Newt: I’m the most practical hardline conservative since Reagan

In an interview with the Des Moines Register, Newt Gingrich was grilled over ethics violations and asked to defend himself against those in Congress who believe he is too arrogant and erratic. Newt first defended himself against the ethics charges saying he was vindicated after 2 years but also saying that he paid the fine in the end just to get past the issue so that he could get things done in Congress.

As to those who didn’t like how he operated as Speaker and criticize him for that now, he argued that the only way he was going to get Bill Clinton to sign legislation was through compromise, and there were those who certainly disagreed with that.

Given that he was able to work with Bill Clinton to pass entitlement reform and balanced budgets, he asserted that he is the most practical hardline conservative since Reagan:



***

UPDATE: Newt also answers the question “Which Newt are we getting?”:

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.

104 thoughts on “Newt: I’m the most practical hardline conservative since Reagan

  1. This puts things in perspective for me. I’d written a paper on Newt and knew of the ethics violations, him paying for the investigation and I knew of the coup attempt to overtake his leadership. Why the Republican congressman attempt a coup on Newt was never revealed. I’m glad I’ve seen this video. Thanks RS.

  2. again i will say, i followed Newt in the 90’sand what the left did to him should have been a crime day after day after day the left in the Soviet Style Propaganda Machine trash and slandered and lied and mocked this man..i can still remember the TV commercials..the Gingrich who stole Christmas was one of them and they went on and on and on…they did to Newt what the leftist did to our Sarah and back then Al(E)gore had just invented the internet..again Sarah is my one and only number one choice to lead our country back from the brink but until Sarah takes the plunge and announces she is running i will stand by Newt…

  3. I don’t need to hear Newt tell me which Newt we’d be getting. The fact that there’s more than one of him is all I need to know.

    1. Yes, good point. I had a question: Why did Romney run in MA of all places? How is it he grew up in MI and picked this state to run in?

      Is it he saw an opportunity, or that he liked what the state represented?

  4. I like Newt’s debating skills, there is no debating his success in skewering the media and other pretentious elitists (elitists meaning “pseudo” intellectuals lacking of real working intellect and common sense). I may concede that sometimes one has to compromise in getting things done, I grant him that. I do still have a lot of questions on his unprincipled stance in the past most especially his connection with Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae, and making money on Obama’s health care. He needs to satisfactorily answer and tackle these issues. As for his marital indiscretions, that is no one’s business. If his family reconciled with his marital past, whom are we to judge. I do not even begrudge him his over bearing personality, many great leaders/personalities, in the past have personality issues and well known clashes with other personalities, it goes with the territory. Usually a leader’s great strength is also his weakness. I just hope that should Gingrich win the nomination and the Presidency; his cabinet will be as combative as he is to neutralize his over running ideas. I also hope that there will be more republican in the senate and congress to check and reign in his faltering conservative strides. Above all, I hope that Gingrich, as an avid historian – a scholar on that field, and as a senior politician having been given another and possibly last chance to change how the final chapter on him and his contribution to the country will be written, will work hard in making sure that those final contributions will make him, his family (present and future) and his country proud.

  5. The establishment that chased Newt out of town, then killed our economy, our surpluses and piled 10 trillio,ooo,ooo,ooo,ooon dollars onto our debt for our children and grandchildren to pay for, these people are saying Newt can’t lead. Its laughable! There hasn’t been responsible leadership in the House since they chased Newt out. Hmmmmm!

    Seems like some like the status quo. Newt has himself a very powerful message that could carry a lot of new blood into the GOP fold. Its scaring the incumbents. Oh by the way don’t forget the same bipartisan establishment also passed an unConstitutional campaign finance law that favored incumbents that the SCOTUS had to toss out.

    The GOP didn’t lose their way last decade they lost Newt. The leader that kept the main issue that unites all under the big tent of conservatism and that’s fiscal responsibility. The House is where the Constitution says the spending starts and we haven’t had good fiscally responsible leadership from the House since Newt. The establishment has endangered our children and grandchildren’s future with all this debt and that IS BY FAR more morally reprehensible and irresponsible than anything Speaker Gingrich did in his private life.

    The Tea Party and conservatives better wake up because the DC establishment wants to declare the movement dead because Romney defeated it.

    1. Newt was run out if town after proving to be an awful leader and getting fined $300k for funneling money through a children’s charity.

      Not due to a purge of Conservatives.

      1. On the celebration of that occasion, here is a transcript from the New York Times, made by the Associated Press of a phone call to Newt from some of his Republican friends.

        New York Times Articles
        Search All NYTimes.com

        THE SPEAKER STEPS DOWN; Excerpts From Phone Call About Gingrich’s Future
        Published: November 08, 1998

        Following are excerpts from a conference call on Friday between Speaker Newt Gingrich and several Republicans, including Representatives Joe L. Barton of Texas, Rob Portman of Ohio, Fred Upton of Michigan and Jim Nicholson, chairman of the Republican National Committee. Mr. Gingrich refers to his wife, Marianne. The call was transcribed by The Associated Press.

        MR. GINGRICH — I think for the future of the party, it makes a lot more sense for me not to be a candidate for Speaker. We have to get the bitterness out. . . .
        It is clear that as long as I’m around that won’t happen. I have always put the party ahead of my own ambitions.

        MR. BARTON — We’re going to need you and your vision. I’m just really saddened by this.

        MR. GINGRICH — I’m willing to lead but I’m not willing to preside over people who are cannibals. My only fear would be that if I tried to stay, it would just overshadow whoever my successor is. Frankly, Marianne and I could use a break.

        MR. BARTON — We could end up losing that seat.

        MR. GINGRICH — Trust me, that district will elect a Republican. I may need your help on a job resume. . . .
        I’ll stay through the end of the year. The new team has to have the opportunity to be a new team. I think Marianne and I will probably take six months off and go collect dinosaurs or something.

        MR. PORTMAN — I understand your interest in not being in Congress and I respect that. . . .

        MR. GINGRICH — I spent 40 years of my life getting us here. The idea that I would be the excuse to cannibalize the majority is so sickening I couldn’t risk it. You have many good candidates. Have the loyalty of the entire 223 or it will not work.

