Obligatory: Glenn Beck vs. Newt Gingrich

posted at 3:15 pm on December 6, 2011 by Allahpundit

Here’s the transcript, although I recommend watching the clip purely for the drama of tea-party godfather GB confronting the possibility that this is the guy the “new” populist GOP is going to hire to remake Washington. It’s all here: The Medicare prescription drug expansion, the cheerleading for health-care mandates, and of course Newt’s enthusiasm for tackling global warming. Watch for the part where he reminds Beck that he testified against cap and trade before the House … without mentioning that he once thought it was a fine idea. Ultimately, I think this interview was less about debating ideology (note that Beck rarely engages him in a sustained exchange on any topic) than fostering an uneasy but necessary rapprochement between Beck’s “get government out of the way” wing of the party and Newt’s “use government to foster conservative policy goals” wing. If he’s the nominee, there’ll have to be a detente in the interest of defeating you-know-who. Here’s the first olive branch as Newt tries to convince the Beck faithful that he agrees with them on the ends, if not the means. Click the image to watch.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Whoops forgot the link

http://kemo57.tripod.com/stranded.jpg

Ugly on December 6, 2011 at 5:26 PM

Dang that Eisenhauer for initiating the unconstitutional act of building interstate highways.

Vince on December 6, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Actually, that may be said to fall under the “establishment of postal roads” clause. ;-) How those roads are maintained and paid for is another matter entirely.

gryphon202 on December 6, 2011 at 5:31 PM

Vince on December 6, 2011 at 5:24 PM

And if you’re curiosity was genuine, I apologize for the snark. But it’s a b!tch-and-a-half to espouse views like mine and be called “fringe” because of it. I weep for my country.

gryphon202 on December 6, 2011 at 5:33 PM

gryphon202 on December 6, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Hamiltonians won, dude. Sorry. :-(

http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html

Punchenko on December 6, 2011 at 5:36 PM

Hamiltonians won, dude. Sorry. :-(

http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html

Punchenko on December 6, 2011 at 5:36 PM

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Hamilton was an ANTI-federalist. Had he gotten his way, the constitution never would have been signed. Unlike most anti-federalists however, he believed that the constitution didn’t go far enough in consolidating power centrally.

gryphon202 on December 6, 2011 at 5:37 PM

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Hamilton was an ANTI-federalist. Had he gotten his way, the constitution never would have been signed ratified.

gryphon202 on December 6, 2011 at 5:37 PM

FIFM

gryphon202 on December 6, 2011 at 5:40 PM

http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/why-im-endorsing-newt-gingrich/

I don’t think it’s too much to ask and, yes, Newt Gingrich is a conservative. I won’t sit here and tell you that he has no flaws or that he hasn’t gone off the reservation a few times. But, I will also tell you that other than Ronald Reagan himself, Newt Gingrich has actually helped push through more conservative legislation than anybody else in the last 30 years. This is the man behind the Contract with America, welfare reform, and a balanced budget in D.C. He has a lifetime ACU rating of 90. This isn’t a man who governed as a centrist and is now telling us how conservative he’ll be this time around. This isn’t a man who simply said “No” to everything that came down the pike because it wasn’t “conservative enough” for him. This is a man who actually moved the ball forward for conservatives on Capitol Hill. When was the last time we got off defense and actually started moving D.C. to the right? Oh, yes, it was when Newt was the Speaker. So, people can criticize his performance as Speaker all they want, but no Republican in D.C. since Newt left has even come close to filling his shoes. Even the best people we have in D.C. right now are doing nothing more than holding the line. There’s a lot to be said for that, but we’ve got to do more than that if we’re ever going to turn the country around.

jp on December 6, 2011 at 3:51 PM

You are spot on. We don’t need/want some “fancy pants” with a
glib smile talking out of both sides of their mouths to get
elected. Since Palin choked, Gingrich is the only one left who
actually accomplished something we conservatives liked. Unfortunately, the media, etc. gave Clinton most of the credit.
Many bought into the ethics charges, etc. that
the democrats used to derail Newt at the time. One has to be
old enough to remember what really happened.

