Transcript of Newt Gingrich interview

Glenn is back on TV! Watch Glenn’s new two-hour show available live and on-demand Monday through Friday on! Start your two week free trial HERE!

Below is a rush transcript of Glenn’s interview with Newt Gingrich this morning. A full article and video of the interview is not available HERE!

GLENN: Lot to do today, a lot to do. And we begin right now with Newt Gingrich. Look, this is ‑‑ so you know, I am… I am increasingly disinterested in Washington because I don’t believe the answers lie in Washington. However, we all have to be responsible and we all have to do, you know, the right thing and pay attention to politics and vote. Now is the time to ask the questions of each of the politicians.

Newt Gingrich is a man that I’ve met several times. I’ve had dinner with him when we were in Washington, D.C. He seems like a very nice man. We don’t know each ‑‑ we’re not buddies, but I have been around him enough to know that, you know, he’s a ‑‑ he’s an honest guy, a decent guy that has always shot straight with me. I want to make sure that you understand and that he understands that this is not a gotcha interview. I have serious concerns with Newt Gingrich, but it’s not a gotcha interview. This is just, I’m asking questions because I truly, deeply care about the country just as much as Newt Gingrich does but we differ on the answers, I believe. I’d like to have him convince me that I’m wrong. I would love to have him convince me that I’m wrong. Mr. Newt Gingrich, how are you, sir?

GINGRICH: I’m doing well. How are you?

GLENN: I’m very good. Let’s start with ‑‑ let’s start with a piece of audio here where you were talking about healthcare and you went down the progressive road with Theodore Roosevelt.

GINGRICH: And for government to not leave guarantees that you don’t have the ability to change, no private corporation has the purchasing power or the ability to reshape the health system, and in this sense I guess I’m a Theodore Roosevelt Republican. In fact, if I were going to characterize my ‑‑ on health where I come from, I’m a Theodore Roosevelt Republican and I believe government can lean in the regulatory leaning is okay.

GLENN: Regulation and the government scares the crap out of me and I think most Tea Party kind of leaning conservatives, and Theodore Roosevelt was the guy who started the Progressive Party. How would you characterize your relationship with the progressive ideals of Theodore Roosevelt?

New book by Glenn Beck

GINGRICH: Well, that depends on which phase of Roosevelt you’re talking about. The 1912, he’s become a big government, centralized power advocate running an a third party candidate which, for example, Roosevelt advocated the Food and Drug Act after he was eating ‑‑ and this supposedly the story, after he was eating sausage and eggs while reading up to Sinclair’s The Jungle, which has a scene in which a man falls into a vat at the sausage factory and becomes part of the sausage. And if you go back to that era where people had ‑‑ dealing with the Chinese where the people had doctored food, they had put all sorts of junk in food, they ‑‑ you know, I as a child who lived in Europe and I always marveled at the fact that American water is drinkable virtually anywhere.

So there are minimum regulatory standards of public health and safety that are I think really important.

GLENN: Okay. So you’re a minimum regulation guy on making sure the people don’t fall into the vats of sausage?

GINGRICH: Yeah. What I’m against is the government trying to implement things because bureaucracy’s such a bad implementer, and I’m against government trying to pick winners and losers. I mean, there’s no accident that the Smithsonian got $50,000 from the Pierre plane and failed and the ‑‑ from the Congress, and that the Wright brothers invented the airplane because ‑‑

GLENN: Okay.

GINGRICH: But I do think ‑‑ and I think almost everybody will see this, I believe. You want to make sure, for example, if you buy certain electric things that they don’t start fires in your house.

GLENN: Got it.

GINGRICH: You know, that kind of thing.

GLENN: But you’re not into picking winners and losers. So you would not have done the GM bailout?

GINGRICH: No. No, absolutely not. I think they would have ‑‑ I think they would be better off today ‑‑ remember you can have ‑‑ you can have a bankruptcy for reorganization, not for liquidation.

GLENN: Right. But you are ‑‑

GINGRICH: They go through a reorganization bankruptcy, they would be much better off than they are today.

GLENN: Sure. But you have selected a winner when you are for, quite strongly, the ethanol subsidies.

GINGRICH: Well, you know, that’s just in question. When Obama suggested eliminating the $14 billion a year incentive for exploring for oil and gas, everybody in the oil patch who’s against subsidizing ethanol jumped up and said, hey, you can’t do that. If you do that, you’re going to wipe out 80% of exploration, which is all done by small independent companies, not by the majors. I supported, I favored the incentive to go out and find more oil and gas. Now, that’s a tax subsidy. It’s a bigger tax subsidy than oil ever got. But I want American energy to drive out Saudi Arabia and Iranian and Iraqi energy and Venezuelan energy. And so I am for all sources of American energy in order to make us not just independent but to create a reservoir so that if something does happen in the Persian Gulf in the Straits of Hormuz, the world’s industrial system doesn’t crash into a deep depression.

GLENN: Why would we, why would we go into subsidies, though? Isn’t ‑‑ 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. The Erie Canal was built that way. We’ve always believed that having a strong infrastructure and having a strong energy system are net advantages because they’ve made us richer and more powerful than any country in the world. But what I object to is subsidizing things that don’t work and things that aren’t creating a better future. And the problem with the modern welfare state is it actually encourages people to the wrong behaviors, encourages them not to work, encourages them not to study.

GLENN: All right. You said if you are a fiscal conservative who cares about balancing the federal budget, there may be no more important bill to vote on in your career than in support of this bill. This was what you said about a new you entitlement, Medicare prescription drug program.

GINGRICH: Which also included Medicare Advantage and also included the right to have a high deductible medical savings account, which is the first step towards moving control over your health dollars back to you. And I think is a very important distinguishing point. On the government, my position is very straightforward. If you’re going to have Medicare, which was created in 1965, and was created at a time when practically drugs didn’t matter. There weren’t very many breakthroughs at that point. To take a position that we won’t help you with insulin but we’ll pay for your kidney dialysis is both bad on a human level and bad on financial level. Kidney dialysis is one of the fastest growing centers of cost and we spend almost as much annually on kidney dialysis as the entire National Institute of Health research budget, about $27 billion a year right now. If we say to you we’re going to pay for open heart surgery but we won’t pay for Lipitor so you can avoid open heart surgery, it’s both bad (inaudible) but it’s also just bad financially. So we ‑‑

GLENN: But aren’t you starting with a false premise here? If we’re going to have the Johnson Act, then well, then we should do this. Isn’t that starting with a false premise? Shouldn’t we be going the other direction instead of building on ‑‑

GINGRICH: Which is why ‑‑ which is why they had both Medicare Advantage, which is the first (inaudible) diversity and choice in Medicare, and it’s why they put in the health savings account model, which is the first big step towards you being personally in charge of your own savings. And I think that that’s a ‑‑ your point’s right. The question is how do you manage the transition so it is politically doable. And I ‑‑

GLENN: But you believe ‑‑ no offense, but you believe voting for something that is ‑‑ you’re trying to transition into smaller government by also supporting a bill that has in it a gigantic giveaway?

GINGRICH: Well, you’ve already given away ‑‑ that’s my point. I don’t see how one defends not having the ability to avoid the requirement for surgery, which is what this is all about. And the question is can you live longer and more independently and more healthily with the drug benefit than without it, and I think that if ‑‑ and you can make the (inaudible) and say, well, Medicare. A, you won’t win that in the short run. So you’re going to have Medicare. And the question in the short run is, so you want to have a system that basically leaves people with bad outcomes, or do you want to, in fact, maximize how long they can live and how independently they can live.

GLENN: All right.

GINGRICH: And that’s just a fundamental difference.

GLENN: All right. Well, and I think this is where we fundamentally differ is it seems to me ‑‑ and let me just play the audio here ‑‑ that you are for the individual mandate for healthcare and you have been for quite some time. Let’s play the audio.

GINGRICH: I am for people, individuals, exactly like automobile insurance, individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance, and I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals on a sliding scale a government subsidy so it will ensure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.

GLENN: Okay. That’s 1993. Here is May 2011.

GINGRICH: All of a sudden responsibility to help pay for healthcare. And I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement to either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you are going to be held accountable.

VOICE: That is the individual mandate, is it not?

GINGRICH: It’s a variation on it.

GLENN: Here’s about Paul Ryan trying to fix Medicare.

GINGRICH: I don’t think rightwing social engineering is any more desirable than leftwing social engineering. I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate. So there are things you can do to improve Medicare.

VOICE: But not what Paul Ryan is suggesting which is completely changing Medicare?

GINGRICH: I think that that is too big a jump. I think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options, not one where you suddenly impose upon. I don’t want ‑‑ I’m against ObamaCare which is imposing radical change and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change.

GLENN: Okay. Yet you seem to always be ‑‑ this is long‑term individual mandate stuff. You seem to be very interested in the government finding the solution.

GINGRICH: Well, let’s go back to what I just said. What I was asked was if a program is unpopular, should the Republicans impose it anyway. We can go back and we can listen to exactly what I was asked on that show and what I said I stand by, which is in a free society, you don’t elect officials to impose on you things that you disagree with. We just went through this slide over ObamaCare.

Now, I also, ironically, I would implement the Medicare reforms that Paul Ryan wants, I would implement them next year as an optional choice and I would allow people to have the option to choose premium support and then have freedom to negotiate with their doctor or their hospital in a way that would increase their ability to manage costs without being involved, you know ‑‑ but I wouldn’t impose it on everybody across the board. I think that’s a very large scale experiment. But I think you could migrate people toward it. I’m proposing the same thing on Social Security. I think young people ought to have the right to choose a personal Social Security insurance savings account plan and the Social Security actuary estimates that 95% of young people would pick a personal Social Security savings account over the current system but they would do so voluntarily because we would empower them to make a choice. We wouldn’t impose it on them. That’s a question of how do you think you can get this country to move more rapidly toward reform, and I think you can get it to move toward reform faster.

GLENN: All right.

GINGRICH: By giving people the right to choose.

GLENN: Let me just ‑‑ I just want to get to a few things. You’ve supported the ‑‑ you voted for the Department of Education, you in 2007 said very cautious about changing Fannie and Freddie. On global warming, with sitting down on the couch with Nancy Pelosi, and I would agree with you that was the dumbest moment ‑‑ you know, it would have been the dumbest moment of my life. And I agree with that. But when you look at, it’s not a moment of your life. In speech after speech, in your book Contract with the Earth, even with John Kerry in a debate, you said this.

GINGRICH: Evidence is sufficient, but we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon looting of the atmosphere.

VOICE: And do it urgently?

GINGRICH: And do it urgently, yes.

GLENN: Now, you have John Kerry in this debate sticking up for the private sector and you say the government should help pay.

GINGRICH: I think there has to be a, if you will, a green conservatism. There has to be a willingness to stand up and say, all right, here’s the right way to solve these as seen by our values system. And now to have a dialogue about what’s the most effective way to solve it. First of all, I think if you have the right level of tax credit, it isn’t just exactly voluntary. My guess is there’s a dollar number at which you would have every utility in the country agree they are all going to build private and sequestering power points. So I think this is a definable alternative.

KERRY: This is a huge transition. You actually want the government to do it. I want the private sector to do it.

GINGRICH: No, no, no. I want the government to pay for it.

KERRY: You want the governor to pay for it with a big tax credit.

GLENN: Help me out. This is a multiyear stance. It’s not a moment in your life.

GINGRICH: Well, first of all, I fought in those (inaudible) and I believe in the environment in general and I think ‑‑

GLENN: So do I.

GINGRICH: Okay. Second, I think that there is evidence on both sides of the climate change argument, and 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.

GLENN: But you ‑‑

GINGRICH: It’s a prudent thing to develop a green coal plant that takes the carbon and puts it into carbon sequestration to use it to develop oil fields more deeply and can be actually economically done. We do it right now in West Texas.

GLENN: All right. So you believe that you can’t, you can’t really change fundamentally? You would have to vote for the prescription drug bill because you couldn’t move, but you believe that you can get nuclear power plants built in a Gingrich administration?

GINGRICH: Oh, sure. I also think you can reshape Medicare but I think you have to do it in a way that people find it desirable and that people think ‑‑ and that people trust you. I helped reform Medicare in 1996 in a way that saved $200 billion and we had no major opposition to it. And people concluded that we had thought it through and we were doing the right thing and they were comfortable with it.

GLENN: Do you ‑‑ do you still believe in the, you know, the Inconvenient Truth as outlined by global climate change advocates?

GINGRICH: Well, I never believed in Al Gore’s fantasies and, in fact, if you look at the record, the day that Al Gore testified at the Energy and Commerce Committee in favor of cap and trade, I was the next witness and I testified against cap and trade. And in the Senate, I worked through American solutions to help beat the cap and trade bill. Cap and trade was an effort by the left to use the environment as an excuse to get total control over the American economy, centralizing a Washington bureaucracy. In the end it had nothing to do with the environment. It had everything to do with their desire to control our lives.

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.


Glenn is back on TV! Watch Glenn’s new two-hour show available live and on-demand Monday through Friday on! Start your two week free trail HERE!

  • Anonymous

    Bravo Glenn!

  • Pat Pace

    Good job Glenn.  Newt is not the answer.  So far the only choices are Perry, Santorum or Bachmann.

    • Jeremy Merriam


    • Anonymous

      I believe you are correct except that you have the wrong order. Bachmann, Santorum, Perry

    • Marc Matthews

      Three presidential losers, I’ll pass on those choices.. I want Obama out.

    • None

      So our only choices are a RINO and two lightweights?

      Nah man, nah. The only choice is Ron Paul. Just look up his stance. He wants to return to the constitution. Read up on him and you’ll understand. I was as blind as you once. You owe it to yourself, and your nation to sit down with an open mind and read up on his political stances.

    • Paul Giarmoleo

      That thinking gets us Obama again we need someone that can reunite this country our down fall is nothing good gets done and everyone has there hand out Newt or Mitt are good like to have both Romeny great manager of programs Newt better politican at getting things through hopefully will get both

    • Anonymous

      You can scratch Perry off that list. It isn’t any one
      thing that really knocks him out of the race but all of the things taken as a
      whole indicate to me he’s a progressive in Democrat/Republican clothing – which
      ever fits best at the time. Look at the pattern.

      Much like Newt Gingrich, what Rick Perry says in public and what
      his historical actions portray are two different things. I consider him an
      opportunist and a RINO  much the same as
      John McCain, if not an outright One Worlder. Maybe a Progressive plant. The
      following is a sample of Perry’s actions as opposed to his words:


      In 1984, Perry was elected to the Texas House of Representatives
      as a Democrat from a district (64) that included his home county of Haskell. He
      served on the House Appropriations and Calendars committees during his three
      two-year terms in office. He befriended fellow freshman state representative
      Lena Guerrero of Austin, a staunch liberal Democrat who endorsed Perry’s
      reelection bid in 2006 on personal, rather than philosophical, grounds. Perry
      was part of the “Pit Bulls”, a group of Appropriations members who
      sat on the lower dais in the committee room (or “pit”) who pushed for
      austere state budgets during the 1980s.


      Perry supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic presidential
      primaries as chairman of the Gore campaign in Texas.


      In 1989, The Dallas Morning News named him one of the most
      effective legislators in the 71st Legislature. That same year, Perry announced
      that he was joining the Republican Party.


      Trans-Texas Corridor

      Gov. Rick Perry introduced the Trans-Texas Corridor concept in
      2003, calling for a network of broad corridors linking major cities, with toll
      roads for cars and trucks, tracks for freight and passenger rail, and space for
      pipelines and power lines.


      The ambitious proposal to create the Trans-Texas Corridor
      network has been dropped in response to public outcry and will be replaced with
      a plan to carry out road projects at an incremental, modest pace, state
      officials said Tuesday.


      Perry, who was visiting troops in Iraq at the time, said the
      name Trans-Texas Corridor is dead, but the state will continue to look at
      public-private partnerships to build roads, including toll roads.


      “The name Trans-Texas Corridor is over with. We’re going to
      continue to build roads in the state of Texas,” he said. “Our options
      are relatively limited due to Washington’s ineffectiveness from the standpoint
      of being able to deliver dollars or the Legislature to raise the gas tax. So,
      we have to look at some other options.”


      –Typical of a Progressive: don’t change the plan. Change the


      More info:



      But in Texas, Gov. Perry chose to bypass the legislature and on
      Feb. 2, 2007, he issued an executive order making Texas the first state in the
      country requiring all sixth-grade girls to receive the three-shot vaccination
      series (which cost about $120 per shot). The move generated a fierce public
      debate. Conservatives slammed Perry for promoting what they saw as an intrusion
      by the state into private health decisions of parents and their children.


      The controversy over Perry’s decision deepened as it came to
      light that his former chief of staff was a lobbyist for Merck, who manufactures
      Gardasil, and that his chief of staff’s mother-in-law, Rep. Dianne White
      Delisi, was the state director of an advocacy group bankrolled by Merck to push
      legislatures across the country to put forward bills mandating the Gardasil
      vaccine for preteen girls.


      — Perry mandated by EXECUTIVE ORDER, bypassing the Texas
      legislature, that parents pay $360 to vaccinate their daughters with Gardasil.
      Shades of ObamaCare? Executive order rather than legislation? Sound familiar?


      Illegal Immigration


      “New controversy brewing over an old bill signed into law by
      Rick Perry that allows illegal immigrants to attend Texas colleges at in-state
      tuition rates,” writes Joe Gomez for KTRH, a news radio station in Houston. “The
      bill signed into law in 2001 allows illegal immigrants to get in-state tuition
      so long as they intend to apply for permanent residency, but who’s checking to
      make sure they go through with the process?”


      If the law worked as it should, any illegal immigrant applying
      for college tuition would be arrested and sent back to Mexico. Instead, the
      Bilderberg attending Rick Perry — illegal under the Logan Act, effectively
      making Perry a criminal — encourages illegal aliens to violate the border with
      his tuition enticement.


      Bilderberg’s overriding agenda is to establish a world
      government and this entails eliminating national borders.


      Perry syas Texans illegal immigration is a problem for the
      federal government to deal with. He has adopted the National Governors
      Association policy.


      It states that the “decision to admit immigrants is a federal
      one that carries with it a firm federal commitment to shape immigration policy
      within the parameters of available resources we as a nation are determined to
      provide” and the “fiscal impact of immigration decisions must be addressed by
      the federal government. The states, charged with implementing federal policy,
      have shared and are sharing in the costs.”


      This is the same Perry who is supposedly an advocate of states’
      rights and engaged in political opportunism during Tea Party events. MSNBC and
      the limo libs in Washington have absurdly labeled Perry an advocate of
      secession. This fiction plays right into the false right-left paradigm the
      elite loves to encourage and promote.


      — Here’s the nasty thing about illegal immigration that no one
      is talking about: in any given population of people a low percentage of that
      population (typically less that 1%) is psychotic killers. So if we take just
      half of that (0.5%) and apply it to the 12,000,000 illegal immigrants in
      America, 60,000 of them are psychotic killers. 0.5% is a statistically
      insignificant number unless, of course, you are one of the victims. And that’s
      the point legal/illegal immigration isn’t about statistics – it’s about
      individuals. The point of legal immigration is vetting the individuals.
      Illegal immigration bypasses the entire process. And so does any kind of



      In light of the ongoing debacle that is the Texas State Board of
      Education, Rick Perry’s remarks about preparing students for “any
      job” is laughable. In this very serious interview with the very
      conservative Heritage Foundation, Perry brags about how he rejects Federal
      money for Texas schools.


      In order to preserve their “unique curriculum”, Perry
      rejects adherence to Federal standards for students, or any national curriculum
      plan. Of course he does, because that would mean they’d have to put Jefferson
      back in and change those references to “free market principles” back
      to “capitalism”. Students might actually have an opportunity to study
      literature that’s not propaganda disguised, and open their minds a little.


      Rick Perry’s report card: F at


      Same Sex Marriage

      Rick Perry supports the 10th Amendment except when he doesn’t.
      When New York legalized same-sex marriage, Perry first said, “That’s New
      York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me.” But he soon
      reversed course, endorsing the Federal Marriage Amendment, which says marriage
      “shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.”


      Perry tries to reconcile the contradiction by insisting that
      he’s merely trying to keep activist federal judges from overruling the states
      that limit matrimony to its traditional form. He fears the U.S. Supreme Court
      may someday rule that gays have a constitutional right to wed their partners.


      But that’s not an argument for a constitutional amendment to ban
      same-sex marriage. It’s an argument for a constitutional amendment to guarantee
      states the right to ban it.


      Perry is straining to make two and two equal five. “The
      support of a marriage amendment is a pro-states’ rights position,” he
      says, “because it will defend the rights of states to define marriage as
      it has been.” This is like saying that a draft protects a young man’s
      right to serve in the military.


      Islamic connections:


    • Jeremy Torgerson

      Please. All three of them combined aren’t polling where Newt is.

      Why do we conservatives always line up in a circle when we form a firing squad?

  • Anonymous

    Great interview.  Beck was at his best and Newt showed why he is in the lead–Romney was brought to his knees by Brett Baier. Beck would have him crying for mommy.

    If this is turbulence….Newt was like a veteran pilot…went to a higher altitude and sounded very Presidential.

    • toldya

      Did you read the interview?? He sounded like a globalist wacko (which he is).

    • William Bell

      Incoherent blather is Presidential?

    • Anonymous

      The problem is that the media told you that Romney botched his interview with Bret Bair, and you believed the media.

      Newt is just another compassionate conservative, or “green conservative.”  If Newt gets the nomination, it will take the ObaMedia exactly one month to give him the same negative poll numbers ObaMao has now, with their protection.

      • AminCad

        Romney supported the bank bailout. He has no plan to reform the Fed. 

  • anonymous

    So what’s the big deal here? Glenn asked some tough questions and Newt handled them well.

    • snowleopard (cat folk gallery)

      Newt is the political version of a Shou Lung master of the martial arts; he is dodging and deflecting as much as he can of Glenns iron tipped questions; while trying to pass on as much of his message as he could sneak by Glenn.

      We have seen a true master of the soft arts at hand; whereas Mr Obama is one of the ‘use the blunt iron fist’ instead in all things. BOTH are just as dangerous to the Republic in the end.

    • Anonymous

      Question NOT asked: “Newt, do you think all the candidates should be able to pass the FEDS ‘E-VERIFY’ system, before being nominated by their party?”


    • Javier

      I don’t see anything that is a problem BUT I did notice something HUGE.  Glenn Beck is fun to listen to (when my internet is up) but insanely boring to read on text.  This article was the worst!

    • Anonymous

      Do you know how to read? Are you truly content with Newt’s responses. If you are you must be a big government Democrat.

      • Christopher Morgan Gilcrest

        right on

      • Anonymous

        I’m almost as afraid of Newt as I am of Obama.

    • Robert

      I agree, nothing happen here, if anything I more consfuse over where they stand on subjects they talk about?!?

    • Christopher Morgan Gilcrest

      and showed all conservatives why he does not deserve to head up the Tea Party banner or the conservative wing, just Obama on slow speed

    • Brian E

      The big deal is that Newt is not the establishments first pick. Although I am a Ron Paul supporter, I agree that Newt has held his positions through the interview. He happens to be a republican that shares many views with the democrats, anyone who researched the guy already knew this. Now that he has risen in the polls, they will try to crush him and steer his votes to Romney.

    • Anonymous

      No…NEWT “handled” them by advancing and retreating.  It is the Dance of the NEWT!  He is FOR big government when HE thinks it is necessary but AGAINST it when it is someone else’s plan.  He was AGAINST Ryan’s Medicare remake until this interview but now he is FOR it…but not THIS year…maybe NEXT YEAR.  He is FOR insurance mandates for individuals but he wants plans that will allow people to migrate voluntarily to them….do you not SEE this waffling when it is going on right before your eyes?

      • Free — Make Money Online!

        I really wish you’d read his response again. Now please note that I hold no great love for Newt except that I’d vote for him over Obama any day. 
        Here’s what he said in simpler terms:
        Do you like Ryan’s plan?
        Personally, yes. 
        Would you enforce Ryan’s plan if it is unpopular?
        No, because that would be like Obama pushing his healthcare bill down the people’s throat. 
        This is where he said that social-engineering is wrong from both left and right – that if a bill is unpopular you shouldn’t push it unless you can change it a little to get rid of that which is unpopular with the people or you can explain it to the people so they support it.
        I do not see how that is at all against conservative principles.

        He is FOR individual insurance mandates – as long as people have the choice. He doesn’t want to enforce a single option that washington decides on. Again – that is the essence of conservative thought – let the people choose, not the government.

        His climate change stuff – even though I think he needs to get with the program and see it’s a massive scam to steal wealth from developed nations to transfer to the third-world while benefiting UN officials along the way, look at what he’s suggesting:
        1. Subsidize private sector to help develop sources of energy that are clean and cheap.
        2. Subsidize private sector in US to explore and develop domestic sources of energy so America is energy independent.

        Both are conservative ideas except that he wants it to be subsidized by the government. 

        Now, I know many of us oppose taxes and subsidies of any sort, but it’s a basic economic principle that subsidizing certain activities in the private sector can help boost them. So again – he’s sticking to his ideas and they are defensible and not totally off base. 

        I only ask one thing – STOP DEMONIZING. Follow Raegan’s advice and stop attacking fellow conservatives that we disagree with on some issues. Criticize them, but respectfully – not in a way that makes the Left’s job easier.

        • AminCad

          “Would you enforce Ryan’s plan if it is unpopular?
          No, because that would be like Obama pushing his healthcare bill down the people’s throat. ”

          The people have no right to force a plan on the minority. If the Ryan plan reduces government mandates on people, it should be supported, regardless of what percentage of the population opposes it. That’s what the government in a Republic does: it protects people’s rights and their liberty. A democracy does any thing that the majority wants, no matter how tyrannical.

    • Mike South

      Wow–he supported the individual mandate and reiterates that support, supports government climate change intervention, believes that the government did a GOOD thing by creating the railroad robber barons…and you say he handled it well.  I can see why you posted anonymously.

  • Anonymous

    The interview was very informative and to the point.  Newt and Glenn respect each other and because of that, a lot of the BS is eliminated.  I’m not exactly sure what your motive is in labeling this story as a “disturbance”.  It’s no secret that we can count on Glenn to ask straight-forward questions and not dance around the issues.  Each interview Glenn does is 10 times more informative than what we can read from the main stream media, who continue to support Obama’s agenda to bring this country down.  Maybe Newt is the one.  At least, we have had a truthful interview to answer our questions.

  • The Breeze

    If it looks like a lizard, sounds like a lizard, and smells like a lizard…it’s a NEWT. Get lost you checked pants RINO.



      • None


  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul 2012

    • Wrabble

      Paul is too old for most voters.  He’d be the same age – 77 – STARTING a Presidency that Reagan was FINISHING his.

      It doesn’t matter how healthy he is now. The odds of a healthy person his age getting Alzheimers or dementia during a Presidency are just far too high.

      • Anonymous

         Yes, yes.., the same thing they said about McCain ( and he is still serving in Congress… unfortunately ).

        Ron Paul will do well in a general election and has the best chance of
        winning out of the Repub field because he is the only candidate who can
        take votes AWAY from Obama . ( Gingrich and Romney do not have the
        crossover appeal that Ron Paul does to attract disaffected Liberal and
        Democrat voters. He already has huge support amongst Independent voters
        and we all know they sway the election. )……

        The problem with the ABO think ( anyone but Obama ) is that will elect
        Obama -lite. While the country may last a little longer.., it will not
        solve the true underlying problems and just prolongs the end. It is
        disingenuous of people who yell and scream about the constitution to
        support Gingrich or Romney.., both men who have shown themselves ( by
        word and deed ) to be supporters of Big Government. Romney = individual
        mandate in Massachusetts Gingrich = cap and trade ( both have
        flip-flopped positions by now.., but.. )

        Ron Paul is the only candidate who has the record, values and has the economic knowledge to turn things around.

        Foreign policy note : US foreign policy has flip-flopped as much as Romney and
        Gingrich. In the 1970’s the US wanted Iran to be a nuclear state :……

      • Patty Mastella Rakus

        Lots of Presidents were old…….AND WISER……..Get with the program and open your eyes!

        • Jeremy Torgerson

          Reagan was past his prime by 1988 and was YOUNGER then than Paul would be going IN.

          No thanks.

          • AminCad

            Paul still bikes miles a day. He was a star athlete and intelligent enough to be a doctor.

      • Seth Moore

        we used that logic in the past election, seems to be working well!

      • Anonymous

        Okay, so he just needs to pick a young VP, how about his son Rand. I’d definitely vote for that ticket!

      • Dubstep Distribution

        That’s a BS comment to make.

      • Rothbardian

        Ohhhh he’s too old!  Great argument.

        Besides, a Ron Paul with dementia would still be better than any of these other statists.

      • Frank Broughton

        To old eh? Who hit the home run recently in the congressional baseball game? Ron Paul – age is irrelevant!

      • Anonymous

        The odds are not that high.  Back it up with evidence, don’t just shoot out some supposed fact.

      • Dereck Hayes

        Everyone said the same BS when John McCain was running against BO. Its a rotgut excuse. 

      • Stephen

        What a ridiculous statement. Health matters before age. Franklin was 80 in 1785 when elected Governor of PA.

        • Wrabble

          Back in the1700s they had never heard of Alzheimers.  Do some study on the web – you’ll find that the incidence of Alzheimers or another form of dementia is quite high, especially around age 85.

          Reagan was diagnosed with it when he was 82 and he probably had it before then.  It’s a question of odds.  Alzheimers strikes the healthy just as it does the unhealthy.

          From: Disqus
          Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 10:25 AM
          Subject: [glennbeck] Re: Transcript of Newt Gingrich interview

          Disqus generic email template

          Stephen wrote, in response to Wrabble:
          What a ridiculous statement. Health matters before age. Franklin was 80 in 1785 when elected Governor of PA. Link to comment

      • Anonymous

        Oh yeah, right, I guess I better vote for Obama then. How stupid is that logic? Are you a soothsayer?? Got any solid picks for this year’s bowl games? I was planning on going to vegas. Better yet, when am I gonna die? I wanna plan a huge awesome vacation that I will never have to pay for. Thanks in advance.

        • Wrabble

          You might as well support Obama because every dollar and minute spent supporting Paul is the same as spending that dollar and minute supporting Obama.

          From: Disqus
          Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2011 10:34 AM
          Subject: [glennbeck] Re: Transcript of Newt Gingrich interview

          Disqus generic email template

          Paul__Revere wrote, in response to Wrabble:
          Oh yeah, right, I guess I better vote for Obama then. How stupid is that logic? Are you a soothsayer?? Got any solid picks for this year’s bowl games? I was planning on going to vegas? Better yet, when am I gonna die? I wanna plan a huge awesome vacation that I will never have to pay for. Thanks in advance. Link to comment

    • Marc Matthews

      Ron Who?

      Oh that guy who thinks terrorism is “just a crime” and doesn’t seem to accept that American interests need to be protected outside our borders?

      • Rothbardian
      • Robert MacPherson

        So terrorism isn’t a crime? What is it then? He believes you can’t fight a war on an idea, like terrorism, and that terrorism is a crime. It is a way of fighting a war, not something you can wage war on. Not to mention the stupidity of you’re second statement. “No one has ever benefited from prolonged warfare.” -Sun Tzu said that, and believe me, he knew a lot more about warfare than you do. 

        • Eric J. Butcher

          Terrorism is a tactic one employs when conventional warfare is not a option or a sucidal option for a opposition force. Its similar to Gorilla warfare with the exception that implicitly targets Civilians to destroy the moral of a enemy force. This is a “War Crime” not a civilian crime. We are at war like or not. Not with terrorism but with radical islamists. Paul’s refusal to acknowledge that fact and his 19th century foreign policy beliefs that the oceans can act as barriers to terrorism in a modern world are disqualifying positions to me.

          • Derrel Walters

            However, you would have me to believe that expanding United States’ military interests (infrastructure) abroad is the best way to influence the world?

          • Derrel Walters

            Is that how you envision America garnering positive attention from other nations and people? 

            I ask you:  What should the world look like 100 years from now?  What do you predict will be the U.S.’s foreign military policy then?  

      • Arya Zar Bagherpour

        Ron Paul is the only one who can beat Obama.

        • Peter Wagner

          Ron Paul comes across like your crotchety old grandfather lecturing you on some obscure aspect of the New Deal. While I’d vote for ANY GOP candidate, in a  debate Obama will make Paul look like a bumbling senior citizen – as he has already looked like in a few of the GOP debates.

          • Sentimental M

            Ron Paul would anihilate Obama in a debate, given the chance. Role of the government, monetary policy, undeclared wars, welfare state, corporatism… I don’t see where Obama could have the higher ground. Could be the largest winning margin in recent history with all the independents and anti-war people flocking to Paul. 

          • Anonymous

            He has some good points I agree. But, if you think he could be at Obama you are either a dreamer or stupid.  which sometimes goes hand in hand.  Furthermore, the guy has no concept of war. And believe me war is a way to peace whether you like it or not. And  I would rather us be the victor. Because, no country will be so nice when they are finished.

          • AdanR

            You should change your name to PatriotAct instead of Patriot1775. The reasons the minutemen fought in Lexington and Concord seems to escape you.

          • Anonymous

            Really? Is that the reason he seemed lost or, asleep during the debates. Or maybe he’s just off in another world. I never intended to vote for him but, when he said we should “be friendly with Iran” that lowered my vision of him. He lost all respect I had for him when he pulled a democrat dirty trick on Newt by publishing an ad which had been hand picked sound bites taken out of context, totally misleading.
            The only ones flocking to Paul are those who do not know the real R. Paul.. or.. are wanting to use him to insure obama has 4 more years to “complete his job” which is, the destruction of America.

          • AminCad

            @12wlw12:disqus ,
            Newt supported the individual mandate, supported the bank bailout, and supported the creation of Jimmy Carter’s Federal Department of Education in 1980. He has no commitment to the limited Constitutional government that classical conservatives support.

            Newt has taken MILLIONS of $$$ from major corporations to support major federal programs that have cost the tax payer, both present and future, hundreds of billions of $$$.

            Newt is not competent and doesn’t have enough integrity to put America back on the right track. You know nothing about Paul or Newt, if you support the latter over the former.

          • Bob Thomas

            AminCad so have you bothered to follow any of his statements regarding the Dept of Education since it’s inception?  Have you read his book, Real Change?  When the department was first created it was based on certain goals and desires at the time.  Obviously, as we all have seen it has gone far far away from those goals and is quite utterly useless.  Gingrich has spoken out against that.  Just because you were for the creation of something based on the then stated goals and requirements doesn’t mean that later on when you see where it’s at now, that you can’t decide it’s not in the country’s best interest to keep it. It’s like (and this is the broad end of the spectrum), when GM introduced the Chevy Volt..good concept, promised a lot of new things and improvements so people bought that based on the design, promises and information that was given by Chevy before launch.  We now see what has happened.  would you castigate the car owner for buying the vehicle under those conditions?

          • Anonymous

            Also, Adan either you don’t know how to reply or you just have no spine to reply to me directly. Just like a squishy jelly fish who will be the loudest caller to action once it’s on your doorstep.      
               Adan…What in blazes are you implying? War is necessary. On the account of most countries. Look at the past. You proved my point about us winning and them losing. Imagine if we didn’t go to war with the British? War is no good I understand but, would you tell your child not to fight for himself. Not every choice our government makes is right but, waiting  for bad people to do bad things is not the answer. ie: an attack on your wife or child…would you not intervene with as much force as possible no matter the after effects. Wake up man or become a statistic.

          • Rothbardian

            Yeah who cares about facts in history? I doubt this Ron Paul would look foolish:

          • Clarity-jane Seer

            with his age comes wisdom you fool! Obama is a useless puppet who can’t compete with  Ron Pauls wisdom and knowledge! and he dosen’t require a teleprompter! Ron Paul with destroy Obama and Americans will get their American back from your governmental terriortists! 

          • Michael Miller

            I have to agree with Peter Wagner as he comes across as crotchety or more Ross Perot. Please do not get me wrong as I like him and agree with him a lot except for foreign policy. He is completely wrong on Iran.

          • Anonymous

            Just be careful when going to War against Iran. Russia is a big supporter & China, your current Masters are sitting on the side lines looking on, whilst brokering a strong business relation ship with one another. The War you rush into may be the last one you watch from a distance. So, be very careful when talking all high and mighty about killing innocent people for their oil. The innocent people being killed may end up being your family & friends in your neighborhood. Listen to Ron Paul, stay out of entangling alliances, it will be the end of your country.    

          • Anonymous

            1) I love Ron Paul but I also think his ideas on foreign policy are wrong.
            2) Ron Paul has done ok in the debates.  I’m not sure how he’d do against Obama.
            3) (@ DS177) Iran does have a defense pact with Russia.  And China is watching all this.  But Iran is also trying to build a nuclear weapon and openly declaring that it intends to destroy the US and Israel.  Yes, there’s a risk to a pre-emptive strike to remove their capacity to make a nuclear weapon.  But it’s very misleading to point out the cost of one action without considering the cost of the alternative.  A nuclear Iran could end up costing us far more in the long run.

          • Anonymous

            It also causes some to live in the past rather than the present. you know what the bible says about the dangers of calling anyone a fool?

          • AminCad


            “He is completely wrong on Iran.”

            No he is not. Iran has a military budget of $9 billion, or 1/80th of the US’s military budget.

            The fear-mongering about Iran is exactly the same as that about Iraq. Paul warned about the war propaganda about Iraq when the case was being made for war against it:


            And he’s warning about the war propaganda about Iran now:


            The IAEA report has been hyped up as evidence that Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon, when in reality there is no new evidence in the report:


            But the report—arguably the most anticipated document of its kind since the NPT was first advanced in 1968—does not in any way demonstrate that Iran is “developing a nuclear weapon”.  Rather, it once again affirms, as the IAEA has for decades, Iran’s “non-diversion” of nuclear material.  In other words, even if the Islamic Republic wanted to build nuclear weapons (and Tehran continues to deny, at the highest levels of authority, that it wishes to do so) it does not have the weapons-grade material essential to the task.    

            Nevertheless, Amano chose to focus the report on unsubstantiated intelligence reports, provided almost entirely by the United States, Israel, and other Western governments, alleging that the Islamic Republic is working on a nuclear weapons program.  Most of this information has been available to the IAEA for years.  But Baradei refused to publicize it during his tenure as the Agency’s chief—because he could neither corroborate it nor be confident about its provenance and quality.  Remember, Baradei had been right about the state of Iraq’s nuclear program in 2002, when all of the intelligence services and national governments that would later try getting him spun up about Iran had been spectacularly wrong.  And he was not going to let the United States or anyone else steamroller him on Iran.      

            Amano, unfortunately, does not bring the same kind of intellectual and political integrity to his job as his predecessor.  The United States, Israel, and other Western governments had to work hard to get the IAEA’s Board of Governors to elect Amano in 2009, by the narrowest possible margin, barely overcoming a challenge from South Africa’s distinguished ambassador to the Agency, Abdul Minty.  But Washington and its allies got what they wanted.  An October 2009 cable from the U.S. mission to the IAEA, published last year by Wikileaks, see here, reported that Amano had “reminded [the U.S. Ambassador to the IAEA] on several occasions that he would need to make concessions” at times to developing countries, “but that he was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision”, including “the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.”    

            For 30 years, an Iranian nuclear bomb has been imminent:


            1992: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon – and that the threat had to be “uprooted by an international front headed by the US.”

            1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres tells French TV that Iran was set to have nuclear warheads by 1999. “Iran is the greatest threat and greatest problem in the Middle East,” Peres warned, “because it seeks the nuclear option while holding a highly dangerous stance of extreme religious militanCY.”


            1995: The New York Times conveys the fears of senior US and Israeli officials that “Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought” – about five years away – and that Iran’s nuclear bomb is “at the top of the list” of dangers in the coming decade. The report speaks of an “acceleration of the Iranian nuclear program,” claims that Iran “began an intensive campaign to develop and acquire nuclear weapons” in 1987, and says Iran was “believed” to have recruited scientists from the former Soviet Union and Pakistan to advise them.

            1997: The Christian Science Monitor reports that US pressure on Iran’s nuclear suppliers had “forced Iran to adjust its suspected timetable for a bomb. Experts now say Iran is unlikely to acquire nuclear weapons for eight or 10 years.”

          • AminCad

            ” But Iran is also trying to build a nuclear weapon and openly declaring that it intends to destroy the US and Israel.”

            No it hasn’t. Stopped believing the propagandists who want you to support a war against another Middle Eastern country. They’re lying.

          • AminCad

            The neocon Republicans can’t beat Obama, because they come across as racist morons. Paul polls best against Obama.

        • Anonymous

          I doubt that’s true. But he is certainly the only one who can beat Obama that will actually make a difference for the better.

        • Tom

          You can’t seriously believe that.

          • nupe777

            I do. If we don’t get a proven anti-big government establishment/military empire candidate, a third party candidate (doesn’t have to be Ron Paul) will come along and split the vote. Too many people are no longer willing to vote for the lesser of 2 evils and will either vote 3rd party or write in Paul’s name so that Obama will end up winning a second term.

          • chris

            Exactly.  Ron Paul or none at all.

        • Anonymous

          As a Libertarian who strongly believes in much smaller government, returning power to the states and who actually voted for Barr in 2008, I can’t get behind Wrong Paul.

          Wrong Paul lives in the 70’s:

          With plenty of government that needs eliminationg, he wants to “end the Federal Reserve”? Great idea in the 70’s when those morons were using interest rates to control money supply (before Regan). No one under 40 remembers nightly business reports of M1,M2, & M3. Since then, the Fed has used interest rates to SUCCESSFULLY control inflation. 30 years of ONLY 3% inflation is the envy of the developed world!!! Wrong Paul’s ideas would let the Chinese control the worlds economics. Uncontroled costs, like college, have gone up 7% per year!!!

          “End the wars”? Great idea in the 70’s, not so great with millions and millions of Muslims trying to kill us from all directions, and they will NEVER stop.

          “Legalize all drugs”? A few perhaps—but still the 70’s, and no excuse to let the youth of today give us ANOTHER ignorant destroyer of America like Obama.

          • Anonymous

            Are you serious? 3% inflation?! Which Presidency have you been watching? Been to the grocery store lately? They estimate at least 15% inflation in goods and services since last year alone! Smaller containers and a bigger price- and that’s what 3% inflation gets you? Haha! SS is getting a cost of living increase next year because Housing Inflation went up 7% (practically overnight) earlier this quarter- do you not remember that?

            There is something called “unintended consequences” when you try to say they have only “successfully” controlled inflation. Haha.

            And, yes, let us do talk about the 70’s and inflation. Specifically, let’s talk about the little policies, known as the “Nixon Shock” in which the economy was placed on a Fiat Currency System. These measures indeed have cost us greatly. How can the fed “Successfully” control inflation when there is nothing concrete to tie the inflation to? I say good luck with that theory.

            There is much more I could say about what you wrote, but I don’t have the time.

          • chris

            You voted for Mr. reduce-the-government-by-5% Barr, but NOT Ron Paul.

            Fed, War, and drugs are all issues where we need to have an abrupt change in policy, because none of our current tracks are anywhere near successful.

          • AminCad

            Haha at you claiming to be a libertarian. You’re about as libertarian as Comrade Trotsky.

        • Mark Finney

          LOL!  My smelly socks can beat Obama!  Lets elect the best person to represent “WE THE PEOPLE”—-PLEASE! 

          M. BACHMAN is true, loyal, and GOoD (for We The People)  and she can send a nuke to Iran (something Paul could not do) while putting on her makeup on!

          • Justin Lark

            Blow them all up, that has been working so well. you can’t prevent war with war.

          • AminCad

            You’re been brainwashed to hate and want war. Another war will bankrupt the US, and kill millions of innocent people in Iran.

        • Jay Lorenz

          Ron Paul is the only one who CAN’T beat Obama.

          • chris

            According to polls release today (12-6-11) he is the ONLY Republican to beat Obama.

        • AdanR

          Right, because people are going to vote for the pro-government guy with 80 ethics charges, kickbacks in the million dollar range from Freddie Mack, and three wives of which 2 he had an affair with over the community organizer who would do the same pro-government policies but at least energizes dissent.

          • chris

            He actually predicted that Osama bin Laden would do it, too.  I wonder how he knew that…?  Maybe he read it…?


        • Scott Phillips

          Ron Paul is the sole candidate that could make me vote for Obama. His military policy would destroy our country. I have great respect for him and I like most of what he says, but he has no grasp of military strategy. He doesn’t understand war in the slightest. If I felt he could handle the military then I would probably vote for him. However, no issue is more important to me than military.

