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.
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}.
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}.