        MR. PORTMAN — We’ll need you.

        MR. UPTON — This is sort of a very sad time here. I have never been in a meeting where I haven’t felt inspired by what you have to say. We are a caucus that is so complicated. You did make people understand what was going on. . . .
        Whoever takes your place will have to have your ability to lead us out of our forest.

        MR. GINGRICH — We’re going to miss you. . . .

        MR. NICHOLSON — Thank you for the historic contributions you made to this party and to this country. You’ve been helping this party raise funds. You were the person singularly most responsible for us becoming the majority party. Thank you and Godspeed and good luck.

        MR. GINGRICH — The prospect of an Al Gore Presidency and a Democratic Congress ought to scare all of us into mobilization. The level of love and affection that Marianne and I have for many of you — I am grateful to each and every one of you. I have a lot of reasons to be grateful. I’ll be at the organizing conference. I love all of you. Take care.

        1. wow!!!!! thanks for the post…tear in my eye…can i steal this from you i need to re-post on my face book…….

    2. Yes great points, since gingrich was chased out, look at what we have had for a republican party. GW Bush’s massive spending and government growth, speaker Boehners awful, roll-over and play golf leadership and Mitch McConnel’s utterly unremarkable ‘leadership’ in the senate.
      It’s been pure blue-blood, big government country clubbers and appeasers ever since. Note Gingrich isn’t from a blue blood/Ivy league family? Mitt certainly is, Bush certainly was. There’s half the reason they hate Newt, he’s not in their pedigree.

  6. Love him or hate him, it’s home run after home run when you listen or watch. Astounding. Would probably make an exceptional President.

  7. One thing to keep in mind here folks whomever we pick, we won’t roll back this leviathan of a government in one term or even two presidential terms.

    At this point I want someone to stop the bleeding, get the economoy growing again, and get us on firm footing in the opposite direction. Get the narrative changed completely. Instead of the same old “what can govt to solve the problem” establish “what can govt do to empower people to solve their own problem”

    1. I think you wrong in thinking more can’t be done. This is why I like Newt. There is nothing he see’s as to big. Instead of implementing changes to medicare that give people a choice in 10 years which is how politicians think he wants to start next year. Instead of whining about liberal judges legislating from the bench he wants to put them out of a job. This is why the establishment hates him and are trying to take him down.

  8. All those still swooning over Newt’s debate performances might want to hold off l on that big campaign donation.

    Newt’s numbers at InTrade are in free fall. Last week Newt was within 7 points of Romney, but today he’s not even in Romney’s rear view mirror:

    Romeny 60%
    Gingrich 16%

    Youch!!

    1. Many Iowans tend to believe what they read, and see on TV… especially if it’s from someone they like or think they’re familiar with.

      Negative ads work (for some perverse reason. Call someone an SOB first and a ‘good guy’ later, and all that many good Iowans remember is that “someone called him an SOB, and, after all, nice people wouldn’t say that unless it had a grain of truth to it”.)
      But negatives also reflect poorly on the ‘caller’. “…but it sure wasn’t nice to say that about anybody”.

  9. Well, Newt is right that people didn’t like his leadership style. It was very aggressive…which I like.

    I’m torn on Newt because he is establishment and he knows how to play the game…VERY well. That’s a strength and a weakness for me. I want to get away from the establishment that got us here, yet it would be nice to have someone that knows the in and outs, how to get things accomplished, and is serious about getting to the end goals. At the same time, I want to avoid someone who is the type to dive head first into political corruption and same ‘ol same ‘ol politics as usual where we get Washington fat cats that don’t have the public’s best interests in mind. I would really like to see some ethics injected into politics, but I don’t know how realistic of an expectation that is.

    Uggghhhhh…..decisions, decisions.

    1. Newt’s been around town, thats for sure. But is he establishment? The g.o.p. has formed a circular firing squad to get him, every establishment pundit and much of congress is against him. The establishment has picked their guy, it’s Romney. They under estimate Gingrich I think.

  10. Krauthammer is certainly a liberal, I completely agree with you there. As for Newt being ‘conservative’… that all depends on your definition of ‘conservative’. Yes, Newt is a threat to the Democrat party, but Newt IS part of the Republican establishment, is a political insider, and is progressive.

    Can you be ‘conservative’ and still hold all those other qualities in your book? That all depends on your definition, as Newt himself would tell you.

    1. and yet insiders don’t want him to be president…not much of an insider seems to me…a progressive with a 90% conservative voting record…that makes sense…he does make deals but only to move the conservative agenda forward how does that make him progressive…you can site what he said, what advertisement he made with pelosi, whom he endorsed and 10 even 20 progressive votes he may have cast and you still would have not scratched the surface of what he has achieved for conservatism over the yrs…

  11. I really don’t know where the idea came up that Glenn lives on praise and position. He is obviously not courting popularity.

    Lately everything that goes against what someone believes turns into a massive ad hominem attack. You know what? Let’s look at the facts and the record of the people involved instead of courting them personally.

    Regardless of whether you are right or not that Glenn ‘hates’ Newt, is he right about Newt’s political stance? That’s what should be discussed, not all these personal insults and attacks.

    1. It does skew his perspective, especially when he start ‘sound-biting’ the info. I agree, let’s look at the facts and decide for ourselves. To insist Newt is no different a progressive than Obama and insist we start there just seems to skew the argument. I don’t know…

      1. Don’t forget, not only is Newt the same ‘progressive’ as obama, but your a racist if you support Newt and not obama.
        Glenn Beck has strayed very very far from the “truth”, now he uses B.S. leftist tactics to smear Newt, Glenn is clueless about Newt and I’m disgusted by what Glenn is becoming. I dont know what else it is but Mormons have to stick together I guess. Mitt is the establishment, moderate choice. Perhaps Glenn has a problem with Catholics too, I don’t know. I dont care about what brand people believe in. But I think Glenn cares.
        Glenn’s ok to vote Romney but not Newt? That’s absurd. Glenn could vote 3rd party for Ron Paul? That’s beyond hypocitical and wrong, it’s pure stupid. Stand with Israel my ass. Newt is the #1 pro Isreal guy in the race, like it or not. (and I’m not even a big Israel guy, I just hate hypocracy)

        1. It’s interesting. Today I just read one of Beck’s sidekicks (Stu) blog. He stated that what Beck said on the radio the previous day (“is it about race? No, It’s about policy”) was the same thing as he said on the Judge’s program (“Is it about race, then? IT MUST BE.”). Whether he meant it or not, does it sound the same to you? Not to me.

