history suggests that Newt is not those things and doesn’t stand for an ideal.

His attacks on Reagan, when it was politically correct, display not only an appalling miscalculation of the benefit of Reagan’s foresight and understanding of the complexities but an arrogance that is transparent and unelectable.

Newt is about Newt – was that way when I was a young law school student in Georgia long ago and still is – always has been and always will be. He is not about adhering to conservative ideals, His recent efforts to assuage the left, by doing the tango with Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, reveal a quivering and, regrettably, easily defeatable set of ‘principles,’ that match his ascerbic relationship with colleagues and his marital record with wives.

Newt is not the candidate that we, on the right, should embrace. He is a horse that will get us within eyesight of the finish line, but then through a unmitigated penchant for self-aggrandizement, buckle in the homestretch. Not the horse we want, people. Not the horse we want.

I prefer a true conservative – Rick Santorum.

Second, you can’t run from what he said – Jeanne Kirkpatrick or not – he was wrong.

Third, explain his dance with Pelosi. You can’t.

Fourth, winners don’t whine and Newt’s doing a lot of whining these days. You reap what you sow.

Romney is not my preferred candidate, rather I prefer Santorum.

Here’s the problem with the Newt brigade – you all whine over unfair treatment. Whining isn’t winning.

Newt’s biggest problem is that he sticks his finger to the wind and, if it means cooperating with Hillary, he does it. If it means, cooperating with Pelosi, he does it. That’s not because Romney or the Establishment put him up to it, it’s because Newt thought it in his own political best interests.

That’s not the type of leader I want – I want principled leadership and leaders who don’s saddle up with the opposition, because it’s the politically opportune thing to do.

That ain’t being a ‘sheeple’ – wow, that’s rich coming from your blind loyalty for Newt.

board feel an overwhelming desire to insult the intelligence of others? It’s particuarly curious because not knowing me, you have no concept of my intellect. Perhaps you should read my diary.

Instead, when salient points are made and you have no cogent response, insult the intelligence of the poster. Gee, that’s innovative. Never seen that one done before.

Santorum is principled, driven and, regrettably, near broke. He can hold his own in any debate with Obama. If supporting a principled pro-life, pro-gun rights, pro-military, pro-Israel fiscal conservative, who has never seen fit to politically bond with Hillary or Nancy and has a healthy libertarian streak, is evidence of a lack of intellect, so be it.

who defend a candidate they say emulates Reagan’s finest qualities resort to labeling those who disagree as intellectually deficient. It was Reagan who was so labeled prior to and during his presidency – as we know, that wasn’t the case. And, it isn’t in mine, either. But malign away – perhaps, it makes you feel better about supporting your candidate – good for you. (BTW, I invite you to read through my diary and see if your estimation of me is accurate – I’d guess you’ve recommended this person who’s ‘just not real bright’ many times.)

In the meantime, for those who claim that Jeff Lord’s piece in American Spectator was the definitive piece on what Newt said or didn’t say in his 1986 speech, I commend to you Rich Lowery’s piece in NRO. Look it up for yourself. You should be able to do it much quicker than I did, because after all my intellect is waning.