Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appeared on Face the Nation this morning with Bob Schieffer to discuss the GOP primary race and how the Speaker intends to win in Iowa.
Part 1:
Continue reading for Part 2 of Gingrich's interview.
Part 2:
Report from CBS News:
(CBS News) Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich on Sunday continued to defend his prior consulting work for Freddie Mac - but says his real mistake was that his campaign did not get out in front of the issue "from the day one."
In an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," Gingrich responded to a recent Wall Street Journal editorial accusing the candidate of being blind to "why anyone is offended" by "his lucrative ties to the failed mortgage giant Freddie Mac," and faulting the candidate for a "lack of candor" in explaining the relationship.
"I think, candidly, we earned that editorial by not stopping and handling this from the day one and laying it out," Gingrich said Sunday.
He then continued to defend his relationship with Freddie Mac, and reiterated previous claims that his financial rewards for "consulting" were less than they appeared - and that, actually, his record is "much closer to what the Wall Street Journal wants."
"The facts are, I didn't personally get that kind of money," Gingrich told Schieffer. "It went to a consulting firm which had offices in three cities. The share I got of it was relatively small."
Gingrich has staunchly - and repeatedly - denied that he ever served as a lobbyist for Freddie Mac, despite being paid nearly $2 million by the mortgage giant between 1999 and 2008. Gingrich has been criticized for using a narrow definition of the term "lobbyist" when he denies having been one.
Rightly or not, Gingrich's connection with Freddie Mac has become a liability on his campaign and I'd fully expect that to be exploited by his competitors heading into Iowa and beyond. Besides the Internal Revenue Service, I can't think of another federally-run institution more disdained by many GOP primary voters than the mortgage backers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Auto-Generated Tags:
- newt gingrich on face the nation
- date and place of next presidential debate
- gINGRICH ON fACE THE NATION
- gingrich face the nation
- newt gingrich face the nation december 2011
- face the nation newt
- newt inerview face the nation replay 12/18/11
- face the nation december 18 2011
- face the nation newt gingrich 12/18/11 video
- face the nation 12/18
- newt gingrich december-18-11
- Bob Schieffer face the nation December 18th 2011
I am opposed to Newt Gingrich. He's only for himself. His words are fatuos.
My choices have narrowed to Bachmann and Romney.
He remains positive and issue/solution focused, with no badgering of the other candidates. Such a refreshing campaign tactic. Don't waste your vote for Bachmann. Although she's awesome… she doesn't stand a chance. Romney would be like voting for O'Traitor. I actually supported Romney in 2008… but he's a RINO. Newt is the most experienced, intellectual and history(Constitutional) bound candidate. No one surpasses his knowledge.
The problem is, Gingrich thinks he's smart enough to be a benevolent dictator. He says subsidies are OK as long as they're for the right things. In other words, he's for a command economy, not a market driven economy. Gingrich is actually less conservative than Romney, he just appears to be smarter. At least he talks a good game.
I lost all respect for him when he answered Bachmann's charges of being a flip-flopper by saying they weren't true. Does he think we're idiots? I've seen him be on both sides of those issues with my own eyes. How can see those charges aren't true?
Newt and Romney Just DON'T Get It, and Ron Paul Does.
Beware the Coming Bailouts of Europe - "All Eyes Should Be On Europe"
The economic establishment in this country has come to the conclusion that it is not a matter of "if" the United States must intervene in the bailout of the euro, but simply a question of "when" and "how". Newspaper articles and editorials are full of assertions that the breakup of the euro would result in a worldwide depression, and that economic assistance to Europe is the only way to stave off this calamity. These assertions are yet again more "scare-mongering", just as we witnessed during the depths of the 2008 financial crisis. After just a decade of the euro, people have forgotten that Europe functioned for centuries without a common currency.
The REAL CAUSE of economic depression is loose monetary policy: the creation of money and credit out of thin air and the "monetization" of Government Debt by a Central Bank. This inflationary monetary policy is the cause of every boom and bust, yet it is precisely what political and economic elites both in Europe and the United States are prescribing as a resolution for the present crisis. The drastic next step being discussed is a multi-trillion dollar bailout of Europe by the European Central Bank, aided by the IMF and the Federal Reserve.
