Newt Gingrich on Coffee and Markets
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was kind enough to join us today on Coffee and Markets, our daily podcast hosted at Redstate and BigGovernment, to talk about David Brooks, entitlement reform, the economy, cybersecurity, and why he doesn't blame Mitt Romney for opposing the Contract With
America. As transcribed by Chris Moody:
Domenech asked Gingrich about Romney's lack of support at the time.
"That contract is one that your primary opponent Mitt Romney did not support," Domenech said. "I wanted to ask you a question based on the..."
"That's not totally fair," Gingrich said, cutting him off. "He was running to the left of Teddy Kennedy in Massachusetts in 1994. He said flatly, he wasn't for the Reagan-Bush policies, he was independent. And he couldn't possibly have been for the Contract because, how do you run to the left of Teddy Kennedy in Massachusetts favoring a Gingrich contract?"
The whole thing is worth listening to, and at the end, he talks about what he thinks he'd want in a Vice President - interestingly enough, executive experience isn't part of the picture. You can listen to our other podcasts at CoffeeandMarkets.com.
- Comment (29)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Apr '11
Re: Newt Gingrich on Coffee and Markets
Do you believe that Mitt Romney ran to the left of Ted Kennedy in 1994? Do you believe that he was to Ted Kennedy's left on any matter touched by the Contract? Do you believe that Gingrich believes that? I haven't listened to the podcast, but it sounds as if you didn't challenge him on an absurd lie.
Which part of the Contract that Romney did not support got passed? He ran on requiring welfare recipients to work, cutting spending, and all the other bits that happened. What Mitt didn't support, Newt didn't seriously support in practice either. The agencies to be cut exploded in growth, the term limits died, the revolution took second place to Newt's Air Force One treatment.
Jun '11
Re: Newt Gingrich on Coffee and Markets
Jun '11
Re: Newt Gingrich on Coffee and Markets
That was great! Thank you for sharing it. :) I feel like Newt was improvising his cyber security responses a bit-having not researched his statements and positions on the subject. He sounded like he was winging it a little when he added that the international cyber conference would be held "secretly."
Still a great interview!
Re: Newt Gingrich on Coffee and Markets
James Of England: Do you believe that Mitt Romney ran to the left of Ted Kennedy in 1994? Do you believe that he was to Ted Kennedy's left on any matter touched by the Contract? Do you believe that Gingrich believes that? I haven't listened to the podcast, but it sounds as if you didn't challenge him on an absurd lie.
Which part of the Contract that Romney did not support got passed? He ran on requiring welfare recipients to work, cutting spending, and all the other bits that happened. What Mitt didn't support, Newt didn't seriously support in practice either. The agencies to be cut exploded in growth, the term limits died, the revolution took second place to Newt's Air Force One treatment. · Dec 9 at 1:41pm
James, Romney explicitly rebuked the Contract in his 1994 debate with Ted Kennedy.
Oct '11
Re: Newt Gingrich on Coffee and Markets
It is absurd to believe Romney ran to the left of Kennedy. Very cynical of Newt, all the while acting as if he's taking the high road. Disgusting. Newt knows better, he just hopes most don't.
Edited on Dec 9, 2011 at 3:37pmMay '10
Re: Newt Gingrich on Coffee and Markets
I've been wailing on the circular firing squad the last couple of days. Here, on the day Romney releases a barrage of negative attacks on the Speaker, Newt instead comes to Romney's defense.
Contrast that for a second.
Apr '11
Re: Newt Gingrich on Coffee and Markets
Ben Domenech
James Of England: Do you believe that Mitt Romney ran to the left of Ted Kennedy in 1994? Do you believe that he was to Ted Kennedy's left on any matter touched by the Contract? Do you believe that Gingrich believes that? I haven't listened to the podcast, but it sounds as if you didn't challenge him on an absurd lie.
Which part of the Contract that Romney did not support got passed? He ran on requiring welfare recipients to work, cutting spending, and all the other bits that happened. What Mitt didn't support, Newt didn't seriously support in practice either. The agencies to be cut exploded in growth, the term limits died, the revolution took second place to Newt's Air Force One treatment. · Dec 9 at 1:41pm
James, Romney explicitly rebuked the Contract in his 1994 debate with Ted Kennedy. · Dec 9 at 2:32pm
If you read my comment you'll see that I knew that. Mitt ran on most of the Contract content, but did not support all of it. None of the content that Mitt did not support was passed by Newt. Answer the first paragraph.
Apr '11
Re: Newt Gingrich on Coffee and Markets
EJHill: I've been wailing on the circular firing squad the last couple of days. Here, on the day Romney releases a barrage of negative attacks on the Speaker, Newt instead comes to Romney's defense.
