Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich hasn't been getting as much attention as he likes lately.  So he's told a few folks he'll run for president if he can raise $30 million by the end of November. My advice to Newt is to buy lottery tickets.  But wealthy supporters of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani should consider helping Mr. Gingrich out. We have in effect semifinal matches between Mr. Giuliani and Sen. McCain for the more moderate GOP vote, and between Mr. Romney and Mr. Thompson for the more conservative vote.  A Gingrich candidacy would split the conservative vote in the early primaries further. Since I'm for Rudy, that's reason enough for me to be excited about a Gingrich candidacy.  But I have a less cynical reason.

The view of Russia is clear from where I am writing this, Bucharest, Romania.  Month by month, President Putin of Russia has been erecting a new authoritarian model that owes more of its lineage to fascism than communism.   That model can now be named:  Putinism  - a Russian nationalistic authoritarian form of government that pretends to be a free market democracy. Unlike Soviet communism, the new Russian state does not seek to direct every aspect of political and economic life. Instead, through limited, direct control and intimidation, plus strategic investments in both institutions and people, not only in Russia but other nations as well, the Kremlin seeks to ensure favorable global press and decisions beneficial to its interests from political and business leaders around the world. Putinism is shrewd and ruthless -- but how long can it succeed?

The difference was made gin-clear by a recent editorial in the International Herald Tribune, wholly owned by the New York Times, sneeringly entitled The Nanny State? The difference is this:  A bank robber doesn't claim he has a moral right to steal your money.  A bank robber doesn't claim his thievery makes him the moral superior over his victims. Liberals do - which makes them far more immoral than common criminals, thugs and thieves.  According to the IHT, "The United States has long had one of the most meager tax takes in the industrial world [at least they call it ‘take,' as in ‘theft'].  America's social spending [i.e., welfare programs] is almost the stingiest among industrial nations." Such meager and stingy theft is condemned as a "moral outrage," a contemptibly "tightfisted" approach to "public needs." It is liberal thievery that is the moral outrage - and we have a Congress in Washington run by such thieves because too few conservatives have the courage to denounce the criminality.

In recent years, the old "let's tax them more" crowd was on the defensive. But now, with a politically weakened president, the tax increase lobby is out in full force. All the Democrats running for president have promised to increase taxes. Almost every week, some senator or representative advocates more taxes to impose upon the American people. The tax increasing Democrats are betting the new generation of voters does not remember how the old, high tax rates affected the economy. The U.S. has only suffered three "down" quarters of economic growth since 1982 - a record never before enjoyed. To pull off the "new taxes will not hurt" charade, the Democrats need to convince people the Reagan and Bush tax cuts had nothing to do with the unmatched economic growth and job creation. If Benjamin Franklin were with us today, he would rephrase his famous quote and say, with Democrats, nothing is certain but lies and taxes.