          I don’t care what he says about Newt. I don’t care whether he loses all his audience for it. What is interesting to me is that it appears that Beck feels his audience must believe what he says IS GOSPEL, or he will vilify THEM.

          He tried to teach them to do their own homework, in the beginning and look for the truth, and now wants them to believe him blindly, no matter what he says. And many of his followers are, as seen by many posts here the last few days.

  12. “Practical hardline conservative” translated out of Progressive speak, means he will abandon conservative principles in a heartbeat to make a deal.

    Reagan never needed to put qualifiers in front of the word “conservative”.

    1. in order to move the conservative agenda forward sometimes you have to make a deal…more than half of this nation is not as conservative as we are..

    2. No he didn’t but he was dealing with a Democrat congress and had to make compromises. Now that we’ve all become pure conservatives (after 80 years) we don’t want to hear the word compromise. I sure don’t want to hear it unless whoever’s compromising is getting the best deal. This is why getting a majority in the Senate and keeping or increasing our members in the House are vital.
      Then at least they’ll only be compromising with each other and us.

    3. You would be dumping on Reagan today if this were the 1980’s. Your an absolutist/purist and you will never be satisfied. Reagan had to compromise here and there, just as Newt had to with Clinton in the WH. You can advance conservatism without getting 100% of all you want, that’s the best you get in the real world.

      1. Reagan said that IF he could get 70-80% of what he wanted, that was as good as it would get in a deal. Never would get 100%, but if he could only get 50%, that was sure better than nothing.
        Newt also said that, with the new partisan House, he would start each week on a non controversial bill that he could get a compromise on and pass, just so the members would get used to, and comfortable with, working together with the opponents. After a few months of that, tougher issues became lots easier.

  13. Did you guys notice Bachamnn’s Attacks on Newt Gingrich?

    –> Team Bachmann Accuses Newt Of Buying Tea Party Votes
    “Newt Gingrich knows that the only way he can get the Tea Party vote is to buy it.”
    (Where’s the proof?)

    –> Bachmann: Newt ‘King Of K Street’ Gingrich Is Big Government Liberal
    “Speak Gingrich has a major problem… because for over 40 years he has been the quintessential insider…”

    BUT! In 2008 Michele Bachmann praised Newt and calling him a hero of the conservative movement.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8zz5myJ_hs

    Michele Bachmann a Liar or hypocrite? both?

    1. I have always admired Michele, but her comments and attacks smack of desperation.

      She needs to quit focusing on everybody else and start presenting a conservative agenda.

      She hasn’t convinced me she is ready to be president.

      1. I agree. Bachmann’s campaign hasn’t presented any new ideas or detailed any concrete plans. She’s campaigning on nothing but soundbites and slogans. I cringed the first few weeks when she was going on and on about having a “titanium spine”. I was waiting for her to pull up her sleeves and show her golden bracelets.

        The Gardasil story was just embarrassing, and now she’s saying, “Win, win, win”.

        So many slogans I can only ask, “Where’s the beef, Michelle?”

        1. Admit it. The only candidate who had a concrete plan you could argue over was Cain. Entire web sites sprang up around his idea and I learned a lot about how the economy works just reading the posts. I can’t think of a single idea Gingrich has put forward, or any of the other guys for that matter. Sorry, generalities like lowering tax rates and cutting regulations don’t count. I can say them too.

          1. I agree with you there, many underestimated the importance of those numbers. The 9-9-9 is brilliant in its simplicity and function. The radical low tax will spur the economy, the 9% sales tax will lower the deficit as well as addresses in paying towards a portion of the debt(has proven to help Canada in going through the credit crunch in mid 1990s). It also evens out the taxing base, it makes everybody from illegal immigrants to underground market, and unpaying individuals contribute to the country and the economy. The radical corporate tax will encourage investment back to the US. The absence of payroll tax will encourage hiring as well as lowering the cost of goods and services. In jingoistic 999, Cain has introduced solutions, after solutions, after solutions. He didn’t even need to criticize his opponents, very unlike that of the others. That is the difference between a successful CEO and a mere politician.

          2. Really? You haven’t been paying much (any?) attention, then.

            The FDA and EPA restructuring, the K-12 education ideas, Medicine in the next 25 years and preparing for it, Off-shore drilling and using the royalties paid to the State to improve it’s infrastructure, energy development in general and becoming not only independent, but an energy supplier to the rest of the world if our ‘friends’ turn the OPEC pipe off, turning the Federal influence down while raising the States’ responsibility ( revitalizing the 10th Amendment),… etc.

            Better yet, go to http://www.Newt.org and read about it all.

    2. can you say losing in the polls and striking back by saying anything to get attention (this will most likely backfire because looks like desparation)….

      for example, her attack on Perry about vacines that backfired on her because it only made her look like a witch (change to another word if you wish) to the electorate.

    3. Yes. I find it sad the Bachmann has to resort to negatives to try to get her message out. You should stand on your own positions and be positive not go negative against a fellow republican. Save that for the DemocRATs.

      I am really shocked that more people have not moved to Rick Santorum over Bachmann….and suprised that the more conservative Santorum is only polling in the low single digits this week. I would have expected more of a bounce based on his really good performance in last Sunday’s debate.

      With this move by Bachmann to the negative it is quite telling. I don’t see any chance for Bachmann and if she does not make the top 3 after Iowa; she will most likely drop out shortly afterwards because her entire strategy is based on winning Iowa.

