Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich made the rounds on Sunday fresh off his victory in the South Carolina GOP primary. Gingrich was also originally scheduled to appear on ABC's This Week program but canceled likely due to ABC's decision to air an unflattering interview with Gingrich's ex-wife last Thursday night.
Here is Gingrich's full interview this morning on Face the Nation on CBS:
Here is Gingrich's full interview this morning on Meet the Press on NBC:
Certainly the South Carolina victory will catapult Gingrich into contention coming into Florida, however, Romney has amassed quite a strong lead in the Sunshine State. Then again, Romney was leading South Carolina for weeks yet the lead changed in the last 5 or 6 days running up the vote.
Auto-Generated Tags:
- face the nation interview with newt gingrich 1/22/12
- meet the press 1-22-12
- newt gingrich meetthe press jan22
Excellent interviews! I enjoyed those. Thank You.
The Myth that only Newt can successfully debate Obama — sounds good, if Americans are interested in which one can outdo the other in lies.
Here is a reality check:
Obama cannot make a logical conclusion even if hit on the head with a tome of Aristotle's Organon.
He is lost without the tele-prompter, and can hardly speak coherently without the use of worn out cliches. This small-minded, unaccomplished in any way, narcissist can only resort to parroting defunct socialist dogma when not fed questions he's prepared for — thus, any logical high-schooler can make him look silly in a debate that is not pre-written!
Ron Paul will destroy Obama in any unscripted one-on-one debate — a genuine person concerned about saving America (Ron Paul) vs a phoney narcissist (Obama) thinking only of staying in power!
Contact Newt and Santorum — tell them to forgo their egotism — they need to withdraw now, so Ron Paul can bring down the Joker in the White House (once one-on-one vs money-man Mitt, Ron Paul will win)I
Then Ron Paul's message of Liberty and Prosperity will be heard — and little Hussein will be gone!
Paul can barely string two coherent sentences together. His stance id admirable, but he has no hope of orating it to the idiot-masses. I know his message and even I can hardly tell what he's ranting about half the time. It's embarassing.
"You know, well … you know, I'm going to make a self-referential joke and laugh at it awhile then say, you know, what you're asking me is important, but instead I'm going to talk about something totally different and then another thing … now, you know, I'm going to let that sentence trail off and talk about something still different and not take any breaths, and, you know eventually make a mess of my answer but the kids will love it !"
The Controlled Media is making a mockery of these debates — doing their best to ignore or minimize Ron Paul by directing idiotic questions for him alone!
Tonight's debate is a great example of this perfidy! The dog-and-pony show of Mitt & Newt, and the little mutt snapping at their Achilles's heels — inconsequential Santorum — all these three little mice got to respond on a VERY CRUCIAL QUESTION that has been eroding our Nation for decades: Illegal Immigration! But not Ron Paul — he was asked an idiotic question instead: If he'd agree to some kind of Swamp Protection Law in FL Everglades!?!?!?
What arrogance the main media has, that they can SLAP the American People on the face by saying this was an equitable debate! Do they think us this stupid — not to see their agenda and thus resent them!?
A TRUE debate is when a questions is asked, and ALL candidates are given equal time to respond to said question — THIS WAS NOT THE CASE in Florida tonight!
Shame on the "mediators" — they've exposed themselves for what they are (marionettes who's strings are pulled by those controlling the main media)!
Obama — the next new host of Family Feud (can anyone give a total count of the women he kissed after his Misstate of the Union)?
Afterwards — Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels neutered in a very diplomatic way all the demagoguery Little Hussein parroted!
Not strong enough for me — but still kudos to Mitch!
Enjoyed Newt's interviews….love the way he explains things. Very Presidential.
hope: If you are looking for a more perfidious candidate that may out-lie Obama — than Newt is the choice for you.
If that is what "Very Presidential" means to you.
Newt displayed again he is the best of sophists. Newt's meal consisted of some facts, partial truths, outright lies, and promises never intended to be kept — he chew it all up, swallowed this melange and then threw up what has to be the most appealing regurgitated dish any candidate can offer: sophistry, demagoguery and slick oratory.