The euro was built on an unstable foundation. Its creators attempted to establish a dollar-like currency for Europe, while forgetting that it took nearly two centuries for the Dollar to devolve from a defined unit of silver to a completely UN-backed fiat currency note. The euro had no such history and from the outset was a purely fiat system, thus it is not surprising to followers of Austrian economics that it barely survived a decade and is now completely collapsing. Europe's economic depression is the result of the euro's very structure, a fiat money system that allowed member governments to spend themselves into oblivion and expect that someone else would pick up the tab.
A bailout of European banks by the European Central Bank AND the Federal Reserve will exacerbate the crisis rather than alleviate it. What is needed is for bad debts to be liquidated. Banks that invested in sovereign debt need to take their losses rather than "socializing" those losses and prolonging the process of adjusting their balance sheets to reflect reality. If this was done, the correction would be painful, but quick, like tearing off a large band-aid, but this is necessary to get back on solid economic footing. Until the correction takes place there can be NO recovery. Bailing out profligate European governments will only ensure that no correction will take place.
A multi-trillion dollar European aid package cannot be undertaken by Europe alone, and will require IMF and Federal Reserve involvement. The Federal Reserve already has pumped trillions of dollars into the US economy with nothing to show for it. Just considering Fed involvement in Europe is ludicrous. The US economy is in horrible shape precisely because of too much government debt and too much money creation and the European economy is destined to flounder for the same reasons. We have an unsustainable amount of debt here at home; it is hardly fair to US taxpayers to "TAKE ON" Europe's debt as well. That will only ensure an accelerated erosion of the Dollar and a lower standard of living for all Americans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJCsdgUkqIU
If Newt or Romney win the Nomination, it'll be John McCain all over again. Moderates ALWAYS lose Elections for the Republicans. I'm voting for Ron Paul.
There is no way I will compromise my vote, EVER! Wrong thinking Republicans with the thought that voting for Gingrich is the answer to Obama need to do alot of research. This deceptive man is the antithesis of a Republican he is Conservative Republican's, America's and the Peoples enemy.
Gingrich is an elite insider and an opportunist, a progressive globalist, not a national sovereignist, he is an enrolled current member of the CFR and has been since 1990. The CFR'S mission is to promote legislation favoring global interests and authority overruling our national interests and sovereignty! Think GATT, WTO AND NAFTA and CAFTA he helped bring it about. Want more of the same AGAIN?
http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?letter=G
In addition, Gingrich will lead under the same Keynesian economics philosophy, ie., Boom Bust Boom, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, no real change there remember? Right, it has been the policy in effect since the great depression. Don't be foolish, don't be mislead, adherence to the Constitution, small government, protection of individual civil rights, and NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY are the CORNERSTONE values of the Republican party! Gingrich would do better to start a new party he is not a Conservative Republican and he doesn't have America's national interest at heart, it's much easier for him to win by deception! You know them by their fruits!
Newt is not a GOP insider. They hate him because he does not play by the rules. He gets things done. To those who want to nit-pick him for being open minded and looking at good ideas that will further our country, shame on you. Look at the bigger picture, and see how these in-roads have made huge reform. Newt is on America's side. He is a historian and wants to return us to the original vision of our fore fathers. Stop the mud-slinging and look at what he's accomplished. Elect Newt and piss-off the status quo politicians, like Romney.
For those who think Ron Paul is a viable candidate, consider this:
He thinks America should hold the blame for 9-11.
He thinks Iran having nukes is a good idea.
Angie
Open-minded? Are you serious? It should be "Shame on You!" Newt Gingrich is a "Status-Quo" Politician! Newt Gingrich is a ideological Plutocrat. Plain and Simple. If you can't see that, then I'm sorry for you. Oh. He gives great speeches (like Obama) and he writes books, but he's invariably a "loose cannon" with an "imperialistic" view for having "Empire America" all over the World. I hardly think that "view" is the original vision of our fore fathers.