          • AminCad

            He gets more donations from military personnel than all of the other Republican candidates combined:


            The US government starting wars with countries on the other side of the planet is bankrupting America. If India, China, Europe and Russia are not paranoid about third world countries in the Middle East, why is America, which is two oceans away?

        • JPeditor

          a/ vote for RP is a vote for Øbowmao.

          b/ RP went on Iranian TV and pissed on America and told the jihadis to go ahead and make nucelar war on Israel AND ON OUR GULF ALLIES.

          c/ Most RP “supporters” are closet Øbamunistts – if RP is not the republican nominee, RP supporters will vote Øbowmao or stay home on mommy’s couch with their bong playing video games.

          • Anonymous

            I will be voting for Ron Paul in 2012 no matter what.  Newt and Romney are just as bad as Obama, and I won’t vote for anyone who thinks spending isn’t the problem, or who thinks we need a 6th war to completely bankrupt the country.

        • JPeditor

          a/ vote for RP is a vote for Øbowmao.

          b/ RP went on Iranian TV and pissed on America and told the jihadis to go ahead make nuclear war on Israel AND ON OUR GULF ALLIES.

          c/ Most RP “supporters” are closet Øbamunistts – if RP is not the republican nominee, RP supporters will vote Øbowmao or stay home on mommy’s couch with their bong playing video games.

        • Anonymous

          Ron Paul is the one willing to split the votes and keep obama in our White House! And, for that reason, you hope he will.
          Ron Paul has skated through 30 years in Congress in his own little world. I can not remember ever seeing him on ‘The Floor’ speaking for or against anything. The only thing he has ever done is vote, then run back into his secure little hole and dream.

          • AminCad

            You need to watch this video and get better informed, because what you’re claiming is completely detached from reality:


        • PatReilly

          As much as I like Ron Paul, I believe that libertarian views are just a tad too radical for the average American. The media will do one hell of a hatchet job on Mr Paul if he ever did get the nomination. My fear is that he will run as an Independent and that would guaranttee an obama win in 2012. Now if Mr Paul were to start his 3rd party after the election, that would give him 4 years to really get his message across and maybe avoid a smear job by the media.

        • Meredith

          Ron Paul has the personality of a cement block and dismisses anyone that sees things differently from him.  His view on making gold a currency and not putting a wall between us and Mexico is too bizarre and out there for me

        • w. Parker

          Paul and Bachman are the only two who can assure Obama has another 4 years in the WH.  All the others, other than Newt, are irelevant and should have dropped out a month ago.  Newt, the most intelligent and experienced, has promised that John Bolton will be Sec of State.  John Bolton, a great man and probably the most experienced person on foreign affairs in washington in the past 100 years, is good enough to run for president himself.  Newt is the only one too that can “pluck” the feathers off Obama in a debate like plucking feathers from a chicken.  No one else has that ability.

        • Anonymous

          The only way Ron Paul could beat Obama is if he slipped up behind him and hit him with a bat. Paul tries each four years to push his ideas and the thinking people reject him. If he runs as a third party candidate he will be beaten so badly that it will knock him completely out of the spotlight.

      • Sentimental M

        So American interests need to be protected outside our borders? What if Russian interests need to be protected outside their borders and happen to be located in America? Will you apply your sane logic? Or is America the only nation in the world who is allowed to protect its interests in foreign contries?

        • Anonymous

          You seem to be confused about who your friends and enemies are.

          • Sentimental M

            How am I confused? One thing I know though is that you don’t make friends by invading their homes without permission.

          • Bill Chapman

            A country has to look out for its interests, internal and external – or it will lose out over time to those which do (as has been the case lately).  We are much better off when respected and even feared for our influence and capabilities, rather than simply liked.  To be isolationist is to shoot ourselves in the foot – it is itself a grave threat to our security and the likelihood of our long term continued existence as a country.

            I like RP, but he’s dead wrong here, as are you.  Obama has already proven that the nice guy approach works against US security.  We don’t need to alienate others, but we can’t pretend that niceties and an internal focus will suffice.

          • Eric Russell

            We are friends with Germany, Italy, and Japan but we invaded their homes without their permission.  We were doing our best to stay out of foreign entanglements in 1941 but we were still attacked by the Axis powers.  Why did they attack us if we were doing our best to stay out of the war like Ron Paul would have wanted us to do if he was in Congress at that time?

          • Derrel Walters

            What many repliers are not taking into account is that China, Russia, etc., while they surely have foreign espionage programs, they are not burdened with the huge financial price it takes to support the massive military infrastructure the U.S. has abroad.

            This is the age of technology.  These other large countries largely take advantage of espionage through electronic means, which is a much more efficient tactic.

            We would be safer with our military at home, and the economic demand they supplied would create a great many jobs.  After all, those people have needs and wants.  Right now, our military is spending that hard earned tax payer money abroad!

        • Anonymous

          Russian and Chinese are already attacking this country with spies, hackers, and other forms of covert influence to protect their interests. Where have you been?

          • Sentimental M

            So you’re comfortable with it? What if they start using drones or toppling officials and replacing them with their picks? You’re ok with that is that what you’re sayin?

          • Eric Russell

            No one is comfortable with Chinese and Russian espionage and sabotage in the US but if we stop trying to protect our interests in other countries do you really think China and Russia would do the same? To me it akin to saying that if we got rid of all of our nuclear weapons then the world would be more peaceful.  Obviously it wouldn’t because China and Russia and North Korea wouldn’t get rid of their weapons just because we did.  I thought we learned our lesson about Ron Paul style isolationism in World War 2.  I like a lot of what Ron Paul says but he is so wrong on the foreign policy front

          • nupe777

            All the more reason to focus our interests at home rather than policing the world and handing out borrowed money to rich leaders in poor countries.

            If Russia and China were to gain a foothold in the US you can bet American militia “terrorists” would do something about it.

        • Anonymous

          yes!! And if you don’t like it stay out of the United States. History shows our way is the best ever seen in history. Why don’t you go back and read some history and see how great your world was when we were not involved.

          • Sentimental M

            Uh ok, well I read about some guys like George Washington who advised to avoid entanglements with foreign nations, or Thomas Jefferson who said things like “I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be.”Sounds crazy eh?

        • Anonymous

          Russia aka former Soviet Union have been and are protecting their interests outside their borders.  Iran comes to mind.  Who is building oops helping them build their future nuclear bomb oops nuclear reactor? 

      • PDQ Solutions

        Sure because bombing countries for the last 10, going on 11 years, has worked out so wonderfully for us. You know, the Soviets collapsed trying to be the police man / agenda pusher while the population was ignored at home. When the Soviets started intervening in Cuba and in Africa is when the bubble was bursting because so much money and resources were being wasted to create a massive military.

        I don’t know about you but I don’t want to live in a Cold War 2.0 with terrorism now the “cold war” enemy rather than the Soviets. 

        • Anonymous

          So we should just let wait till they get here, and then give them a ticket for parking their van filled with explosives in a no parking zone?

        • Peter Wagner

          The enemy is Islam. Until America quits being so PC about it, we will be fighting such wars until one side wins .

      • Bill DeBerg

        Terrorism?  Reduce the size and scope of intelligence agencies and you will see less terrorism.  Im willing to bet that  you can’t even name ONE act of terrorism in the last 50 years that doesn’t have tons and tons of evidence that it was a false flag, or self inflicted wound.  

        (9/11 inside job. Oklahoma City same thing, Pearl Harbor, history has shown us the truth there as del, bombing of the Maine, London 7/7 Spain 8/8 (same drill).  The Russian airport massacre a couple years ago lead by CIA, all of the drugs shipped in, CIA, the entire lie about WMDs….lies, lies, Cheney did the Anthrax attacks, everyone already knows that.)  You have a better chance of being struck by lightning but you think there is a terrorist under your bed.  You have been fooled.  These “terror” events was all in preparation to come and get us American, gun owning, conservative, returning vets.  Its never been about the “Muslim threat”. 

        They sold you the “act of war” thing when you were cheerleading for Bush.  
        Ron Paul is Americas Ninevah

        RON PAUL 2012

        • Anonymous

          ANd the tooth fairy came last night and got my front toof’s!

        • Jason Clark

          As a Ron Paul supporter, I do NOT support this comment. I am all for ending the Fed and think our intelligence agencies have probably done as much harm as good, but when you say that every attack was done by our own government you come off as a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. It doesn’t help Paul, it only gives his detractors fodder to say, “He is a crazy frindge candidate.”
          Not trying to limit your speech or tell you what to think, but just telling you if you really want Paul to win, then don’t post things like this.

          • Jeff Clark

            It sucks having to endure having the same last name as you you know that…tinfoil hat?…your a joke Jason, you troll. I can only hope there is no family relations between us, and if there were, I would probably be the cousin that beats your a** and makes you cry whenever you come over. 

        • Jon Jenson

          Great post.  If Ron Paul shares your view of the world, he’s sure to win. And, if he does win, I’m sure we’ll be better-off after he’s had a chance to implement those not-so-radical Social and Foreign Policy ideas he has.  DELUSIONAL ANARCHISTIC ISOLATIONISM HERE WE COME!   WHEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

      • 바네스마크

        You know the guy that’s acctually been consistent on issues relevant to the American people.  that guy,  yeah… we’re not going to give up the fight for restoring our constitution!  Newt has flipped and flopped depending on whos paying him this week… and in his own words.. “What will you tell us next time?”

      • Daniel Tipping

        A ‘war’ on terrorism has had the same results as the ‘war’ on drugs and the ‘war’ on poverty.

        Net results: More drugs and violence, more poverty, and more terrorism.

        It is distressing to see that most Americans are unable to recognize a ‘Chinese Finger Trap’.

      • Brian E

        1. Terrorism is a crime and the defining factors are often vague, fighting a “war with no end” is eroding many of our freedoms at home. 2. Although we can all agree that our Country has interests outside of the USA, there is a difference of opinion on the role we should be playing. We are an expanding empire on the verge of financial ruin, many of us fear that a collapse will actually expose us to more risk at home and we should pull back a bit.

      • Kevin Gamble

        Yeah, lets keep spending billions on these failed wars and let our borders be over ran and keep letting illegals flood in. Ron Paul 2012

        • Anonymous

          This comment has so much crap it shouldnt have a substantive response

      • Brian E

        1. Terrorism is a crime and the defining factors are often vague, fighting a “war with no end” is eroding many of our freedoms at home. 2. Although we can all agree that our Country has interests outside of the USA, there is a difference of opinion on the role we should be playing. We are an expanding empire on the verge of financial ruin, many of us fear that a collapse will actually expose us to more risk at home and we should pull back a bit.

      • Anonymous

        I don’t think he ever said that, check your sources

      • Anonymous

        Actually Terrorism is a war on the Dumb ass American population that are too stupid to see, that whilst their government rapes other Nations under the false pretense of “Terrorism”. They use that same bullshit, made up concept on the Americans themselves, by passing legislation that robs them of all their rights & freedoms, whilst the sheeple say “Thank you Obama, you saved us.” You better start asking yourselves exactly who is saving you from whom? Maybe the Government is saving themselves from the Americans that are waking up in droves daily, that have their second amendment rights still intact, and who not before too long will have to use them against the real “Terrorists” in the White House & Federal Reserve System.

      • Derrel Walters

        Hello Marc,

        Suppose some fifty years from now China is the super power of the world.  In addition, let’s assume there is some gang in Los Angeles that is reigning hell on Chinese interests in Chinatown.

        Well, China as the super power of the world certainly could not tolerate such harm to come to the nation’s people abroad.  So, in response China secretly buys a  large portion of property through the back door and begins installing a military infrastructure to combat violence against the people of Chinatown.  Soon, Chinese funded interests are battling the gang on American soil.

        I ask you Marc.  What should the response of American citizens be to such a hypothetical situation?  Should we fight?  Should we attack the occupiers?


      • David Niles Jr

        Ron Paul, 

        the guy who thinks our country would be better off if we stop policing the world and mind our OWN business. 
        Ron Paul,
        The guy who said we need to audit the federal reserve and abolish it (7 TRILLION dollars they gave to the bankers)
        Ron Paul, 
        who has a spotless record and is the most consistent politician in Washington DC…then yeah, that’s him!!

      • AminCad

        Terrorism IS a crime, and so is murder and rape. “Crime” doesn’t mean “not serious”.

        “American interests need to be protected outside our borders?”

        What American interests are being protected by the US spending $2 trillion occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, while Russia and China stand aside and watch the US go bankrupt?

      • Lorin Chane Partain

        It should be pointed out that since Jefferson terrorism, as we refer to it today, was treated as a crime. Bush made it into an excuse to war with nations who had nothing to do with the acts of a band of men.
        A violent plot executed by an organized band of extremists is almost the very definition of a crime.

      • Dakotah Henderson

        “American interests need to be protected outside our borders”? I don’t know what you’ve been smoking, but we have no interests outside our borders other than the oil we unrightfully claimed. As Dr. Paul has expressed before, Iran doesn’t have an airforce to attack us with; they can’t even supply themselves with gasoline. We claimed over and over that there were WMD’s in Iraq but when we got over there, guess what? No nukes. It’s all a bunch of bullshit propaganda to try to convince us that a war is necessary. They honestly don’t give a damn about us as long as we aren’t in their lands. And as for Israel, they can defend themselves without our intervention. They already have nuclear weapons. They already have American funding. They already have a top-notch military. Israel does not need our help anymore. We need to get our soldiers home and stop killing civilians in other countries. It’s sad to see that non-interventionism can be so easily confused with isolationism, which are two completely separate things. Is it really just a coincidence that we have never officially declared war via Congress since World War II and we have never WON a war since WWII? I think not.

    • Greg Barton

      RP will do fine as the pitbull on the Fed in a Newt admin…..

      • Marc Matthews

        Totally agree.

        Ron Paul has his strong points and could do great things for our nation.  I just don’t think leading it is one of them.

        • Anonymous

          Right.  I admire much about Ron Paul, and agree with him on a great deal of his domestic policies (not foreign policy).  However, he comes across as too far out on a limb for the swing voters who decide elections.  I would vote for Paul if he were the party’s nominee, but we would get crushed in the general election. 

          After reading this interview, I’ve decided to pull the lever for Romney.  Newt is too much of a loose cannon; too much personal baggage.  The majority of voters are women, and by and large they are not that comfortable with Newt. 

          • AminCad

            Romney supported the bank bailout, supports the Fed, and supports all of the wars. America needs a revolution, and only Paul can make that happen.

        • Justin Lark

          Ron Paul wont be included in any admin except his own. all of the Republican candidates hate him and what he stands for. Thats why I am no longer a Republican. they don’t represent any of my views of fiscal conservatism and personal liberty. Republicans are the “progressive authoritarian” party now, Newt and Mitt prove it.

      • Jeremy Torgerson

        My thoughts exactly. Use his skills where they work best, and that’s not at the top of the ticket.

    • Yachtspy

      Did you not just read the interview.  ron Paul could not stand up to Katie Curek, let alone anyone of the nightly news people. 

    • Christopher Morgan Gilcrest

      Ron Paul is not going anywhere except a retirement home. Okay he right on a few budget issues and just lost in space on nearly everything else

    • Daniel Tipping

      Hear, Hear! Amateur Hour Is Over!


    • Brian E

      1. Terrorism is a crime and the defining factors are often vague, fighting a “war with no end” is eroding many of our freedoms at home. 2. Although we can all agree that our Country has interests outside of the USA, there is a difference of opinion on the role we should be playing. We are an expanding empire on the verge of financial ruin, many of us fear that a collapse will actually expose us to more risk at home and we should pull back a bit.

    • Anonymous

      Ron Paul. “Strength through isolation and self-loathing”

      • AminCad

        Trading with the Middle East instead of sanctioning and bombing it is the opposite of isolation.

    • Brian E

      nice to see that this site is censoring my comments

    • Anonymous


      Get a clue…Ron Paul blames the U.S. for 9/11!

  • Jim Losi

    Beck pwned Newt. 
    Hey Newt.. thanks for showing us exactly the kind of progressive fool you are..

    • Anonymous

      I think I will subscribe to GBTV. Glenn was the only news person that asked the tough questions.

    • Jeremy Torgerson

      Jim, why must it be a matter of who “pwned” (<— How old are we?) who? This was an interview on a couple of policy matters. I didn't realize it was a debate and we were supposed to declare a winner.

  • Anonymous

    So Newt is for more government spending and regulations that John Kerry?  Please, please not Newt. 

    Romney/McDonnell 2012.  Get rid of the cheating, lying Newt. 

    • Anonymous

      Romney??? You must be kidding me.

    • Brad Burns

      Dancing Lobsters instead of Newt? No thanks. Ron Paul has integrity. Ron Paul maintains a superior position on every issue. Ron Paul is a hardened adept at staying true to his convictions. Ron Paul said no to Trump. Ron Paul is presidential material. Ron Paul has my vote even if I have to write him in. Ron Paul for the win!

  • Anonymous

    Sadly, the media only wants the candidate which O can beat.  They will do anything to ruin the latest frontrunner, if it’s not the guy they’d like to see.  Watch… Pelosi’s dirt WILL come out, maybe not by her, but it will be “leaked,” and once it is, it will be over for Newt. They’re scared of Ron Paul, very scared, because he actually makes the most sense.

    • Anonymous

      I know the Obama reelection campaign has selected the worst possible candidate for the GOP. The GOP is sooooo stupid.

  • Anonymous


  • Anonymous

    What a freak. Cap and Trade was about control of people? No, it was about CO2, dumbass.

    • Anonymous

      No it is not and never has been.

    • Feral Cat

      Oh yes, what people exhale is Satan. Funny how Al Gore made tens of millions off “Satan”. Globull Warming – the biggest con of the fools since … … well since ever.

    • Brian

      Neptune and Uranus have shown the same warming pattern that was noticed on Earth in the late 1900s.   Also the cooling that has existed since then.

      No cars in those planets … but they do share the same SUN.  Seems we’ve hit a period of low activity (few sunspots) and thus Earth’s climate has cooled slightly in the past decade.

      This may also explain why Earth has been much warmer and cooler in the past that in any time within human history.

      Maybe Cap and Trade is about people control … any thinking being would realize that this regulation would not dent climate but would destroy economies and lives.

    • Anonymous

      No, it was about taking wealth from countries who have money and giving it to those who don’t, dumbass.

  • feedahorse

    Still Newt’s “nudge” e’m in the right direction philosophy which came across very clearly in this interview is echos of Cass Sunstein and very very troubling. Still wants to use government to nudge people toward what – Newt ?

    • Anonymous

      That is what I heard too. Newt and the government knows best and we will force people to follow our direction with all types of little things called regulations.

  • Anonymous

    As awful as it seems, It would be far better to have Obama as president than newt.  Newt, like Romney would actually implement Big government programs like public health care with no way of reversal.  Both of them are destroyers of liberty.  However, Obama is so stupid that he can’t get anything done, even with a 2/3 majority.  Grid lock is good when is comes down to reducing your liberty.

    • Anonymous

      There won’t be an America if we get 4 more years of the community organizer, period.

      • Anonymous

        There wasn’t one prior. They so called prosperity has only been brought on by loosening loan standards and easy credit since the great depression. Nothing has been solved, instead money has been created out of thin air.



  • Anonymous


    From the headline, i thought he was giving the interview by phone while on a plane… 

    This is about as ‘turbulent’ as a plate of pancakes. 

  • Paul Balmer

    I gotta ask Drudge, ‘What exactly was the ‘turbulence’ Gingrich hit’?   I listened and watched the interview.  It sounded civil and calm.  The questions were respectfully posed and answers thoughtfully answered.  They were very open and civil with the idea that they have ‘some’ differences but…turbulence….yeah, I’m thinking that would be what I expect from the MSM, not Drudge.

    • Jeremy Patick

      Everyone knows Drudge has ties to Romney. I believe he’s met with his current campaign advisers. What a joke. This is a total non story. It’s just a shill for his guy

    • Anonymous

      LOL  reread the interview.  Glenn had him doing the Dance of the Newt during the entire interview.  Guess you have to have some history with this little conniver to catch it but Glenn pointed out all his inconsistencies and Newt did the two steps back and one forward like his being caught slamming Ryan’s medicare revision then saying he would be for it “next year”….this is Newt personified.  He talks and talks until the listener is lost in his verbage and, in the middle of the rambling paragraph, Newt changes horses and comes out a different gate.  He loves to quote historical dates which is nothing more than a distraction to get you off the message while he pulls the rabbit out of his bottomless hat!

      Read it again…please!

  • john

    Newt is a fraud, always was a fraud, and always will be a fraud. I can’t believe his poll numbers are so high. It truly is mind-boggling.



  • Joseph Bearjar

    Seems several here are not reading the same interview. Newt actually handled this well and beck was very tough as well as persistent.

    Newt actually showed how he is ready for prime time here and his answers demonstrated a thoughtful yet conservative approach in most solutions. No candidate is perfect as we all need to come to grips with that. This interview showed newt as being in command and having common sense conservative approaches to most of the major issues. Pretty good match for anyone unhappy with Obama in my opinion.

    • Anonymous

      What are you talking about? If the GOP nominates Newt,the American people will have no choice in 2012. The choice will be between 2 Washington insiders and career politicians who believe government is the solution to everyone’s problems.

      I won’t vote for Newt.

      • Joseph Bearjar

        Nice bit of partisan hyperbole there. Seriously if newt is such an insider why are so many GOP elite against him? Nearly all the pundits liberal and conservative hate him and the member sin congress who are republicans that have spoken out spoke against him. Sorry but that just doesn’t support Newt as an insider. I get he was part of the establishment but it takes more than that to be the “in crowd,” were you never in High School?

        • Christopher Morgan Gilcrest

          The “elite” are against Newt because he is verbal disaster and a public relations nightmare. He burned his bridges be screwing up as Speaker and got bounce, Clinton made Newt his bitch and got another term as a result.

          A brilliant man yes, but not the clean cut low kew image of Romney. Otherwise there is no difference

          • Joseph Bearjar

            Nice, obviously in your world after a mistake no one is fit to ever rise again? How exactly will anyone learn then? No one is perfect and I look to see if a person has learned and can learn from mistakes.

            I see no success path expecting a candidate to have a perfect record with flawless execution, that just isn’t possible and if that is presented then it is an obvious lie.

