Skip to comments.Gov.Rick Perry: "Newt Is The Real Deal"
Posted on 02/22/2012 8:18:14 PM PST by Marguerite
Gov. Rick Perry expresses his continued support for Newt Gingrich and offers advice on what he needs to do to improve.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtu.be ...
Newt Gingrich talks to Bill Hammer, calls Obama “the most dangerous president in history”
Gingrich / Whoever is the dream team...
Anybody else is just rewarmed Juan McLaim...
Romney is just a good friend of Ted Kennedy..
It has been apparent that ron paul has sucked up to mitt obamney for some reason [double teamed santorum tonite] and it is now coming to light....obamney will have RAND Paul as VP!!!! Sounds like a back room deal by obamney to buy ron pauls people.
He and Perry would make a great combo.
Perry is going to be on with Rusty Humphries in a couple minutes.
Oh, Thank You :)
All that bickering between Rick and Mitt was at such awfully low level, they looked like two street boys battling over lost marbles.
Newt was at his best, very focused and sharp on target - Obama. Unfortunately most of the debate was wasted on those lost marbles ... *sigh*
The R/M infighting bore me to tears.
Link to Rick Perry interview
Santorum can’t stand the heat in the kitchen.
He imploded tonight.
It was even painful to watch him squirming.
Romney is a heartless robot killer.
Newt was the only one looking and BEING presidential.
As I said, the others are not boxing in the same category with him. It was so obvious.
How Newt can articulate an issue in a 30 seconds reply is exceptional. I never saw anyone better than him in any previous debates in the last 30 years.
Newt needs to go on that Bradshaw diet and lose at least 35 pounds. He looks unhealthy.
Vote NEWT as the winner of tonight’s debate. http://www.teapartybrief.com/#pd_a_5970403
Newt is the real deal. Rush Limbaugh said Newt is Intellectually Musclebound. Nothing will ever change my mind about Newt, I’ve recognized his specialness since the 80’s.
“HE CERTAINLY IS THE REAL DEAL”
Newt’s lines in Arizona debate from the transcript:
“I’m Newt Gingrich, and I’ve developed a program for American energy so no future president will ever bow to a Saudi king again and so every American can look forward to $2.50 a gallon gasoline.
KING: Mr. Speaker, join the conversation. Address Gilbert’s question and if you so choose, address some criticism you’ve received on this issue from this state’s senior Senator campaigning for governor Romney. He questioned your credentials on fiscal conservatism. He said when you were the speaker, earmarking became an art.
GINGRICH: Well when I was speaker, as I’m sure he remembers, we balanced the budget for four consecutive years, the only time in his lifetime. So I think that’s a good place to start with Gilbert’s question. We’re meeting tonight on the 280th anniversary of George Washington’s birth. You go back and look at the founding fathers, they’d have had very clear messages. Hamilton would have said you have to have jobs and economic growth to get back to a balanced budget. You’re never going to balance the budget on the back of a highly unemployed country. And so I would be committed, first of all, to a program of jobs and economic growth.
Second, the energy issue is enormous. The leading developer of North Dakota oil estimated recently that, if we would open up federal land and open up offshore, you would have $16 trillion to $18 trillion — not billion — trillion dollars in royalties to the federal government in the next generation, an enormous flow which would drive down prices to $2.50 a gallon, would help us balance the budget and would create millions of jobs.
Finally, I agree generally with the need to reform government. I think that, if we were prepared to repeal the 130-year-old civil service laws, go to a modern management system, we could save a minimum of $500 billion a year with a better system. And if we then applied the tenth amendment, as Governor Rick Perry has agreed to head up a project on, I think we can return to the states an enormous share of the power that’s currently in Washington, D.C.
GINGRICH: But I think there’s a different question. Everybody talks about managing the current government. The current government is a disaster.
It is the reason I started with the idea that came out of Strong America Now to repeal the 130-year-old civil service laws and go to a modern management system, is you change everything.
And the fact is, if we’re serious — and, in a funny kind of way, Ron and I are closer on the scale of change. We’d approach it slightly different, but I think you’ve got to start and say what would a modern system be like?
And a modern system would be — just take control of the border. It is utterly stupid to say that the United States government can’t control the border. It’s a failure of will, it’s a failure of enforcement.
GINGRICH: So let me just take that one example. Let’s assume you could, tomorrow morning, have a president who wanted to work with your governor, that instead of suing Arizona, helped Arizona, who actually worked with Arizona.
