Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
vcczar

Rating Newt Gingrich

Rating Speaker/Rep. Newt Gingrich  

23 members have voted

  1. 1. Read my first comment below to see Gingrich's career: How would you rate his career as a Speaker/US Rep?

  2. 2. Would Newt Gingrich had made a better president than Barack Obama?

  3. 3. What is Newt Gingrich's Legacy?

    • Leading the Contract w/ America, the Republican Revolution in the House, being the first GOP Speaker in ages, and historic tangling with Pres. Bill Clinton.
    • Failed 2012 bid for the GOP nomination for president.
      0
    • Hypocritical behavior, such as launching and leading ethics probes against Democrats, leading an impeachment regarding Clinton's marital affair, and ultimately resigning in disgrace over his own ethics violations and marital affair.


Recommended Posts

Same as my Rating John McCain thread, but for Newt Gingrich

Gingrich, Newt 101 H R GA 1988 1989 1 Forces Speaker Jim Wright by leading ethics charges against him.
Gingrich, Newt 103 H R GA 1993 1993 2 Joins Pres. Clinton and leads the push of NAFTA through the House
Gingrich, Newt 103 H R GA 1994 1995 3 Leads Contract w/ America
Gingrich, Newt 104 H R GA 1995 1995 4 Becomes first GOP Speaker in ages
Gingrich, Newt 104 H R GA 1995 1996 5 Tangles w/ Pres. Clinton in two long government shutdowns that backfire on GOP
Gingrich, Newt 104 H R GA 1996 1996 6 Leads and negotiates GOP Welfare Reform; Clinton signs it
Gingrich, Newt 105 H R GA 1997 1997 7 Reprimanded for ethics violation but keeps Speakership by narrow margin
Gingrich, Newt 105 H R GA 1997 1998 8 Forces Clinton to an agreement on Budget deal
Gingrich, Newt 105 H R GA 1998 1998 9 Leads inaugural stages of Impeachment effort, which backfire, and help cost him speakership
Gingrich, Newt 105 H R GA 1998 1998 10 Resigns after admitting to a marital affair while leading an impeachment effort on Clinton's affair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rate him as "terrible" in the same way I'd rate John C Calhoun as "terrible," while both were "great" in the historic sense of having an aptitude to gain and wield influence to almost single-handedly change the country, I think what Gingrich added to the country was almost exclusively awful based on my own ideologies and biases. 

I will give Gingrich points for having an authentic imagination and being an idea person. I would like a liberal/progressive version of him, but without the hypocrisy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, pilight said:

I'd guess Gingrich's legacy will be nonexistent.  50 years from now he'll be as well remembered as Joe Martin.

I think he will be remembered for leading the Republican Revolution in the House for certain. First GOP Speaker in 40 yrs and is activist form of conservatism inspired in the Contract w America is probably the reason the GOP has been strong in the House after 40 straight years of D dominance. Really 1932-1995 was D dominance with brief moments of GOP control between 1948-1955. 

I strongly dislike Gingrich but he’s kind of monumental—far more than Joe Martin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

99.9% of the people don't care which party had a majority in congress before they were born, let alone why.  In 50 years, when his term as Speaker is 70 years in the past, only a few geezers will remember his name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, pilight said:

99.9% of the people don't care which party had a majority in congress before they were born, let alone why.  In 50 years, when his term as Speaker is 70 years in the past, only a few geezers will remember his name.

Ah, another cheerleader saying lack of education and knowledge is a good and acceptable thing. The same lack of education and knowledge that's on the rise and causes people to believe stupid things, cherish ridiculous stereotypes, condemn others for speaking or making references outside "parochial and zeitgeist-based limits of discussion," fervently cling to long debunked and insulting to the intelligence myths and lies, talk out there asses about matters they know nothing of to those who do, and expect to be given full credence and respect in what they say, and to vote for and idolize and the most toxic populists, manipulators, and con artists out there. Must feel good endorsing a trend like that, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, pilight said:

99.9% of the people don't care which party had a majority in congress before they were born, let alone why.  In 50 years, when his term as Speaker is 70 years in the past, only a few geezers will remember his name.

You were talking about legacy not name recognition. For instance Speaker Joseph Cannon’s legacy is that he was the most powerful speaker in US History. No one knows who he is but historians and US history fans. However, he was consequential. Gingrich will be viewed on par with Cannon. Probably just a half-step below him. If someone drew up a list of the 100 most consequential members of Congress, both Cannon and Gingrich would likely be in the top 50, probably closer to the top 25, if we assume senators make up nearly all the top 25. I say this greatly disliking Gingrich. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

You were talking about legacy not name recognition. For instance Speaker Joseph Cannon’s legacy is that he was the most powerful speaker in US History. No one knows who he is but historians and US history fans. However, he was consequential. Gingrich will be viewed on par with Cannon. Probably just a half-step below him. If someone drew up a list of the 100 most consequential members of Congress, both Cannon and Gingrich would likely be in the top 50, probably closer to the top 25, if we assume senators make up nearly all the top 25. I say this greatly disliking Gingrich. 

A legacy that no one remembers is no legacy at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, pilight said:

A legacy that no one remembers is no legacy at all

No, it just means there's a lot of ignorant people. If I asked by students who Henry Clay was, I bet maybe 1% of them know who he is. I bet 10% can name more than 5 presidents. Yet, those not named have a profound legacy, even if their name recognition has declined. One would hardly say Henry Clay has no legacy. That would be like claiming Isaac Newton has no legacy if you happened to be among a population that hardly knows who he is. Legacy is not equivalent with name recognition. A legacy is just something that is passed down to a later generation, which means someone can be totally unknown yet completely shaped future generations. For instance, the inventor(s) of the wheel is unknown but his, her, their legacy endures. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Lol speaking of affairs the girl who cheated on me caught an STD last week and idk whether to laugh or feel bad

lol karmel

It REALLY is time to get a new brain. Your old one - the high IQ model you bragged about - is obviously no longer functional in a practical sense. And there's no such thing as "karmel."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I bet 10% can name more than 5 presidents.

That's interesting, because most Canadians can statistically, and have some familiarity with 10-15 Canadian PM's, AND around 10 American Presidents. And Canada has a little over half as many PM's as the U.S. has Presidents that have served (not including interim PM's).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

That's interesting, because most Canadians can statistically, and have some familiarity with 10-15 Canadian PM's, AND around 10 American Presidents. And Canada has a little over half as many PM's as the U.S. has Presidents that have served (not including interim PM's).

I obviously have familiarity with every president. I won't claim familiarity with any Canadian PMs as I can't speak at length about any of them, but I recognize the names of 8 of them. The first two PMs, King--the one that served 3 times--, both Trudeaus, and the last three that aren't Trudeau. I know very little of any of them. I know even less about the Mexican presidents, even though I can recognize the names of several of them. 

My knowledge of political history outside the US is confined only to Britain, France, and Russia. Although my knowledge of history in general covers most of Western and Central Europe. I have some competence in Eastern Europe (mostly Russian), Middle Eastern, Chinese. I know the very basics on African, Latin American, Japanese, and Canadian history, which means I have the gist of their history but probably have gaps of knowledge in things I should probably know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

It REALLY is time to get a new brain. Your old one - the high IQ model you bragged about - is obviously no longer functional in a practical sense. And there's no such thing as "karmel."

Who am I kidding i'm laughing my ass off.

also i love my brain but it has horrible taste in women

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...