The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

The transcript of Glenn Beck’s interview with Newt Gingrich is remarkable because Beck asks Gingrich a number of different policy questions, which Gingrich answers without any apparent concern for establishing his conservative credentials. He even fails to clearly separate his own views on the individual mandate for health care insurance from those of Obama — a distinction that one would think he would be quick to make, given Mitt Romney’s health care troubles. The transcript can be confusing, but here’s the relevant part: 

GLENN: All right. Well, and I think this is where we fundamentally differ is it seems to me ‑‑ and let me just play the audio here ‑‑ that you are for the individual mandate for healthcare and you have been for quite some time. Let’s play the audio.

GINGRICH: I am for people, individuals, exactly like automobile insurance, individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance, and I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals on a sliding scale a government subsidy so it will ensure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.

GLENN: Okay. That’s 1993. Here is May 2011.

GINGRICH: All of a sudden responsibility to help pay for healthcare. And I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement to either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you are going to be held accountable.

VOICE: That is the individual mandate, is it not?

GINGRICH: It’s a variation on it.

GLENN: Here’s about Paul Ryan trying to fix Medicare.

GINGRICH: I don’t think rightwing social engineering is any more desirable than leftwing social engineering. I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate. So there are things you can do to improve Medicare.

VOICE: But not what Paul Ryan is suggesting which is completely changing Medicare?

GINGRICH: I think that that is too big a jump. I think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options, not one where you suddenly impose upon. I don’t want ‑‑ I’m against ObamaCare which is imposing radical change and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change.

GLENN: Okay. Yet you seem to always be ‑‑ this is long‑term individual mandate stuff. You seem to be very interested in the government finding the solution.

GINGRICH: Well, let’s go back to what I just said. What I was asked was if a program is unpopular, should the Republicans impose it anyway. We can go back and we can listen to exactly what I was asked on that show and what I said I stand by, which is in a free society, you don’t elect officials to impose on you things that you disagree with. We just went through this slide over ObamaCare.

Now, I also, ironically, I would implement the Medicare reforms that Paul Ryan wants, I would implement them next year as an optional choice and I would allow people to have the option to choose premium support and then have freedom to negotiate with their doctor or their hospital in a way that would increase their ability to manage costs without being involved, you know ‑‑ but I wouldn’t impose it on everybody across the board. I think that’s a very large scale experiment. But I think you could migrate people toward it. I’m proposing the same thing on Social Security. I think young people ought to have the right to choose a personal Social Security insurance savings account plan and the Social Security actuary estimates that 95% of young people would pick a personal Social Security savings account over the current system but they would do so voluntarily because we would empower them to make a choice. We wouldn’t impose it on them. That’s a question of how do you think you can get this country to move more rapidly toward reform, and I think you can get it to move toward reform faster.

GLENN: All right.

GINGRICH: By giving people the right to choose.

In this and other parts of the interview, Gingrich doesn’t seem to realize or care that the issues he’s discussing are hot-button topics among conservatives.

View all comments (6) |

Bumr50| 12.6.11 @ 12:14PM

Newt is who he is.

I'm fine with that.

He provides wrenches where others promise sledgehammers, hatchets, and scalpels.

He'll fight Obama, where Romney offers no real alternative.

crazy| 12.6.11 @ 12:56PM

The Newsters need to realize Newt's not afraid of the conservatives and will lead US to the same place Romney/Obama will. Neither of these 3 offers any real differences in the role of Washington in our daily lives. They only differ in degree.

Dan| 12.6.11 @ 2:12PM

The ONE guy in the race right now who KNOWS how much Washington is strangling our economy is Newt.

The ONE guy who has written REPEATEDLY on the subject, IN GREAT DETAIL, is Newt.

AND WE ALL know it.

So who are we kidding?

Newt heralds the likelihood of GENUINE, non-Bush, meaning non-gimmick change. And the establishment is foaming at the mouth at the mere thought of it.

The more the NRers and their ilk blast Gingrich, the more inclined I am to vote for him.

The creatures who foisted the Bush clan on the nation ought to be thrown under a bus!

Dan| 12.6.11 @ 2:09PM

Which means that Gingrich, unlike the Mormon, doesn't filter everything through some political sieve to determine whether it is politically advantageous for him.

Gingrich speaks openly because he KNOWS he's Conservative.

Reminds me of Karol Wojtyla, then Cardinal, going into the Sistine for the Papal enclave, and he was carrying a book on MARXISM. When asked about the appropriateness of such a book on his person, at such a time, Wojtyla simply laughed, and observed "My conscience is clean...."

Gingrich has made his bones long ago battling for Conservative causes, and we all know it.

Sure some right now, like Hillyer, are trying desperately, thrashing and flailing about, dredging up every supposed heretical moment in Newt's past, ------------------- but if you notice, and you can't help but observe, they're not calling to mind all the ways in which he ADVANCED a Conservative agenda.

Desperate!

Desperate Romney lovers who are desperately trying to wrench the GOP off in a new direction on lifestyle issues.

Who the hell do these New Yorkers and Beltwayers think they're kidding?

Jeff Perren| 12.6.11 @ 3:00PM

Valid points, every one. The sad fact is, though, that - unless Perry rises considerably in the polls and soon, which is very unlikely - it's Romney or Gingrich. Given that choice, I prefer someone who at least talks like a limited government guy. There is a chance his feet can be held to the fire by a limited government Congress (if we could get even close to that in 2012). With Romney, there is no such chance.

Dan| 12.6.11 @ 5:42PM

Were we to go with Romney, every single issue that confronted him would be a battle for his soul, and you would never be sure whether Romney would be in for "the long haul" on the issue.

Every single issue would see an internal White House battle to get the President's ear last.

It would be worse than GHWB's administration, where there would be a Darman undoing previous Presidential utterances.

It would be a disaster.

Gingrich on the other hand is a man with the manhood and the intellectual confidence to go his own way, {which is why he's crawled up in the polls to a position where the Romney lovers are in an utter and unseemly, abject panic}.

More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/06/gingrich-still-not-overly-conc

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT