Can win Obama win a debate Against Newt ??

[Rinata]

Gingrich will dominate given the volumes of history he retains in his brain.........and the k00ks know it too. Gingrich's recall of history is computer-like. Obama couldnt give a rats ass about history.
So how does the dynamic play out? Over the course of the debate, one thing will be very clear and that is that Gingrich will convey wisdom.....something Obama on his best day cant do, nor can any of the GOP candidates by the way. So to the viewer, it will look like The Talking Points Candidate vs. The Candidate that Understands the Issue.

So the only important question becomes.......who do the Independents think won the debate? And lets face it.......to a majority of the Independents, Obama is viewed largely as a fraud from the get-go given what he said in 2008 and how he has governed in the 3 years since, thus, it would take a major gaffe from Gingrich. Not likely.

One thing is 100% certain about this debate. Unlike the spectacularly boring John McCain and more than any debate in memory, at the end, Gingrich will have defined the issues in such a way that it will be very evident that there are two very distinct choices for the America voter in 2012: Continue on the path to American socialism......or not.

Are you kidding??? In his brain??? That is pitiful!!!

 

[Politician]

Obama will kick his ass and Newt will get red in the face and his temper will be on display. He is no match for the prez. None of that motley group of candidates is.

Give specifics why each candidate will not be able to out debate Obama.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

OMG! The dude wiped popcorn off his hands on his pants! HORRORS!

Damn.

How much more revealing can you get than that??

Over your head buy a mile ,he is just a guy that thinks he is bigger than he is,but people fall all over him.Brilliant!!!??? hardly

Meanwhile, he's sitting in the White House, the most powerful man in the free world,

...and you piddle in your basement typing out useless, angry screeds.

Only until Jan 2013. Hopefully Obama will be a bit more intelligent and respectful of everyday Americans and not set any more expense records like he did during his inauguration. Only a complete idiot looking to his ego would spend that much money during the "biggest economic recession since the great depression", while "claiming" he understands the needs of the American people.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, in his speeches, his debate performances, his accomplishments.

Reading off a screen doesn't prove brilliance.
What accomplishments?

In the debate performances, there were no teleprompters.

I'm sure you're familiar with his academic achievements and work achievements.

I'm sure you've heard his speeches. This one is a masterpiece:

Text of Obama’s Speech: A More Perfect Union - Washington Wire - WSJ

I didn't say there was a teleprompter during his debates.
No, I'm not familiar with his acedemic achievements. Can you provide grades or test scores or legal articles he wrote?
List the work accomplishments that prove his brilliance. Thanks!

 

[JoeB131]

You are entitled to your misinformed opinion, JoeB, of course. I support that.

If you think the Tea Party is the salvation of the GOP in the future, that is a mistaken opinion as well.

I think that if you take a list of major TEA party positions, that taxes are too high, that deficit spending is bad, that the government is too bloated and to inefficient, most Americans agree with that. Because it's all true. In fact, I have yet to hear you tell me what position the TEA party has taken that is so unacceptable to you.

I think that if you take solid positions like cutting the deficit, making the wealthy pay their fair share, and keeping the middle class and lower class tax cuts as they are: most Americans would agree.

The Tea Party misbehavior in Congress is one of the reasons and the House's GOP popularity rating is the lowest in the history of the House.

The Democrats are also at lows in their popularity... so that argument doesn't wash.

Incidently the TEA party thinks the wealthy ARE paying their fair share. I think that's just a matter for argument. The top 1% pays half the income taxes. Half the country pays no income tax at all... how is that not fair?

So what "misbehavior" are you referring to? That they actually did what they promised?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You are entitled to your misinformed opinion, JoeB, of course. I support that.

If you think the Tea Party is the salvation of the GOP in the future, that is a mistaken opinion as well.

I don't know if you saw my response post to yours but I asked you a question in it. Here it goes again:

What do you think was the nonsense that the Tea Party ran on that as you say...'fooled electorates'?

Answered: the misbehavior of the Tea Party that resulted in the lowest popularity rating for a House ever.

You can try to spin this any way you want, but tell me . . . which direction are the Senate and Obama's approval numbers going?

