Originally Posted by
apb
Basically Geo, Newt is very divisive and polarizing. He has shown again and again that he puts party before country. As a classic example, while speaker of the house, Clinton ordered a missile strike on a terrorist camp. Newt was aware of the strike before hand and went along with it. Right afterwards he dismissed it as slapping mosquitoes or something to that affect. During this time he was also going after Clinton for the Monica scandal and lying to congress. The actions of Newt indicated to Clinton/Gore that they did not have the support of congress to continue to go after the terrorists, so they abdicated this to Bush/Cheney. This whole time Newt (the family value candidate) was banging one of his staffers while criticizing Clinton for doing the same (and Newt gets all pissy on Williams for mentioning this stuff during the debate). His dismissal of the missile strike meant that Al Qaeda had more time to plan the 911 attacks instead of getting their butts kicked. We all know what happened next. Newt, along with Clinton and Bush (more Clinton and Newt than Bush) bare a large part of the responsibility of the 911 attacks. If Newt had real issues with that first missile strike, he should have spoken up in advance. Instead, he decided to try and use this against Clinton as a means of derailing the dems. Add to this Newt's ethic violations in congress and his big mouth firing off when it should stay closed and you have a recipe for disaster. Newt is a certainly a bright guy and could bring some interesting ideas to the table. However, it?s the rest of the stuff that scares people away from him. America does not need a polarizing president; we need someone who can work between the two parties to get things done.
2004 was the dems race to lose, and they screwed the pooch with Kerry. 2012 is the repubs race to lose. Guess we'll see how they handle it soon.
Andrew
Reply With Quote