Romney Plays It Safe With Newt
It's no secret that Newt Gingrich is a huge fan of Lincoln-Douglas style debates. Newt loves a good debate and quite frankly can destroy anyone he would go up against. So when a Lincoln-Douglas debate was proposed between Romney and Gingrich, Romney declined.
Romney's refusal may come off as running scared against Gingrich or "playing out the clock", but in reality, it's a smart move.
I remember working for the Patrick Hughes campaign for US Senate. Along with others in the race, now Senator Mark Kirk refused to debate any of the GOP US Senate candidate. Debates were held, but Mark Kirk was a no show. At the time, I raged about Kirk refusing to leave his ivory tower to debate my candidate - or any other of the candidates for that matter. On the practical side, if you are the front runner, why debate? You have nothing to prove, only something to lose.
As with Mark Kirk, Mitt Romney is in the same position. Newt is on top of the polls right now, but over the last 2 months, we have seen no less than 3 different candidates rise to the top only to fall as quickly as they rose. Meanwhile, Romney remains solid with his 20-24% polling. Gingrich is now on top, but for how long? Why would Romney expose his campaign to Gingrich?
Don't get me wrong. I am a full time member of the "anyone but Mitt" movement and I would love to see Newt debate Mitt. To see Newt call into question Romney's backtracking, flip-flopping, less than conservative ways would be well worth the price of admission. I'm just saying Romney refusing to debate Newt is smart politics given the fluid nature of the GOP leaders.
Such is politics. It's not always what we want or want to see happen but you have to see it for what it is - a contest to outlast your opponent.
Romney's refusal may come off as running scared against Gingrich or "playing out the clock", but in reality, it's a smart move.
I remember working for the Patrick Hughes campaign for US Senate. Along with others in the race, now Senator Mark Kirk refused to debate any of the GOP US Senate candidate. Debates were held, but Mark Kirk was a no show. At the time, I raged about Kirk refusing to leave his ivory tower to debate my candidate - or any other of the candidates for that matter. On the practical side, if you are the front runner, why debate? You have nothing to prove, only something to lose.
As with Mark Kirk, Mitt Romney is in the same position. Newt is on top of the polls right now, but over the last 2 months, we have seen no less than 3 different candidates rise to the top only to fall as quickly as they rose. Meanwhile, Romney remains solid with his 20-24% polling. Gingrich is now on top, but for how long? Why would Romney expose his campaign to Gingrich?
Don't get me wrong. I am a full time member of the "anyone but Mitt" movement and I would love to see Newt debate Mitt. To see Newt call into question Romney's backtracking, flip-flopping, less than conservative ways would be well worth the price of admission. I'm just saying Romney refusing to debate Newt is smart politics given the fluid nature of the GOP leaders.
Such is politics. It's not always what we want or want to see happen but you have to see it for what it is - a contest to outlast your opponent.
Posted by downstateiladvocate at 12/2/2011 8:57 PM 
Categories: Politics
Tags: Newt Gingrich Mitt Romney Lincoln Douglas debate GOP Mark Kirk Patrick Hughes
Categories: Politics
Tags: Newt Gingrich Mitt Romney Lincoln Douglas debate GOP Mark Kirk Patrick Hughes
Comments