If you really don’t think Gingrich was the key person in bringing about the ‘94 house takeover, you’re simply historically mistaken. It just wouldn’t have happened without him. But you’ve obviously got a blind spot about him so facts won’t change your mind.
Hank
“It just wouldn’t have happened without him.”
He was never that important, any more than old man Dole, who took over the Senate in 1994.
Assuming you are right (which is a big leap), then who is the leader of the GOP, the sine qua non, without which the GOP will not be able to gain control of Congress? There is none. It is going to happen. Period.
I have no blind spots about Gingrich. And I do remember the histroy. I remember his embrace of Gore and global warming, Dede Scozzafava over Doug Hoffman, his capitulation to Clinton in 1995 on the budget, his affair disclosed in the middle of the Monica Lewinsky impeachment that led to his departure.
Gingrich is not Churchill. He is not Reagan. He is an historical asterisk. Nothing more.
And, yes. Palin would wipe the floor with him in a GOP debate. She would be the better nominee to face Obama. By a long shot.
Just remember Hank: Don’t conflate smugness and intelligence. Gingrich has more of the former than the latter. And it shows. Which is why he is a radioactive figure politically. People don’t like him. And if they don’t like a person, they don’t vote for him.