Well, it seems to me Newt Gingrich could well be the Republican nominee for President. What do you think of his chances of beating Obama if so? Do you Americans think he would be good for your country?

Personally, I don`t like him but that is not the issue. Over to you....

I think Obama would have to be caught on camera with a dead underage boy in his bed to lose an election to Newt Gingrich. He's got a whole lot of skeletons in his closet and they'll all be coming out soon. It's just a shame that the process produces such unfit choices. To be honest I'd had high hopes for Obama, and to say that those hopes have been dashed would be an understatement.

Yes. Leaving politics aside, he just doesn`t seem Presidential to me.

Many Yanks might think the choice is Obama or ABO.

Newt has forgotten more about governing than Obama will ever know. Let's see if they debate, should the opportunity arise.

My bet is Obama will duck the debates on the advice of his handlers.

______________________________________________________

Interestingly, here is what one handler said about Gingrich recently. I picked it up off the Drudge Report but it was not widely circulated by the main stream media. The handler who said it was David Axelrod, Obama's campaign chairman.

"At briefing for reporters, Chicagoan says of the Georgian: "The higher a monkey climbs on the pole the more you can see his butt."

Read more: http://thepage.time.com/2011/12/13/axelrod-sets-sights-on-gingrich/#ixzz1gV0uSwvs

This raises a very serious question. If one of Gingrich's people said that about Obama, how many protesters would emerge calling Newt a racist?

Anybody?

Is Newt perfect? Nope, just like all the candidates we've had for a long, long time. I would like to see him debate Obama though. The guy knows ALL issues at a depth that Obama can't fathom with as long as he served in Congress and as the Speaker of the House (meaning voting "present" wasn't an option and he couldn't spend his time writing a couple memoirs). A one on one debate with Newt would be a disaster for Obama - guaranteed.

I am not crazy about any of the Republican candidates, but Obama has to go before he destroys the country - even more. Romney seems to be the best choice to defeat him and I do not mind his liberal tendencies even though the constant flip-flopping is a real negative.

Ron Paul would be even worse than Obama because of his loony foreign policy, but any of the others would be preferable to four more years of the Neville Chamberlain clone.

Thank God I'm an Englishman!

Oliphant says....

Oliphant says....

That's all part of the political misdirection. Obama would fear Newt because, frankly, he's a lot smarter and more experienced than Obama and would reveal that Emperor Obama has no clothes. Obama really wants to go head-to-head with Romney who still needs to be coached on the issues. Me, I'll vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, and against Obama in the general if it comes down to either Newt or Romney. I'm sure after the past 3 years at least 45% of the voters will be voting against Obama no matter who runs against them so the Reps only need to find someone who can attract another 5.1%.

OK, after seeing this, I believe Newt is toast...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UCz8GUd67ms

Oliphant says....

That's all part of the political misdirection. Obama would fear Newt because, frankly, he's a lot smarter and more experienced than Obama and would reveal that Emperor Obama has no clothes. Obama really wants to go head-to-head with Romney who still needs to be coached on the issues. Me, I'll vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, and against Obama in the general if it comes down to either Newt or Romney. I'm sure after the past 3 years at least 45% of the voters will be voting against Obama no matter who runs against them so the Reps only need to find someone who can attract another 5.1%.

Here's the problem I see the Republicans have. Even THEY aren't confident in their frontrunner, who is Romney, despite this weeks polls. That's why they keep choosing anyone but him. It started with Bachman leading, then Perry, then Cain, now Gingrich. All because they weren't satisfied with the putative frontrunner, Romney. Now, when Romney eventually overcomes his own party opposition, how enthusiastic will his party be in campaigning for him? Wouldn't you love to be the democratic ad man that got to craft the commercial for the "last man standing" on the Republican side?

OK, after seeing this, I believe Newt is toast...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UCz8GUd67ms

Is there a fee paying think tank or lobbying group Newt doesn't belong to?

What draws me in is his ability to make me feel like i am listening to a man who is ready to roll up his sleeve and go to work. He always has a plan and he makes solid points as to why he says what he says. I for one beleiev it will take a person who knows the system like LBJ to turn the monster around in the shortest amount fo time. I also like the fact that many of our so called friends are now very nervous by the prospects of their boy being replaced by a regan like leader.