        • None

          The only one the “elite” are after is Paul. You don’t need anymore proof than to look at how they refuse to post stories on a man that’s consistently finished first in straw polls around the country. You don’t need anymore proof than how he was gifted with only 90 seconds in a debate.

          Gingrich is as insider as insider can get. Once quick glance as his record proves that.

    • William Bell

      Spouting glib bibble-babble can fool some of the people all of the time, apparently.

    • Anonymous

      Maybe YOU should reread the interview.  Beck pointed out Newts waffling and Newt tried to distract by waffling some more and moving back and forth between two positions…this is EXACTLY what he did as Speaker of the House as he CAVED and caved to Clinton and the Democrats and they STILL ran him out of town for his ethical violations (more to come on that!).

    • Nicholas

      Please reread this as well sir
      Although he did answer many questions the diciest of them he all together avoided answering the actual question, more something on topic than a direct answer was his response

  • Samantha

    Way to go Glenn….you gave him no pass…

  • snowleopard (cat folk gallery)

    Once again we see the master of the dance carrying it out extremely well; Glenn asked the hard and honest questions, to the point, and while partial answers have been given, Newt still did try to dodge them in part, deflect in others, and try to get what HE wanted out to those of us listening.

    Apperantly with Newt nothing has or will change in DC for the long, prosperous good of the nation.


      Then vote again for barry soetoro “for the long, prosperous good of the nation”

  • Robert Bennett

    Here’s what drives me crazy. When Beck says this candidate or that candidate isn’t conservative enough; or remember when they did this or that? First, Beck was willing to endorse Perry, if fact he loves him. But remember when Perry was a Democrat? Don’t you think he promoted liberal ideas back then? So that’s okay because that’s not who he is now. Kind of like Reagan, very Democratic back in the day. So what about Romney? Yeah, he had some bad ideas with Romney care, but that’s not who he is now. So, what’s up? And as for Beck screaming at Newt; not conservative enough!! Well, Glenn coming from a self-proclaimed libertarian, you should be okay with that! Not to mention your very liberal ways just 10 years or so ago. Any liberal skeletons in your closet? Complete agony. Who knows maybe Christie will run, no wait, he did that or was it this, two years ago. Not conservative enough. Never-mind, the beat will go on. Breaking news….Bachman is on now.. hang on, here comes a canned answer. How inspiring!!

    • Anonymous

      Romney has never disavowed Romney care. He has had many opportunities to do this but he  won’t do it. From a pure political strategy standpoint, he should have said that it was a mistake the last time he ran for president and it would be a non-issue. The fact that is didn’t do that is problematic.

  • Anonymous

    Good job Glen–However Mr. Gingrich is NOT Mr. Obama, neither is he Obama LITE, as in Mr. Romney. The facts are the facts, however, we always must elect the least objectionable candidate.

    • Christopher Morgan Gilcrest

      the tree of them hold nearly identical views, only Obama is full throttle and Newt & Romney are on senior cruse speed. Just disgusting

  • Slimbo

    Turbulence?  Maybe in the audio, but reading the transcript sure didn’t provide any.

  • Anonymous

    PLEASE find yourself a good transcriber and proof reader BEFORE putting these interviews up on the web, ugh, so many spelling, false starts, sentence mistakes in this piece!!  Clean up your act so all of us can read this stuff with clear continuity of thoughts on both your parts! Great interview otherwise!

  • Dick Carlson

    Amazing that two men of honor can have a frank, open discussion without any name calling or cheap shots and still disagree.  Congratulations to you both!

  • Anonymous

    Newt’s philosophy is predicated on coming up with better ways to run big government programs. Glenn’s interview really showed this. While he did answer most of Glenn’s questions, he did dodge a few of them. When Glenn asked him if he still believed in man made global warming, Newt answered that he was against cap and trade.

    • Make’em Stop

      Agreed… I think Newt is wacked on the global warming farce, since their is no discernible evidence to support the theory, let alone from a reliable source.

      Regarding subsidies, Glenn is 100% against I’m assuming, and Newt thinks there are cases were they may make sense.  The bigger question is… which ones is he for and against.

  • Anonymous

    Any time the federal government wants to do something, the first question should be, “Where in the constitution does the federal government get the authority to do it.” If you can’t point to an article, section, and clause in the constitution and make a logical argument that grants the power to take that action, then the federal government has no business or authority to take that action.  

  • Slimbo

    As a conservative, I suggest the rest of you bomb-throwers focus on the target… OBAMA.

    • JudiR

      Exactly!  Even the so-called conservatives are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to bring Newt down.  Fools.

      • Christopher Morgan Gilcrest

        Newt just had the best opportunity to boost himself and just shot himself in the foot, the head and the chest, as he is usually prone to doing.

      • Anonymous

        The primaries are not over and we do not have to settle for Gingrich!

      • Anonymous

        How could any conservative listen to that interview and be happy with what they heard?????

    • Wrabble

      Obama plants are doing all they can to disrupt the Republican primary.

    • Anonymous

      Focus on Obama with another big government regulating loving Obama. No thank you!

  • JudiR

    Glenn has turned into a huge ideolog. I think he would prefer to live in some fantasy land, and not the real world.

    • Anonymous

      Glenn has dared to expose the truth. Good job Glenn.

  • Michael Wright Ford

    Slimbo as a conservative bomb thrower I suggest you choose your weapon (presidential candidate) wisely. Not every conservative/ libertarian will vote for just anybody

  • Anonymous

    Not much turbulence; sounded like a smooth ride for the checked pants country club global warmer.

  • Christopher Morgan Gilcrest

    As a solid conservative I would take a Republican Senate and House and just let Obama have another term. This is just feakin absurd, how after the landslide conservative ass kicking that was given to Democrates and liberals do we get a choice between Gingrich and Romney?

    The two of them hold the same views, only Newt is willing to come out of the closet with the views and Romney won’t come out the front door of his house with his views.

    Just totally disgusting.

    • Anonymous

      I completely agree with you 1000%. I will leave the office of the president blank or I will vote 3rd party and then vote straight Republican(preferably true tea party types) for all other offices. I will not vote for Gingrich for a number of reasons mainly because he lacks moral character. Gingrich would be another Richard Nixon.

  • Greg Barton

    This link from Drudge appears to be just a ruse to get Beck some traffic.

    *****s n o o z e ******

    • Jeremy Torgerson

      Same as the last time he hyped Pat Buchanan’s book for 3 days. I’m losing faith in Drudge’s objectivity.

  • JudiR

    Glenn thinks he’s running for president.  Glenn, if you really care about your country, you will get in line and stop promoting yourself.  No one gives a sh**& what you think!

  • Anonymous

    As awful as it seems, It would be far better to have Obama as president than newt.  Newt, like Romney would actually implement Big government programs like public health care with no way of reversal.  Both of them are destroyers of individual liberty.  ANd both do not understand the financial crises. There solutions are useless for the long term. However, Obama is so stupid that he can’t get anything done, even with a 2/3 majority.  Grid lock is good when is comes down to reducing your liberty.

  • Angelo Serignese

    2012 Is About Abolishing Slavery In America

    We’re on the verge of abolishing slavery in America.
    Ron Paul’s aim is to abolish the debt slavery & tax bondage of the FED/IRS Complex.
    Over the last 100 years of slavery we have gradually lost most of what America set out to be, do and have.
    We are not free. We are slaves.
    Force people to put aside all of the non-essential issues and focus on abolishing slavery.
    Let’s start there.
    Our first priority is to regain our liberty, peace and prosperity.
    This is the narrative, the context for all of my campaign communications with others. It shuts down all of the nattering and competitiveness over the flavor-of-the-month candidates.
    No other candidate is cognizant of, or focused on abolishing the crushing debt slavery and tax bondage as a social issue.
    Without our liberty, nothing else matters.
    None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

    Note: Bachmann has tried to memorize Ron Paul’s 30 year old positions. It’s the only way she can sound intelligent. Kind of like a puppet…

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul has this guy beat all to hell. Ron Paul 2012!

    • Wrabble

      Paul is too old. 

      At age 77 starting a Presidency, he’d be the same age Reagan was FINISHING his.

      The odds of someone Paul’s age getting Alzheimers or another form of dementia while in office are over 50%.

    • Anonymous

      I would vote for Ron Paul before I would vote for Gingrich.

    • Jeremy Torgerson

      Ron Paul would be 82 years old at the end of his first term. 82. Great man, a little wacky on the foreign policy, but nice guy.

      Not for President.

      We’ve already experienced a petulant child who spends his time playing games. We can’t now switch over to a President who naps through meetings and has “senior moments”.

  • Acornman

    Sadly, I was voting for Newt as I wrongly assumed he would dismantle the institutions of the Fed Govt. that are destroying America.  The truth is painful, I have moved on.

  • Albert Meyer

    There was a stoutly old man named Newt
    Who had thought of himself ever so cute
    Consumed by greed and by graft
    That made him look ever so daft
    Has finally been caught holding the loot

  • Anonymous

    You have got to be kidding. So you like big government? If Newt is the nominee,I won’t bother voting. I see no difference between Newt and Obama. If we are going to go down, we might as well let the Dems get full credit.

    • Jeremy Torgerson

      You see no difference between Newt and Obama? Are you serious? Truthfully, no difference at all?

      “None are so blind as he who will not see.”

  • steve benton

    Newt will bring the fight against the democrats. I’m all in.

    • Anonymous

      Give me a break. Newt will be neutered by the time the debates roll around. He will be destroyed by all of his baggage and he will be correctly painted as the ultimate corrupt bloated old Washington insider who has made his millions from selling access to Washington Lawmakers.

  • Dana Edwards

    After this interview, I am less convinced Newt is the right man for our country.  Kerry is definitely not right.  Yet these are the two on top, and it looks like we’ll have to choose between big government and big government.  Ron Paul is an idiot.  I’m increasingly skeptical about the outcome of the 2012 elections, and am deeply concerned it will be a repeat of 2008. where you hold your nose at the ballot box.  This also deeply concerns me that Obama may very well stay in office for another term.

    • Rothbardian

      Ron Paul is an idiot? ->

  • sgbarnes1

    RINO!  He wasn’t asked about amnesty for illegals.  He appears to support Cap and Trade.  He is for Obamacare (Should we call it Newtcare?)  Scary man.

  • Anonymous

    What am I missing? What turbulence? It was an informative, good interview. This is what the public expects and wants… brain activity! Not what we currently have… idiocy.

    • Anonymous

      My feelings exactly. I expected an interview where he stammered like the President with a broken teleprompter, this was anything but that. 

    • Jeremy Torgerson

      Exactly. I was just about to comment saying we are seeing the next media-created theater: “Conflict within the GOP”. There were policy disagreements, but that will always be the case.

      Shame on Drudge for being as much of a drama queen as MSNBC.

  • Juliezzz

    Paul is our only choice

    • Jeremy Patick

      He’s 77. He should be at a shopping mall yelling at teenagers about his kookie ideas. Get a grip

      • Jeremy Torgerson

        LOL. Ron Paul to Mexico: “Get those damn kids off my lawn!”

    • Jeremy Torgerson

      …if we want to lose in 2012.

  • FATMAN none

    A vote for New Gingrich is a vote for the NEW WORLD ORDER. 

    Go look up some of the quotes that Gingrich has said about the consititution. 

    Here is one of them.

    “For the system of government you fashioned including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented, a democracy for the 21st century. For this wisdom, above all, I thank Mr. Jefferson who helped create the system that served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced.”  ~ Newt Gingrich

    • Anonymous

      I really wish the the media and FOX would expose Newt for what he really is.

    • Jose Farias

      I know what people did to Rush Limbaugh. Coming up with quotes that ended up on 

      Wikipedia which turned out to be false. I won’t take your word on this Fatman because I have heard Newt thousands of times. And in everyone of those instances not only he blieved in our Constitution but he was a passionate student of it and a passionate believer in it.

  • Anonymous

    Newt IS a progressive… If I must hold my nose, I will vote for Newt…, but OH, what I wouldn’t give for a true conservative, based in free markets, believing in self-responsibility and small government…

    • Anonymous

      That would be a vote for Ron Paul. Unless of course you believe that policing the world is conservative.

  • Earle Theus

    Finally, someone who has intelligence to dig this Country out of a hole that EVERYONE has had a part in putting us in….

  • Anonymous

    Gingrich showed he wants to work within the system to forward conservative change. Others want more radical change, and want the government out of the solution, but confrontation will bring a swing back to liberals in another cycle. I think Gingrich handled this well. You can disagree with his approach, but it wasn’t off base. It just steers turns the country slowly.
    He will be demonized and they will dig up dirt, and they will try to crush him if he becomes more popular.

  • Yachtspy

    I would really like to see Newt debate the “annointed one.”  Newt is more intelligent than Obummer, by many factors.  Not only could he stand up to any barrage Obummer’s people might plan for a debate but, with the first question, Obummer’s script would be out the door and He would be on the “confused” defensive.  It would be a beautiful thing. 

  • Darrell B

    Newt is smart and is looking to implement solutions.  He is a historian, and knows that ‘if one does not learn from history, one is doomed to repeat it’……

    “Nott Mitt’…….

  • FATMAN none

    Go look up some of the quotes that Gingrich has said about the consititution. Here is one of them.

    “For the system of government you fashioned including the very principles on which you based it, is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare. It must be radically changed and a new system of government invented, a democracy for the 21st century. For this wisdom, above all, I thank Mr. Jefferson who helped create the system that served us so well for so long, and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced.” ~ Newt Gingrich     

    Hope you enjoy the NEW WORLD ORDER –

  • William W

    Newt is the only intelligent answer for the us.  He has the know-how to turn this country back from the stupidity of our current leadership He has done it before and he can do it again, if he is given a chance.

  • Anonymous

    Newt handled the “turbulence” quite well. Something that cannot be said about our current President.

  • Allen

    As a Reagan Conservative and Evangelical there is only one candidate that will get me to the polls…………

    Mitt Romney……..the “total package” and the only real Fiscal Conservative in the 2012 race.

    • Anonymous

      Wow,  you are on crack……

    • Anonymous

      “the only real Fiscal Conservative”…until the Republican primary is over then he becomes “the only real liberal socialist”…

    • Joseph Bearjar

      Wow your first statement does not reconcile with the second. I am both Reagan and evangelical and the last person I could support is Romney, he is liberal by his own confession and the least conservative of all the candidates, except Huntsman, as far as a Reagen Conservative goes.

      I am forced to conclude your post is an attempt at deceptive partisan campaign rhetoric as it bears no semblance in reason or logic.

  • Anonymous

    First time I have ever answered anything like this but I feel the need as I am terribly disappointed in Glenn, Stu and Pat for their close mindedness and obvious bias.  I have heard Glenn state he would never tell you how to vote but clearly that is not the case.  There is something else going on and they need to begin listening to where Gingrich wants to go.  It is exactly where we need to head towards.

  • Anonymous

    I wonder if the Tea Party supporters liked hearing that Newt Gingrich is all about the government solving problems as opposed to the private sector.

    “I think young people ought to have the right to choose a personal Social Security insurance savings account plan” ” the right to choose”.

    Seriously? That is the choice you give young people? What we have now or some insurance mandate? Ron Paul worked into his budget the option for young people to opt out of Social Security.

    Now THAT is a choice.

  • Habana

    Not sure where the “turbulence” was. Did anyone see it? Feel it? I haven’t made up my mind yet on the ‘who’, but I read Newt’s comments carefully, and I could tell that he answered all the questions confidently and intelligently based primarily on a set of ‘beliefs’.

  • FATMAN none

    Why dont you get with the program and stop compromising for evil.  Vote for RON PAUL.  Jesus would compromise with the money changers and neither should YOU!!

  • Anonymous

    Good Job Glenn…Newt, you did well to remain composed throughout the interview, and I’ll bet without a tele-prompter!!!

  • Jack Murphy

    Tea Party Lives!

  • Tommy A

    The more people start looking into Newt the more they are going to realize he is not the bastion of conservatism that he is made out to be. 

    Those conservatives that say we should not be too hard on him because we would give the election away to Obama are off of their rockers.  This weeding out should have been done a long time ago.  Instead we had to be distracted by the nonsense of mistresses of Cain, debating flubs of Perry, and the ultra-cautious Romney.  Unfortunately it is too late for another candidate of substance to enter the race so it is going to be the lesser of evils in the Primary.  I just hope all GOPers can rally around that nominee and take out the true evil sitting in the White House.  We cannot afford another 4 years of his lack of leadership.   

  • Inspector

    you could vote for a real conservative like Ron Paul, or you could vote for a Democrat-lite like the rest of them. Your choice.

  • Juliezzz

    Ron Paul is the only true conservative running and the only one who stands by the constitution even when it’s not popular to do so.  If you don’t believe that then you haven’t investigated all of their records.  If Newt or Romeny get in a large segment of the Conservatives will either write in ron paul or sit the election out.

    Paul is the only one who doesn’t flip flop, isn’t a liar, doesn’t cheat on his wife, not sold out to big banks and big corporations. 

    He’s gonna win Iowa and you better hope he keeps winning other states because without him the Republicans are TOAST!!!

  • Anonymous

    i don’t get this, Newt stands for everything the TEA Party is against!  Am i missing something?

  • Bruce

    A wise man once said to me, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting different results.  Gingrich is nothing but Obama lite.  When the electorate finally figures out both dominating parties are in cahoots together then we will do something about it. 

    “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”

    And my favorite….  “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

    Do we have any men of sacred honor left in our great nation?  Certainly there are none in Washington.

  • Jeremy Patick

    Drudge is such a shill for Romney. I think he’s met with members of the Romney team. I remember reading something the Wash Post or Politico about it.  Where’s the turbulence?

  • Angelo Serignese

    Tune in to GBTV tonight.
    Jim Rogers will make Glenda Beckster cry.

    When Jim tells him Ron Paul is the only candidate who knows what he’s doing and Jim will support his election.

  • Anonymous

    even when proven a flip-flop, people still love Newt! God help us all!!

    I may vote for Obama before giving my vote to Newt, what’s the difference???

    • Anonymous

      If you cannot tell the difference, perhaps we should return to the days of literacy tests for voting.

  • Juliezzz

    Voting for the “lesser of two evils” still gets you….EVIL 

    Newt is a major Evil  That I will never vote for

  • uh huh

    Once again, Glenn Beck with his ill-informed assault on Theodore Roosevelt. The premise of this entire discussion is demonstrably false.

    • Anonymous

      Prove it. You go around speaking this, but you have nothing to back it up. Explain how Theodore was NOT Progressive.

  • Jeremy Patick

    And the chances of something like that EVER passing? These Ron Paul zombies need to get their head out of their azz

  • Jeff Locke

    Ok, the misleading Drudge headline got me to read the transcript. 

  • Marc Matthews

    Newt did quite well, if you can’t admit that then I really don’t know what to say.

    I don’t agree with him on some of his stances but I don’t agree with any of the candidates on all of their stances but that doesn’t change the fact that Newt is informed and speak intelligently and isn’t being led by 50 people via a teleprompter.

    In a perfect world would I choose Newt? No, I wouldn’t but this isn’t a perfect world and of the candidates who I feel have a viable chance of winning election in 2012, Newt currently is the one I think can do that.

    We’re going to need someone who can debate well and call Obama ON THE SPOT during debates with truthful, factual information and no one in this field is going to be able to do that better than Newt can.

    So fine, He thinks certain paths for environmental issues differently than I do.. well he doesn’t get to implement them without the approval of those that we also have the power to vote in and out of office.   In this climate, excuse the pun, trust me, he won’t dare to try to implement anything crazy there.

  • Ken Drift

    I like Newt more after that interview. 

    • Anonymous

      why, cause he can flip-flop more effectively?

  • Anonymous

    My take is that Glenn is too stupid to understand what Newt was saying.  Newt, unlike Ronmey, is pro family, is pro life and balanced the budget 4 times as speaker of the house under a Democratic President, Bill Clinton.  I remember Def Leppard… Action, not Words…  Yet, Glenn doesn’t even understand the words…

  • Sentimental M

    Best Gingrich interview ever made, and only 2 minutes long :

  • Anonymous

    I am going with Bachmann, No RINOs.

  • Jeffrey M. Scott

    Now that was a hell of an interview…..Beck asked great, tough questions and Newt did pretty well in answering them. Could you imagine the “teleprompter” genius trying to handle those questions on his own? That’s why you will never see a debate with Obama that doesn’t have Lib-Tards from the liberal networks “moderating” it…..and protecting Obama while attacking the Republican.

  • Graham Rogers

    If a Republican says “I’m a Roosevelt Republican”, I say “Good to know, here’s my donation, going to someone who isn’t.”

    We’ve reached a point where it’s time America must decide, do we follow our political masters down the path of “Government Solves All” and just shred the Constitution, or do we decide personal freedom and liberty trump their political greed?  I know my answer, what say you?

    • uh huh

      Glenn Beck has consistently mischaracterized Theodore Roosevelt. He was not the father of modern day Progressivism. He was a different man for a different time and the modern day context that Glenn tries to cast him in is willfully ignorant and wholly inaccurate.

      • Anonymous

        That just isn’t true. It would be wonderful to believe that it is and that Theodore’s “Progressive” stance was fine because it was a different time and place. When the history books look back, will they say the same about Newt?

        What Conservative President states- to the American People- that without a Constitutional Amendment for Income Taxes our country would be insolvent? Why is it that the Amendment didn’t just give the Government the right to an income tax, but “from whatever source derived, without regard to the census or enumeration”? This eliminates a particular Clause in the Constitution that gave restrictions on how the Government was to tax people- why would a Conservative eliminate that? On Top of all of this, is the blatant lie that the country would be insolvent; didn’t Theodore Roosevelt know that the Founders gave him the ability to lay a National Sales Tax in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1? Why did we need a brand new Constitutional Amendment (that gave powers to the Government while taking away Individual Liberty- also known as Progressive) to take our money when he had the right- already written in the Constitution- to do so?

        I mean, if you want to whitewash what people did because they did it “during a different time” that is your own choice. Let others decide whether Beck is a liar in this instance or not for themselves.

        • uh huh

          Nah my comments just get deleted so there’s no point in having a discussion here. I’ll be done listening to Glenn Beck after this if he’s just going to squash every dissenting viewpoint.

  • Walter

    GREAT interview by Glenn.

  • Anonymous

    Beck grilled Gingrich and he fielded the questions well.  If nominated, he will be under constant
    attack by the liberal media and the Democrats.  Whatever you think of him,  he is the candidate
    with the track history to handle the attacks and put the pressure on the Great Divider in any
    Presidential debates.   And of course, he knows where Libya is on a map

  • Susie Hancock

    Rick Santorum.