Now — what’s the fiscal reality three years from now in your emergency rooms, in your schools, in your prisons, of controlling the border? It’s a lot less expensive. You just took a major step towards a less expensive future. So I think it is possible to modernize the federal government and cut taxes and develop energy simultaneously. And the three lead you to Gilbert’s concern. Let’s get back to a balanced budget.
Gingrich: : Now, look, let me just say flatly all of you need to think about this because this is one of those easy demagogic fights that gets you into a lot of trouble. If you have Barack Obama as president and you have a Republican House, you may want the House imposing certain things on the president.
Now, when I was speaker, for example, and we had a liberal Democrat in the White House — I actually want to reinforce what the governor said. I helped the Atlanta Olympics get the support they needed from the U.S. government to be successful. I thought it was totally appropriate to help the Atlanta Olympics. And I actually went to — to your former governor and sat down with the people originally planning the Winter Olympics and said, look, this is what we did; this is what you need to do.
I think it was totally appropriate for you to ask for what you got. I just think it’s, kind of, silly for you to then turn around and run an ad attacking somebody else for getting what you got and then claiming what you got wasn’t what they got because what you got was right and what they got was wrong.
KING: Mr. Speaker, come in on the conversation. It’s a tough one. It’s a tough one. It’s a major American industry, in a time of trouble.
GINGRICH: It’s not tough. First of all, there’s a huge amount of the American auto industry that was just fine. BMW in South Carolina was terrific. Mercedes in Alabama was doing just fine. Honda in Ohio was just fine. So the — Toyota was just fine. What we have is the United Auto Workers and a management system that had grown very, I think incapable of tough decisions because they were used to selling out to the United Auto Workers. And so they came in and said, oh we can’t change. And this president on behalf of the United Auto Workers said, you’re exactly right.
Now, the fact is, Chrysler is now Fiat. So when we talk about saving the American auto industry, let’s be clear what they were doing. I think that they would have been much better off to have gone through a managed bankruptcy, I agree with Governor Romney. I think it would have happened. I think what would have happened is the UAW would have lost all of their advantages and the result was, what you had I thought was an unprecedented violation of 200 years of bankruptcy law by Barack Obama to pay off the UAW at the expense of every bondholder.
KING: Since birth control is the latest hot topic, which candidate believes in birth control, and if not, why? As you can see — it’s a — it’s a very popular question in the audience, as we can see. Look, we’re not going to spend a ton of time on this but it is — please.
GINGRICH: Can I just make a point? The first is there is a legitimate question about the power of the government to impose on religion activities which any religion opposes. That’s legitimate.
But I just want to point out, you did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. OK? So let’s be clear here.
If we’re going to have a debate about who the extremist is on these issues, it is President Obama who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion. It is not the Republicans.
KING: Mr. Speaker, the fence has been a point of contention in the race. And one of your high-profile supporters, a gentleman who’s been up here during this campaign, Governor Rick Perry of Texas, is here tonight. He said this: if you build a 30-foot wall from El Paso to Brownsville, the 35-foot ladder business gets really good.
You signed a pledge to construct a double fence. Why is Governor Perry wrong?
GINGRICH: He’s not wrong. They’d have to have two 35-foot ladders because it’s a double fence. (LAUGHTER)
Look, the fact is I helped Duncan Hunter pass the first fence bill in San Diego when I was Speaker of the House. San Diego and Tijuana are the most densely populated border. It turned out it worked. It worked dramatically. Duncan and I would be glad to testify. He’s former chairman of the national — of the Defense Committee — how much it worked.
However, it stopped. It stopped in part because there was a wetlands. It turned out none of the illegal immigrants cared about wetlands policy. Then you had to go and build around the wetlands, which we did. The further we have gone with the fence, the fewer the people have broken into California.
Now, the thing that’s fascinating, though, John, is you quoted a government study of how much it would cost. That’s my earlier point. If you modernize the federal government so it’s competent, you could probably do it for 10 percent of the cost of that study.
The fact is — what I would do, I have a commitment at newt.org, I would — to finish the job by January 1, 2014, I would initiate a bill that would waive all federal regulations, requirement and studies.
I would ask Governor Brewer here, I would ask Governor Martinez, Governor Brown, and Governor Perry to become the co-leaders in their state. We would apply as many resources as are needed to be done by January 1 of 2014, including, if necessary — there are 23,000 Department of Homeland Security personnel in the D.C. area.
I’m prepared to move up to half of them to Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. This is a doable thing.
