If Kenny Blankenship hadn't become the governor of Miyazaki prefecture 2 months ago, I'd start a movement to draft him for the Republican nomination.

The Newt campaign is over before it started, even if he did claim he wasn't a hypocrite for castigating Clinton for his moral turpitude. He's about as electable as Kucinich and just as extreme.

Newt's electoral prospects are non-existent, but to compare him to Kucinich is inaccurate. For all his missteps, Gingrich is a serious person with substantive policy positions that are well-considered in their aims and effects. You may disagree with his views, but he isn't frivolous in his political commentary. Anyone who would say that about Dennis Kucinich is either willfully unaware or deluded. I think Gingrich has assumed a role of Deliberative Party Policy Comptemplater because he thinks about the future, policies and their effects, and political direction--and he sometimes seems like the only person doing those things outside the framework of tomorrow's headlines. It seems obvious he hasn't totally given up on the idea of being President someday, but he doesn't strike me as the kind of person who is going to waste his time, or others, in a pointless campaign with no chance of success.

> Gingrich is a serious person with substantive policy positions that are well-considered in their aims and effects.

"If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for 30 days because they get infections."

“A mere forty years ago, beach volleyball was just beginning. No bureaucrat would have invented it, and that's what freedom is all about.”

“I have enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I’m doing it. I am now a famous person. I represent real power.”

“You can't trust anybody with power”

“The idea that a congressman would be tainted by accepting money from private industry or private sources is essentially a socialist argument.”

“This is not one person doing one bad thing. You can't have a corrupt lobbyist unless you have a corrupt member (of Congress) or a corrupt staff. ... This was a team effort.”

“It's going to be a bummer if Mars turns out to be like us.”

“I'm not a natural leader. I'm too intellectual; I'm too abstract; I think too much.”

“We must expect the Soviet system to survive for a very long time. There will be Soviet labor camps and Soviet torture chambers well into our grandchildren’s lives.”

“Kill jobs and lead to a recession, force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit.” (1993)

“In Washington DC 800 babies are left in dumpsters a year.” (number was actually 4)

“Most People don’t realize it’s illegal to pray in school, most people somehow think that’s not true.”

“The problem isn’t too little money in political campaigns, but not enough.”

C'mon, Will. That's just silly.

Newt is extremely intelligent, well-spoken, and thoughtful. How many stupid statements have you or any of us made in the past 15 years? Even his worst enemies acknowldedge and respect his intellect. (Kinda the Rep version of Slick Willie.)

You and I agree that he can't win, but suggesting he's not a serious thinker and doing so by tossing in some random, out-of-context quotes you found on the internet is not very persuasive.

So, I confess, I am a Newt guy.

He is the smartest, most knowledgable, most articuate person on either side of the aisle.

He is a student and a teacher of history.

I sincerely doubt he can ever get the nomination, let alone win the general election.

But he has serious thoughts and serious ideas and he adds a quantum of quality to the equation when he is in the room.

America benefits from his candidacy.

You have a very firm grasp on the conventional wisdom, however we live in unconventional times.

While the conservatives look for an easier path than Newt, it looks like Fred Thompson will suck up some of the available oxygen that could have helped him.

I'm sitting this one out for a while to watch the play unfold. The grassroots organizers are stepping it up for Rudy and Mitt, at least around here. John seems to be falling off a little more every day.

“We must expect the Soviet system to survive for a very long time. There will be Soviet labor camps and Soviet torture chambers well into our grandchildren’s lives.”

I don't know if ANYONE got that right, even Ronald Reagan. George H.W. Bush as much as admits in the Bush/Scowcroft book that he was surprised at the rapid changes.

Giuliani is far from Republican. With regard to social issues, putting him in the White House would not be an accomplishment.

It would keep Hillary out and protect the furniture, silverware and dishes.

“We must expect the Soviet system to survive for a very long time. There will be Soviet labor camps and Soviet torture chambers well into our grandchildren’s lives.”

Shit OE, you think they're gone? The only thing that changes in Russia/Soviet Union is the names.

Everyone, take a moment to wish Straw and Wil speedy recoveries!

