In the least shocking news ever, Mitt Romney, who taunted Newt by saying that Newt could not take the heat of negative advertising run by a pro-Romney SuperPAC, refuses to take Newt up on the challenge of a one-on-one debate next week:
“We’ve had many occasions to debate together and we’ll have more, I presume quite a few more, before this is finished,” Romney told The Associated Press. “But I’m not going to narrow this down to a two-person race while there are still a number of other candidates that are viable, important candidates in the race. I want to show respect to them.”
’nuff said.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“I’m scared of Newt”
So much “respect.” Just makes the heart glow all warm ‘n fuzzy, it does. That, or laugh sardonically.
ImFine has it nailed. Romney is afraid of Newt. Good.
Wow, you just really have to “respect” that kind of cowardice.
Just one of many, many reasons I would never pull the lever for Mitt…
Yeah, Mittens, respect. So why weren’t you complaining about being dissed by Newt and Cain?
That argument makes no sense, Did Newt’s debate with Cain make it a 2 person race or with Huntsman?
Yes, well, Romney spent so many years in the private sector running for office and practicing how to do the politician weasel.
Big deal. Romney has nothing to gain by agreeing to it.
Newt’s constant “I’ll debate anybody, anywhere” challenge is getting old.
I’d be interested in endless debate-a-thons as much as I would be into endless speech-a-thon competition challenges between Obama and whoever his opponent turns out to be.
Debates, speeches, it’s all just words. I more interested in records and results. Which is why I support Perry – a proven track record of getting government and trial lawyers out of your way so jobs can be created and taxes kept low? Yes please. I want more of THAT, and not more speeches or debates.
I certainly agree that Romney has nothing to gain by agreeing to do this. Furthermore, he has nothing to lose by refusing. I don’t think anyone could say with a straight face that there haven’t been a sufficient (indeed excessive) number of debates, including a few of the “Lincoln-Douglas” style which Newt so thoroughly loves. At some point, even the most passionate voter loses interest.
Newt’s challenge is entirely strategic. First off, he needs as much free air time as possible, given his limited budget. Second, everyone would agree that this format of debating suits him well. There’s certainly nothing wrong with Newt offering to debate non-stop from a strategic standpoint. But, there’s also nothing wrong with Romney strategically refusing. Romney is not being cowardly or dismissive; such a debate is simply of next to no value to him and only limited value to the primary race overall.
Beyond that, Newt really needs to pull back a little on this endless challenge to debate “Lincoln-Douglas” style. I think that his constant promise to challange Obama in this regard is like most of Newt’s ideas: clever and provocative initially, but almost certain never to come to fruition.
Specifically, Obama (or, most likely his surrogates) will have a one word response to Newt: “Why?” Why do we have to debate in this style when the traditional format has worked relatively well for each of the last nine presidential elections? Why should we adopt a style which was used in a Senate race (albeit the most famous Senate race in history) 150 years ago? At that time, obviously, seeing a candidate for high political office was a rarity, and it made sense to give opposing candidates plenty of time and latitude in making their case to the voters. The opposite is true today: we have over-exposure to the candidates, to their policy positions, to the arguments, slogans and spin they provide. Why do we need to listen to each candidate go on for a half an hour, back and forth?
If Newt answers that it will enrich the voters knowledge, once again, Obama’s response is that the traditional debate format has worked pretty well since 1976. Why change? This will turn the tables on Newt and put him in a bind. If Newt refuses to agree to the traditional debate style, HE is the one who looks cowardly and obstructionist. If he does agree, Obama can quickly say that no further debating is any more necessary now than in the past.
Newt has to come up with a solid and coherent response here, beyond just his gimmicky threat of following Obama wherever he goes. That too, is obviously impractical. Yes, both candidates will spend much of the fall campaign in a handful of swing states. But, there are swing states that lean blue and those that lean red. If Newt is the nominee, it would be just plan silly to waste time following Obama to Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, etc. (all more likely than not to stay blue) when he’s needed in the truly crucial swing states (like Ohio and Florida).
Of course, all this is likely moot as I highly doubt Newt will be the nominee. But, it is worth considering.
What a coward!
“I more interested in records and results.”
The man was Time’s 1995 Man of the Year for pete’s sake. TIME: LEADERS MAKE THINGS POSSIBLE. EXCEPTIONAL LEADERS make them inevitable. Newt Gingrich belongs in the category of the exceptional. All year–ruthlessly, brilliantly, obnoxiously–he worked at hammering together inevitabilities: a balanced federal budget, for one. Not so long ago, the idea of a balanced budget was a marginal, we’ll-get-to-it-someday priority. Other urgent work needed doing: the Clintons’ health-care program, for example, which would have installed elaborate new bureaucratic machinery. Today, because of Newt Gingrich, the question is not whether a balanced-budget plan will come to pass but when.
The people who insist on not giving credit where credit is do is not only being ignorant but you are doing a huge injustice to this country! Do you count this as a “record” and a “result”? Yes, I give you the fact that Perry has a good record in Texas but he has yet to prove that he can take it from Obama and to Obama. People better start deciding which country they want to live in, The Divided States of America under Obama or The United States of America under Gingrich. He has the record. He has the results. He has the guts to take it to Obama and drag him through the mud of a record he calls “hope and change”. Do you really think Romney and the others including the GOP establishment are spending their war chest because of his “baggage”?? C’mon! I know we elected Obama on naivete but seriously have we not learned anything in the last three years? They will spend EVERY cent to destroy Gingrich because he IS the record and result man. They are scared to death that he will do EXACTLY as he says he will do. Anyone who was around when Newt was Speaker are afraid their games will come to an end and it’s back to work. What a shame. IT TOOK GINGRICH NOT 1, 2, 5, 10 YEARS TO CONVINCE HIS PARTY THEY CAN WIN MAJORITY. IT TOOK HIM SIXTEEN YEARS BECAUSE THEY ALL SAID HE WAS CRAZY! While you are all pussy footing around with Romney, Paul, Perry and the others, I’ll stick with “crazy” “zany” “bombastic” any day. Record? Results? Puleeze already.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983876,00.html#ixzz1hIRdqcgS
I believe in giving credit where credit is due.
