The tipping point that the debt has placed us at makes a successful true populist movement, one based on substance rather than a mirage, inevitable. The face of this eventual leader will morph over time. In 1992, we had the snappy wise old grandfather in the visage of Ross Perot, somewhat echoed by Ron Paul. But why did Herman Caine get that initial blip? Why did he have that moment? Because he was a populist. Not because anything he had to say was really all that bright or even sane, but because he kept it simple and tapped into that vein of anger that is out there. Over time, the face of the populist will become ever more twisted with greater and more intense anger and frustration, mirroring what simply is in a people who somehow feel cheated and betrayed. This isn't to pass judgement on any of that, it's simply what is. Let me offer a metaphor here that requires a brief diversion of subject. Picture what would happen in the aftermath of a terrorist-delivered nuclear strike on an American city. Of all that would precipitate from that, one facet would surely be that those who decry Guantanamo and who felt a self-satisfied justification in the face of Abu Grahib would, after the next election cycle, suddenly develop a nostalgic fondness for the days of George, Dick and Condalisa. The point is that you might see Newt as distasteful, but the fact is that he's the best populist that you are going to get because he is the populist of the moment with the best chance of winning. The longer we put off the inevitable, the worse it's going to get. Newt now or God knows what later.