Seriously? Nice dodge, bill clinton. Let me try again to make the point.. Perhaps we should be looking at the totality of the candidate...their overall value instead of focusing on the flaws and disqualifying every one for one thing or another. Let me give you an example... Did Newt endorse Dede Scozzafava for Congress? Yes he did. Did I agree with it? No I didn't? Is Newt better than Obama for President. Yes he is. Would I rather have Newt or Obama? Newt. Should I go on FR and try to convince everybody Newt is a scumbag? No I shouldnt. Why? Because it strengthens Obama. Now you try it...
Yes seriously. Your "Bill Clinton" slur is despicable. There's nothing wrong with asking that kind of question in order to clarify what people mean, if the statement has more than one possible interpretation.
In this case, it could be that someone is using the "no one is perfect" argument to excuse something bad about a favored candidate, OR it could mean that we should stop concentrating on minor defects (because if we look for them, for sure we will find them) and concentrate on the overall calibre of each candidate. Some will be stronger than others on some issues but not on others. None will match our own opinions perfectly. Its all a question of finding the best match - i.e. the candidate with the most opinions we agree with and the minimum number of contrary ones that we can live with.
Now, let's not pretend there are not other candidates in your equation. Is Newt a Beltway insider who has stabbed conservatives in the back? Yes. Is Newt shilling for amnesty? Yes. Does Newt understand limited federal government? His actions make that highly doubtful.
Are there other GOP candidates without those serious warts? Darn tootin. So they should be ahead of Newt in any consideration of the best anti-Romney for conservatives seeking to change the Beltway political machine for the better.