Show of hands, please: Who was politically aware then, and recalls clearly, Newt's Speakership?

[Stinky The Clown]

If you do, do you think that, based on anticipated results, he would be the worst choice for this country of the four repubican candidates?

If you don't recall his Speakership, please say so. I'd still like your view, but I am most interested in those who lived him first hand.

[RebelOne]

1. I remember his speakership.

I didn't like him then and I like him less now.

[prairierose]

36. I second this Rebelone.....

clear and succinct.

[Warren DeMontague]

2. These sorts of threads make me feel old.

"remember" newt? Fuck, I remember watergate.

[elleng]

6. and I remember the '68 Dem convention!

OLD? YOU???

[HarveyDarkey]

30. I was teargassed at the '68 Dem convention

[elleng]

34. Where were you???

I was in my office down the street from convention, and later helping get folks out of Cook County Jail!!!

[HarveyDarkey]

38. Nothing that dramatic

I was an 18 Y/O college freshman, a Young Democrat chosen to be a page on the floor. A few of my friends & I decided to check things out & hopefully find some beer. We wandered into a maelstrom & found ourselves "engaged". That's when I was truly radicalized & I've never looked back. Didn't get arrested, I think my geeky 1960's skinny tie saved me.

[elleng]

44. On the floor pretty dramatic!!!

Had worked at CCJ as 'secretary' for legal services, so became friendly w personnel. When the maelstrom occurred, found was able to use friendships to go back over there and help organize, like get meds to those arrested, connect with families, etc. Ended up, funny, watched the 'chaos' on the floor from Warden's office!!! Few years later, decided to go to law school, DePaul. Which college?

[Warren Stupidity]

41. Shit I watched that happen. One of the oddest things I've seen.

An explosion of people. It was surreal. The other fun moment was running down a street, the guy next to me gets attack by a man in a uniform with a club. The guy being attacked is wearing a motorcycle helmet and is hit so hard that the helmet splits in half and goes flying off his head. The three of us, the cop, me, the guy, look at each other for a frozen moment of stunned silence, and then we all start running again.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. Me too, four times in four nights.

[elleng]

45. Couldn't resist it, eh?

[Warren Stupidity]

54. Couldnt avoid it.

If you were going to protest you were likely going to be beaten and gassed and arrested. Plus ca change...

[HarveyDarkey]

47. Obviously a glutton for punishment.

[Stinky The Clown]

33. As do I

I also remember clearly the Kennedy/Nixon debates

[Warren DeMontague]

3. To answer your question, I was surprised to see him being taken seriously, if only for a week or two

...I thought he was finished after he left the speaker job.

[elleng]

8. So did I!

Nothing like 'mother nature,' eh?

[elleng]

4. I did, worked in DC for a Federal agency

as did my husband. Kind of held our breaths at the time. (Husb a repug, but not entirely brainless.)

He'd be pretty bad, imo, but sanctimonious would be worse for his religious approach. Dunno, newt knows how things work, or used to work, and has opinions on issues, but is also very difficult to work with, according to his former colleagues.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Oh, yes. I remember him well - like a bad acid trip.

It's hard to say with absolute certainty that he would be the very worst of the four - Santorum scares the bejeebers out of me - but he would definitely be very, very bad.

He's a nasty SOB with delusions of grandeur - remember his temper tantrum when he thought Clinton disrespected him on AF1? If he were president we'd probably end up invading Canada to take over the oil sands, right after we got done nuking Iran.

[Stinky The Clown]

29. Hammer, meet nail!

Yeah, that's what I fear.

With Newt, its all about Newt.

[madokie]

7. A real dick

Hypocritical bastart in the first degree. I didn't like him then and I don't like him now and yes he would be the absolute worse. Wait what am I saying, oh shit any one of the four, oh shit america you're fucked if they make it to the whitehouse, anyone of them.

[freshwest]

9. Remember it vividly, it was part and parcel of the rise of Limbaugh. No, he's not worse that...

Any of the rest of the insane clown posse. They all end up doing the exact same thing no matter what the name they put on their latest prouduct.

