I would really like to like Gingrich for President but he totally lacks the character for that job. This year's campaign shoed the importance of self discipline and emotional control. Gingrich is actually much more emotionally unstable than McCain ever was.

But Gingrich does have his uses. He is one of the few politicians who his truly enthusiastic about ideas and is relentless in trying to apply them to the real world. He was one of the first to notice how rising gas prices had transfrormed the politics of drilling. Some of his ideas are silly of irrelevant but that is to be expected of an enthusiast. A Republican running for President or leading the GOP in Congress could do alot worse than listening to Gingrich as long as they bring a strong bs detecter. Gingrich is the the ANSWER, but he might have a couple of the smaller answers for a conservatism that is in tough shaper.

The problem with 95 was not Newt but Dole, who in the game of chicken forced the House leadership to given in and not wreck the car and Dole's chances in 96 over the government shutdown. There are a few interesting studies of that little showdown that if Dole did not force the move, things might have turned out differently, esp as public attitudes were turning against Clinton, but after the backdown, all blame fell on the GOP and Newt's radical move. The mistake was that unless he had Dole's total support in the Senate, the shutdown would fail if you were not willing to crash the car.

Good point about Dole (and good riddance to Libby Dole is my feeling), but I happen to know from a Dole insider that he was opposed to the government shutdown from the beginning, and hence was ready for fold from day one.

we need a charismatic ron paul... alright fine! ill do it.

Lawler's take on the shutdown is unduly informed by his robust dislike for Gingrich, a guy he once dismissed as a "bourgeois technocrat."

Which begged two questions. Since when is a guy who is competent dismissed in our party as a "technocrat." And the other being since when has our party been hostile to the middle class, {the bourgeoisie}. Relatedly, a lesser included question if you will, since when are Conservatives hostile to middle class values and attitudes.

Has it dawned on Professor Lawler that he's repeating Democrat talking points about the shutdown?

Probably so. But with his rabid animus for Gingrich, maybe he doesn't care. Any stick will do for Lawler to start whacking away at the former Speaker,------------------------------------------------------------------------- a guy who led the GOP to their first majority in 40 years. And to do it he had to fight the GOP establishment every step of the way.

Which of us believes that had the former Speaker still been around on Capitol Hill, that the GOP would have wandered into the depths of the woods of utter cluelessness? Which of us believes that Gingrich would have yielded to Bush's brain dead proposals?

Newt-bashing is fashionable but narrow-minded. He deserves far more credit than he gets.

I do not think it matters how much you, I, or any other conservative likes Newt. I see no evidence of a broad base of support for him. Am I missing something?

Unfortunately, I think that to tout him as the pres. is to fall into the Republican's trap of promoting the next guy whose "turn" it is by the internal party perception. Did that do any good with Dole, for example? Or with McCain, for that matter? I just do not see "It's his turn. He is a good man. He deserves it." as a good premise for the marketing of a national candidate. Republicans (and conservatives) really have to face the fact that the way our political world works the public demands an articulate brilliance and a charismatic, telegenic presence in a candidate. Personally, I would like to see solid principles, as well.

If Newt has the former characteristics, he's been hiding his light under a bushel, waiting for the right moment, too well over the years. I would be happy to see Newt be as politically active he can be. I do give him credit. Yet, I do not think he can be considered a good presidential candidate for reasons that have nothing to do with goodness.

Gingrich has a lot of enthusiasm for new ideas, but certainly has major character flaws that wouldn't fit well with the Republican party's conservative values. Sometimes his ideas sound like Obama's liberal, illuminati left-wing hacks. At this time, no need to worry--he doesn't seem to have much support for President in four years.

My question is: why is "Dan" still posting on this site under that name? Every one of his idiotic election predictions was wrong, including how McCain's victory would be 'studied for centuries' by the liberal illuminati. I think "Dan" is somewhere in an undisclosed location with Bill Kristol planning the next stage in their ruined public lives.

As for Bill Kristol, the only time I spoke with him I asked him point blank, "why does the President's communication team suck and what are you guys in Washington going to do about it?" That's a direct quote. That was over 5 years ago, in the 1st term.

But tis true that not all of my projections turned out.

I said Giuliani could pull out the nomination by staunching the bleeding in Florida. Lawler said otherwise. Lawler was right, I, wrong.

