Is she part of the party leadership (even locally), or just a single vote?

A minor yes to the first one and yes to the second.  And guess what? I also know other people who are Republicans and network with people from all across the US and they feel mostly the same as I do.  Newt. Smart, good speaker, great thinker, unelectable.

I believe that I have a better insight into the general mood of the Republican party as a member of the party than you do as an outsider looking in.  You are correct in that the "flavor" of the party (Republican or Democrat) will change with geographic area.  I am not nearly as far right as, say, some one from the deep south but I am certainly more far right than the people you seem to think you know in the North East. 

People from "your neck of the woods" or dare I say it New York City have the idea that they count more than the rest of the country.

In their minds, this end would not be achieved with Newt Gingrich in the White House. Newt has his own ideas and will insist on being the top dog in his administration (and he's smart enough that they can't play puppet master with him). That in and of itself is a Grand Canyon of difference between Newt and the "administration".

No one but you sees this.  The Republican base wants to win.  They will not be able to with Newt as a front runner.  The base is even willing to hold its collective nose and vote for Guilliani or McCain.  You are so overthinking this.

Well the question about "we" goes first to what BL considers she will be able to do about it one way or the other. Is she part of the party leadership (even locally), or just a single vote?

She's a rank and file GOPer, as I understand it, and she provides some insight into the thinking of her fellow members (and I agree with her). Take it for what it's worth.

Second it goes to the notion that the Republicans are some sort of monolithic voting borg. It points to the hypocricy of her statements from yesterday. It would seem that I as an outsider see the Republicans as a more diverse group than she does as an insider.

Not even close. Just because she says the GOP rank and file won't support Newt (and every poll supports her) doesn't mean she's claiming there's a monolith. The distaste she mentions is wide-spread, and it goes from social conservatives to libertarian-leaning types. As an idea guy, fine, as the standard bearer, no. That's not to say he doesn't have his pockets of support, just that they're a real minority.

" I've yet to hear you lay out a position Newt holds that would make this possible..."

Perhaps you want a more detailed map of Gingrich's strategy than I am able to give. But I have provided you with links and an uninterested third party's unsolicited confirmation that Newt's idea seeds are falling in fertile fields of the left.

I saw the links. Can you tell me specifically what he said that attarcts "neo-libs" (or tell me what they are)? The third party liked his comments about the State Department, but what he said didn't sound like a break from the usual GOP position.

"...your assertion flies in the face of everything I know to be true of my Democrat friends."

Kevin Philips is a Conneticut Conservative Republican (I don't know how he feels about Newt) and I'll tell you this. He is quite vocal in his dislike of the national Republican party.

Kevin Phillips hasn't liked the GOP for twenty years. Seriously, he's not a Republican and hasn't been for a long, long time. He's a fixture on NPR and a pal of Bill Moyers these days. The last sort of people he'd like are neo-cons like Newt who get glowing reviews from people like James Dobson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Phillips_(political_comme ntator)

Millionaire businessmen clients that I have despise Bush's handling of the... well... of everything!

Bush isn't running for office, Newt is from the same cloth.

"They'd rather have their sister work at a house of ill-repute than vote for Newt. I doubt there's a poll that contradicts that view."

I don't dispute you on either point (btw their sister is a freelancer). I'm not talking about where we are today, I'm talking about where we are going to be in six months.

OK, but I'd like to make a little wager with you about what sort of poll numbers Newt will get from Democrats. He's practically Tom DeLay or Karl Rove to them.

"Just what does that [he seeded the Liberal outlets over the years ]mean, other than that he's willing to show his face on MSNBC or CNN?"

Perhaps you missed the post from the third eye film forum where the writer was talking about seeing Newt on Charlie Rose (PBS).

One guy said Newt was nice about Clinton. Hardly a ringing endorsement. Another guy on the same thread had a comment about Newt of the type I would expect.

He has wowed them at NPR and his programs for education and universal healthcare, and others are the itches that liberals love to have scratched!

He's not in favor of "universal heathcare" as liberals know it. His is a libertarian solution with medical savings accounts of the sort that send liberals into apoplexy. The same accounts Bush pushed for. His solution is classic GOP, putting the power of technology, choice and the market to work, the exact opposite of the single payer or government healthcare programs liberals talk about.