    4. Michelle Bachman, while certainly conservative, has shown she has a real classless side to her. Newt did her big favors to help her get re-elected, he was retired, and he owed her nothing, Newt campaigned for her because he’s a loyal conservative and wants to win , even when he was not in politics. Bachman has thrown her whole lot in with Glenn Beck’s audience (which i used to be in), when I heard her interview the day after Glenn trashed and attacked Newt, she lost my respect. At least Santorum says *someting* nice about his old mentor, Rick still has has class.
      And, that video from 2008 is even more damning of Bachman and vindicating of Gingrich. Newt was upfront and honest about his consulting with Freddie Mac, he also was CONSISTENT to say no taxpayer bail out and to break them up into private entities. (Just LIKE TEDDY ROOSEVELT did Mr Beck… TR was NOT Adolf HITLER Glenn. idiot.)

  14. this is guy will make a great president…unfortunately he is in the wrong country at the wrong time…our country is lacking wisdom unfortunately

  15. I’m very curious of just what Tom Coburn’s problem with Newt is. I saw where he all but beat around the bush saying he just did’nt like him. Something happened with the two. And I really like both of them.

  16. Everyone has a record and it is in that record where you can find the truth. Newt’s response as to “which Newt we will get” said nothing! If he wants to run on his record, then his record is fair game for anyone to comment on. Those of us who are old enough to remember him as Speaker know that he will say things and do things contrary to conservative ethics and standards. How embarrassing was it after all he was saying about President Clinton and he was committing adultery the entire time? How can anyone trust a person who has this record? Certainly, He has been part of some major legeslation in the past, but it was a different time with different circumstances. The last thing we need as President is someone who radiates Washington or Wall Street. All I am saying is let the process of selecting our nominee work itself out, but if he is going to cite his record, then his record is fair game, otherwise he is just a big crybaby.

  17. “heated rhetoric”…

    …you mean, playing Newt’s own words? What ‘rhetoric’ are you referring to?

  18. … Great interview for Newt, …as always.

    However, I’ve heard too much of Newt to believe this spin. I remember his different stances, I remember the hearings on corruption he went through, and I remember the political machine that he helped orchestrate and wielded as speaker. I studied Newt for my political science minor; and I remember too much.

    The best take on Newt that I have seen thus far, is from Glenn Beck. Glenn tends to be a bit critical of Newt as Glenn has declared war on progressives, but Glenn is right about a few things: Newt IS a progressive, Newt DOES worship FDR, Newt IS a government insider (regardless of what he claims), Newt WILL expand governmental power, and Newt will compromise or do anything in order to ‘get things done’.

    “Conservative”, Newt? I think we’d have to pull one of his own tactics to answer that… “Conservative compared to what?” To Obama, yes. Certainly. Newt is day and night better compared to Obama. But Newt is NOT more conservative than the other candidates.

    Newt is very, very, very smart when it comes to politics. He IS an ‘old hand’ at politics; a career politician. He would paste Obama in a debate, sure. But he also has a tendency to vacillate from side to side on any issue depending on what is necessary for political power in a situation. However, he has stayed strongly on the side of progressivism his whole political career.

    he is a great talking head, he is a great bulldog for ‘conservative values’, but don’t forget he is a ‘government is the answer’ guy. His career spells that out quite well and loudly. The difference between Obama and Newt? – Obama is governmental answer through force and social mandate. Newt is governmental answer through light manipulation and slow transition. They both lead to the same place, but the difference is fascism and socialism – both are big government, but one is ‘conservative’.

    Please don’t be fooled.

    1. Goodness. Sorry Newt is not nor will he ever be FASCIST. Supporting the evil progressive ideas like, NASA and the Lunar Landing, the Hoover Dam, the National Highway system, the Panama Canal or yes, even dreaded Social Security,,,, these can ALL be called “progressive”.
      I’ve heard Beck speak with pride about things that ARE progressive by the broad definition. No progressivism? No NASA, no space prgram no space race. Just one example.
      If that’s BIG GOVERNMENT, then REAGAN too was progressive. And NOBODY has ever come close to a ‘pure’ conservative. We will never go back to some utopian 18th century that Glenn pines for. Glenn is sounding like a Luddite same as obama and his fears of ATM’s.
      Oh, another evil progressive thing Newt supports about FDR, BEATING FASCIST HITLER/MUSSOLINI and IMPERIAL JAPAN.
      Newt wants to at least REFORM social security so people have PERSONAL accts, and no ‘trust fund’ lies where Govt raids the money at will. Good luck trying to just end social security though.

      1. And P.S. , wouldn’t it suck if we had an inspiring NASA program again, so kids care about science/math and pushing the envelope again? 41 friggin years since landing on the moon. Hello Mars? But, NASA was progressive garbage anyways.
        Yeah Zany Newt, JFK was Zany too. (oops, I almost said something nice about JFK… am I an infidel!?)

        1. You immediately jump to extremes and conclusions… let me clarify my statements from your assertion, please. I honestly don’t think we disagree.

          I never said that Newt was a fascist. I said that big government on the ‘conservative’ side, (or ‘the right’), is fascism. Newt has pushed toward larger government, so further steps down that road of ‘practical hardline conservatism’ would lead there; that doesn’t mean we’ll be there overnight or that he is a fascist. In fact, it means that we’ll be there slower than by a ‘liberal progressive’. But it still leads there.

          Conservatives don’t want to go back to the 8th century. Conservative means that change doesn’t happen immediately, nor is all change accepted as good. Conservatives let it play out before adopting policy, and are hesitant to jump from one situation to another.

          NASA never regulated my rights, never searched my home, nor did they impose ideals on me. I don’t think that NASA is a ‘progressive’ (political term) program. Visionary, sure, audacious, sure, even expensive… sure. But not what anyone thinks of when you mention ‘big government’. How did NASA pop into your head at the words ‘big government’?

          “Progressive” is a political ideal of our republic and constitution ‘progressing’ and evolving into a different order and law set denoting an assumed ‘higher level’ of social order; better government than the constitution provides. Progressives look at the constitution as a good starting point, but ‘old’ or ‘dusty’ and ‘needs improvement’ to deal with ‘today’s problems’. The Government solves problems, not the people, in the mind of the progressive. The elite rule, the sheeple follow. What is your definition of ‘progressive’?

