In the case of Newt, I would argue that he was "perfectly suited" to being in the opposition, but a complete disaster as Speaker ... and his personal problems (and hypocrisy with respect to them) were his ultimate undoing.
Bob Barr was fine in an adversarial role, and as such he was perfectly suited to the impeachement battle. But he was not at all well-suited to demonstrating the day-to-day respectability that goes along with being a responsible member of the majority party. He quit Congress and the Republican Party because his loud-mouthery no longer played well. And he, like Newt, turned out to have zipper problems of his own, which made his impeachment stance seem a bit hypocritical.
I tend to agree with you about Dick Armey, though.
I think Newt got sucker punched by the media . . . and he gave them the rope to hang him with because of his ego and inexperience in being in the majority party (50 years for the Republicans since they had to be Congressional leaders . . . they never got it right). Barr’s “zipper” problem was overblown. He didn’t testify under oath in his divorce of his 2nd wife whether he had slept with his 3rd wife. It’s not exactly a Clinton or Spitzer level of skirt chasing.
I put “sucker punched” in the same sentence with “rope to hang him with” . . . sincere apologies for the mixed metaphors there. Pull your socks up if you wade into that sentence because the dog there won’t hunt; not to beat a dead horse but the sentence is more jumbled than a jigsaw puzzle.
And he, like Newt, turned out to have zipper problems of his own, which made his impeachment stance seem a bit hypocritical.
Clinton wasn’t impeached for getting a Lewinsky. He was impeached for committing perjury. Some people never get the message.