Newt is so far ahead of all the other Republican candidates (with the possible exception of Guiliani, and the absolute exception of the Republican Machine, which seems to be somewhat broken right now. And Carl Rove is likely to be otherwise occupied, rightly or wrongly for a good portion of the upcoming festivities.) that they just don't stand a chance.

It's hard to be objective about this part of the question, but I'd say you have it completely backwards. The GOP is odds-on favorites to win the Whitehouse in 2008. Even with the war in its current position, McCain, Guliani and Thompson all already beat Hillary and Obama head to head. A little success in Iraq between now and then, a few more Democrat decabcales in Congress, and it might not even be close.

" Newt isn't the only Republican talking about alternative energy or energy independence."

Now we're back to his speaking style, which I mentioned before. Newt is an excellent speaker.

That makes him the same as McCain, Guliani, Romney and Thompson. Remember, Bush isn't running.

"He's always been active on campuses (he was a history prof, and like that atmopsphere), but how that makes him a "neo-lib" I don't know."

That's not what makes him a Neo Lib. What makes him a Neo Lib is his adoption of the responsibility of the State to maintain the environment wherein we may all have Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Honestly, I have no idea where you get the idea that Newt has adopted any policies that liberals would find palatable.

"contrasting Newt to an Army recruiter, and calling the recruiter the face of the GOP, well...."

It's a bit colorful, I'll grant you that. But how do you think college kids are seeing these recruiters these days?

I don’t think they see them as the front for any candidate of 2008. If they did, they’d see them as much for Newt, Iraq war supporter, as any other.

As I have said before, Newt has something these others don't. He has a platform. His own platform. It shows that he thought about this. it shows that he wants to be president for a reason, not just because it's the presidency.

See above about Newt’s platform, which as far as I can see is standard GOP fare.

"Newt won't be running against the administration any more than, say Gore "ran against" Clinton."

Yeah, those situations are similar, not!

Obviously we disagree.

In this instance I think that it is appropirate to use, interchangably, the terms "Party leadership" and "Administration."

Again, we disagree. There isn’t an anti-establishment GOP candidate, (unless Hegal enters, and that would be a blood-bath. Watch for Hegal to switch parties if he runs) the most they will do is the “I support the war, but it’s been mis-managed” theme McCain uses. They all support the war and warn of what would happen if we left ala some Democrat plan.

….. and that the "Neo con" movement intends to retain their control of the power in Washington.

In their minds, this end would not be achieved with Newt Gingrich in the White House.

Neo-cons would be disappointed if the architect of the Contract With America, the Sr. Fellow of the supposedly neo-con AEI, were elected?

I think this all boils down to you seeing something in Newts polices that I don’t. I can’t think of a single theme he has now that he didn’t have in the mid-1990s

And THAT alone is enough to make Northern Republicans prefer Newt over whomsoever the current party leaders chose as their next figurehead.

Newt is a Southern neo-con libertarian who has the support of people like James Dobson. I just don’t see that selling well in the N.E., especially with McCain, Guliani, Romney and Thompson in the mix.

Thanks for your unique perspective.

[quote=babbling looney]

 The base is even willing to hold its collective nose and vote for Guilliani or McCain.  You are so overthinking this.

[/quote]

I agree 100% and the sight of that, and the end of the seterotype of the "theocratic GOP base" will cause heads to burst in places like DNC HQ and the editorial board of the NY Times. Oh, and people like Dobson will go the way of Fallwell and Robertson.

 "You are so overthinking this."

Perhaps, but then that's because I am trying to explain the obvious in terms that you and mikebutler222 will accept (it's harder than it's worth)

"the Republican party as a member of the party than you do as an outsider looking in."

Give it rest victim girl! I grew up in a heavily Republican district. I work in a heavily Republican industry. I know Republicans, I know Republicanism you have no knowledge of Republicans that I do not. Get off you victim hobby horse and grow up!

"the people you seem to think you know in the North East."

I SEEM to THINK I know?  Where do you get off saying things like this? BTW I'm NOT from NYC (and didn't you see me just exclude Rudy because he was a typical NYer? ) no wonder you think others  stereotype "your kind" people always assume that all other people act just like they do.

