In the style of the previous Gingrich-Cain and Gingrich-Huntsman Lincoln-Douglas debates, Newt Gingrich invited (challenged I supposed) Mitt Romney to a similar format 1-on-1 discussion of the issues. Romney declined the invitation citing the numerous debates which have already taken place.

Report from the Associated Press:

BETHLEHEM, N.H. (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Thursday spurned chief rival Newt Gingrich’s challenge for a one-on-one debate in the run up to the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses but dismissed the notion – suggested by the former House speaker – that he was afraid to participate in such a face-off.

“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.”

Gingrich was campaigning Thursday in Virginia, the day after inviting Romney to debate him and discuss negative TV ads that Romney’s allies are running in Iowa. Gingrich focused largely on Obama at his first stop but had several events planned throughout the day.

Romney’s response about being respectful to the other candidates is reasonable given the fluidity of the polls. That being said, I think this would have been a debate worth watching. Gingrich likes this format and it suits him well so it is no surprise he’d like to lure Romney into Lincoln-Douglas setting.

12 COMMENTS

  1. Well done Romney!
    ROMNEY became one of only 15 students to enroll at the recently created joint Juris Doctor/Master of Business Administration four-year program coordinated between Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School.[39] Fellow students considered Romney guilelessly optimistic, noting his strong work ethic along with a buttoned-down demeanor and appearance. He graduated in 1975 cum laude from the law school, in the top third of that class, and was named a Baker Scholar for graduating in the top five percent of his business school class. He has received four honorary doctorates: an Honorary Doctor of Business from the University of Utah in 1999, an Honorary Doctor of Law from Bentley College in 2002, an Honorary Doctor of Public Administration from Suffolk University Law School in 2004, and an Honorary Doctor of Public Service from Hillsdale College in 2007. Romney has one wife of 42 yrs. and have five children. ROMNEY GOT THE BRAIN TO FIX OUR ECONOMY.
    GINGRICH attended Emory University and received his Ph.D. from Tulane University. In the 1970s he taught history and geography at West Georgia College. Following a poor Republican showing in the 1998 Congressional election, Gingrich resigned from the House on November 5, 1998, under pressure from his Republican colleagues. In the 13 years after resigning from the House, Gingrich has become a highly paid political consultant. He made over 1.6 million out of Freddie Mac in honoraries. He has written or co-authored 23 books including historical fiction. In 1990 he cheated his second wife with the mistress Callista Bisek, his Congressional aide. Callista the mistress should not be our First Lady. I rather keep Michelle. I saw Gingrich blinking to somebody a couple of times, during the last debate. Hmm, I wonder, remember Clinton and Monica. WE DON’T NEED ANOTHER SOUP OPERA IN WHITE HOUSE! A snake is still a snake when it sheds it’s skin…Newt is no different. Children working, parents unemployed.

    • I don’t know if I could support a guy like Mitt Romney who receives a “Lion-Share” of his Campaign Contributions from Wall Street Plutocrats. Aren’t these Plutocratic “Crooks” the same Campaign Donors which DECIMATED our Economy with Credit Default Swaps, Mortgage Backed Securities and a Derivative Market that is about to DECIMATE Europe and the Euro? It would seem that they are “Buying” or “Bribing” a seat at the Table of a “would-be” President.

      And aren’t Gingrich and Romney are cut from the same cloth? I mean, they BOTH supported TARP, the Patriot Act and the unconstitutional wars overseas. What’s the Difference? There is none…

      • Darryl, I have to agree with you here! Phonies and Crooks, their actions clearly state this. That’s why I thought it was so ironic and funny when they started debating about their money status.

  2. Romney is like the play ground bully. He likes to torment, lie about and push other people around. When someone stands up to him, HE WIMPS OUT.

  3. The question is still the same. Do you want the economy and job situation to improve? If you do, Newt is your guy, if NOT, vote for the other guy, any “other” guy.

  4. The first poster can’t even string a sentence together when not copying and pasting, and the next two should hop a flight to North Korea and see how well socialism works out for them. The jist of this is that Romney is a wimp. He knows damn well that he can’t hold a candle to Newt. Newt would eat him and Obama alive in a fair debate. This leaves him with attack ads and smear campaigns. Hope this big phony sleeps well at night, because in the daylight we all know him to be what he is, a coward.

    • You don’t have to be a socialist to dislike both Romney and Gingrich. In fact, a true conservative should dislike both of these flip flopping centrists.

