Where in the world did you get your ideas about martial arts? T’ai chi is all about the center line, and I would guess kung fu, which is closely allied with t’ai chi, is too. I don’t know what you think is a “real martial art,” but there are no “real martial artists” who could throw any of the t’ai chi masters to the ground, quickly or otherwise.

What does any of that have to do with politics, anyway? Are you saying the candidates must move to the center to win? Or focus on the center, i.e, the independents? Or be well-grounded? Or were you just carried away with your metaphor?

Newt’ was charged 84 times for ethics violations …all by Democrats. 83 charges were dropped. The one charge that wasn’t dropped (that the House committee did charge him with) was based upon “…a charge of claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes” (Wikipedia quote) …and as for that, in 1999 the IRS “…cleared the organizations connected with the ‘Renewing American Civilization’ courses under investigation for possible tax violations” (also a Wikipedia quote).

In essence, the IRS called no-foul in their replay on the one charge that the House Ethics committee actually laid at his feet. IOW, the committee was “legally challenged”, and lost. That committee violation should have been reversed as an embarrassment to the House after the IRS ruling, to my way of thinking.

I also made the case [at NRO] that I don’t think the Obama campaign is going to be effectively targeting either Newt’s ethics troubles or his Fannie Mae issues, because Obama has the same problems, and to a greater degree (i.e., we may actually see the attorney general of the US charged with crimes over Fast & Furious). YMMV. Of course.

Oh, he will, he will. And blow up the magazine of his own sinking ship. Mitt’s smart that way.

I’m not sure there’s much risk to Mitt in “alienating” Newt supporters. l mean, if indeed they’re hard-core Newt supporters already, then it would seem Romney has already alienated them somehow, by definition. I’m not sure what further damage it does for him to go negative on Newt in the process of trying to win the support of undecideds and Newt “leaners” who haven’t completely drunk the kool-aid.

Newt’s riding a wave of support he’s built up by lashing out at John King and Juan Williams. But a couple of zingers during a TV debate are not all it takes to demonstrate fitness for the office of POTUS. If you look at the totality of Newt’s record, you find: (a) he has a lot of un-conservative ideas and messages, (b) he has a truly lamentable record of personal ethics and morality; (c) he got run out of Congress by his own caucus a mere four years after becoming Speaker, which was his signature accomplishment in a 30+-year career in Washington.

I get that conservatives are desperate for a leader who they think will articulate their grievances against the liberal establishment, but Newt is not an AUTHENTIC voice for the conservative cause. He’s a disgraced veteran of the DC wealth-and-power circuit. He INVENTED earmarks. He lobbied. He got on the Freddie Mac payroll. He supported liberal causes (AGW) and supported liberal politicians (Dede Scoffalozza). He’s a believer in big-government solutions. He’s the classic example of a Washington elite who thinks all of our problems as a nation can be solved just as soon as he acquires sufficient power to put his “creative” and “innovative” solutions in place.

People keep saying they support Newt because he’s a “fighter” — but what is he fighting for? Obama is a fighter. For that matter, so was Stalin.

They say they Newt because he’s destroy Obama in a debate. Big deal! Lloyd Bentsen destroyed Dan Quayle in a debate. It didn’t matter. It won’t matter for Newt, either, because people don’t equate debate performance with performance in office (nor should they, obviously). And when “scoring” debates, the media grade performance relative to expectations. In this case, since Newt’s fans have already built up his supposed debate skills to legendary proportions, that means Obama wins as long as he doesn’t literally wet himself.

I don’t like to see GOP candidates go after each other, but nor do I want to see a loathesome fraud like Gingrich get the nomination because GOP voters didn’t have all the facts about “the most hated politician in the world.” So fire away, Mr. Romney, fire away!

“Would you want your 20 something daughter to be an intern in Newt’s Oval Office?”

Man oh man! You don’t know my 20 something daughter!!

However…

For all the talk of why Reagan won, did anyone before the election really believe that he could win due to all the attacks? Like mentioned above, he was senile, etc. Not saying Newt can or would win, but it’s always just a guess. Maybe 20 years from now we’ll be talking about how you have to be a fighter to get elected.

One big complaint it that the 2 parties offer no real difference in the candidates (although we political junkies know there is a difference). But, if Newt wins, there will be a difference. We don’t really know why people don’t vote – there may be a significant enough number to make a difference this time around.

They listen to and get their information–and world-view– exclusively from MSNBC and the like, and any alternative information, or other interpretation of “reality” is met with instantaneous, almost apoplectic rejection.