“It just wouldn’t have happened without him.”
He was never that important, any more than old man Dole, who took over the Senate in 1994.
Assuming you are right (which is a big leap), then who is the leader of the GOP, the sine qua non, without which the GOP will not be able to gain control of Congress? There is none. It is going to happen. Period.
I have no blind spots about Gingrich. And I do remember the histroy. I remember his embrace of Gore and global warming, Dede Scozzafava over Doug Hoffman, his capitulation to Clinton in 1995 on the budget, his affair disclosed in the middle of the Monica Lewinsky impeachment that led to his departure.
Gingrich is not Churchill. He is not Reagan. He is an historical asterisk. Nothing more.
And, yes. Palin would wipe the floor with him in a GOP debate. She would be the better nominee to face Obama. By a long shot.
Just remember Hank: Don’t conflate smugness and intelligence. Gingrich has more of the former than the latter. And it shows. Which is why he is a radioactive figure politically. People don’t like him. And if they don’t like a person, they don’t vote for him.
Sure. Because Tulane gives PhD’s to morons.
Forget it....as badly as some have Palin Derangement Syndrom, you appear to have Palin Sainthood Syndrome.
Newt is, and has long been, a serious thinker and political strategist. Sarah’s a great story and a good conservative. But she could no more have brought down Jim Wright than fornlorn old get-along Bob Michels, who Newt thankfully steamrolled into the oblivion he so richly deserved.
Frankly, Michelle Bachman would be preferable to Palin. She’s much more articulate and more ideologically sound.
Hank