I said that the best nominee for the Democrats would be Hillary. In as much as the badly out of his depth Obama won, that statement, shared by many another, could be deemed out of it. And then I went on to say that McCain would win. By the way, HILLARY'S TEAM SAID PRECISELY THE SAME THING, that McCain would defeat Obama. So my opinion on the matter was hardly outlandish.

It might be well to recall that just prior to the panic on Wall Street, McCain was either neck and neck or in the lead, and Obama's Chicago team started unleashing one false, yet hard-hitting ad after another.

Had McCain taken Dick Morris' advice, {which I seconded on this website}, he would have lined up with House Republicans against the flawed bailout plan, and then would have been against Bush, Pelosi, Reid, Paulson, Hill Democrats and Obama, who were for the bailout.

Subsequent poll results have suggested that it was McCain's behavior regarding the bailout which did him in.

Obama's brush-beaters made many a projection that also proved false. Such as turnout. 2008 turned out to be the same as 2004, in terms of percentage of the turnout of the population. Additionally, there was NO youth wave which carried Obama to victory.

Moreover, it should be understod that McCain DID effortlessly close the race prior to the conventions. After his own convention, it was McCain who held a lead.

If Obama was some kind of done deal, an unstoppable force, if the GOP hadn't a prayer, --------------- how did McCain gain a lead.

McCain lost because throughout his political career, he never much cared to immerse himself in economic issues as he should have, especially if he harboured dreams for The White House. His fulminations against Wall Street "greed," his weird inflating of opposition to earmarks into a serious economic plan, but most of all, his reluctance to hit his opponent, such things spelled the doom for his Presidential hopes. AS IT WOULD HAVE for just about any Presidential candidate.

Then again, why are you bashing me for McCain, a candidate I didn't want, and only supported out of party unity. I supported Giuliani.

Again and again throughout the campaign, McCain drew attention to aspects of Obama's past, only to shy away from the clear conclusions dictated by such aspects. These things left the electorate confused about what he was doing, what he was saying and what point he was trying to make. Meanwhile, Obama's Chicago goons were ripping and tearing into McCain. As I said on this website many a time, if one campaign is reluctant to hit, out of a misplaced sense of scuple perahps, or some wierdly inflated sense of the importance of Senate comity, while the other is hard at it with sledgehammers, truncheons, ------------- it hardly a tough call to foretell which campaign is likely to prevail.

The Senate has long been known as the killing fields of Presidential ambitions. The manner in which Senator John McCain conducted his campaign confirmed and validated that opinion.

The recent bloodbath amongst his campaign staff, --------------- bizarre. Just bizarre.

And Ren, I don't toss around the term "illuminati," and you're overlooking, probably because you're still foaming at the mouth in a frenzy because of Obama's victory, how just a couple of months ago, it was McCain who had a lead and looked to be the one on the verge of putting Obama out of his misery.

But for the events on Wall Street, it's unlikely that Obama would have gone on to victory.

But hey, create a fantastical view of Obama's victory. Delude yourself that he was unstoppable; delude yourself that America wants a radical agenda; delude yourself that he's a communicative genius. Such actions will only make it that much easier for Republicans to overturn your fantasies 4 years hence.

Your rantings down the stretch, but most notably since your woefully inexperienced candidate prevailed, recalls to mind the actions of the Scots Greys, about high noon, June 18, 1815. You've made your charge. And now you're dashing all about on the various threads, wild-eyed, sword in hand, looking to have a go at all Republicans within range. REIN IN. Gain control of yourself and try to calm your mind.

You clearly don't recall, but I foresaw GOP defeat in '06 OVER A YEAR prior, and predicted EVEN THEN, that if serious action wasn't taken about what Bush was doing, {and failing to do...}, AGAIN, EVEN THEN, I made it clear that we in the GOP would be up the creek come the next Presidential go 'round. I'm not going to go into detail, because I don't much feel like it, but I will disclose that just the other day I was discussing the election with a Senate staffer, who confided that he wished the party heeded my advice years ago.

I foresaw disaster years ago.

I spoke up; I made my views known to those on The Hill; and went to Washington repeatedly to explain in excruciating detail what was likely to transpire. I contacted the GOP state organizations, {IN EACH STATE, again REPEATEDLY} warning of what would happen.

So I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I was proved prescient about what was in the wind. For I saw what was coming and saw it clearly, way back in August of '05, when Bush was in Crawford, and Cindy Sheehan was camped right outside his front gate and unloading on him by the hour. That's how long ago I saw what was coming. Can you find many Republicans who could say likewise? I don't think so.