Replies

[ Pretty clear, here, that Newtster is seeking to "talk down" any success Bush might have in the last two years so as to make a "savior" necessary. ]

-OR- make some sense of republican nonsense.. ANY sense would be welcome.. even if partially correct.. Newt is the closest thing this republic has to anything(electable) thats RIGHT WING.. Literally ALL other prospective (electable) republican candidates are left wing.. Some republicans are WAY left wing.. including the White RINO House..

Newt is the only game in town.. And with Ann Coulter as Campaign Manager he might WIN, 2008.. In that scenario any debates and TV appearances would be delicious.. Simply scrumcious.. Hyperbole would not be needed.. The democrat take over of Congress is hyperbolic enough.. Just speaking the TRUTH (about it) would be hyperbolic..

Really, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid choosing Committee Chairmen?.. May may... and George Bush assuming "the Position" for two years.. The comedy (if presented correctly) would delicious.. Americans love a good laugh even if a zinger is inserted.. Ann is the maven of zingers and Newt can deliver them accuratly.. win, win...

I will certainly agree that there are few people who can clearly and accurately state the conservative position (as most Freepers would interpret it) at ANY level of power in government. Or, rather, I guess I could say that there were some (Santorum, Steele, Blackwell) and they were all defeated last time out.

But, you know, historically parties go through these periods. For the longest time, the only clear anti-Roosevelt voice who was consistently consistent was Robert A. Taft. And, on the other side, going further back, William Jennings Bryan consistently put forward the (losing) Dem position.

Nevertheless, Newt better decide quickly if he's a pundit or a candidate, because the latter does NOT have the freedom to muse intellectually the way Newt likes to do.