Keep me signed in on this device for 30 days
Newt Gingrich sat down with Peter Robinson on Wednesday evening for a wide ranging interview:
<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/M415AGqnVrg?rel=0″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>
When are Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney going to go under Peter’s knife?
Fantastic interview. I hope Santorum in particular will sit down with Peter as well.
Gingrich impressed me, as I expected he would. If we could somehow combine the best qualities of Gingrich and Santorum into a Frankencandidate…
I’m much more sympathetic to Mr. Gingrich after listening to the interview. His delivery is managed and sober, and his ideas are compelling. I also detected just a wee bit of hurt when Peter brought up the criticisms of his character. But Newt is like the little girl with the curl. When he’s good, he is very good. But when he’s bad, he’s horrid.
Newt did himself a favor by sitting for this interview. I couldn’t watch it, though, without constantly thinking to myself “Peter Robinson is the master”, and that it is something approaching a national scandal that he has not conducted at least one of the Republican debates. The voters would be well-served were the remaining candidates to submit to at least this kind of one-on-one forum.
Beginning when you first made the suggestion, Paul, we’ve been in touch with each of the candidates, extending invitations to tape Uncommon Knowledge. The problem? Scheduling. Since we’re here in California–we try to tape back East once or twice a year, but that’s all–it’s been difficult. But we’ve had a couple of near misses with both the Santorum and Romney campaigns–in each case, something came up–and both have told us they’ll try hard to arrange something when their candidate is here in California.
In other words, Paul, when you say “jump,” I say “how high?”
My day is still young out here in California, but you’ve already made it.
This is a fantastic interview. It goes by fast, hitting a lot of topics, yet there is substantial depth and insight.
My favorite nugget, early on (and again, it whizzes by):
Newt Gingrich: “I happen to think that entrepreneurs, engineers, scientists, technicians, are better than Washington regulators and Washington red tape and Washington lawyers at solving environmental problems. And free market countries have better environments than socialist countries. That’s a fact.”
One disappointment; Peter’s truly foundational question at 9:55, the one about the economic mechanism of focused spending with diffused costs, is mostly ignored. Instead Newt riffs off on unemployment compensation, which is pretty far removed.
If the Republican party has any brains left (I can’t even begin to imagine the Pythonesque photoshop EJ would do on that), they should make sure you do the exact same length of time with Santorum and Romney as soon as possible. The interview does more to frame the candidates and set up intelligent questions leading into the debates than do 1,000 pages of screeds, tweets, and squeals by bunker blasting bloggers and bookmeisters.
Newt was very solid here and I think the format would do a world of good for both Santorum and Romney as well as result in CNN asking why they pay their airport drones so much money.
I do recall asking about this a few weeks back. I won’t be able to watch this for a while. If it was released as an MP3 rather than as a streaming video where you have to sit anchored in front of the computer (hint hint…..) , I’d get to it a lot sooner.
But we’ve always known that Newt could do this kind of thing well. That is not the problem with his candidacy- Mark Steyn explained all of that back in January during the Newt Boomlet.
The ease in which Gingrich responds to pointed questions without having to pause for reflection is impressive. I believe this is the benefit of having a thoroughly articulated political stance so that all ideas stem from the same root.
Newt is awesome. He actually answers the question. Not with campaign-speech sound-bytes, but Gingrich actually answers the question with real solutions.
I love the idea of generating Federal Revenues by utilizing Federal Land. Yes. Better yet, sell those lands and let the private sector put that land to use in the marketplace and create private-sector jobs.
Peter’s most embarrassing moment is hilarious. Newt talks about giving people paychecks rather than food stamps, and Peter doesn’t get that Gingrich is talking about jobs, not government handouts. LOL
Second Peter doesn’t get it how private retirement savings , through the well-known mechanism of reinvestment of dividends over a lifetime, can better protect people from market fluctuations than phoney government promises and ponzi-schemes, which are subject to the whims of government “benevolence”, which is simply the government’s ability to tax most for the benefit of some.
No one speaks the truth about the threat of Islamic-sponsored terrorism, the failure of government in education, wrong-headed energy policy, Judicial tyranny, Obama’s war on Christianity, etc. etc. as does Newt Gingrich. And no one is as right as Gingrich is about foreign policy either.
I know all the knocks on him, but I still find him an attractive candidate in many ways. After this interview, I find myself asking: why shouldn’t he be elected?
Gingrich’s response, at about 7:00, after Peter presented Richard Epstein’s assertion that the Framers intended an “independent” judiciary, made me stand up and cheer.
Yeah. I could vote for this Newt.
Yeah. I could vote for thisNewt. · 1 hour ago
I take your point.
What subliminal message is he sending by wearing a purple tie, hmmmm?
I think the pros far outweigh the cons. I really think he would be a formidable candidate in the general, and people would vote for this guy. I think he is our only hope actually.
Besides, he’s pre-demonized.
Great interview from Peter, thanks!
LOL scornfully. The majority of knocks against Newt are second hand, the product of others’ manufacture and your credulity. Not sayin’ there’s nothing valid against him, but on balance I hear way more smoke than fire. (Sorry, borken metaphor.)
A challenge: for what serious arguments against that other Gingrich can you find compelling evidence, of sufficient length and depth to provide independent context? Are you just hitchhiking on the bandwagon?
Jeez. I bet a lot of you people believe in anthropogenic global warming, too. No, oops, wait, bad example, …