    • Anonymous

      I don’t practice Santorum and neither do the other 99% of likely voters.

  • Rothbardian

    How can anyone vote for a guy that encourages ethanol subsidies?  This is reckless spending, destroying the farming economy, skewing the market, and getting us less gas mileage.  Corn is being grown substantially more than normal, draining the water supplies here in West Texas.  Get the government out.

  • Fred Hensley

    My only complaint here would center around Beck.  He lumped several questions at once towards Speaker Gingrich “shotgun style”, not permitting adequate time to respond to each-and-every charge.  I understand the reality of interview timing and constraints, but it simply isn’t fair to ambush several questions without adequate time to respond to every charge.  (e.g. Lumping Department of Education vote with Fannie/Freddie with Global Warming)

    No presidential candidate should avoid tough questions nor tough questioners (listening Mitt?), but basic fairness should permit the candidate to answer each question.  Labeling Speaker Gingrich a republican progressive isn’t going to stick either.

    Glenn – Fair questions, but if you want more of our respect, invite Newt Gingrich to your studio for an entire hour and run through you list one-by-one (meaning minus your lackeys)…  I dare you.

    Oh, and by the way, as an equal opportunity offender please try throwing a tough question or two at Michele Bachmann. Or did your radio show suddenly switch from hardball to T-Ball when she showed up?

    My $0.02. 

  • Shepherd

    Has Glen Beck interviewed Romney yet?  I’m just asking because I don’t follow GB that closely.  If so, were his questions to Romney as hard hitting?  To me Romney has a lot to answer for.  He’s only a few steps to the right of obarry. 

    • Anonymous

      No. Romney is a serial dodger of interviews. He doesn’t want to speak to the American people except in 30 or 60 second intervals. He says all he needs to say in that period of time, at least for me.

  • Anonymous

    You can be thoughtful, calm, and respectful during an interview and still have turbulence.

    Comparing yourself to Theodore Roosevelt just drastically injured his campaign for me; I have some serious thinking to do (I have known that he is Progressive, I can not support embracing it as essential to my beliefs; Theodore Roosevelt is not necessary at all; the Founders put the Interstate Commerce Clause into the Constitution for a reason- to be able to regulate the items Newt is discussing above. So why does he admire, or compare himself to, Theodore Roosevelt?).

    Saying he doesn’t believe in picking winners and losers but will only subsidize things that “work”. Who defines what company/product “works”?

    These two stances happen to be very damaging.

    I am a volunteer for Newt. Obama was portrayed, at the beginning, as calm and respectful, but that doesn’t change his extremely turbulent Presidency.

    I have serious thinking to do.His 21st Century Contract has some really great solutions for our modern problems. However, I can’t help but wonder what he plans to do outside of this Contract.

    Ron Paul is pretty much the only Candidate left that even remotely resembles my values. I realize his Presidency would be very similar to Obama’s insofar as he will not be able to get much done because of the feuding in Congress. It takes bills from Congress to eliminate Departments and do other things that Ron Paul would like to implement in his Presidency. He hasn’t been able to get much of his colleagues to listen to him (Auditing the Fed, Closing the Department of Education, etc.), and I think it would be like that for most of his Presidency. What do you think the possibility is that the country would elect Representatives that would support Paul’s stance? I’m talking a majority so that what we want through his Presidency will actually be enacted.

  • stvram47


  • Jonathan

    Great… so our choice comes down to sneaky big government Republican (Newt) or obvious big government liberal Republican (Romney).  I guess I will take Newt over Romney because at least Newt will use the “bully pulpit” to rip the Democrats and media a new one every day while Romney will just smile and fix his hair.

  • Anonymous

    wow! People are excited that Newt is an expert question dodger!  Oh, that’s real presidential eh?

    So if you are expert in your ability to be a RHINO and lie about it, somehow you are qualified? This county deserves to BURN!

  • Ken Drift

    Newt is Obama on “slow speed”, what?  Seriously, that is a truly ridiculous statement. 

  • Anonymous

    As the only Speaker of the House to lead the charge in, and successfully, balancing the budget, I am all for Newt. Newt is the only Speaker to ever have the presence to shut the Government down until the childish members of Congress did what we, the Americans, elected them to do. I am all for electing someone who actually has the experience to lead a nation. None of the other candidates ever ran this country. Newt was #3 in charge and proved time and again that he was and is the right choice.

    • Anonymous

      Newt is not a conservative, didn’t you read the article, he is the anti-TEA party!

  • Anonymous

    Gingrich is a statist…..nothing new here. Move along.

  • Anonymous

    Beck assumes that Gingrich believes in man-made global warming.  This is where Beck shows his lack of discernment. Newt has pushed for oil production just as much as anybody.  Global warming alarmists don’t do this!  Let’s get with the program Glenn Beck and stop letting your swelled head get in the way with reasonable thinking!  Newt fights against the liberal media, pushes for exporation of oil, advoctates for a strong defense, and seeks to get the government out of the way to produce more jobs.  Stop being anal about Newt, Beck!  Newt is not perfect, but he’s got ideas and the courage to get real stuff done.  That’s what this Country needs and, Glenn Beck, I’m pissed at you for attempting to undermine what is good for the Country.

    • Stephen Buell

      Gingrich was in a global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi… He wrote a book about anthropogenic global warming. He was shown debating Kerry about the best way to limit carbon emissions. What more evidence could you want that he did and most likely still does (under this conservative facade) believe in manmade global warming?

      • Anonymous

        Stephen, even with what you said, Newt still is pushing, hard, for more oil production.  I’d say this makes his position on global warming quite weak and insignificant.  Although I think the global warming nutjobs are a danger, I don’t see Newt in this crowd at all.


    • Anonymous

      Newt is a FOOL to believe CO2 is harmful. A dangerous, idiotic fool who does NOT belong in power.

      • Anonymous

        If Newt really believed what you say about CO2, I really don’t think he’d push for more oil drilling in the U.S.  You overstate.


    • Juliezzz

      Stevet3 Sure he pushes for big oil while pushing cap and trade.  You don’t get it.  Oil WANTS cap and trade. 

      Global warming scam and Cap and Trade tax is about CONTROL of the People and stealing any wealth they may have left.  How can it be about cleaning the environment when the biggest companies can just pay a bunch of money so they can keep polluting.   Meanwhile little businesses can’t pay it and go out of business.  End result is that Big Business will squash their competition and everything under the sun will have added tax on it that we will have to pay to a WORLD GOVERNMENT

      • Anonymous

        You sound like a conspiracy theorist.  All that “big oil” wants is profits.  Do you have a problem with profits?


  • Stephen Buell

    In this interview we see Gingrich doing the following over his career:

    1. Supporting the individual mandate for a period of 20 YEARS at the FEDERAL level.
    2. Coming out unequivocally as a proponent of cap and trade schemes.
    3. Growing medicare entitlements and condemning Paul Ryan for cutting them.
    4. Supporting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2007.

    I’ll add that the reason Republican pols don’t like Gingrich is not because he is an outsider. It is just because he was a very unpleasant, unreasonable, ineffective insider. He lost the Republicans the midterms in 1998. His head is swollen to incredible proportions. He just isn’t a very likable guy, and he is not about to win a general election. Not to mention his current wife is a homewrecker. He is a serial adulterer, and he also has a history of ethics violations. He was fined $300,000 by his fellow Republicans in Congress for his misdeeds. Clearly this is a man with no character and he isn’t even conservative. Why he is the frontrunner is beyond me!

  • Anonymous

    It just seems to me that all Newt is trying to accomplish is how to best bring reform and change to government without going to either extreme, like our present White House Administration seems to be forcing on the American people. The other message from Newt is that if we’re going to reduce the size and impact of the Feds, then the citizens (We the People) must assume greater responsibility for how we manage our civil affairs, from A to Z. That means more involvement in local elections, county, and state governments and the whole nine yards. It’s about time that a “politician” is urging a more responsible citizenry. We’ve dropped the ball on that for years, and we have only ourselves to blame for the incremental increases in the size and scope of government. Good interview, but one has to see the objective of how Newt’s plans to implement the policy changes that are so desperately needed.
    The other thing I like about Newt is how he admits to his mistakes of the past and vows to change the way he operates now and in the future. Ever hear that from the other candidates? To support Newt, one has to believe that change in a human heart is possible, and the agent of that change often comes through the redemption offered by Jesus Christ, whether in a Catholic setting or otherwise. Only then can change occur in how one governs himself, and therefore, the governance of others.I believe he is a penitent man,  and one with extraordinary capabilities of reestablishing a government of, by, and for the People.

  • Anonymous

    I am beginning to wonder if Glenn Beck would support anybody short of Christ for president.

    Perfection will not be found in the human race. Yet Beck, -for all of his, ‘this is not a political show’- is spending quite a bit of time chopping the legs out from under Republican candidates. And his position against Newt seems to be that he is not willing to adopt what in Beck’s mind would be Christ’s perfect positions on health care, energy, social security, etc. Beck is demanding perfection from Newt in the form of commitments to immediate “radical change”; something Beck generally and regularly preaches against.

    Dear Glenn,

    The church is not perfect. But it is moving towards Christ. Are you willing to kill a movement towards Constitutional conservatism because it is not perfect? Because you sound like you are. Christ did not kill the woman at the well, who had far more history that Newt. Can you do us the favor of not killing whatever imperfect Republican candidate we end up with. I would rather be like Christ and work with what we have, than to surrender it all to the swine.

    The country would not be turned around over night even if Christ was elected president. You will have to be willing to wait, something Christians should understand.

  • J

    Think of the independent voter. True, most independents will not read the transcript of this interview and will not have seen it. But the Newt you see in this interview is a candidate who will appeal to the independent, a reasonable man who seeks workable solutions without violating important principles. This is the kind of candidate who can succeed in the general election. Kudos to Newt Gingrich for having spoken his mind without pandering. 

    • Stephen Buell

      Newt is not reasonable. He’s just an agile liar. Look at all the backtracking he does on his previous statements. That he made so many liberal mistakes in the past suggests he’ll continue to do the same. See my comment below for all of his heresies. Obama will wipe the floor with him in the race for 2012 if we nominate him. Obama is a cool, calm, collected family man with few scandals for all of his tremendous flaws. Gingrich is an impossibly arrogant, unethical, serial adulterer, crybaby. Obviously the swing voters won’t respond well to that.

  • Randy Vice

    We are doomed.  Pity Ron Paul is such a nut job, can’t vote for him either because his foreign policy will yield thousands if not tens of thousands of American deaths if not destruction of America as we know it by our enemies.

  • Anonymous

    Like many of us Glenn wants rapid change to roll back the Socialist agenda the Obama Regime and the Democrat party has enacted. The fact is, as Newt recognizes, it will take time to turn the ship. When you have so many people dependant on the government already you just can’t make the changes that fast. For example, it will take years to convince young people to accept individual Social Security accounts and old people to recognize that they can still receive their SS benefits. (look what happened when President Bush tried to change SS) We must start by getting the Liberal bias out of our education system so that kids are told about the Constitution and what it means not putting bananas on condoms. This will all take time but I believe Newt can be the catalyst for this change. We can argue the fine points all day long but in the end we MUST elect a Conservative for president and give that person a bullet proof majority in the House and Senate in 2012!

    • Robert Starkand

      I believe that you suffer from wishful thinking. If Gingrich wanted to “turn the ship around” as you say, in other words, reduce the involvement of the federal government in our lives, he would have said so.  But he does not.  He identifies himself as a Theodore Roosevelt republlican and his solution is to have what he  thinks is a more cost efficient big government.  For example, the drug entitlement for insulin and Lipitor so that we can delay the payment of dialysis and heart surgery.  I do not know how that helps.  Its government involvement that pumps up the price for the drugs and for the dialysis and heart surgery. His description of Paul Ryan’s plan as right wing social engineering helped to sabatoge Paul Ryan’s plan and helped sink the supposedly conservative candidate in a special election in a congressional district in New York.  I say supposedly, because she did not defend Ryan’s plan but looked like a deer caught in the headlights and disassociated herself from the Ryan plan.  If Gingrich said instead that the plan would be more palatable if there were optional choices at the time, as he does now, instead of painting Ryan as an exremist, there would have been a differant result.  I believe that the only true conservative choices are Bachman and Santorum and I do not beleive either one would try to push extreme plans that people do not want.  I beleive the democtrats, the media, the Rinos including Newt Gingrich would paint them as extremists.  And they would have to follow Reagen’s lead and counter with a thoughtful and reasonable presentation of their solutions.

  • paul griffin

    Typical. I just love politicians, especially long term professionals who are so great at BS that there is no such thing as truth. Go ahead, sheep, vote for that.

  • Anonymous

    Gingrich loves the idea of MIGRATING or pushing and shoving people over to his big government programs.  NOTICE nothing he says is about the economy or getting it back on track.  Gingrich has no background for understanding how to get this economy moving again.  That is Romney’s expertise and what he did so well turning around massachusetts economy without raising taxes and turning around the Olympic Games from disaster to the the most successful fiscally sound games in history and leaving Utah with a huge profit.  I like that Romney has a definitive plan for the areas that need fixing first and has gone through the government and identified many areas of waste that well be gone right away.  Romney understands energy, foreign policy, legislation, and executive power because he’s been trained to use it…Gingrich has not, Gingrich has only been a legislator.  Gingrich has lots of unfocused ideas that are all over the board, but most of all, I do not get any sense that he is for cutting the size of the federal government, in fact he wants to continue it on.  I have to vote for Romney who will cap federal spending, balance the federal budget, cut the size of the federal governent, completely get rid of Obamacare, cut the deficit, and restore our military and America’s standing in the world.  Romney’s getting 5 votes from my household for 2012!

  • pblumel

    I think the enthusiasm for Newt has peaked. Just like the other shooting stars, when you look closer you find they were part of the problem, either as a governor or a Fed deputy or a lobbyist or an undisciplined spender in Congress or an advocate of an irresponsible foreign policy. The only exception has been Ron Paul whose support and fundraising has been steady. Importantly, Ron has shown steady appeal to independents as well. I expect he and Romney will be the last ones standing in the primary and the GOP will have an opportunity to define itself in the post-2008 world. Will the GOP dig in its heels in defending its corrupt Bush-era past or embrace its libertarian future? Stay tuned.

  • Anonymous

    only in America is the person who can flip-flop and lie the best presidential material…

    Teddy Rossevelt used the US Navy like it was his personal fleet! Hope you all love war!

  • Crystal Booth

    Glenn once said that NJ Gov. Christie was the “Fred Flinstone” to Obama, well, as it’s playing out – Newt is the Fred Flinstone – just the opposite of Obama, and that includes being a thinker – Newt is a thinker, the antithesis of Obama . . . Glenn, might have found your man. . . sorry he’s not as “pretty” as you’d like 😉

  • Scott Keck

    I am considering Newt – Still am. I was first for Bachmann, but she had the frequent habit of speaking untruths, and not correcting the record. (all she had to do for me was acknowledge and correct – but instead, she tended to keep repeating them)

    I am considering Ron Paul and Santorum for the reasons you are againest Newt – thier  idealogy is pure. The issue is someone has to convince the public the validity of the path back to self reliance, and I guess I would rather get part way there and have people see the benefits than have someone that has limited ability to lead and convince fail altogether.

  • Don’t Vote For A RINO

    Newt is a marxist who wants more government and control over your life.  He pretends to be a tea party conservative but the real Newt is anything but a conservative.

  • Anonymous

    Sorry, I could not support Ron Paul for President, as I think he is far too radical in some of his ideas.  He might make a good replacement for Bernacke, however. I think instead of hiding everything as Bernacke does, Paul would tell Americans the truth.  Bernacke thinks he is a God who does not have to answer to anyone while he gives away trillions of dollars of taxpayers money to foreign countries, banks, anything and anyone while fighting an audit of the Federal Reserve.  Lots of the Republican candidates would be good in several positions of a new Presidential administration.   

    • Anonymous

      how is RP radical and Newt not?

  • Anonymous

    I would rather a liberal democrat be at the wheel when things crash then a fake-conservative because that will push the country’s reaction further towards adherence to the Constitution.  I will vote for Ron Paul in 2012 whether he is on the ballot or not, as will another 12-15% of the country, so the Republicans had better get on board.

  • Donald Butler

    Records speak louder than words and are a clear indicator of how a politician will govern. I’m sorry to say it but politicians do lie. Newt has a record that worries many of us TEA Party Conservatives.

  • JOe Dutra

    No other candidate, from either party, could withstand that withering fire.

  • Anonymous

    Newt’s two Achilles’ heels are  his arrogance and his need to be respected as a great thinker.  He will move away from an idea as soon as he meets real resistance and the adoration meter in his mind starts to fall.  His three wives can attest to his insatiable need to be adored..constantly.  It is painful to watch him, yet again, on the grand stage of politics selling his snake oil.  When he has a good idea, and he has had many, he abandons them at the first light breeze of resistance. 

    Poor Newt, the population of the world is not large enough to provide him with all the hugs he needs to get through life.

    • Don’t Vote For A RINO

      He doesn’t need a hug….he needs a good kick in the a$$.

  • Pittbull

    I realize
    that we simply will never obtain the “perfect” candidate, regardless
    of how critical the media portrays it. But there are nuances that bring pause
    to the dance and show to get through an interview. I have mixed reactions to
    all of these candidates. They have been under a microscope and we now see their
    biases, mistakes, and sometimes lunacy. However, not once did I ever sense this
    scrutiny from our President during the 2008 campaign. We have however
    experienced BHO’s biases, mistakes, and lunacy by watching his failed
    presidency flounder by not solving problems, remaining far too ideological, and
    continues to treat our high debt and job loss as something beyond possible
    within his four-year experiment. If he cannot fix anything within 4 years, how
    can an additional 4 years change anything? There are lots of examples of
    failure; healthcare reform written behind closed doors using taxpayer money as
    bribes, a failed immigration policy that has not fixed the boarders rather use
    lawsuits to States attempting to rectify it, and failed stimulus that simply
    paid off self-centered unions, over-spending states, and campaign contributors. The bottom line for me is
    simple. How can a President espouse that he is trying to repair our broken
    economy when he has never even had a budget? His arugument is pretty weak! That is why he is so vulnerable.

    • Don’t Vote For A RINO

      I’ll settle for imperfect but I will not settle for someone who does not share my conservative philosophy.

  • Jesse Gearhart

    That’s turbulence?  Sheesh, Glenn actually asked the questions reporters should ask *of everybody*, and Newt answered them quite well.  I would be happy to vote for Newt if he makes the nomination, even if I don’t agree with some of his ideas.

  • Jose Farias

    Reading the whole text I did not detect extreme views in Gingrich. We all understand that government has some role in protectin individual’s health and well being. As long as it is kept to whats is necessary, And we certainly should keep government out of running anything that can be done by the private sector. I do support Newt.

    • Don’t Vote For A RINO

      The government doesn’t have any role.  What do you believe defines this role?

      • Anonymous

        Well, our Liberal SCOTUS (for the past 106 years) has broadened the ideas, but the Founding Fathers put verbiage into the Constitution to indicate this: The General Welfare Clause and the Interstate Commerce Clause are fine examples.

  • Bill DeBerg

    Everyone is talking about foreign policy as it relates to war, and terrorism, etc.  
    First “terrorism” is a lie and a fake.
    Second, why has Ron Paul received more military donations that all others?  

    If you’re so pro war, and pro military (INTERVENTION IN FOREIGN ENTANGLEMENTS) why don’t you listen to our brothers and sisters in the military?  Your minds have been made up for you by your TV boxes and talking heads in the main stream lame media.  Just think of that for a minute.   The actual warriors, and fighters, and pilots, and sailors want Ron Paul as our Commander IN Chief, so do I.  

    Newt is the Death of this country.  Total illuminati scum, Bildeberg scum, globalist scum.  
    Please think for yourselves, you could at least be like NEO when he woke up in the real world. Your eyes will hurt a little at first, but you will soon see things clearly.  WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

    RON PAUL 2012

  • Brad Burns

    He said it was a tactic. If you are afraid of terrorism, then the tactic is successful. Do you realize that the majority of the followers of Islam feel extremists are justified because our military was occupying Middle Eastern countries first?

    Support from the masses is fundamental and without which action does not happen. Ron Paul for the win.

  • Anonymous

    Good luck Republicans, I’m not voting for the Newt. Those that want small government should focus on electing people to the House and Senate to fight off Obama or Gingrich.

  • Brad Burns

    How can you compare that actor to a Doctor of Medicine?? I WANT an wise elder for president not a young punk with a chip on his shoulder.

  • verbusen

    So who is Glenn’s candidate? Ron Paul? He should have some balls and make an endorsement instead of just trying to destroying Obama’s opposition. I have infrequently listened to his radio show but I doubt he will make an endorsement ever. If anyone thinks Gingrich was a non government type I’d like to know where that came from, we all know he is but at least he will encourage the economy to grow to fund government and reign in the huge social welfare spending, really at this point anyone would be better then Obama, and Gingrich can certainly kill Obama in a debate, that works for me!

  • Rob Golding

    Newt Would and will be a breath of fresh air compared to the idiot we have in the White House now.. If Newt will think through his answers for the rest of the way he will be the Nominee.
    Romney is playing it way to safe this go around, and  almost 4 years ago he could not even beat MC cain. You remember. The guy was about as exciting as watching grass grow. My suggestion to Romney is try to win a debate first, then the nomination.This is Newt nomination to win or lose..Romney might get lucky if newt screw up, but at this point in the game Romney is running out of time. I’m Curious  Who do you like  Mr. Beck?
    Ron Paul is not going to win the Nomination. period.

    • Anonymous

      Like myself, Beck and Rush are talking more favorably about Michele Bachmann as the only real conservative left in the race…

  • Juliezzz

    Roosevelt was a Racist and a Euginics supporter who supported the idea of sterilization of the lowly poor.  Read his personal letters sometime and see what I mean.  Roosevelt said that he thought that Sinclair who wrote the book that newt mentioned about the food industry, was a complete idiot and alarmist but he would use it to impose government regulations.  He admitted in his own words  that he was doing it because big business was wanting to eliminate the competition of the small guys.

      Newt is a Historian.  He knows all this.  And he also knows that YOU don’t know all of this

  • Anonymous

    Turbulence? It was a very informative interview that was a pleasure to read. Well done, Glenn & Newt.

