Newt Gingrich on Face The Nation

Newt said on Face The Nation this morning that he deserves some of the bad press he’s been getting for the Freddie Mac issue surrounding his campaign. Not because he did anything wrong, but because his campaign didn’t get out in front of this issue. As he did in the debate, he defended himself again but noted that he didn’t get near as much money from the consulting as has been reported.

He also discussed the judiciary and other issues throughout this lengthy interview:



Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • Anonymous

    Looky what we found from 2008. Why, it’s none other than Michelle Bachmann giving Newt the most glowing praise you could imagine…especially if juxtaposed against her more recent statements regarding him.

    Maybe I’m mistaken. It happened once before. Surely this isn’t Bachmann here, is it? I mean, it looks just like her. Sounds like her too. She could be identical twins with the lady in this clip.

    What do you distinguished folk think? Will the real M. Bachmann please stand up 🙂

    • It’s a proof, people change over time,and for Newt is for the worst

      • Anonymous

        Oh, Newt changed. Got it 🙂

        Aaahahahahahaha. In ’08 he was a conservative’s conservative according to Michelle, but in 2011, he’s a socialist/progressive. Wowee scoweee…presto chango…my man can morph like nobody’s business! Hokey Pokey, I don’t even know who I am now!

        • The point here is Michelle Bachman has changed in her understanding of Newt. I liked Newt Gingrich up until about 2 months ago when I began reading his comment and quotes of the passed and researching his voting record. Newt hasn’t changed. Newt has always been a progressive. My understanding of Newt has changed because I have educated myself on the topic as has Michelle Bachman. I suggest everybody else do the same. So far essentially all of the people in support of Newt sound the same as those that have rallied around Obama in the passed. The same irrational arguments. The only difference has been the party. It seems to me that Newt supporters don’t mind having a king as long as it’s their king.

          • Anonymous

            May I ask who you are hoping gets the Republican nomination?

            • Anonymous

              Poncy…I didn’t hear the answer to Rshill7’s question?
              Who are you supporting, Jeremy?

              oh dear, he seems to have vanished.
              guess he didn’t like the question.

          • Anonymous

            “the people in support of Newt sound the same as those that have rallied around Obama in the passed. The same irrational arguments. The only difference has been the party. It seems to me that Newt supporters don’t mind having a king as long as it’s their king.”

            You are joking right?

          • Anonymous

            The silliest thing I’ve read in a long time.

            Conservatism begins with fiscal responsibility and ends without it. Period! To call Gingrich a progressive is most ridiculous. The House hasn’t had a fiscally responsible leader since the establishment both sides chased Speaker Gingrich out of town.


          • Michele Bachmann hasn’t changed, the only difference is she is running for president so she is trying to campaign on anything negative that might give her an edge. She’s like a Cobra striking at Top GOP candidates, she gave the death blow to Tim Pawlenty, struck a warning at Sarah Palin when she thought maybe she would be her competition, she bit at Rick Perry, she bit at Herman Cain, now she bit Newt Gingrich, I guess we’ll find out if she’s give him a death blow. She even struck out against the Tea Party, saying they are being bought off by Newt without any proof… but all this does is help Romney, not her ‘serious’ bid for president.

            Bachmann’s campaign is weak, if it was strong she wouldn’t need to be on the the attack, she’s annoying, and too many people don’t see her as being presidential.

            • Anonymous

              Yep. Bachmann certainly has changed. She proudly pulls on the mantle of “Tea Party” conservative when it suits her – and then trashes the Tea Party in South Carolina by claiming they’re being “bought” by Newt.

              If that’s the case Michelle, what good is promoting yourself as their Champion? Doesn’t that make you the Queen of the sell-outs?

          • Anonymous

            ” I have educated myself on the topic as has Michelle Bachman.” Michele is Mitt’s machine. Have you seen her attack Mitt as arduously as she has Newt? Doesn’t that give you pause? Have you not heard how Mitt denounced being a conservative? What about the attack on the Tea Party? I only infer Mittens because Bachmann isn’t going to win the nomination – but it seems fishy that she hasn’t attack Romney.

            “Michele Bachmann Vows To ‘Repeal Obamacare’ But Refuses To Criticize Mitt Romney Or Romneycare”

            Also, what about the shenighans in South Caroline and her campaign staff are accusing the tea party of being paid off. That’s a big charge without to back it up.

            Here’s more information: What is Michele Bachmann up to in South Carolina?

            Goodness, I wish folks would do their research instead of taking someone’s word as sacred.

            For starters do you’re own homework and research Newt and Bachmann. Their testimony and records are public record.

            CSpan is a good start: &

            • Anonymous

              It looks like her money is on Romney and she’s running for VP. That would add some Red Dye # 2 to the ticket mix huh?

          • You’re right. Michelle changed … to a Republican from a Democrat working on Carter’s campaign. Newt stepped on a lot of toes to break the 40 years stranglehold on the House of Representatives the Dems had, and is not a go along, get along kind of guy. Once Newt became Speaker, he took Clinton’s budgets he sent the congress, which were no where near balanced, and BALANCED them. He then deregulated industries, one after another, and we had the greatest sustained growth in our history. He is absolutely RIGHT on the judicial system and his 21st Century Contract with America is brilliant.

          • Richard Giambruno

            So what did you find in Newt’s voting record that you found so distasteful? I hope which ever candidate you like has a voting record or has maintained impeccable voting records you like. Newt has voted over 7200 times, made of 15,000 speeches, written 24 books and written over 1500 opt-eds and editorials. I am sure anyone can find something to disagree with, if they look. Newt is the ONLY candidate putting forth actual real world solutions that are resonating with voters and has a lifetime “90” conservative rating form the ACU. His accomplishments in Congress as speaker prove he can get the job done FROM DAY 1 in Congress because he has done so in the past with a Dem President. Running our gov’t is NOTHING like running a business. Want clarity to the things you found you do not like? Go to Point is if you are looking for perfection in a candidate, perfection only exists in one Jesus Christ. And last time I check, He ain’t runnin’.