[Siwsan]

10. This is a real 'pick your poison' line up

Santorum would be a disaster for, well, everybody but religious zealots like Rick. Romney would spell disaster for everyone but the 1%. Gingrich plays what ever role he thinks will get him the job and then revert to form. He is incredible unethical and crooked.

I could easily see Santorum and Gingrich getting into serious constitutional/ethics trouble. If Romney was elected, we might as well change the name of the White House to the Flip Flop Palace. And, lock up our pet dogs.

[DURHAM D]

11. Frankly he would be the best of the 4.

He wants to be seen as smarter than everyone else.

And Bill Clinton, from the former President's club, will play him like a monkey. Bill as the grinder, of course.

[bananas]

12. I was politically aware back then, but I haven't been following the primaries.

I also remember Newt before he was speaker, how he attacked Jim Wright for going to central america for a first hand look at what was going on there.

[izquierdista]

13. Seven deadly sins

The Repubs have been trying to choose which sin to go with:

wrath -- Rick Perry, never met a criminal he didn't want to fry.
greed -- Mitt RMoney, need I say more?
sloth -- Rick Santorum, laziest thinker on the planet, just does what the Pope tells him.
pride -- Newt Gingrich, for his opinion of his debating talents
lust -- Herman Cain,
envy -- Ron Paul, why can't he have what the Koch's have and just buy his way in?
gluttony -- Limbaugh

We all know which one wins, greed of course. The greediest is going to take it one way or another, you can make book on it. But the worst choice for the country? Pride. Pride goeth before a fall, and Newt's pride is up in the stratosphere, with a long, long, long, way to fall, and a HUGE splat to be made. If he were President, the fall of American civilization would be spectacularly nasty.

[Baitball Blogger]

15. He was pompous and arrogant and seemed to have no moral compass

when it came to accusing people of the very things he was guilty of.

If I remember correctly, the Republicans agreed with us.

[stopwastingmymoney]

49. +1

Excellent summation

[gratuitous]

16. I remember Speaker Gingrich

In his own way, he was surprisingly effective. I can't say I liked the results very much, but when he set out to wreck something, by golly it stayed wrecked. Gingrich was less successful when it came to accomplishing something. My recollection is that he was rather imperious. While he gleefully monkey-wrenched things when he was a back-bencher in Congress, he really disliked the give-and-take necessary to the legislative process, and often accused people of dirty dealing over legitimate differences of opinion and approach.

Would he be the worst choice for the country of the four Republicans still standing? That's kind of hard to say. Each of them brings a unique constellation of badness to the table, differing in quality and emphasis. Gingrich would certainly be a bad president, as he doesn't appear to have matured or mellowed since his disgraceful departure. He's learned to say really nasty things in a slightly nicer way, but under the surface veneer he still betrays a really mean, vindictive nature.

[kurt_cagle]

17. Gingrich as Speaker / Gingrich as President

Gingrich as a speaker was surprisingly effective, as far as I remember. He was politically savvy, understood how to get the GOP House working savvy on a number of key opposition pieces (not least of which being the impeachment of Clinton) and he was very good at big vision pieces that while light on substance were easy to rally around in principle. He miscalculated a couple of times, most notably the budget showdown with Clinton that blew up in Gingrich's face, but I think that had more to do with the fact that Clinton was just smarter than Gingrich.

His downfall on ethics charges was the cost he paid for the showdown that essentially allowed Clinton a second term. Even at the time, it seemed somewhat trumped up - other pols on both sides had done far worse, ethically speaking, and in retrospect it almost certainly looked like a political power play that ultimately put Hastert in power and made Tom Delay (the House Majority Leader) arguably the most powerful man in Congress.

In the current line-up of Republicans, Gingrich isn't the worse (I'd put Santorum far above Gingrich in that category), but he's arguably the next. Part of it is that he no longer really has a political base - the 1994 Republicans were confrontational, but they were still fairly standard stock model GOP. Santorum's base is the Dominionists and religious Tea Party affiliates. Romney's is the moneyed financial elite, Ron Paul's is the hard-core Ayn Rand Libertarians. That leaves Gingrich with the sliver of what's left. It's not enough. Politically, Gingrich is a futurist - quasi-libertarian, very much a fan of Robert Heinlein as opposed to Rand, a sometimes disciple of Grover Norquist. He's arguably the most intelligent of the four, though it's sometimes hard to see that for the bombast. I don't think he'd be a great president, but he's nowhere as scary as Santorum, is more intelligent (and aware) than Romney. Biggest problem is his lack of scruples - he doesn't have a lot of integrity, and people sense that. Which is why he's likely to be a bit player at best at the convention.