  • John

    This interview was just beating around the bush.  It’s not about Newt’s policy positions and proposals.  Newt can blabber about policy better than anybody–it’s what he’s done his whole life.

    The real issues that matter are his character, his questionable ethics choices, his leadership ability, his ability to communicate clearly, his ability to build a coalition that can actually change things, his ability to be a CEO-type manager of the executive branch, etc.  He fails miserably at all of them.

    Newt belongs tucked away in a room somewhere debating policy.  I wouldn’t let him touch any other part of government.

  • Jeremy Torgerson

    Two observations to make for my fellow conservatives.

    First, I find it funny how many people seem to expect Newt to have the exact same positions on every issue since the beginning of his career. Glenn was playing a quote from 1993. How many of us have changed an opinion (or a spouse, or a career, or a faith, or whatever) in the last EIGHTEEN YEARS? It’s preposterous to want a candidate made of granite. We are human beings, constantly being shaped and formed by our experiences.

    Second, and this follows on the first, do we honestly want a politician to be so stalwart in their convictions that we would rather see them do nothing than take baby steps toward their ideals by compromising with the other side?

    • Anonymous

      That 1993 quote was followed up my a May 2011 quote repeating the same premise. 

      Conviction on principles used to be highly regarded in this country. It used to only be respected to change your mind when more truth was revealed or learned, not when truth was covered up or ignored.

  • Washington76

    Stop Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens Without Due Process Below is an urgent alert from the John Birch society regarding Senate Bill 1867, the Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which will give clear congressional support and authorization for indefinite military detention and military trial of American citizens. If passed, this will amount to a declaration of war against the American people, authorizing the Obama Administration and all future administrations to treat Americans the same as citizens of occupied Iraq or Afghanistan, subjecting us all to military jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the international laws of war, rather than our Bill of Rights and our domestic criminal laws, upon the mere say so of Obama or one of his minions.;…

  • connied

    Newt has had a lot of experience and is wise in trying to solve our problems.  Michelle Bachman is a politician.  She has stepped over a lot of people to get where she is today  including Sarah Palin.  Bachman has been giving up some of our military secrets in these debates in trying to be the smartest one of the candidates.  I don’t trust her and will not support her.

    • Anonymous

      ya, if you like Newt’s experiance and positions, you should just keep Obama in office!!!!

  • Jason Clark

    “Yet you seem to always be… You seem to be very interested in the government finding the solution.” Quote of the interview.
    Newt is a progressive in conservative’s clothing who has always been about gov’t not individuals finding the answer. Newt is an incredibly smart man. However, no one, no matter how smart, should be in charge of making decisions for other people’s lives.
    The founders were incredibly smart also. However, instead of writing a constitution that limited individuals and told them what to do they wrote a constitution that limited what government could do to people. For all of Newt’s knowledge of history he doesn’t seem to fully grasp this.

  • Eddie Scott

    Newts a horrible human being. Ron Paul is the only candidate that truly has the American peoples interests at heart. Ron Paul 2012

    • Jose Farias

      Ron Paul is nut case with some radical views on national security and foreign affairs. Two things: Ron Paul will not win the GOP nomination and if he runs as independent he will finish last.

      • Angelo S

        2012 Is About Abolishing Slavery In America
        We’re on the verge of abolishing slavery in America.
        Ron Paul’s aim is to abolish the debt slavery & tax bondage of the FED/IRS Complex.
        Over the last 100 years of slavery we have gradually lost most of what America set out to be, do and have.
        We are not free. We are slaves.
        Force people to put aside all of the non-essential issues and focus on abolishing slavery.
        Let’s start there.
        Our first priority is to regain our liberty, peace and prosperity.
        This is the narrative, the context for all of my campaign communications with others. It shuts down all of the nattering and competitiveness over the flavor-of-the-month candidates.
        No other candidate is cognizant of, or focused on abolishing the crushing debt slavery and tax bondage as a social issue.
        Without our liberty, nothing else matters.
        None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

    • Carter Walker

      I think you Ron Paul supporters would find more backing without the vitriol. I read way to many nasty and superficial comments about the other candidates from you guys. Who is it you think you attract with that?

  • Shawn Breshears

    Don’t vote for Ron Paul – we need to keep the train headed down the same tracks toward the cliff and Newt is just the guy to do that! Ron is too old and we all know old guys are just… well old and never had any wisdom or knowledge, and he is against war for wars sake and … well what would all those defense contractors do without Billions of $ and who will kill all those thousands of Afgans, Pakistanis, Iraqis, Lybians, Syrians and Iranians??? Can’t just leave that to anybody or those brown people who speak different languages will get out of hand and come over here and kill us for no reason! Yes Newt is the guy who will keep the $ flowing just where it belongs… in the pockets of the Fed, Banks, Big Agra and the Defense Contractors…

  • Anonymous

    But it will be these so called conservatives (neo-cons) that will blame us for the GOP losing. Oh well, I’ll wear that badge with honor, if we don’t get some true Constitutionalists elected to this monstrosity. We deserve another 4 years of tyranny IMHO.

  • Anonymous

    Sorry, I’m still not seeing any reason not to vote for Ron Paul. Too much skepticism with this guy in my opinion.

    • Anonymous

      huh, read the “bill of rights” and ask yourself if you want these rights to apply to you and your kids, if you say yet, then their is your reason…..

  • Anonymous

    No news here. Beck raises points that at first glance suggest Newt’s positions are contrary to TEA Party values. Newt provides details that clarify his positions, which arguably move him closer to TEA Party positions.

    For instance, in a perfect world there would be no need for Medicare, but we have Medicare, so do we just pull the plug or do we do what we can to reduce costs? The cost of a lifetime’s worth of Lipitor is less than a bypass operation, so Newt opts for the Lipitor. I think that’s a real-world answer.

    Similarly, do we ban coal burning because the greenies and the EPA will sue if we try to fire up another coal burner, or do we find a way to use the CO2 that will enable us to burn the coal and develop more energy (oil) by redirecting the CO2 in a way that keeps the greenies in their box?

    Each is a path of least resistance approach in which I think Newt believes he can keep everyone satisfied. I would prefer to just dismantle Medicare (I’d give vouchers based on need) and the EPA altogether, but like the death penalty, sometimes it’s just easier to impose multiple life sentences than spend the time and energy to implement an execution.  

    So, did Beck eviscerate Newt or expose some new deal-breaking Achilles heal? I don’t think so.  Is Newt a scorched earth anti-government libertarian. No. Again, nothing new to report.

    • Anonymous

      I’m sorry, but isn’t a scorched earth Libertarian an oxymoron? Scorched Earth is a war policy in which people who differ in the beliefs of the antagonist have their farms, homes, cities, roads, schools, churches and railroads burned to the ground, leaving them decimated and without a way of life.

      Libertarians wouldn’t do that at all. Not. At. All. Libertarians give the unprecedented power of the Feds back to the States and focuses on the job they were charged with- providing safety and security for the Nation, printing money, providing roads and maintaining them, etc.

      How is that a scorched earth policy?

      • Anonymous

        By scorched earth, I mean rip the federal bureaucracy out by the roots and burn the remains. Return all functions not enumerated in the Constitution to the federal government back to the states or the people. That’s what I would prefer. I don’t think Newt’s advocating that. I am.

        • Anonymous

          That isn’t Libertarianism, that is anarchy. The Federal Government has a Right to Exist, just because our States ratified the Constitution that said It Is So. To rip it out by its roots and burn the rest is Anarchy. Ron Paul and other Libertarians, like myself, do not advocate for that.

          • Anonymous

             How ’bout you read a little more carefully before you respond next time? I said rip out the Bureaucracy, not the whole Federal government. I clearly said: “Return all functions not enumerated in the Constitution to the federal government back to the states or the people.” That means I agree that there is a role for the federal government – specifically the one described in the Constitution. The Bureaucracy is the unconstitutional arm of the federal government that keeps churning out regulations that have the force of law but are not voted on by anyone. If you really were a libertarian, you’d find that to be an abomination.

  • Kristen W

    Rick Perry 2012!

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think Newt is my guy. He has too much faith in the government.

    I know Santorum and Bachmann aren’t very satisfying at the debates, but that is not a reason to exclude them and I think they’d have a better time convincing the Ron Paul people.

  • TroubleB

    Anyone voting for anyone but Paul is simply a traitor to our Constitution, it’s just that simple. Newt showed himself to be a statist pig. Good job on the interview Glenn.

  • Angelo S

    2012 Is About Abolishing Slavery In America
    We’re on the verge of abolishing slavery in America.
    Ron Paul’s aim is to abolish the debt slavery & tax bondage of the FED/IRS Complex.
    Over the last 100 years of slavery we have gradually lost most of what America set out to be, do and have.
    We are not free. We are slaves.
    Force people to put aside all of the non-essential issues and focus on abolishing slavery.
    Let’s start there.
    Our first priority is to regain our liberty, peace and prosperity.
    This is the narrative, the context for all of my campaign communications with others. It shuts down all of the nattering and competitiveness over the flavor-of-the-month candidates.
    No other candidate is cognizant of, or focused on abolishing the crushing debt slavery and tax bondage as a social issue.
    Without our liberty, nothing else matters.
    None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

    • Anonymous

      And after Ron Paul’s first 30 days as President, what will he do?

  • Stokes Joshua

    its like everyone forgets about the Newt of the 90’s.  RINO Newt we see you!!!!!!!!!!.  Hey and also in his book he talks about how terrorist attack should have been allowed to be carried out so the president could use the attack to get support from the American people. (and other various reasons)Personally id rather not have someone leading our country who believes scaring and killing American citizens could ever be a good idea. EVER  He sounds like a  neo-con to me. What kind of person thinks like that? A politician, a career politician whos voting record speaks louder than anything. He’s counting on us to not do research on him and his voting record. (he’s also counting on the anybodys better than Obama thought process)  Everyone who’s fooled by Newt…. do not be suprised if some dirty dirty laundry is uncoverd about him.  He’s Dirty. Convervatives will still back him because they will think its just the left trying to smear him. Just like Caine and you see how thats turned out. 

      Please don’t be fooled people he’s just saying what people want to hear…. once again!!!  Follow the money.

    Why isn’t there a law holding these politicians feet to the fire??    If you or I lie to police officer, to a judge etc. we go to jail.  But these career politicians/lobbyist get away with it everyday, we all complain but were’s the line in the sand?
    just a thought or 2

    • Carter Walker

      You were a clown the first time you posted it. Please stop.

  • Carter Walker

    Turbulence? Drudge is getting as bad as the rest of the media. I don’t care who you like in the race there is nothing new here, nothing groundbreaking, nothing “turbulent”. Good interview. Glenn asked tough questions and Newt answered. I guess if you are brand new to following politics this could be news. By the way I am not defending Newt’s stances or advocating for him…..simply stating that there is nothing “special” or new about this conversation.

    • Jim Haze

      gingrich got hammered!!!

  • MH

    Well, the Republican establishment insiders AND the kooks are going to make sure that we have either President Romney or President Obama.  When you can’t look at a situation and say, “This may not be perfect, but it’s the best we’ve got”, you’re an extremist.  All or nothing.

    • Don’t Vote For A RINO

      I can’t vote for Newt.  He’s too much like Obama.

  • Anonymous

    Newt did well.  Very interesting.  Id very much like to see Newt and Obama go head-to-head on issues.  I think it will help people understand who and what they will be voting for in 2012

    • Anonymous

      Newt and Obama support the same issues, some debate…


    • Anonymous

      Yeah….two sides of the same corrupt coin.

    • Sentimental M

      They would be voting for bigger government by a guy who says he will srink it, or bigger government by a guy who makes no apologies about it. Huge choice, will change a lot of things. /sarc

    • Vincent Baiamonte

      I will never vote for Newt.  I think he is corrupt, and his past tends to support this.

  • MH

    Well I guess if he can’t get George Washington as a candidate, he would rather have President Romney or President Obama.  Brilliant.

  • Angelo S

    Jim Rogers on Ron Paul

  • MH

    Does anyone out there remember Glenn changing his tune on anything over the years?  I certainly do.  What makes him the only person who can do that without being a hypocrit?

  • Angelo S

    Jim Demint on Ron Paul

  • Anonymous

    Glenn Beck proved Newt is consistant on his RHINO policies, even his support for Hillarycare’s mandate, and yet they all love him.. wow!  America sucks balls!

  • Anonymous

    Our party is supposed to be CONSERVATIVE. We’re supposed to believe in MORALS. And yet we even consider for a second that an immoral POS like Newt should be our President? Have we gone insane?

  • David Palmieri
  • Craig C.

    Glenn completely destroyed Newt here.  Wow.  Definitely more respect for Beck now.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think we should worry about Ron Paul’s age. How ols was Winston Churchill when he put the UK back on track?

  • Jeremy Torgerson

    “Politics is the art of the possible.”  -Benjamin Franklin

    I can’t believe what I’m reading from my fellow conservatives. Are you going to be such spoiled, pouty children that if some magical, perfect candidate doesn’t show up, you’ll honestly stay home in November?

    Folks, it has to be ANYBODY BUT OBAMA in 2012. If we can’t rally around the ouster of America’s first all-out Marxist president, then let there not be a Republican Party.

  • Anonymous

    Newt is about as Big Gov’t as you can get – still promoting massive regulation, unconstitutional mandates, and enviro-nazism. Newt and Romney are Obama in sheep’s clothing…

  • David Palmieri

    If you are thinking of voting for Newt, please watch this video before you do and in the words of Roger Daltry of the band “The Who”, let’s hope “We don’t get fooled again”

  • Anonymous

    Has Beck interviewed Romney yet???  How-bout Beck interview Obonehead, I’d pay for that!!!

  • Doc

    Can you Ron Paul wackos stay on the freakin’ subject?!?!?!  This is NOT about Paul, it’s about Newt!  For love and peace…. GET OVER YOURSELVES and STOP sabotaging every conversation with Paul rhetoric!!!!

    • Anonymous

      Teddy Roosevelt is the complete opposite of Ron Paul in foreign policy. Since Newt loves Teddy (the biggest Hawk ever) , IT IS VERY RELEVANT!!!!!

  • David Palmieri
  • TroubleB

    Because he admits it instead of pretending to have some reasoned nuance surrounding it or ignoring it.

    Beck the butterfly will be complete when he embraces non-interventionism and gets off the warmonger bandwagon.

    • K. Hunter

      War is an unpleasant fact.  To call any and all who understand that “warmoner” is to demean both the term and the patriot.

      What’s your personal threshold for engaging in a war?  Invasion maybe?  If so then you ought to seriousl consider advocatin for war with Mexico.

      Pease at any price is a romantic sentiment but stupid.  Grow up…

  • Anonymous

    Newt “Teddy Roosevelt” Gingrich is the ANTI- Ron Paul!!!!

  • Anonymous

    Teddy Roosevelt was the “ultimate HAWK!”     

    Newt means war war war !!!!

  • Harpo

    Michele I sure hope you somehow surge to the forefront as ALL of these guys and I’m one too, S U C K!!! 

  • Mike

    Please please vote for Ron Paul.  I truly belive he and his son is our last chances to take our once great republic back.  Before for it is fully taken over by the NEW WORLD ORDER

      This was written by a 21 yr old female who gets it. It’s her future she’s worried about and this is how she feels about the social welfare big government state that she’s being forced to live in! These solutions are just common sense in her opinion. This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX Nov 18, 2010 Put me in charge . . . Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.  Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we’ll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, then get a job. Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair.mYour “home” will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job andyour own place. In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a “government” job. It may be cleaning them roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the commongood. Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules.. Before you say that this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self esteem,” consider that it wasn’t that long ago that takingsomeone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem. If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices. AND While you are on Government subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yesthat is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Government welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.   Now,  PASS IT ON…

    • Anonymous

      I agree with not voting while on public assistance; I’ve said that for a long time. This next election is about whether we will have more people who VOTE for a living than WORK for a living.

    • Vincent Baiamonte

      Too late.

  • Craven Moorehead

    this is just another “smarter than thou” politician.  big government is and will never be, a controllable entity.  i don’t care how much one knows about history, or how long they’ve been entrenched in politics.  we are not fairly represented in washington based on our population which has now created an elite oligarchy.  we have 535 or so people controlling 330 million.  this makes no sense and clearly does not work.  newt is the leader of the pack in thinking that he can make decisions better for all of us.

  • Craig C.

    Newt said the nomination was his.  Good luck Newt, lol.  Ron Paul’s a pitbull of liberty coming for your throat.

  • Anonymous

    I know Ron Paul appeals to younger voters. He truly is a libertarian, but he really dosent have the depth of thought, the analytic acumen, that I look for in a candidate. Newt Gingrich, dosent totally inspire my confidence either, but I would undoubtedly leann towards Newt over Ron Paul any day.

  • Anonymous

    Sarah Palin 2012

  • Anonymous

    Even with all of his flaws, Newt would still be a better president than Obama.

    • Anonymous

      the same thing, which is good, i don’t have to drive to the polls!

  • MH

    I used to be a loyal GB listener – until it turned out that a certain gold company really was screwing its customers.  Glenn didn’t apologize to people like me, or drop them as a sponsor.  He didn’t even respond.  Whatever it takes to get the message out?  How is that any different from the politicians?

  • Stokes Joshua

    the us spends more money than any other county on military and 911 still happened.   It’s hard for me to believe that when we kill innocent people that any of these people wouldn’t want revenge.  being scared doesn’t make us any safer. and no amount of protection is going to stop someone with a plan. Its not our job to police the world and its’s going to bite us in the butt sooner than later

  • Jonathan Lizotte

    The Erie Canal was NOT built with federal subsidies.  The federal government very intentionally stayed out of that project.

    • AbleCynic

      The government did not give money to build the Erie Canal, but they gave permission and court support so that it could be built. It is non-cash support, but was still support.

  • Anonymous

    newt is a big government guy. he obviously believe that government is the solution to most, if not all, problems that face the country. i like newt because i don’t believe the people are ever going to go back to accepting personal responsibility for themself so we will be force to accept the big government guy with the best solutions and i for on think that is newt. marlinmaddog

  • Anonymous

    yes!! And if you don’t like it stay out of the United States. History shows our way is the best ever seen in history. Why don’t you go back and read some history and see how great your world was when we were not involved.

    • Sentimental M

      Uh ok, well I read about some guys like George Washington who advised to avoid entanglements with foreign nations, or Thomas Jefferson who said things like “I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be.”

      Sounds crazy eh?

  • Brian E

    1. Terrorism is a crime and the defining factors are often vague, fighting a “war with no end” is eroding many of our freedoms at home. 2. Although we can all agree that our Country has interests outside of the USA, there is a difference of opinion on the role we should be playing. We are an expanding empire on the verge of financial ruin, many of us fear that a collapse will actually expose us to more risk at home and we should pull back a bit.

  • MH

    Principles are expensive, Glenn.  Renounce the gold company who has been screwing its customers before you call someone else a hypocrite.  I might respect that enough to start listening to you again.  Right now you’re still calling them the “only gold company you trust”.

  • Francine Bieganek

    I understand Gingrich to be keeping his mind open to some of these issues and I also see him being realistic as far as how the Congress votes and what can be moved, stopped or what will continue and what might be out of his hands. Newt is a great story teller and tells it like it is but at the same token Newt knows he can not possibly make promises that he can not keep. Watch out for candidates that make too many promises.

  • Joel

    Gingrich is a Republicrat.  Looks like I’ll be Ross Perot-ing this election by voting for Paul.

  • Stokes Joshua

    And Israel has been caught spying on us many times. But yet people blindly support them

  • MH

    If you put your faith in Man, you’re going to be disappointed.  Glenn seems to be searching to the Perfect candidate.  Whatever Gingrich is, he isn’t evil like our current President.  I wonder how Glenn’s past would hold up to such an “interview”?

  • K. Hunter

    A truly stipid decision in the general election.  Assuming that Paul will actually make a third party run, something I would not expect of a true conservative patriot.

  • Garett

    This guy is an absolute goblin.

  • Anonymous

    gingrich is a neocon, establishment israeli firster;  beck is a jerk.

  • K. Hunter

    I like the way that you ignore this guy.  Way to go…

  • iamasian

    Rick Perry is not the establishment, Fox news guy and I am amused to see how they never acknowledge his strong debate performances like at Huckabee’s forum but are willing to criticize the slightest mistake….

    Rick Perry has a strong record…and we should independently look at his record and not be led by the media….

  • Eric J. Butcher

    Terrorism is a tactic used when conventional warfare is not a feasable option for a opposition force. It is similar to gorilla warfare except that is implicitly targets civilians for the purpose of destroying enemy moral. We are not at war with terrorism but we are at war with radical Islam like it or not. Terrorism is there tactic of choice as the lack conventional options against the likes of us. Ron Paul’s refusal to acknowledge this reality and his 19th century idea that the Oceans can act as barriers against terrorism in a 21st century world are disqualifying positions as far as I am concerned.

  • Anonymous

    Newt pretty much says what he’s thinking without hemming and hawing like so many politicians. I think that’s why he seems at ease, and would never need a TelePrompTer. He also seems to “reason” with others, which may be why his policies drift a few degrees. I don’t think his governing values shift…he’s pretty dedicated to “positive outcomes” for American Citizens which seems to be his primary, unalterable stance. The big question is, can a person with broken vows in the past change? I say sure! There is redemption. (Those who have perfect lives may want to reply with evidence  to the contrary) :)

    • Vincent Baiamonte

      Newt does not hem or haw because he thought he had no chance in the election.  I think a lot of his mouthing off and other issues will guarantee that he will lose if in the general election.

  • Anonymous

    Newt sucks. Ethynol, global warming, cap and tax, illegal amnesty…..makes me sick. He is a big government RINO through and through. No wonder the main stream media is foisting him and romney upon us. Yuck!!!!!

  • Anonymous

    How can Gingrich be reagarded as the “true” conservative?  He is to the left of both Mitt Romney and John Huntsman.  While not a liberal, he tries to find “conservative” approaches to problems identified by liberals.  So he figures out how to do climate change conservatively.  Romney says he things the world is getting warmer and that man probably has something to do with it, but that we need to economically produce more energy including fossil fuels and his plan is basically the same as Rick Perry.  So Newt is the only one who accepts the liberal premise and that is why he is a disaster waiting to happen versus Obama.

