I’ll never forget Newt on C-SPAN in 1994 at the orientation of Republican Congressional freshmen, announcing that each of them had been given a copy of the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, giving them marching orders, even imploring them, to read and heed.

Yes, he has feet of clay, but so do we all. I am much more comfortable with his vision than with those of the alternatives.

Can someone please list Gingrich’s supposed "ethical" problems? I see vague references all the time, but nothing concrete, nothing specific, nothing that says because X happened, Gingrich should be estopped from running for the GOP nomination.

Yea, Clinton, WITH THE MEDIA behind him, beat Gingrich in that shutdown duel. But it was Gingrich who took over Congress, who drove out the Democrats, who forced welfare reform down Clinton’s throat. Clinton’s economic agenda largely consisted of him holding his nose, but signing legislation that enacted Gingrich’s vision.

There have been TWO major and incredibly successful Republican politicians since Teddy Roosevelt. The first is clearly Ronald Reagan, and the second has got to be Newt Gingrich.

Is there anybody here who really wants to dispute that, even as an exercise in Devil’s advocacy?

As soon as Gingrich was thrown overboard, the Congressional Republicans went native. Is there anyone who would like to seriously dispute that?

Is there anybody here would like to suggest that even if Gingrich was still the speaker, that Bush’s runaway spending spree would still have happened?

Is there anyone out there willing to dispute that Gingrich would have ridden herd on Republicans up on the Hill?

George Walker Bush exempted himself from responsibility for curtailing the growth of spending, he washed his hands like Pontius Pilate. Does anyone think that Gingrich would have acted Pilate like?

There are two Republicans in this race of overwhelming accomplishment, talent and persuasiveness. Giuiliani and Gingrich. The others don’t measure up.

I suggest that part of the reason that Gingrich’s numbers are percolating upwards is what I’ve taken to calling, "the articulation backlash." Republicans, {not just Conservatives} are tiring of administration officials who are tongue-tied and incompetent. Who can’t explain what they’re doing, and who don’t know what they’re doing. They’re adrift, and the whole nation knows it.

Every time somebody from this administration opens his mouth, they’re laying the foundations for a Gingrich nomination and Gingrich Presidency.

George Bush is a walking, living, breathing and speaking political advertisement for Newt Gingrich. And Gingrich, being way ahead of the curve, knows it.

I liked Sowell wrap-up:

"Many a man has found some woman irresistible when he shouldn’t have — and, in a field of candidates crowded with saints, this would be enough to permanently disqualify Newt Gingrich.

But this does not seem to be the situation we are faced with. Conservatives waiting for the candidate of their dreams can give us President Hillary Clinton in the meantime. Among these alternatives, Newt Gingrich doesn’t look bad at all."

What is that Bushism again - "the soft bigotry of low expectations"??

What is that Bushism again - "the soft bigotry of low expectations"??

So, Craig, are you telling us that Hillary Clinton is your ideal candidate? Or are you a left-wing version of Dan Phillips?

Gingrich is not conservative, he is some sort of hybrid liberal with a bit of populism and allot of organizational skill at the legislation level.

He was instrumental behind the scenes in pushing through the Prescription Drug Giveaway (largest expansion of the entitlement state sense LBJ) and is on record as to wanting to socialize the rest of medicine.

What ever Gingrich is, it is NOT conservative. Whatever his place in politics is, it is NOT to be the salvation of the GOP. Heck, I’d vote for McCain before I would vote for him (I am NEVER going to vote for McCain)...

Is Sowell the black prof who subs for Rush every once in a while?

Chris, if Gingrich isn’t conservative, then nobody is.

The word ceases to have meaning if it does not encompass Newt Gingrich.

And Chris, the black host that you refer to is Walter Williams, former Economics professor at George Mason. But Williams is tight with Sowell, and he’ll frequently have him on as a guest when Williams does substitute.

Chris, if Gingrich isn’t conservative, then nobody is.

Nice rhetorical flourish but simply not relevant. You simply can not be for such an huge expansion of the state (what % of GDP is medicine now, 13 or 14%??) and still be a conservative. Gingrich is a populist. People may want socialized medicine, but we need a conservative leader to lead us in the opposite direction...

Chris, a conservative can make a political calculation that the tide of a debate is flowing away from his position. That he’s losing, that he’s losing badly, and in an attempt to minimize the damage, propose legislation that enacts portions of an opponent’s agenda, but not the entirety. Disraeli did that perfectly during his tenure as Prime Minister. It was the Tories that granted all men in Britain the vote, for they saw the writing on the wall.

We need health care reform. The costs are so burdensome, the paper work so tiresome, that the Democrats are getting very close to winning the America’s assent for socialized medicine. Polls for the first time indicate that a majority of Americans favour socializing medicine. Gingrich sees that, knows that, and has already devised a plan to reform health care without socializing it. Again, it’s a case where he’s ahead of the curve.

Sometimes you hear our President chirp about "health care savings accounts." When a single MRI can run over $5,000 per test, how fast would a health care savings account be depleted. It’s a gimmick, it’s a fraudulent "solution." It’s unworthy. Especially unworthy of the GOP, which is supposed to be the party that doesn’t engage in wishful thinking....{but wiht Bush.......I don’t know how long we’ll be able to hold on to that mantle..... what with the "religion of peace," etc.}.

Check out Newt’s website.

We need health care reform.

We need allot of things. The government might be the vessel for some (roads, bombing our enemies from 30,000 feet, etc.) but certainly not all. Fore example, I NEED a cheap HD TV, but the government is NOT the entity to provide that. We do NOT NEED VA style or large government health care. We do NOT NEED the Prescription Drug Giveaway, that funds the richest demographic in our country (i.e. those over 65) on the backs of everyone else. With "conservatives" like Gingrich, who NEEDS liberals??

. Gingrich sees that, knows that, and has already devised a plan to reform health care without socializing it. Again, it’s a case where he’s ahead of the curve.

His plan is EXACTLY socialization, his Prescription Drug Giveaway is a disaster, an entitlement for the richest Americans, funded by everyone else. Gingrich is a disaster in this area, and is no conservative. Your engaging in desperation, wishfull thinking, or some combination there of, and is too common among conservtives desperate for a conservative choice...