          • Anonymous

            Where is this ‘Newt is a progressive’ idea coming from? Other than out of the mouths of certain opponents of his…I don’t find it? What have you read? I want to read it too. Like you I want to be educated about who I support. But, for the life of me I can’t find the research you claim is out there that indicates Gingrich is a progressive. The only reference I find are comments made by the establishment, his opponents and people like Beck. They state it as fact but offer no verifiable action of his that support the so-called fact. Newts legislative history (when he was in office and actually influenced legislation and has a voting record) is not progressive. Yes…DoE was a bad vote…a bad vote everyone made at the time. However, he has learned that values certification and change agent training for DoE officials suggest it’s mission is beyond the three R’s and wants it gone…abolished. That’s apposite of progressivism. I’m sincere in my request…share so I don’t make a mistake.

          • Anonymous

            I supported Newt for a whole day. Then I started noticing that all of his solutions involve government. None of them are about innovation of a free market or about getting government out of the way. He plots and plans how he can use government to shape a society of his liking. Progressive, progressive, progressive. Beck was exactly right (except I didn’t like the racism accusation).

        • Anonymous

          All of his solutions involve government, not getting government out of the way so we can forge our own path. He has a vision alright…completely shaped by government intervention. Every time he talks about a solution, it involves government doing something, and it involves government doing a series of things for years to come. How is that not progressive?

      • Anonymous

        Hah, finally I see someone who isn’t kissing Newt’s ass. He’s a progressive. He has a lot of solutions….all government driven. He has a vision for the future….woven by government. Bah !! I supported him for a very brief day, but it didn’t take long for me to drop it. You know what happened? He talked.

    • Anonymous

      Yes but that was before Michelle Bachmann was probably promised consideration for Veep to not attack Romney. Michelle has the best interest of the country in mind not her own ambitions….just ask her. She wouldn’t say anything just to get elected or be a surrogate for Romney, no way not Michelle.


      • Anonymous

        One can only wonder why just one of the two proven conservative candidates is being attacked with such non-substantative, non-policy, purely ad-hominem partisanship.

        Trolls, charter members of the He-man Woman Haters Club, undercover lefties, RINO lovers…..who can figure?

      • Bachmann is trash. She’s been bought and paid for by Romney. Sold her soul for the BIG LIBERAL.

    • Anonymous

      If you remember Sarah Palin had glowing praise for Johm McCain….need I say more.

      And like Palin, Bachman is getting attacked for the dumbest reasons.

      • Anonymous

        In response to your first question: Nope.

        She (Michelle) is also attacking Newt for some dumb reasons. You’ve heard the old saying, live by the sword, die by the sword.

        • Anonymous

          This is politics not the Coliseum, both will survive, and if either one can’t handle the heat they can bow out.

          Bachman is attacking Newt on his poor policy decisions which is exactly what she should be doing. If Newt gets the nod the Obama juggernaut along with the mainstream meda are going to be relentlessly attacking him for his personal baggage, which is substantially greater than that of any other candidate.

          I will vote for Newt if he is the candidate….but would much rather see a true conservative as POTUS.

          • Anonymous

            So apparently you’re okay with Michele telling people that that vaccine for cancer causes retardation.

            Purely for politics children WILL die because their dummy parents heard Backmann and believed her.

            Until she admits this major KILLING of CHILDREN error, she’s the worst kind of politician and doesn’t deserve a single vote.

            • Anonymous

              Ah, now I see what lie you are talking about. I agree it was a stupid thing to say. I didn’t hear her say it, but I know she did. She said she was only relating a story of what a mother told her…but I didn’t see it for myself so I can’t be the judge of that.

              In any case, aren’t you going off the deep end saying that’s going to cost children their lives? You don’t think parents are smart enough to check with their doctors before they take medical advice from a politician? Come on, get real. No child is going to die from that blunder. If that’s not reaching I don’t know what is.

              • Anonymous

                And you think all parents are smart enough? Come one. She doesn’t deserve a pass for this. She needs to fix this. There is no doubt that that stupid remark will cost lives.

                And stating later that someone told he that is even more of a reason to wonder about her. So, she doesn’t vet what she’s told where lives are concerned…?

                • Anonymous

                  I thought I had responded to this accusation (not from you), but I didn’t know for sure when I responded to you. Hence, I repeated myself and I apoligize.

                  We agree that it was a stupid thing to say and she has had the tendency to say things without crossing it with her staff first…and getting it wrong. But, if someone is that careless with their child they need to be have their kids taken away from them. I don’t believe for a second that a parent will take an accusation from a politician and override advice from a doctor. Sorry. Should she correct herself in public? Yes.

                • Anonymous

                  So while there certainly are parents that are indeed too stupid to have children, she get’s a pass for the children that will indeed, no doubt suffer the consequences of her speaking out her butt? You doubt that there are parents that dumb? So let’s just help them to mishandle them further, sounds like a real sharp plan.

                • Anonymous

                  Getting the vaccine isn’t required anyway. A parent can avoid it for any reason, even if it’s not on proven grounds.

                  There is a case here where a young girl is having major side-effects that they believe is because of Gardasil. No one knows what the long term effects are and if a parent doesn’t want to take the risk they are entirely within their rights to do so. Bachmann is within her rights to put out the warning that it might be a bad choice to get the vaccine. No matter how dumb a parent is, and this cannot be considered dumb necessarily, they have a right to run their own lives and make their own decisions. You’re being a liberal when you think we should make their choices for them.

                  I hear the drug works wonders, but the other side of it could be the bad side effects that have not been proven to not be true. I’m not going to settle on how I feel about it until they know one way or the other. My daughter is grown now and makes her own choices, and this is something every parent will have to decide on their own, without my help.

                • Anonymous

                  “You’re being a liberal when you think we should make their choices for them.” You’re kidding right? Saying that Bachmann shouldn’t have made a false statement that will influence people is a liberal idea? Huh? How about she should have kept her pile hole closed where health is concerned, it’s NOT her field and she conveyed the words of some fool? Liberal, you must be kidding???

                • Anonymous

                  Lol, I owe you an apology. I should have used a better choice of words, and I don’t blame you for being offended.

