No, the guy was trying to bait Newt. The question was basically "what are you going to do for us" and Newt responded that gays would get nothing special from him. Why should they? We only have this guy's side of the story, but if indeed Newt told him to vote for Obama, why shouldn't he say that? The gay has no intention of voting for Newt. If Newt had pandered like Romney would have, dems, Romney and the MSM would spout the "Newt's pandering to gays, he's not really conservative, see, see." At least Newt didn't fall for the set up.
This morning, I got a good look at the sort of squishy republican that supports Mitt. One of my carpoolers told me "now I know why I think Gingrich is unelectable". He started to tell me about this "gay professor" incident. I told him "first, we don't know exactly what Gingrich said. This is just hearsay. And besides, what was he supposed to say?" He went on to say "we need a candidate who can also appeal to the people who get their news from Jon Stewart".
I told him "no way we get the Jon Stewart vote unless our candidate becomes Obama. I'd as well have Obama as a 'fake Obama'". He said "well, we'll have to disagree on that".
I'm sure he thinks I'm just a fanatical anti-gay right-winger who does not see the big picture. This guy is really squishy; and there are lots of them out there. He is also Jewish, and remarked once that "Lieberman would be a good president". Now, no true conservative would make such a statement, as Lieberman is as lib as they come. Just goes to show how many RINOs walk among us.