Newt Gingrich vs. Ted Cruz

[darklordoftech]

?

[Ferguson97]

Gingrich has caused way more damage.

[Santander]

Gingrich has caused way more damage.

[Torie]

Gingrich is Satan.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Gingrich is Satan.

But Cruz is Lucifer in the flesh.

[Torie]

Gingrich is Satan.

But Cruz is Lucifer in the flesh.

Cruz is not that good looking, so no.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Gingrich.

[dw93]

If you were to ask me pre 2016, it would've been a close toss up, now it's Cruz who I dislike least. I can't honestly see Cruz ever achieving enough power to cause as much damage as Gingrich.

[President Johnson]

Cruz. He is a die-hard conservative, but Gingrich is evil. He bears a major responsibility for the meaness, hate and division in today's American politics.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Cruz. He is a die-hard conservative, but Gingrich is evil. He bears a major responsibility for the meaness, hate and division in today's American politics.

Newt is a bigger disappointment too as his 104th congress did lead to many influential bills passed from welfare reform , to spending cuts to deregulation to line item veto(heck we were one or two votes away from a balanced budget amendment from passing ) but then after Clinton won re-election he lost it and focused a whole year on impeachment investigations that the overwhelming majority of the public thought wasn’t an impeachable offense .

Newt had the potential to be one of the greatest speakers this nation had seen and be viewed in a similar light as Reagan(domestically of course as speakers don’t have much power FP wise  ) and he threw it all away .

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Cruz. He is a die-hard conservative, but Gingrich is evil. He bears a major responsibility for the meaness, hate and division in today's American politics.

Newt is a bigger disappointment too as his 104th congress did lead to many influential bills passed from welfare reform , to spending cuts to deregulation to line item veto(heck we were one or two votes away from a balanced budget amendment from passing ) but then after Clinton won re-election he lost it and focused a whole year on impeachment investigations that the overwhelming majority of the public thought wasn’t an impeachable offense .

Newt had the potential to be one of the greatest speakers this nation had seen and be viewed in a similar light as Reagan(domestically of course as speakers don’t have much power FP wise  ) and he threw it all away .

First of all, 1997 was the year after Clinton’s re-election. There was no impeachment then...instead, Gingrich and Clinton were working on entitlement reform.

Second, despite what everyone on this forum says, Gingrich wasn’t the driver behind impeachment as much as DeLay and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee were. Peter Baker, who wrote a book on the Clinton impeachment, has confirmed this. Now, Gingrich did eventually latch onto the impeachment issue and that turned out to be a bad bet on his part, but I wish people would quit acting like he was the sole or even main mastermind behind it. He was a lame duck when impeachment actually passed.

[darklordoftech]

He was a lame duck when impeachment actually passed.

He was a lame duck because of impeachment. Also, couldn’t he have refused to bring impeachment up for a vote or voted against impeachment?

[courts]

gingrich