 

[JoeB131]

Shackles, I'm not sure what Jake's problem is with the TEA Party.

I think his real problem is with the religious right, and he can't seem to make a distinction between the two.

 

[asaratis]

Sooo, you ask a question - and then answer it...

Obama is brilliant; he's the incumbent - and he has inside knowledge that Newt isn't privy to...

So, yes, I would expect Obama to win a debate against Newt.

I would have qualified the answer a bit. Obama could not win a debate with a third grader without using a teleprompter and I think those are not allowed in a debate. Of course, by the time Obama debates Newt, the libs will have come up with some rules that allow ear buds and teleprompters so the boy can listen to his advisers as they recall the most recent version of what he should say.

 

[frazzledgear]

No doubt Obama can mix it up when he has to. Just look at his speech this week on his foreign policy. Obama can also be charming, academic and humorous

Newt is just Newt. Surly and condescending

It will not bode well with the American public at large

Obama I'm sure is a great eloquent speaker, but the people are looking for someone who will do more than simply read off a teleprompter, but actually stand up and do something to lead. All this President has done was look to someone to hand off responsibility to get a certain task done, while he engages the American people with more "talk". People are looking for action. You can site a do nothing Congress, but a do nothing President who hasn't proven himself in 3 YEARS that he can lead or take a STAND on a difficult position (like the Keystone Pipeline) only magnifies how much of a failure this administration has been.

The voters in this next election are going to have to choose between "speeches", or a new President that's not afraid to actually DO something to get jobs into the hands of the American people.

Blah blah blah.

Its all rhetorical nonsense. "We need a leader" is like the clarion call of the republican party today.

Its nonsense. Its a myth created by the determination of republican legislators to hold up all progress. We live in a democracy, the president cannot just do whatever he wants. If you have republicans in congress just holding up all progress, he cant exactly lead. Especially when hes crucified as a tyrant whenever he tries to exercise leadership and bypass an inept congress.

Its ok though, your going to have to deal with him until 2016.

Lol i love when people harp on obama for using a teleprompter. Its hilarious. Bush read off note cards and palin wrote on her hand. Your a bunch of fools.

I cannot believe you are spewing the patter about Republicans "holding" up all progress. We saw EXACTLY what that "progress" was when Democrats held super majorities in both houses of Congress and didn't need a single Republican vote to ram through anything they wanted. Which is EXACTLY why Americans fixed that big mistake at midterms. To put a stop to that kind of "progress". Are you seriously suggesting Americans actually wanted to see Democrats continue ramming unwanted laws down their throats? ROFL -there is a reason voters stripped Democrats of total power! If you think calling Congress "do-nothing" in the belief that will make voters change their mind about Obama and what happens with Democrat super majorities in Congress and return full control of Congress and the White House to Democrats -you are nuts, and so seriously nuts it calls into serious question how solid one's footing is in this dimension. And ISN'T it interesting that when Democrats are in power they think they have a mandate to ram through whatever catches their fancy -but the moment Republicans are favored in elections, they start screeching about how Republicans are supposed to COMPROMISE. Which Republican was elected in order to COMPROMISE with Democrats? I can point out which ones were elected on their promise to bring Obama's agenda to a screeching halt though! No Republican EVER gets elected by promising to COMPROMISE with Democrats, by promising to adopt the Democrat agenda or by promising to start acting like a Democrat! If that is what voters wanted -they would elect the fucking Democrat, wouldn't they?

You morons act like Obama is the very first President to deal with a Congress under split control or even under the total control of the other party. Are you for REAL? This is where actually possessing LEADERSHIP skills is required in the job. You know, that missing ingredient Obama has NEVER had in his life? Something that differentiates the basic skills needed for an executive job as opposed to a legislative one? And people elected this guy without even knowing if he could do the job of Senator! But the man has never once had a job that required leadership and executive skills -and NO, running for elected office actually does NOT require any "leadership skills". This guy made NO attempt to get HIS stuff passed -he merely waited for others to take the ball and when Republicans came up with ideas, expected Democrats to throw a wrench in it. He was a bystander waiting for someone else to take the lead and came to the table empty-handed. Something by the way I have never seen ANY President do in my entire life -but THAT is his idea of being "Presidential" and his real story.