If you are looking for a more perfidious candidate that may out-lie Obama — than Newt is the choice for you.
If, however, you want the restoration of true freedom and prosperity — look at the GENUINE message that Ron Paul has never deviated from for 30 years.
Is this site promoting Newt Gingrich? I'm sure the other candidates had some Sunday morning interviews, too. Why not give the links to those as well?
Surfisher, I appreciate your staunch loyalty to Paul, and he is a good man, with many good ideas. I question his leadership ability, that is, his ability to gather around him sufficient people to actually get things done, but perhaps that's not all his fault, perhaps the climate in Washington was too resistant for even the best leader to effect any change. However, holding to the same policies for 30 years isn't always a virtue. Having the same core principles is, but policies do have to change to fit the times. For example, principle is to oppose government-mandated health insurace, but if the country is hell-bent on having government-mandated health insurance, and there's no chance to defeat it, then I think a wise person looks at how to mitigate the damages. If someone is only NO, you can't do this and not part of the process, then he/she is left out of the conversation and has no opportunity to affect the result. That's why I don't expect the politicians I expect to be purists — they have to vote on what their choice is. If it's a bill that limits the intrusion of government into health insurance compared to a bill that puts no limit on it, better to vote for the first than to just say NO, NO, NO. Paul grasps this issue when it comes to earmarks, as he and Santorum both believe on principle that as elected representatives they must represent their constituents and do what is best for them. I understand that principle, although I prefer an absolute end to all earmarks. Same with Santorum's position on federal right to work laws. His state, PA, didn't want right to work. If he voted for a national right to work law, he would be misrepresenting the will of the people of his State and imposing on them a standard they had already rejected. So sometimes you have to choose which principle is the higher one, because in politics, inevitably there are going to be many times when principles will be in conflict. Just my two-cents worth.
Marlene: Principles are immutable — what you suggest are compromises. By my definition compromises are the bane that has poisoned our nation — since by nature they keep degrading into totalitarianism.
If "A" is a principle and "C" is it's anathema, when the politicians settle for "B" —which is the intermediate — then a compromise has been created which becomes the new "principle" accepted by law.
Then when "B" is challenged by another idiocy — let's say "I" for idiots — and a compromise is reached — for the middle of the two again, let's say "F" (for failure), then the standard has been lowered once more.
By extrapolation — once can see that all principles (the constitutional guarantees in this case, that allow for individual freedoms and pursuit of happiness) will eventually become non-existent.
So one has to make a choice now — do we compromise AGAIN, or stand by the Constitution, and hope that the people will not fall for the Compromise Trap this time around?
With Newt as candidate, Obama will have a 2nd term, it's a fait accompli!
Newt is: a professor, a career politician, a great orator, a great debator with no private sector business experience, with no executive experience, a flip-flopper, takes responsibility for nothing, arrogant, a narcissistic braggart. We've already got one of those in the White House, do we want another?
Newt sounds brilliant unless you are politically savvy. Newt has lots of ideas which many others have introduced as well. Newt has lots of real baggage . . . especially the ethics charges during his time as Speaker of the House, resulting in $300,000 in fines . . . the only Speaker in history to go up on charges before the ethics committee. Forget tax returns, if Newt wants transparency, where is the paperwork for those ethics charges?
In addition, Newt is a first-class hypocrite. How can a person on his 3rd marriage with two divorces under such unusual circumstances, both health related, now credit the Catholic Church as his salvation? This is an insult to my Church. This is an insult to my intelligence.
This guy is the furthest thing from a Constitutional conservative. Please. To listen to him is to wonder what he really stands for. Check out Newt's history on amnesty, cap & trade, global warming, big government . . . do your own homework. Newt is not what he appears & will never rally sufficient support of the Republican Party.