  • Anonymous

    Here we go again.  Settle for who you think “can win” instead of doing the hard thing and working for someone who will really do what he says.  Gingrich is not the answer for the US, he is part of the same system that got us in so deep.  He had his hands in Freddie and Fannie, and global warming.  Wise up people.  Have we all really been dumbed down that much.

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul……..nope!  His stance on foreign policy is wrong.  With the Muslim situtation in the U.S. and around the world, Paul is lost.  His policy is to back off and wait to see what they will do to us.  The U.S. should be on the offensive……all the time and take the cause to the Muslims. 

    • Scott

      are you in the military, or just another idiot who wants others to fight and die doing what you don’t have the guts to do. it’s so easy to be for war when you are at home on the couch.

  • K. Hunter

    Terrorism is not a crime.  It is an act of war as you will discover if you read a little genuine history as opposed to the stuff that the public school systems teach.  Treating terrorism as a crime is what brought us 9/11.  Had the Carter, Regean and first Bush administrations treated terrorism as an act of war then Clinton wouldn’t have been able to pretend to be pursuing criminal terrorists while encouraging the act.

    • Rothbardian

      You should define a crime and define terrorism, and then explain the difference.  Telling us to ‘read history’ doesn’t prove you are correct.  

      It wasn’t those administrations treating terrorism as a crime that brought 9/11, it was those administrations terrorizing Iraq and Afghanistan that brought about 9/11.  

  • Christina Farrell

    Seriously? The man is a lobbyist. He has been caught and his seat taken away. He goes with what he’s paid to go with the man is for sale! Not to mention his atrocious family values. Cain got slaughtered for his affairs but Newts sexual proclivities are never even mentioned? Why don’t people put a little effort out and research their candidates?   

  • Anonymous

    Here is the problem.  Newt thinks like a legislator concerned with “the art of the possible.”  On the one hand he has lofty and sometimes grandiose ideas about fixing the country and the world.  On the other hand he answers questions more in terms of what he thinks he can get through the congress rather than what he thinks would be ideal or desirable.  

    Newt and Romney are both that way.  Romney’s biggest error is in not acknowledging that Romneycare was a mistake.  He could say that he initiated it as a state experiment and that while it seemed like a good idea at the time, it turned out to be a failure.  He would thus preserve his federalism argument but be on stronger ground attacking Obamacare.  Unfortunately it does not seem to be within his character to admit mistakes.

    Newt sees things as a legislator, considering concessions and trade-offs he needs to make to get something passed.  He does not see things as an executive with a mission and vision.  So he accommodates many big government ideas that already exist and tries to work within them instead of holding that the programs were flawed in the first place and therefore should be eliminated.  

    Santorum is by far the candidate whose ideas most closely match mine, especially regarding the “Gathering Storm” in the Middle East and elsewhere.  A Santorum/Bachman ticket would be a dream come true — but sadly neither of them has much chance in this unredeemed world to be nominated for either office.  I will support them as long as I can, but when the general election comes around, I would prefer to vote for Newt than Romney.  

    My main reason is that Newt does acknowledge his mistakes and Romney doesn’t.  Small comfort perhaps, but still significant.  

    • Vincent Baiamonte

      Romney has acknowledged mistakes (early position on abortion).  He does not consider the MASS health care plan as a mistake, and for MASS, it probably was not.

  • Anonymous

    I think a Gingrich/Beck ticket would sweep the election clean–and Obama right out the door . . . into the recycle bin, where he belongs . . . composting alone with his fellow garbage.

  • Justin Lark

    MIllions of Muslims trying to kill us? you really do believe the lies their feed you don’t you. does it cross you mind they are avenging their friends and family we’ve killed over their? If we don’t stop, yes it will NEVER end. because we are the ones keeping it going

    • Marie

      Has the western world gotten even with the muslims for invading Spain yet?

  • Juliezzz

    You guys want Newt OR Romeny and you will LOSE this election.  Obama will win because Ron Paul supporters, will not hold their nose and vote for a RINO.  They will vote Ron Paul in even if he doesn’t run 3rd party.  There is virtually zero difference between  Obama vs Newt or Obama vs Romney.  They are more of the same big spending, bailouts, endless wars that we saw with Bush AND Obama.  Newt and Romney mean more of the same.

    You want Newt or Romney to get the nomination?  Then you better get used to seeing Obama for 4 more years. 

    Omit Mitt
    Never Newt

    • Doug Weems

      I have thought about voting for Ron Paul to send a message to the establishment and the eventual Republican nominee, but grief, so many Ron Paul supporters come across as bananas that it makes me not want to put my name in his column.  They are his worse enemies.

      • Marie

        I’m with you about Ron Paul.  I think I have decided that I will vote for Ron Paul, and I never thought I would say that.  I hope Ron Paul has the fortitude to do what he says he wants to do as president.

    • Vincent Baiamonte

      Well, I guess Republicans don’t stand a chance, because RP will never be competitive in the general election.

  • Doug Weems

    We may have to settle for Newt, and then stock the congress with conservative TEA party representatives.

    How are we shaping up for TEA candidates in the Senate?  What RINOs are we hunting with TEA?

  • Anonymous

    To all you people saying that Newt is a “small government conservative”, I urge you to reread this interview. He clearly outlined his support for the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE, subsidies for ethanol and oil companies, support for carbon taxes, and that he is a Teddy Roosevelt progressive.; please, you Newt zombies, reread what he actually said in this interview and look up his voting record. He is no conservative.

    Ron Paul 2012

  • Anonymous

    Sorry, Ron Paul might be popular because of some of his statements- but as President, he is not a person this country could accept as a leader….perhaps as a crack pot, based on the various debates he has been in this year…..
    A Paul administration- would push this country into a larger financial depression and provide the various terrorists groups the breathing room to rebuild, refund, and re-target America.  Lets face facts, our choices suck…
    Paul cannot win, Newt might have a chance if he learns how to talk to the people in a way that they understand his message. Romney cannot be trusted and the rest..well its time they get off the stage.
    I hate to say this -but the way it looks right now- we could have Obama for another 4 years because the Republican party does not appear to be able to listen to real America and cannot seem to get their message across to them. There are two sides to every issue- but the only message that is getting out is that the Republicans are preventing things from happening that might help the country. The WHY they are doing it is not being heard. So the only message getting down to the voter is the one the Democrats wants them to hear.

    • Vincent Baiamonte

      Romney cannot be trusted but Newt can?  Have you not paid attention to the last 15 years of history?  I would say that Romney is much more likely to be trustworthy than Newt.

  • Juliezzz

    Ron Paul only look crazy to those brainwashed by the media.  Read what his stances are and see if you don’t end up agreeing with him.

    The only negative things media says about Ron Paul is “hes crazy” and “he can’t win”  Neither of which is true.

    Proof positive is Paul is going to win IOWA

  • Jay Getty

    Newt. The reason we need ethanol subsidy is to keeo monopoly OPEC from lowering the price long enough to rust out our stills only to raise prices…not to mention we finance the war against ourselves every day at the gas pump…we are better off at 10 dollar domestic fuel than any import…

    Everyone has government health care now and for years…they go to the emergency room where care is free….we are only trying to lower the cost….

    Newt…tell the truth about cost….a hospital bills say $10,000 for a stay; the doctor bills 5,000; the insurance pays the hospital $1,200 and the doctor $600….this makes Berny Madoff look petty…if you pay direct with cash they demand the $10,000/$5,000 not the $1,200/$600 they gladly take from insurance…

    • Brian Moore

      Prices and charges really don’t matter much for hospitals.  Hospitals usually only ever get about a 35% of what they charge.  

  • uh huh

    The moderator here is an idiot – deleting every comment I make with zero explanation.

  • Anonymous

    Why can Ron Paul win in spite of certain policy positions outside the mainstream? Because he is a nice, genial, honorable man. Newt is not. Also, the American people DO NOT want to start another war in the Middle East and Gingrich and Romney have promised to start one with Iran if Iran will not do their (and Israel’s) bidding. Ron Paul will employ American might to make the world a more peaceful place – once elected 90% of Americans will be proud to call RP president.

  • Irina Krasnyuk

    What a long term shrapnel!

  • Marie

    It’s clear to me that Newt Gingrich is a big government daddy.  Newt is on my naughty list.

  • Anonymous

    Very enlightening interview. I was not going to vote for him anyway because of his mentor. I never thought I would see the day where we would have such a weak bunch of candidates. None have any substance, no fire in the gut, no convincing us how they can bring us back to the top. I believe we are in trouble in 2012. I watch, I listen, I pray but no one has stepped up. The big question is will someone, at some point, take the lead.

  • ajironworks

    This is why BIG Government running everything
    instead of the private sector society and Big Government controlling all the
    cash and Tax money from everyone rich or poor is a bad Idea , and heres some
    more reasons why , “Seven big problems for 7 billion people. Experts weigh in on
    predicaments caused by a burgeoning world population , but are they experts or
    just 21st Century Marxists”?

    We really need to Consider if we are heading back
    to a time like we saw in the early 20th Century and if we are silent will we be
    silenced again ? North Carolina’s reparation for the dark past of American
    And they wonder why no one trusts the Government …..
    When I hear the conversations about Overpopulation by Technocrats that
    wrote this Mandated health care bill it makes me wonder just what do they really
    have planned ? This is why Big Government is very very dangerous . Obama
    Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir.
    Gates is on the record Speaking of this,
    Co Author to Obama CZAR John Holdren , Read what Paul Ehrlich says in this
    , and wonder is Bigger Government the answer to health care ?
    Here is his quote ” I have understood the population explosion
    intellectually for a long time. I came to understand it emotionally one stinking
    hot night in Delhi a couple of years ago… The temperature was well over 100, and
    the air was a haze of dust and smoke. The streets seemed alive with people.
    People eating, people washing, people sleeping. People visiting, arguing, and
    screaming. People thrusting their hands through the taxi window, begging. People
    defecating and urinating. People clinging to buses. People herding animals.
    People, people, people, people”. —Paul Ehrlich .Here are a couple more posts
    from Paul Ehrlich , The population bomb is still ticking 13 December 2009
    “The “Population Bomb” Echoes ,
    Read what Paul Ehrlich’s book says on How to control the US Population go
    to page 2 of this PDF , Paul R. Ehrlich says we in USA have to be forced into
    the idea of population control for them to then be able to be a good model for
    the rest of the world ” Plus here
    is a bit more Info on UN Agenda 21 , and we the people deserve to have and to
    hold a Nation of Liberty from this . If we do not Maintain what the Professor is
    talking about in the above link we risk the Loss of defending against the
    Internationalism of what is talked about below ,

    Is all this crazy senate actions and lack of
    leadership because the result of ideological critical thinking here driving
    Government policy that ignores Citizens rights ?

    Its not the USA People thats the Problem so why
    should we have to sacrifice our Liberty and justice for all , we are Only 300
    Million out of 6.7 Billion , and we have plenty of Land so why are we being made
    to collapse our amber waves of economic prosperity when we are the perfect model
    for the rest of the world as a self reliant people sustainable under GOD and
    Indivisible with Liberty and Justice for all ? We need to maintain what this
    Professor says in this Video .

    So this is the next option too a economic
    depression …..
    Fresh Water Source Here to feed the expansion of
    Controlled Agriculture production systems in the European Union

    Next Big Bio-Fuel – ALGAE , an extra option of renewable fuel and by
    product for future human needs demands.

    We need to innovate these renewable options and
    stop the Governments in the world telling us they are working on solutions but
    actually only rat holing the capital they say they are using for developments
    while running world resource supplies down too shortage levels that would
    resemble a Bolsheviks Plot , like this , this is a worldwide issue ,
    CORN RESERVES: The U.S. Department of Agriculture says the nation’s corn
    reserve is at its lowest level in more than 15 years,0,577364.story

    So we need to consider and debate these solutions
    to our economic supply shortage issues that are coming our way NOW before we
    wait to long and Shortages turn into Famine that brings Government reactions
    similar to the bring of the 20th Century European / Asian Atrocities !!!

    Welcome to Fodder Solutions,
    , and take a look at this ,

    The world markets are telling us this by there
    unsustainable growth patterns over the last 12-14 years , compare these charts,
    , the stagnant growth in equity and supply in grain is obvious , and you cannot
    have sustainable growth in any durable goods unless the bread basket is growing
    with it . See ” UP TO ” 1998 all cylinders of growth were advancing together as
    the futures traders could see world food supplies advancing at unlimited growth
    projections because plant breeding was producing increased yielding grains

    Consolidating the wealth from the private sector
    investor pools and Rat Holing the cash by the Elites and Technocrats as well as
    all the Government Officials and Politicians like we see with the 60 minutes
    report on Insider trading by Congress , even Bill Clinton was getting 50 K a
    month out of this Corzine Fraud,
    , so how many more fake investment firms are out there like Corzine , and the
    results will be catastrophic when this videos explanation becomes the result so
    get ready people its coming like a Thief in the night ,

    Here is what we need to do to restore the US
    Dollars Solvency , 3 videos on how EU/USA Monetary policy lost its leveraged
    internationally & how 2 get it back

    This issue will define the Next Leader in the General Election because
    people are becoming aware of this as the real reason why world economic recovery
    is stalled out . Thanks for your time .

  • Anonymous

    I will be voting for Ron Paul so long as he appears on the ballot.  I will “hold my nose” if I’m required to vote for Gingrich or Romney. 
    Sorry Newt you can’t be trusted except to due the right thing for Newt.  :-(

    • Vincent Baiamonte

      So why is Romney so painful?

      • Anonymous

        It has become painfully tiresome to vote for the lesser of two statist, collectivist, “they-can-make-the-trains-run-on-time” “Il Duces”; I would rather not have to vote for Romney or Gingrich because they claim they will succeed where Obama has failed.

  • Anonymous

    Brad McMillan’s Comment on Compromise
    in Politics Revisited



    –Brad McMillan–


    In this statement the
    Executive Director of the Institute for Principled Leadership in Public Service,
    Brad McMillan, high lights five basic principles to end political gridlock in
    Washington D.C.  As a former attorney and
    congressional intern and chief of staff, he focuses on what will get the
    government moving again. With a Presidential election less than a year away, I
    present only one of this fine public servant’s observations for the electorate
    to consider. I am indebted to I.W.U.’s Fall 2011 issue of their alumni


    Brad often reflects on his 1984
    experience in Washington D.C. when Congressman Michel would return from a long
    day on the House floor and invite staffers to go to Bullfeathers, a favorite
    Capitol Hill hangout. He’d invite liberal Democrat and House Speaker Tip O’Neill
    and his staff.


    Here I was a 21-year-old-guy
    walking into Bullfeathers with the Republican leader and the Democratic leader
    of Congress. They would have a meal, share a few drinks and there was genuine
    friendship that was a part of the way they approached things. Did they agree
    philosophically on every single issue? No, but they found a way to work


    The tone changed when Newt
    Gingrich became speaker of the House, [Brad] said.


    He chose to lead with a much
    harsher tone and heated rhetoric, throwing hand grenades at the other side.
    When he eventually lost power and Nancy Pelosi became speaker, it was payback
    time. I’m critical of both political parties in the leadership they’ve chosen
    in recent years. They could choose leaders that put the best interests of the
    country first before partisan politics, and we haven’t seen that for the last
    15 or 20 years…


    When asked if he ever loses
    faith in the prospect of a major change for the better in American politics,
    McMillan admits, there are times when you get very discouraged. But he adds
    over the past 20 years he’s learned to be patient…I’ve learned that any
    significant change takes time…Brad states that  I have seen firsthand lights go off in student’s
    heads that there might be a better approach if they listen to the other side
    before making a judgment…we can return to civility.


    We need to add Brad’s
    perspective prior to the election of a President in 2012.


    Alan G. Phillips

    Bloomington, IL

  • Kevin Barnes

    Ron Paul 2012

  • uh huh

    Teddy Roosevelt was a great man and a great president – we’d be fortunate to have TR at a time like this. Posters who sound-board the Glenn Beck mantra of TR not being a conservative aren’t thinking for themselves nor are they evaluating history on their own. Of course it’s quite possible they just don’t know how.
    “In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American.. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile.. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” — Theodore Roosevelt (1919)

    “We demand that big business give the people a square deal; in return we must insist that when anyone engaged in big business honestly endeavors to do right he shall himself be given a square deal.”Letter to Sir Edward Gray, November 15, 1913Teddy Roosevelt did found the Bull Moose Progressive Party – which did seek to regulate industries that were not regulating themselves. It was the right move at the right time but the correlations Glenn tries to draw to modern progressivism are incorrect. They mischaracterize a great American President, one who took a bullet for his country. One who had the forsight to build American’s Navy from a few boats to a world super power. As secretary of the Navy, it was TR that prepared us for WW1.The Bull Moose party officially disbanded circa 1918 – that other politicans have since created a new progressive movement, and call upon TR’s activism as their inspiration in no way incriminates TR. The man believed in hard work – he would have had no stomach for today’s progressive movement and their entitlements.”I have never in my life envied a human being who led an easy life; I have envied a great many people who led difficult lives and led them well.”Des Moines, Iowa, November 4, 1910

  • Juliezzz

    You think Paul is crazy on foreign policy?  Ron Paul is BRILLIANT!!!!!

    He predicted 9/11  and has been speaking out for years.  watch this 2 min video!

    He was right then, and he is right now

  • Jordan Roberts

    If Gingrich or Romney are nominated, Obama will win in a landslide. If you are paying attention and reading things outside the neo-con bubble, you know this is true. Unless the GOP nominates a pro-freedom and a pro-constitution candidate the American people will lose. Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman are the clear choices.

    • Vincent Baiamonte

      Ron Paul?  Are you serious?

  • Jordan Roberts

    George Will nails it on Gingrich: “Gingrich, however, embodies the vanity and rapacity that make modern Washington repulsive. And there is his anti-conservative confidence that he has a comprehensive explanation of, and plan to perfect, everything.”

    • Jordan Roberts

      Gingrich, who would have made a marvelous Marxist, believes everything is related to everything else and only he understands how. Conservatism, in contrast, is both cause and effect of modesty about understanding society’s complexities, controlling its trajectory and improving upon its spontaneous order. Conservatism inoculates against the hubristic volatility that Gingrich exemplifies and Genesis deplores: “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel.”

    • Randy Dutton

      I don’t see Gingrich as greedy, and sure every politician has a little vanity in them, some more than others – look at Obama. He’s the most arrogant politician in our lifetime.

      The field of candidates now is pretty well fixed. Gingrich may not be perfect but he has a proven track record of balancing budgets and nothing will cause this country to fail faster than financial implosion. Ron Paul is right on many issues but unelectable in the general election, Romney is not more conservative than Newt.

      • Vincent Baiamonte

        Yea, and Romney does’t have the baggage that Newt has.  Newt will never be elected President.

  • Anthony Yetzer

    I can’t figure out why all of you are talking about Paul.  What about Gingrich?  Isn’t that what the above interview is all about?

    But since you are talking about Mr. Paul I will reply.  There are numerous points on which I disagree with the man: Most prominently being his stance on Iran getting nuclear weapons.  

    Sure Ron Paul would be great for our economy.  But defense?  No way.  

  • Anonymous

    There can be only ONE.   Newt, Newt Newt

    • Slow King

      Newt is a liberal.  I thought conservatives weren’t supposed to like liberals.

  • Ratt

    Ok,   I just read that 3 times,  did Newt actually take a stand on anything ?

    • Slow King

      No, and he also lied quite a few times.

  • Ron Shirtz

    Newt “Get-Rich” talks from both sides of his mouth. Honestly, has he ever given an uncompromising, clear, consistent position on on any issue? No. He does not. He is perpetually obtuse. His words do not match his contradicting actions.

  • Beatrice

    @readers:disqus my friend’s half-sister makes $79 hourly on the laptop. and llast month her paycheck was $7242  ,  only learned Kelly Richard’s ways in “Online income solutions”… View More 

  • Anonymous

    WAIT A MINUTE!! Didn’t we just hear from Newt? Ron is an isolationist and he doesn’t care if Iran gets The Bomb!! The Mullas would be glad for everyone in Iran to die to eliminate Israel. You can say Newt is a politician, but I would rather trust a mechanic to fix my car, than an accountant. Newt knows the ropes of Washington and how to rescue this country. I really don’t care what he did 5, 10, 15 years ago, I want to know what he is going to do NOW!! We now have a Liar-In-Chief. If he ‘s re-elected the U.S. is doomed. I trust that Newt will bring this country back to it’s original greatness.  Newt 2012

    • Slow King

      Youre dumber than a rock.  Learn more about the world then come back.

      • Perry Obsternoffan

        You rebuttal is devoid of content, kind of like your head

    • Vincent Baiamonte

      In judging what a person will do in the future, you must consider their past.

  • Anonymous

    What I heard Newt saying is: “Look, if you want to get anything done, you have to trick the moronic-boob public into agreeing with it.”  I hate to admit it, but he’s probably right about that in general.  The problem I have with Newt (and all statists) is that he is so convinced that he knows what all those “anythings” should be.  He’s in favor of mandatory health insurance, but the only people not on insurance now are illegal aliens and the temporarily unemployed, so Newt is for adding them to the welfare roles. 

    Newt thinks he saved Medicare by, yes, “prolonging lives” with the prescription drug entitlement.  Um, I’m pretty sure that is not going to “save” Medicare.  A long-lived Baby Boomer generation will just bankrupt it faster!  And Newt, why should I have to pay to keep barely alive a bunch of people who were too lazy and irresponsible to live healthy lifestyles in their youth.  I don’t give a damn about such disgusting slobs, so screw all your Medicare mumbo jumbo!  At least ObomneyCare will quickly establish death panels and cut these freeloading losers off the government teat…and angry, overtaxed Americans will be so jaded by then that we’ll stand by and applaud it.  Actually, Oba-Mao is probably counting on such moral apathy to keep himself in power.

    And finally, Newt thinks he actually can play both sides of the global warming argument.  “Yes, it exists and we should stop it, but we can do it in a way that doesn’t destroy our economy.”  Really, really Newt?  What evidence is there for man-made global warming?  It has all been faked and/or made up out of zero science to do one thing and one thing only: destroy our economy.  There is no other purpose to this nonsense.  What Newt wants is like trying to have Communism without murdering millions of people who don’t worship the Party.  You can’t “green up America” without destroying its wealth…it’s the whole point, you dunderhead!  So your fence-riding genius plan is to do what?  You resist cap and trade, but you are all for forcing the coal industry to sequester carbon?  Who do you think has to pay for all that “capping”?  No, it won’t bankrupt the industry like Oba-Mao has vowed to do [ ].  It will just bankrupt me, the consumer! 

