Replies

Right.
Newt Gingrich by virtue(something he does not have in sufficient puritan quantities of, to run for higher office, according to comments I have recently noted herein)of being in the race for President, lowers or removes the chance of a "real" definitely more "saintly" candidate with better conservative credentials, and a more fluent, coherent clearheaded manner with which to convince an electorate that a conservative candidate running as a Republican would be better to run the nation and it's business, from emerging to lead the field of candidates on the Republican side. And he cheated on his wife(s)and had girlfriends. And like a glass of maker's Mark or Mccallan, of Sam Adams or hot cocoa, and a cigar. And IS ABLE to express the paleo-conservative position of smaller government, self reliance and strong defense, and sound fiscal policy; i.e., the conservative viewpoint, like NO OTHER Republican candidate that I have heard named to date.(except Haley Barbour) > Look, I accept that there may be a certain ridgity or even a dislike for an individual not imbued with the characteristics of St.Franciso or other such figure, but there needs to be a bit of realism added to the stew. If there is to be an elevation of the debate to clear arguement as to the merits or left vrs right, and right is to win, the spokesman needs to A:Understand the position B:Be capable of explaining that position in a clear manner to persons whose attention is ordinarily geared to the size of some Hollywood Bimbo's bust or butt. C:Defeating in debate, the counter arguement of committed candidates whose position, that of the Democrat Party is geared towards socialism for the USA. If there be a candidate able to perform those tasks, admittedly Herculean, I would look more than once at such a candidacy with favor. Absent that name being put forth, I'll stay with Newt Gingrich as my favored choice.

Don't get me wrong. I don't personally oppose Newt because of moral failings (which, I think, are substantial and probably insurmountable). I fault him for BLABBING too much---because the medium we are in, especially for a conservative, is such that the slightest gaffe will toast you. (See: "macaca")

That's why I think Newt would be of far more value to conservatism in explaining what the "real" candidate "meant" when he said "x,y,z."

Moreover, I think his temperament, via Air Force One incident, is such that he would have "Howard Dean" moments---certainly not as bad, but enough to destroy him.

I wouldn't want him for secretary of anything . . . but would LOVE to have him as the advisor to any president. He is great at saying, "Hey, what if we did this?" but weak at following up, when, say, Suzie won't vote for it unless you give her this project, at finding a way to convince Suzie to give you the vote.

It's the same thing as why I don't want Condi as a candidate. Good advisor. Not all her ideas are great, but some are.

Now, I can't tell you who I would like to see as the candidate. Haven't seen anyone yet who floats my boat. But if it's Newt, we're looking at President Clinton and Vice President Obama.