Amjean on December 6, 2011 at 5:41 PM

Vince on December 6, 2011 at 5:24 PM

And if you’re curiosity was genuine, I apologize for the snark. But it’s a b!tch-and-a-half to espouse views like mine and be called “fringe” because of it. I weep for my country.

gryphon202 on December 6, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Glad to see this on our side.
The real enemy is the left: Remember Pelosi being amused, or surprised, that anyone even thought to measure Obamacare against our constitution?

GaltBlvnAtty on December 6, 2011 at 6:02 PM

But how much of that “conservative” legislation was actually constitutional? That’s a fair question.

gryphon202 on December 6, 2011 at 4:14 PM

At least Newt didn’t use the US Constitution as a baby wipe.

ProudPalinFan on December 6, 2011 at 6:26 PM

note that Beck rarely engages him in a sustained exchange on any topic

Gee, I wonder why…maybe because Beck needs his crew to do some research, study what was said, than diss what Newt said, after he has left the station…in other words, Beck doesn’t know enough to challenge Newt, Becks an entertainer, not a historian, not very bright, but has great researchers and is great at cheerleading and drama.

right2bright on December 6, 2011 at 6:29 PM

At least Newt didn’t use the US Constitution as a baby wipe.

ProudPalinFan on December 6, 2011 at 6:26 PM

Yeah, but that doesn’t mean he gave it the respect it deserved either.

gryphon202 on December 6, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Yeah, but that doesn’t mean he gave it the respect it deserved either.

gryphon202 on December 6, 2011 at 6:30 PM

BTW, “an excellent argument to be made” is as close to “true” as you get in the legal world when something has yet to be ruled on. But failure to be specifically enumerated in the Constitution is not necessarily fatal, no matter your own personal opinion on the matter.

Unless you think the solution in absence of Marbury v. Madison is that gryphon202 gets to decide the constitutionality or lack thereof of all legislation.

Good luck with that.

alwaysfiredup on December 6, 2011 at 7:02 PM

I hope they all get knocked down to some extent and have to fight their way back up- and whoever can’t come back, well, it just wasn’t meant to be. Sounds cruel perhaps but this is going to be the worst, bloodiest campaign ever and we’ll have a better candidate for that process having taken place. It’s still early in the game.

kg598301 on December 6, 2011 at 7:05 PM

BTW, “an excellent argument to be made” is as close to “true” as you get in the legal world when something has yet to be ruled on. But failure to be specifically enumerated in the Constitution is not necessarily fatal, no matter your own personal opinion on the matter.

Unless you think the solution in absence of Marbury v. Madison is that gryphon202 gets to decide the constitutionality or lack thereof of all legislation.

Good luck with that.

alwaysfiredup on December 6, 2011 at 7:02 PM

If Marbury v. Madison is binding as you seem to think it is, then what is it if it’s not the Supreme Court giving itself carte blanche to do something the constitution makes absolutely NO mention of?

And besides that, where is the enforcement mechanism? Where in the constitution does it give the executive branch the power to enforce court decisions as law? I’ll wait until you figure it out.

It’s not just a case of “Gryph says this is the way it should be.” It’s more along the lines of “this is the way the framers of our constitution intended it should be.” If you’re going to reject their work and stated intentions (and read the federalist papers if you honestly don’t know), at least be honest about it. But don’t pretend that the constitution is something that it’s not, or that it’s not something that it is.

I’ve said it before, and it’s worth repeating: There is a reason, self-evident as it is, that the constitution enumerates federal duties and says what the states MAY NOT do.

gryphon202 on December 6, 2011 at 7:15 PM

Just great—-our side just loves to trash our prospects. Lets see, Malkin jumps down Perry’s throat. Why to go!!! Now, Beck trashes Newt. Why to go!!!! Keep going–Obama just might win with NO competition. Sit back Democrats, you don’t need to say or do anything because the conservatives are are foaming at the mouth like a bunch of fools.

mobydutch on December 6, 2011 at 8:42 PM

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.

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.

