Let's say that Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich either takes a lesser role in the Clinton impeachment or does not press charges at all. Would he be able to stay Speaker of the House if Clinton was not able to paint him as a hypocrite? How plausible is him angling for the presidency in 2000? How do you think his relationship with Gore, Bush, or Kerry/whoever becomes president compared to Clinton? How much longer as Speaker do you think he'd last? Probably not all the way to 2007 like Hastert was able to.
 
Gingrich was bound to implode at some point, so I don't see him lasting that long in the 2000s and his marriage was going to end at some point. If Gore wins in 2000, I doubt Gore's relationship with Gingrinch would be much different from Clinton's overall, although there is bound to be some bitter partisan battles, as the Democrats would be in the White House for a third term and the Republicans would still control the congress and be desperate to finally control all three branches. As for how he'd deal with Bush, I think he, Cheney, and Rove would fight over who has the most influence over him. Cheney and Rove would win in the end and Gingrich would become marginalized. As for Kerry in 2004, I doubt Gingrich would be Speaker past 2002 or even be in Congress past 2002 for that matter.
 
Something like this crossed my mind just now -- today, Gingrich's reputation is a mixed bag, with him considered to be both a serious policy wonk and a vile human being.

It struck me though that the latter might very well be considerably less intense even if his private life were both unaffectdd and still well known, were it not for the obvious hypocrisy of trying to destroy the Bill Clinton's presidency over his personal life. So even if Newt still falls from power as speaker, he'd be considerably more viable as a (potential) presidential candidate.
 
In my view there's a much more pertinent hypocrisy at work with Newt Gingrich than the Clinton impeachment.

He rose to prominence in part by accusing the Speaker of the House of ethics violations-to the point where that Speaker was forced to resign.

Gingrich then became Speaker and proceeded committed acts that were every bit as unethical as anything Jim Wright had ever done.

While Gingrich's defenders could argue that Wright's violations were worse than Gingrich's the fact remains that Gingrich rose as a relentless enemy of an unethical Speaker-only to become an unethical Speaker himself in a few short years.

Those ethic violations-when coupled with the precedent Gingrich himself had set in his war against Jim Wright-and the Republican losses in 1998 make me think that Gingrich couldn't have held his Speakership longer than he did.
 
In terms of what happens if Gingrich is still Speaker in 2001-you'd see a much more contentious relationship between the House and the Bush administration. Gingrich had his own preferences-and by nature was more independent and contrarian than Dennis Hastert. He'd support all of the Bush tax cuts. But I can see Gingrich fighting against No Child Left Behind. He also probably wouldn't do as much as Hastert did to ensure the enactment of the prescription drug expansion of Medicare if he's still Speaker in 2003. You'd see not only a less legislatively successful Bush administration-but the appearance of infighting within the Republican conference between Gingrich and Bush on domestic policy.

I don't think he can run in 2000 regardless. His relationship with a Gore administration is probably about the same as the one he had with Clinton.
 
Top