Gingrich/Palin In 2012?

Bonus points for watching every head explode on the Left! And the real irony is that you could probably structure the ticket either way. With a couple more years of seasoning, Palin/Gingrich could prove to be an interesting combination, though ego might get in the way in either case. Who really knows?

In serious conversations among Republicans since their election debacle Tuesday, what name is mentioned most often as the Moses, or Reagan, who could lead them out of the wilderness before 40 years?

To the consternation of many Republicans, it is none other than Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House.

Gingrich is far from a unanimous or even a consensus choice to run for president in 2012, but there is a strong feeling in Republican ranks that he is the only leader of their party who has shown the skill and energy to attempt a comeback quickly.

Comments

[templar knight]

"..you're not a creationist, are you?"

Of course I am. But why would that cause me to reject science? The processes set in place by creation are natural and can be studied. The products of creation are constantly changing and adapting to the condition they find themselves in. If you want to call that evolution, I have no problem with that, just so long as you don't have a "religious test" disqualifying competant people who do believe in creation.

I've never heard Jindal say the things you accuse him of, nor am I aware of any specific bills by him to require creationism to be taught in Louisiana schools.

[scarshapedstar]

"I've never heard Jindal say the things you accuse him of, nor am I aware of any specific bills by him to require creationism to be taught in Louisiana schools."

OK, then. Inform yourself.

http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/005255.html

Here's the problem I have with your "modest proposal". It sounds like you're saying that God defined the laws of physics in such a way as to allow for the Big Bang, and several billion years later, the carbon chains that made DNA such a reliable medium for passing down information through time. I think that's a beautiful concept and find no real fault with it.

However, that's not what creationists actually say. They look at a product of evolution, like the human eye, and say that it's so impossibly complex that it could never have evolved through incremental changes. In doing so, they ignore the fact that countless other organisms have less sophisticated eyes of their own. Oysters, for example, have mantles dotted with simple light-or-dark photosensors like I used to play with on my Lego Mindworks robots; that's all they need to sense an approaching predator and snap safely shut.

http://www.fi.edu/fellows/fellow7/dec98/oysters/index.html

The nautilus has a more complex eye, similar to a pinhole camera; many photosensors are arrayed in a hollow cavity, allowing the formation of an image, albeit a pretty poor one by our standards.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nautilus_eyes#Nautilus_eye

And then there's the octopus, which has no armor and thus must be very aware of its surroundings, and accordingly has complex eyes rivaling our own, although the mechanics are very different.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/O/octopus_eye.html

To myself, this is evidence of descent with modification, a claim supported by reams of genetic analysis. To a creationist, however, there must be an added layer of complexity: at every step, an outside force was acting to shape the development of the octupus eye. There's two problems with this reasoning.

The first is that, presumably, the outside force would still be acting upon the octopus eye, and so if the octopus ever gives rise to a sentient species then this would be an act of God. However, creationists almost always insist that no new species can be created (given the current extinction rate, this is a very sad state of affairs) and are certainly not being created in our lifetime. Apparently, God intelligently designed everything right up to man and then called it quits. Thus, by their own admission, creationists can ever test their own "theory".

The second is that the outside force is completely superfluous. I could make an equally compelling "theory" to the effect that every time I strike a key on this keyboard, an army of tiny invisible leprechauns jumps on my finger to give me a little added oomph. There's a number of ways to try to disprove this, but they could all be explained away by elaborating on the nature of the leprechauns; they're massless, they know when there's a scientist looking for them, etc. Ultimately, given that the leprechauns are so elusive and nobody ever had trouble using a keyboard in the first place, it seems better and more rational to conclude that the leprechauns simply don't exist and never did. Similarly, we know how DNA is replicated, we know how organisms reproduce, and we know how DNA is translated into proteins. Give me an organism and some top-of-the-line equipment and eventually I can tell you what its cells are made of right down to the atomic level. Give me some of the organism's relatives and I can tell you how they got to be that way; which mutations occurred, the likely cause of the mutations, and maybe even the manner in which they changed protein functionality.

The creationist can only say that the organism is the way it is because an omnipotent being decided that it should be that way, past and future changes be damned. It's fine if someone wants to think that way, but it closes off all avenues of scientific inquiry, and that's why they have no business dictating the manner in which we teach science to the next generation.

As an aside, like Rod Dreher, I'm a graduate of the Louisiana School for Math, Science, and the Arts; it's otherwise known as the Governor's School. I feel sorry for the science faculty and will continue to do so until Jindal leaves office.

[nina]

Gingrich is an opportunist. He has lost so much credibility since "the revolution"
He may help in an organizational capacity but would be a real loser as P candidate.
We need fresh blood with experience and no RINOS.

[Spartan112]

Scar,
I believe Jindal was born Hindu not Catholic, he converted.

[templar knight]

scar, I read your link about Jindal. It seems to me that you would have more of a problem with the La. Senate, which passed the bill in question unanimously. Jindal doesn't appear to be trying to force his views on anyone. He just said he would like his children to be exposed to all views on the subject in question. You may deem him disengenious, but I have not at this point. As for him moderating his view just in case he runs for national office, now that is exactly what makes the political process in the US work. Govern from the middle, my friend, or you won't govern very long. Obama would do well to take that advice.

[Dan]

Gingrich leaving his wife while she had cancer isn't helpful to his chances.

[tk]

Relax. After 4 years of Obama the GOP could run anyone and win. The left will demand he destroy our economy so the unemployment will go to 12-15%, taxes will stop coming in,debt will soar and the people will see socialism is not for them.

[tk]

Relax. After 4 years of Obama the GOP could run anyone and win. The left will demand he destroy our economy so the unemployment will go to 12-15%, taxes will stop coming in,debt will soar and the people will see socialism is not for them.

[John CdA]

Newt squandered the mandate he was given with a Jim-Wrigyht styled book deal, dumped his wife and has shown hubris approaching Jimmah Carter's. Give me a break...just because Sean Hannity has a man crush on him doesn't make him a viable candidate.

[stilletto]

Please, please, please nominate Newt and Sarah. I'll even try to make my head explode if you do. lefty

[stilletto]

Please, please, please nominate Newt and Sarah. I'll even try to make my head explode if you do. lefty