Are these signs of another big government conservative? Big government conservative should be an oxymoron! This is frustrating. There is no way Newt can challenge Obama on the mandates in ObamaCare. We’ll never repeal that damn bill…*sigh*

ncconservative on December 6, 2011 at 9:07 PM

OK, I read the transcript. Newt’s out to lunch with “rightwing social engineering” and carbon sequestration.

eFF U2, nEWT.

disa on December 6, 2011 at 11:15 PM

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Hamilton was an ANTI-federalist. Had he gotten his way, the constitution never would have been signed. Unlike most anti-federalists however, he believed that the constitution didn’t go far enough in consolidating power centrally.

gryphon202 on December 6, 2011 at 5:37 PM

I do not see how Hamilton could be tagged as an anti-federalist when he is responsible for authoring the majority of the Federalist Papers. If he was not a Federalist, then who was?

NeverLiberal on December 7, 2011 at 12:01 AM

Oh God, Newt just wants to have the “good” subsidies.

AshleyTKing on December 7, 2011 at 12:14 AM

Hamilton’s virtues:

He served in the Continental Army.
His assumption plan restored the rotten credit of the United States.
He was a gold money advocate.
He hated internal trade barriers.
He told the truth when confronted with his amorous affair.
He tipped the Federalists toward Jefferson after the tie in 1800.

His vices:

He may have conspired with officers behind the Newburgh Conspiracy.
He was in favor of protective tariffs. He was a mercantilist at heart.
He supported the creation of a 50,000 army to crush the Democratic-Republicans during the Quasi War.
He supported the Alien and Sedition Acts.
He tipped off the British that we would not join a league of neutrals to assert our neutral rights: we got Jay’s Treaty instead.

The last was close to treason.

AshleyTKing on December 7, 2011 at 12:25 AM

So far, none of the articles “about” the interview have presented it accurately.

Listen to it yourself…carefully.

Several times during the interview, Beck and Gingrich were talking about totally different things: this means that any excerpts from the full context of this interview are very likely to be totally misleading.

I heard a conservative purist talking with a conservative pragmatist.

I still think the absolute best solution for the country would be Cain or Palin with Gingrich in the Cabinet.

landlines on December 7, 2011 at 12:37 AM

I do not see how Hamilton could be tagged as an anti-federalist when he is responsible for authoring the majority of the Federalist Papers. If he was not a Federalist, then who was?

NeverLiberal on December 7, 2011 at 12:01 AM

He was a federalist in the end, but only after the bill of rights was passed, a measure that most of the signers of the main body of the Constitution balked at. Hamilton’s insistence on the inclusion of the bill of rights was directly related to the reason that six of the delegates at the constitutional convention refused to sign the finished document. And Hamilton was also a proponent of the “implied powers” doctrine, which every last one of the signers of the consitution soundly rejected.

gryphon202 on December 7, 2011 at 1:11 AM

beck is undressing newt.

NORUK on December 7, 2011 at 1:39 AM

AP links to a video of the interview at Right Scoop. This video is not complete. Here is a link to the complete video:
http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/12/06/glenns-revealing-interview-with-newt-gingrich-story-and-video/

john.frank on December 7, 2011 at 9:26 AM

One thing that raises my ire is that only having “good” subsidies is still picking winners and losers in the marketplace. AND I was very disappointed to see that Beck didn’t challenge Newt on Ethanol subsidies. Unfortunately for all of us, Newt is 100% wrong on ethanol subsidies and his politician-esque answer of “I want to develop all energy sources” is political BS. There is such thing as a bad decision Newt – and supporting a wasteful and inefficient form of energy production long past when we’ve known it is wasteful and inefficient is poor leadership. AND it is certainly NOT conservative.

Will president Newt waste tons of our money on subsidies for electric cars, wind power and solar?? If there is profit to be made, Newt, the private sector will develop it! Focus on easing regulations and letting us get to it.

Free Indeed on December 7, 2011 at 9:42 AM

Free Indeed on December 7, 2011 at 9:42 AM

Exactly right.

AshleyTKing on December 7, 2011 at 8:15 PM

So Glenn Beck decides to put on his full blown Ron-Pau-libertarian hat here. I thought Gingrich really put Beck in his place. I understand Beck’s apprehension about Gingrich but his line of questioning was way off target. DD

Darvin Dowdy on December 8, 2011 at 8:20 AM

Comment pages: 1 2