KING: And some Republicans — some Republicans — Marco Rubio, for example, the senator from Florida that all of you have complimented, said — could be a leading force in your administration if you’re elected — he said this recently. He says he worries that some of the rhetoric used by Republican politicians on this issue has been harsh, intolerable, inexcusable.
Mr. Speaker, is he right?
GINGRICH: I don’t know who he’s referring to, so I’m not going to comment in general on a statement. Is there somebody somewhere who’s done that? Sure.
The great failure here — I voted in 1986 for the bill which was supposed to solve all this, which Ronald Reagan solved — signed. And in Reagan’s diary, he says, I signed this bill because we have to get control of the border and we have to have an employer-sanctioned program with a guest worker program.
Now, all of us who voted for that bill got shortchanged on everything we were supposed to get. President Bush couldn’t get it through. President Obama can’t get it through.
I believe you cannot pass a single large comprehensive bill, the 2,700-page kind of bill you described. I think you’ve got to go one step at a time.
The first step is to control the border. I don’t believe anybody who’s here illegally — and I talked last night, for example, with folks who are of Hispanic background from Nogales who are in the import-export business dealing with Mexico every day. They don’t want a border that’s closed, they want a border that’s controlled, that has easy access for legality and impossible access for illegality. And that’s the model that I think you can talk about in my community of any ethnic background in this country.
KING: Speaker Gingrich, on the question of a more prominent role for women (in combat) , good idea or bad idea?
GINGRICH: Well, look, I think it’s a misleading question in the modern era. You live in a world of total warfare. Anybody serving our country in uniform virtually anywhere in the world could be in danger at virtually any minute. A truck driver can get blown up by a bomb as readily as the infantrymen.
So I would say that you ought to ask the combat leaders what they think is an appropriate step, as opposed to the social engineers of the Obama administration. But everybody needs to understand — and by the way, we live in an age when we have to genuinely worry about nuclear weapons going off in our own cities. So everybody who serves in the fire department, in the police department, not just the first responders, but our National Guard, whoever is going to respond, all of us are more at risk today, men and women, boys and girls, than at any time in the history of this country. And we need to understand that’s the context in which we’re going to have to move forward in understanding the nature of modern combat.
I think this is a very sober period, and I believe this is the most dangerous president on national security grounds in American history.
KING: It’s a pressing question at the moment. Mr. Speaker, let’s go to you first on this one. I want to ask you in the context of the president’s and this country’s highest ranking military officer, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dempsey told CNN this last week, quote, “A strike at this time would be destabilizing and would not achieve Israel’s long term objectives.” If you win this election, General Dempsey would still be — would then be your chairman of the joint chiefs.
If the prime minister of Israel called you, said he wanted to go forward and questioned, Sir do you agree — Mr. President do you agree with your chairman of the joint chiefs? Would you say, yes, Mr. Prime Minister, please stand down? Or would you give Israel the green light?
GINGRICH: Well, first of all this is two different questions. General Dempsey went on to say that he thought Iran was a rational actor. I can’t imagine why he would say that. And I just cannot imagine why he would have said it. The fact is, this is a dictator, Ahmadinejad, who has said he doesn’t believe the Holocaust existed. This is a dictator who said he wants to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth. This is a dictator who said he wants to drive the United States out of the Middle East. I’m inclined to believe dictators. Now I — I think that it’s dangerous not to.
If an Israeli prime minister, haunted by the history of the Holocaust, recognizing that three nuclear weapons is a holocaust in Israel, if an Israeli prime minister calls me and says, I believe in the defense of my country. This goes back to a point that Congressman Paul raised that we probably disagree on. I do believe there are moments when you preempt. If you think a madman is about to have nuclear weapons and you think that madman is going to use those nuclear weapons, then you have an absolute moral obligation to defend the lives of your people by eliminating the capacity to get nuclear weapons.
Basically, he said Newt is the only one with the conservative credentials and track record that he could support for the Presidency. He dissed Mittens and RP a bit, but generally kept his message a positive one for Newt. He said Santorum was good on the social issues, but otherwise not so much.
I agree. I am completely sick and tired of watching Mitt Romney violate Reagan’s 11th commandment. He comes across as very juvenile and unpresidential.
What a stupid comment.
He’s not competing for the front cover of Playboy.
He doesn’t care for the Reagan rule, because he’s never been a Reagan Republican, not even a Republican. He belongs to the Me-me-me Party.
I'm glad Newt brings this up and I always wondered why no one comments on the fact that we do have trillions of dollars in assets underground on federally controlled lands. Liberals should want us to go after those resources, right? After all, isn't it about time the Federal Government started paying their "fair share"?
