It just might be Newt Gingrich.
He’s still a bit of a loose cannon prone to rhetorical grandiosity and he’s a tad too enamored with his own intellectual/articulate capabilities for my taste. But it’s sure as hell nice to see someone who can put a ‘that SOB is smarter than I am, so I better be careful what I say’ look on Joe Biden’s face.
Newt could (and should) never be Prez, but I hope he gets into the GOP race if for no other reason than to force McCain and others to either thoroughly explain where they stand on various issues or be made to look like a fool when Newt runs circles around them.
Why not Newt for POTUS?
I know that your e-mailer repeats two big conventional wisdom notions about him: “loose cannon” and “could (or should) never be Prez”.
But why not, exactly? Newt is almost the only national GOP figure who thoroughly explains issues from a conservative point of view (I suppose there are a few issues upon which one could quibble about that – but, again, which ones exactly?). Unlike all of the others, he also doesn’t make me cringe by saying something stupid or missing an opportunity to jump on a bad liberal argument. He KNOWS what he is talking about. Certainly Bush has trouble explaining why we are right sometimes, and so do all of the others. Even Reagan had trouble if it wasn’t a set speech.
Why are the bad points that Newt is supposed to have considered conclusive when matched up against his obvious and fairly unique positive points?
Especially considering the others, why not Newt?