Surfisher, your idealistic world doesn't exist, unfortunately. In a republic, you are never going to have a majority that agrees with you, the people of this country are just too diverse in their opinions. You can say, I'll never vote for anything but pure principle, but, like Ron Paul in his history in Congress, you never get anything done. While I am personally opposed to any and all abortions, I recognize that the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade mandated that the states allow them. I can work in the meantime to mitigate that effect by supporting the strongest pro-life bills that come to the floor of the respective houses of Congress, but if I say, No, I will absolutely NOT vote for any bill that does not absolutely prohibit abortion, then I will lose my chance to be a voice to mitigate the results of Roe v Wade. For example, to fight against partial birth abortions, or to fight against federal funding of abortions, neither of which does anything to substantially change Roe V Wade. Paul has said himself, that he did support bills that were far less than his idealistic principles wanted, but they were better than nothing. We may be saying the same thing, just using different language, but I think it's a mistake to automatically assume that every vote on every bill truly reflects a candidate's true position on the issues. Or for another example, many bills are stews — they contain an assortment of items that most often don't have anything whatsoever to do with each other, but if you really want one or two or three items in that bill, and someone else has tacked on another item to which you are idealistically opposed, what do you do? Most often you swallow the one you don't like to get the 3 you very much want. It's not a matter of simply saying you only like chocolate and then you vote for vanilla — most of the time you have to take some vanilla in order to get the chocolate. There are some rule changes that would make it much easier for politicians to be purists — but I doubt we'll see those changes in our lifetime, as that is the only way the sneaky people can sneak their unpopular stuff through. Also, they often do have to do things in stages. Paul himself said you can't simply erase the Fed from existence — that would create havoc and chaos, so you have to have a plan of doable steps.
Rosa, I agree totally. The glimmer of hope I have is that if Gingrich gets the nomination, that his style will crush Obama in the debates and he'll win the election; and having done that, he will be hungry enough for a 2nd term and realistic enough to know he'd better not break any campaign promises, that he will actually do what he says he will do. But I pray he doesn't get the nomination. People really need to think this through.
Surfisher is a typical Ron Paul supporter: Illogical, immature, impulsive, and out of touch with reality. Any rational being who has watched any of the debates cannot reasonably say that Paul is a good debater. On the contrary, he often stumbles and contradicts himself. To say that he has a chance in a debate against Obama is completely ludicrous.
Newt, on the other hand, is very intelligent, practical, can think on his feet, and is a dynamic speaker who can rally the people against Obama. If you want to beat Obama this fall, vote for Newt Ginrich.
I don't think Surfisher meant that Paul is a good debater. Paul is the worst debater remaining the race (now that Perry is gone).
But Paul is in the best position to debate Obama. He won't have to defend RomneyCare. He won't have to defend lobbying for Freddie Mac and several others.
Moreover, Gingrich is caustic. He has a 57% unfavorable rating. That's higher than Obama. And Gingrich's rhetoric is endearing him to 40% of the Republican party and alienating him from everyone else. Contrast that with Paul. Paul is bringing new voters to the Republican party, the young and independents.
The young and the independents that Obama used to win in 08. They hate Gingrich. They love Paul.
If Politics is a demographics/numbers game, then Gingrich is in the worst possible position and Paul is in the best position.
Ryan — exactly!
A plain speaking GENUINE person that speaks the truth (R. Paul) — vs a dogmatic little narcissist that can only tell lies to stay in power (little Hussein). Who will the American People choose…has to be obvious by comparison!
Unfortunately, the Republican machine seems to prefer not the BEST Candidate (R. Paul) but the best liar that may out-lie the little narcissist occupying the White House.
Great interviews! He says it like it is.
Great job Newt!!!! He will be the next President!!!
Ya know, Mitt did some shows too… this is one of the most biased site's I've ever seen. Really discouraging, because I really like the format, and the information that's available here…
Seems you do Not know that NBC Sits in obama's Lap! LOL.
I think Newt is brilliant, I hope he wins the nomination. We need a new president, not a husband. he will put us back on top of the world. Newt 2012!!!!!!
Newt is the recipe for an Obama victory and I'm not even a Paul supporter. I don't see how the tea party can protest against corruption and nominate the definitionn of a Washington insider. The liberals are getting excited with his momentum. I simply pray that South Carolina was a fluke.
At Last, the Man who will Fight the GOP RINOs who have been too Meek to speak Truth!
Rino Rombie could Lose, just like Rino McCain did!!
I like most of Ron Paul's Fiscal Policy, but he is Extremely Naive re 1400 Years of Jihad!