                  I will agree with you that she should have approached it differently. If she was against forcing the vaccine she could have said that there are concerns over possible side effects that may make some parents want to opt out, and maybe add that it’s a good idea to speak to your doctor before you make the choice.

                  We both agree she screwed up. The only thing we disagree on is whether or not it’s going to cause harm. I don’t think it will, and I hope I’m right…for the sake of the kids.

                • Anonymous

                  No prob. The odds of her “misspoken” statement having no affect in a country of 300 million… not likely.

                • Anonymous

                  The worry over side effects, even death, has good logic behind it.

                  “As of September 15, 2011, approximately 40 million doses of Gardasil® were distributed in the U.S. and VAERS received a total of 20,096 reports of adverse events following Gardasil® vaccination: 19,075 reports among females and 569 reports for males, of which 504 reports were received after the vaccine was licensed for males in October 2009. VAERS received 452 reports of unknown gender. Of the total number of VAERS reports following Gardasil®, 92% were considered to be non-serious, and 8% were considered serious.”

                  That’s from this page:


                • Anonymous

                  Two things: What are the percentages like for placebo?
                  Your link’s articule seemed to omitt the claim of retardation.

                  Further of those that had side affects 92% not serious and the remaining 8% serious cannot be linked to the drug. Duh, so your article proves what exactly?

                  Compared to contracting Cancer, the parent should do what now, back up Bachmann?

                  We’re all wrong some times. People that don’t admit their mistakes don’t get my trust. I don’t go for arrogance and conceit.

                • Anonymous

                  Actually, I wasn’t trying to prove anything. A VAERS report only reports incidents that cannot be proven but have a possibility of the drug being the cause. My only point was that parents can mull over the risks…proven or not…and make up their own minds.

                  I think Bachmann should set the record straight, but I don’t think it’s going to happen.

                • Anonymous

                  Yes, Bachmann should set the record straight and that she isn’t is telling about her character and not in a good way.

        • Anonymous

          What dumb reasons? Newt was working with Freddie under a GSE (GSE’s are as close to lobbying as you can get). That’s fair game. What else?

      • Anonymous

        John McCain is a special case. I don’t agree with the reasoning, but I understand why some people consider John McCain a war hero due to his service and suffering as a prisoner of war. In my opinion, McCain negated any respect he earned from his military service when he went out of his way to support and defend John Kerry in the 2004 election. I loath the man, and as a Palin supporter it bothered me a lot that she held him in such regard. But she also owed him politically for bringing her onto the national stage, so I gave her a pass on her support for McCain in 2010. Palin was loyal, which is more than can be said for McCain who did nothing to prevent her trashing by his own campaign. He didn’t deserve her support, but Palin could have no more turned on him then she could flip off the flag. It’s not in her nature.

        As for Bachmann? Please. Sarah Palin has never, ever, been that stupid. No, she really hasn’t.

    • Anonymous

      Michele Bachmann is nothing more than a politician. She will say anything to win an election (as evident by her actions in the primary). She is no different than Obama in that regard. She doesn’t understand Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment to Republicans. Furthermore, she engages in hyperbole every bit as much as the democrats. Lastly, her personal attacks only make her look small and petty. It is sad because she has good policy positions, but she must be written off. Sorry folks.

      • Anonymous

        Alert, they are all politicians, this is a political race!

        • Anonymous

          However, when their lies cost children their lives, there’s nothing good about them.

          • Anonymous

            I don’t have a clue who you are referring to or about what. Care to clarify? I assume it’s Bachmann, but I still don’t know what lie you’re talking about that killed children.

            • Anonymous

              Do you recall, in the name of making political points Bachmann stated that giving a child that anti cancer vaccine causes retardation? Saying something so stupid, self serving as that which will cause foolish parents that believe Bachmann’s word to not give a life saving vaccine. THAT will cause deaths. She did this to win political points. That is not particularly virtuous.

              • Anonymous

                Lol, I agree she shouldn’t have said that and she said she was only relating a story that was told to her.

                However, any parent that stops giving their child a vaccine based on what she said without asking their doctor is a dumbass to begin with. No children are going to die because of what she said. Your grabbing for straws.

      • Anonymous

        I agree she relies heavily on attacking the other candidates, but I kind-of like it. There are things that some of them have hidden away in closets that they would rather we didn’t know about. I want to know about all that I can. I will decide for myself if it’s a disasterous skeleton or a harmless one…but I gotta know.

        I welcome them to tell me something about her that we should be aware of, too. No one is perfect, and I expect that. But I want the entire picture of all of them.

  • Anonymous

    This business of knocking ppl over the head for flip-flops is getting old. As I live, read, learn and understand, I must be the worlds worst flip flopper.

    • Anonymous

      But what you’re describing is a different thing from a politician who:

      In 2002 while running in a blue state, says “I’m not a partisan Republican, I’m a progressive.”

      And then 6 years later when running a right of center nation, says “I’m a conservative.”

      And then for the next 3 years ignoring the tea party and making sure you’re not associated with it.

      And then last week saying that “I’m the ideal tea party candidate.”

      That’s not “living, reading, learning, and understanding.” That’s telling the electorate of any given district where you want a job what you think they want to hear in order to get elected.

      • cabensg

        Who are you talking about Romney or Bachman?

        • Anonymous

          Romney. Are you accusing Bachmann or are you genuinely asking the question? (I’m not accusing you, btw, I just don’t know you’re angle).

      • Anonymous

        Which would lead to exactly what Obama does. He is anti-Israel to the extreme in front of one group, then tries to act pro-Israel in front of another. We have to have someone with a core conviction, but I will accept someone changing their position as long as they have a good explanation for it and as long as it’s not overnight in five different directions. We agree on this.

  • Anonymous

    Look, do I HAVE to post at least five ‘flipflops’ from (insert all other candidates..including your pick, here)? I mean it’d take me all of 15 minutes tops to Google your man/woman changing positions, flipflops etc. We can keep playing this game all next year against Owebama if you guys wanna.

    I can make your pick look like a shape shifter from X-Men. This has to stop. In true Republican fashion, we again are eating our own.

