I suppose Newt’s professorial air–some say his arrogant air–puts some people off. But, honestly, if you really knew what you were doing and did have a command of the issues–a one-eyed man in the kingdom of the blind–and were watching the clownish and feeble fumblings and stumblings of most members of Congress, Obama & Co,. and most of your fellow rivals for the nomination, wouldn’t you be a little disgusted with the whole mess?

I’ve made the same point here (on the thread after Perry’s second debate). Bottom line: if a candidate can’t take this heat, he’d better get out of the kitchen, for the incinerator is coming.

Cathy –

I think the negatives with Newt are as much perception as reality, but as we know, in politics perception mostly is reality. I’m not entirely convinced yet that they make him unelectable, but neo certainly speaks for most (including conservatives) when she says his negatives make him a non-starter. The usual line I see on the blogs is something like this:

“Newt, as usual, was brilliant and articulate – too bad he’s temperamentally unsuited to be President.”

It’s taken for granted, and that’s a tough mountain to scale.

Did you see, however, Allahpundit’s piece at hotair today? He basically said what I did above: If Cain and Perry don’t really meet the full gamut of “Not Romney” needs, that leaves them with very little over Newt.

“Exist question,” concludes AP in typical fashion, “Second look at Newt?”

It couldn’t hurt, IMHO.

I have no idea what Newt thinks, but if I were he I would be trying to become President because otherwise–whatever influence he might have in a subordinate position–it would be much more limited than if her were President, and calling all the shots.

And, yes, it’s arbitrary. But what’s so well thought out about our current tax brackets? They are meaningless percentages because no one actually pays the percent. The effective tax rate is always much lower because of all of the “tax expenditures”= deductions. So, a transparent and flat tax is really a very different way of funding government and represents a shift in thinking. I’m not endorsing Cain, but I think the idea is being dismissed as a gimmick when in fact our current tax code is rife with gimmicks, and conservatives just generally distrust large changes, even if those changes are positive.

And, I think a mix of a sales tax with an income tax actually makes sense from a stable revenue standpoint; if incomes fall, and people spend savings, there’s still revenue coming in. We have such precipitous drops in revenue precisely because so few pay the income tax and the income tax itself is balanced on only a small portion of the upper pyramid of earners.