been explored very much and i was still interested in it and interested at the end of the gingrich speakership and then the hastert speakership. so i started doing some historical research and found all these interesting stories about speakers going back to the 1940s and sam rayburn, and then i started thinking, well, if speakers matter, we need to really try to understand that, how do we know they matter? when can we say they're actually changing the outcome of a vote? and then also trying to understand why they do it. is it always because it's something their party wants or is it something else? and then based on my research i found something interesting, which is that speakers not only made a difference and do make a difference but they do things sometimes because they think it matters or the district they're representing thinks it matters or the president thinks it matters. even if their own party in the house of representatives doesn't think it matters. and so that became the basis of the book. >> host: could newt gingrich's speakership have been longer. >> guest: historical counterfactua

gingrich's newt speakership have been longer? matthew: historical counter factuals are difficult. it's hard to say if it could have been longer. there was a way in which gingrich had a somewhat similar problem to speaker boehner which new,fairly large group of young members who -- this is not unusual. this.arties have had they come in, they're a little zealous. they have a sense that they know how to fix things. at first that creates tremendous enthusiasm and energy the majorityul to party but invariably that group, getembers of it, starts to disillusioned. they feel the things they got elected on are not being done then they become a challenge for a speaker and this happened albert in the 1970's. this happened in many ways is what's happened to speaker boehner but with gingrich he had the same problem so to some difficultwas a situation for anyone, would have been difficult, no matter who the speaker was. there was another more personal aspect to it i would that gingrich was the kind of speaker who believed in kind of being the general, the leader of the troops and the folks would

. >> host: could newt gingrich speakership could have been longer? >> guest: it's hard to say if it could have been longer. there was a way in which going rich had a similar problem to speaker boehner, fairly young group of members, they come in and have a sense that they know how to fix things and at first that creates tremendous enthusiasm and energy which is useful to the majority party but that group or members of it start to get illusions, the feel that the things that got elected on did not get on and become a challenge for the speaker. this happens with albert, this happens in many ways to speaker boehner, but with going rich, he had the same problem, to some extent it was a difficult situation for anyone, would have been difficult no matter who the speaker was. but there was another more personal aspect to it, i would say, going rich, was the kind of speaker who believed in being the general, the leader of the troops and the folks who followed and the things i mentioned earlier about the importance of listening and understanding where members

i was interested at this point in the end of the gingrich speakership and the hastert speakership which had just begun. based on that i started doing historical research and found all these interesting stories about speakers going back to the 1940's and sam rayburn. then i started thinking, well, speakers -- if speakers matter, we need to really try to understand that. how do we know they matter? when can we say yes they are changing the outcome of a vote? and understand why they do it. is it always something because the party wants or something else? then based on my research i found something interesting which was that speakers not only have made a difference and do make a difference, but they do things sometimes because they think it matters or the district they are representing thinks it matters, or the president thinks it matters. even if their own party in the house of representatives doesn't think it matters. so that became the basis of the book. host: could newt gingrich's speakership have been longer? mr. green: historical counter fact use are always difficult. it's hard to say

peter: good newt gingrich's -- could newt gingrich's speakership have been longer? mr. green: historical counterfactual's are always difficult. there was a way in which gingrich always had a similar problem to speaker boehner, which is a fairly large group of new, young members. this is not unusual, both parties have had this. they come in, they are seles, -- they are zealous, have a feeling they can change things. invariably, that group, or members of it, start to get disillusioned. they feel that things that they were elected on aren't getting done. and they begin to challenge the speaker. the happened with albert in 1970's and in many ways happened with speaker boehner. with gingrich, he had a similar problem. in many ways, it would have been a difficult situation for anyone. a more personal aspect, i would say, is that gingrich is the kind of speaker who believed in being a general, the leader of the troops that folks would follow. the thing i mentioned earlier about listening and understanding where members are coming from was not necessarily gingrich's strong suit.