I didn't get to watch the debate, but just went through all the posts on the FR debate thread (well---most of them)--and your post really helped me understand why so many think Newt won the debate.
Just wish to heck this same Newt had been there in Florida!
But--have not given up hope yet!
Santorum is a very nice guy--but we don't need nice, we need NEWT!!
[ Romney is a heartless robot killer. ]
Newt is a heartless Negrodamus SLAPPER...
My hope is he slaps the silly smile off Zeros face..
While Santorum & Romney fracture all the issues, can't stay on tract, they can never completely explain their views. Newt does it for them and then they steal his ideas and visions.
This debate should give NEWT his needed boost. Happy he did not get into that fray between Paul, Santorum & Romney, they crushed Santorum. They dug the hole and Rick fell in. Perfect.
NEWT is a Cheerful VISIONARY. lol
Energy is our new Economy, it is the only thing we have left in the short term.
Seems Newt is the only candidate speaking in this, and it is a winner, but watch for the others to steal this now. We may not like Rick & Mitt but they ain't stupid, they see a winner in the Energy issue, they will grab onto it and pretend it's theirs.
LOVE NEWT the visionary.
A little bit to me as well, and yet, it did expose the phony that Santorum is. Paul called him a fake, and he proved it.
Little Ricky got caught with his pants down, with the Planned Parenthood issue, Title 10 & 20 offset. Paul busted him good on that one. When Rick couldn't climb out of that hole, he changes subject mid stream and attacks Mitt on Romneycare, rofl Santorum LOST this debate, he made the case for Paul, that Santorum is a FAKE.
Did you notice that even Mitt called his health care, ROMNEYCARE, hahahahahahaha.
Loved how Newt just sat back and laughed through all that fiasco.
I've got to get off this thing and get some work done, my tax man is calling. lol
“There is no one that can hold a candle to NEWTs ability to coherently frame any issue that is presented. I am continually amazed at this ability, Newt never bores me.”
That’s because he is not only a very intelligent man, with a very rich , far-wide view, but also a born teacher. He knows how to present complicated solutions in a clear, simple to understand by all, language.
As Albert Einstein said once, a genius is someone who is able to “make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
He demonstrated that himself in a book, published in 1905, in which he explained his Theory of Relativity, without using ANY mathematical language.
My dad gave me the book to read when I was 15. It decided my path in professional life, as chose Physics as my main subject at University :)
“I didn’t get to watch the debate, but just went through all the posts on the FR debate thread (well-—most of them)—and your post really helped me understand why so many think Newt won the debate.”
Sometimes the message is lost among the noise and furor, so I wanted to reread what Newt said, off the CNN reality show.
I’m pleased you appreciated it too.
Wow, smart dad, good story of your life. Guess what Enstein said does explain the genius mind of Newt Gingrich.
Thank you, missed the interview. It sounded as if he was impressed by Perry's message.
“Last night was one of the most interesting exchangesI’ll put it in that wordbetween the two supposed frontrunners, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. And as Newt sat on the sideline, if you will, and watched them, as you used the word, savage each other. I looked at it and as they went on and on, they became smaller and smaller on the stage. And there were times when Newt was absolutely Churchillian,” Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) said on Laura Ingraham’s radio program
Rick Perry: “Newt Was Absolutely Churchillian”
That would be a God send.
Just got off the phone with my best friend in PA. She said it was excruciatingly painful for her to watch Santorum in the debate. She had to get up and walk away from the T.V. from time to time.
I think the forum was perfect for showcasing the pettiness and arrogant attitude that is a part of Rick’s natural personality. Many have remarked about his snarky expressions throughout the debate, his completely unstatesman like demeanor.
It remains to be seen, but even with Gingrich not campaigning in Michigan, Rick may have lost it last night.
Anyone still capable of objectivity who was a Santorum supporter going into that debate, had to have not felt good about his disaster of a performance.
“I didn’t get to watch the debate”
Then, this is for you:
Newt Gingrich Highlights from CNN Debate in Arizona
“She said it was excruciatingly painful for her to watch Santorum in the debate. She had to get up and walk away from the T.V. from time to time.”
That’s exactly what I expected from Santorum.
As long as he was flying under radar, no one gave attention to him.
And just after he won a few caucuses with no pledged delegates, he was proclaimed by the media “frontrunner” and started to pontificate wherever he went.
At the first tough attack, he deflated like a balloon of hot air growing cold.
Newt/Rick is the establishment’s worst nightmare come true.
I Pray to you Jesus let us slay our enemies before us.
In Jesus’ name, Amen.