    • Anonymous

      Nah, it has to be done. We have to get all the weaknesses out in the open just the same as the strengths. If we don’t, Obama and the left will go through them with a fine-toothed comb after we’ve already made our choice. They are going to get vetted one way or another. Would you rather we do it, or them? If they do it, it’s too late to change candidates if we get slapped with something we didn’t try to weed out that is a game changer. So, I respectfully disagree with you.

  • cabensg

    Great interview, very comprehensive. I watched it on TV but turned it off before Scheffer could try to spin what was actually said. I thought the part about each branch of government being able to check the others to maintain a balance between the three was very informative.

  • cabensg

    Bringing the Judiciary back in line has really struck a nerve with progressives this has been their mainstay in implementing their socialist agenda. This is going to be a really big fight. Without lawless activist Judges making law from the bench the progressives are in big trouble. I’m glad this is finally on the national stage. Each of us has winced every time we hear about some judge deciding he is the law but no politician has stood up and said its time to stop this, instead it’s a sound bite in a stump speech with no background or what can be done about it. Good for Newt.

    • Yeah. Putting the constitution back into the focus where the courts are to interpret the constitution versus legislate from the bench really puts the liberals and Progressives off.

      Newt is exactly spot on about the balance of powers between the 3 branches of government. Expecially the point about the legislative was designed to be the weakest of the 3 branches.

  • Anonymous

    Just stand in the pulpit and start preaching sir. I’ll say Amen, approximately once per paragraph…until Tebow and Brady start dookin’ it in Denver of course 🙂

    • Anonymous

      3 possessions, 3 TD’s! Broncs ahead by 6!

  • Anonymous

    When Newt brought up the activist judges and the problems they create, I really couldn’t agree with his solutions. Bob Sheffer asked an excellent question about if the Supreme Court rules Obamacare unconstitutional does the POTUS have the ability to just ignore that decision? If conservatives in power have the ability to eliminate liberal circuit courts, doesn’t that also mean that when liberals (progressives) are in power they could eliminate the conservative courts? What a slippery slope that would be!

    I think our judicial system went off the tracks when they moved from teaching “constitutional law” to “case law” in law schools. If a court made a BAD decision based on a few judges “opinion” it is used as a bases for all future court decisions rather than looking at each case individually against the constitution. IMHO

    • Here’s the key — it’s always two out of three. If the president and the congress say the court is wrong, in the end the court would lose. If the congress and the court say the president is wrong, in the end the president would lose. And if the president and the court agreed, the congress loses. The founding fathers designed the constitution very specifically in a Montesquieu spirit of the laws to have a balance of power not to have a dictatorship by any one of the three branches. – Newt Gingrich

      • K-Bob

        This is a point I’ve always thought was correct. But even guys like Mark Levin have tended to throw in the towel on ever doing anything about it. Gingrich’s solutions are exactly what I thought the Constitution was created to allow.

        People point to Jackson’s famous decision not to “enforce” a particular ruling from the SCOTUS. They usually claim it’s an example of Presidential over-reach, and that he was somehow in the wrong for daring to disagree with the court. The case was, of course, not as usually represented, and Jackson wasn’t actually in much position to “enforce” anything relative to it, himself.

        But his co-equal branch status should give him the right to decide on Constitutionality, just as Congress should do. It’s only because of Marbury v. Madison that so many people have declared the SCOTUS to be the final arbiter.

        In point of fact, voters are the final arbiter of law. We just don’t get to make our choice happen all at once. Also, the process of jury nullification may (eventually) void a law. And Congress controls the makeup and jurisdiction of the federal courts and Supreme Court. So obviously the SCOTUS isn’t the only such “final arbiter.”

        They just get all the press.

        • Anonymous

          What do you think about ‘term limits’ of some nature for the SCOTUS? Seems to me, a lifetime appointment tends to make one feel rather invincible. One Presidents’ nomination could last for many decades.

          • K-Bob

            I think there ought to be overlapping terms for Court Justices in all Federal courts. Maybe a good way to deal with it is to have the POTUS nominate and get Senate confirmation, as usual, but let Congress vote to renew terms. So they’d get say one 7-year term, and then Congress can vote to renew them for another 7-years. Maybe even make that the max?

            Another alternative would be to institute “no confidence” votes for Justices, where Congress can essentially require a fresh appointment for any Justice’s seat. POTUS could re-appoint the same person, but they’d have to go through Senate confirmation again.

            Those are just off the top of my head. And I just had a beer.

            (Might require an amendment.)

            • Anonymous

              Both ideas sound good. Presently, it doesn’t seem like the SC justices are concerned about backlash, as no one seems to be able to touch them when they make a controversial ruling.

              Man, I’d love to hear your ideas with a clear head (or maybe with six beers, lol)

              • Anonymous

                All of those ideas are dangerous. A permanent court allows them to rule without interference.

                • Anonymous

                  That’s the problem, as I see it. They are supposed to be 1/3 of an equal triangle. NOT ultimate supreme rulers. Every one of us should be held accountable in some way.

                  Our presidents have been appointing them with that ultimate rule idea in mind for some time now, it seems.

                • Anonymous

                  I don’t know where you stand on Newt’s proposals to fix the problem with activist judges, but I believe his idea will make the SCOTUS impotent if one party controls Congress and the White House. That’s not 1/3….that’s a big fat zero because they would disregard any ruling they didn’t like.

                • Anonymous

                  It’s a slippery slope, that’s for sure. I still feel everybody needs to be held accountable. The President’s veto can be overridden, too, by a majority in both houses. BUT, they should be held accountable by us, the voters, for doing so unjustly.

                  I don’t know. Better minds than mine have to hash this out. I just want to see unlimited power like the SCOTUS be a little more under control. They need to be independent, but not so much as to be untouchable for decades. Sounds too much like a dictatorial power to me (it reminds me of Iran, a supposed republic. Ahmadinejad is the president and supposed leader, but the Ayatollah really rules the country as Supreme leader).

                  Independent, but accountable- sounds like I’m being too ‘pie-in-the-sky’. Gotta start somewhere, though.

                  BTW, I’m not sure yet that I see anything wrong with Congress being able to subpeona judges to find out why they did something controversial. I might have to think that further. Why should they be above you or me. It might influence their decision, but I would hope that some form of accountability would make them more attuned to fairness.

