Skip to comments.BECK DOESNíT HOLD BACK IN GINGRICH INTERVIEW: TOUGH QUESTIONS ON MANDATES, BIG GOVíT, GLOBAL WARMING
Posted on 12/06/2011 3:17:12 PM PST by BarnacleCenturion
Glenn Becks thorough interview with GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich Tuesday morning has gained traction in political news outlets throughout the day. Jim Geraghty of The National Review tweeted Bravo for a hard, fair, respectful, but deeply revealing interview of Newt! and Glynnis MacNicol of the Business Insider writes that Beck grilled Gingrich in a way conservative voters who are seriously considering voting for Newt should be eager to hear.
Below find video of the interview followed by a partial transcript:
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Stop confusing us with logic...we’re on a Newt hunt.
“I could care less, I am voing for Gingrich.”
ROFL, every week you seem to support a different candidate (Perry, Cain, etc). When Newt goes bust maybe you’ll finally realize that Bachmann is the only conservative who can win.
All abolishment talk does, regardless if it's ultimately the correct answer, is ensure we lose.
Once again, reality.
I’m with you. Newt needs to be put back out to pasture. He’s a big government tinkerer with the constant meme “give people choices via big government choice tinkering”.
Get rid of this guy! Just as one of the comments chimed in after the interview that even Romney is better than Gingrich and everyone knows what a phoney Romnuts is.
Perry because the union morons hate him.
Cain because he makes some good sense.
Perry-Cain is the best we got.
But just get Gingnuts and Romnuts off the friggin stage because the media is nominating them for us.
There is no bigger ho in the room, than Newt.
Flame away ... it’s what you seem to do best.
I like Becks investigative journalism sometimes, but this is a hatchet job to pump Romney. Just read the comments at the link to Beck’s videos. It’s spilling over into FR in the guise of an interview.
Why Newt agreed to go on Beck’s show is beyond me. He walked into the middle of a Mormon support session for Romney. There’s no winning in that arena and they spend a few hundred posts on his site alternately slamming Newt with a lot of old and blatantly false garbage that the MSM used to hit Newt with, then alternately pumping Romney before bashing Newt again.
We are going to destroy the party and shatter conservatives with this kind of disingenuous garbage.
Just keep character assassinating candidates until only Romney is left... and if we let this kind of stuff go without calling it what it is that is exactly what will happen.
Damn shame that Beck is going to play it like this though. I had, somehow, hoped for a little better from him but he knew very well how to leverage the whole package of his new site and format to make sure his favorite candidate comes out looking like roses.
When Beck gets Romney and Obama on his show to do the same, then I will be impressed.
No Conservative would, however, as in many times passed, we'll be voting against the lesser of two evils.
If this was all that “tough”, then I say Giddy-Up!
Not that I can see from viewing your posting history
Worse than Obama is he?
Guess that makes you an Obama voter. By your own admission.
I mean, if it came down to a choice.. you prefer Obama.
"No bigger ho" you said.
Tell me.. did you think the same thing and vote for Obama last time?
My primary goal is defeating Romney.
Surprise, surprise! The owner of this site happens to one conservative who supports Newt.
Newt isn’t a real conservative. He sounded bad explaining his past positions.
Your half-assed logic and Alinskyesque attacks don’t deserve a response.
Thanks for proving my point, ‘or what I would regard as an early Christmas gift.’
Moving on ...
The first is why he decided to help create the federal department of education? What Newt Gingrich did when voting to create Jimmy the-progressive Carter`s federal department of education was, to open the door for progressives to centralize a federal power over state public schools systems. The fact is, creating a centralized regulatory power over the education of a nation`s younger generation is a priority of every communist and dictatorial government, and is used to brainwash a nation`s younger generation.
Aside from that, Newt Gingrich, in voting to create a federal department of education, not only ignored our Constitution`s Tenth Amendment, and the retained powers of the State, but he defied the founder’s clear intentions regarding the limited power of Congress with respect to learning and useful arts! But don`t take my word for this, let one of our founding fathers explain this limitation to Mr. Gingrich and those interested:
``The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers.” SEE: Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792 Rep Page
The second issue of great importance which Glenn Beck did not ask is why Newt Gingrich favored adopting the ``Fairness Doctrine`` which would allow the federal government to regulate speech on radio and television stations under the guise to ``afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.`` Of course, this power is another one which every communist country and dictatorship exercises.
The fact is, Gingrich has shown his support for our federal government to exercise this extraordinary power and allow the federal government to meddle in our media when our Constitution forbids Congress from abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble It should also be noted that Gingrich was in very questionable company with those who sponsored a return to the Fairness Doctrine: RINOs, snakes and a PUBLIC BATHROOM CLOWN!
