Newt Gingrich is setting his sites on the field of online politics...

PALO ALTO, Calif., Feb. 26 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- American Solutions for Winning the Future announced today that it will expand its organization with the opening of a new office in Silicon Valley that serves as the organization's technology headquarters. This new office makes American Solutions one of the few national grassroots organizations with a visible presence in Silicon Valley.

Former Speaker of the House and American Solutions General Chairman Newt Gingrich made the announcement in a video posted on American Solutions' YouTube channel: www.youtube.com/americansolutions.

"We're excited to be in Silicon Valley and to learn from the best of the private sector so we can utilize the latest technological breakthroughs to fundamentally transform government from the world that fails to the world that works," said Gingrich. "We believe it's possible to create a world that works and to move the bureaucracies of the past - obsolete, slow, cumbersome, paper-based institutions - into a very dynamic, networked, information technology future."

"Our office will be looking to work with the innovative and entrepreneurial people located in Silicon Valley to establish ourselves as a leader in online politics and serve as a model for successful online political efforts," said David Kralik, Director of Internet Strategy for American Solutions and manager of the Silicon Valley office. "We want to engage in a dialogue with technology leaders and to communicate a message of free market principles where consumers decide who wins and not the government."

As usual, Newt's focus is where the rest of the conservative movement's should be.  As several presidential candidates have proved this year, online politics isn't "the future", it's the present.  And being good at it isn't an option.  It's a necessity.  As slack as so many others on the right have been, I'm glad to see somebody on the right making this kind of commitment.

Anybody want to bet against him?

From 'round the sphere:

On the trail...:

* Gingrich in Iowa; Running for VP? - The Washington Times

* Clinton Endorsement List Debatable - Yahoo

* Tancredo Ad Ties Immigrants to Violence - MSNBC

News:

* Supreme Court to Take Up Guantanamo Rights Case - Yahoo

* US To Press for Iran Sanctions - The Washington Times

* US Defense Chief: A Secure Iraq Within Reach - USA Today

* 5000 Terrorists Detained Since 9/11, Says Author - Agape Press

Opinion:

* Is Iran Irrational? - Cybercast News - Terence P. Jeffrey

* The Story Mike Huckabee Dreads - National Review - Byron York

* Be Intelligent - National Review - Editors

Newt Gingrich has floated a challenge to all presidential candidates regarding next year's debates between the eventual nominees...and it's fair to say it's a far cry from what we've grown used to in the decades since the dawn of television.

A challenge arrived at the office of every presidential candidate about two weeks ago. It was a letter, signed by journalist Marvin Kalb and me, challenging each one, Republican and Democrat, to sign on for "Nine Nineties in Nine." That is, if nominated, they would pledge to take part in nine 90-minute debates in the nine weeks leading up to election day.

How is this different? We are asking the candidates to throw out the rule book that has stifled political debate. Each party's nominee would be expected to present and defend solutions in a one-on-one dialogue with his or her opponent. The moderator would only keep time and introduce topics. ...

Wow.  I don't think half of the candidates currently running for president are capable of filling 90 uninterupted minutes with meaningful conversation.  Not to mention be willing to take that kind of "risk".  And I think that's part of the point he's trying to make here.  That too many candidates see it as a "risk" to engage in real, unscripted conversation.

Now, with some candidates, I suppose that's true..insofar as they're really just not capable of it...or lack the intelligence.  But in that case, they shouldn't be running in the first place.  Gingrich goes on to compare our current situation with the past.

We don't really have presidential debates today; we have a kind of meaningless political performance art: a recitation of talking points choreographed to avoid any risk.

In the 2004 election, the Bush-Kerry debate rules ran a full 32 pages of do's and don'ts, including one rule that ordered the moderator to stop any candidate who dared to depart from the script to reference someone in the audience.

The candidates also were ordered to turn over for inspection "all such paper and any pens or pencils with which a candidate may wish to take notes during the debate." Pen and pencils. Talk about the vital stuff of democracy!

In telling contrast, the ground rules for the most famous debates in U.S. history were outlined in a two-sentence letter from Abraham Lincoln to Stephen Douglas, his opponent in the 1858 race for the U.S. Senate in Illinois. After a prompt exchange of letters, they settled on the terms for seven debates. Lincoln insisted only that "I wish perfect reciprocity, and no more." There was no talk of pens and pencils. ...

I guess that's the kind of confidence you have when you really believe in yourself and your ideas.  One thing you can say about Newt, he's always been a believer in his ideas, and good at presenting them.  And he's always felt that the GOP does better when we confidently tell the American people what we believe and run on those ideas.  He concludes:

Let the candidates pick the topics. Let the answers be as long as they need to be. Let the conversation be open-ended.

Each debate would focus on one topic confronting the republic -- such as the threat presented by radical Islam or the challenge of securing our borders -- on which the American people expect their next leader to have solutions. Instead of debating Swift Boat veterans and National Guard papers, we would have a genuinely patriotic discussion about the future of our country.

To get the ball rolling, I propose the first and only ground rule: "Perfect reciprocity, and no more."

Well, at a minimum, it would certainly be more entertaining than what we've become used to, if not actually better for the country.

Newt's latest on the bill, via Fox:

“This bill is a disaster. It is a failure. It should be defeated. It should cease to exist.”

“And this bill is a recklessly destructive bill, written, I think, in a fantasyland by a group of staff who have no idea how the U.S. government operates and, frankly, don’t care how it operates.”

“This is a political bill written for political purposes. It fits the agenda of the left. And every Republican ought to be opposed to it, and frankly, every common sense Democrat ought to be opposed to it.”

I'd say that's pretty straight and to the point.

h/t the Chaser