2nd thing: He’s a politician so vastly more qualified to lead the nation than any other Democrat or Republican that taking the moral high ground regarding the above seems as as foolish as putting aside The Psalms on account of King David’s backsliding.

One newsreport describing Newt’s 3rd wife: ‘a devout Catholic who began her relationship with her husband via a lengthy extramarital affair’

And, of course, that reflects on his integrity as much as on hers.

I watched some of the videos on Mitch’s official website, where he walks into places of business, government offices, etc. and I was impressed by the combination of seriousness, good humor, and affability that he conveys. I realize that he may not have the “wow” factor, but I think he could really catch on.

If he could win the nomination, and then persuade Rubio to be his running mate, he would have a fighting chance to win. Rubio certainly has the “wow” factor, and could excite both hawks and social conservatives. And of course he could probably attract a lot of support from Hispanic voters.

But those of us, like yours truly, trying to do our liberal arts political work in political SCIENCE departments, know that Olson is one of the gods of rational-choice, of the faith in modelling, which IMO ultimately leads in a “and the Correct Game Theory shall set you free” direction. (And it ruins a lot of political science departments along the way!) A different, if much more sane and chastened, sort of “technocratic approach” than that pretended to by Obama. But someday, we may have reason to fear its peculiar brand of scientism guiding our “governance.”

Also note the political foolishness and tactlessness of putting one of the authors of the Bell Curve on his list. I love a lot of Murray’s stuff too, but Daniels should know better.

I still very much want him to run.

Given this list of Republican candidates, I suspect divided government will be our lot. So it becomes a question regarding how Obama will deal with another two years behind the ball of a Congressional Republican majority (and this time with a Republican Senate to boot.)

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/05/11/guess-who-said-why-newt-must-run-first/

Newt currently has a video announcing his presidential run. I especially like how he says we should insist on “imposing solutions” on those who disagree. This type of rhetoric will will surely soften his high negativity poll ratings. If “imposing solutions” doesn’t work, then the listless soundtrack of piano and strings in the background should. Newt has discovered that America likes bad Debussy–whole tones that lead nowhere! If you don’t believe me, just take a look/listen–

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRSz21Vedxc

In this video, Newt says he wants to return to this and that regarding the Reagan years. He can’t win with this trope.

At the very least Newt’s belief in his own viability as presidential candidate should put to rest the alleged scientific futurology of Alvin Toffler. I don’t need to be able to read the stars (or generational demographics) to know that this boat don’t float.

But like Carl, I’d vote for him anyway–even if it were not for such noble reasons as not being not-Obama.

Or rather, like Peter–I would just have to sit it out.

And that reminds me. Mitch Daniels’s reading list leans too heavily in the direction of different kinds of right-libertarianism. http://thebrowser.com/interviews/mitch-daniels-on-how-libertarians-can-govern?page=1

Though we could do worse…and we are.