[Laurian]

18. I remember him very well.

Considering the circumstances under which he left his position as Speaker, I never dreamed we'd see him on the national stage again. Amazing that he has the gall to present himself as an acceptable choice for President of the United States!

[tabbycat31]

19. I only wish I was

I was in high school then, and could care less about politics.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. I recall his Speakership, and he was and is no good for this country.

I can not presume to rank their field of candidates nor pick a worst. Each is awful in their own unique way. They are sort of like a Godhead of awfulness, each one personifies a particular expression of awful perfected. They are many, and they are one.

[TheKentuckian]

28. You said all I needed to and almost exactly how I wanted to say it.

[Arkansas Granny]

21. Yes, I remember. He would be a bad choice, but Santorum would be even worse, IMO.

[Retrograde]

22. I remember the Contract on America

and Newt's shutting down the government in a snit.

[The Blue Flower]

23. I remember well

I remember reminding my friends that the Nazi party began as an ordinary political party, then changed the rules wherever they'd wormed their way into power. I also called his Contract with America the Contract ON America.

[yardwork]

24. Hand up. Newt is dreadful. Santorum is horrible, too.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. It's a tie between him and Santorum

They both lack ordinary morality and empathy, but while Newt is sort of (not extremely) smart and evil, Santorum is stupid and evil.

I was already quite grown up during the Newt's tenure as Speaker, and I found him appalling.

[Riley18]

26. Yes I remember how completely evil he was

Towards President Clinton. Surprised he was taken seriously. Just another example of how low the republicans are willing to sink.

[quaker bill]

27. Stupid or Evil

Santorum or Gingrich.

It is hard to judge which would be worse when all would be very bad.

[KamaAina]

31. Yup. The "Contract on America".

Even so, Sen. Frothy and the Mad Tinfoil Hatter would be worse.

[mulsh]

32. he would be a disasterous pres. however he would be a godsend to

Progressive/Liberal organizations. When he was speaker he was very useful for a number of groups I was involved in.

Fortunately he is only in the race to sell some books and videos and prick up some handy matching funds.

[TeamsterDem]

35. I remember it all too well but no, I think Romney would be worse

Gingrich - while a POS - so alienates almost every "group" out there (except tea party Republicans) that his presidency likely wouldn't accomplish much. A Romney presidency, though, has a very sick potential: The moderates don't actually believe his new-found firebrand style, so they would side with him in most cases. The tea party - so happy to have Obama gone - would side with him. And the idiotic independents never make their minds up, and would likely view him in the way the remaining Republican moderates do; e.g. "he's just sayin' that stuff to get elected, he's actually more moderate than that."

I think Gingrich knows in his heart of hearts that invading Iran would be a disaster. I don't think Romney understands thing 1 about foreign policy, so I don't think he has the depth to understand just what an Iran war would cost us in terms of lives, money, and prestige. As strange as it sounds given Newt's bombast about Iran, I actually think he knows better and is just posturing to shore up the south/teabag contingent. Romney, though, is one of those "converts" to something who then becomes worse/more extreme than the "thing" to which he converted actually is: He reminds me of a former smoker who then attacks every smoker.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not saying Gingrich would be good. He'd be awful. But you asked if he'd be the worst out of the 4, and in that awful choice I actually don't think he's the worst of that group - however disgusting he might be. And is.

[csziggy]

40. I remember it, even though I had little time to be political

I agree with others, trying to figure out which of the clown circus would be the most evil is impossible.

[mrmpa]

42. I remember his "leadership" quite well.....

his was a contract on america, not for america. He just did what he pleased & it was in the tradition of Reagan. He absolutely would be a terrible choice for President. I can't rate the repug candidates, because they all would bring ruin to this country.