I think we're done here.

"as I understand it,"

That's the way I understand it too. That's part of the point that as a "rank and file" Repub, she really has ZERO effect on what happens in "her" party (notice how the quotation marks indicate sarcasm? Same with your use of QMs around Neo Con).

"Take it for what it's worth."

I did, and then I handed the guy a dollar and he gave me a one buck cup of coffee! 

"that attarcts 'neo-libs'"

No no no! And no! It's not that he "attarcts 'neo libs', he IS  THE Neo Lib.

Ok I'll try to explain, again. The Neo Cons started out as disillusioned Liberal Thinkers who were fed up with the hypocricy and abject failures of Liberalism. Its a situation that is now being replayed with neo Conservatism (the hypocrisy and abject failure). Newt is (at least in his own mind) a Philosopher King (reference to Plato's Republic where Socrates opined that the leaders of a perfect world would be the smartest men in the kingdom, the philosopher kings) and he has altered his opinions about the proper role of government in society. His outlook is decidedly more "liberal" than the Neo Con policies, which have failed. I coined the term "Neo Liberal" figuring that this would be easy enough of a line that you could follow withou me having to type 200 words to explain.

" Seriously, he's not a Republican ..."

Do you notice that you say this about everyone who disagrees with your definition of Republicanism. Its like when the Christians are asked about this transgressive christian or that one.. "Oh he's not a REAL christian."

I'd ask you what it is that makes a REAL Republican, but I really don't care.

"He's a fixture on NPR and a pal of Bill Moyers these days."

OOOOOhh! John Mc Cain is a fixture on Comedy Central's The Daily Show and Orin Hatch is best friends with Teddy Kennedy, and I don't think we're going to strip them of their membership cards.

"Bush isn't running for office, Newt is from the same cloth."

Strawman and wrong! Nobody said Bush was running for office. The context of the comment was that the party leaders are the ones who Northern Republicans (and let me say here that there are certainly some Republicans up here who are good strong members of the KKK, seriously I'm not referring to this sort of REAL Republican) have had more than their fill of.

"One guy said Newt was nice about Clinton. Hardly a ringing endorsement. Another guy on the same thread had a comment about Newt of the type I would expect."

Nobody said it was a "ringing endorsement" it was a just another guy who found that he didn't automatically dismiss Newt's comments as the rantings of the Anti Darwin.

"Even with the war in its current position, McCain, Guliani and Thompson all already beat Hillary"

Got link?

"...but I'd say you have it completely backwards."

I get the feeling you don't quite get  which "it " is what.

"That makes him the same as McCain, Guliani, Romney and Thompson. Remember, Bush isn't running."

In your dreams! Rudy stutters, Thompson growls, Mc Cain is all blinking eyes and Morse code! Please!

"I don’t think they see them as the front for any candidate of 2008. If they did, they’d see them as much for Newt, Iraq war supporter, as any other."

Then you don't know crap about people.

"See above about Newt’s platform, which as far as I can see is standard GOP fare."

As I've said before, we can't be held back by only being able to discuss what Mikebutler222 knows about.

What's so precious about your's and Bab's perspective is that it pretends that you have a choice.

It's laughable! They put up a complete MORON last time and you convinced yourselves that he was the BEST choice for America! Whatever the party tells you to do you will do! You think that you have a choice and that the "people" choose.

A small cadre of party leaders will eventually choose a party candidate and then this will be the person that is anointed as the "Front Runner" (at best you'll have what four people to choose from) this is the candidate that will get all the good press on Fox and in the Moonie Newspaper and the Murdock newspapers and the GE corporate news outlets and the New York Times will pretend to be "Liberal" as they give the front runner ink by saying "Can you believe the coverage this guy is getting?" and the spend 1,000 words on him.

Here's a bunch of polls for all he political junkies...

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

...and what little I see of Newt Gingerich doesn't look very good, whomit...

They put up a complete MORON last time and you convinced yourselves that he was the BEST choice for America! Whatever the party tells you to do you will do! You think that you have a choice and that the "people" choose.

