Newt was my preferred candidate too, but, he’s realistically out of it.
Now, voting against someone is the same as keeping him from continuing his agenda and his damaging ways. It’s just one way of looking at things.
Voting for Romney is not necessarily endorsing his agenda or policies, but, it’s a way of getting someone in there who is not as dangerous as the Marxist in the White House now, and to me, getting rid of Obama is the number one priority, and getting Romney elected is not a priority at all. But, we have to face the realities, and that is, a vote for Romney is a way to get rid of Obama. Getting rid of Obama is what we need. We can control or neutralize Romney with a more conservative congress.
Not voting doesn’t work at all for conservatism. And, though we’ve heard it millions of times, sometimes, voting for the lesser of two evils might not be the best strategy, but, right now, we do have to get rid of the bigger evil.
But this is no longer about voting for a conservative it's more that those supporting Romney are voting against NEWT.
Refusal to vote for a conservative on the ballot for President (Newt)....and more than experienced and able to do the job for conservatism over that of a well known and established liberal (Romney) defies reason.
Not one individual on this thread has a valid reason for rejecting Newt...rather their arguments are that of voting ‘for’ Romney.....thus against Newt....not Obama.,if they want to play that game.
Do you not see the confusion and utter insanity? Newt can only present himself in the venues who aren't totally opposing his run because Obama does not want to debate Newt....even his campaign people have said as much. It is up to the voter to listen where he can and seek Newt out on line where he stand son the issues....the press will continue to block him out...because they want Romney so that Obama wins. So no....voting "against" Obama when the primary isn't over and Newt's still running, is a vote against Newt...not Obama.