Suppose, though, that these two are serious about actually getting something accomplished for the benefit of many Americans. Gingrich, who has been studying and proposing solutions to America's health care predicament for several years, and Clinton, who has been pretty good, according to Gingrich, on military and war-related issues, may not be the political equivalent of a Rogers and Hammerstein, but if agreement can be reached and problems solved, why should anyone begrudge them making beautiful music together?
Particularly in Clinton's case, there are those who believe her to be evil incarnate. Such people will never trust her motives because they think she wants to be president and rule the world. Democrats held similarly hostile views about Gingrich when he was speaker.
Do people want to suggest that Hillary Clinton and Newt Gingrich do not love their country? Do they think that policy differences (or in this case policy agreements) mean that policies are litmus tests for judging the depth of patriotism and loyalty? If they do, they should say so. A lot more people seem to prefer that issues be resolved to the benefit of most than for them to be mired in political one-upmanship.
Ronald Reagan used to have a sign on his desk that said, "There is no limit to what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit." Let's see what Gingrich and Clinton can do and judge them on the results, if any, not on their motives and personalities.
Fox News' Roger Ailes: Administration's Excuses Won't Work, Americans Died For Press Freedom | Katie Pavlich