I’ve heard some rumbling in progressive circles that Newt Gingrich was seriously attempting a comeback as a presidential candidate. I didn’t really believe it. But somebody got Robert Novak to write a column touting the former Speaker who resigned in disgrace over his stupendous leadership failures as the man the GOP needs.

Apparently he has “dynamism.” More seriously, the view is that Gingrich offers a “constant stream of ideas, an important commodity in a party that appears to have run short of ideas during the Bush years.”

I’m not really sure how key ideas are to conservative political revival. But what Gingrich offers doesn’t really qualify as ideas. Instead, call them “ideas.” Instead of thinking about ways to solve problems in people’s lives, Gingrich is good at offering ways to package predetermined special-interest priorities as solutions to things that arise. As an opposition gambit, I think this probably works fine. It’s good for raising money, so it ensures that you can stay in the game. And it gives you talking points to go on TV with. Eventually the governing party will screw up, and in you’ll come. But at the same time, the considerable shortcomings to this approach as a governing philosophy is precisely what brought the GOP to this point — it leads to catastrophic screw-ups that prompt massive public disapproval.

Am I the only one who’s confused by all this conservative organizing against the re-imposition of the “fairness doctrine” on talk radio? I understand why they oppose that move, but why are they putting so much energy into blocking something that nobody is trying to do. A Fairness Act bill was submitted in the House in 2005, but it only 16 cosponsors. No such bill was submitted in the last conference. Barack Obama opposes reintroducing the Fairness Act. And speaking as a paid-up member of the vast left-wing conspiracy, nobody on our side is getting any marching orders about this.

I guess they need something to talk about on the radio shows, but I’d just focus in on Obama’s plan to turn the United States into a socialist dystopia.

The consequences of shifts in presidential election behavior can be enormous. But it’s worth recalling that the actual shifts themselves can be pretty small in the scheme of things.

Here’s Robert Vanderbei’s map of the 2004 election:

And here’s 2008:

Obviously — not the same. But pretty similar.

Expect all kinds of mischief from the Bush administration between now and Inauguration Day. Today, for example, if you thought one of the leading injustices in the United States is that poor people have access to unduly good health care, Bush is ready to solve that problem.