          As for throwing names out… you know, you could actually find redeeming traits in Hitler if you looked hard enough. (He was an excellent, visionary builder – if a bit eccentric – and a legendary orator, for instance.) FDR was progressive, and I find it interesting that Newt goes to him instead of Reagan. That doesn’t mean that Newt is the devil incarnate or that FDR had no redeeming traits. Don’t be absurd; it is simply a political category.

          The other Presidents you mentioned were never part of this discussion. As to them; everyone has good points and bad points because we are all human. I am simply stating what I see and understand. If you found it negative, then I guess you don’t want to see that Newt stood for that before, and you have to ask if he still does now. I just don’t want people to go goo-goo eyed for someone without knowing who they are. If none of the historical things about Newt are issues for you, then he’s your guy. If that’s the case, who am I to tell you that your opinion is not your valid?

          Just pardon me for being leery about a candidate who leads out with the idea that he is going to “compromise” to get the liberals what they demand, after years of complete liberal domination: What do they have left to demand that they haven’t already taken? What else are you willing to compromise on?

          My demands are not compatible with compromise with the Left. I want smaller government; cut regulations, cut Obamacare, cut taxes, cut spending, cut programs, cut congressional wages, enforced federal law, illegal immigration crack-down, SS reform, and term limits for House and Senate. Of those: cut spending, cut Obamacare, cut taxes, and cut regulations are immediate and non-negotiable.

          Those things happen to also be the non-negotiable no-cut areas of the Left. So… what are you willing to compromise? ‘cuz Newt’s going to. The only things I see left are ‘gay rights’ and embryonic research if not abortion. Those are the only things on the Left that they want that aren’t on my ‘cut’ list currently. Are you willing to ‘compromise’ any of those?

    1. I actually like it when Government doesn’t act. (That’s kinda how the founding father’s designed it.)

      …but there is a strong case for getting it to act decisively now, to cut it self down. I’m just not sure that Newt will be able to do that. Barring that action, I would love to see the Federal Government shut down. We might just realize how much we don’t need them.

  19. After Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, or Rick Santorum, Newt would be my first choice. This morning on Fox & Friends Rudy Giuliani ( not a real social conservative) did a pretty good job defending Newt as speaker of the house and compared to Nancy Pelosi, Newt is head and shoulders above her in every measurable manner. Tearing down Newt does not necessarily elevate any other candidate it only tends to add to the democrats voluminous ammunition to bring down our party.

    1. Which is why I’m soured on Bachman. And Perry I hope will rethink that strategy too, Perry got nowhere attacking Romney again and again. I don’t like Romney, but inter-fighting and tearing down fellow republicans is foolsih and turns more against you. Perry’s good when he’s positive.

    2. Like you don’t think Obama’s war chest can’t uncover everything these “beginners” have blown the dust off and trotted out as ‘new’ old news? And maybe even some they have missed

  20. Great interview!!!…..In the Lions den with PBS……Newt lays it all out with specifics and facts that cannot be denied. His experience is by far the best of all the other candidates combined. His knowledge of exactly what the problems are, how they can be solved, and what needs to be done to get them solve through the system is spot on.

    As to his credentials, no other candidate can match his level of commitment, accomplishment, and know how. Look at the accomplishments of Contract with America from the 1990s and then ask yourself….He did it then…why would you doubt his 21st Century Contract with America program now?

    He’s got the plan, he’s got the know how, and he’s got the experience on getting the job done!!!

    1. Agreed. After listening to this interview I find it hard to understand where the heated vitriol is coming from, especially from Beck??? Just don’t get it.

      1. Newt is a career politician, a good one; he interviews very well.

        I don’t understand your statement. Glenn has played Newt’s own words over two decades, discussed his record, and read from his own book he wrote in 2009.

        What “rhetoric” are you referring to, specifically?

        1. That is easy to answer. Glenn Beck has done nothing but take select pieces of the audio and not played the entire audio through so Beck is being baised and skewing the information to make sure he can tear it to shreads and make him look good.

          Prime example is the Wilson remarks. Beck only plays a select piece of the audio and Newt bearly gets a part of one piece of his sentense before Beck interrupts the tape and goes on one of his rants. Then he conveniently forgets to play the rest of the clip leaving the listen to wonder.

          That is called bias….because 1 you don’t hear the whole clip and 2 you do not know under what conditions and more importantly in what context the answer by Newt Gingrich is giving his reply.

          He even did the exact same thing on his Video show….Glenn is not being objective and following his ”truth has no agenda” proclaimation. part of truth is the whole truth.

          1. Regardless of the fact that I have studied Newt for years in college and this is consistent… Can we look at your assertion?

            Beck, the guy who has done everything against what common wisdom dictates to become popular, has given up shows, contracts, influence, agreements, sponsors in the name and search for truth… Beck, is purposefully twisting the truth and alienating his audience, angering them, for popularity?

            Did I get that right?

            1. whos truth….his truth? Face it over the past 4 weeks Beck has changed…you can see it in his body language as well as his speech patterns. Why?? I have no clue…I think there is more going on here than we see concerning Beck.

              Maybe the Mormons are coing down hard on Beck and he is having a crisis of conviction that is rattling his core. Maybe he has family issues, or health issues and that is causing him to react bizarrely….(it is only speculation at this point as to the causes)

              The facts are…Beck has made some very bad judgement calls over the past 4 weeks and alot of it is his own vanity that will not allow him to back down. Remember we are talking about a control freak who has definite narcissistic charateristics bordering on the unhealthy. That compounds the issue because he is beginning to compromise his objectivity to this process and it is quite plain and obvious.

              1. and the first place you go is those goat-headed ‘Mormons’, followed closely by family, and health issues. Wow. I think I understood your statement correctly the first time.

