Another vague assertion - what things?? - be specific. That statement doesn't offer us a single substantiated fact.
You want me to research the facts behind policy and house rules?
Get real.
The fact that he was in the speaker's seat when we started to spend like fools is the only fact you need to know. The problem is that many here and other places who think conservatism is the end all of political movements deny that their "leaders" and the stars of the movement are nothing more than part of the problem.
If you want to know one thing that really gets me is the banking accounting rules that congress changed while Newtly was sitting in the speaker's chair, these rules were about how banks accounted for assets that were and still are considered high risk assets. This didn't come from the 104th congress but the 105th and the banking committee, which was under republican control, were the ones who pushed for these rule changes. Pretty much this allowed Clinton to push for the housing expansion which led to this bubble. If you want proof, there is plenty of it when you see what led the banks into the the trouble they are still in.
BUT to add to this, the oversight of things like Freddie and Fannie (among a lot of other departments) were starting to go away and more and more regulations were being written by the departments without congressional oversight. THE EPA is one place where you can find a lot of evidence, look at the regulations that came out of there and the congressional response to those regulations, especially the republican response.
That tells us that Newt's policies shouldn't have been changed. What policies? What changes?
Ever speaker has changed the policies and rules on how the house conducts business. Pelosi introduced rules that limited debate, Gingrich introduced changes in how committees run their affairs and what is heard by the committees.
Nope, they're not idiots - they're just people that live in a world of theory instead of reality and consequently have no real world experience to combine with their education. Sometimes they try to venture out of their bubble for the first time and get flattened by reality - sort of like the current resident of the White House. Gingrich is not an idiot, and the name-calling suggests the lack of a substantive argument.
Nope they're idiots. Doesn't matter if they live in the world of theory or some other reality plane, many of them understand what the real world is, have a lot of real world experience and speak of the same things they believe in. I listened to one of Clinton's department heads the other day, he spoke like he was the Unibomber and guess where he was working - Harvard.
Gingrich is an idiot, and thinking more like he is also a fool for even considering running in the election.
As I survey the authors in my library (while enjoying a snifter of Cognac Tesseron #29)
I realize he's not among my collection either. So what? Fact is, he's authored a lot of books and sold a lot of books written on topics of substance.
The thing is I don't see his books anywhere. I do think I saw it at Hillsdale when I was there a few weeks ago but that's it. When people speak of how great an author he is with so many books to his credit, it doesn't mean a thing unless they are being sold. I can tell you a funny thing, I have some Kerns-Goodwin books on the shelf from long ago and thought that they would not be on the shelf at the book store but I saw those same books that I have there, so that tells me that if the books were good, they would still being sold.
"
After leaving Congress in 1999, Gingrich started a number of for-profit companies:[97] Between 2001 and 2010, the companies he and his wife owned in full or part had revenues of almost $100 million.[98]"
Newt Gingrich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Really need to depend on wiki there?
I have to ask how can a representative make that kind of money?
More important question is how can we trust another washington elite?
Isn't this like Pelosi?
Not hardly - they're just in the narrowing down process. I agree that Cain shouldn't quit just because some psycho-bimbo comes out of the woodwork at the behest of some political underworld figure that's probably slipping her a suitcase full of small denomination unmarked bills. If Cain drops out the credible candidates remaining are Romney and Gingrich - that's all. Perry flamed out early, and the others were never in the race to begin with.
Regardless, the republicans have lost the election unless Obama does something stupid. It's still pathetic when it is looked at from the outside and the hoopla of conservatism is removed.