Now I don't care if you liked Bush policies or not, but there is no denying the man had executive and leadership skills. Bush was able to get a Congress controlled by the other party to pass HIS bills -you know, the ones HE proposed as opposed to Obama who sits back waiting for others to take the lead? In spite of having to drag Democrats kicking and screaming -he was still able to get them to pass every single thing he asked for. THAT is what having executive and leadership skills really looks like -and why public speaking skills actually don't count for much at all. Obama oozes public speaking skills, but comes up a big, fat zero on executive and leadership skills. Bush never once blamed Democrats, the weather, tsunamis, the American people etc. for HIS shortcomings. That is strictly a WEAK LIBERAL thing to do. But Bush had what Obama wishes he had -the critically necessary executive and leadership skills to even do the damn job! It is why only ONE person gets to be President, the ONE guy with the BASIC skills needed to even do the job effectively. You pick that guy and he can still get 100 Senators and 435 or so House Representatives in a Congress controlled by the other party to give him everything he wanted.

Most people do not have leadership and executive skills -which is why most politicians never run for an executive office. They know it is outside their skill set. All elected offices are NOT interchangeable -which is why the President is in a totally different branch of government just as judges are. Also not interchangeable with the other two branches. Outstanding leadership and executive skills are rarer still. Obama never once held any position that required executive and leadership skills -none. For a reason -he didn't have any. People hoped Obama could develop them -but when Democrats lost full control of Congress, there was no hiding the fact any longer this guy hasn't a clue how to even BE President and has never stopped being a political hack. Because THAT is where his skills lie. When a President has a long list of who to blame for his failures as President -you are listening to someone who doesn't belong in the job at all. I don't want to listen this man insist the buck stops with Bush, tsunamis, Congress, the weather, the Tea Party, the Chamber of Congress, corporations, successful Americans and the American people themselves ever again. But never with him. Not once. Harry Truman this guy AIN'T -and he ain't Ronald Reagan, he ain't Teddy Roosevelt and he ain't Abraham Lincoln. All men who had what he totally lacks -outstanding executive and leadership skills. The reason he wants to pretend he is -is because he hasn't a clue how to be a President at all, much less his own unique one. He doesn't know how to BE President -because he was never qualified for the job in the first place. His total lack of leadership and executive skills are even MORE glaringly obvious today than three years ago when people kept their fingers crossed he might be one of the rare ones who can develop them on the job. He isn't -and he didn't.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Newt: We need to maintain tax cuts for Billionaires

Obama: Smiles

Obama has had 3 years to raise taxes on billionaires.
Instead he passed an increasingly unpopular healthcare bill.
He greatly expanded the deficit and unemployment is still too high.

Correction: increasingly popular. A majority of americans support the individual mandate now.

And actually obama has only had a filibuster proof senate for about 6 months.

And you realize he ran on his healthcare bill right? And you realize that CBO says it will save $200 billion right? And you realize the entire point of the law is to shift the cost of healthcare away from businesses right?

Do you understand the healthcare law at all?

Yes, and the model for Obamacare came from Massachusettes. We can see how much surplus THAT state is enjoying since the state government took over. I'd rather go with concrete figures like what happened to healthcare in Massachusetts with the last 5 years, over any CBO that has to keep changing his figures. Which all the CBO gives is wishful thinking estimates NOT facts. FACTS can be found when Romneycare was implemented, and the impact it created.

 

[rightwinger]

Sooo, you ask a question - and then answer it...

Obama is brilliant; he's the incumbent - and he has inside knowledge that Newt isn't privy to...

So, yes, I would expect Obama to win a debate against Newt.

I would have qualified the answer a bit. Obama could not win a debate with a third grader without using a teleprompter and I think those are not allowed in a debate. Of course, by the time Obama debates Newt, the libs will have come up with some rules that allow ear buds and teleprompters so the boy can listen to his advisers as they recall the most recent version of what he should say.

