You are wrong. Beck let Gingrich know what was coming, and stated every possible way that it would not be a “gotcha”, and Gingrich explained himself cordially, and they parted cordially. Gingrich defended each of the past tapes that Beck played for him. In other words, he stands by all of his previous stances. Beck simply is exposing these views as a continued use of big government to solve problems. The Tea Party, in all that I have understood of it, stands against the use of government as we have used it in the 20th century, and seeks the beginning of a return to foundational principles. Gingrich does not represent that point of view.Having said this, of course if he is the nominee it is our critical duty to vote him in and Obama out, but better still, we need to vote in the best electable Constitutional Conservative. That is what Beck stands for.
Agreed. “Logical me” was illogical, and wrong, in every aspect of his post. The fact is, that Newt IS a big government politician. And not only that, his statement of a slow, gradual conservative movement is not only illogical, but impossible. People get dirty bit by bit, but they clean up all at once. The fact is, the Founders knew this (”refreshing the tree of liberty” talk, and so forth), and it’s a fundamental fact.
People who have a change of heart from evil to good, want to change their behaviour all at once. The don’t want to eat a little less of the crap sandwich, they want to eat NONE of the crap sandwich. They don’t say, “Well, I’ll just nibble around the edges.” Liberals, however, both boil the frog slowly, and slowly pollute, incessantly, the culture and the way of life. There will be no gradual improvement, that’s not how it works. The chains get completely thrown off, or not at all. If not at all, then they are merely replaced (and added to) with less obvious chains, but chains all the same.
After that interview, no one who even sympathizes with the Tea Party could vote for Newt.