    • Angela

      Oh Please. Who the hell does Newt Gingrich think he is anyway? Does he believe that he is the “reincarnation” of Abraham Lincoln in order to promote a Lincoln/Douglas style Debate Format? Give me a break!

      I’ve noticed that he hasn’t sent out an invitation to Ron Paul to debate him. Why? Because Ron Paul would debate by “DEFENDING” the Constitution, which Newt Gingrich wants to abolish. Don’t believe me? Look up what Gingrich says about “The Third Wave”.

      Newt Gingrich is SO WRONG for America. He’s a Plutocrat, a Warmonger and a LIAR!

      Yesterday, Gingrich said he couldn’t vote for Ron Paul if he were to become the GOP nominee and called the Texas congressman’s views “totally outside the mainstream of every DECENT American.”

      I say “Only Newt Gingrich could make being a DECENT American sound like a BAD thing.”

      In a nutshell… Newt couldn’t vote for Newt, if Newt knew what Newt is doing!

  5. Newt has the best plan of all the candidates on his website. Some of it worked under Reagan and the new stuff is just what we need right now. Read it for yourself and all the other candidates. I do not want Romney as president, or Paul or Santorum for that matter. Newt is my choice!

    • Linda

      I would suggest you read Newt’s Plan a little more closely and reconsider.

      Under Newt’s Plan, there will be NO “spending cuts”. In fact, there will be NO spending cuts in sequestration (removal) or in anything else. Do you know how the CURRENT SERVICES BASELINE BUDGET works? The current services baseline Budget “projects an increase” of a “percentage” to the Budget Baseline every year. Well, an INCREASED PERCENTAGE is always applied in the SAME MANNER every year to the Baseline.

      When was the last time the Budget went DOWN on anything? It DOESN’T happen! So, if something is “projected” to go UP (increase) a “percentage” in the Budget, and they build that “projection” to the Budget Baseline, what Politicians do is they “decrease” the “percentage” and then they call it a “spending cut”. But it’s NOT REALLY a “cut” at all because it’s not cutting from the BASELINE. It’s just cutting from the “percentage” of the INCREASE.

      When you understand the current services baseline budgeting process, you become “shocked” to realize that there is NO REAL CUT from a baseline-of-zero. There will only be a reduction in the “percentage” that it was supposed to be increased. Thus, SPENDING “always” INCREASES and “never” DECREASES.

      Ron Paul’s Plan is the ONLY “Honest” Plan which delivers “Spending Cuts” from a baseline of zero. His Plan cuts $1 TRILLION in the first year of his Presidency.

      His Plan delivers “Actual Cuts” in sequestration (removal) of 5 “Wasteful and Failed” Government Departments FULL of Bureaucrats which will ‘do away’ with the “needless and burdensome” Regulations and Mandates that INCREASE Costs and “stifle competition”. By doing this, Ron Paul delivers the “control” of most of what these 5 Government Departments do, back to the States, in accordance to Our Constitution.

      His Plan also delivers “Actual Cuts” to Military Spending (NOT Defense Spending – there is a difference), by closing Military Bases around the World and turns-over managing of security (borders) of these Countries where we have these Bases, “back” to the Governments who SHOULD be maintaining them and PAYING for them.

      There is MUCH MORE to his “Plan” to get into now, but you can read it at http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/ . It is quite DETAILED but it’s “HONEST”, unlike the other Candidates, including Newt Gingrich’s Plan.

      Ron Paul – The ONLY TRUE STATESMAN running for President!

  6. Why you would post such ill informed peoples comments such as Darrell and Linda is beyond me. Talk about folks who have not a key of knowledge of what they are talking about puts them at the top.

    Why don’t they read articles, listen to the news, read newspapers & watch TV news so at least they sound half way like they know wht they’re talking about.

    • Jim

      May I suggest that you do your own research instead of believing everything you read in the newspapers or what you watch on TV or what you listen to on the news.

      The purpose of “Propaganda” is to “brainwash” the masses. It’s been used by Government and the Media throughout history to make “Wrong” seem “Right”, and “Lies” seem like “Truth”.

      When viewing and/or researching a candidate’s “Record” concerning the Issues, EVIDENCE surfaces as to their REAL Positions on these Issues. And in the Socratic “Quest for Truth”, Evidence should NEVER be “filtered” even though we may find it personally repugnant or when we discover that it goes against our own personal values. It’s up to you what you do with that Evidence.

Comments are closed.