You can place your sanctimonious opinions on a pedestal next to that of God, while talking crap against a solid conservative like Cheney, but in your crazy talk against Gingrich I noticed you left out the year 1994.
The fact is, in the 1994 campaign season Gingrich came up with a Contract with America. In the November 1994 elections, Republicans gained 54 seats and took control of the House for the first time since 1954.
That is what Cheney was referring to. There are some things that can be said against Gingrich, but let me be clear - your crazy postings against men like Cheney and Gingrich on FR is not going to change history.
I’m glad you clarified things. Why you think a Cheney quote about Gingrich and the contract with America put out in 1994 has any bearing on a discussion of the FACTS regarding his 4 years as Speaker, well, you haven’t explained that one yet.
Nothing I have said has in any way been against Dick Cheney. It’s a nice deflection though, but you aren’t Dick Cheney. The only thing I said about Dick Cheney is that your appeal to the “Word of Cheney” had no bearing on the FACTS of what happened during the Gingrich years as Speaker.
Of course I didn’t mention 1994, because I wasn’t talking about before he became speaker. On the other hand, I did obliquely reference that when I mentioned how he became speaker to begin with.
Gingrich is a man who has a lot of “smart” ideas, and some not-so-smart ideas, can’t tell the difference, assumes everything he thinks of must be great, and has trouble with implementation.
None of that has anything to do with how the republicans won the house, realising that success has many fathers. Rememeber Rush Limbaugh becoming an “honorary member” of the house in acknowledgement of HIS contributions to the majority? Remember Herman Cain who, according to some here, single-handedly dismantled Clinton’s health care initiative, which itself was the MAJOR factor in the republicans winning the house?
Your argument was a meaningless one, confronting history with some appeal to some (unspoken and unreferenced by you) statement by someone who you presume must be immediately and forever accepted as speaking absolute truth.
You gave no link, gave no quote, gave no context. You said NOTHING about what was said by your authority, or why what was said was applicable to the discussion, or would in any way discount the facts.
At least now you have explained to some minor degree what you meant, and shown it’s irrelevance to the discussion.
When Perot dropped out, the Republicans grabbed Luntz and smartly ran with it.