The Dems are absolutely terrified of Newt Gingrich in the White House. He’s got their numbers, knows where all their bodies, living and dead, are buried, and has a history of doing more damage to their power than any single man since the advent of the FDR era.

There is some truth in that.  Newt could be an effective president.  He could also be an utter disaster for conservatives.  The Dems also know a lot about Newt’s past mistakes and will not hesitate to use it in an election.   It is much easier to mudsling when the target makes his own mudpies. 

One point of clarification, on damage to Democratic power, I am pretty sure that Newt does not rank higher than Ronald Reagan, or even Barry Goldwater, or for that matter conservative pundits like Bill Buckley or Rush Limbaugh, but he played a roll (more than Joe Scarborough ever did).  And I thank him for that. 

That things are personal is not an argument against remaining dispassionate.

I’d like to think that the majority of Republicans/ Conservatives don’t give a h00t what Pelosi says or insinuates.  If the Independents  havent wised up by now, they’re hopeless.   We ended up with an inept President because of the economy.  I just hope we end up with someone on our side because of the economy.   

Oh I admire her.  You have to admire professionals and give them their due.  If there is anybody who has made being a venal, pandering corrupt old bat into a profession, it’s Miz Nancy — she has a lot of gall; hopefully her days of polluting Washington and the public discourse are numbered (although I’m afraid they are not).

Whatever else, it’s a mistake to discredit the damage she could potentially do just because you can’t stand venal, pandering, loathesome old bats.

Well, Old Scratch certainly has done a bang up job of deceiving people that’s for sure.

Please; if you can’t understand the left handed compliment being paid to Ms. Pelosi (and it is left handed, speaking of the devil himself and the origins of that colloquialism) then I question your ability to understand just why she needs to be made toothless (which even though her credibility is damaged greatly, she still isn’t).  It’s not wise to dismiss somebody just because you don’t like them and/or find them repugnant. 

It also does not good to go around blaming other people when your side has failed to do the de-fanging required. 
That, again only in my paltry opinion, is the lesson here.

I don’t know, I am kind of skeptical of Newt following through on any type of “frog march.”  His history points to “compromise” and “working with liberal Democrats.”  He has always been all talk and no action.  As soon as the press vilification occurs, which it certainly will, let’s see how he reacts.  That’s the true test, IMO.

It also depends “which” Newt shows up. 

No, we have to give him his due.  He got 9 of 10 Contract items passed in the House (7 made it into law), forced welfare reform and a capital gains cut on Clinton, and instituted the budget reforms which led to projected surpluses for the first time in 40 years.  Reagan tops him with tax reform and winning the Cold War, but Newt is second.

The qualities which made him a successful Speaker for the first couple terms don’t necessarily translate into a successful Presidency, though, and most of his screw-ups and errors were 100% self-induced.

I can’t recall of a member of the Ethics Committee making such a statement in public, ever.  It violates every principle of having it, not that it has ever been effective. 

However, if you go back and read the testimony of the EC’s lead counsel in the investigation, who was upset at the hand-slap penalty Newt drew, you will see she isn’t just blowing smoke.  There ARE a lot of details the public doesn’t know, but surely will if Newt is the nominee.

Right there with you. Not a single thing to admire about that crook; not even her crookery.

You’ve actually made the best case here for Newt I’ve seen. The fact that he can legitimately claim credit for most of the good things that happened during Clinton’s tenure, the things that Clinton typically gets all the credit for. Newt can easily say “hey, not so fast” anytime somebody starts that shit, like Obama did in his Teddy Roosevelt incantation just yesterday.

“Hence the Santorum interest.”

You cannot wish something into existence.  Reality does not work that way.

It’s Obama or Romney or Newt.  So if you lash out against Newt, that might be emotionally satisfying, but then you must explain why you support Mitt Romney.

Exactly.  I mean, you could at least admire John Dillinger’s style.

Well then, I guess we should all should go home and forget about everything, eh?