As I've read and listened to commentary from the various journalists and politicos this week, there has been a consistently wrong interpretation of the effectiveness of both Newt Gingrich as the leader of the House and of his rank-and-file GOP "troops" in that chamber.
I suspect a big reason why is that these media experts sometimes seem to want to assign to a politician or a political movement a pat image, and for the inexcusable reason that these pundits either don't want to tell the real story or they just don't know it.
Not only did the Republicans who ran on the "Contract With America" keep their word by introducing and passing most components of the contract. (Term limits failed because it required a two-thirds majority to pass.) They also took uncompromising stands against a shrewd Bill Clinton.
According to CBS News -- of all sources -- when Gingrich left Congress as speaker, the federal government managed to accomplish something it had not done in 28 fiscal years: It ran a budget surplus instead of a deficit. Does any conservative consider that a "failure"?
Beyond that, the GOP majority in just four years managed to cut the capital gains rate and forced Clinton to sign off on meaningful welfare reform.
I think you can see why I disagree with the media mantra that says the last GOP-led revolution was a failure. If it was, then give us all a second helping. And quick.
Issa to Sebelius on Healthcare.gov Probe: Failing to Turn Over Info is Criminal Obstruction of Justice | Katie Pavlich