Replies

Hey, I never said that Newt was perfect, or even particularly good. But let's face it, on a debate the rest of the field looks like a bunch of stumblebums.

I figured out two years ago that we would be lucky if we could avoid a repeat in '12 of the '08 McCain nomination debacle. And I have had the same tagline since January '10.

All the things that are wrong with Newt are things that are not wrong with Palin. And Palin would fight, if nominated. But, just as I feared, she couldn't see her way clear to fight for the nomination and fight the general election campaign. We needed to "draft" her, at least in the sense that we needed a grassroots movement to prepare the way for her primary campaign. But even on FR we had a complete fracture, and no unity at all. So here we are, and our choices leave much to be desired.

My take is that other considerations probably don't matter if we nominate someone who cannot, or will not, fight. Which means, will not confront the Associated Press journalism cabal which is in league with the Democratic Party. It is a tough thing to have to do. But if it were impossible, we would never have had a President Reagan, and we wouldn't have a Governor Christie in New Jersey, either.

Ok so I agree with you on these points. I think his debate skills and ability to deliver a concise and simple enough message gives him a chance to sell his ideas, and they are definitely better than Zero ideas.

I also like his record of helping to bring the Pubbies, the contract with America, and the legislative accomplishments during the Clinton years. A candidates statements at any point in time are less important to me than the actual record and results.

So now that we have established that he is not perfect, what do you see as his 2 biggest weaknesses that might hurt him in the primaries and the General?