The Interview That Could Doom Newt’s Presidential Candidacy

The GOP electorate is being set up by the Washington establishment. Let there be no doubt about it.

Behold, for your reading displeasure, Glenn Beck’s recent interview of Newt Gingrich.

Praise of Theodore Roosevelt, ethanol subsidies, support for an individual mandate, global warming credulity, well here is just one passage.

GLENN: Let me just ‑‑ I just want to get to a few things. You’ve supported the ‑‑ you voted for the Department of Education, you in 2007 said very cautious about changing Fannie and Freddie. On global warming, with sitting down on the couch with Nancy Pelosi, and I would agree with you that was the dumbest moment ‑‑ you know, it would have been the dumbest moment of my life. And I agree with that. But when you look at, it’s not a moment of your life. In speech after speech, in your book Contract with the Earth, even with John Kerry in a debate, you said this.

GINGRICH: Evidence is sufficient, but we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon looting of the atmosphere.

VOICE: And do it urgently?

GINGRICH: And do it urgently, yes.

Oh, good grief.


14 thoughts on “The Interview That Could Doom Newt’s Presidential Candidacy

  1. With the current presidential field, it looks like I’m writing in Ron Paul again. I won’t vote for Romney, Newt, or Bachmann. Rick Santorum is so ultra-religious that I’m worried he would lay the groundwork for a sort of Christian version of the Taliban. Rick Perry looks and sounds like Dubya, and I’m not willing to endure four more years of “strategery”.

    You also may want to dig up some Perry commercials from Iowa. He’s now running as “a political outsider”. After being in politics for like 30 years. It made me giggle.

    1. I thought Newt’s statement was the dumbest thing I’d read all day. Now you’re out there in front of God and man talking how Mr. Santorum is going to “lay the groundwork for a sort of Christian version of the Taliban.” There’s no nice way to say it. That’ just s stupid.

      What has he said that makes you say this and how can any president establish a theocracy? As someone else has said, we’re all stupider after having read your comment.

      1. I didn’t say he was “going to” do anything, and I was being a bit silly. I’m just put off by his incredible fear of homosexuals (I don’t swing that bat, but what consenting adults do on their own time is none of my business–or his!) and his stance on abortion. Essentially, he would make abortion a crime, even in the case of rape, incest, and cases which endanger the life of the mother. I don’t believe in abortion as birth control, but if my wife was raped, I wouldn’t want her to HAVE to carry the child and have to remember what happened every day for nine months, and then incur the financial cost of childbirth on top of it all. And because he can’t come up with a logical argument for criminalizing homosexuality or abortion for people in extreme circumstances, he goes to the good ‘ol crutch known as “religion”. If you’re going to increase government intervention in people’s lives, you better have a damn good argument. “God told me so” doesn’t cut it for me.

    2. dhoughton, esq. while I share your lack of enthusiasm for Newt, I do so hope you are joking about wasting your vote on a Ron Paul write-in! A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Egobama!

  2. If Gingrich were a 747 baggage compartment there would need to be two of him to fit his past in. His comments and actions lately are those of one I would expect to institute his own brand of Agenda 21-ism only because he thinks he would do it smarter. One thing for certain is he is NOT a conservative, those claiming he is are really engaging in non-vetting wishful thinking or just blinded by fear of Obama being re-elected.

    1. Ok. That’s a very decent response. I apologize for my harsh words. I haven’t heard what’s he’s said about homosexuals but I’ll bet a dollar that he’s more repulsed by the homosexual agenda than incredibly afraid of homosexuals. There’s much to be repulsed by in the former. I’ll go with repulsion but I could be wrong. That’s a too-rigid stance on abortion. I’m not Pro Life in the usual sense but I don’t like the way it’s become part of what I’ll uncontroversially call The Culture of Death. Abortion kills a lot more than the child but that’s another story. I’m with you about rape, etc.

      “God told me” isn’t a good reason. I’m not a believer myself but am partial to believers. I like that they are accountable to certain known standards and if they fail at times I still like their aspirational rules, as opposed to whatever.

      I just had a relative tell me he’s ashamed of Christianity and the superior way was said to be some kind of vague and old-time “paganism.” Sign me up!

      Another friend gives me both barrels of her atheism and I find it mean and cramped. Sweetness and light it isn’t.

      A Taliban comparison frosts me as the views of my friend are skewed and the anti-Christian position singularly unattractive and lacking in humility. Mention Christianity in the company of such people and pretty soon you’ve got a plateful of the Inquisition and priestly pedophilia.

      Individual doctrines of Christianity are debatable and individual Christians don’t get a pass for untenable opinions because God talks to them. Personally, I’ve never met a Christian who wanted to jam anything down my or anyone elses’ throat. Environmentalists and other liberals have exhibited far more fanaticism and authoritarianism in my experience. The locals just need a little coercion to bring them around (on the recycling/wind power/organic vegetable/_____ issue), as one recently put it.

      1. Well, at least we cleared that up. I may end up contributing here soon, so instead of hijacking this post, I’ll start on a religion and politics piece.

        I’m not anti-Christian by any means, but I can see how my original post could have given that impression. I just don’t have time for baseless arguments (especially when those arguments demand more government intrusion).

  3. Carbon Looting the atmosphere? I think Newt’s ego is so big that he feels the need to be accepted by the intellectual Left so he must, in the end, pander to their hot button issues like this. I left the Cain train about a month ago and felt then that I’d support Newt and gave the guy the benefit of the doubt that he had wised up in his older years and seen the error of his past. Obviously I was wrong.

    How did the Republicans get ourselves into this mess? Obama is the worst president in history and we are choosing between two Blue Blood politicians who pander to both sides. Talk about whiffing on a softball.

    Still, i’d vote for either over Obama in the general election and I do think either of them could beat him, with the edge going to Gingrich. Romney has the potential to get buried in a debate with BHO over his flip-flopping and Romneycare.

    What the hell do I know though. This is one crazy primary.

    Great post Rogue.

    1. Good to get your input. I want to write a post on what I see to be the corruption of physics with subjectivist nonsense, and possibly the role of the NSF. Would like your eyes on it. Love astronomy and look forward to checking out your ideas and observations. Best, Kyle

      1. That sounds like an interesting post and look forward to reading it. I’ve never looked at how the NSF funding is distributed. I’ve spent a few years scrutinizing the AGW cult from afar and I don’t find it unusual to see all these pro AGW papers written when they are funded by pro AGW agencies. Surprise! The Science is Settled!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s