According to many conservative pundits, Newt Gingrich is dead — again.  I’ll resist the temptation to join the chorus (this time). Following Newt’s resurrection in South Carolina after getting clobbered in Iowa, it was clear to me that the Speaker was stunned by Romney’s vehemence in the second Florida debate.  Let’s face it — the Governor’s “resigned in disgrace” comment was both inaccurate and striking in its aggression.  I felt at that moment that Newt’s failure to respond effectively very well could have doomed his candidacy. His subsequent explanations have come across to many as whining — sort of like complaining about a cheap helmet-to-helmet hit that’s not penalized and causes a fumble.  After all, what matters to most is victory, not how the game is played.

Many of the attacks on Newt for his news conference the night of the Nevada caucuses have been mean spirited. To be sure, the Speaker made very negative remarks about the Governor.   But he also had the guts to host an open news conference under trying circumstances, facing all questions from a skeptical group of political reporters.  He conducted himself calmly and with poise.  He was generally articulate and occasionally eloquent.

Despite the anti-Newt train, which is partly driven by fear, he could have another life or two.  The Speaker’s attacks on Governor Romney’s Bain legacy were ill advised and probably deserving of the condemnation they received from many conservative analysts.  His consulting for Freddie Mac is a liability.  He has an unpredictable dimension.  (Churchill did, too.)  But Gingrich also has the abilities to articulate conservatism and move an audience.  Senator Santorum shows signs of having similar abilities.  Governor Romney still has a way to go on these dimensions.  And any attempt in a debate to treat the President the way he treated Gingrich won’t go over well with independents.

The snafu over scheduling the President’s speech next week before Congress is a trifle, and the President was correct to move the date following Speaker Boehner’s request.  The episode nonetheless does not inspire confidence in the President or his team.

If the Administration knew about the conflict with Wednesday’s long-scheduled Republican Presidential  debate, creating a deliberate conflict would appear petty and/or mean spirited (akin to when the President invited Paul Ryan to a front row seat for a Presidential speech which trashed Ryan’s proposals).  It would add to the impression that the President is impolite (not a nice person), at least with people who disagree with him.

On the other hand,  if the President’s team didn’t know about the scheduling conflict (or scheduling issues associated with the return of Congress and attendant security measures), it displayed incompetence.  The quick change of date to Thursday favors this explanation.  Either way, it was not a good day for the Administration.

Regarding venue, the decision to make the speech before a joint session of Congress seems political and grandiose.  An Oval Office address would receive as much coverage and reach as many people, with less hype, pomp, partisan applause, and political grandstanding.

As to substance, unless the President escapes the prison of his liberal ideology, nothing he proposes will help the economy in any meaningful way.  It could certainly cause more harm.  If he remains shackled and the market nonetheless goes up the next morning, astute observers will look for other causes, such as better news on housing, sunspots, or Chairman Bernanke dreaming about QE3 during the President’s speech.