                  I found it laughable that the interviewer was shocked to hear Newt say ‘send out Marshalls if he refused a Congressional subpeona’, as if to say they were above the law and could ignore it. I know you and I could not, and would be arrested.

                  Sorry, long post. I just got up.

                • Anonymous

                  Nah, it wasn’t that long. The problem with letting Congress drag judges in front of them to explain their rulings is this….

                  What do libs in Congress do to the opposition? They make them testify to Congress and they send them down the river on nothing. Scooter Libby. Valerie Plame was not classified as a secret agent with the CIA any more, yet they pressed charges as if she was when her name was revealed. Additionally, shortly before the trial, Fitzgerald found out that it wasn’t Libby who revealed the identity, and it was actually Richard Armitage and he admitted it. Did Fitz stop the trial? No. Since it was known beforehand that Scooter did not reveal the name first, the judge ruled that Fitzgerald could not mention that claim at all during the trial. However, Fitzgerald DID mention it in his closing statements. He got Libby on perjury because his testimony didn’t match that of a reporter, even though there was absolutely no reason to have Libby there in the first place.

                  Point is, the left is real bad at political prosecutions and witch hunts. All of the conservative judges on the Supreme Court would be dragged in after every ruling and scrutinized, and since libs don’t believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document they would probably impeach the judges.

                • Anonymous

                  Ya, I see your point. Once again, a slippery slope. But having no reform at all is just as bad. These politicians give me a furball. Ack. Pfft.

                • Anonymous

                  I would say make them answerable to us. Let us vote them out. However, that would also be a slippery slope. We would have judges voted in and out over polictics and not law.

                  I don’t know. I’d say just go with term limits and do the best at picking them. Trying to control their rulings has too many danger zones.

                • Anonymous

                  At least with term limits, you don’t suffer for thirty years on a bad decision. We might be able to live with poor decisions for 5-7 years until new ones are appointed.

                • Anonymous

                  Yep, and get rid of using precedence. Make one bad ruling and use it forever in order to have an excuse to make more bad rulings.

              • K-Bob

                Heh. It took a lot of years getting yelled at by my betters for coming up with stupid ideas before I started coming up with less-stupider ideas.

                Getting beaten up in debates is good for yer brane.

            • Anonymous

              In spite of all the perpetual discussions about term-limits, your ideas still need to be trumpeted. But as we have discovered in our state of California, even the “unelectable” in the marauding (tax revenues) form of Governor Moonbean has a very clever way of circumventing, or circumnavigating, term-limits legislation, with aid from state congressional leaders, in order to maim and pillage the taxpayers further to compensate for an increasingly hyper-inflated budget deficit of $25B; due to skyrocket to $40 billion by 2014.

              The pork is too much of a delicacy right now and it will take an outsider with huge mountain oysters to initiate amendment legislation to overhaul the system as it stands today.

              (In regards to that beer, I do not drink, but with all of turbulence swirling around this election cycle, I have a virtual flask of Jaegermeister, just for the hell of it.)

              • K-Bob

                They say everything is bigger in Texas. But California has taken the concept of being “boned” to new heights.

          • Anonymous

            And the President’s choices usually get confirmed regardless of how loony they are.

            I’m for term limits, and I’d also go for some kind of system where we vote them in, vote them out.

        • Anonymous

          Yeah, but I don’t want the Congress and President to be able to over-ride a decision made by the SCOTUS that protects the Constitution. When one party controls both of them it would make the SCOTUS impotent.

          • K-Bob

            You have that now with the court. You’d just distribute the problem among three branches.

      • Anonymous

        “If the president and the congress say the court is wrong, in the end the court would lose.”

        Recently when the dems had control of the House, Senate and POTUS, the SCOTUS settled 2 very important cases 1. related to gun rights and how much power cities could take to restrict our second amendment rights, and 2. related to disclosure of campaign contributions. The Congress and POTUS absolutely HATED both decisions! So are you saying Obama, Pelosi & Reid could have overturned the SCOTUS decisions in those cases?

        It is a VERY slippery slope. I agree with Newt that we have way too many activist judges. Perhaps the answer would be to make it easier to impeach them if they do not strictly follow the constitution in all of their decisions.

        • Anonymous

          Easier impeachment, maybe. It’s hard for me to figure a reasonable way to do it, because we have to remember the left will get it’s turn. They will come in and impeach judges who don’t consider the Constitution to be a living, breathing document. It’s going to take someone smarter than me to figure this one out.

    • Anonymous

      Precedent! Precedent! Precedent is the mother of all slippery slopes, predicated on the back of one red herring after another.

      • Anonymous

        And the precedent could have been set by a few bad judges in a particular court, and followed forever. That is the fault of our legal system. We need to go back to constitutional law. I’m a simple person who grew up appreciating our country, our history and constitution.

        • Anonymous

          I hope that you understood that that is exactly what I meant.

          Yes, activist judges have NO place in our court systems. They firmly believe that the constitution is an evolving document, which it is not. It is there to be interpreted under the Founding Fathers’ original intent, which many activists attempt to obfuscate this fact by implying, or interpreting, the term “interpretation” as an inherent component of a living breathing document that changes, adapts, and conforms to different set of circumstances, e.g., situational ethics.

          That is not the purpose of the constitution and the Founders knew that without majority vote to approve an amendment, this type of action, which was the basis for separating from the Motherland in the first place, would undue everything in which the constitution was drafted to protect, i.e., no taxation without representation the inalienable rights of man, and so forth. If so, judges, as a growing number of them attempt to do today, would circumvent original intent on the whim with impunity. They realize that they do not have a leg (or the votes) to stand upon to legally petition a request for an amendment to be brought to a vote. They do not have them, thus the only way to sidestep this inconvenience is to appoint activist judges who would be more than willing to BREAK THE LAW. Plain and simple, and simple is good, in my opinion.

          Out of the three branches of government, the Founders were adamant to construct a constitution that would have internal mechanism in place to limit the powers of the judiciary, because they damn well knew that activist judges would try to make non-constitutional decisions, which would undermine and jeopardize our core principles.