As to Ron Paul's view on Iran having nuclear weapons because of the threat upon Israel, he has stated that he doesn't want Iran to have them, but if Israel wants to attack Iran, THEY should be allowed to do so. He would prefer a "Diplomatic" approach, but if Israel feels they need to attack Iran, then we should let THEM…. and let THEM face the consequences of a "pissed-off" Russia and a "pissed-off" China.
As to Ron Paul's view on whether America should hold blame for 9/11, I suggest you watch this video. Maybe you'll get a much clearer picture on a "Sane" Foreign Policy. Wake Up!
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0wyRgcAg9Y
Angie
Quite wrong Angie, the status-quo love Gingrich, an opportunist with progressive globalist elite views, he is not only one of them he helped bring about the power they have today. I do more than nit-pick, Ive posted numerous facts, as have others, about this dangerous man and you can find them in the archives.
No Angie, Gingrich is not a Constitutional conservative, that is Ron Paul and only Ron Paul! In fact, Newt Gingrich said in a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Affairs in 1995 that, the challenge for the United States in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution! “Either we are going to have to rethink our Constitution or we are going to have to rethink our process of making decisions…” Those are not the words of a Constitutional conservative! That Angie might be what you describe as open-minded?
I do not want Mr. Gingrich or progressives like him rethinking anything about the Constitution! That is exactly what brought us where we are today!
I continue to support Ron Paul a true Constitutional conservative: National Sovereignty not globalism, small government, sound money, audit the Fed and shut them down, non-intervention, American aid not foreign aid, reinstate and protect my civil rights, protect choice, end the Patriot Act, stop torture, veto NDAA, quash SOPA, end TSA, stop Agenda 21, and attack voter fraud, this is Ron Paul and so much more, Ron Paul is US! and this is what I call open-minded, Freedom!
Got Freedom? Justice? How about Prosperity?
Try Ron Paul 2012
You people that vote for Paul, Romney are dumb, they will never out debate Obama. Its funny how people bring up Newts past when he was in office, when in fact he was in office he made deals to get things done, we don’t need another deadlocked congress. Yes he gave in at times, but get a grip, that’s how things gets done. When newt brings up Paul’s past all the Ron Paul nuts get upset and when Romney’s past is stated by newt all the Romney people start crying. Newt has handled all the crap that’s been thrown at him. What do you people think Obama is going to do to them; they can’t handle the one or two things said now. What’s Ron Paul going to do in a debate with Obama when he brings up Paul being racist? Is he going to walk away from the debate? Newt is the only chance of getting Obama out of office.
Richard
You give Obama way too much credit in his "ability to debate". It's been shown that he's totally lost without his Teleprompter. But I digress because that's not the REAL issue.
It's so disturbing to read that voters, like you, only look at a candidate's "ability to debate" as a prerequisite or qualification to become President. It's equally as sad to read that in order to "get-things-done", a Candidate must promise to be bi-partisan to avoid "Gridlock". The questions then are: Bi-partisan to who or to what? And should the Constitution be "compromised" for the sake of "getting-things-done"?
Because a President is sworn into Office by taking an "Oath" to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States, the intelligent voter should be looking at his or her "ability to fulfill" that Oath very intently. The voter should actually be taking the "Oath of Office" just as SERIOUSLY as the Candidate who desires to become President.
The President of the United States is only a "figure-head" which "represents" our Nation to the rest of the World on behalf of a FREE People who takes their Civil Liberties and Freedoms VERY SERIOUSLY, and NOT for GRANTED.
Thus, the Constitution should be the "Ultimate Guideline" by which the voter should be selecting a Leader or a President to represent our country and our people. EVERYTHING a President "will do" while in Office should "reflect" what is set-forth (or written down) in our Constitution. Everything from Defending our Country, to our Free Market Economy and Free Trade Policies, to our Infrastructure, to our Diplomatic Relationships with foreign countries, to "how and when" we go to War, to our Monetary System, to our Religious Freedoms, to the ability to Peaceably Assemble, to the ability to Freely Express Ourselves, to the Freedom of the Press, to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, to the Right to a Trail by Jury, access to a Lawyer and so on… The Constitution should be our "Guiding Light" in selecting our Leader, because all of the other issues are intertwined.
