Replies

OK.
If you believe that.
His money, his run, and I do not see the harm to the right.
Except some Republican candidates may look like a
load of not too bright wish-I-weres, or shoulda studieds.
He has not made many public gaffes, and I would say his greatest threat is to the Republicans on the primary stage with him in positional or philosophical debate.
Implode/Explode? I do not think so.
Dead Tree media hate for him? Of course they hate Newt.
They hate all but the most pallid, beige, RINOs or the "Dont I appear to be almost a Democrat" candidates, who will try to make grey any Republican platform. Newt is the un-Christy Whitman. The un-Lamar Alexander, the un-John McCain, and certainly the debate between a dullard and dull speaker like Hillary Clinton or an empty suit script reader as is B.Hussein Obama, would be delicious for those with a taste for watching the word by word destruction and philosophical bloodletting of political lightweights, who have gained their stature from the unearned adulation of their suporters and the inflation of reputation that comes from constant political undermatching and industrial strength ass kissing./p>

Big problem for your thesis: if HE becomes the focus of all the candidates---and there is, in fact, someone else better out there---then all Newt does is "Dean-ize" the GOP throughout the primaries.

Note how seldom Reagan was "mis-quoted." He said things simply, in straightforward terms, and didn't try to impress people with how smart he was (even though he really was brilliant).

Over and over again in the late 20th century we have seen that the "Medium IS the Message," and you get much further with someone who isn't a lightning rod, but who can quietly establish conservative principles, than with a bombast who gets the conversation sidetracked by his personality all the time.