Cue the music....."I see your true colors shining through. la la la la " Bring out the repetitive mantras and the "talking points"

So you are pretentiously trying to attempt to devise strategy for the Republican party when you really have a vested interest in choosing badly    AKA: Newt.... a loser

A small cadre of party leaders will eventually choose a party candidate and then this will be the person that is anointed as the "Front Runner"

This is exactly what the Fred Thompson movement is not about.  The draft Fred movement is coming from the ground up.  I just hope it isn't similar the the Ross Perot situation that drew people to his campaign and guaranteed a loss to HW Bush and a gain to the Clinton campgain, thereby giving us 8 years of Bill and Hillary.      I don't think it is the case, however. 

Fred Thompson and possibly Guilliani in the second postion, if he would consider that, would have wide appeal across party lines.

By the way you need to get your quotes straightened out.  I appears you are mixing in things that I have said with other posters.  It's confusing.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]It's laughable! They put up a complete MORON last time and you convinced yourselves that he was the BEST choice for America![/quote]

...you seriously think Kerry WASN'T a moron?!!  Are you KIDDING?!!!

Yes, it IS laughable...check out these fine quotes...

"You bet we might have." --Sen. John Kerry, asked if he would have gone to war against Saddam Hussein if he refused to disarm.

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." --Sen. John Kerry, on voting against a military funding bill for U.S. troops in Iraq.

...and of course, this more recent classic...

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

I'm sorry, but yes, I do think Bush was a better choice than this goof.

lost in translation..

Who's running for President again?

hmmm, maybe the guy with the super large head might do ok since he's probably is smarter...with that large cranium

newt... would do fine.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/newtscript.html

found himself a gal good in Math, too.

I'm assuming some of this is directed to me...

No no no! And no! It's not that he "attarcts 'neo libs', he IS  THE Neo Lib.

Like I've said before, I can't see, and you've yet to name, a policy Newt supports that's a break from conservative orthodoxy. You mentioned healthcare, but what he's talking about is the sort of medical savings accounts that send Ted Kennedy into wild fits, and are the cornerstone of every conservative plan. Perhaps if I could see what's "liberal" about what Newt's saying...

" Seriously, he's not a Republican ..."

Do you notice that you say this about everyone who disagrees with your definition of Republicanism.

It's not my definition that causes Phillips to be a "former Republican", that's what he says himself. It's been the case for 20 years. Look into it. He's now a Bill Moyer's liberal, he's an NPR staple. Read what he calls himself, I'm not attempting to relabel him, I'm simply taking his word for it. I gave you the link.

"Bush isn't running for office, Newt is from the same cloth."

Strawman and wrong! Nobody said Bush was running for office.

Then stop comparing the candidate to Bush on matters like how he delivers a speech. You said Newt is well spoken, and he is, but so are McCain, Thompson, Guliani and Romney. The only one that isn't, is Bush.

"One guy said Newt was nice about Clinton. Hardly a ringing endorsement. Another guy on the same thread had a comment about Newt of the type I would expect."

Nobody said it was a "ringing endorsement" it was a just another guy who found that he didn't automatically dismiss Newt's comments as the rantings of the Anti Darwin.

One guy did, another one didn't. Nothing special there.

"Even with the war in its current position, McCain, Guliani and Thompson all already beat Hillary"

Got link?

Sure;http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ national.html

"...but I'd say you have it completely backwards."

I get the feeling you don't quite get  which "it " is what.

I get the feeling you can't explain how Newt's NOT a Southern, neo-con libertarian and just what policy he proposes that's "neo-lib".

"That makes him the same as McCain, Guliani, Romney and Thompson. Remember, Bush isn't running."

In your dreams! Rudy stutters, Thompson growls, Mc Cain is all blinking eyes and Morse code! Please!

Please is right, they're all fine speakers, your comments aside.

"I don’t think they see them as the front for any candidate of 2008. If they did, they’d see them as much for Newt, Iraq war supporter, as any other."

Then you don't know crap about people.

I bow to your superior knowledge of "people", and debating...if you think college kids see Army recruiters as the face of GOP presidential candidates, except Newt, fine.

"See above about Newt’s platform, which as far as I can see is standard GOP fare."