                Look, you want some ‘facts’ about Newt beyond what Glenn has talked about, (which, it is VERY hard to take 10+ statements saying the same thing over 20 years “out of context”), then here is something you should think about:

                Newt gained power in the Republican party, rising modestly during the Reagan years (He was there before Reagan – take that as you will) to the extent that he was able, after the democrats retook control with Clinton, to storm the RNC, and seize control through a plan to bring huge numbers of new ‘newtonian’ republican candidates into the house; and he organized his own PAC to funnel campaign funds into the house races for those new member, which he, literally, groomed and selected to fit his own agenda. They won in landslides, which ushered in the republican control of the house in 1996, and his loyal coalition then elected him speaker of the house… it is also the power structure behind the ‘contract with america’ which Newt was able to pass, and also strong-arm the democrats into accepting cuts, and ‘balancing’ the budget, which they also strong-armed Clinton into accepting – the coalition voted as a strong group under Newt and they ‘got things done’. (This is also the blueprint for Pelosi’s rise to power as well as her strangle-hold on the democrat party in the house still.)

                Not everything Newt did in his PAC was legal. Which is why, after allegations of campaign fund mismanagement and fraud were brought up and he was fined by the ethics committee, and stepped down. yes, he was ‘exonerated’ after paying the fine and stepping down, under insistence that he was ‘clean’. But if you are truly ‘clean’, why do you step down?

                Newt has been asked if he was the essential ‘Washington insider’, to which he replied that any speaker of the House is, must be, and will always be an ‘essential Washington insider’.

                Newt also has a troubling history, nearly identical to that of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, which conservatives point to with horror and anger: Enter the political arena as a modest or nearly middle-class, low income earner, exit politics as a multimillionaire.

                Newt then, as the ‘essential insider’, went on to found a ‘consulting’ firm which consults businesses on… on what? On how to do business? Or how to work the political system? You tell me, as Newt has never really stated, though he insists it is not ‘lobbying’.

                A consulting firm in Washington really only has two things to deal with: Lobbying, or insider information.

                Those are facts. Take them how you will.

                1. facts??? bbitter….facts???…how about getting yours straight…first, Newt was found innocent of any of those charges or alligations you listed…he was in fact, found completly innocent except the one letter you speak of and even in that he was acquitted but agreed to pay the cost of the investigation. he did not have to pay it but he paid it anyway because it was expedient. Newt at the very minimum is a very very complex, well written man who has for most of his life been very visible with extensive videos on lectures, speeches, and courses he has taught. I find it funny that throughout all this time people have not had anything to ding him on of any significance or they take his words out of context and try to change them into something that else.

                  Lastly, as to your point on Glenn Beck, ‘Mormons, his family, and/or his health issues, you can also add his business dealings…..Here is my point….they all add to stress and can and do push people to break points. Am I saying one is the exact cause…no….it is pure speculation….maybe his underwear is too tight…that too is speculation…no one will know until the end…he either will break or recover.

                  As I said over 3 weeks ago when he started acting weird that something was amiss because he was (and is) looking tired and his body language has changed and his judegment on issues appear to be conflicting with what he used to say compared to now. Face it Glenn Beck has changed ever since he left FoxNews. He seems like a kite with no tail…not fully grounded…with no general mooring to keep him steady.

                  Face it, Glenn Beck is a control freak and anyone who holds any value that does not 100% agree or will not change their values to his are gone to him. Regardless how small or difference. You can really see it in his staff people. Regardless, whether he is right but most definitely when he is wrong his ego will not allow him or others on his staff to disagree with any position of his publically pronounced. Clearly, those in his inner circle that advise him are total ”yes” men.

                  It is just the nature it is classic narcissistic personallity…think about it…He imposes his own will everything on those around him and esposes it to all in Books, Opinion, News, his own Clothesline, how people should live, what they should buy, etc…. Totally controlled pronouncing that everyone should live in his oen opinion, style, and image.

                  Is Narcissism wrong?…no. everyone has those characteristics normal narcissism that is part of a healthy you. As a matter of fact, you and I are practicing a form of it now in this thread. It only becomes a problem when they begin to cloud your mind and your focus moves to the extreme that everyone is conspiring against you or you refuse to acknowledge others points of view and the world must evolve around you or you will just take your marbles and go home.

                  This can be caused by many factors but the traits are pretty clear…lets look at some of his know history and see how they apply….

                  for example:
                  Lubit compared healthy and destructive narcissism. (distructive patterns)

                  —Pursues power at all costs, lacks normal inhibitions in its pursuit.
                  (left FoxNews because he felt he did not have enough power/control)
                  —Concerns limited to expressing socially appropriate response when convenient; devalues and exploits others without remorse.
                  (”If you don’t do what I say then you are a racist”)
                  —Traumatic childhood undercutting true sense of self-esteem and/or learning that he/she doesn’t need to be considerate of others.
                  (lost his mother due to suicide)
                  —Destructive patterns.
                  (alcohol and drug abuse)

                  Narcissistic traits by D. Thomas

                  —An obvious self-focus in interpersonal exchanges
                  —Difficulty with empathy -how he reacted with female caller today on his show that was on his side.
                  —Hypersensitivity to any insults or imagined insults. (look at his reactions today)
                  —Haughty body language (look at body language in the Nepolitaino interview about the ”racism” remark)
                  —Claiming to be an “expert” at many things. (I am a Historian, but has no formal education or certification to show)
                  —Inability to view the world from the perspective of other people. (will not even consider he is wrong)

                  There are something like 7 degrees of Narcissism from normal to complete nutcase. I am not saying Glenn Beck is there but I would have to admit that he is higher up the scale than most people and his actions over the past 2 weeks have really elevated his level towards distructive.

                  So I guess all I am saying is that Glenn Beck’s narcissism appears to rising to distructive levels. I mentioned when he did the Napolitaino interview that he looked tired, and his mannerisms made me think something was wrong. Maybe it is just tiredness and stess that GBTV is not as that successful and he finds that he will have to crawl back to FoXNews for his old job. (again speculation but something is definitely different and not for the better)

                2. “facts??? bbitter….facts???…how about getting yours straight…first, Newt was found innocent of any of those charges or alligations you listed…he was in fact, found completly innocent except the one letter you speak of and even in that he was acquitted but agreed to pay the cost of the investigation. he did not have to pay it but he paid it anyway because it was expedient.”

