>Still, Newt did better on the deficit than any other house
>speaker. The number are complicated but deficit wise the
>Newt years were good years.
If better means the annual deficit decreased year by year, that still means the national debt itself continued to only increase, which is NOT bold leadership that takes a stand for what's right or for principle.
That's country club "get along" "leadership" that would rather stay in power than ruffle any feathers. The result of which is what I've said from the start about Newt's tenure as a "leader":
1) the national debt only increased
2) the borders stayed open
Question: Will #1 and #2 unchecked, destroy this nation yes or no?
If yes, *why* give Newt another shot? He had *4* *years* in a prominent position of leadership and failed to see and call attention EFFECTIVELY to these grave and gathering threats to our national sovereignty.
>Still, Newt did better on the deficit than any other house
>speaker. The number are complicated but deficit wise the
>Newt years were good years.
If better means the annual deficit decreased year by year, that still means the national debt itself continued to only increase, which is NOT bold leadership that takes a stand for what's right or for principle.
That's country club "get along" "leadership" that would rather stay in power than ruffle any feathers. The result of which is what I've said from the start about Newt's tenure as a "leader":
1) the national debt only increased
2) the borders stayed open
Question: Will #1 and #2 unchecked, destroy this nation yes or no?
If yes, *why* give Newt another shot? He had *4* *years* in a prominent position of leadership and failed to see and call attention EFFECTIVELY to these grave and gathering threats to our national sovereignty.