Ron Paul loved his neighbor(Gingrich) tonight. Did he make a mistake?

[Perry]

The ball was in play and Ron Paul was at bat. He let Gingrich off in a huge way by taking the infidelity question off the table and turning it into something else. Ron Paul was true to his christian values but did he make a mistake in letting Gingrich off the hook? Will media even take note of such a loving act?

 

[mport1]

Voters would not respond well to him attacking Newt on that.

 

[Moo2400]

Voters would not respond well to him attacking Newt on that.

Agreed. He should just stick to attacking Newt on taking money from Freddie Mac and supporting the individual mandate.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

His answer there was one of the best answers he's ever given in a debate

 

[nobody's_hero]

I think even many social conservatives tend to be disappointed by the focus on extra-marital affairs. I mean, many of them are supporting Newt as it is, so I don't know what there would be to gain by Ron challenging Newt on that issue. Ron is going to have to keep focusing on issues that affect the state of the nation, and a politician getting a blow job won't destroy a nation. It might destroy a career but not a nation.

However, getting taxpayer dollars to lobby for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributed in part to a massive housing bubble that ruined the middle class, so Ron knows what to attack with and what to leave alone.

 

[ronpaulitician]

He played it just right.

 

[Working Poor]

Ron is a real conservative so he has grace and gentleness.

 

[Jandrsn21]

It would have been too harsh, and could possibly backfire. Let the media report on this and let voters make up their own minds on issues like this.

 

[economics102]

Are you kidding? He played it brilliantly. He DID get in a subtle jab/contrast by mentioning he's been married to the same woman for 54 years, AND he cleverly spun it into an "oath of office" response.

 

[Perry]

Are you kidding? He played it brilliantly. He DID get in a subtle jab/contrast by mentioning he's been married to the same woman for 54 years, AND he cleverly spun it into an "oath of office" response.

I don't think there was anything clever about it. Ron was being true. Ron Paul saved Newt Gingrich's ass by changing the topic when the infidelity question rolled around to him. The momentum was building like a lead snowball rolling downhill until Paul so lovingly changed the topic and let Gingrich answer the question minus the pressure. Gingrich owes Paul a big fat thank you for what could have been a disaster for Newt.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Concern trolling.

 

[Jodi's mom]

He was true to his character the way he handled it. Who is he to tell anyone what they can or cannot do in their private lives? He believes the same on other issues, drugs, sames-sex marriage, etc. "What you do is your business." You will have to answer for it, not him. If it's not hurting you or anyone else, mind your own business!

 

[Rfalcon51]

His answer to that question was excellent.

 

[Jodi's mom]

I think even many social conservatives tend to be disappointed by the focus on extra-marital affairs. I mean, many of them are supporting Newt as it is, so I don't know what there would be to gain by Ron challenging Newt on that issue. Ron is going to have to keep focusing on issues that affect the state of the nation, and a politician getting a blow job won't destroy a nation. It might destroy a career but not a nation.

However, getting taxpayer dollars to lobby for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributed in part to a massive housing bubble that ruined the middle class, so Ron knows what to attack with and what to leave alone.

All of what you said is well and good, but voters should have enough sense to know that we need a president that is true to his marriage vows, because if he isn't faithful in his personal life, how can we depend on him to keep his oath of office, which none of them have, except Ron Paul and maybe Bachmann and Santorum...and, well, maybe Romney. Character does counts. And it would be a nice change to have an honorable man leading the country. What an example that would be for the country and our image around the world!! A President and First Lady we can be proud of! I'll take it!

 

[LibertyEagle]

There are plenty of substantive issues to go after Gingrich on.

Support for:
Cap and Trade
Gun Control
Amnesty
No Child Left Behind
Dept. of Education
Global Warming regulations, Nancy Pelosi-style
Bailouts
etc.

 

[LibertyEagle]

All of what you said is well and good, but voters should have enough sense to know that we need a president that is true to his marriage vows, because if he isn't faithful in his personal life, how can we depend on him to keep his oath of office, which none of them have, except Ron Paul and maybe Bachmann and Santorum...and, well, maybe Romney. Character does counts. And it would be a nice change to have an honorable man leading the country. What an example that would be for the country and our image around the world!! A President and First Lady we can be proud of! I'll take it!

Yup. I agree with you. Character does count.

 

[Mashedtaders]

Was expecting moderators to bring it up since they clearly saved his answer for last. Good thing that Ron didn't go for it as no one else did. The one thing Ron Paul missed out on tonight was furthering hitting Newt on his lobbying with a rebuttal by enforcing his services are just a fancy word for lobbying.

 

[Golding]

Ron Paul is principled, not desperate.

 

[ryanmkeisling]

He is to principled and has always said that kind of stuff is below the board. It would have made him a hypocrite just like the rest of them, plus I think he truly believes what he says so it probably did not even cross his mind to play the other side..

 

[jct74]

Steve Deace
#RonPaul's answer linking marriage fidelity with the oath of office was one of his best ever as a presidential candidate.

http://twitter.com/#!/stevedeaceshow/status/145697611540733952