I think Newt is very clever and has some good ideas, but he needs to be controlled by someone less impulsive . Secretary of State might be better for him.

If Newt wasn't so dangerous for Obama, why is the main stream media trying so hard to discredit him?

He represents a far greater threat than Romney because he has accomplishments in the political arena. Something Obama still cannot claim.

The MSM doesn't want him to be the candidate and will pull every dirty trick they can think of to get Romney the appointment, plain and simple.

Oliphant says....

That's all part of the political misdirection. Obama would fear Newt because, frankly, he's a lot smarter and more experienced than Obama and would reveal that Emperor Obama has no clothes. Obama really wants to go head-to-head with Romney who still needs to be coached on the issues. Me, I'll vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, and against Obama in the general if it comes down to either Newt or Romney. I'm sure after the past 3 years at least 45% of the voters will be voting against Obama no matter who runs against them so the Reps only need to find someone who can attract another 5.1%.

Here's the problem I see the Republicans have. Even THEY aren't confident in their frontrunner, who is Romney, despite this weeks polls. That's why they keep choosing anyone but him. It started with Bachman leading, then Perry, then Cain, now Gingrich. All because they weren't satisfied with the putative frontrunner, Romney. Now, when Romney eventually overcomes his own party opposition, how enthusiastic will his party be in campaigning for him? Wouldn't you love to be the democratic ad man that got to craft the commercial for the "last man standing" on the Republican side?

That is what our Primary season is all about. The candidates fight for the nomination and the lead goes back and forth. This time back in 2007 Obama wasn't leading among Dems either. In other countries like the UK, Germany - or Russia - the PM announces elections in a few months time. No need to give the people the feeling they have a choice. Not that Americans are given a real choice either, but at least we're made to feel like we do.

That is what our Primary season is all about. The candidates fight for the nomination and the lead goes back and forth. This time back in 2007 Obama wasn't leading among Dems either. In other countries like the UK, Germany - or Russia - the PM announces elections in a few months time. No need to give the people the feeling they have a choice. Not that Americans are given a real choice either, but at least we're made to feel like we do.

I think we Brits have more choice than you do, Koheesti. We do not have to choose one person who has too much power, as you do. Fine, if you get it right; a disaster if you get it wrong. We choose 600 and odd individuals, and those elected representatives get to choose the PM; if he can't keep their backing, he's out. Look how Margaret Thatcher lost power when people got fed up with her. A major problem with the US system is that you're stuck with your choice (who is not really your choice at all, as you say) for four years unless he does something bad enough to warrant impeachment.

Your Primary system ensures that you get someone considered 'electable', who will probably not be the best person available, only the one who has fewest black marks against him. The man who never makes a mistake never makes anything.

I think we Brits have more choice than you do, Koheesti. We do not have to choose one person who has too much power, as you do. Fine, if you get it right; a disaster if you get it wrong. We choose 600 and odd individuals, and those elected representatives get to choose the PM; if he can't keep their backing, he's out. Look how Margaret Thatcher lost power when people got fed up with her. A major problem with the US system is that you're stuck with your choice (who is not really your choice at all, as you say) for four years unless he does something bad enough to warrant impeachment.

Your Primary system ensures that you get someone considered 'electable', who will probably not be the best person available, only the one who has fewest black marks against him. The man who never makes a mistake never makes anything.

Yes, but at least in our system they get only 4 or 8 years (unless they get run out of office which is very rare) In a parliamentary system they can be in office much longer. No system is perfect and it can't be as long as it invoves politicians.

I think we Brits have more choice than you do, Koheesti. We do not have to choose one person who has too much power, as you do. Fine, if you get it right; a disaster if you get it wrong. We choose 600 and odd individuals, and those elected representatives get to choose the PM; if he can't keep their backing, he's out. Look how Margaret Thatcher lost power when people got fed up with her. A major problem with the US system is that you're stuck with your choice (who is not really your choice at all, as you say) for four years unless he does something bad enough to warrant impeachment.

Your Primary system ensures that you get someone considered 'electable', who will probably not be the best person available, only the one who has fewest black marks against him. The man who never makes a mistake never makes anything.