Electing the "Leader" of this Country, means much more than an "ability to debate". Electing a "Leader" should mean that "We the People" will "entrust" someone who will PROTECT our Freedoms and Way-of-Life in ACCORDANCE to the Constitution, and nothing more! And because we have now "strayed" away from the Constitution, we Americans find ourselves with in "Quagmire of Problems" that MUST be Solved, or we will cease being a FREE People. We MUST return or "back-track" toward the Constitution in order to Solve these Problems. When you put it in that perspective, the whole World is DEPENDING on this to happen. For what kind of a "World" would it be, if there wasn't a "Freedom-Loving" Nation like the United States of America? Think about it for a minute or so… We have made errors and mistakes, but we need to correct them.
Today, what a voter SHOULD be looking for in a Presidential Candidate are 3 main qualifications:
1) What is His or Her "Record" concerning the Constitution?
2) What is His or Her "Position" concerning the Constitution?
3) What is His or Her "Plan" to bring-us-back to the Constitution in order to Solve our Problems?
Everything else is "secondary", because our "Greatness" doesn't come from our "Prosperity" or our ability to "Fight Wars". But rather, our "Greatness" comes from our Freedoms and Liberties which are endowed to us by our Creator and which are set forth (or written down) in our Constitution.
I only hear Ron Paul speaking on this level. I don't hear any talk like this coming from the other candidates. It's important. VERY Important!
Darryl
I thank you very much for educating me on why and how I should vote, you seem very intelligent and passionate about whom you vote for. I happen to know Newt back from when he was a congressman in Georgia; my ex-mother in-law was his office manager. He may not be running on the constitution and what has been lost or hasn’t, but making all drugs legal, and for us to never go to war and not protect Israel is not my idea of just following the constitution.
Can you tell me what Mr. Paul’s solution is to the economy? I also don’t think we caused 9-11, to me that is an insult to all Americans. Mr. Paul attacks Newt’s record from back to 1996, when he himself has things in his past. Newt has a clear plan to fixing the economy and it’s on his website.
As far as Mr. Paul, I’m sure Obama will not need a teleprompter to remember to bring up Mr. Paul’s raciest remarks in his new letter; do I think he is raciest? No, but Obama will make sure he spends enough on negative adds to make it seem that way. Then what will Mr. Paul do?
I thank you for your response to my comment and I admire you dedication to Mr. Paul.
Richard
I agree with you that Obama won't need a Teleprompter to bring up the "so-called" Dirt on any Candidate, however, no matter who he debates, he will definitely have a difficult time defending his Record; ESPECIALLY as it coincides with the Constitution.
From a "practical" standpoint (and I do mean practical), I now understand Dr. Paul's LOGIC when it comes to decriminalizing drugs. At first glance, I was opposed to this. I have friends and family who have "addiction issues". People, who I was very close to, have died from overdoses. I'm sure everyone out here has had similar experiences. But I also know of people who were MURDERED attempting to buy drugs. Why? Because they are illegal or "prohibited" according to our laws. Which leads us to the discussion about alcohol.
Prohibition of alcohol was a major reform movement from the 1840s into the 1920s, and was sponsored by evangelical Protestant churches, especially the Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Disciples and Congregationalists. Prohibition was instituted with ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution on January 16, 1920, which prohibited the "…manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States…" Congress passed the "Volstead Act" on October 28, 1919, to enforce the law, but most large cities were uninterested in enforcing the legislation, leaving an "understaffed" federal service to go after bootleggers. This is exactly what we have today with the "supposed" WAR on Drugs. Although alcohol consumption did decline during Prohibition, there was a dramatic rise in ORGANIZED CRIME in the larger cities, which now had a 'cash crop' that was in high demand.
The Repeal of Prohibition in the United States was accomplished with the passage of the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution on December 5, 1933. By its terms, STATES were allowed to set their own laws for the control of alcohol.