                  All you did is confirm what I said. I stated that he had been found guilty by the committee, and that he was later exonerated. Was I unclear? His explanations of why he stepped down are his own. Whether it was “expedient” doesn’t really gain traction with me as he “knew” he was innocent, and was later proven innocent. All the political hay that could be made, already had been, and as a career politician, Newt knew that. It doesn’t make sense from a political stand point; trust me, I studied it. He still had considerable power and influence without being speaker, which is evidenced by his successful ‘consulting’ firm. What part of my representation is incorrect?

                  “Newt at the very minimum is a very very complex, well written man who has for most of his life been very visible with extensive videos on lectures, speeches, and courses he has taught. I find it funny that throughout all this time people have not had anything to ding him on of any significance or they take his words out of context and try to change them into something that else.”

                  Complex, yes. It took a year of poly-sci to study his career and generate a bio. I am not debating that in the smallest bit. However, Nothing to ‘ding’ him on? Really? You have not discounted anything of the facts that I represented, and only confirmed the one fact you tried to discount.

                  what does it take to ‘ding’ a candidate you like? You have obviously made up your mind. I have not, but I am not going to pull wool over my eyes on this one. Sorry.

                  I’m not even going to go into your personal vendetta against Beck. All you have done is describe a general businessman who is paying his people to do what he wants. Is that narcissistic? Perhaps Beck should pay people to do what they want instead?

                  But this isn’t about Beck. This is about Newt.

                3. My first Choice is Rick Santorum but the attacks especially the one labeling Newt Progressive (code for liberal or socialist) just really burns me up because they are just plain dishonest. That is the only reason have issue with Glenn Beck. All I ask from Glenn is that he be objective like he claims but he continues down this path of ”guilt by association” that is plainly a lie.

                  I only see the hypocracy that he (Beck) is spewing on Newt and it is totally unfair. That is why I take issue with Glenn Beck.

                  Are there things that Newt is wrong about???….YOU BETCHA!
                  Individual Mandates for one. His votes for TARP one, his stance on some spending ideas when he was speaker even though it was in the spirit of bypartisanship that’s three. I could probably come up with a nice long list of disagreement with Newt but mine are based on facts and not smearing by half truths.

                  It just makes me mad that all these attackers on Newt can only come up with weak half truths and twist them into something they were not. That is why I defend Newt because I like to debate the facts not labels unless there is not doubt they apply.

                4. I’m not trying to attack anyone, nor am I trying to defend anyone. They can defend themselves. I simply am interested in portraying the facts as I see them. You may view them differently, and that’s great; it adds perspective.

                  I think our definition of ‘progressive’ is different… I see ‘progressive’ as the political ideal that our self-government can evolve, and should be helped to evolve, into a ‘higher’ state of governance… which I disagree with. (Only God on earth as king is a higher state than freedom IMO.) Socialist and ‘liberal’ are definitely separate terms from progressive for me. I don’t think the progressives mean to stop at a type of socialism… I honestly don’t know if they have any rational end other than Socrates’ ‘Republic’ ideal of a pseudo-race/class of philosopher ‘kings’ or ‘dictators’ or whatever; where the informed and experts govern, because those under them are not capable of making good choices. That’s how I view progressives. It is how you get there, how you lead the ‘sheep’ to pasture that defines the difference between the different types of progressives. I in no way mean to call Newt liberal or socialist, you are right: that’s an insult. But I take serious issue with his self-description of ‘hardline conservative’. Notice that he qualifies his statement with “Practical” hardline conservative. He knows he isn’t the most conservative since Reagan, neither the most conservative in the field. With Newt, as with most politicians, you have to hang on every word. I am sure he believes he feels he could work the best with the democrats and he has openly stated that he intends to do whatever it takes to ‘get things done.’

                  I, on the other hand, think that compromise is a thing of the past when it comes to the liberal agenda right now… what else are we willing to give up? What else CAN we give up? Decide for yourself, but please ask the question, ‘cuz that’s what Newt is saying he is going to do. I would rather that government came to a stand-still, than more concessions were made to the liberal / progressive agenda.

                  There are things I like about Newt, as I am sure many others like as well. Chiefly, I applaud his ‘clean’ and ‘positive’ campaign move. Don’t expect that to last if he gets the nomination, as Obama has nowhere to go but negative, as he can’t run on his record, so Obama must run against the republican nominee. It will get nasty, and there is enough on Newt that it will be very, very, very nasty compared to what we are doing in the republicans now. The Dems will leave no imaginary stone unturned, and will create dirt. The glowing gem of positive politics will not last past nomination, and we’ve already seen anti-Romney ads by the Dems.

                  I agree with you on Santorum, hands down. (I didn’t think we disagreed with each other… and I still don’t.) Keep in mind, however, that Rick Santorum was part of the Newt revolution in the mid nineties. That has been given a nod in a debate, but other than that no one has addressed it. Personally, I am satisfied that he is not subservient.

                  As it currently stands, I would go for Santorum as first choice, however I am undecided from there. I may be for him simply because I know the least about Santorum of all the candidates.

                  Sad.

          2. Mr. Beck did, or attempted to do the same with Andrew Breitbart over the Shirley Sherrod situation. Mr. Breitbart has all the facts on his side, but Mr. Beck’s (convenient?) truths do not seem to like the light of day.

            GB

            1. The Sherrod video was an interesting case. Breitbart was trying to show the audiences reaction and all people could do was focus on her, saying things like she wasn’t being racist or whatever. Breitbart never intended for that video to slam Sherrod, it was all about the reaction of the audience. Editing the tape was not a means to change the narrative, it was only to show the part that he was referring to. Breitbart got a raw deal on that one, from every side.

                1. If Breitbart is being sued by Sherrod, because of Glenn Beck, then Sherrod is barking up the wrong tree. However, unless the case is thrown out of court, there may be reason to believe that it was Breitbart after all, and not Beck.

                  Just sayin’.

                2. You’re saying Sherrod is suing Breitbart? I find that interesting, because Breitbart never said Sherrod was being racist. He was talking about the audience. The things that happened to Sherrod afterward were not Breitbart’s doing. If she sues at all, it is the administration she should sue. But, then, that wouldn’t fit the agenda.

