I ask you,what makes more sense.Following a guy with TOO Many Idea's { Newt } or a Guy{ Barack} who if all weather conditions are perfect for Sailing,still can't manage to right the ship. Fly the Vessel.Well,you get the point. Steve Jobs was an Idea guy wasn't he. What good does a Presidency serve based on eloquent speeches and Hip Hip Hurrah Theatrics.It's like going to a Football game and forgetting that the gridiron has to be played on.A game's at stake, fir cryin' out loud.
It seems to me that neither can actually put the ideas into action because the first will never get to perform on the stage and the other will only stage performances without any achievable results.
So,Newt was jokin' around with his - Contract for America - and balancing 4 budgets and pestering Clinton till he finally signed Welfare Reform.Newt has proven performance.I dunno,maybe the guy is like an efficiency expert or bank examiner behind closed doors. He got stuff accomplished.BTW what is Barack like behind closed doors.?
In the 1996 and 1997 budget years, the first two years he served as speaker of the House of Representatives, the government actually ran deficits. In 1998 and 1999, the government ran surpluses. Two more years of surpluses followed, but Gingrich was gone from politics by then and had nothing to do with them. Moreover, the national debt went up during the four years Gingrich was speaker. In January 1995, when he became speaker, the gross national debt was $4.8 trillion. When he left four years later, it was $5.6 trillion, an increase of $800 billion. Washington Post Lets not get carried away with Newts claims here.. They're called 'Claims' for a reason.
Obama has had too many ideas, none of which worked. Our government has had too many ideas throughout our history and thus today we have this out-of-control monstrosity, that plunders everything in its path and cannot be reeled in. They don't need any more ideas, except to stop being so governmental and corrupt. I'm surprised that Newt isn't supporting Obama. After all, they are both progressive "futurists" who foresee a future of rule by unaccountable international bureaucrats and corporations.
