Gingrich on Defense: “I Would Have Voted For The Ryan Budget”, Explains The Tifffany Debt And Libya Flip-Flop

Share |

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was interviewed by Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation Sunday morning to defend himself on a variety of problems that have been highlighted against his campaign it seems all in the last two weeks.

Schieffer began the interview and brought up the argument surrounding Gingrich’s comment’s against Representative Paul Ryan’s budget, and the former GA Representative raised his hands in defense, saying that he had no qualms with Ryan, considered him a friend, and mentioned that he “would have voted for the Ryan budget”. He continued by saying that he believed the Democratic “Medi-scare” tactics would have to be overcome by Republicans explaining exactly how they are going to save the program, and to make the American people “comfortable” with that approach, starting out with the Ryan plan as a foundation, getting feedback from the citizens on the budget and its various bits of legislation, and making the inevitable changes that will be necessary in order to have the entire population agree with the GOP. Gingrich acknowledged that his use of the term right-wing social engineering was “unfortunate language” but pointed out that Americans will never respond positively to “take it or leave it” approaches, and that Ryan and he were “on the same side” and that people needed to remember that the Democrats are not.

Gingrich related that this was the third incidence during his career of the Democratic Party using scare tactics, once against Reagan, the second time against the GOP’s Medicare proposal in 1996, and he called it “shameful for the Democrats to lie about Medicare”.

Schieffer then moved on to the next weakness in Gingrich’s campaign, the individual mandate, and his support of the idea in the past. Gingrich pointed out that he has not been alone in that support, reported that the Heritage Foundation has issued support of the i/m clause at one time, and that he currently does not support it. He clarified that he believes in a “10th Amendment approach” to the issue, because the clause would violate rights on both “religious and personal liberty grounds.”

Next on the list of questions was a financial disclosure that his wife Callista had filed, showing the couple owed between $250-$550K to the jewelry giant Tiffany’s. Gingrich replied that the account was created while he was a private citizen, he claimed that it was a standard no interest revolving account, that was paid automatically, and called the debt a “standard business practice”. When Schieffer called into question the large sum, Gingrich reiterated that nothing was out of sorts with the account, that he had paid the debt, and that he currently owed nothing except a mortgage on a house. When pressed further about the issue, and its relation to him potentially being in charge of the US Treasury, Gingrich responded “Go talk to Tiffany’s” and reiterated that the couple had lived within their means, and currently held no debt, saying “I have proven that I have managed money.”

When it comes to the recent developments in foreign policy, Gingrich called President Obama’s speech and its significant changes to our relationship with Israel a “disaster”, expressing that he considered the plan “extraordinarily dangerous”, and that the 1967 borders would be “a suicide for Israel”. He pointed out the Palestinians close ties with the Hamas group, and said that there would never be peace in the region, or safety for Israel as long as Hamas’ well defined “goals” related to the “destruction of Israel” remained in place. Gingrich then took another swipe at Obama, saying that a President who “can’t control his own border” probably shouldn’t have a say in another country’s. Schieffer pointed out that the desired results of Obama’s plan were for peace in the Middle East, but Gingrich argued that as long as Hamas stood by their goals against Israel and continued to “act like terrorists” there would still be unrest.

On the issue of Syria, where death tolls have risen upwards of 900, Gingrich was very critical of Obama’s leadership, pointing out that if Syrian President Bashar Assad was aware of what was going on in Libya, particularly in the ineffective actions against Muammar Qhadafi, that he would realize that President Obama uses “large announcements for small effect.” Gingrich called for a “fundamental reevaluation” of our Middle East foreign policy, said that the relationship with Pakistan needed to be questioned after the discovery of Osama Bin Laden’s compound “less than a mile from a major national defense university”, and pointed out that Christians and Catholics in the region were still being persecuted.

Regarding his remarks on Libya, Schieffer described an apparent “flip-flop” from Gingrich related to the need for action in the nation, saying that on March 3rd the former Speaker had pressed for action in the region to the extent of a no-fly zone and the removal of Qhadafi, then as of March 23rd Gingrich was quoted as saying “I would not have intervened”. Gingrich pointed to a February 22nd interview where he called for covert actions in the country, utilizing allies in the region instead of US forces, and that on March 3rd he was standing by the President’s call for action, particularly related to the removal of Qhadafi as a “tyrant” dictator. His change in rhetoric as of the 23rd was necessary because Obama’s policy announced the 3rd has turned into a “joke”, and that everything the President has done in Libya has been a “failure”.

When asked why he believes he should be President, Gingrich responded that he was running because the United States of America is in need of dramatic change, and that he saw much more of a positive response to his campaign in Iowa than in Washington DC. He detailed his recent trip through 17 towns in Iowa, where many of his events had to be relocated due to crowd numbers, and that the Iowans that he spoke with, allegedly more than 2000, wanted to talk more about the issues such as defeating Obamacare and job creation rather than the snags his campaign has hit in recent weeks. Gingrich pushed back against claims that donors were worried about his 2012 bid, and that a fundraiser was cancelled, saying his “campaign looked alive in Iowa”. Later in the interview he related his belief that President Obama has taken the country “in exactly the wrong direction” particularly on the issue of domestic oil production, and his turn to Brazil as a potential source. Gingrich pointed out his record as Speaker, noting the fact that during his terms the Republican House had balanced the budget, and lowered the unemployment rate to below 4%.

Gingrich closed the interview by saying that he believed that America would decide how they felt about his personal life in the past, and needed to ask themselves if he was now mature enough to “be an effective leader”. He acknowledged that he believed that he could create real positive change in the United States if elected, but only if he had the help of the American people.