No he didn’t - he was acquitted on all charges by the Senate. But that’s not relevant.
You asked for evidence that he wouldn’t “push ideas” that the majority didn’t approve of. The impeachment proceeding were clearly a case of that.
Congressional Republicans still made the decision to impeach. They weren’t required to do it and there were other options at their disposal.
I once posted that Gingrich reminds me of Nixon. He may be lacking in ethics but nobody’s accusing him of incompetence.
Or, you could follow Santorum’s lead, and just call him “Congressman”.
I’m referring to public policy. Clinton’s impeachment is irrelevant.
Care to explain why it’s irrelevant, other than that it disproves something you said?
You didnt disprove anything:
I make no absolute assertions about Newt, and would like to see evidence that reflects or refutes Newt’s claim that he’d only push sweeping policy if it was popular (surely that involves him trying to sell it first). To do that you have to show at least somewhat of a pattern of pushing big policies that are unpopular. He deserves to be held to his own claim since it’s a central point in terms of how he would lead, according to him.
I dont see the impeachment as having anything to do with this.
Marley points out his remarks against Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan last year, Im not sure that qualifies either.
Why not? It was politically unpopular and Gingrich led the proceedings anyway. Putting aside the issue of Clinton’s guilt, the House was not required to impeach.
I didn’t even mention it until now.
What policy can the House enact that is bigger than impeaching a sitting president of the United States?
Seriously, what can they do that’s bigger than that? I suppose they could declare war.
Perhaps, IntelliQ, you could give us some idea as to what would qualify as “pushing an idea that was not popular” if impeaching the President when it was unpopular and supporting a Medicare overhaul that is unpopular do not count?
How about pushing for a hike in Medicare Part B premiums and then shutting down the government when Clinton refused? Does that count?
In the end “he’ll only do what is popular” is a silly thing to stake your faith to, as all politicians do and support some things that are unpopular. If they didn’t we might as well not have elected representatives at all and go straight democracy.
I agree that it’s a rather silly claim - one that he’s only making because he thinks it’ll be popular. 
Given Newt’s favoribility ratings, I’d say “trying to make himself President” is something he’s doing that’s unpopular.
I already put this in the context of bills that become law, like what Democrats did with healthcare. I’m curious if Newt has lead the charge on bills which were** widely **unpopular with the American public.
The Clinton impeachment is a different matter, but for what it’s worth I don’t agree with how it was handled. Both Clinton and his enemies did us a disservice. I have my own ideas on how it should have been dealt with and is really irrelevant here.
I think the government shutdown qualifies as one. But I also argue that he was at least half right. Was it sweeping legislation, of course not. Nonetheless it wasnt popular with Americans so it stands he does act in ways that arent always popular. Newt -1.
Any more?
I dunno, was he wearing his Serious Face when he asked for a BJ?
It’s tricky to evaluate because some bills were vetoed by Clinton. There were two attempts at Welfare Reform that passed but were vetoed before the final (and ultimately popular) version was passed. I’m not having any luck finding polling data for the early versions.
In the end it’s a bit of a fool’s errand as, for the most part, sweeping legislation just doesn’t get passed if it’s not popular. That’s what we have elections for in the first place. Even Obamacare was and is highly popular when presented as discrete policies (only the individual mandate had less than majority support), just not when labeled as “Obamacare”. Same with Dodd-Frank (polls well as “Wall Street Regulation”, poorly as “Dodd-Frank”).
And they’re wrong.
It happens.
HCR has never been unpopular. Polling showed that the public generally approved of all the provisions of the bill even when they disapproved of the bill itself.
In other words, it was only unpopular to the extent that people didn’t understand it.
I dont know how you expect people to understand it, since we had to pass it to know what is in it. And as more comes to light people disapprove.
Gingrich assumed that the Republican base would be so hostile to the mainstream media that they would applaud any attack on it.
We didn’t have to pass it to know what was in it. I knew what was in it, at least to the extent that it would affect me.
And no, as more comes to light people appear to approve. PPACA has become more popular- or less unpopular, as you might put it- since passage.