Contrast that for a second. · Dec 9 at 3:42p
EJ, do you believe that Newt's claim that Mitt was to Kennedy's left was a defense?
I agree that he was responding to a misleading attack, but he hyped that attack up from misleading without being false (listeners might believe that Mitt did not support most of the Contract, in particular Welfare reform), to being an outright lie. He also includes some misleading stuff there; eg. he implies that Mitt was an independent in '94, but it's the "left of Kennedy" that stands out amongst the insults. I can't see a single substantive defending word after "that's not fair". It's by far the cheapest attack I've seen Newt engage in. Until Coffee and Markets he seems to have been more high minded than that.
May '10
Re: Newt Gingrich on Coffee and Markets
Yes, I do. I took it that it was exactly the same as the Rob Long or Mike Murphy tack. If you have to run left of center to win a blue state, that's what you do. Our team wins and that's what's important.
Oct '11
Re: Newt Gingrich on Coffee and Markets
I'm positive that Mike Murphy would find the claim that Romney ran to the LEFT of Kennedy to be absurd. In a spectrum of political thought I'ts fair to say that Romney was to some degree to the left of Gingrich at the time, but to the left of Kennedy? Ridiculous.
Jul '10
Re: Newt Gingrich on Coffee and Markets
I'll say this. At least Gingrich puts himself out there. Unlike a certain other candidate who remains in a media bubble.
Nov '10
Re: Newt Gingrich on Coffee and Markets
I agree with Newt that he's an "outsider". But I think his invocation of the phrase "genuine outsider" for himself is not helpful. On the surface it's preposterous, given his role back in his early days. He WAS the establishment republican/conservative position at one point. In today's GOP he's an outsider, this is true, but not everyone will cede the point, and he harms himself by trying this gambit. He should be just "what you see is what you get" and let the beholder's eye frame him as it will.
Nov '10
Re: Newt Gingrich on Coffee and Markets
On the matter of cyber warfare, as I understand it (unless things have changed in recent years -- I haven't been following the issue lately) the NSA has some troublesome rules. The broadest system for public-key encryption is RSA. The security of the algorithm depends on the length of codewords permitted. At one point the US forbade the export of products over a certain level of encryption -- I think 128 bit -- and restricted civilian use to another level (the exact level I forget).
At an early date in the use of RSA this all made sense. Today it makes no sense whatsoever. Any hobbyist can implement an efficient, robust RSA program. Whether you export or not makes little difference. With a bit of time I could produce code for 1024-bit encryption. There are only a few technical problems with this, such as the need to generate appropriate primes. Prior to full-featured quantum computing nobody can decrypt such a code in realistic time (say under the known lifespan of the universe). Such regulations, like gun laws, may tie the hands of law-abiding citizens but they do nothing to deter the bad guys.
Jun '10
Re: Newt Gingrich on Coffee and Markets
Brilliant point -- I think you're right that he shouldn't push this notion too far. Mostly because it might be misunderstood by the rest of the country.
Jun '10
Re: Newt Gingrich on Coffee and Markets
Ben, great interview. Thanks.
May '10
Re: Newt Gingrich on Coffee and Markets
I listened for six minutes and couldn't go on. He comes across as insufferably arrogant.
Jun '10
Re: Newt Gingrich on Coffee and Markets
But, what about the content? Content is important for us conservatives, isn't it?
May '10
Re: Newt Gingrich on Coffee and Markets
His arrogance overwhelmed everything else in my view.
It IS content. Content of the most essential kind. Compare and contrast with the character traits of Reagan, Coolidge, even Bush 43.
Jun '10
Re: Newt Gingrich on Coffee and Markets
We don't need a Bush 43 right now -- we need a Churchill, or an Andrew Jackson, or a Patrick Henry. The party needs a new standard bearer -- not a Bush or a Dole or a Robert Michel. I'm sick to death of them. They will not stand up for themselves much less for us.
Apr '11
Re: Newt Gingrich on Coffee and Markets
EJHill
Yes, I do. I took it that it was exactly the same as the Rob Long or Mike Murphy tack. If you have to run left of center to win a blue state, that's what you do. Our team wins and that's what's important. · Dec 9 at 4:11pm
Rob Long and Mike Murphy don't say, and would never say, that it made sense to run to the left of Ted Kennedy to win a state. If Newt said that he had to be a moderate, then that would be fair enough. Although I don't think that his position was particularly moderate; he was strong on economics, unions, taxes, spending, law and order, education, and so on, it's an area where people can disagree; King Prawn for instance, ably defends the "moderate" position.
"To the left of Ted", though, is not a viable or legitimate claim. It's a lie, and an effective one when supported by the interviewer. It could never be a defense.
Unless you believe it plausible, EJ?