Hadley Arkes, writing in First Things today, expresses respect for Newt Gingrich, but finds his omission of certain terms to be very revealing ... and damning:

In New Gingrich’s speech Cheney and Powell were marked off by name, but the words abortion and marriage never escaped Newt’s lips or made it into his comprehensive text. Newt marked off an ellipsis, and then deliberately held back from naming the issues that were framed in the ellipsis. And those subjects that could not be named became, of course, all the more important through that studied omission. For Gingrich was a conveying just how important it was to the resurgence of the Republican party that those issues be omitted, that they be dropped from the explicit appeals of the party. 

But, Hadley asks, why avoid social issues - especially when they are winning issues?

But is that really the case, either in principle or in political calculations? The political embarrassment for Newt is that these issues are net winners. The pro-life side, when taken up by candidates, has generally produced an advantage of about five percent at the polls. The country is still decisively on the side of preserving marriage, and resisting same-sex marriage, even if the elites have been weakening in their resolve. African American turnout in California gave the edge of victory to Proposition 8 in overturning same-sex marriage. In fact, the black community would offer a deep source of allies in its opposition to same-sex marriage and its aversion to abortion.

Hadley does more than tear down what Newt is saying (or more precisely, what Newt is not saying) - he goes on to construct an alternative, principled, and more persuasive account for what conservatives can say to the Republican party and to the American people.

Hopefully Newt finds his voice on these two central winning issues.