He managed to destroy the Presidential aspirations of both Hillary Clinton and John McCain during the last round of debates. He will do the same to Gingrich if he ever gets that far.

Not bad for a telepromter reader

 

[Jackson]

Sooo, you ask a question - and then answer it...

Obama is brilliant; he's the incumbent - and he has inside knowledge that Newt isn't privy to...

So, yes, I would expect Obama to win a debate against Newt.

I would have qualified the answer a bit. Obama could not win a debate with a third grader without using a teleprompter and I think those are not allowed in a debate. Of course, by the time Obama debates Newt, the libs will have come up with some rules that allow ear buds and teleprompters so the boy can listen to his advisers as they recall the most recent version of what he should say.

He managed to destroy the Presidential aspirations of both Hillary Clinton and John McCain during the last round of debates. He will do the same to Gingrich if he ever gets that far.

Not bad for a telepromter reader

But he hasn't come across Newt. A new story altogether. We'll see.

 

[rightwinger]

I would have qualified the answer a bit. Obama could not win a debate with a third grader without using a teleprompter and I think those are not allowed in a debate. Of course, by the time Obama debates Newt, the libs will have come up with some rules that allow ear buds and teleprompters so the boy can listen to his advisers as they recall the most recent version of what he should say.

He managed to destroy the Presidential aspirations of both Hillary Clinton and John McCain during the last round of debates. He will do the same to Gingrich if he ever gets that far.

Not bad for a telepromter reader

But he hasn't come across Newt. A new story altogether. We'll see.

Newt has never enamored himself with the American public. He comes across as surly and sanctimonious.

Newt will have a hard time selling his message without reverting to tactical blunders. His Palestine blunder this week is the first of many "oh shit" moments for Newt and show why he is not ready for primetime

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

No doubt Obama can mix it up when he has to. Just look at his speech this week on his foreign policy. Obama can also be charming, academic and humorous

Newt is just Newt. Surly and condescending

It will not bode well with the American public at large

Obama I'm sure is a great eloquent speaker, but the people are looking for someone who will do more than simply read off a teleprompter, but actually stand up and do something to lead. All this President has done was look to someone to hand off responsibility to get a certain task done, while he engages the American people with more "talk". People are looking for action. You can site a do nothing Congress, but a do nothing President who hasn't proven himself in 3 YEARS that he can lead or take a STAND on a difficult position (like the Keystone Pipeline) only magnifies how much of a failure this administration has been.

The voters in this next election are going to have to choose between "speeches", or a new President that's not afraid to actually DO something to get jobs into the hands of the American people.

Blah blah blah.

Its all rhetorical nonsense. "We need a leader" is like the clarion call of the republican party today.

Its nonsense. Its a myth created by the determination of republican legislators to hold up all progress. We live in a democracy, the president cannot just do whatever he wants. If you have republicans in congress just holding up all progress, he cant exactly lead. Especially when hes crucified as a tyrant whenever he tries to exercise leadership and bypass an inept congress.

Its ok though, your going to have to deal with him until 2016.

Lol i love when people harp on obama for using a teleprompter. Its hilarious. Bush read off note cards and palin wrote on her hand. Your a bunch of fools.

Yes those Republicans SURE stopped Obamacare from becoming law didn't they? The Democrats under Pelosi, had Congress held up for MONTHS trying to get it passed, as it was her own party NOT Republicans behind the much needed votes for passage. Pelosi put the economy on HOLD, closed the doors of transparency (a great speech "lie" by Obama to the American people), and didn't let the Congressmen go home to listen to their constituents but pushed for passage over the voice of the voting districts they represented. Yet with all the Republican opposition, and months of squabbling within the Democratic party, Democrats STILL walked away with Government Health Care. Don't try and sell me this crap of obstruction. President Obama didn't have much trouble at all seeing passage of Stimulus I, Obamacare, Cash For Clunkers, Bank Regulation, Foreclosure Bailouts, Credit Card regulations, etc. Not much Republicans can do to stop Obama's spending spree until 2011.

 

[francoHFW]

Paul Krugman: "Newt Gingrich is the stupid person's idea of what an intelligent person sounds like."

