I totally agree that Newt, unlike Romney, would be susceptible to powerful pulls from the right. Does that mean he has less of a "tethering?" I dunno. I think Bush was completely tied to one idea, namely that he had to protect the U.S. from foreign attacks at all costs---and that led him to do all sorts of other un-conservative things. Reagan's #1 goal was destroying communism, and that led him to sign off on big-deficit budgets and even to ignore his own policy of no negotiations with terrorists. But he achieved his goal.
I don't think President Newt would ever compromise the safety of the U.S. militarily, nor would he (generally) do anything to harm the U.S. economy. I do think that without proper pressure, he'd cave to the global warming crowd and the single-payer crowd. But he can be pushed and pulled and reasoned with. Romney can't because he is firmly "tethered" . . .
in liberalism.
Agree to some extent.
The problem is that if conservatives don’t kick up a fuss to Newt now, they are forfeiting their leverage to do so later.
Too many see that as working against his election. I don’t, because I think this is a process that is going to happen anyway — it’s just a question of whether conservatives voice their concerns or whether they sit back and let others hold Newt accountable.
I see it as working toward a more consistent and accountable Gingrich administration, should one occur.
Sometimes I think Newt must be pinching himself and saying “my god, those conservatives are easy.”