WI: Newt Gingrich In 2000

Okay, I don't know how plausible it is but...lets say the Newt Gingrich decides to run for the Presidency in 2000.

Would he have been able to get the nomination with the likes of Bush and McCain to compete against?

If he gets the nomination, who would his running mate be? What would their chances be against Gore? Would Gore still pick Lieberman as his VP?

Assuming Gingrich wins, what would his Presidency look like? What would his cabinet look like?

Assuming 9/11 or a similiar attack happens, how would Gingrich react, and what would her do?
 
Gingrich is just too...well....Gingrich. Just the mention of his name draws out some internal uncomfortably in the heart of men (well, moderate and liberal men). He's too polarizing.
Plus, he cheated on his wife with a women in the 90's who he later married. With that, you have hypocrisy (Newt went after Clinton, after all). You also have, independent of that hypocrisy, a smear on moral fiber which won't help with "family values".

So, you have a candidate who makes everybody not a Conservative rather uncomfortable, who has no moral standing as far as politics is concerned, who had gained low approval towards the end, who had spear headed an unpopular bid to remove Clinton, along with some some ethics scandals he garnered along the way, who is going fresh out of all that into a bid for the White House.
 
The POD has to be after the 1996 election, and Newt has to remain Speaker. He stepped down in '98 because of the enormously disappointing midterm results. At the six-year mark, they should've gained 25-30 seats by historical precedent. Because he kept driving home the impeachment despite a) no legal grounds b) nowhere near the numbers required, the electorate said: "STFU about Monica, let's talk about real issues" and gave the Dems an additional 5 seats. In the modern era that was only done by FDR in '34 and Bush in '02. First case, there was literally no other option, second was "peace and prosperity".
 
Newt has way too much baggage. Can you imagine the political attack ads against him? Fade in showing a woman in a hospital bed, in walks the Newt look alike and hands his wife divorce papers.
 
The problem is that Newt is a highly polarizing figure, despite being impeccably qualified, with too much moral baggage. Even if he decides against impeachment, the discontented House backbenchers, whose scheming had started after the '96 election, will need to be ruthlessly suppressed. Even with a liberal dose of handwavium, Bush and McCain both had some bipartisan appeal. Newt is as bipartisan as Karl Rove or Dick Cheney.
 
You'd have to make the PoD prior to the 1992 Election. Once Bill is in, there was no talking the GOP off the Clinton Wars edge. The GOP '94 Revolution was an inevitable result of the 1990 re-alignment, massive gerrymandering (on BOTH sides), and the New Deal coalition succumbing to old age. Newt cannot control the forces at work once Clinton is elected. He would just be pushed aside by others.

So Newt is Speaker just at the time the GOP base is howling for the blood of the draft-evading-dodging-deserting, hashish-smoking, dope-dealing, whore-mongering (HEY! They got that one right!:D) Slick Willie, and his corrupt, bra-burning, feminazi, fake-Yankee-fan, slutty (Vince Foster?), pantsuit wearing lesbo(?:confused:) of a wife, Hillary Rodham (No Last Name)!:mad:

He denies that crowd, he's forced out as Speaker. If he tries to claim right of recusal (he IS third in line, after all), it'll be a question only of when Newt got removed as Speaker. Perhaps they'll charge him with failure to carry out his Constitutional duties. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. He was an enthusiastic supporter for Impeachment, so his cred is safe on that score, but he disgusted the Independents and infuriated the Democrats. His own sexual escapades are not nails in his coffin, they are the cement poured on top of his grave.

A VERY early PoD is needed. So early it just isn't really "Newt's world" anymore.
 
Last edited:
Even if he decides against impeachment, the discontented House backbenchers, whose scheming had started after the '96 election, will need to be ruthlessly suppressed.

RogueBeaver

It wasn't merely discontented House backbenchers, it started when Clinton's bid for the Democratic nomination appeared to be getting traction. I think this is one area of US 20th Century domestic politics where my own knowledge approaches your rarified level. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (VRWC) got started long before '96, or Newt's elevation to Speaker. I can see your eyes rolling at the VRWC reference, but the only thing Hillary got wrong was there was nothing secret about it. Everyone seemed to know about it, except non-conservative reporters, that is. They had money to burn, and enough people full-time to fill three buses. The bus reference is due to the fact that there were three very distinct separate groups, often liaisoning with each other one-to-one, but with their own separate (Vast) funding. Remember the "elves"? Judicial Watch? Richard Mellon-Scaife? The American Spectator? Ken Starr? Paula Jones' second team of lawyers?

The VRWC was a three headed tiger, with Speaker Newt as the rider. But he who rides the tiger must eventually fall off...:p
 
As I see it, no matter the remedy, Newt Gingrich is too polarizing to win, even against Gore, who's as charismatic as a dish towel, with a boring personality to boot. Rove describes Bush's outreach to Hispanics, discontented Democrats & Indies in detailed length in Courage and Consequence. Both Bush & McCain were seen at the time as moderate Republicans, which Newt was not. Newt would never be able to win over those groups who were vital to Bush's victory.
 

pnyckqx

Banned
Gingrich is just too...well....Gingrich. Just the mention of his name draws out some internal uncomfortably in the heart of men (well, moderate and liberal men). He's too polarizing.
Plus, he cheated on his wife with a women in the 90's who he later married. With that, you have hypocrisy (Newt went after Clinton, after all). You also have, independent of that hypocrisy, a smear on moral fiber which won't help with "family values".