I give Gingrich credit for recently being suckered into the man-made global warming scam. I’m not sure how much that credit is worth, but there it is.
Newt is smart? The dude was outsmarted by Nancy Pelosi. I may be dumb, but I never bought into the global warming scam. But yeah, Newt is smart; the problem is, like a lot of smart people, he can be incredibly foolish beyond belief.
This whole “one-on-one candidate debate” idea would have been a good one if every candidate had the opportunity to debate every other one. For all the debates we’ve had, it could have made for more interesting and enlightening television. But Romney’s right. Even going back to when Newt debated Herman Cain one-on-one, I thought it was more than a little egotistical for him to challenge each of the candidates individually.
As for Gingrich not being able to take the heat, he of all people should know that Romney has and CAN HAVE no control over what the Super PACs do. If Romney did as Newt suggested and told the Super PACs to stop running negative ads, then Romney could go to jail. Romney’s right again; Newt needs to suck it up and stop complaining about other campaigns going “negative”. If he wants to run a completely positive campaign, then more power to him; but saying the Super PAC ads are the reason he’s falling in the polls not only makes him look petulant, it makes Romney look stronger, as well. And Romney didn’t even have anything to do with the ads.
Mitt should be afraid of debating Newt – Newt would wipe the floor with him and that would mean that Mitt’s hair would be mussed up.
Just remember, all you Romney supporters, that Mitt was the guy who lost to the guy who lost to the man who became the worst President in American history.
‘nuf said.
Can someone please explain to me why Romney is under obligation to accept Newt’s offer? Why exactly is he supposed to agree to a debate on Newt’s terms in a format Newt proposed primarily because Newt knows it benefits him? Why exactly should Romney agree to an event which does little more than give Newt a soapbox in primetime, for free, to pontificate?
Please don’t tell me that it’s because Romney is a “coward” and afraid to face Newt. Romney has performed incredibly well in every single Republican debate thus far; his biggest “gaffe” (if you can call it that) was offering a $10K bet, which *might* have seemed insensitive to middle America. Ooooh!
Romney is acting like a front-runner. He is under no pressure to agree to the whims of a poorly funded and poorly organized (cf. Virginia) challenger who needs as much free airtime as he can get. If Newt cannot afford to pay to get his message out, that’s Newt’s problem, not Romney’s. (And by the way, I could care less if Romney’s campaign takes money from lobbyists).
Mitt (and particularly his people) stumbled a little during the week or two after Gingrich’s rise. But, they seem to be back in their stride. Barring a major gaffe or scandal, Mitt is on his way to a narrow victory in Iowa (with Paul and Santorum second and third) a comfortable victory in New Hampshire and then a showdown in South Carolina…where he will still have the advantage.
I doubt Newt’s campaign will survive after South Carolina. Indeed, Newt might be finished after New Hampshire. But, hey, he’ll be free to take another long vacation and buy Callista more jewelry from Tiffany’s…
Never knew there were so many weasel defenders in the world. Strange.
Romney is a pathetic weasel of a man, who couldn’t stand up and fight, to save his pathetic disgusting crony liberal Republican RINO hypocrite life. He reminds me of these kids who afraid to fight, so they would throw rocks, call names from afar, then runaway when chased after.. That’s exactly how Romney behaves.. He’s spineless political coward, on top of being a crony capitalist liberal republican Party RINO lying hypocrite elitist, and should never be allowed to be the US President, period.
Romney’s great character is standing on a fence, so he can turn on a dime, like a wind directional finder, whenever a position needs to be flip-flopped on, for political convenience. as well as his crony capitalism, in his claims of job creation, and especially his liberal forced mandated State Socialized Medicine healthcare system, aka, Romneycare, the model for Obamacare, as his e-mail records as Gov. of Mass., would have proven his guilt, until he had them all deleted.
Newt, with his record open for all to see, has accomplished much in his life, like forcing Bill Clinton to reform Welfare and Balancing the US Fed. budget, 3 years in a row, giving America a financial surplus, and not leaving a massive deficit and debt to our children. He is far more knowledgeable and coherent about the issues, and problems we face, than Romney will ever be.. Newt will intellectually, competently, and coherently, wipe up Romney and Obama, with ease.
Romney’s signature accomplishment is Romneycare, the forced mandated State Socialized Medicine healthcare system, that Obama used to set up Obamacare with, for which we now have to wait til the U.S. Supreme Court strikes it down, or we have to completely repeal it legislatively, when the new Republican President takes over in Jan 2013. And thus is the question, how can, or would we trust Romney to repeal a system for which he set up in Mass, and refuses to say was bad, and is bankrupting the State, with State Tax payer govt subsidies to the healthcare providers, hospitals, insurance companies, and so on, all the while providing substandard and inferior healthcare, to it’s State residents because of it..
This on top of all the other corny capitalist gimmicks, that Romney screwed around with in Mass, which is why he had all of his Gov’s office e-mails deleted before he left office, as well as deny anyone access to his records.
“…I want to show respect to them.”
Does anybody, anywhere believe that is the reason
Romney will not debate Gingrich one on one?
Oh, wait, Romney is lying. What a surprise.