The consensus of yesterday’s discussion here on the last Republican presidential debate is that Newt Gingrich had the best performance. He is certainly conservative, experienced, creative in his problem solving, and very, very smart. (It is said of him that the only preparation for a debate that he needs is a Diet Coke.) So why not rally around him as the alternative to Romney?
Social conservatives and the Christian right turned against him because of his multiple marriages and his womanizing past. But he is a recent convert to Catholicism. He says his life is turned around. Shouldn’t Christians accept that? (Catholic question: In Protestantism, a conversion to Christianity means that one’s previous sins are swept away. In Catholicism, do his previous divorces and remarriages prevent him from receiving Holy Communion?)
The other thing against him is his reputation as an undisciplined campaigner, blowing through his fundraising and losing practically his whole campaign team. He claims, though, that traditional campaigning like that is obsolete, that television and the internet–not kissing babies and pressing the flesh–are where elections will be won now. Surely with the Republican party machinery behind him the practical aspects of campaigning could be taken care of. He would surely acquit himself well in the debates with President Obama.
OK, I’m grasping at straws here. But what would you think about Newt?