So, you have a candidate who makes everybody not a Conservative rather uncomfortable, who has no moral standing as far as politics is concerned, who had gained low approval towards the end, who had spear headed an unpopular bid to remove Clinton, along with some some ethics scandals he garnered along the way, who is going fresh out of all that into a bid for the White House.
Gingrich makes everybody uncomfortable. Social conservatives are uncomfortable because of Gingrich's womanizing and especially because he left his first wife while she was in treatment for cancer. IIRC, he had her served with papers while she was in the hospital.

He makes the paleo/libertarian conservatives uncomfortable because he's seen as a policy wonk and a hypocritical statist bastard masquerading as a conservative.

In short the guy would go nowhere fast as he'll soon find out in the next election campaign.

A Gingrich presidency for all intents and purposes borders on ASB no matter what political perspective one has.
 
Gingrich makes everybody uncomfortable. Social conservatives are uncomfortable because of Gingrich's womanizing and especially because he left his first wife while she was in treatment for cancer. IIRC, he had her served with papers while she was in the hospital.

He makes the paleo/libertarian conservatives uncomfortable because he's seen as a policy wonk and a hypocritical statist bastard masquerading as a conservative.

In short the guy would go nowhere fast as he'll soon find out in the next election campaign.

A Gingrich presidency for all intents and purposes borders on ASB no matter what political perspective one has.

Well, apparently, judging by all the coverage Newt gets there, Fox News is now reporting matters ASB. Which is new for them. Wait a minute. No it's not.:(
 

pnyckqx

Banned
Well, apparently, judging by all the coverage Newt gets there, Fox News is now reporting matters ASB. Which is new for them. Wait a minute. No it's not.:(
Much like all of those journalists who thought that McGovern was going to prevail against Nixon in 72, and certain other groups reporting that Israel and the US --or any combination thereof-- is going to attack Iran any day now.

Wishful thinking reported as news isn't limited to one particular ideological group.

It seems to be pandemic and evenly distributed.

As far as Gingrich's hypocracy goes, my favorite example was when he supported the 'establishment Republican' in the New York special house election, and decried outsiders who were interfering in a local race by endorsing the Conservative Party of New York's candidate.

I didn't know that the state of Georgia was part of that particular New York congressional district.
 
Last edited:
Newt Beats Obama

Much like all of those journalists who thought that McGovern was going to prevail against Nixon in 72, and certain other groups reporting that Israel and the US --or any combination thereof-- is going to attack Iran any day now.

Wishful thinking reported as news isn't limited to one particular ideological group.

It seems to be pandemic and evenly distributed.

As far as Gingrich's hypocracy goes, my favorite example was when he supported the 'establishment Republican' in the New York special house election, and decried outsiders who were interfering in a local race by endorsing the Conservative Party of New York's candidate.

I didn't know that the state of Georgia was part of that particular New York congressional district.
McGovern goes back 38 years, and while YOUNG reporters were talking up McGovern older journalistic statesmen like Ben Bradlee knew a first-rate train wreck when they saw it. Today the liberals in the media are so cowed by Fox that most straight reportage outside the anchors wouldn't seem much different from C-SPAN.

Though I certainly agree with you about the "US-Iran War" being talked up in the media. ALL MEDIA. The sources for this talk are the same people who told us Saddam's WMDs were moved to Syria and we would have to go there "next".:mad:

You are also 100% right about Newt in New York state. As a private citizen, he has every right to campaign for anyone he wishes whereever and whenever he wants to. But didn't he and other senior GOPers criticize a certain woman from Arkansas for running for the Senate in New York State? This man is hypocrisy personified. No wonder the only friendly home he's found is at Fox.

As I am writing this, something just occured to me. Did not much of the newspaper empires of the first half of the 20th Century hail from the deep end of the conservative pool? And did not the Great Depression lead to a general shift to the left for the media (adding on radio and TV)? Perhaps Fox simply represents a long shift backwards towards a rightwing media? All it takes, though, to swing back again, is another "Dewey defeats Truman" moment.
 
Gingrich would never have won. Period. He'd pissed off by the moderates with his penchant for polemicism up to eleven, he'd pissed off many of the ideologically fiscal conservatives by using the budget crisis as a cash cow, he pissed off the socons by his sheer hypocrisy with the whole divorce debacle (this is the man who was seen as calling for Clinton's blood, mind you).

In short, if, by some unforseen miracle, he does get the GOP nomination in 2000 (highly unlikely, because we Republicans aren't (or at least weren't) suicidal), well, the Democrats could nominate Lyndon Baines Pigasus, and still win in a landslide.
 
An interesting question. Who would be Gingrich's running mate and how would Gingrich do against Al Gore in the debates?

How does it play in New Hampshire?

If NH doesn't like Gingrich as well as Bush and it does go Blue (it has wavered back and forth over the last six Presidential elections, tending to Blue) in 2000 that's 267 + 4 = 271 to Gore (or 270 if the DC Elector still abstains) to 267 for Gingrich and Florida ballots fade into irrelevance.

Can Gingrich, who is a more polarizing figure than Bush was in 2000, draw more latent Democratic supporters to come out and vote for Gore rather than sit on their hands in 2000?

Could Gingrich rally the nation after 9/11? Would he be more credible standing at ground zero telling the world that "the people who did this will soon hear from all of us?"

I don't know that he would have done much differently in reaction to 9/11. The real question would be about what came after that, once the initial Afghanistan operation was over with. Would he have followed the neo-con path to Iraq? Or?
 
Top