I’m missing exactly why this is important to you, potlatch. It strikes me more as something Dems, Politico an CBS (your sources) would obsess over, not a conservative.
Have you ever read a Congressional financial disclosure report? The report Calista Gingrich had to file in 2007 as a Capitol employee has their assets then in the “$1-2.5M” range. The debt to Tiffany was in the $250-500K range.” Those are pretty big ‘ranges.’ For all we know, he got a substantial book advance in 2007 and charged some nice pieces of jewelry for his wife.
If the debt was outstanding for any period of time, it’d be in the MSM daily, on page one. How lovely it would be if only Newt’s 2007 purchases and bills from Tiffany were all we had to worry about!
[I’m missing exactly why this is important to you, potlatch.]
It wasn’t! You would have to have followed all my comments and seen the replies. My first comment was simply that I watched Callista to see what jewelery she was wearing!!
Then someone made a snarky comment to me that “If Newt has money, why not buy his wife expensive Jewelry?”
I had not mentioned Newt but then I wrote that it had been talked about a lot that he was ‘in hock’ half a million to Tiffanys.
Then I had several back and forths about the meaning of in hock, which I used as ‘owed’. Then came all the replies that he did not owe!! That he had a ‘line of credit’ and did I not understand what that meant, etc, etc.
Then I Googled and all the searches showed that he ‘owed’.
So - that’s how it went and it was aggravating.
The slightest comments can turn into a quagmire anymore, lol.