If you thought that Barack Obama would be a terrible President because he had no idea of how to administer anything, then look at some of the problems that newt Gingrich would bring along. That's not to say that someone who brags about his administrative achievements that he thinks he can bring from Atlanta (Carter), Boston (Dukakis), or Austin (Dubya) is a good idea. Reagan didn't. Obama dodged the question, which has proved wise.
Gingrich has ambitions best described with the word "diffuse"... paradoxically like Carter, who achieved practically nothing as President. I question whether he could focus on anything because there would just be so many important things to achieve all at once. Like Carter he would fail.
Gingrich suggests "private-public partnerships" which invite corruption. The public foots the bill and absorbs the risks, the government squelches any possible competition, and the private investor squeezes the little guy who faces monopolistic pricing. Sometimes it is wise to do without and wait until there is a better solution.
If you thought that inter-Party relationships could be acrimonious between Barack Obama and the House Republican majority, then just think of what happens when someone with little respect for institutions faces House and Senate majorities who simply say, "No! No!" and "HELL NO!" at every turn. President Obama now largely plays to public sentiments and waits for better opportunities in 2013.
Everything that any conservative said would be true of Barack Obama aside from political orientation would be true about Newt Gingrich. Add to that his abrasive style and narcissism would offend many who thought that they were getting a conservative defender of some institutions that need defending.
Gingrich has the arrogance to believe that he is more astute than Washington, Lincoln, or FDR and that