So, along comes Dr. Paul advocating the decriminalization of Drugs. He uses the "Prohibition Argument" to defend his position. He also points to the Constitution. He acknowledges the "Destructive" effects that Drugs have on people, just as alcohol does. However, he points to the "Precedent" set by the Twenty-first Amendment in our Constitution to allow the STATES to set their own laws.
Drugs AND Alcohol are definitely a "scourge" on our society which causes MANY Problems to families throughout the Country. But if we don't look at (and deal with) ALL the Problems "surrounding" Drugs, the same way as we did with Alcohol, then we have what we currently have. A 'cash crop' that was in high demand and ORGANIZED CRIME and GANGS, murdering people. It's definitely a very difficult PROBLEM to Solve, but I believe Ron Paul is correct in having the STATES set their own laws on the control of Drugs.
On to Israel. At first glance, I was also opposed to Ron Paul on his stance on Israel. Mainly because I am a Christian man and according to what I believed, Christians are supposed to "love and respect" the Jews for they first received the Oracles of God, according to the Bible. (Romans 3:2)
But, again, from a "practical" standpoint (and I do mean practical), I defend Dr. Paul's position on Israel by citing 2 statements he has made and 1 which I discovered on my own.
1) Ron Paul has said that Israel has between 75 and 400 nuclear warheads with the ability to deliver them by intercontinental ballistic missile, aircraft, and submarine. Israel's nuclear might is equivalent to almost 4 THOUSAND Hiroshima-type bombs. Israel also allegedly possesses several 1 megaton bombs, which give it a very large EMP attack abilities. I could go on and on, but the "bottom-line" is that Israel is the BIG DOG in the Middle East. They have recently said that they don't need the United States to come to their rescue and "defend" them. They can defend themselves. We don't need to "Protect" them.
2) If anything, Ron Paul's Foreign Policy is actually works out for the BEST for Israel. Dr. Paul has said that he will "cut" ALL Foreign Aid to EVERY country in the world, mainly because we can't afford it anymore and it "violates" our Constitution. And what will this do? Yes. Israel won't get the aid, but either will Israel's Arab neighbors! Besides, China or Russia are already helping Israel's Arab neighbors with aid and they recognize that Israel is the BIG DOG. They've told the Arabs, including Iran, NOT to "mess" with Israel.
3) Now, I've watched these interviews and this is SERIOUS! China, but especially Russia, have a VERY vested interest in Iran and Syria; namely oil. They have said that if the United States or Israel attack Iran, then they will come to their aid.
Side note: It looks like WW3 is going to come sooner than we think. With the "Isolationist" Foreign Policy of "Sanctions" against Iran by the Obama Administration, it appears as though Iran is threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz. (Sanctions are an Act of War) Israel and the US will then attack Iran, with China and Russia coming to Iran's aid. Not good. However, if Dr. Paul's "Non-Interventionist" Foreign Policy would have been adopted, instead of "laughed at", all the "Horror" that is about to be unleashed in the Middle East would have been avoided. It's sad to say, but it may be too late.
On to 9/11. Here, I totally agree with Dr. Paul. The United States Foreign Policy has been "usurped" by the Special Interests. Thus, War has become a "Racket". Also, as in the Video above, it makes perfect sense that the reasons for 9/11 was because the United States was meddling in the affairs of other nations. It wasn't because we are "prosperous and free". It's because we have deviated from our Constitution and we don't "mind our own business". I'm sure the Special Interests have dictated this Foreign Policy to the current and past Administrations. Eisenhower even WARNED Americans about the Military Industrial Complex. So when you look at the Economies of countries around the world like China, one has to conclude that China's Business is "Business", and America's Business is "WAR"!
On to Dr. Paul's Solutions for the Economy. Our National Debt is over $15 TRILLION and Congress is about to raise the Debt Ceiling again to over $17 TRILLION. Dr. Paul has stated "that the BIGGEST THREAT to our National Security is our Debt". In other words, "Government SPENDING" is the Problem. He begins by cutting $1 TRILLION in year one. He'll do this by Bringing the Troops Home and closing Military bases around the world. He'll then station the Troops on our Borders. Then he'll cut 5 "Departments" full of Bureaucrats, which "ham-string" the Private Sector and "stifle" Competition and Economic Growth. All this can be found on his website. Here's the link. It's quite DETAILED, but you can read the Executive Summary to get the jist of it.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
The Bottom Line is that we so desperately NEED a President who will STOP all this "war and spending" nonsense and return us to the Constitution. Ron Paul is the only Candidate telling us the Truth as to our current Problems and "how" to Solve them.
