Peter McCluskey wrote:
>>Gingrich's only crime was that he was too moderate for
>>a GOP that, with prodding from the Christian Coalition and
>>other groups within the Christian Right, is tending towards
>>a more extreme right-wing stance. To an extent, this
> Hardly. The right-wingers that I heard calling for his head (on a private
>mailing list) made no mention of his ideology, and made frequent mentions
>of his failure to communicate any ideology to the voters over the past
>couple of years.
His failure to champion the current plate of conservative issues is indicative of his moderacy. He worked towards lowering capital gains rates and other general GOP goals but did not actively support the flat tax, school prayer (disguised as the "religious freedom" amendment), and other ultra-conservative bile that populated the legislative landscape. The moderation of liberals has forced conservatives to become more conservative to differentiate themselves from their counterparts. The stoking of the Christian Right doesn't help anything either. Gingrich simply was not the right person for Speaker. Remember, the Speaker's primary purpose is not as spokesperson for the GOP but instead as shepherd of the legislative process. Gingrich had little appetite for the ultra-conservative issues. The GOP leadership wanted someone who did, enter Livingston and his histrionics.
>>However, not all is gloomy. I suspect Gingrich will return to
>>public life (or attempt to). I would not be surprised to see
>>a Bush-Gingrich ticket in 2000.
> The idea futures market puts the chances of Gingrich running for president
> in 2000 at 13 to 19 percent (down from about 35% before the election).
I think 13-19% is too high for Gingrich running as president. However, the chances that Gingrich will be the running mate of a GOP presidential candidate are considerably higher, in my opinion.