Pat,

I think Newt touches on some interesting points in that speech, but based on my experience, I think he also overstates the threat.  While the media would have us believe that the Islamists are gaining everywhere and lurk around every corner, I think their ideology is already dying a slow death.  Whether that prevents us from "losing a city" remains to be seen . . .

I do like Newt's proposition for a series of nine free-flowing discussions between the final presidential candidates. I've felt for a awhile that the short, timed debate format constricts any real answers to questions.  The debates are more about good television than good policy discussions.  And the current debate formate allows "speak well, say nothing" candidates like John Edwards to look smarter than they are.  They also allow unrigorous thinkers like George W. Bush to hide their flaws, to an extent.  We are or would be served well by neither. 

On the other hand, the best talker may or may not actually make the best president.  I suspect the president's team has more to do with that.  In the case of Bush, one might argue that his choice of Cheney and Rumsfeld were fatal flaws in the presidency.  Likewise, during the Clinton years, his use of his wife as a health care consultant and his selection of Janet Reno for the Justice Department were enormous screw-ups.