Obama would totally abuse him. Except for the 30% brainwashed dittoheads...

 

[Katzndogz]

Libs keep lying.

No a majority does NOT support obamacare. Most still favor its repeal.

obama beat McCain because obama is black. obama beat Hillary because the DNC ordered the delegates already pledged to Hillary to change to obama.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sooo, you ask a question - and then answer it...

Obama is brilliant; he's the incumbent - and he has inside knowledge that Newt isn't privy to...

So, yes, I would expect Obama to win a debate against Newt.

I would have qualified the answer a bit. Obama could not win a debate with a third grader without using a teleprompter and I think those are not allowed in a debate. Of course, by the time Obama debates Newt, the libs will have come up with some rules that allow ear buds and teleprompters so the boy can listen to his advisers as they recall the most recent version of what he should say.

He managed to destroy the Presidential aspirations of both Hillary Clinton and John McCain during the last round of debates. He will do the same to Gingrich if he ever gets that far.

Not bad for a telepromter reader

He didn't have 3 years of failed leadership to defend when debating Clinton and McCain.
Hope and change, how inspiring! LOL!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Oh yes....same old "Obama can't speak without a telepromter" nonsense

Obama trounced McCain regardless of the debate format. There were no telepromters for either side. Candidates did not know the questions in advance, but Obama was prepared.

He will also be prepared to discuss Newts proposed policies and what they would mean to the American people

All Newt has to do is look at the camera and say how many of you are enjoying Obama's Hope and Change when you get together at the diner table? Are you able to make the income you used to? Do you have a steady job? Are you able to do more than just "get by" with your bills? If the answer to any of these questions is no, are you prepared to go through 4 more years of the same policies by this man? Is THIS today, the promise of hope and change that you wanted for you and your family?

While you want that to be the message, it hardly will.

Obama has not lowered income at all. Bush has done that. Obama has made a great deal of progress fixing it.

Is this your definition of an Obama "FIX" with respect to the economy? WOW! I Hate to see what a failure looks like.

I'm sure you are Intelligent enough to figure out what the term "under-employment" means. You don't need me to explain it to you, do you? As you can see the under-employment numbers remained high well after the passage of the 2009 Stimulus failure.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Oh yes....same old "Obama can't speak without a telepromter" nonsense

Obama trounced McCain regardless of the debate format. There were no telepromters for either side. Candidates did not know the questions in advance, but Obama was prepared.

He will also be prepared to discuss Newts proposed policies and what they would mean to the American people

All Newt has to do is look at the camera and say how many of you are enjoying Obama's Hope and Change when you get together at the diner table? Are you able to make the income you used to? Do you have a steady job? Are you able to do more than just "get by" with your bills? If the answer to any of these questions is no, are you prepared to go through 4 more years of the same policies by this man? Is THIS today, the promise of hope and change that you wanted for you and your family? Newt can deliver, and Obama would be forced to see his record front and center on the minds of the American people.

Sounds like Newt is making an appeal to the 99%. He will have to explain how he intends to help them by protecting the 1%

I'm sure that's your view on tax cuts. I mean when there is a need to go looking for a job you approach someone that's making under $60,000 for your next job interview? I mean looking to a businessman for employment, who has over $1 million in business assets, would make absolutely no sense at all. Why help businesses hire? Take more taxes out of their pockets, force them to comply with the expense of complying with even MORE government regulations, push regulations on banks (making it harder for them to give out much needed business loans to an individual so they can run their company), and the owner obviously has extra money he can simply pull out of nowhere to hire you.

Perhaps you have the CEO confused with the Federal Government, who can "legally" just print out more money whenever they decide they need it.

 

[yidnar]

Gingrich will lose a debate with Obama if he states the Supreme Court is not in the Constitution or that public sector employees should be fired and replaced by minor children.

That type if ignorance and idiocy is all that’s heard from Gingrich; his ‘brilliance’ and ‘intelligence’ clearly a myth.

Newt isn't brilliant. He's an idiot with an articulate speaking style that just sounds brilliant.

and he needs a teleprompter to pull that bullshit off !!! OH MY BAD ....I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT !!