Full Interview: Newt Gingrich on the Glenn Beck Show


Newt Gingrich went on the Glenn Beck Show for a fairly lengthy interview filled with tough questions, from his positions on climate change to his positions on the health care mandate. And Beck played clips of Newt that spanned even into this year and had Newt respond to them.

Here’s the full interview:


Also, here’s a full transcript of the interview if you’d rather read it.

Comment Policy: Please read our 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.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

134 thoughts on “Full Interview: Newt Gingrich on the Glenn Beck Show

  1. Glenn, c’mon I am TEA Partier and wrote a textbook for Tea Party coming out in February 2012. Having differences with Newt on nuances in his policies from policies knowing ‘you have to get the bill passed in socialist congress’ is as egregious has Newt having differences with Paul Ryan’s plan with New Elected TEA partiers. It could be fatal for all of us in United States. You both are terribly wrong at the worst possible time!! Conservative need to stand together and deliver “concisely” the message to independents and water cooler voters; do not ever vote for a progressive liberal ever again!! Both of you should drive the point by useing the tally of filibuster proof US Senate majorities Democrats have enjoyed over last 98 yrs since the GOP last enjoyed one from (1907-11). [11 to one in Democrats favor by today’s cloture 60 standard !! In the big scheme of politics the progressive movement succeeded in its desire in unhinging capitalism in one year 1913. The writing is the wall at it appear like socialist grafitti sellin themselves as Mensheviks . Is it is enough to convince independents to vote conservative for the next 115 yrs. Who better teach that to Americans in 8 yrs than NEWT/Hunstman 2012? C’mon man.

  2. The Wright brothers did not invent the airplane. The Chinese basically did that. They were the first ones to experiment with manned flight. Old Leonardo then did his part and a very important contributer to manned flight was Otto Lilienthal. The Wrights built on all that and there’s still an ongoing dispute on whether they really built the first machine propelled fixed winger or not (the contender is still Gustave Whitehead.) So Newt, please don’t comment on aviation history.

    As for nationalized healthcare… It doesn’t work. Get over here and check how it doesn’t work. How utter incompetence rules the nationalized hospitals in my country. No thanks.

    As for “climate change”… Any politicion who tells us that 0.039% CO2 in the atmosphere have that effect, and that we are causing it, and is trying to sell ethanol as something good (burning food for fuel to create a fuel with a really lousy energy load) has to go. The ethanol fraud is part of the AGW lie. If you support ethanol, you support Gore’s, Mann’s and Hansen’s forgery. That the is “for all sources of American energy” just shows that he has no bloody clue about the topic at hand.

  3. so, let me get this str8. newt is for limited government subsided by government? i’m a little confuse here.

  4. Gingrich just doesn’t get it. I totally understand his points and these would all be valid ideas provided there is no corruption in government or in the businesses receiving government money. Unfortunitely for Mr. Gingrich here, corruption is precisely what the problem is. No matter how good an idea is when it passes through bad government it becomes bad. This idealistic notion that government can ever be free from corruption is rediculous because it is not accountable to the same laws that govern we the people, not legal nor economic, because it is the source of that power. Therefore everything the government touches to some extent becomes illegal and uneconomical. The government is accountable to the people and the people only. The only option is for we the people to limit its scope of power and authority and to stand guard at all times.

  5. Love Glenn, but he’s coming off a bit cocky today.

    I don’t appreciate some of the facial expressions he’s making in the studio when talking to Newt Gingrich, whose legacy has bettered our existence. Balanced budget, anyone? Welfare Reform? He’s DONE these seemingly impossible things.

    Glenn was trying to corner Newt as a progressive, and Newt just took him to school on how TR’s career/philosophy evolved. I think Glenn was surprised by many responses, but you can see that he was in a defensive, almost-mocking posture and probably couldn’t receive the answers.

    He’s pretty much sold on the petulant Santorum, who won’t go anywhere. And Bachmann, who I love, but is doing a lot of attack politics. Newt’s star is rising because he’s risen above that fray. And he has serious and deep answers.

    1. Yes. I was quite shocked at the way he acted today. I would have thought better from Mr. ”the truth has no agenda”. Beck has always complained about how much bias there is in the media and the need for more objective journalism. Today he did not seem to show any of that because he pitched real softball questions to Bachmann. He needed to nail more specifics from her on exactly how she plans on pushing healthcare reform and enforcement of deporting the 11 million illegal. First how do you find them and second what massive new government organization will be needed to implement and control it.

    1. don’t listen to FNC sophistry, and get behind Perry. He is the one that can go into Washington and get the job done based on his TX legislature experience. It’s not too late, and his live debating skills are getting better all the time.

  6. Car Insurance = State and locality mandated. Insurance for when you CHOOSE to own and operate a car. Individual mandate = Federal mandated. Insurance for simply…breathing. Can’t opt out.

  7. First West , then Cain ,now Gingrich.Why always support the worst candidates (rinos ) in this page .

      1. Are you and Newt related? He’s a progressive. He admitted as much in the interview. I didn’t need for him to tell me that to figure it out. You are being conned….again.

        Newt loves public-private partnerships. That came out of progressive ideology. They transfer power away from consumers and to connected firms and govt. central planners. It’s not free market, it’s corporatism.

        Newt is basically a New Deal Democrat. Wake up.

        1. Listen to this clip…this is NOT how progressives sound.

          Look at his accomplishments as Speaker….this is now how progressives act.

          Look at his ratings from Conservative Ratings groups….95% lifetime Conservative rating is not what progressives recieve.

          To put is plainly….YOU ARE JUST WRONG….it is that simple.

          I challenge you to look at what Newt says, has done as Speaker, and his ratings by well respected CONSERVATIVE groups and then ask yourself the same questions. I think if you are truely open minded and objective you will agree he is a conservative.

  8. Glenn asked some great questions, but he didn’t do the follow up questions.

    When Newt gets pinned down he throws up a giant snow storm. Beck got lost. After his question on ethanol subsidies and Newt’s answer can anyone say if Newt is in favor or them or against them? Do you support subsidies, Newt? It’s not a gotcha question. It’s a straight forward yes or no.

    When he asked about the drug benefit he rambled on about health savings accounts. What health savings accounts? Did I miss something?

    Let’s hope people see through Newt’s double talk.

    Perry/Rubio 2012 because their baggage is just carry on luggage compared to Newt’s.

    1. newt supports some subsidies and not others…it depends on what is being subsidized and how fundamental it is to the free market for e.g. you want to subsidize transportation, telecommunications, railroad, energy as these are fundamental to the free market…private companies are not going to build roads, they rely on cheap energy, so what newt supports is basically the govt. helping create the environment where entrepreneurs can be successful…

        1. You mean the same Rick Perry that supported Al Gore…..NO WAY will I support anyone that wanted Mr Global Warming as President.

  9. Newt is exactly right. There are minimal things that government should regulate..you know like…it is against the law to kill people. it is against the law for businesses to NOT protect workers from obvious hazzards like protective glasses for drill operators. As Newt says it is NOT the role of government to bailout GM, Goldman Sachs, or Lehman Brothers. There is no reason for ”too big to fail”. So, there are limitations on where Government should be and more importantly where is should NOT be.

    However, The idea of having economic incentives for manufacturing goes back to Alexander Hamilton’s first report of manufacturing which I believe was 1791. The idea of opening up oil fields for drilling in Texas and Alaska and providing incentives to drive for American energy independence is exactly what the USA needs. When you incentivise an entire industry you are not picking individual winners and loosers you are picking American industry over foreign industry that is backed by foreign government….it is leveling the playing field. Perfect plan that is needed now.

    His example on kideny dialysis is an excellent example of how we need to revamp medicade/medicare. Diversity in healthcare is just like free competition…it will always lead to more effecienies in the marketplace and provide individuals with better services at a lower cost.

    I think that Glenn Becks attack on the ”right wing social engineering” is not correct even though Newt apologized to Paul Ryan he was in no way attacking the Ryan plan. All Gingrich was saying that to impose any form of social engineering whether it be right or left is bad government and an encrochment on the rights of the individual. That is all. For some reason people want to pull that one out even after Gingrich and Ryan agree that there is not attack on the Ryan plan and try to make a ”gotcha” moment out of it. I think it is disingenuous and hurts Becks creditbility for him to pull such a ”gotcha” moment especially after all the comments Beck has made in the past against the media for the exact same conduct.

    It is true that ”the truth has no agenda” but it appears Glenn does….I find that sad because I really like Glenn Beck when he was on Fox. GBTV however is giving me bad vibes….and that is concerning.

    I classify a true conservative as one that is for less intrusive government, pro-business with minimal regulation, and the guaranteeing of more individual rights and freedoms. (i.e. no more TSA pat downs, no more scan machines that give you cancer). I think you will find that Newt Gingrich is a true conservative. To say he is a progressive is an absolute false statement and totally untrue. Again, how can you be a progressive and have a 95% lifetime conservative rating from respected conservative organizations….answer…you can’t!

    Like it or not
    Newt is a C O N S E R V A T I V E….
    Gingrich is a C O N S T I T U T I O N A L I S T…..
    and he will follow through on his 21st Century Contract with America promises just like he followed through as Speaker on the original Contract with America in the 1990s.

  10. I just watched this over at The Blaze and I gotta say that Glenn went way too easy on Newt.

    Man. I don’t have the first clue who to vote for. Newt seems like the best bet but I’ve got a bad feeling about this. People talk about Romney being a flip flopper? Newt’s like Romney on steroids AND he’s got two divorce files just waiting in the wings.

    This is not good.

  11. Newt is definitely a smart guy, but this can actually be detrimental if your guiding principles are wrong. Listening to this interview with Glenn, as well as one with Rush a few months back (after the Ryan kerfuffle), it seems that every time Newt is asked a question, his ‘overactive’ mind kicks in with government solutions.

    The solutions we are after are not complicated. They are things like repealing Obamacare; shutting down the federal education, energy, and EPA departments, introducing cut-cap-balance, transferring powers back to the states as per the 10th amendment, making Washington a part-time legislature, etc., etc. Can we have confidence in Newt in shaking up Washington when he always tends to think of things via. a Washington mindset? not so sure….

    “government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem”

  12. Empowering the people first? We are already are empowered. Only a true Conservative (past record included) can turn this disaster around. If Newt ends up being the candidate I will vote for him but I want the principals and values of a real Conservative and that person is Michelle Bachmann. Santorum is second on my list of true Conservatives still in it. Third, Rick Perry. Fourth is where Newt is at in my Conservative lexicon. Like it or not Romney and Gingrich are establishment Republicans and we don’t need any more paper weight do nothings as POTUS. We need brave leadership that is willing to cut, cut, and cut. Government first and foremost needs to be reduced in size dramatically. An establishment POTUS will not do what is needed to save our Nation from its spending addiction. Michelle Bachmann is the one that will make the brave decisions the USA needs to get our fiscal responsibility back. She will roll back regulations and cut taxes much like Reagan did. Bachmann 2012

    1. we are not empowered…if we were we would not be in the mess we are in and newt is a true conservative who recognizes that…bachmann does not what makes them different is not idealogy but tactics…newt prefers using govt. to empower people so over time we can abolish the govt. programs…bachmann wants to abolist them right away which we all know won’t happen as there is no consensus in the country to abolish these programs..congress and senate wont allow it.

      1. “newt prefers using govt. to empower people so over time we can abolish the govt. programs”

        Sssssshhhhhh….. no one is supposed to know that.

  13. Thanks for the transcript, Scoop. It saved me pausing and re-starting and typing the words.

    I’m just going to excerpt Gingrich’s comments on two topics to illustrate my attitude toward him. The comments are not necessarily in the order they occurred, but are chosen to highlight my point.

    GINGRICH: I’m against government trying to pick winners and losers.

    BECK: aren’t subsidies really some of the biggest problems that we have with our spending and out‑of‑control picking of winners and losers?

    GINGRICH: Well, it depends on what you’re subsidizing. The idea of having economic incentives for manufacturing goes back to Alexander Hamilton’s first report of manufacturing which I believe was 1791. We have always had a bias in favor of investing in the future. We built the transcontinental railroads that way.

    (Westernman’s note: Aside from the direct contradiction here, the transcontinental RRs were an exercise in pork and waste and theft of private property, perfectly illustrating why government has no business “picking winners and losers”.)

    In other words, it depends on what the definition of the word “is” is. It doesn’t depend on principles of governance.

    GINGRICH: Evidence [for global warming] is sufficient, but we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon looting of the atmosphere… And do it urgently, yes…I think that there is evidence on both sides of the climate change argument…I never believed in Al Gore’s fantasies…

    I think there has to be a, if you will, a green conservatism…the point I was making was in a situation where, for example, having a larger nuclear program reduces carbon in the atmosphere, it’s a prudent thing to look at nuclear as one of the actions.

    This is what may sink Newt: Newt is for Newt and no one and nothing else. He loves playing politics. It is literally a game to him, and his only rule is “win, anyway necessary”.

    And Newt defines winning as increasing his personal power and prestige and winning elections. Nothing else matters to him. He’s smart enough to see that he has to claim a consistent position, but believes he can justify anything at all while pretending to maintain that position.

    It is Newt, not the democrats, who is the antithesis, the polar opposite, of the Tea Party. The democrats, like the Tea Party, hold consistently to their philosophy. Newt does not HAVE a philosophy beyond self-interest.

    What is Newt’s political position (on any topic)? It’s whatever he thinks will best serve his political career today, in the minds of his immediate audience, while at the same time including enough weasel words, qualifiers, conditions, and obfuscation that he can always justify any policy or program and claim it’s not in contradiction to his previously stated position.

    Disgusting and untrustworthy.

      1. Newt. Newt. This is about Newt. Pay attention. /s

        Yes. Hamilton was wrong. The free market and the profit motive is all the incentive needed.

        1. but the free market also needs an environment to be free in…who creates this environment..govt. has a small and temporary role in creating this environment

  14. We conservatives are for truth. And as much as I don’t see Newt as an orthodox conservative, he is very much conservative. Let’s face it, Reagan didn’t do all what orthodox conservatives would want.

    That’s why it bothers me when Newt is again and again asked about his “right-wing engineering” comments. If you listen carefully, you’ll notice he said he is against “imposing” on the American people, regardless if it comes from the left or the right.
    Same thing regarding prescription coverage. He is saying that you have to do things in the “right” direction, if they are politically doable. That’s a huge important thing.

    The worst we could do to bury the conservative cause is come to office and ram our correct ideas through everybody’s throat. It will backfire.

    Regarding the couch with Pelosi (I’m happy Beck didn’t ask about it) Newt has said enough times he did a stupid thing. That’s it.

    As conservatives, let’s stick to the truth, and avoid having “here they go again”s said at us.

  15. Its official. Newt is the new Cain. As in someone to take the heat for a while then drop out or lose in the primaries. This was a fully destructive interview. He is a full up liberal thinker. By liberal thinker I mean he believes he can out think the inefficiency of government with better ideas for running the government with new “better” programs. Glenn got to it beautifully when he played Newt’s individual mandate support in ’93 and May of this year.

  16. Newt is smart, too smart. He takes progressive positions and then uses twisted logic to trick people into thinking he is a conservative.

    He justifies the health care mandate by saying he’s requiring people to take responsibility. You make people take responsibility by refusing to bail their butts out when they get in trouble, not by invading someone’s personal liberty and forcing them to buy a product they don’t want. What about the Constitution. Just where does Congress get the power to mandate that people buy health insurance.

    He justifies the Prescription Drug benefit by saying it saves money by keeping people from having surgery. He’s basing that argument on the premise that there is no other way that people will be able to get their medication unless the government pays for it. Well guess what, if the government pays for it no one will be able to afford it. Drugs are not subject to market forces because nobody is paying for it themselves.

    If Newt whens the nomination I will vote for him. I’ll even say he’s a better choice than Mitt Romney, but a conservative he is not.

    1. on the mandate i wish we lived in a world where people were not bailed out when they get in trouble and they paid for services like everyone else but we dont and this is driving costs up for people who do have insurance…so now the question is how do u solve the problem what newt is saying is that there be a requirement either to post a bond or be insured…

      on the drug benefit…he is trying to modify a program that was already there and there was no mandate to abolish medicare at that time so how do you modify it so that over time so you can abolish it later… that is whay newt is trying to do

      1. You solve the problem by undoing the socialist policies that created the problem to start with, not by putting more mandates on people. As Michele Bachman said, Newt and many others in the Republican Party are frugal socialist. They don’t want to get rid of big Government they just want to run it more efficiently.

        You say you wished we lived in a world where people are not bailed out. Well, why don’t we work to accomplish that? Free market societies only work when people are allowed to take risk and either benefit or suffer the consequences. I’m 24 years old. I choose not to purchase health insurance because I would rather put that money towards my education. If I don’t get sick, I benefit by having less college debt than I otherwise would. If I have a catastrophic illness or accident then I should be required to pay for it in installments. I took the risk, got burned, and must live with my decision. That is what freedom is. Give people the freedom to make their own financial decisions, but require them to pick themselves back up when they fail.

        1. but there is no consensus to undo the progressive policies of the 20th century…the reason newt wants to run these programs efficiently is because repubs have no choice …newt would love to abolish these programs but the country does not want to abolish these programs…and if we run on a platform of abolishing these programs we might as well reelect obama…

          ‘ You say you wished we lived in a world where people are not bailed out. Well, why don’t we work to accomplish that? ‘…we can work to accomplish but not from the top down… the kind of change ur seeking comes from the bottom up…when people become conservative the politicians become conservative…newt can change peoples mind that is what makes him so dangerous to the left if he can reason with the moderates and he has the ability to make them see why conservatism is the way to go then the whole contry will change….we need an advocate for conservatism not an ideologue

          1. I understand where you’re coming from. I know the difficulty of uprooting socialism. I also realize that instead of getting rid of Social Security and Medicare (which is what I would love to do) we may have to simply reform them by creating private accounts. Newt has proposed those things and I support that. However you cannot call an expanded Medicare program, support for an individual mandate, nor an embrace of manmade global warming conservative. He is a big government republican, not as bad as some, but a big government republican none the less.

            Obama is vulnerable. We need to use this opportunity to elect the most conservative candidate. Any of our candidates can beat Obama.

            1. “expanded medicare program” yes he did but if you look at how he expanded it you will see that the expansion actually empowers people to have a health savings acct.

              “support for an individual mandate” yes he did and so did several other conservative who were in the fight against hillary care which they beat..i dont think it is fair to judge him in today’s context when he was fighting for conservatives against hillary…and besides he does not suuport the mandate and i think he has earned the benefit of the doubt.

              on global warming…he is agnostic on the issue now and earlier he was advocating conservative solutions on how you fix the environment that is what newt does he looks at a problem and tries to figure out the conservative way to solve the problem, how does that make him big gov. i dont get it.

            2. I think the best way to get rid of all the big social welfare programs (socialist programs) like social security, medicare, and medicaid is declare them what they are and that is unconstitutional. Then begin the process of turning those programs to the individual states to do with them what they will. That will obviously call for a dramatic decrease in federal taxes so states may raise them to support these programs if they choose. I know would be tough but I think it is the easiest argument and essentially the easiest way to get the burden of our back on a national level. Essentially we’d be in compliance with the constitution and we’d all have the option of moving to the state that makes the changes we would want.

  17. Tough interview and Newt handled it without any Katie Couric, 3rd thing or Brett Baier embarrassing moments and defends himself well, imagine that!?

  18. The problem with Newt is that he’s a long game Republican. He’ll do anything or say anything if he thinks it will benefit the Republican party in the long run. It doesn’t matter if he believes it or not. The couch with Pelosi is a great example. Does he believe in AGW? who knows, but I’m betting he did that as a big tent thing. Guys like that are awful because they continually are moving their goalposts and morals. Once he’s on the top and President I wonder if he’ll ever actually govern by his principals or if he really has any to start with. Notice his strawmen with the medicare. Everything is a political calculation with him. It’s like baseline budgeting with the size of the govt. Why can’t we ever get a guy or girl who will get in there and take it from zero and move ahead instead of STARTING with bloated and going slower than the Progressives? It’s like he’s already resigned to the fact that we can’t go back on the size but just slower. I’m ready to vote for debater Newt, but real Newt has me turned off. I know who gets the knife in the back and it’s not the Progressives or opposite party.

    1. Right, just like Romney.

      I’m a Perry guy, but I have problems with both of them.

      We either nominate a Conservative in this election, or we’re going to lose to obama.

      1. You are right, but Perry us no Conservative. His a dimmer, more corrupt version of Newt.

        Santorum is all that is left…sigh..

        1. Right, but as Levin always says, go for the most Conservative electable candidate.

          Perry IS Conservative, but imperfect.

  19. newt is not progressive he is a conservative…he is trying to get to where beck wants to go but not without empowering people first…that is why he advocates the notion having govt. offer choices that include personal savings accts., or you want to opt out of medicare, or you want to opt out of irs, he recognizes that folks currently are dependent on these programs and if you drastically eliminate these programs without a transition it will hurt the conservative movement big time

    1. Rubbish, Newt is as big a PROGRESSIVE as Pelosi or Obama his deeds and his past words Make him the most Dangerous candidate in the race

            1. Like I said, if SOCIALIZED MEDICINE floats your boat, You are as big a PROGRESSIVE as Newt. How does this fool(Newt) now argue against Obamacare?? ..How do you?

              1. analyze the clip without bias…he is talking about a regulatory framework dealing with public health and safety…even our founding father thought this was reasonable there is nothing progressive about it…it is perfectly conservative to have a minimum amt.of govt. regulation….on the mandate you are misreading newt’s he is talking about a requirement that patients pay for thier health care bills either by insurance or by posting a bond…just like there is a requirement to pay for services in the free market…he is not talking about a mandate to buy insurance enforced by the govt.

            2. All of Newton’s clips are telling………he always comes to how the government should be involved in every problem he addresses, true conservatives say government is the problem, get it out of our lives as much as possible. Big government= less liberty.

  20. Great Post – THANKS

    Newt will be tested again and again

    Great exercise when he chops up Romney or “THE ONE”

    with 1/2 of his brain tied behind his back

  21. (B/c the vid was cut off. Here’s the end after a couple more tough questions)

    GLENN: Newt, I have to tell you, I ‑‑ you know, because, you know, it’s obvious it was very clear in advance and I hope my staff made this very clear that this isn’t going to be an easy interview but I think you’ve ‑‑ you know, there was no gaffes here by any stretch of the imagination. I didn’t expect any. But I appreciate the willingness to come on and answer the tough questions, and I wish you the best.

    GINGRICH: Well, sir, you and I have always had a great relationship and I admire your courage and I admire the way in which you’ve always stood up and told the truth and I think you’ve had a huge impact as I go around the country with Tea Party folks in maximizing interest in American history and interest in the Founding Fathers and I think much of what you’ve done, you know, you and I don’t have to agree on some things to have a great deal of mutual respect and I think you’ve been a very powerful force for good and I wish you well in your new ventures.

    GLENN: Thank you very much. Newt Gingrich, thank you for being on the program. Back in just a second.

  22. Like the weather in Michigan – just wait a minute and it will change – just as Newt Gingrich can change his opinions, policies and venue on a dime. Newt can abrogate the U.S. Constitution is a nano-second!

  23. Can’t wait to see the Bachmann interview that followed… Can just imagine the hard-hitting questions that were asked…

    Beck: “Congresswoman Bachmann, why are you so dreamy and such a perfect, wonderful candidate that I can fawn over?” 😉

    (Note to the humor-impaired: That was a joke. Now, back to your regular TRS viewing.)

  24. I said it once I will say it again Gingrich is far far worse than Romney or even Ron Paul. We need to NEUTER NEWT this guy is dangerous and trecherous and a total scumbag

    1. NO, Romney is the worst and most weakest candidate the GOP has.

      His nomination will result is a loss for GOP and a fracturing the the party.

      1. And Newt the Progressive won’t, you obviously have not done any vetting of Gingrich, His personal life matches his political life and the both stink to high heaven. But hey, go ahead and nominate him all will come out. He is ,after all, the guy Obama most wants to run against…why??

        1. I’m not saying that won’t happen, but what I’m telling you is Romney the personal record-shredding RINO will have 0 conservative support. We’re not voting for him.

          IF, IF he is elected, its the same old, same old. The GOP will represent nothing. And no, that’s no better that obama.

          If obama is re-elected, its time for civil disobedience. How about an occupy Congress, but for real citizens?

          1. Romney’s support among independents is 10 times that of Newt so he is easily more electable than Newt and much less dangerous … And I hate Romney, so it was not easy to write that first sentence . Anybody but Newt Neuter Newt now before its too late

            1. Ron Paul’s support from independents is greater than progressive like Obama, Newt, and Romney. Put that in your big government pipe and smoke it. Check out the subsets of these polls where independents are polled.

              I don’t understand why you think you are getting a choice among statists like Gingrich, Obama, and Romney. It’s an echo.

      2. How is Romney worse than Newt?

        1. Romneycare: Newt supported the mandate for about 18 years and supported it on a national, not a state level like Romney.

        2. Global warming: Both have waffled on this, but Newt did the ad with Pelosi helping Gore’s agenda.

        3. Ethanol subsidies: both support it.

        4. Education: Romney supported No Child Left Behind (still supports some of it). Newt voted for the Dept of Ed in the 70’s and recently worked with Arne Duncan and Al Not So Sharpton to promote Obama’s education agenda.

        So again, please tell me how Newt is better than Romney and how Newt can be trusted?

        1. Hey, Romney-bot. The guy has 100000 positions for every positions you just named.

          Romney is not a Conservative and 58% of conservatives sat out last election because of McCain.

          Romney = Boehner = Cantor = McConnell = status quo = not acceptable. He’s a another big government liberal from MA who raised taxes (ooohh, fees, my bad), supported gay marriage, and started Romney-care.

          You miss the point! Support big government programs and subsidies, and all that other BS is not acceptable.

          Romney will lose to obama, at least Newt is exciting people.

          I don’t like either, I’m a Perry guy, but if Perry doesn’t get it, I will not vote Romney, I’ll stay home.

          1. Romneybot????

            Wow, I’ve been called alot of things but this one is a first!!!

            I was a Palin supporter who wanted to stop Romney at all costs. When Sarah said no, I went to Cain because he had a chance to beat Romney.

            I knew Newt was bad, but after researching his record, he may just be worse than Romney.

            I’m supporting the conservative with the best record in the race: Bachmann.

  25. Unfortunately, that isn’t a video of the entire interview… It cuts off the last portion of it…

  26. An excellent interview…

    Gingrich responded fully.

    Beck’s comments after the interview about Gingrich’s progressive mindset are focused on the issue of the history of Teddy Roosevelt progressivism.

    A few days ago here on TRS I had a comment about the progressive choice we have today as related to how we got the 16th amendment and the tax on income.

    “… third wave progressivism”… – The entire comment is here –
    >> http://www.therightscoop.com/michelle-malkin-rips-newt-for-dabbling-with-faddish-third-wave-progressivism/#comment-376731584

    – – – – – – – – –

    “The progress of Progressivism and acceptance of a tax on income” –
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    – “On July 12, 1909, the resolution proposing the Sixteenth Amendment was passed by the Sixty-first Congress and submitted to the state legislatures.

    – “The presidential election of 1912 was contested between three advocates of an income tax.

    – – – – – – – –

    The election was “contested between three advocates of an income tax.”

    That means that in the progressive Woodrow Wilson administration the choice was between 3 progressives…

    …pick 1 of 3 progressives… any progressive will do.

    As it was then in 1912, so also it was in 2008…

    … pick a progressive Obama or pick a progressive McCain.

    So, now, what is difference 100 years later, 1912 vs. 2012?


    It seems that in 2012 we will have the choice again between progressive Romney vs. progressive Gingrich.


    BHObama and his regime has gotta go.

    If Mr. Cain endorses Mr. Gingrich, or not, and if Gingrich wins the Republican primary wreath, and if Gingrich asks Mr. Cain to be his Secretary of Commerce, or not, I could definitely go with a

    POTUS Gingrich
    V-POTUS Santorum


    Gingrich has said that a nanosecond after being sworn in as POTUS he will use Executive Order authority to blast to smithereens ALL of the Zero czars.

    THAT sounds very, VERY good to me… for a start.


    1. Actually it sounds like verbal slop. Newt is a political Viper with a past that will make the accusations against Herman Cain seem like a bedtime story ,whose progressive views make Romney look like a tea partier, whose radical views make Ron paul look like a choir boy ,whose willingness to “brown nose” democrats makes Huntsman look like Mark Levin . And all of that is clearly shown in Beck’s interview. Neuter Newt before its too late .

        1. “… the best record …”

          Yep, Bachmann has a more conservative record.

          But, there’s just something missing… maybe it’s the wisdom that comes with experience.

          Both Gingrich and Santorum have tons of experience and wisdom regarding the social issues in America and the international issues.

          Bachmann has been representing Minnesota’s 6th congressional district since 2007.

          That’s only 4 years.

          She certainly has much more experience than BHObama had after 1 year and 6 months as Senator.

          However, my point is that, however RIGHT ON Bachmann is on conservative issues she is articulating today, it just seems to me that something is missing in her resume which is found in abundance in Gingrich and Santorum.

          To me, that something missing is simply the wisdom that comes with experience on international issues.

          As a member of the Intelligence Committee, Bachmann has current knowledge and perspective about international issues, but current knowledge and perspective needs something more.

          That something more is simply wisdom.

          However, to restate a previous comment here on TRS…


          IF Mr. Cain endorses Mr. Gingrich, or not, and IF Gingrich wins the Republican primary wreath, and IF Gingrich asks Mr. Cain to be his Secretary of Commerce, or not, I could definitely go with a

          POTUS Gingrich
          V-POTUS Santorum

          … or vice versa.


          POTUS Gingrich
          V-POTUS Bachmann

          … or vice versa.


          Gingrich has said that a nanosecond after being sworn in as POTUS he will use Executive Order authority to blast to smithereens ALL of the Zero czars.

          THAT sounds very, VERY good to me… for a start…

          … IF Gingrich wins the Republican primary wreath and then the general election.


          1. You too Art?

            Come on, don’t fall for this! On the key issues of Obamacare, global warming, and education Newt has been dead wrong.

            We need a Tea party conservative who won’t compromise on fundamental principles. That person is Michele Bachmnann.

            1. “… don’t fall …”

              I hear your plaint NHConservative0221.

              However, everything I have posted here on TRS is pragmatic.

              As you will notice in the post to which you are responding, I use the word “IF” in quotes.

              “IF” Gingrich wins the Republican wreath –

              POTUS Gingrich
              V-POTUS Santorum

              … or vice versa.


              POTUS Gingrich
              V-POTUS Bachmann

              … or vice versa.


              It’s either Romney OR Gingrich
              It’s either Romney OR Bachmann
              It’s either Romney OR Paul
              It’s either Romney OR Perry
              It’s either Romney OR Santorum

              Of course, Romney might be TKOed early.

              And, unless something changes to elevate Bachmann, Paul, Perry OR Santorum, it looks like it’s going to be Romney OR Gingrich.

              That’s all.
              That’s it.


          1. I’m really sorry to hear that.

            On the core issues of Obamacare, global warming, and education Newt has been dead wrong.

            Can we really trust him??

            Bachmann has the best record, she deserves our support.

            1. I agree. She is not only a great, small-government conservative, she has no skeletons to date, and it is unlikely any will be found. I also think she would select Ron Paul as her running mate. That would give us the best of both worlds. Any other candidate would keep the Ron Paul supporters at home, virtually ensuring an Obama victory.

              This is Michele with Ron Paul:

      1. “… verbal slop”…

        Newt answered fully, and Gregg, Pat and Stuart all agreed that Gingrich was coherent in his answers.

        Of course, deo heerai, that does not mean they agreed with 100% of what Gingrich said.

        Gregg was surprised that his decades long friend Pat was drawn towards Gingrich and how he handled himself as he answered very tough question about his “progressive” past.

        Only the voters can “neuter Newt”… so, time will tell.


        1. “Only the voters can “neuter Newt”… so, time will tell.


          I am with you 100% on that my brother god bless the democratic process . But vetting must be done and Newt fails and has been found wanting

      2. “whose willingness to ‘brown nose’ democrats makes Huntsman look like Mark Levin .”

        That’s hysterical!

  27. I am just impressed as heck at the size of Newts hard brain drive, I can barely recall a couple of megabytes and Newt is running on a couple of terabytes. Glenn was clearly being aggressively provocative and it is clearly his right. I thought Newt did okay.

    1. It’s good for Beck to aggressive. Our candidates need to toughen up b/c the liberal MSM in the general will not be any nicer.

      Gingrich or anyone else is going to face alot worse … and for our side to win it will have to be practically an error-free campaign. This is how it is for Republican candidates. It stinks double standards and all, but its reality

      1. Newt is a progressive. He’s just tailoring his rhetoric for people like you. You should listen more closely. You should also look at what he has said and done in the past. Mainline R’s get conned again and again and again.

        It’s no wonder that the party establishment thinks that the base is stupid. They keep delivering exactly the opposite of their rhetoric. How many times do people like you have to be suckered?

        Ron Paul 2012

        1. Recall Newt’s NAFTA rhetoric; he sounded like a Intellectual Conservative; but his Vote was for the Unconstitutional Bill; a tactic he’s used consistently. We are Wisening to his tricks however. Newt, the Progressive CFR Insider.

    2. Yeah, the same Newt that has been consistently wrong over the last decade. It’s dupes like you that enable the Republican party to sell free markets and the Constitution while delivering the opposite.

      Did Newt see the housing bubble coming? No. Dr. Paul saw it years before it popped? Dr. Paul warned about nation-building. Dr. Paul warned about the high inflation and bubbles caused by the Federal Reserve. Newt? Nope.

      Newt was too busy taking money from Freddie Mac to see any of this coming. He couldn’t get his snout out of the pig trough long enough to see what was going on. He was also busy taking money from the ethanol lobby. Maybe he was preoccupied with his think tank, that was financed by health insurance companies looking for health care mandates.

      Newt is like Ignatius J. Reilly from “A Confederacy of Dunces.” He’s an educated idiot. We have too many people like that in D.C. already. While I’m sure Newt would fit it with the statist crowd, I’m going to say no thanks.

      I’ll be voting for someone with integrity and a track record of accurate predictions.

      Ron Paul 2012–Not Bought For a Change.

      1. It is dupes like you that when the gutter sniping, back stabbing, name calling, idiots start spewing hogwash I leave the area.

        1. Waahhh! I’m sorry that I have to scream sometimes, but many of you just aren’t understanding what is going on. At least I got your attention. Why not consider a guy who means what he says? Why not consider free markets, civil liberties, and the Constitution for a change? Why not listen and give a second look at a guy who has been so accurate in his predictions over the decades.

          I’ll give you a hint: that guy isn’t Romney or Gingrich. He’s from Texas, but his last name isn’t Perry.

  28. “Gingrich is a political opportunist who changes his rhetoric around to fit the moment. He is not the deeply philosophical historian, deeply rooted in a limited government philosophy that he plays on TV. If he were, he would not be walking back so many of his previous positions.

    He is just another typical politician who takes whatever positions appear to be in his best interest at the moment.”

    1. You are dead on point Mary. Newt is slightly more favorable than RomneyCare. I still think Michelle Bachmann is the true Conservative candidate for the job.

      1. Newt supported the health care mandate!!!!!!! He praised Freddie Mac and the other GSE’s in an interview with Freddie Mac in April 2007. He stated that if NASA had a GSE model, it would already be on Mars. MARS!!! I think that is where we should send progressive Newt back to.

        Newt loves public-private partnerships (that’s an idea that originally came out of fascist ideology by the way). It’s not free market. In a free market producers must constantly compete. Power is in the hands of the consumers. Not so with Newt’s corporatist scheme. In his scheme connected firms and govt. politicians and bureacrats concentrate and wield power. No wonder progressive Newt likes it so much.

        Newt is Obama. Newt is Romney. You are getting an echo. What don’t mainline R’s get about this?

        Ron Paul predicted the housing collapse. He predicted the high inflation of the last decade. He predicted that homeowners would be underwater and Freddie/Fannie and major banks would be insolvent when the Federal Reserve’s phony bubble popped. He predicted this many years in advance.

        He warned about nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan. He warned that building bases and propping up corrupt autocrats in the M.E. would eventually lead to blowback in the 1990’s.

        That guy has a record of being right? What does Newt have a record of? Corruption.

        Wake up!!!!

  29. Beck has become alittle too arrogant in the last couple years. Now that Cain is gone I am looking to see who would even consider backing or proposing ideas like Cain’s 999. Only Newt and Perry come to mind.

    1. nice try trying to get cain supporters to switch to newt, NO WAY! Gingrich is a dirty progressive and trying to blame Glenn Beck is pathetic

    2. Too funny. Newt is a statist. He’s the same as Romney and Obama.

      The only guy offering free markets and the Constitution is Ron Paul. He is the only one offering specific cuts. He is the only one that has proposed eliminating 5 fed. govt. departments in the first year.

      He is the only candidate, and only guy in D.C., who warned about the housing bubble and subsequent crash years in advance. He was sounding the alarm about inflation and a housing bubble from as far back as late 2001 once he saw what the FED was up to.

      We don’t have a free market with mandates, subsidies, public-private parnerships, the Federal Reserve, fiat paper currency, planned interest rates, etc.

      Barack H. Gingrich and Barack H. Romney are not a choice. They are an echo of Obama. What don’t mainline R’s like you understand about this?

      1. Ron Paul’s economic policies, Austrian school of economics, are right on. Unfortunately, Ron Paul’s foreign policy is suicidal. Economics is economics..water is wet and rocks are hard…that’s what it is. His libertarian views show him at a level of incompetence.

        Specifically, accepting that prior American stupidity and ill-considered policy caused the Iran we face today…to turn your back on a criminal nation doing its darndest to get a weapon to kill us makes no sense. He argues they will be rational and the USSR was more dangerous. This is absolute stupidity.

        It’s a theocracy…when has religion ever been rational…especially islam. Was taking over the British embassy rational? And, the USSR was rational which is why MAD worked. The Iranians have nothing to loose…you can’t bomb them back to caves…their mindset is already there. And, besides, our PC would neve allow us to respond with a nuke oif they use one on us.

        The point is, however, even in Paul’s libertaerian view, is that government is to protect and defend the unalienable rights of the governed. Ignoring that responsibility on a guess is a risk to life and limb he has no right to take. He doesn’t consider the 9-11 attacks as war…merely crimes. Well, which city should we expect to lose to an Iranian nuke before he calls in the cops? His perceptions are a risk I refuse to accept.

        Observed lately, is many of the statist candistes, asll others are, have been reading up on Austrian economics. Atleast they are giving lip service to some Austrian principles. In Beck’s interview with Bachman, she expresses the Austrian/Paul free market for healthcare concept. Why, however, doesn’t anyone ever mention that the American Medical Assoc. drives cost up by limiting the number of doctors allowed in training? That’s a union we could do without!

        So, more Austrian economics and less Libertarian stupidy. Ron Paul deserves incredible kudos for having stood alone against the progressive onslaught. I hiope his erroneous foreign policy ideas don’t damage the Austrian economic side.


        1. Nope, Ron Paul is right on the foreign policy front in his rejection of a traditionally left-wing Wilsonian foreign policy.

          The U.S. government has overthrown two democratically elected governments in the M.E. area over the last 60-years. It overthrew Mossadegh’s govt. in Iran in 1953 and overthrew a democrat govt. in Pakistan in order to install a military dictator in Musharaff in the 1990’s.

          The U.S. has been propping up tyrants in the M.E. that do the bidding of western banks and energy companies. Why should we be surprised the citizens of those countries get upset when their puppet govt. of the U.S. abuses them? What would you do if a foreign govt. installed a puppet govt. in the U.S. that oppressed you? That’s what I thought. Then you would be branded a terrorist.

          Do you think it was a coincidence that 15 of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia? Why didn’t we invade S. Arabia? Because the U.S. government (not we) already has a puppet government there! Al-Qaeda specifically mentioned that base as a reason for the attack. If the U.S. government didn’t think it was a huge factor, why was that Saudi base removed by Paul Wolfowitz immediately after 9/11? Isn’t that a tacit admission by the U.S. government that occupation causes terrorism? It certainly is.

          The CIA, 9/11 Commission, and Al-Qaeda all cited occupation as a cause. 95% of all terrorist attacks are for the reason of occupation.

          It’s neo-con/Wilsonian ideas that are a danger to us. Neo-cons (fake conservatives) originally came out of the left, and they brought some very bad ideas with them. It’s those ideas that have been in place for decades. Ron Paul’s and our founding father’s foreign policy ideals haven’t been put into practice. The U.S. govt.’s empire is bankrupting us. It has spawned terrorism. It continues to do so.

          Why would you assume that other nations would attack us if we don’t threaten them? It’s the U.S. govt. that is the aggressor. It’s the U.S. govt. that props up corrupt autocrats. It’s the U.S. govt. that occupies. It’s the U.S. govt. that is pushing the world toward war.

          Of course other nations want nuclear weapons. They have probably noticed that the U.S. doesn’t invade countries with nuclear weapons. It only invades ones that don’t. It’s those countries that get puppet dictators of the U.S. government.

          Some of you confuse patriotism with love of government policy. Patriotism is love of country (borders, language, and culture). Don’t many of you criticize U.S. govt. domestic policy? Why is it that many of you think that that same govt. is competent or angelic on matters abroad? It’s a contradiction.

          The U.S. govt. has been out of control for a long time. It is illegitimate because it does not follow the law, i.e. the Constitution.

          People who don’t criticize this occupying force (that’s what the U.S. government is) are the ones who are not patriotic.

