The Constitution doesn't say much as what we as citizens can do to support our military, but it does give us one primary responsibility; choosing the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces. There is no 'none of the above' with this choice, someone will lead our troops. This is the primary Constitutional role of the President.
Now, if you are going to dismiss Newt over a stupid 'moon' comment or a comment on activist judges that probably was a little knee jerk, that is your choice. You should, however, try to explain the dereliction of your duty to provide our troops with a Commander in Chief who won't stab them in the back. Newt is the best option for that responsibility at this stage of the game.
...and I will repeat myself. 'None of the above' is a dereliction of duty for the one responsibility the Constitution gives the Citizens to our troops. Especially when it leaves them with Obama as Commander in Chief with no future elections to restrain him.
“None of the above” is quite appropriate for a Republican primary filled with candidates that could not keep their feet out of their mouths. There are a whole lot more reasons why Newt is not an acceptable candidate, not the least of which is his lack of personal integrity. Personally, I would have preferred a brokered convention with a new candidate to any of the candidates I was offered. Sounds like you’ll be voting for Willard this fall.