Eh, Newt would make mincemeat of Obama 1-1. Under any circumstances where a decisive contrast could be shown between the two men, Obama would be irrefutably exposed as the incompetent pretender president he is.
Further, the only real way Republicans can win in 2012, is by articulating a vision consistent with actual American ideals and values, that inspires people to take seriously what these mean—i.e., we need ‘hope’ and ‘change’, except for real this time. Newt gets that IMO, far more so than any the others.
Above all, if Republicans fail to present an inspiring alternative to how life can be, the electorate will just apathetically tune them out. Languishing under 4 more years of Obama will seem more preferable simply because he’s a known quantity and because the other side wasn’t offering enough compelling difference to justify a shift, so why bother? At which point the war of ideas will be lost for the foreseeable future and the US will fade into a slumber of bureaucratic socialism.
I don’t see this sudden surge of love for Gingrich.
I think too many people are blinded by the anticipation of two debates where Newt wins. Who thinks that’s going to do anything?
I think the American people have had it with Obama. Yet I don’t know if that even matters. The ducks are already in a row—the racism charges, the media helping Obama run a campaign that ignores the first three years of his administration...
I don’t know. I just don’t see Newt doing it. Too many negatives that can be used against him, and too many people over-confident that because he can spout facts viewers will simply vote for him over hopey changey.
In this wussified society of ours, I don’t see it being as simple as some here do.
, Obama would be irrefutably exposed as the incompetent pretender president he is.
Anyone with eyes already sees that. Very few votes will be gained by beating Obama in a debate.