          This is the reason we all must be very leery of Sharia law influences and other such-similar ones, which are diametrically the antithesis of our basic principles. We already have clear evidence today in various underpinning agendas where activist judges are trying their damdest to reshape our American ideology to ones that accommodate monarchal dictates and ones that become complicit to socialist transformations. This paradigm shift is subtle now but will become material and a fixture in the lifeblood of our nation, just like a cancer slowly but surely metastasizing until it’s too late. For couple of examples: war crimes being tried in our criminal courts, the emerging prominent presence of “La Rasa” and how it’s affecting the American ideal from judicial decision-making processes that are making our fundamental philosophical structure so malleable that it permits a complete transformation of our American way of life (see London, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, etc.).

          I do not profess to know everything. i only use commonsense to observe that which does not make any sense at all. If this appears to be conjecture, as one of the bloggers charge me of producing, then disregard it as being so. It’s only an opinion.

      • Anonymous

        Perfect description.

    • Anonymous

      I agree with you about the courts. Consider a situation where the liberals control both houses (Reid and Pelosi twins) and the Presidency (Obama’s twin) and they pass a bill that is an affront to our Constitution. Let’s say the Supreme Court shoots it down 9-0. We both know what would happen. They would tell the Supreme Court to go eff themselves and destroy our Constitution. I don’t think so. Find another way to deal with the courts.

      You made a good point about where we went off the tracks. I never liked the idea of using past court cases as precedence for current rulings. As you said, the previous ruling could be completely wrong.

  • What Newt is saying here is we don’t want to abolish the Judicial Branch we just want to make it irrelevant. Completely Unconstitutional. Completely Progressive. There are legitimate constitutional ways of achieving the same ends all of which are outlined in the constitution and which were used by previous presidents and mentioned by Mr. Gingrich here but none of them just simply ignored Supreme Court rulings. This is what he is advocating and it’s Dangerous. I 100% agree with him on the problem he is addressing. However, I 100% disagree with his solution to this problem. Mr. Gingrich is a Progressive and he is Dangerous.

    • Nice spin, Jeremy. That’s not what Newt said.

    • So restoring the proper role of the judicial branch by using the clearly delineated Constitutional powers available to the president and Congress to correct, limit, or replace judges who violate the Constitution, is progressive? Not.

    • Anonymous

      Why hello Mr. Beck! It’s nice to have you visit our forums (*hand waiving stifly with a forced smile*). Are you in a good mood today Mr. Beck? I sure hope you are tomorrow when I tune in! What new book do you have coming out this week sir? You sure are a fine historian (*winking with one eye while holding my forced smile*). No one knows progressivism like you sir (*holding up my copy of Broke*). Will you sign it for me?

    • Anonymous

      Jeremy, I still haven’t seen an answer to the question Rshill7 asked you.
      Who are you supporting?

  • Maxsteele

    Thank you for posting TRS. I just watched both of these twice and I can’t find a single thing in what Newt says that I can disagree with. It seems that a lot of people posting here have already made up their minds and are married to dogma rather then hearing what the candidates say. I have nothing against Bachman and have a lot of respect for her as a strong minded woman, I do not believe for a second that she has sold herself to Romney but is just going after the front runner in the race. I am sure that if Romney was in the lead in the polls then she would be going for his jugular also.
    Yet, I must say that Newt has gained a lot of my respect recently for how he has handled the attacks against him by multiple sides. Can anyone find proof that he lied about anything he said in this interview???
    I think I have changed my current ranking of the candidates after the last debate and recent information I have read, including this interview: 1. Santorum, 2. Newt, 3. Bachmann, 4. Perry, 5. Huntsmann, 6. Romney

    • Anonymous

      Well, Mitty was ahead of the pack for weeks and she said nothing, so…

  • Anonymous

    Does he believe the American people will tolerate the rounding up of American citizens like in NDAA?

  • We want Sharia Law outlawed in America. Newt’s position on that alone gets our vote.
    Newt First – ABO Second.

  • Anonymous

    RS, thanks for posting this video.

    Like or dislike Speaker Gingrich, he shows a clear understanding of the threat we are facing from theocratic Islamic fascism:

    When Events Collide: An “Uncommon Knowledge” from July, 2002 with Hitchens and Gingrich

    Also, people may find this video of interest:

    Mitt was for Newt’s brilliant intellect, before he went zany for it

    P.S. At this juncture, I am not supporting any of the candidates who are presently running for the GOP Presidential Nomination.

  • bobemakk

    There is no other candidate more qualified to run this country than Gingrich. He has baggage, yes….but show me a politician who doesn’t and I’ll introduce you to the real Godzilla (Obama).

  • Don’t any of you people comment on the substance of these videos or do you all simply pontificate for your candidate no matter what the topic is? You people slay me with all your candidate bashing, juvenile behavior. GROW UP, morons!

    • Anonymous

      Did you read the thread starting with MaxineCA? Or do you just make comments without reading the threads?

      • Anonymous

        Thanks Nukeman60. I only had one response to my specific questions, although I must say the comments going back and forth after that were interesting. I still haven’t seen ANYONE comment on the specific issues that I raised in the 2 comments posted. I agree we have out control activist judges but we must be very, very careful…..

        However, John Q does have a point that also I noticed in following this today. So many of the comments were not about the “substance of the topic at hand” but went on to either promote or trash another candidate.

        I don’t ever pretend that I have the answers, because I don’t. I just try to stick to the topic and ask appropriate questions to get others ideas in hopes they will contemplate my questions and concerns.

        • Anonymous

          I agree with you. I think, though, we will find in every thread on this and other sites people diverting to their candidates, due to this being the political season and people seem to be on pins and needles about the direction of things.

          What is it they say about politics and religion? Things get hot, even though they shouldn’t.

          • Anonymous

            Everyone needs to calm the heck down! It’s still early before we have to vote. There won’t be a comment posted on any website that will change my mind, I will make up my own mind for my own reasons.

            That being said to address your comment, please give me you thoughts on the questions I raised in my 2 comments posted. (Just trying to stay on topic!)