[fluchen]

43. I remember when that clown was elected the first time to the house.

But my memory and political awearness goes all the way back to the 1st Nixion Admin.

[CBHagman]

48. With the exception of former majority leader Tom DeLay (R-TX)...

...I don't think there's a living American politician I have a lower opinion of.

[Hippo_Tron]

50. Recall, no, have read up extensively on, yes...

And Santorum would be worse.

[jmowreader]

51. Can we change that a little?

He's definitely the worst choice of the three credible Republican candidates. (Credible meaning anyone with more than 100 delegates at this stage of the campaign; it certainly doesn't mean "Republican candidates who are qualified to be president" because none of the four we've had inflicted upon us are that.) Of the four candidates, Ron Paul is arguably worse than Newt, but it's close.

[DFW]

52. Remember him as Speaker? I MET him as Speaker

Never EVER trust a guy who has a limp handshake. Gingrich was a dead fish.

My dad was president of the Gridiron Club one year during Clinton's presidency, so I got to meet all
the players of the era, right and left. Some briefly, some I've kept in contact with. I saw Gingrich a
year ago at a breakfast diner near where my brother lives in the McLean/Langley area. I did NOT go
over and say hi.

Based on the fact that Gingrich has acted in a cold and ruthlessly pragmatic way ever since he left
Congress, I actually think he would not be as destructive a president as Santorum or Paul. Santorum and
Paul are strict ideologues. They are always the worst when entrusted with power. Gingrich talks that talk NOW,
but has never walked that walk. I can't stand any of the three of them, but I'd still rather have the Shah running
the country than the Ayatollahs.

With a little luck, this is all fantasy speculation anyway. The Republican contest for the nomination is so far
looking to be the most expensive race for "also-ran" in US history.

I not only remember 1968, but was an 8 year attendee of the 1960 convention in L.A. My dad was covering it
for his newspaper in upstate NY, and took the whole family out there. Disneyland!

[Thegonagle]

53. Yes and yes. I'm only 36 now, so I was thinking about stuff other than politics

for the most part.

But I didn't need to pay that close attention beyond my usual NPR, the local paper, and the evening network news to notice that Newt Gingrich was not only an ineffective speaker who was bad for image and reputation, but was a bad person in general, no matter how good a BSer he could be.

[hifiguy]

55. I remember it vividly - all too vividly.

But I think Frothy would be an even worse president. Newty is an intellectual fraud, a gasbag and a slimy opportunist. Santorum is genuinely insane and believes every word he says. Newt will say anything to advance himself - ultimately he's just a cheap huckster and con man.

[LanternWaste]

56. I think Santorum would more damaging to the country

Gingrich has far too much ethical baggage, made for too many enemies (within the GOP, too-- I think a many people have forgotten his rather acrimonious relationship with the GOP at the time) during his tenure as Speaker, and has far too many verbal "oops" moments to allow him to get his agenda through Congress or the Senate.

I think Santorum would more damaging to the country, but he also has as much chance as Ron Paul or Daffy Duck to come close to anything resembling even a modest loss in the general election.

[Blue_Tires]

57. Yes, I was politically aware then, and I went to college in Atlanta in the late 90s

Any of the four would be bad, but I personally feel Ron Paul would be the worst

[Citizen Worker]

58. I remember all too well the reign of Newtie as speaker. Rush Limbaugh was broadcasting his hate

radio program from the House. Newtie proudly pointed out that there were lobbyists writing legislation that would be acted on by the House and he strutted around the place like a banty rooster.

[stevenleser]

59. The problem is, worst for whom.

Santorum would be the worst for women and the LGBT community.

Gingrich would be the worst in terms of foreign policy. I am 100% sure with Gingrich we get into a war with Iran. We might get there anyway with any of the rest of them or Obama, but at least with Obama, I'm 100% sure he doesnt want that war.

Paul would be the worst for the 99%, he would give everything away to the corporations because he believes they would police themselves in order to continue to appeal to consumers.

Romney would be generally bad for all of the above because he lacks any kind of values. Whether its business, or our allies or those who dont like us, everything works badly if people dont know what to expect from you, and no one really knows what to expect from Romney.