gingrich for the book. very effective as a speaker, particularly in the first year of speakership in the first 100 days, asontra promised of legislation. it was quite remarkable what he could get through the house of representatives. that did not mean that he was not disliked by democrats. was in the republican minority in the 1980's, 1970's, 1990's and he helped bring down jim wright, the speaker in the 1980's. a lot of democrats really disliked him intensely. you can still be an effective speaker but also be one that the other party does not care for. i think the other issue is a takes a different set of skills to be a good speaker versus a good president and a set of skills to be elected speaker versus elected president. to be elected speaker, you need 218 members of the house to agree should be speaker but to be president, you have to campaign, raise money, get support, when primaries and caucuses, and it is a difficult thing to do well. i think there are two separate sets of skills. host: who was the first speaker of the house? guest: now you're going to -- i remember -- host: i will give you a moment

gingrich and supremer pelosi. speaker boehner has tried to re-introduce the less partisan aspects of the speakership but still a very partisan position and the majority party in the house expects the speaker to carry out the will of the majority party. >> host: when you look back at the history of the speakers, who have been some of to the more effective ones or well-known ones? >> guest: well, first that comes to mind is sam rayburn, who was speaker from 1940 until 1960s, and he was to prominent speaker in part because he lasted so long. he served off and on for 20 years. it's very rare to have a speaker last as long as that. certainly not more than two or three terms. but he also was a rare speaker in that he understood the house in which he served. he understood what it was that motivated members of the house of representatives. he had what you might say is a feel for the chamber. that made it possible for him to get a lot done as speaker because we knew what was possible. he understand the art of the possible in congressessal politics and some major legislation that was enacted during that time period was enacte

speakership. bring in an outsider like newt gingrich? paul ryan? a big name that may bring some unity.at some point, they will have to compromise. they ought to do it sooner rather than later. if they do not, the oval office will be occupied by hillary clinton or joe biden and barack obama will get a third term. ♪ this is a news alert for you. ending the pentagon's $500 million program to train and equip serious rubbles. it sailed. what is new? >> not giving up entirely. details about what has happened is quite shocking. going into syria to fight isis. the first group got in and got captured. the second group handed over all of their weapons, vehicles in exchange. four to five fighters left on the ground in serious. a complete failure. stuart: all right. to the markets, please. it is a friday. 17,100. fifty-eight points as we speak. and all-time high today. all-time highs. the price of oil. $50 a barrel yesterday. here is something that took me by surprise. i thought gas would go down to $2. now it is going back up again. patrick is with us. the guy from gas buddy.com. explain why is g

that was just 1994 when the speakership, at least the leadership of the republican party went to the new speaker, newt gingrichich's argument, that was one of the big moments in house history and congressional history. no longer should republicans have a leader like bob michael who gets to have that job because he's so good at working across the aisle and making deals with democrats. make me speaker and i will hold the line and get other republicans to hold the line and we'll really have a lot of confrontation, and that has been almost the rule for the last 20 years. >> steve kornacki is with us as well. as we look at this day and those just joining us, this is the one-by-one vote of members of the house, both parties, that all sides anticipate will result in the election of paul ryan as the new speaker. steve, let's talk more about the new construction of this job under speaker ryan. >> well, yeah. obviously the most important thing that happened for paul ryan happened before he took the job, and that's yesterday. it's the house passing this budget deal that takes the threat of a default and government shutdo

gingrich had a group of members that did not want him to be speaker anymore -- liz: right. >> they signed a letter, said they won't vote for him on the floor, and he had to resign his speakershipd he resigned congress. liz: we have daniel webster of florida exclusively on fox business just an hour or two ago. i want you to listen to what he said to neil cavuto, and then we can comment about it. >> okay. neil: what about this notion that you a good man, congressman, but they feel be you would be almost too much of a dealmaker? >> i think the power of the institution is the body working together. i mean, everybody's talked about that, and that's the way to do it. and the body working together doesn't necessarily mean that the final deals are cut by the speaker or any other leader. they're cut by the policy that's put forth by the house. liz: the freedom caucus has endorsed daniel webster, have they not? >> yeah. before mccarthy dropped out. now it's all up for grabs. i'm sure they're all talking and deciding who they might go to. because new names are going to come forward, and people are going to give consideration to all kinds of people. it'll come back together in a couple of

gingrich, the nancy pelosi. speaker boehner has pulled away from that, to some extent, and i think has tried to reintroduce some of the less partisan aspects of the speakership, but it is still a very partisan position and the majority party in the house expects the speaker to carry out the will of the majority party. of theho have been some more effective for well-known speakers? professor greene: well, the first one it comes to minas sam rayburn, who was speaker from 1940 until the early 1960's. he was a prominent speaker in part because he lasted so long. he served often on for 20 years. it's very rare to have a speaker last as long as that. certainly not more than two or three terms. was a rare speaker and that he understood the house in which he served, and he understood what it was that motivated members of the house of representatives. he really had what you might call a feel for the chamber, and that made it possible for him to get a lot done as speaker because he knew what was possible. he understood the art of the possible in congressional politics. some major legislation that was enacted during that time was enacted during his civil rights legisla