            • Anonymous

              I did not like Newt saying that he would ignore the justices decisions. That sounds too much like what Obama says he wants to do. I also didn’t like his comment about sending capital police to take down any judges. Sounds too much like any police state there is around the world.

              The two points that K-Bob had sounded good to me. The SCOTUS has to be powerful and independent, but not invincible. There has to be checks and balances with every aspect of our government. Extended term limits and potential no-confidence votes seem to be plausible ways to keep the SCOTUS on an even keel. I don’t want them skewed to the left or the right. I want them to look honestly and fairly at any topic that comes before them. As it stands now, we can almost predict which way certain justices will rule and it shouldn’t be like that.

            • Anonymous

              You should not have to even make this declaration, MaxineCA. That’s is the very reason you are endowed by God with a brain of your own to make those decisions as astute as possibly, no matter how well intended the persuasive actions of others are.

              Although she is a highly controversial figure due to incriminating evidence regarding plagiarism to historic proportion, when you consider her status as a recipient of the Pulitzer Prize in literature, my MBA semester break is now filled with the reading of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s best-seller, “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln,” which is quite befitting to the subject regarding all of the back-biting bantering being tossed around on this and other forums – I’m included. If President Lincoln was able (slight pun intended) to invite rival factions into his cabinet to help resolve the conflict between “brother against brother,” during the most vicious war our country has ever had up to this point, then, in a way, I do not expect this type of “dialogue” to change.

              Even among your rivals, independently informed decisions are possible and required. Now, look at me attempting to convince you how to behave. What a hypocrite I have become!! Just a friendly word of advice, from a concern perspective, who believes like most on this site that this forthcoming election is too pivotal!

  • Anonymous

    Santorum 2012!

    An actual, real life, Conservative.

    Newt is a Progressive. As is Mittens…as is Hunter…

    • Anonymous

      I agree, and I would support Santorum in a heartbeat if he surged in the polls. I am hoping for Bachmann or Perry first, though.

  • Anonymous

    I will vote for Newt over O without holding my nose because he is not a lawyer. I agree with Newt that the federal courts need to be brought down a peg or two. If congress abolished some of them for being activist then they would get the message real fast. The problems continues to be with Congress not doing their job but doing all kinds of things that they have no authority under the constitution to do. Newt is still not my first choice.

    • Anonymous

      I will vote for Newt before Obama, too, but I WILL have to hold my nose. If you listen to his solutions they all involve government….long term government. He’s a progressive. Plot and plan, plot and plan. How about just get the government the hell out of the way?

      I disagree with you about the courts. Yes, they have to be knocked down a peg or two, but not in the way he’s proposing. What will we do when the day comes that the left has a majority along with the Presidency, they pass an unconstitional law, and the Supreme Court shuts it down? The left will just give the middle finger to the Supreme Court as they disregard it’s ruling and impose it’s will on us while spitting on the Constitution. This is a very dangerous road to go down.

  • Anonymous

    OK. I tried. Newt is just blah, blah, blah. I must be too tired, because I’m just not impressed and he’s sounding like a blowhard. And we have one of those for a president already.

    • Anonymous

      He has a lot of solutions, but they are government solutions. He’s a progressive. He plots and plans what government can do to forge our path. How about just short little answers like Rick Perry’s? Cut government agencies, their pay, get them the hell out of the way, and cut the ropes that are strangling our free market system. That’s not progressive. That’s letting the country forge it’s own path.

      You got it right, he’s a progressive blowhard. The more he talks the less I like him.

  • Mitt Romney is perhaps the worst candidate in GOP history. A Hollywood screenwriter couldn’t come up with a more ridiculous caricature of a candidate. Radical Left-wing track record. Mormonism. Pandering. Lies about his record. Insincerity. Lust for power. Across the board flip-flopping from liberal to “conservative” on every issue under the sun just so he can secure the Republican nomination. Political opportunism at its worst. The man is a danger to the Republican party and the entire country.

    Here’s what Mitt Romney supported as Governor of Massachusetts:

    1. Pro-abortion with taxpayer funding (added it to RomneyCare, kept it, refused to line-item veto it).

    2. Pro-government mandated healthcare (RomneyCare has cost the state over 20,000 jobs and has actually increased the cost of healthcare in Massachusetts).

    3. Pro-government mandates in general (“I like mandates” his own words on tape).

    4. Pro-gay marriage with full state sponsorship (was first Governor to install it, earlier broke a law in his zeal to issue gay marriage licenses, then called opponents of his actions “right-wing”).

    5. Pro-transgender education to children in public schools (promoted by Governor Romney’s administration, read Amy Contrada’s book: “Mitt Romney’s Deception”).

    6. Pro-openly gay scout masters in the boy scouts (“I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.” U.S. Senate debate on Oct. 26, 1994. Massachusetts News, June 18, 2002.)

    7. Pro-global warming caused by human activity (his own words)

    8. Pro-environmental regulations to combat global warming (imposed massive environmental regulations in Massachusetts, according to the Wall Street Journal: “Mr. Romney joined activists outside an aging, coal-fired plant in 2003 to show his commitment to the emissions caps. “I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant, that plant kills people,” he said. On Dec. 7, 2005, the Romney administration unveiled the final orders. “These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment,” then-Gov. Romney said in a press release touting Massachusetts as “the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants.”).

    9. Pro-taxes on businesses (closed loopholes, then raised business taxes by $300 million as Governor of Massachusetts, according to USA Today).

    10. Pro-taxes and fees on the public (Romney raised state fees and taxes more than $700 million per year, according to independent experts. He raised fees by roughly $500 million in his first year alone, a figure that was highest in the nation. The state and local tax burden rose more than 7% during Romney’s administration).

    11. Pro-amnesty for illegal immigrants (supports path to citizenship for illegals, his own words in 2006)

    12. Mitt declared himself a “moderate” and says his views are actually “progressive.” (his own words).

    Mitt Romney’s track record is indistinguishable from a radical Leftist’s. Romney’s record is even to the Left of most Democrats! Consider how people destroyed Mike Huckabee in ’08 over a couple of liberal blemishes in his record, but give a free pass to Mitt Romney who’s track record is even worse. Across the board liberal worse! The man is a left-wing deceiver and it’s the responsibility of real conservatives to expose him since the establishment GOP and “conservative” pundits aren’t doing it. I see through the man. Can’t you? He is utterly insincere. The man is a pathological liar. Is there a conspiracy to give this snake the nomination?