For the co-sponsors see: Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987
Rep Akaka, Daniel K. [HI-2] - 5/7/1987
Rep Bliley, Tom [VA-3] - 4/2/1987
Rep Bonior, David E. [MI-12] - 4/2/1987
Rep Boucher, Rick [VA-9] - 4/2/1987
Rep Boxer, Barbara [CA-6] - 4/2/1987
Rep Brooks, Jack B. [TX-9] - 4/2/1987
Rep Bryant, John W. [TX-5] - 4/2/1987
Rep Buechner, Jack [MO-2] - 5/7/1987
Rep Bustamante, Albert G. [TX-23] - 5/7/1987
Rep Callahan, Sonny [AL-1] - 5/7/1987
Rep Coelho, Anthony Lee [CA-15] - 4/2/1987
Rep Coleman, E. Thomas [MO-6] - 5/7/1987
Rep Collins, Cardiss [IL-7] - 4/2/1987
Rep Conte, Silvio O. [MA-1] - 5/27/1987
Rep Cooper, Jim [TN-4] - 5/7/1987
Rep Craig, Larry E.[ID-1] - 4/2/1987
Rep Crane, Philip M. [IL-12] - 5/27/1987
Rep Dannemeyer, William E. [CA-39] - 4/2/1987
Rep Daub, Hal [NE-2] - 5/7/1987
Rep de Lugo, Ron [VI] - 5/27/1987
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 5/7/1987
Rep Dellums, Ronald V. [CA-8] - 4/2/1987
Rep Dixon, Julian C. [CA-28] - 4/2/1987
Rep Dornan, Robert K. [CA-38] - 4/2/1987
Rep Dyson, Roy [MD-1] - 5/7/1987
Rep Eckart, Dennis E. [OH-11] - 4/2/1987
Rep Fascell, Dante B. [FL-19] - 4/2/1987
Rep Fields, Jack [TX-8] - 4/2/1987
Rep Ford, William D. [MI-15] - 4/2/1987
Rep Gingrich, Newt [GA-6] - 4/2/1987
Rep Gray, William H., III [PA-2] - 4/2/1987
Rep Hayes, Charles A. [IL-1] - 5/7/1987
Rep Hochbrueckner, George J. [NY-1] - 5/7/1987
Rep Hughes, William J. [NJ-2] - 5/7/1987
Rep Hyde, Henry J. [IL-6] - 4/2/1987
Rep Lagomarsino, Robert J. [CA-19] - 4/2/1987
Rep Leach, James A. [IA-1] - 4/2/1987
Rep Leland, Mickey [TX-18] - 4/2/1987
Rep Levine, Mel [CA-27] - 5/7/1987
Rep Lipinski, William O. [IL-5] - 5/7/1987
Rep Lott, Trent [MS-5] - 4/2/1987
Rep Madigan, Edward R. [IL-15] - 5/7/1987
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] - 4/2/1987
Rep Marlenee, Ron [MT-2] - 4/2/1987
Rep Martinez, Matthew G. [CA-30] - 5/7/1987
Rep Murtha, John P. [PA-12] - 4/2/1987
Rep Nielson, Howard C. [UT-3] - 4/2/1987
Rep Oberstar, James L. [MN-8] - 4/2/1987
Rep Owens, Major R. [NY-12] - 5/7/1987
Rep Pepper, Claude [FL-18] - 4/2/1987
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-16] - 4/2/1987
Rep Scheuer, James H. [NY-8] - 5/7/1987
Rep Schroeder, Patricia [CO-1] - 4/2/1987
Rep Schuette, Bill [MI-10] - 5/7/1987
Rep Schumer, Charles E. [NY-10] - 4/2/1987
Rep Solarz, Stephen J. [NY-13] - 5/7/1987
Rep Stenholm, Charles W. [TX-17] - 4/2/1987
Rep Stokes, Louis [OH-21] - 4/2/1987
Rep Sundquist, Don [TN-7] - 5/7/1987
Rep Synar, Mike [OK-2] - 5/7/1987
Rep Torres, Estaban Edward [CA-34] - 5/7/1987
Rep Udall, Morris K. [AZ-2] - 4/2/1987
Rep Vento, Bruce F. [MN-4] - 5/7/1987
Rep Walgren, Doug [PA-18] - 4/2/1987
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-24] - 4/2/1987
Rep Weber, Vin [MN-2] - 4/2/1987
Rep Weiss, Ted [NY-17] - 5/7/1987
Rep Wise, Robert E., Jr. [WV-3] - 5/7/1987
Rep Wolpe, Howard E. [MI-3] - 5/7/1987
Rep Wyden, Ron [OR-3] - 4/2/1987
Rep Yates, Sidney R. [IL-9] - 4/2/1987
In regard to the background concerning this issue, early in 1987 the FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine of 1949. Then, Congress attempted to bring it back and a bill passed both Houses and President Reagan vetoed it and Congress was unable to gain enough votes [H.R. 1934, which Gingrich sponsored] to override the veto. The controversy was that part of the bill having the federal government providing `` a reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.``
``June 21, 1987|PENNY PAGANO | Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON — President Reagan, intensifying the debate over whether the nation's broadcasters must present opposing views of controversial issues, has vetoed legislation to turn into law the 38-year-old ``fairness doctrine,`` the White House announced Saturday. The doctrine, instituted by the Federal Communications Commission as public policy in 1949, requires the nation`s radio and television stations to ``afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.```
I can`t believe Glenn Beck do not raise these two issues with Gingrich.
No disrespect intended but isn't that really another sign of how far obama has brought down this Country, how desperate we are?
It's amazing to me what we have to settle for in order to defeat this cabal, it's very telling and to be honest, sucks.
When it comes to Global Warming, and Big Government I don’t think there is much difference between Newt and Romney. I think they sit in about the same place on the scale of conservatism. But Newt is a Washington insider in the worse way and that if anything bothers Beck the most.
I miss him on FOX as well. Most informative show, I learned alot when he was on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.