Aside from an inability to adhere to marriage vows and his woefully bad choices in teaming with adversaries, Newt’s basic problem is the intellectual arrogance which is borne from his academic background.
I believe Newt would tell you if you asked him that he would go against the will of the people (i.e., will not voiced in a single purely democratic style vote, but in a collective mind-of-the people everyday belief) if the issue were one he believed in intellectually.
Franklin Roosevelt did this with getting the US into WWII. If Newt were President, he’d come down on the side of amnesty for illegals. In short, I don’t trust him one bit.
The goal is to win an election. No matter who wins the republican slot, I will back them 100%. I don’t care if our candidate is ideologically impure, it is the cost defeating tyranny.
That happens with all of them. Even Nancy Pelosi has to do that although she usually choses to stick to whichever decision will put more money in the pockets of her rich campaign backers.
Newt is a bright guy and he really, really, really wants to be elected President. He will tell us anything and do anything to get the job. He will also tell everybody everything and do everything to keep the job if he gets it.
Newt will attempt to be all things to all men when it comes to keeping the job.
At the same time, unlike Obama and Pelosi and Romney, and people of their kind ~ he will not see it necessary to stand in the way of people in this country getting rich and having a good time at it.
He is clearly not in this game to control us, or trick us out of our wealth.
Same with Mr. Cain, and probably Representative Bachmann. I cannot say the same for Huntsman, nor Paul, nor Santorum. They may well have some popular policies they'd like to advance, but they also have a personal agenda.
At the moment I tend to dislike the candidates (like Carter, like Obama, like Johnson, like McGovern, like Lurch, etc.) who put their personal agendas first ~ like Fascist Obamakkare, like Fascist Hillarykkkare, like "bring the troops home from everywhere" (as if forward deployment was not a proven strategy for homeland protection), and so on.
We are a great nation with worldwide interests. We want to work. We want to progress. We want to do good.
We need Presidents who understand the terms "nation", "great", "worldwide", and "jobs". Telling us that our biggest concern should be focused on the bowels of our banks just ain't cutting it, nor is it bright to limit our horizons to whether or not the taxpayers or the insured should pay for amputations ~ really now, we have other major issues ~ price of beer, is our neighborhood safe, do I have money leftover after taxes, can my kids go to school without getting beat up by queers,...... a wide variety of issues that loom large and it'd be nice to have a President who didn't think our concerns over those issues were somehow beneath his dignity or care.
So, what you’re saying is, you trust mob rule over the person you hired to make these calls from the best information available to him?
yeah, he talks down to people in typical professorial manner
I won't mistake superficial confidence in conversation and communication for a deep malignant desire and obsession to control every living souls life. That is arrogance. Obama and the machine he sells is fascist and a stealth political dictatorship meant to "rule the ignorant masses", not govern. So it is with Romney. I won't be governed by anyone who has to make all of their "governing" decisions in a dark room away from the prying eyes of "mere mortals".
As clumsy as Newt may be in his loyalties, he is still intellectually transparent. I've had enough of what loyalties to a hidden agenda has produced. When the rubber meets the road, I'll take a flawed, honest human over an obsessive, sneaky, self proclaimed G-d any day.
Any thoughts on Romney's basic problems(s)?