Newt is such a egotiscal little fool.

It's a cinch. Rather wins his lawsuit against CBS. He donates it to Newt as a "journalistic cause" because we know that would be a full employment move for the MSM.

How can you doubt that will happen. I admitit my be a bit tricky to get all the appeals finished by Nov 1, but that's the power of wishful thinking.

So what happens if they don't hit the magic $30 million number? Say they raise 25, and decide it's not worth it. Do they return the money, or what?

Conservachef ~ I believe he is only seeking "pledges," not actual cash - didn't Perot do something along the same lines? That way no FEC reports are required, etc.

In any event, if he raised as much as $10 million in the time set, with no organized fundraising, I would say he should go for it. The reality is he'll be lucky to get pledges for $5 million and, if he actually ran, would be lucky to collect on half the pledges.

Yeah, I should read slower. Right AFTER I submitted the comment, I noticed the "pledge" part of the story...

It's frankly a bad sign, when a candidate's first thought regarding whether he should run, is how much money YOU will be givng HIM.

He sounds like one of those Capital One commerials!

Now, why do I think Newt's real intent for any collected money might be focused more on post election personal use than on the campaign? On the other hand, it might be worth-while for Republicans to take-up a collection for him on the condition he go away and shut up.

Clearly Newt has seen the writing on the wall - or more aptly the lack of any writing at all - when it comes to his possible candidacy. There's no way in hell he'll manage this and when he doesn't he can gracefully say, "Well, folks, I guess we won't run this time." Should a miracle occur and he manage to raise it, obviously he should run because he has somehow inherited a kind of Midas touch. At that point I will have to seek him out and beg him for cash, promising anything from my first born to my wife to a Larry Craig-ish toe tapping extravaganza. He's not running. This is how he walks away.

A very long time ago...in a galaxy...far far away I remember Oral Roberts holding himself hostage unless folks ponied up big bucks.
Has Newt spent all the millions from his book sales?

He just needs to get ahold of Hillary's chinese donor pals and it's a done deal.

yeah, what's wrong with those Chinese? Why aren't they donating to the Republicans? We buy their poisonous pet food too.

Ya'll quit picking on my man Newt.... I might go pledge 100 bucks or something.

The fact Newt can't get any traction only serves to prove Greenspan was right about the party.

Out of any candidate (especially the declared ones), Newt is best prepared for the job of President, and perhaps the most qualified.

What's Hillary's credentials? Carpetbagger in NY?

What's Obama's?

What's Fred's, Mitt's or Rudy's in comparison?

Newt spent the last 10 years looking at the real problems facing our nation and has some astounding real-time solutions that seem more than plausible. I don't understand his strategy, but maybe it's just being unsure that the conservative contingent is ready for a fight.

I have to say, I'm not sure we are either.

Would you realy vote for a guy named for a lizard? well at least QUYAL are nicer SQUAWK SQUAWK

D.Doré ~ It's hard to argue Newt is qualified at all, much less "most qualified." He's never run any operation bigger than the House, which isn't that large an administrative job - and he botched that after a good start (and couldn't keep his hands off the help, either). He's a great theorist, an idea man, but has demonstrated no talent as a manager at all.

~~~~~~~~~

nogo ~ My first reaction to the story was that he should have just said, "I need $30 million by November or the Lord is calling me home!" Only my celebrated sense of propriety kept me from including the line in the main post . . .

Gotta give props to Oral Roberts, though, for the best-ever Snappy Answer to a Stupid Question by a Man of the Cloth. When a heavy rainstorm interrupted the dedication ceremony for his City of Faith Hospital, a smarty-pants reporter asked him, "If you're so tight with God, how come it rained on your ceremony today?"

Roberts shot back: "Son, I'm in Sales, not Management."

Heh.

Perhaps you don't consider the impact that the 1994 House had as significant as I do. That's fine.

As for him being an "idea man"... yeah, what a horrible attribute. The point is that while every other piece o' crap candidate has had to whip up some kind of plan of action to handle certain topics (based solely upon how important they poll as an election issue), he's THE ONLY one who has actually taken time WAY before the election cycle to look at the real problems facing our nation, and come up with real-time solutions. I don't necessarily agree with each solution, nor do I see everything eye-eye with him.

So between you and me, we have hit 2 key areas that could make a good President of the USA: Management Skills and Ideas.

Which of the candidates meets your requirements for previous management skills?

The ones that I might potentialy see fitting your test are all lacking the in the "ideas" department. And you seem to feel that the one with ideas is lacking management capabilities.

So, obviously one of those tasks are going to have to be outsourced to other parts of their administration team.

I believe a great manager can organize and accomplish good things, but if he's accomplishing ideas that he likes but aren't his, the resolve behind his decisions is easily weakened, and his administration will waft under the pressure of his political opponents. (Such is the case with the current presidency).

However, a visionary man who can inspire others with ideas and solutions can easily have others who are much more efficient in management carry out the organization and accomplishment of such tasks, (especially if he has the authority to make such calls and is not simply an advisor). Then when pressure comes to bear, he will more readily defend these plans, and less likely will buckle under the threat of a political fight.

Obviously, having someone who can do both (such as Reagan did) is ideal. At this point in time, there is NO SUCH CANDIDATE.

Currently, I'm tired of watching scenario "a" over and over again. I'm all for going for the "Theorist".

Newt seeking $30 million by November reminded at least two commenting above of Oral Roberts seeking $8 million by March (1987)? That was my first thought, too.

$1.3 million of the money Oral raised was given by a dog track owner - maybe Newt can find this generous soul, so that the philandering GOP candidate infamous for recommending orphanages for the children of the poor can appear on the ballot. Oh yeah, he's an "idea man" -- sure to yield dystopia faster than most.