          Some of you have a bad habit of referring to the U.S. government as “we.” Repeat after me gang: You are not the government. You are not in control. The individual might as well not even exist in an unlimited democracy. It’s interest factions that are in control. Love of U.S. government domestic or foreign policy is unpatriotic. The federal government has been illegitimate for many decades. We are not citizens, we are subjects. Wake up!!

          Ron Paul 2012

          1. Listen you friggin’ idiot…I’m not denying anything you say about the US gov’t and its involvements:

            “Specifically, accepting that prior American stupidity and ill-considered policy caused the Iran we face today…to turn your back on a criminal nation doing its darndest to get a weapon to kill us makes no sense.”

            Now here comes a jackass like yourself and says:

            “Why would you assume that other nations would attack us if we don’t threaten them? It’s the U.S. govt. that is the aggressor. It’s the U.S. govt. that props up corrupt autocrats. It’s the U.S. govt. that occupies. It’s the U.S. govt. that is pushing the world toward war.”

            What if you are wrong dumb F__K? What if you’re western mindset hasn’t a clue about Islam idiots and their rationality? Pick the city that gets the suitcase bomb or the dirty bomb or whatever. Yup…we caused it…to pretend they won’t still get even or that their motive is illogical religion is the height of stupidity…risk your own life assh__e!

            Why would you think Ahmadumbassadab doesn’t mean the things he says…Hitler meant it and nobody believed him either. In fact this Chamberlain peace nonsense you and your leader Paul spout encourages attack. Want fools you are; Einstein had your number…you’ll repeat history…WWIII.

            You’d rather play policy games than face real life…play with your own…I have rights and they don’t include F__kheads like you and Paul risking mine for guesses as to what a fanatical religiopus sate with a nukle will do…especially after saying what they intend to do. Oh…patriotism…get out of my country you anarchistic jerk. The Constitution is not a living document, but it isn’t a suicide note either!!!

            1. Ah, everything goes back to Hitlet and Munich 1938 for those who hold a Wilsonian foreign policy.

              I think you are brainwashed. Here’s a little history lesson from the recent past. Spain set troops to parts of the M.E. a few years back. Spain then got bombed. Spain removed troops. Bombing stopped. This is a pattern for many countries.

              I used to be brainwashed just like you. The R’s embraced an interventionist foreign policy because they thought they could parlay it into electoral success. That strategy worked for a time. The only people who still believe neo-con propaganda are a small percentage of the population.

              According to statistics compiled by terrorism experts, the reason given by suicide bombers for their actions was occupation of their countries for 95% of the cases.

              At any rate, I will win this argument because the empire will end for economic reasons as all have before. When interest rates spike, cuts will be forced on the govt. suddenly. They won’t be able to continue a Wilsonian foreign policy anymore. They are borrowing and printing to fund their crackpot operations now.

    3. About Glen being arrogant….. nope. Beck has always said Not to listen to his personal decisions on candidates, that he has been wrong before.

      That is not the statement of someone who is arrogant.
      Truth has no agenda….

      That being said, Newt and Perry do come to my mind as well.
      I was hoping though that Cain would at least stay on board as VP.

    4. No taxation is good. Would you go to your neighbor with a gun and rob him/her of their money to pay for stuff you could handle yourself…or should do for yourself. No? then why is it alright to use government as the weapon to do it.

      Well, that there is taxation, 999 is absolutely the worst way to go. First, understand that Cain is a mathematician…numbers are more important to him than people…Irrespective of intent. And, he acknowledges that his 999 is the product of econometrics. If you don’t know…econometrics is hardcore socialist central planning at is worst. It professes to reduce all human economic activity to a mathematical model.

      Prima facia, this is ludicrous as nothing involving human action can be modeled as static or even rational…and models can’t account for time. This is precisely why all socialism fails…an economy cannot be managed!!! It must be free…free market capitalism is the only economic system that mirrors the Founders’ vision of individual unalienable rights and a concept of “by the consent of the governed”.

      999 is three shots at an apple that no core of duplicitous carreer politicians should be allowed to play with!!! And a consumption tax, including the so called “fair” tax (even has the nice sounding socialist verbage) is th e worst kind of taxation…please checkout Bastiat and the idea of that which is seen and not seen or Hazlitt’s Economics In One Lesson. Consumption based taxation has always proved disasterous…did you say goodbye to yacht building in the US?

      Ron Paul’s foreign policy may get us all killed…it’s a shame because he’s the only one who isn’t a socialist. Every one of the others is a believer in central planning…they believe government still holds the answers…Unfortunately, here’s another aellection with lousy choices: anybody but Obama.

      If Americans actually knew anything about capitalism, we wouldn’t be where we are. But they don’t…they merely feel economics.

      http://teapartyeconomics.com/ The 10-Pack of knowledge is free!

      1. I hold a mastres of structional engineering, and don’t believe Cain had the math.
        equ. to that, for the Univ. he attended did not teeach real hi math.
        Another thing, Cain never thought he could win, he only used to platform to collect a lot of money and he has. Semper Fi

  30. heard the beck interview…newt is not progressive..progressives use govt to make people dependent…newt is trying to use govt. to make people independent because right now too many people are dependent on it…before we can make govt. small we have to first empower people…newt is trying to achieve that using the govt. that is not progressive…

    1. The old adage is, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime”. It appears to me newt is for the latter, but using government to “Teach the man to fish”. No?

    2. Newt is most certainly a progressive. The question becomes, should that be a deterant? Ever see the movie independence day? Did you care about whether the president was a progressive or a conservative? No, because the country faced a fictional existential crisis.

      However, we face a very real crisis today. The deficit. If not addressed, it will destroy the entire country.

      Newt is the most capable man of addressing this issue. Ideological purity is a luxury we cannot afford.

    1. Indeed! Thank you. This is a great site of which to get information not info-martian about the candidates as to make an informed vote. I bet Algore is sorry he invented the inner-webs.

      1. *grins*

        Algore’s pledge of allegience is very similar to ours…he leaves only one letter off at the end, and skips the first parts to land on the last part…”…with liberty and justice for Al.”

        It’s the little things that make a big difference.”

Comments are closed.