I've got Good Newt and Bad Newt

So former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is apparently, at this hour, your Republican presidential front-runner.

Depending on how you look at it, that's either good Newt or bad Newt.

Good Newt, that rascal, can pleasantly surprise you. He stood in the midst of a GOP debate last week and said, clearly for all to hear, that its unrealistic and wrong to insist on deporting every single illegal immigrant among millions that are currently living in the United States.

"I don't see how the party that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter of a century," Gingrich said.

But Gingrich's position isn't new. He said as much months ago when his announcement tour plane landed in Cedar Rapids. Gingrich wants to set up "citizen review" panels that would allow local people to review the cases of immigrants who entered the country illegally. The panels could weigh an immigrant's family and community ties, employment and other factors. They could put that immigrant on what Gingrich calls a "path to legality."

Sure, it would hardly be that simple, and maybe it doesn't work. But how many stories have we read or seen about communities or families fighting a faceless federal immigration bureaucracy to save a friend, colleague or relative from deportation? Under Gingrich's plan, those folks would at least have say in the process.

Of course, this has drawn fire from Michele "deport 'em all" Bachmann and Mitt Romney, who may be seeing his second failed White House run flashing before his eyes. Pundits claim that Gingrich's reality based stand on immigration could ruin his chances of winning over the Republican "base" in places such as Iowa.

Never mind that pretty much every Republican that's won the party's nomination over the past 30 years has taken a moderate stance on immigration, from Reagan to McCain. And the last caucus winner, Mike Huckabee, also talked often and sympathetically of the plight of immigrants who took great risks to find a better life here. So the "base" isn't really as Steve-King-monolithic on immigration as the punditry might seek to paint it.

So good for Newt. Then there's the bad Newt.

Before the debate, Gingrich appeared at a forum sponsored by Bob Vander Plaats' "pro-family" outfit. When the subject turned to Occupy Wall Street protests, Gingrich snarled some glib advice to the demonstrators. "Go get a job, right after you take a bath."

Zing! And the crowd goes wild. Gingrich says OWS participants believe they are owed something. Punch those dirty hippies, upright citizen. It's good politics.

Trouble is, if you peel away the layers of camping, assorted hygiene issues and crazier excesses of OWS, you'll find that the core argument is not one of entitlement. Unless it's that we're owed a government that doesn't accommodate and reward shameless financial cheating, and bail out the cheaters when their breathtaking dishonesty results in massive, economy shaking losses. Then pat the cheaters on the head as they stroll away unscathed.

The current White House occupant has done precious little to fix things, despite fancy promises. Republicans vow to do even less, opting instead to cut the cheaters' taxes. That'll show 'em.

And you don't have to live in a tent or need a shower to be outraged about it. You might even be living on a cul-de-sac in some swing-voting suburb, in a home with three-and-a-half baths. You might scoff at it, but you probably don't blame OWS.

Because the seemingly clueless government we have was built brick by cynical brick by skilled mercenaries like Gingrich, who columnist George Will perfectly dubbed "the classic rental politician" who "embodies almost everything disagreeable about modern Washington." Or, in other words, exactly what Americans have had up to here.

And no amount of bathing can wash off a label so well earned.