For a short period during the Republican primaries for the 2012 elections, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich became the frontrunner. This was around the same time that the shine of businessman Herman Cain’s star began to fade, and long after people realized that former frontrunner Rick Perry, governor of Texas, had an IQ to match that of a pencil eraser.
Gingrich was unarguably the smartest man in any room, though sometimes his solutions for problems were bigger than the problems themselves. Republican voters didn’t mind, however, because they, like I, devoured Gingrich’s confrontational approach at the debates—not with those he debated, but with the liberal moderators.
His matter-of-fact statements that he “will” be the Republican nominee proved to be nothing but hubris, however, and he, like the others before him, dropped out of the race as well.
Now he’s weighing in on the potential Republican candidates for the 2016 elections. On his CNN program on Tuesday, Gingrich said, “I don’t think that [New Jersey Governor Chris] Christie is particularly the frontrunner. I don’t think there is a frontrunner. But what this [bridge scandal] has done is…taken some of the charm off, and some of the Time Magazine-cover effect off.”
If anyone can charm an audience, it’s President Obama. But without a TelePrompTer, it’s Chris Christie, hands down. Unlike Gingrich, I do think Christie still is the Republican frontrunner, at least for now, while there’s still nothing to directly link him to the traffic jam conspired by his aides.
As for Gingrich again being a candidate himself, he hasn’t ruled it out. Of such a prospect, The Hill blog, in April of last year, had this interesting prediction: “And if Hillary runs, Newt will run as well. It is in the nature of politics that every force will find its equal and opposite force: particle and wave, Newt and Hillary. And if Hillary enters, Newt will be president in 2016.”
Now wouldn’t that be fascinating? Both Gingrich and Clinton love to argue. Clinton, who, barring her arrest, trial, and sentencing for Benghazi, will be the Democratic candidate for 2016, might, in her pride, actually take Gingrich up on his oft-stated desire for three-hour, Lincoln-Douglas-style debates. Clinton’s not a bumbling fool on the debate floor like Obama is, but Gingrich would still make hamburger out of her.
America, as racist and sexist as it is, hates old white males, but moderate voters might put their bigotry aside and see during the debates that Gingrich’s ideas are far superior to Clinton’s, and, combined with all the ammo the Republicans now have and will hopefully use against Clinton, could end up electing Gingrich.
Not that I’m advocating it, but crazier things have happened. See 2008 and 2012 for details.