As I've said before, we can't be held back by only being able to discuss what Mikebutler222 knows about.

But we can be held back by your inability to articulate these "neo-lib" policies you say Newt advances, it would seem. Thus far you've said "look at the videos". Well, I did. Then I returned and detailed, for example, his healthcare agenda, and how it's standard libertarian fare. Your response as been "look at the video" again, with an insult tossed it.

Don't you think it might be more effective if you'd tried to explain how, for example, medical svaings accounts, have become popular with neo-libs and why they dropped hopes for a single-payer plan or gov't run plan?

What's so precious about your's and Bab's perspective is that it pretends that you have a choice.

It's laughable! They put up a complete MORON last time and you convinced yourselves that he was the BEST choice for America! Whatever the party tells you to do you will do! You think that you have a choice and that the "people" choose.

Yawn....now you seem to have dropped any attempt to explain your theory about Newt being attractive to liberals suddenly to bashing people here, and Bush....I'm not interested in discussing the last elections, this thread i about the next one. Otherwise I'd have to explain, again, why Gore and Kerry would never get my vote, and how McCain lost my support in 2000.

A small cadre of party leaders will eventually choose a party candidate and then this will be the person that is anointed as the "Front Runner" (at best you'll have what four people to choose from) this is the candidate that will get all the good press on Fox and in the Moonie Newspaper and the Murdock newspapers and the GE corporate news outlets and the New York Times will pretend to be "Liberal" as they give the front runner ink by saying "Can you believe the coverage this guy is getting?" and the spend 1,000 words on him.

That's an interesting little world you live in. It's also a place where Newt has traction with liberals.

[quote=Indyone]

Here's a bunch of polls for all he political junkies...

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

...and what little I see of Newt Gingerich doesn't look very good, whomit...

[/quote]

The last polls I saw said the only other candidate with "over my dead body" numbers like Hillary was Newt.

For the life of me, try as I might, I just can’t see what Hillary brings to the

table that would make her a viable candidate.

That's from 1996.

bab bling,

This is the problem with dicussing big issues with some people, they can't seem to get their mind around the idea that we're just having a discussion.

I don't expect ANYTHING to come out of our conversations here except maybe some people can see how things work.

I don't intend to promote Newt or anyone else for anything. I'm only enjoying watching the process. I observing and extrapolating. I have no more effect on the outcome than I would if I were watching a mystery at the movies and trying to figure who besides the butler may have done it.

The butler here is whomever the Republican Party backs, but I'd love to see someone come along and shake the status quo. Just like I like to buy stocks that no one likes so that I can sell them when everybody likes them.

 "This is exactly what the Fred Thompson movement is not about.  The draft Fred movement is coming from the ground up. "

You absolutely don't understand what is at stake here and what people will do to maintain the reigns of power.

Every candidate needs to have a mythology that has a grown around that candidacy. But it's a myth. You are shown the finished sausage, roasted golden brown with just the perfect sheen of grease one it. There's a whole gruesome process that went into that sausage (you should know this by now). 

"By the way you need to get your quotes straightened out.  I appears you are mixing in things that I have said with other posters.  It's confusing."

I'll work on that, thank you. I thought that I had separated the qoutes last time althought I didn't identify them specifically.

OTOH, who says it isn't terribly important, I'm responding to what has been said, not who has said it (as far as I can, anyway).

INDYONE:

What does one have to do with the other, and what gives you the impression that I don't hold the general public in the same contempt whether they are Republicans or Democrats (which is why those lefties at the film forum are absolutely not fans of the old DPR). Most people will follow what they are told and will not measure what they are told against what they know to be true. Most people are willing dupes.

The case in point was George W. Bush, there is no getting around it, this guy is a clown, He wanted to put Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court! This is not a man of depth! But, because he was packaged, the country (or less than half of them anyway) were willing to believe that he was qualified for the hardest, most demanding job on the planet. Philosopher King he AIN'T! That doesn't make him the only clown that ever ran for office, but that fact that others who ran were clowns too doesn't negate the fact that he is not a smart guy. 

The question isn't really between Bush and Gore or Kerry, the question was Bush or McCain in 1999. The party convinced people that Bush was better than McCain (and they held back no dirty trick to do so).

