Of our founders, four were magnificent: Washington, Franklin, Adams and Jefferson. Two were essential: Washington and Franklin. I give you the "no-good" Franklin: occasional attendee of hellfire club, abettor of illegal dissections, likely serial affair artist, part time agnostic, slaveholder cum abolitionist. A complex man who learned and changed over time. What he would advocate for himself in the individual case would often come to be inconsistent with what he would advocate for the country at large. Inasmuch as the whole is more than the sum of its parts, that is the way that unfolds for all of us. Indeed, an innocent, unfamiliar with the ways of the world, would be tragic. For that, I give you Jimmy Carter. Obama scares me in both aspects, as individual and as statesman. While Newt often falls far short as an individual, it's his evolving philosophy for the state with which I am mainly interested. Between Newt and Mitt, which one is most suited to restore opportunity and liberty for the American middle class? Without a free and healthy middle class, there's little that can restrain despotism. I don't necessarily want or need an elite ruler who thinks he knows best or how to fix things top down. I don't want a land swamped with voters who lack sense to apprehend when to close themselves to ravages of foreign despots and illegal derelicts. I want a land of liberty and opportunity, and I want it to defend itself against all despots, elitists, and fanatics of the world. Let them stew in their own nation building.