Fred Thompson!! Fred Thompson!!

Awesome facts:

* Not only does Fred Thompson cut taxes, he cuts tax collectors.

* The reason Fred Thompson didn't want to stay in the Senate for long is because all the extra scrutiny kept him from doing his favorite hobby: Prowling the streets at night killing drug dealers.

* Fred Thompson reconsidered running for reelection after 9/11 but later decided to handle things on his own. He was soon seen entering the Middle East with a bottle of tequila in one hand an a handgun in the other. They're still counting the dead.

* When terrorists get to the afterlife, they'll find that none of their seventy-two women are still virgins. Why? Because of Fred Thompson.

* If Fred Thompson was at Thermopylae the movie would have been called "1", and we'd all be wondering if Persia really ever existed.

Apparently Chuck Norris morphed into Fred Thompson.

After a night of partying, Fred Thompson doesn't throw up; he throws down.

Please remember how instrumental Newt was with the Contract for America. It may seem silly now but this had real resonance with the voters. And that Congressional class kept almost all of it's pledges. He was also key in making Georgia the mostly Republican state it now is. (Even if people here do cut their hands off occasionally)

I can remember back when Newt would be down in the well late at night before the Republicans took over. Watching him on C-Span after everyone else had gone home was inspirational to a geek like me. I never dreamed my party would eventually run the place, and I certainly never thought they would fritter it all away as they did recently.

There's so much disdain for Newt on the left that he's not viable with the Reagan type crossovers. But Shelly's right, he's invaluable as a canidate to keep the debate fresh.

>>> Giuliani is far from Republican. With regard to social issues, putting him in the White House would not be an accomplishment

Rudy as NYC mayor — "government exists above all to keep people safe in their homes and in the streets," he (Guilani) said, "not to redistribute income, run a welfare state, or perform social engineering. The private economy, not government, creates opportunity," he argued; "government should just deliver basic services well and then get out of the private sector’s way."

We have just had 6 years of both Republican majorities in Congress and control of the Executive branch. Would you say the result over the last 6 years has been a trend to or away from Rudy's view? As for social issues, again - what has 6+ years of Republican control achieved? If the 109th Congress represents "Republican" views in action, I'm ready for another version of Republicanism.

Except for nominating judges, how much real influence on "social" positions do you expect from the next President regardless of party?
The Defense of Marriage Act was signed by a Democratic President. Hillary may say one thing to homosexual activist groups in private, but do you think she'll get that law legislatively changed? Notice how she deftly avoids that issue when speaking at Black churches (since African-American Christians largely support state initiatives similar to DOMA).

Take "gays" in the military. Changing the policy isn't the elephant in the room. That issue is when gay servicemembers want to get the benefits for their "married" partners -- and federal law prohibits those benefits. Think Congress (even if democratic controlled) is going to override DOMA? Push for Federal civil-unions? I'm sure Hillary would spin the issue (like Bill Clinton signing Kyoto knowing he would never submit the treaty for Senate ratification), but liberals expecting major social issue change from her will probably be as disappointed as some conservatives are with President Bush.

Of course, this discussion is highly contextual on what you mean by "social issues;" however, except for judicial appointment philosophy, I don't see great relevance in the nuances of "social issue" positions among the Republican candidates. The 10 Feb NYT stated Guilani would appoint "strict constructionist" judges (perhaps this statement is what one might expect in both parties during the primaries). That position, along with following his philosophy with regard to the role of government, gives more hope for accomplishment than other "Republicans."

But he has serious thoughts and serious ideas and he adds a quantum of quality to the equation when he is in the room.

Serious doesn't always mean good (take Newt's 20 page primer on national security changes he was paid big bucks to do).. However, I agree if he would moderate all the debates, he would add to the quality of the process..

Col Steve stole my thunder, look the last two republican presidents we had said all the right things to the social conservatives, pandered to them you might say, and got elected. But they did very little that was actually conservative. Maybe its time the fiscal conservatives get someone in there for a change.

The winning ticket will be Rudy and Newt.

And, you'll vote for them because you won't want Hillary and Barack.

'Nuff said?

I could do that.