    I think Newt is suffering from the mental symptoms of latter stage syphilis.  He probably was in too much denial of his sexual indiscretions back in the 90’s to seek medical treatment then.

  • Deborah Knight Barton

    Holy Crap. Conservatives want Newt? Really? A Progressive? Did 2010 never happen? Did I just dream that? Or have I walked through the looking glass? God help us. Seriously.

  • Rick Terrell

    We want to reward Newt with the Presidency. The same Newt who resigned the speakership in disgrace, paid a $300,000 fine, then resigned his seat in congress, all of what an “Innocent” person would do. Yea, this speaks real well for us Republicans.

  • Anonymous

    I am a “seasoned” citizen.  It is true that government has moved beyond the scope of the Constitution.  However, this is also historically true of the majority of the American people.  After all,  the American people elected the congressmen and presidents who have passed the laws and implemented the regulations that have brought us to this point in history.  We can blame no one but our ancestors and ourselves for the hardships we are facing.  Some of us have surrendered to an emotional fixation with effects rather than solutions.  Please keep in mind that an opinion or belief isn’t a solution until there is a reasonable expectation that enough people will support it to make it happen.  In essence, pragmatism moves the marker towards the Constitution because it marries what can be done to time so that more can be done.  The Glenn Becks and Ron Pauls carry a purist torch that will burn the country down rather then light the way back to our Constitutional path.  Those who want to reverse hundreds of years of history before sunset will never survive the chaos they will bring upon the Republic.  I will support the imperfect Newt Gingrich.

    • Slow King

      So basically, you’re for Newt because you would rather not follow the Constitution.  Sounds about right, because he’s a big liberal.

      • Anonymous

        Above, please see my reply to carkz.  There is a lack of understanding on the the part of some Ron Paul supporters as to the type of governmental system we have.  It is a democratic republic and consequently, you have to persuade the electorate to support your point of view.  To this point you have been unsuccessful.  You write with the tone of an inverse Obama supporter.  Emotion pitched to anger and an avoidance of the perspective from which people see Ron Paul and his supporters denies you the ability to have an impact on the direction in which the country is going.  I trust that at some point in time you will be more reflective of a William F Buckley than a Ron Paul.

    • Anonymous

      Well if that is the case then lets take a vote to amend the consitution instead of just the parts people don’t like.  Lets start with repealing the 10th amendment since it no longer has any meaning.

      • Anonymous

        It has been a very long time since the people through their votes
        supported the Constitution.  I am concerned that you do not recognize
        that we have what the people voted for over many congressional and
        presidential elections.  Purist conservatism will not change that fact. 
        It does not matter who you support or whether or not you are a
        conservative.  However, the strength or weakness of your argument does. 
        I’ll let readers decide on how strong the, “So basically, you’re for
        Newt because you would rather not follow the Constitution.  Sounds
        about right, because he’s a big liberal” really is.  Comprehension is
        part of the reading process.  So, you might benefit from reading again
        what I wrote.

  • Scott Keefe

    Ron Paul, 2012. The media are against him. All the entrenched interests fear him! I will vote for him!

    • Anonymous

      No doubt about the fact that the media, especially consevative media, goes out of their way to make sure they do not mention Paul and when they do they use disparaging terms.

      There is talk about a Romney v Gingrich debate, but these 2 guys are almost identical on the issues.  The public deserves to see a debate between Romeny and Paul or Gingrich and Paul where there are actually difference of policy. 

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul  2012

    • Perry Obsternoffan

      Actually I might agree if you put an adult in charge as VP.  He won’t last more than a few years before he croaks or goes even crazier than he already is

  • Anonymous

    As I have said over and over, he is “Obama Lite”. Just because it might be fun to watch him debate Obama, I can’t believe the republicans might actually nominate Gingrich. If they do, Obama will win for sure. While Gingrich is bright, he has too much baggage, and is so, so  smug and his leadership style is horrible.

  • Chace Daley

    I think we can all agree that no one knows more about war than the men and women of our military service.  Ron Paul, who served and who some here have inexplicably claimed knows nothing about war, receives more political donations from military servicemen than all other GOP presidential candidates combined. 

    Should we not at least pay some heed to this?  Should the thoughts of military men and women we put at risk be ignored or disregarded?  I am not saying all military servicemen agree with Dr. Paul, but the numbers are there and publicly accessible. 

    Ron Paul’s thoughts on war are simple: you declare them first, and then you actually win them.         

  • Joe Stimpert

    The United States of America needs to honor commitments to allies, particularly Israel and we need to maintain a strong military in order to defend our nation against those who seek to harm us, particularly Iran, but also every allah-ackbar, puffed up, destructive little puss pocket of the world.  Ron Paul would do neither of these.  Michelle Bachmann would do both in addition to driving a stake into the heart of our tyrannical socialist government.  I’m not sure what Romney would do, but he would look presidential doing it.  Newt should be running as a democrat.

  • Anonymous

    It has been a very long time since the people through their votes supported the Constitution.  I am concerned that you do not recognize that we have what the people voted for over many congressional and presidential elections.  Purist conservatism will not change that fact.  It does not matter who you support or whether or not you are a conservative.  However, the strength or weakness of your argument does.  I’ll let readers decide on how strong the, “So basically, you’re for Newt because you would rather not follow the
    Constitution.  Sounds about right, because he’s a big liberal” really is.  Comprehension is part of the reading process.  So, you might benefit from reading again what I wrote.

  • Anonymous

    I think that Newt is the best guy for the job. I don’t necessarily agree with him on everything, who does, but he is a great thinker and if the left doesn’t challenge his policies in court everytime he does something, we will turn this country around and start solving the real problems we face, the problems created by BHO and in part by previous presidents.

  • Ryan Frederick

    i still don’t know about him.

  • Anonymous

    To carkz:  Whether you like it or not the Constitution has been amended through the laws and regulations passed or enforced by the representatives and chief executives we’ve elected since our founding as a nation.  The 10th amendment has been at least partially “amended” by the election of people who have over time, through elections, passed laws, implemented regulations, and appointed judges who see the Constitution differently.  If you cannot sell those who vote that it is to their benefit to keep the 10th amendment as it was intended then you are not going to like what is coming.

  • Perry Obsternoffan

    Wow, the Ron-Paul Neo-Nazi truther brigade is out in full force today.  

    I still have not worked out what I think about Newt in 2012, but I know what I think about Ron Paul every time he goes on one of is hate Israel – love Iran slobering nutcase rants.    

  • Lyle Burwell

    The transcript reads “…reading up to Sinclair’s The Jungle…” It should read, …reading Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle…”  

  • Perry Obsternoffan

    No, we should pay no heed to it.  Serving in the military does not impart an innate ability to weave together foreign policy.

    I severed and it doesn’t make me right in saying that on foreign policy he’s naive, but that’s my opinion. 

    • Chace Daley

      I feel those who see the consequences of war first hand are more apt to correctly value the costs and benefits of war.  The fact that more of them contribute to Ron Paul, who has a drastically different foreign policy than mainstream/status quo democrats and republicans, I find telling.  I am by no means suggesting that we blindly accept their opinions as “right”, however, I simply think it deserves discussion.  Agree to disagree.  Thanks for the response.      

  • 4joachim

    Great Interview!

    As Margaret Thatcher’s movie is viewed soon, Newt’s explanation of gradual change will make more sense.

    We will see it played out in a Socialistic Society that failed.
    We will see the long painful road back to fiscal responsibility, privatization on enterprise, and realize that Newt is on the right road, but a painful road.

    He will need Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum.
    He will need both House and Senate in order to accomplish what Margaret Thatcher did.

    Thank You for taking the time Newt Gingrich!
    Thank You for this interview Glenn Beck!

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul wins all debates on any subject because his response is always; “what does the Constitution say?” He can then quote it, which takes the legs out from under any other argument.

    We live in a Constitutional Republic, which no other candidate, left or right is willing to admit.

    Ron Paul is the only candidate for President who isn’t seeking “Power To Himself” and as such, remains the only reasonable choice…

  • Perry Obsternoffan

    “Slow” is a great handle for you …  careful though, because eventually you might actually make a point without attempting to. 

  • Anonymous

    my close friend makes $73/hour on the computer. She has been fired from work for 6 months but last month her check was $7540 just working on the computer for a few hours. Here is the site.. CashHard.cÒm

  • Nicholas

    links to these accusations? funny thing about the internet you can back anything you say up instantly.

    If you can’t you are instantly uncredible…

  • Timothy W. Lucas

    The American is hard working and in these times pressured to give up God and lately country for two in the bush. We don’t want two in the bush. We want God and country. We want what is best for us and those that come after us. The children of tomorrow. If you don’t need God then simply keep it to yourself as evidently guidance is unnecessary. It is necessary for many of the rest of us that need a higher purpose and direction. It is a slap in the face to Americans that very well paid politicians are more interested in lining their pockets such as Al Gore than the life and future of this country and it’s people. Obama was an error or a deception and socialism was not what the people wanted or voted for. The election of 2012 is about the replacement or correction of that error with anyone else and that choice in the end doesn’t matter so long as Obama is replaced. This country can then get back to correcting it’s house of faith and principles. The canidate for 2013 is ABO. Anybody but Obama.

  • Ken Weaver

    Oh Puleeze. Gingrich isn’t for anybody but Newt. It’s all about his personal power.
    Ron Paul is a wizened old fart who lives in a bygone age thinking you can talk to terrorists. He’s like Neville Chamberlin proclaiming “peace in our time”. Ask the Europeans how that worked out. Now think about what happened to Daniel Pearl when he thought he could talk to terrorists. He lost his head. Literally.
    The only person I trust with the job is Michele Bachmann. I might be able to stomach Romney if we can keep his feet to the fire. Santorum would be nice, but he doesn’t seem to have any kind of personality for it.

  • Derrel Walters

    I believe the government subsidizes healthcare because they REFUSE to encourage Americans to consume less.  They say, “This could only hurt the economy.”  However, by encouraging lethargy and excess over the years, the government has, in essence, subsidized wasteful spending by the citizenry. 

    It is always one subsidy to take care of the short-falling of another subsidy!  They argue:  “Last time, we just didn’t spend enough.  This is the reason for this RECURRING situation.”  This is a very circular argument to say the least!  It is a dogma that continually adds to the inevitable downside of these type policies; the consequences become more serious the longer we continue.

    So, what happens if the government were to take a different approach?  What if, instead, they decided to form a committee to gather scientific evidence about all the health risks directly tied to our eating habits.  In addition, the committee would build a strong case and start initiatives to better educate the public about the consequences which exist from such behavior.  However, they avoid any subsidies, which can only create false demand and create hostility among market competitors due to fairness.

    Likely, as with cigarettes, sound education would finally begin to overcome many of our vices (except for those that continue to CHOOSE to take part in risky behavior).  This would entail a likely decline in the market for unhealthy foods and behaviors.  The government would have you believe this is horrendous!  We have lost jobs! 

    However, what happens in reality is a reallocation of employment to sectors such as the health food industry, gyms, etc.  This is a natural process.  Retrospectively, what occurred was that by subsidizing special interests, the government spurred a sort of false demand in economic sectors which otherwise would not have existed.  WITH THE USE OF SUBSIDIZING POLICIES, THE GOVERNMENT REALLOCATES EMPLOYMENT TO AREAS OF THE ECONOMY WHERE IT OTHERWISE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN!

    This is an unavoidable fallacy of Keynesian economics.  

  • Anonymous

    I really enjoyed the exchange, Newt demonstrates over and over that he has processed solutions to the most vexing problems in our society today…he has not wasted his time since leaving government, but rather thought of clear solutions. Now, I don’t agree with all of them, but I am willing to accept them as part of the overall package…thanks for doing these insightful interviews, Glen.

  • Kenneth Kehl

    This is what I think Mr. Gingrich would do.  He would adjust the Health Care bill to be more affordable and accessable to all seniors. He would stop this paying foreigners who have nothing to do with getting health care. He would have all illegals who have been here for 25 years the right to become citizens and pay into health care instead of getting us to pay for it. I believe he would start a massive energy program which would stop us from dependency on foreign oil and sending money to our enemies in the middle east. I beleive he would shut down the boarders first thing. And in the third year he would balance the budget of the federal government. I don’t believe Obama would do any of these things.BK

  • Orson

    Newt Gingrich is still a Beltway economic idiot! Like practically ALL historians today, has no clue that government is inherently the problem – NOT the solution.

    LET OUT PEOPLE GO and be free! Gingrich is just another slave driver, and among the most dangerous at that.

  • Anonymous

    100 percent globalist shill. The only ones promoting Gingrich as some sort of front runner are the mainstream media, which is also controlled by the same globalist despots. Really folks, we have chosen from THEIR stooges for decades. Gingrich supporters, please step away from the television, you really should be wise to this scam by now.
    Ron Paul in 2012. The only real choice.

  • Tom Donahue

    For all you “patriots” and “christians” (who believe Christ condones preemptive war and torture)
    Gingrich says that a citizen who wages war on his country has forfeited his rights as a citizen…WRONG!  How about you flush your public education and read the Constitution,

    Article 3 Sec 3: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.  No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

    Seems Newt Gingrich doesn’t care about the constitution and is banking on your public eduindoctrination to make you blind.  We fought for independence in this country to avoid undue searches and seizures, secret prisons, and forfeiture of Habeas Corpus.  PLEASE PLEASE educate yourselves for heaven’s sake!  History of man is tyranny.  Our founders chanted “Give me Liberty or Give me Death.”  The chant today is “Give up your Liberty or we are all going to Die.”

    Ron Paul, A modern day founding father!

    • Clay Hillin

      Well put, Tom. Ron Paul is the only one who seems to get it.

  • Paul Roman

    I have never seen someone do that well debating Gingrich, really put him in his place without being arrogant and childish. The Gingrich vision really seems to be more of the same as Bush and Obama, is that really what we want?

  • Paul Roman

    I have never seen someone do that well debating Gingrich, really put him in his place without being arrogant and childish. The Gingrich vision really seems to be more of the same as Bush and Obama, is that really what we want?

  • Edgar Stephan

    Newt the RINO Gingrich

  • Wiley B. Channell

    Reading the entire interview one must come to a simple conclusion the world we live in has many pressing and difficult problematic actions which dwell deeply into  livilhood of the multi millions of indiviuals it is beyond human mortal mans capability to have all the right answers.
    Major Wiley B. Channell USMC (ret)

  • Lorin Chane Partain

    GINGRICH: But I do think ‑‑ and I think almost everybody will see this, I believe. You want to make sure, for example, if you buy certain electric things that they don’t start fires in your house.

    There is a private company that does this exact thing. Underwriter’s Laboratories. There is not even a need for government to have safety regulations, no one will put out a product these days without UL approval. There are other examples of private certifications in other industries as well.

  • Gary Wintle

    Ron Pauls’ point about Iran is that Iran was a democracy until we turned it into a thuggish dictatorship which then led to the rise of Islamism. We created the Islamist regime in Iran, by destroying democracy there.

    Mossadegh, the democratically elected leader of Iran, was a principled, decent man, who acted in the interests of the Iranian people. BP and the British Government threw their toys out of the pram when Mossadegh nationalised the oil, because the British refused to share 50/50 on profits.
    Thus, the UK and US governments destroyed democracy in Iran purely out of greed, using taxpayers money to enrich oil companies.
    It was innevitable that the Islamists (incidentally backed by the CIA during AJAX) would thrive when the US imposed their little bitch boy, the Shah, who committed treason against the Iranian people by shamelessly serving foreign powers. Thus, in our greed, we did create the Iranian mullahs.
    Truth be told, if Iran were a Democracy, it would likely be seeking nukes even more so than under Ahmadinejad, because of the way their nation has been shafted by greedy foreigners makes it enitirely rational to have maximum millitary defence. If I were an Iranian I’d want nukes.
    Operation AJAX was one of the most disgraceful, shameful chapters in US foreign policy.

    • w. Parker

      You’ve presented the “Iranian point of view” well sir.  You are so right, they do deserve nuclear weapons, in fact Paul should just loan some of ours to Iran.   “We greedy foreigners”!!   May i ask a question of you?  Are you an active member of the Iranian Red Guard?  I’m sure they’d be mighty proud of your statement

  • Robert S. Nickester

    IM confused where Newt really stands! Is he for or against the private sector, Is he for or against the big government ?????????????????

  • Anonymous

    Ron Paul all the way. All the rest are juste a bunch lying, cheating thiefs. I don’t even understand why the give the time of day to speak. All they ever say his lies. Marc Matthews, Have you ever gone to war for your country? NO. so don’t even speak. I was in the army, and I can tell that are troops dont belive a single word of what this so called presidential candidates  say, except for Ron Paul.

    • w. Parker

      You are speaking for our troops?  You know what they think or just a few Paul supporting friends of yours?  I was in the Vietnam war and it was bad enough fighting under the restrictions of LBJ.  Many thousands died unecessarily because of idiots running a war from an armchair in washington.   I WOULD NOT enjoy fighting any war under a Paul.  First, he believes in no allies to assist in the first place so we would not have any allies to assist us.  Second, he would gut any foreign capability of the US which would hurt us beyond repair.  You can’t wait until our enemies approach our very shoreline.  Third, he is blind to who our enemies are.  Fourth, he looks, speaks, and acts as if he has a nervous disorder.  He doesn’t appear “rational”.   I agree with some of his domestic policies.  That’s it.  Dreday, we are all voting citizens and have a voice whether we were in a war or not – we are all americans – with our constitutional rights, remember??

  • Charleston Voice

    When a candidate’s morals & character don’t matter to you:

    Newt Gingrich’s Skeleton Closet

    The Real Newt Gingrich

  • Anonymous

    Adan…What in blazes are you implying? War is necessary. On the account of most countries. Look at the past. You proved my point about us winning and them losing. Imagine if we didn’t go to war with the British? War is no good I understand but, would you tell your child not to fight for himself. Not every choice our government makes is right but, waiting  for bad people to do bad things is not the answer. ie: an attack on your wife or child…would you not intervene with as much force as possible no matter the after effects. Wake up man or become a statistic.

  • Anonymous

    I love both Newt and Glen. I believe they are both reppresentitives of 
    the Truth. Their combined efforts to define the Truth gives me Hope for my Nation. Keep up the fight, our Country needs Good Men like you both.

  • fred longe

    URGENT MESSAGE From the Troops

  • PokerKnave

    Clearly if you want Santorum to be the conservative standard bearer you will have to work harder. I have reversed my negative position on The Newt because the GOP are silly enough to vote The Newt. Amazing! 

  • Angela Franks

    This is disappointing…

  • Anonymous

    “It’s a prudent thing to develop a green coal plant that takes the carbon
    and puts it into carbon sequestration to use it to develop oil fields
    more deeply and can be actually economically done.”

    that quote alone is enough to make one’s head spin. How much extra are we expected to pay for energy to support “carbon sequestration” and how can the “sequestered carbon” be used “to develop oil fields more deeply” and how can it be “actually economically done”?

    Oh, and, since “there is evidence on both sides of the climate change argument” but “Evidence is sufficient, but we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon looting of the atmosphere.”Here we have the consummate politician taking both positions on the existence of anthropecentric global warming but IN FAVOR OF SPENDING OUR MONEY… ” And now to have a dialogue about what’s the most effective way to solve
    it.” (Note that we’re solving a problem which may or may not be real.”

    Further, ” I think if you have the right level of tax credit, it
    isn’t just exactly voluntary.” Is “not exactly voluntary” the same as “compulsory?

    “My guess is there’s a dollar number at
    which you would have every utility in the country agree they are all
    going to build private and sequestering power points. So I think this is
    a definable alternative.” Of course, if the government (with our money) is willing to pay for carbon sequestration at a price industry likes, of course, they’ll sell it at that price. It costs them nothing since the stupid consumers will cover the costs by some combination of prices and taxes and receive nothing in return.

    This interview leaves me concluding, reluctantly, I might add, that Newt is as much a fascist as the mulatto Mussolini… Government and big business working together hand in hand to build their fantasies at our expense. It just doesn’t wash.

  • Michael Scapp

    Don’t listen to Glenn. Newt makes perfect sense, and it’s obvious to me that Beck was bought. To make the claim with Judge Napolitano that Newt is the same thing as Obama except white is a flat out lie. I cancelled my subscription, and I feel ashamed that I had ever argued in Beck’s defense. Glenn will tell you he has the video tape or audio tape of Newt, but if you listen, Glenn is just twisting Newt’s words around to mean something else. I just hope this isn’t Bachman’s doing. I sincerley hope it’s not her camp that’s buying Beck to say these lies, because I like her a lot.

  • Anonymous

    both of you scare me…………..

  • Judy ekstrom

    Regarding this interview with Newt, I don’t like where Newt says “I want the government to pay for it”; that is the same big government talk we want to get away from. Common people hear “government paying” as if the government actually has it’s own money and they are getting it for free. They do not understand when the government is paying for something that is OUR tax dollars, and comes from increased taxes and decreases the amount of money we have to live on.  Whatever government pays for it has all control over!  Newt is for big government; government owning and controlling everything while WE foot the bill and have NO say!
    Tax credits given for the things the government controls?  That sounds like a sell out to me and the continuation of what Obama already has going on!!!!!
    His book “Contract with the Earth”, his stance on global warming with Pelosi, and his voting for the Dept. of Education along with the above tells me I am right on the money that Newt is 100% for UN Agenda 21 and will finish the destruction of this country if elected.
    The medicare change he takes pride in being apart of was a nightmare for my mother and many other senior citizens who no longer could afford their medications due to an enormous deductible seniors on fix incomes can not afford!  (total income of $665.a month with a deductible of $300. month for medicare.)  I’m convinced this man more dangerous than I ever thought before.

  • louis smith

    Glenn is an idiot. Sobers up, takes a crash course in history and now he wants to be considered an authority. Your thinly veiled attempt at a hit job, just exposed your stupidity. 

  • Evi L. Bloggerlady  I have to say, I like a president who would do something like this.  I am not endorsing his progressive tendencies, but I still like Teddy.  

  • Android medical apps

    Newt is just an idiot and trying to add fuel to the fire. But in a really dumb way….lol

  • mony1
  • شركة سما
  • شركة فرسان الخليج

The 411 From Glenn

Sign up for Glenn’s newsletter

In five minutes or less, keep track of the most important news of the day.