            2. Yep. If you try to make your points with half-truths, you wind up with the wrong halves being blown back in your face, and a reputation as a half-assed authority. (An old Indian adage)

        1. No, he just really, really hates Newt (for whatever reason). I suspect it’s because Newt is thought of as a historian and Beck cherishes that self-described title for himself. Whatever.

          1. there is a film clip done over 35 years ago where Newt and political frends stated that destruction of the middle class to the extent they would have to move to mexico for a better standard of living was his goal. I feel he has already suceeded. Also breaking unions destroying wage standards and feathering his own nest with pac consulting fees along the way. He has earned the name Newt the slime. He wallows in lack of personal integrity with other presidents who approved sending tec. overseas, allowing jobs to move to china, india ect. layoffs union busting crystal sugar being a local example, manufacturing bobcat is a recent example of buying up a company moving it out of country killing the local economy. If the government will not keep its peoples best intrests at heart should we support those who have lost contact with the people they are supposed to represent?

            1. Whether you like Newt or don’t like Newt doesn’t give Beck the right to tear down his own faithful callers.

              As to the goals of Newt, I won’t argue with you about Newts goal to destroy the middle class. Never seen it, I doubt I ever will.

              The Unions themselves have done more to destroy the middle class than any body of power ever. Don’t give me the ‘they raised our wages’ crap. They are the reason we are in economic straits as it is, with their outrageous demands and expectations.

              The Union bosses have made life pretty easy and cushiony for themselves at the expense of their workers and these same bosses are the ones that put Union dues (whether the rank and file wanted to or not) in the pockets of the very Democrats that do this crap to us.

              1. Beck never called anybody a racist. Hr was making an analogy.

                Check out Dictionary.com to find out more 🙂

              2. “Whether you like Newt or don’t like Newt doesn’t give Beck the right to tear down his own faithful callers”

                No, you are right. The like or dislike of Newt does not grant rights. The right of freedom of speech is a God-given right affirmed by our constitution.

                Beck can only hurt himself, and he is not taking a popular position right now. Instead of bashing Beck for his free speech, if you don’t like it, don’t listen. There is no constitutional right to an audience.

                I respect him for standing on his opinion, especially when he is going against his own paying audience. …but only because he has backed-up his opinion with statements and has taken the time to personally interview Newt beforehand.

                1. I have no problem with Beck trashing Newt. That’s his free right. The big problem is when he says something totally inappropriate, then puts out a full force damage-control by his staff, himself, the Blaze, and even Stu’s blogs. They can think anything they want, but they can’t change what they already said, and if it doesn’t fit with what they mean, then try to brush it under the rug. Glenn did teach you people to listen, did he not?

                2. “I have no problem with Beck trashing Newt. That’s his free right. The big problem is when he says something…”

                  You can’t have it both ways. Take your pick. Either he has free speech, or he doesn’t.

                  See, I do listen. 🙂 I never said I agree, but I do listen, and I don’t care about personal vendetta’s, I care about facts. You seem to have a serious problem with Beck’s free speech, even though you deny that it is a problem.

                3. Geez, whatever. Live with it. If he doesn’t like what I say, I lose nothing. If thousands don’t like what he says, he loses tons of money, credibility, and respect. You can tell it doesn’t sit well with him by the ever constant damage-control campaign that’s been going on. Public statements have consequences (and, by the way, many people ARE NOT addressing what he actually said).

                  You people still don’t get what everyone’s been saying. It’s not both ways. Trashing someone is one thing, race baiting comments to fearmonger his loyal supporters is another, and even more importantly, not honestly addressing it is still another. The people I’ve argued with never seem to understand what’s being said, so we have to keep saying it over and over again. I don’t feel the urge to say it any more.

                  So let’s just leave it at many will blindly follow what he says without doing their own homework, and that appears to be what he wants, despite what he’s said for a long time.

                  edit: by the way, it wasn’t the break in that caused Nixon to resign, it was the cover up. Many situations end up that way.

      2. Agreed. I love Beck..I really do. I’m still in the middle of Broke. But he’s really got me mad him right now.

        Someone tell Beck, Coulter, Rove, Will and Krauthammer that for once…just one election cycle, we Republicans need to stop eating our own.

        1. Krauthammer is more of a joke that Coulter.

          Krauthammer (just like Coulter) likes and supports Romney because he is a fellow give government guys….It was Krauthammer that worked in the Carter Administration and campaigned against Reagan and was a speech writer for Mondale…(another big government guy)

          I find it amazing that people call Krauthammer a conservative….domestically Krauthammer is extremely liberal. Krauthammer supports legalization of marajuana, and legalized abortion, he is also an opponent of the death penalty. I find the last one hypocritical since he takes a harder line internationally and is somewhat of a military hawk in his positions.

          Krauthammer claims to be republican but he clearly does not really hold to the party platform and his views, in my opinion, are most definitely liberal or at a minimum moderate.

          So, why should it be any suprise to find him viciously attacking Newt because Krauthammers positions are diametrically opposed to those of Newt Gingrich.(liberal attacking a conservative) So, if a domestically, big government liberal like Krauthammer is viamently opposed to Newt Gingrich…what should that tell you??

          Simple. Newt is a Conservative and he is a threat to the nomination over the establishment liberal/moderates and bring the back the constitutional origins of the Republican Party.

          1. Thank you for posting who Krauthammer really is. I find it sad indeed that Krauthammer is billed as a “conservative” when he clearly is not.

          2. You can add George Will, Ann Coutler, Peggy Noonan and several others to the list of status quo Republicans.

            We must come together again around Gingrich. This is a time in our history when we do not need a novice to help us survive. I have absolutely nothing against the other candidates except I don’t want Ron Paul. Their only problem is they will be learning on the job when we need someone who know what he’s doing and that especially includes choices for Cabinet posts. If and I mean we must, get a Republican Senate the money woes will be easy to fix, not saying it will be fast, but it will be easy. Get out of way by getting rid of Government regulations that are hurting business, reform capital gains tax, allow drilling and the pipeline, get rid of liberal judges and watch the economy rebound. What to many aren’t looking at is the dangerous world we live in. We need a president that will manage on the world stage the U.S. foreign policy to our advantage and Newt is ready now (not in 4 years) to do so.

Comments are closed.