Yes, but at least in our system they get only 4 or 8 years (unless they get run out of office which is very rare) In a parliamentary system they can be in office much longer. No system is perfect and it can't be as long as it involves politicians.

The bit I've blocked is the most important bit!

If a president or PM is really good, why not keep him for longer? We have the choice again after 5 years (you have it after 4)... and they have to be re-elected to serve longer.

My favourite quotation (which is American... I trot it out whenever I get the chance):-

a politician is an arse upon which

everything has sat except a man

(e.e.cummings)

I think we Brits have more choice than you do, Koheesti. We do not have to choose one person who has too much power, as you do. Fine, if you get it right; a disaster if you get it wrong. We choose 600 and odd individuals, and those elected representatives get to choose the PM; if he can't keep their backing, he's out. Look how Margaret Thatcher lost power when people got fed up with her. A major problem with the US system is that you're stuck with your choice (who is not really your choice at all, as you say) for four years unless he does something bad enough to warrant impeachment.

Your Primary system ensures that you get someone considered 'electable', who will probably not be the best person available, only the one who has fewest black marks against him. The man who never makes a mistake never makes anything.

Yes, but at least in our system they get only 4 or 8 years (unless they get run out of office which is very rare) In a parliamentary system they can be in office much longer. No system is perfect and it can't be as long as it involves politicians.

The bit I've blocked is the most important bit!

If a president or PM is really good, why not keep him for longer? We have the choice again after 5 years (you have it after 4)... and they have to be re-elected to serve longer.

My favourite quotation (which is American... I trot it out whenever I get the chance):-

a politician is an arse upon which

everything has sat except a man

(e.e.cummings)

Ronald Reagan had some great quotes. Here are a couple of my favorites on this topic...

Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book.

Ronald Reagan

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.

Ronald Reagan

Read more of them here. They are imminently collectible.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Ronald_Reagan

My favourite quotation (which is American... I trot it out whenever I get the chance):-

a politician is an arse upon which

everything has sat except a man

(e.e.cummings)

Only an American poet would use the word "arse".

Newt's unelectable. It would just be a bad idea for the Republicans to nominate him, except that all the rest are even more bizarre, flaky, fascist, or freaky in various ways. Not to call him a hypocrite, Newt has major consistency problems with his positions over the years, and a family closet so full of skeletons it counts as his own morgue.

On the plus side, he's one of the few candidates who comes from something even a bit like old-school Republicanism- which is beginning to seem like a pleasant dream compared to contemporary neocon fascism, or even the 'pretend' liberality of the recent Democrats- and he does have a mind, just a really nasty, manipulative, completely opportunistic, slightly racist, completely mercenary one. In short, if it had to be a Republican, you could do much, much worse (George W., anyone? Cheney?) and so we probably WILL get worse on that side of the election.

I'm not thrilled about Obama, either. He's done very little to challenge or reverse the worst behaviours/'policies' of the Bush regime or even the current Republicans, and that's so serious that the few liberal crumbs he's thrown out (the botched health care legislation, doing away with 'don't ask, don't tell') just don't impress me on the balance.

I'm still waiting for the public to realise that legislation is on the table (unless Obama vetoes it) which allows them (American citizens) to be detained and incarcerated indefinitely by the military IN THE US without explanation and without having already committed a crime. The fact that Obama isn't already using this as a big stick to beat the other party shows his complicity and cynicism.

So no matter who wins, I figure normal Americans (and normal people everywhere in the world) will lose. A dark outlook, for sure.

I am really asking myself two things (and I am not US American, so...forgive me my sarcasm):

a) How can it be, that the Republicans always seem to come up with the nutters? GW Bush, Sarah Pailin or the lot (all of them) who are now in the race....puuuuleaze!

How can it be, that there are people voting for these nutters at all?

I agree with lannarebirth: as long as Obama just is not being caught doing something outrageously gross (and just governs his way through history), there is no chance in heaven or hell, that one of the named idiots will be elected!

...at least I hope so, but than again: the US of A are the land of countless possibilities!

I am really asking myself two things (and I am not US American, so...forgive me my sarcasm):

a) How can it be, that the Republicans always seem to come up with the nutters? GW Bush, Sarah Pailin or the lot (all of them) who are now in the race....puuuuleaze!

