a lot of people want to believe what he has said about being a changed man and a Catholic,practicing those values. I personally was stearing away from him for a while because of the affairs. It bothered me. I felt tho that Saturday night he was sincere about personal pain and screwing up. I think what really pushed him up tho,was the command he took in that debate against the moderator. He came off strong,and unafraid. People want to see an strong authority in the position of President.

[gabosaurus]

I think what really pushed him up tho,was the command he took in that debate against the moderator. He came off strong,and unafraid. People want to see an strong authority in the position of President.

You saw it as "taking command." I saw it as avoiding the question.

[jimnyc]

You saw it as "taking command." I saw it as avoiding the question.

If it was to confirm infidelities, I would agree. If it were to confirm divorce issues, I would agree. But I think what personal happens in a marriage, if within the law of course, shouldn't be something ANY candidate should have to answer about. And let me ask you - do you find it odd that this woman is interviewed about such a shocking claim, and on national TV, just a day before the primary elections?