In retrospect, who would you rather have had in the White House on 9/10? Bush, or Mc Cain (I'd have preferred Mc Cain).

"That's from 1996"

That was directed at Goforbroke's link to Frontline (which was the last post when I started typing.)

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

 The question isn't really between Bush and Gore or Kerry, the question was Bush or McCain in 1999. The party convinced people that Bush was better than McCain (and they held back no dirty trick to do so).

[/quote]

You have a pretty skewed view of history, whom. Bush wasn’t “forced” on anyone. There were dirty tricks on both sides (as there is in every election), but what you seem not to grasp is that McCain had to overcome, among GOP primary voters, his "big tobacco " stuff and his advocacy for 1st Amendment rights impinging "campaign finance reform". He had done that, to some degree, early on. His position as the press’s favorite GOPer did him no favors within the party, btw.

I worked for McCain in the primaries and I can tell you the second he lost me and I think, the entire race. It was when he compared Bush to Clinton in an ad. As to Bush, whatever you’ve come to believe of him now, in 2000 he had a pedigree even McCain couldn’t match having executive experience in both private industry and government. His work for his father’s campaign and then his administration did give him contacts among party faithful who already had doubts about McCain’s conservative bona fides.

I know you prefer to believe that this was all decided in some smoky room and the rubes (they have to be rubes, they disagree with you) in the primary voting base just went along with the plan.

Now, what your change of subject to 1999 did was skip over the fact that the alternatives to Bush in 2000 and 2004 were profoundly lame.

I'm preparing for the worst - 8 years of Hillary.  Fill the freezer with cash, grow my own garden for food, get a permit to own a gun, keep the pick-up truck full of gas (along with a small 500 gallon barrel of gasolin in my back yard).

We are seeing the future of our 'democrat' lead country by how they're reacting (not) to the hostages from the UK.  Iran is flexing their small muscles - and the dems are trying to fire Alberto G.

"As to Bush, whatever you’ve come to believe of him now, in 2000 he had a pedigree even McCain couldn’t match having executive experience in both private industry and government. His work for his father’s campaign and then his administration did give him contacts among party faithful who already had doubts about McCain’s conservative bona fides."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"Another glass of Republican Lemonade for you, Mr Butler?"

 "Bush wasn’t “forced” on anyone."

Forced? Quotationally marked (as if to say that you are quoting something that has been said, sarcastically or otherwise) forced?

I never said forced, nor did I say foisted (although...).

The point of the discussion from the very beginning has been the value of organization as opposed to zeal. Newt has an organization, Hillary has an organization, John Edwards doesn't (at least not much of one by comparison). Rudy has one, Thompson doesn't. The Republican Party has one, the Democrats (for all practical political purposes) don't (not that this is a good thing). The Howard Dean was able to fashion one for the mid term elections (with no help from Jim Carvell, whom I also like for his mind) goes to show how much the organization was lacking in the past.

"I know you prefer to believe that this was all decided in some smoky room and the rubes (they have to be rubes, they disagree with you) in the primary voting base just went along with the plan."

Did I say rubes? Oh this is you building strawmen again. Does disagreeing with me make someone a rube? Did I imply that? Well, you disagree with me, have I said you (specifically) are a rube? I described my position vis a vis people who let others make their opinions for them, if you fit into that category, it's not because you disagree with me it's because you'll let others do your thinking for you. Have a little fire strawman!

You cannot ask for a more clearcut case of money talks and BS walks than the Bush Juggernaut of the 1999 primary season. Bush was chosen by the party elite and propelled into the position of prominence. Granted, perhaps Carl Rove went to the party elite and laid out a plan that included Bush and the PE decided to get on board, as opposed to the notion that the Party Strategists built a strategy and then looked for the most viable, pliable candidate. But either way the fact remains that the party sold the rank and file on the idea of electing a moron to the White House.

This guy did NOTHING right in his private life. The only reason he wasn't a bum in the streets is that he was not at all shy about selling access to the Veep and then the POTUS!

"Now, what your change of subject to 1999 did was skip over the fact that the alternatives to Bush in 2000 and 2004 were profoundly lame."