How can it be, that there are people voting for these nutters at all?

I agree with lannarebirth: as long as Obama just is not being caught doing something outrageously gross (and just governs his way through history), there is no chance in heaven or hell, that one of the named idiots will be elected!

...at least I hope so, but than again: the US of A are the land of countless possibilities!

I didn't say Obama couldn't be beat by any of the Republican candidates. Only that Newt Gingrich is IMO unelectable.

Obama has a huge number of negatives. If you didn't know what party he was in, and look at his list of accomplishments only, you'd think he was a right wing Republican. He has pursued and escalated wars that should have never been started in the first place. He has coddled and enriched Wall Street thieves at the expense of the electorate. He should have been indicting people instead to draw a clear line between himself and the Republicans. As the saying goes, "when the choice is between a republican and a Republican, vote for the Republican."

I didn't say Obama couldn't be beat by any of the Republican candidates. Only that Newt Gingrich is IMO unelectable.

Obama has a huge number of negatives. If you didn't know what party he was in, and look at his list of accomplishments only, you'd think he was a right wing Republican. He has pursued and escalated wars that should have never been started in the first place. He has coddled and enriched Wall Street thieves at the expense of the electorate. He should have been indicting people instead to draw a clear line between himself and the Republicans.

All True but then again you cannot expect him or folks like him Repub or Dem to bite the hand that got them elected.

That is the sad truth about these puppets

At last somebody's said it....... puppets!

Obama will never get the same turnout this time as he did the last time, he has let too many people down. My reading of US politics over the last 25 years has been that its a vicious war where you would need your head examined if you wanted to run for President. Anyone of quality would do anything but put his family under that kind of scrutiny / torture.

The US is now getting the Presidents it deserves, and if it is Newt Gingrich, so be it.....he is the consumate product of the American political system.

Newt Gingrich's three marriages mean he might make a strong president -- really

Former Speaker of the House and Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was attacked Thursday in an interview on ABC News by his second wife Marianne. She accused him of beginning an affair with his current wife Callista while Marianne and he were still married (which Mr. Gingrich admits). She also accused him of lobbying her for an open marriage that would allow him to continue seeing Callista without getting divorced (a claim Gingrich denies).

Well, in any case, no open marriage was in the offing, and the Speaker married his current and third wife.

As I have written before for Fox News Opinion, I don’t think voters belong in a candidate’s bedroom. But the media can’t seem to help itself from trying to castrate candidates for the prurient pleasure of the public.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/20/newt-gingrichs-three-marriages-mean-might-make-strong-president-really/

I do not want Newt to be President, but I much prefer him to that kook Ron Paul.

I am really asking myself two things (and I am not US American, so...forgive me my sarcasm):

a) How can it be, that the Republicans always seem to come up with the nutters? GW Bush, Sarah Pailin or the lot (all of them) who are now in the race....puuuuleaze!

How can it be, that there are people voting for these nutters at all?

I agree with lannarebirth: as long as Obama just is not being caught doing something outrageously gross (and just governs his way through history), there is no chance in heaven or hell, that one of the named idiots will be elected!

...at least I hope so, but than again: the US of A are the land of countless possibilities!

I didn't say Obama couldn't be beat by any of the Republican candidates. Only that Newt Gingrich is IMO unelectable.

A year before he was elected a lot of people didn't think a black man could be elected president either. I think Newt's aggressive style might attract voters after Obama's lead-from-behind, apolgise-for-America approach.

The key to Newt's popularity is how he outperforms his rivals in the debates. Before the last debate in South Carolina he was behind Romney in the polls by double digits. He then won by double digits. Fifty-years ago in High School he was on the debating team so he has been debating since before Obama was even born. That's a lot of practice. If Newt is the nominee - and Obama is silly enough to confront him in more than the absolute minimum number of debates - I believe his popularity will soar by dismantling Obama in front of the country, live on TV, and Newt will win a decisive victory in November - despite any stupid things he says in between debates. THEN, we have to wonder which Newt we end up with, the Reagan Republicn Newt, or the sit next to Nancy Pelosi and talk about Global Warming Newt. Scary either way.