Darryl
Wow, I am excited!
I have never seen a better description than yours, outlining the important criteria in selecting our next Leader. I hope that your message reaches many undecided voters on this site and that we all may refer to this outline in choosing the next President of the "Free" United States of America. In addition I'd like to encourage you to post this guideline on as many public forums as possible!
With your permission I would like to post this on my Facebook page to benefit my friends and family.
In Freedom my many regards go to you Darryl!
Windisea
Thanks. Just keep praying for Ron Paul's "safety". He's going "against" the FED; the MOST "wicked and evil" System ever foisted upon Humanity! I'm reminded of Congressman Louis McFadden and the speech he gave on the Floor of the House in 1934. He's was Assassinated before he could bring Impeachment Proceedings against the FED for High Treason. His speech is rather lengthy, but what I like most is at the end of the speech, he reads the "charges" he wanted to level against the FED. It can be read at:
http://www.afn.org/~govern/mcfadden.html
Ron Paul has it RIGHT concerning the FED and I see many similarities between Ron Paul and Louis McFadden. He's Right! We NEED to END the FED!
Darryl
Yes agreed, Prayers for Ron Paul are needed now more than ever, this is a very serious reality now and can't be overstressed. Today as we can rejoice at how much progress he has made in reaching the peoples ears and minds, we have also reached this reality, the one that I have dreaded and fear to have discussed.
I knew about Congressman Louis McFadden but haven't read the speech, thanks for the website.
Please everyone, pray for Ron Paul and all the candidates, a war is on and America's very existence is at stake.
Darryl
Even though you may say it is special interest that caused us to police the Middle East, in fact you are talking about Israel and oil. I myself am not a conspiracy buff. May I ask your age if you don’t mind? I am 52 years old and have 3 kids and 3 grandkids. My point being this election is very important to me and their future.
I have watched every debate that I could; yes Ron Paul has stated he would cut 1 trillion dollars from the debt the first year. Some in congress and grouped together and are wanting to cut 3 to 5 trillion from the debt now. This is not the only thing that needs to be done to help our economy; we have other problems like unions, EPA, etc.
I have watched the video that you have posted, and I must say that I believe it to be misleading. Because it implies that we went there and just took over their country for no reason. Muslims have for thousands of years been trying to wipeout anyone that wasn’t Muslim and if you think that they are brave enough to strap a bomb to themselves to kill us but won’t send a nuclear bomb here or any other country you are sadly mistaken.
The event of 9-11 was a very tragic day in our history, many thousands of people were killed and for Ron Paul to say we caused it is an insult to every American. It was not just an attack on us because we are in their country, if that was true why are they committing acts in other countries?
I see you talking about the evil Fed and how they kill people and do away with anyone that opposes them. It must be run by the illuminati, LOL. It seems these days we have a generation prone to paranoid schizophrenia.
Back to reality, China will not defend Iran, Russia may, but China has too much invested in the US and other countries to start or be part of a war, if what you say is true where were they when we went to Iraq? Or any of the other so called wars we had with Lebanon over the past 20 years? I guess when Russia occupied Afghanistan they thought that was ok?
Mr. Paul and Mr. Romney have run for president how many times? I do have concern about the constitution but it’s not my main concern at the moment, my concern is not the scare tactics to make people think the government is going to burst in my house and look for drugs, because I don’t do drugs, or they will look in my past and arrest me for spying for another country, because I have no affiliation with anyone from other countries. My concern is about the economy and our debt and that anyone can get in to this country that is a terrorist and because of the constitution they can’t be asked what’s in the bag.
Sorry Darryl I just don’t agree with your view, but we all have a constitutional right to believe what we wish to believe right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufBGNn2OEb8