    “My views are progressive.”
    –Mitt Romney

  • Anonymous

    His explanation of his involvement with Freddie was finally more detailed, but I don’t know if I believe him or not. GSE’s push for easy credit, but I don’t know that he was pushing to do it irresponsibly in the way it was done (giving poor people loans they couldn’t pay back). I suppose it’s possible he was trying to get them into housing they could afford but it isn’t what happened in the end. Although it still looks suspicious, I’ll let him have this one.

    I disagree with Newt’s view of the Supreme Court, though. I don’t like activist judges any more than anyone else, but taking the position that the President can just ignore a Supreme Court ruling makes the hair on my neck stand up. If one party has dominance in Washington, any Supreme Court ruling they don’t like could be ignored (sound familiar anyone….Obama?). This gives an already corrupt government freedom to push it’s will on the people even if it’s unconstitutional. It might seem fine and dandy when Republicans are in power, but liberals are extremely crooked and they don’t follow the Constitution. This is a very good way to allow them to over-ride any Supreme Court ruling that’s designed to protect the intent of the Constitution. You cannot impose a consistent view among the judges. It’s insane to think you can. Very, very stupid idea Newt.

    I think he’s right about Iraq.

  • Gingrich and Jefferson…

    When Gingrich is right, he’s definitely right and RIGHT – he is Conservative.
    When Gingrich is left, he is definitely not right and not RIGHT – he is Progressive.

    When Gingrich is right, he’s definitely … Right – he is Conservative…
    … what does THAT mean.


    When Gingrich adduces Jefferson’s Judicial Reform Act and the elimination of 18 federal judges and their courts by his executive authority, Gingrich is historically accurate and on solid legal ground.

    Solid “legal” ground means that if Jefferson was challenged by the Legislature, the Senate and House, and the Judiciary, SCOTUS, Jefferson would have had to accede to the 2 other “equal” branches.

    But, they did not challenge Jefferson.

    In fact, if the SCOTUS had challenged Jefferson in the firing of the 18 federal judges and the elimination of their courts but the Legislature after deliberation sided with Jefferson and did not join the SCOTUS, Jefferson’s decision would have withstood the 3 equal branches test.

    The fact that the Legislature, the Senate AND the House, did nothing, THAT was doing something… Jefferson’s decision was allowed to stand.

    And, of course, the SCOTUS by their inactivity, also allowed Jefferson’s decision to stand.

    Now, when Gingrich is left, he definitely is not … Right – he is Progressive…
    … what does THAT mean?


    In his comments in the 1st video at the top of this page, on Face the Nation last Sunday, Dec. 18, 2011, Gingrich adduced Franklin D. Roosevelt in his defense of Jefferson’s action in eliminating the 18 federal judges and their courts and Gingrich’s current point of view about federal judges who legislate from the bench.

    … THAT is right… and Conservative.

    Gingrich in other interviews and speeches adduces Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and singles out Franklin D. Roosevelt as his “favorite” President.

    … THAT is left… and Progressive… a tendency toward Progressive thought.

    Newt in his own words –
    >> Newt –

    THAT is left… and Progressive… a tendency toward Progressive thought.

    BUT GINGRICH NEVER defends FDR’s attempt to pack the SCOTUS and expand it from 9 justices to 15 justices.

    … THAT is right… and Conservative… a rejection of Progressive thought.

    See the “Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937” – Wikipedia –
    >> read more here –

    “The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937[1]
    (frequently called the “court-packing plan”)
    was a legislative initiative proposed by
    U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt
    to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    “Roosevelt’s purpose was to obtain favorable rulings
    regarding New Deal legislation
    that had been previously ruled unconstitutional.

    “The central and most controversial provision of the bill
    would have granted the President power
    to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court,
    up to a maximum of six,
    for every sitting member over the age of 70 years and 6 months.”

    – – – – – – – –

    My perspective as I listed to Newton Gingrich speak, sometimes I agree with Gingrich, sometimes I do not agree with Gingrich.

    Sometimes Gingrich takes a Progressive Conservative stance, a Conservative with Progressive tendencies.

    Sometimes Gingrich takes a Conservative Progressive stance, a Progressive with Conservative tendencies.

    What to do… what to do… what to do…


    If Gingrich wins the Republican primary wreath, he will definitely get my vote in the general election against BHObama.

    Glenn Beck has some very honest, truthful and valid historical points to make against Gingrich’s Progressive tendencies, but, if Beck does not think that Gingrich would not be good for our Republic and will not vote for Gingrich against Obama, well, Beck has another think comin’, it seems to me.


    • I’m going to go with a +1 on this comment. Gingrich is an enigma–I’m still trying to figure him out. Having said that, when he was speaker of the house, I was embracing my full conservative self and liked Gingrich and appreciated his Contract with America. Am I supposed to just forget that because now there are *people* out there decrying Gingrich at every turn?

      • Dittos…

        Thanks for +1, In Cognito.

        I’m simply trying to understand both sides of Gingrich’s thoughtful statements.

        Gingrich said in the video about Progressive FDR being the “greatest” President of the 20th century,

        … “I’ll give you my biased answer, which always gets me in trouble on the right. … .”

        Well, that means that Gingrich knows BOTH Conservative AND Progressive perspectives about various issues.


        If Gingrich wins the POTUS wreath… WATCH OUT America.

        What does THAT mean?

        Well, good AND bad.

        BOTH Conservative AND Progressive ideas will be presented that will definitely “transform” our Republic.

        But, having made that point, Gingrich will definitely get my vote for POTUS if he wins the Republican primary vetting process.


  • Anonymous

    Yes, there appears to be Mudd slung everywhere with regard to Fannie and Freddie, according to this latest news release article by the Banking Business Review. Perhaps, guilt by association would not be fair to Newt, but it is hard to avoid the connection that ties all of these loose ends together of a failed system that was so corrupt since 2000.