No. A conversation with Gingrich would be him talking and you listening.
Dick Cheney learned his politics in the Nixon WH, and, as Veep, spent eight years fighting for Nixon’s vision of an unaccountable “Unitary Executive” Imperial Presidency.
Would you please turn that into a Star Wars reference?
ETA: You did, thanks!
Dear God, we are a nation of Jar-jar Binks!
Nurse? More drugs, please. Nurse?
Perhaps it’s because they truly bought into their own myth-making, that Obama is helpless without a teleprompter.
Of all people, Hunter Thompson did. 'Course, it was about football.
Sheesh, I’d forgotten about that!
What about the doomed, Mr. President?!
I doubt I would find having a conversation with either of them enjoyable in a normal sense.
The difference for me is, as wrong as he was, I believe Nixon thought the things he was doing were necessary and in the best interests of the country.
I don’t think Gingrich could give a shit about anything like that. He is motivated purely by his ego and the desire to attain power and wealth.
In the end, Nixon was a pathetic, amoral man. Gingrich is a loathsome, immoral egomaniac. YMMV of course.
Look, I hate to flirt with Godwin, but believing one’s doing what’s “necessary and in the best interests of the country” is not any sort of excuse. All of the great monsters of the 20th century - Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and, yes, Hitler - surely thought they were doing what was necessary and in the best interests of their countries.
Not to mention, I doubt it’s particularly true in Nixon’s case. Whether we’re talking about instituting economy-wide wage and price controls (yes, he did that) or creating a burglary unit, it’s hard to believe that he had anything in mind with a great number of his activities besides getting re-elected.
Supposedly, Alice Roosevelt Longworth ruined Dewey by describing him as “the little man on the wedding cake.”
Could someone please do us the same service by fixing Newt’s image as “the fat pindick kid in the high school locker room?”
still doesn’t change that someone who is doing it for their country is less evil than someone who is doing it for themselves.
I agree it is not any sort of excuse; sorry if you got the impression I was trying to offer a defense of Nixon. I was alive and vividly remember his time as President. The original point I was attempting to make was - as damaging as the Nixon Presidency was for the country, I believe a Gingrich Presidency would be worse.
Never mind.
How about Dwight Schrute?
By the time this primary is over there will be so much bitterness between Gingrich and Romney that the Republican nomination will not be worth having. Meanwhile each will have exposed vulnerabilities in the other that Obama will exploit in the general election.
I’m loving it. 
Lets not get too optomistic. Unemployment is high, the fed announced plans to keep interest rates low until 2014 (signalling that they believe the economy will continue to suck), Obamacare is still unpopular, we aren’t goign to get the deficit under control anytime soon.
Obama can lose this to anyone that was on that stage.
Replace Gingrich, Romney and Obama with Obama, Clinton and McCain respectively, and this logic would have applied to 2008.
You must watching a differnet campaign if you think Obama v. Clinton was as vitriolic as Romney v. Gingrich. And we are only just getting started…
Yeah, but that’s more or less a given at this point - any Republican would be worse for the country than Nixon. GWB was way worse than Nixon, and every candidate for the GOP nomination this year, quite frankly, makes Shrubby look good by comparison.