Yes, C. Reese, whether or not Newt Gingrich is speaker of the House does matter a dog's tail to us.

Your opinion it doesn't matter typifies what is wrong in Washington, the acceptance of negatives done by politicians. And, there isn't anything simplistic about the situation.

The speaker is not an internal affair of the House and should not be treated as such as Gingrich and every politician in this nation are still American citizens and subject to the same rules of behavior that the rest of us are.

That is, unless they have declared themselves their own country. If that is the case, then we can ignore what Washington politicians do, which would include any legislation passed. Plus, we can also quit paying them.

Forget House rules and whether or not Gingrich violated them. The concern should be whether or not he broke societal rules and the laws of the land.

This writer suspects that if had a complete investigation been carried out, Gingrich would be found guilty of conspiracy to commit tax fraud and grand larceny. It would not take much time or money since Gingrich has publically "confessed" to his wrong-doings.

By his own lips, Gingrich admitted he is a liar. He let it be known that he advised contributors that contributed funds would be for education and, therefore, deductable. Then, he admitted that he spent donated educational funds for his own purposes.

Let's also not forget that Gingrich, prior to pleading his innocence based of lack of knowledge, lied about his activities for two years. Most certainly, the lies he told have led us to the truth. He knew exactly what he was doing while getting the donations and when he spent them for political rather than educational purposes.

Anything members of Congress do as individuals or as a collective group, is of importance to the American public. These people are not only elected to represent the people in Washington and carry out the governing process, but also represent the American people to the rest of the world.

Admittedly, the House does seem full of felons, especially as many treated Gingrich's behavior as the norm. So, who is kidding who? Isn't it time that we really make it our business and rid the House, no, the government, of every person who has violated any criminal, ethical, and moral laws while holding office?

Many may accept our representation by felons and people who admit they do not have any integrity but most of us do not. For certain, this writer doesn't want people who lack in integrity and commit felonies to represent him to the world.

Politicians do not have the right to commit ethical, moral, and legal violations while in office just because it doesn't violate, let's say, House rules, especially when it makes it appear House rules are not the same as societal rules.

Saying otherwise is putting one's head into the sand and forgeting good government is best served by people of high integrity, that best government (at least in a democravy) is served by involvment of the people.

Yes, many of us do read history and, to be quite honest, we should have started getting rid of people such as Gingrich during the very first case of a politician being foung to be crooked or lacking in acceptable levels of integrity.

We should never have accepted the patterns of behavior which have resulted in Congress developing its own rules of conduct. Doing so has resulted in a nation of basically honest people being represented by felons and people with other socially unacceptable traits.

What is wrong with starting on the county level cleaning up politics and politicians rather than just telling them to get on with the business of running the country? Not a thing. Actually, it would be the best we could do for ourselves and for our nation as a world leader.

Even politicians, especially during election years, talk about putting the government back into the hands of the people and doing away with people in government who lack in integrity. We can and should start right now with Gingrich, a politician who fooled his constituency into believing he stood behind both of these ideas right up to the time of his forced confession.

The writer agrees that once a politician is elected, government should then be non-partisan. People, including politicians, must realize and demand that it be so. Carry this a bit further and why should we even have two or more parties? It hinders, rather than facilitates, good government.

A recent example is the last Congress. Nearly every issue boiled down to party politics. Why not do away with the potential of interference by party politics entirely by doing away with the party system?

If the writer is not mistaken, determining whether or not an individual has committed an act against society is part of government, if indeed, our laws, written and understood, are intended to govern our behaviors.

A government in a Republic should not be a separate entity but a means of directing the society to meeting goals of the majority, a means of controlling the society in the best interests of the majority of that society.

Not everyone will fit into Washington, or any center, so we have to elect people who will represent our best interests. The elected people then form the governing body of the masses, not be an oligarchy with separate rules from the masses.

The writer believes that each and every bill should be explained clearly to the public. We could take this a bit further and require that Congress vote one way or another on a bill in a specified time. If they can't do it, then have it explained well enough (which seems to beyond the abilities of most politicians) to the public so the public can make the decision.

The American public is extremely tired of people in government wasting time and money. That is not what politicians are elected for, anymore than being elected gives them the right violate laws governing the rest of us. They are there to spend their time wisely providing legislative decisions enhancing our liberties.

The writer can't find fault with ambition of any person, inluding those that have political ambitions. What he can find fault with is how they go about pursuing their ambitions.

If the pursuit is not done within the confines of laws, legal, ethical, and moral, that govern the rest of us, then we need to rid ourselves of such people as they do not, cannot, and will not serve the best interests of anyone but themselves. Afterall, isn't that what felons do best?

Don't you agree that getting rid of felons is the path to creating better governing of all of us. Or, is being a felon an acceptable character trait of being in Congress? If it is, then we should all be felons and let anarchy reign.

Do you, Ladies and Gentlemen, want felons and people without integrity representing us nationally and to the world, a situation Mr. Reese apparently finds acceptable?

Or, would you rather have people of unbreakable integrity representing us?