I didn't change the subject, I refused to let others change the subject from the primaries to the general election.

I just find it amusing that you guys look at one of the premier professional politicians of this era (even Bill Clinton said so in his book) and think that you know the game better than he does.

Newt knows what his liabilities are, better than you do. And yet, he's running. Why don't you ask yourself what it is that he knows that you don't?

I'll say this, it is possible that Newt is running as a rabbit. His candidacy is there to scare moderates into the voting booth. That's a possibility. But the work he has done over the past 8 years is a little taxing for such a short term benefit. Possibly they had him ready just in case the 2004 election was looking dicey and then, when it wasn't, they kept the Newt powder dry and so now he's of use to his party this way. It's possible. It'd be like playing Star Wars Chess and Newt is the hidden Bishop from the lower dimension. Could be.

I doubt it, but it could be. 

"As to Bush, whatever you’ve come to believe of him now, in 2000 he had a pedigree even McCain couldn’t match having executive experience in both private industry and government. His work for his father’s campaign and then his administration did give him contacts among party faithful who already had doubts about McCain’s conservative bona fides."<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"Another glass of Republican Lemonade for you, Mr Butler?"

Funny response, but devoid of substance. I explained the dynamics of the primary, and from a participant’s point of view. If that’s meaningless to you, so be it.

 "Bush wasn’t “forced” on anyone."

Forced? Quotationally marked (as if to say that you are quoting something that has been said, sarcastically or otherwise) forced?

I never said forced, nor did I say foisted (although...).

My apologies. Allow me to correct myself, Bush wasn’t “foisted” on anyone. See above about the C.V. of Bush and the conservative’s doubts about McCain circa 1999.

The point of the discussion from the very beginning has been the value of organization as opposed to zeal.

It’s been your point, it hasn’t received much acceptance. Surely you see the difference.

 Newt has an organization,

Really? Does he have an exploratory committee? How much has he raised in funds? Where does he rank in those two? What are his poll numbers? Has he even officially announced?

Hillary has an organization, John Edwards doesn't (at least not much of one by comparison).

Wow, Edwards doesn’t have an organization? Says who?

"I know you prefer to believe that this was all decided in some smoky room and the rubes (they have to be rubes, they disagree with you) in the primary voting base just went along with the plan."

Did I say rubes? Oh this is you building strawmen again.

Notice rubes wasn’t in quotes. Re-read your comments about whether or not GOP primary votes had a choice. If Bush was “foisted” on them, and they voted for him on those grounds, rubes sums them up nicely.

You cannot ask for a more clearcut case of money talks and BS walks than the Bush Juggernaut of the 1999 primary season.

If you say so. I already detailed the issues McCain faced with conservatives, and surely you realize they make up the vast majority of the GOP primary voting base. You never do seem to get specific on issues, it's almost like a pattern with you. Rest assured, most primary voters are issues voters.

I’m still interested in specifics about Newt’s “neo-liberal” polices you say he espouses.

In the mean time, it’s always the same sort of  experience chatting with you, regardless of the subject.

Can we get some BLUE?  MORE COLORS MORE COLORS!!

[quote=joedabrkr]Can we get some BLUE?  MORE COLORS MORE COLORS!! [/quote]

Gee, I thought I was doing you a favor by limiting the colors and trying different fonts and italics to differentiate the lines....<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Back to the drawing board….

Allow me to correct myself, Bush wasn’t “foisted” on anyone.

Did I say he was "foisted" on anyone? No I did not.

It’s been your point, it hasn’t received much acceptance.

Of course not, you're too busy trying to spin the conversation with your miscitations and your insistance on making partisan commentary derailing the conversation (because I'm polite enough to respond) repeatedly. Surely you see the difference.

Edwards doesn’t have an organization?

As compared to Hillary's? No, not much of one. As compared to Barak Obama's? Not much of one.

Notice rubes wasn’t in quotes.

No, but you parenthetical comment made the same point, didn't it?

If you say so.

Yeah, it must be just me. How gracious of you to cede me the benefit of the doubt on an issue that is axiomatic in nature. 

I'll ask the question again. Who would rather have had in the White House on 9/10 Bush or Mc Cain?