Captain's Quarters -

Okay, Mr. Gingrich, what are your true feelings about Tom DeLay?

Mr Speaker,

With the nuts on the far left directing the Far Side party, can we come together as a nation again?? Looking at the House and Senate lately is really depressing, when you know there are real problems facing this country. immigration, Social Security, Pork...

Newt,
Most substantive changes have a number of unintended consequences.

The idea of the so-called Fair Tax appeals to me for a number of reasons..more equitable..catches the trust fund babies and scofflaws..less subject to political manipulation (if implemented as proposed)..substantial price advantages for US vendors through elimination of corporate taxes..etc.etc. But I can't help being concerned about the unintended consequences. Do you have any insights as to what the unintended consequences might be?

By the same token, a one-term limit for all elective federal offices is looking better and better to me. I know that there are many good people in elective office, but too many have become homesteaders and their agendas have become dominated by the overriding desire to be re-elected rather than do what is best for the long term welfare of the country. Are there unintended consequences that would make such a constitutional limitation untenable?

John

Thanks for going and participating!

What are you going to ask him?

...which might lead to additional response here

Why has national pride been turned into a bad thing and how can we turn that around? The motto has always been "United We Stand" and this can only result from a people who are proud to work together as one unified force. It dosen't matter what the rest of the world thinks of us, what matters is doing the right thing and that sometimes means standing alone against evil forces.

Newt,

Today, while watching CSPAN, I witnessed the House vote on a measure to restrict a person's exposure to a particular additive in microwavable popcorn. The Constitution does not provide the Federal Government the power to regulate one's relationship with Orville Redenbacher. At the same time, the tasks that the Constitution does lay at the feet of the Federal Government (ie. securing the boarder) are left undone. It is upon this stage that the Republican party enters, and offers their own Federal level solutions, rather than being able to distinguish between what is and is not the responsibility of the Federal Government. The absence of that ability reveals a fundamental fissure in the Republican foundation on Capitol Hill. How is your Solutions Day forum going to highlight and revitalize the concept of limited government for both the Republicans at the federal level and in the hearts of Americans everywhere?

Energy Independence: Is there anyway we can move towards it? What would your plan be?

Newt,

Would you act to ban a popcorn additive if it made people sick or do you feel the government has no place in protecting consumer's safety?

Newt,

Could you tell us about the adulterous affair you had with an intern while your wife lay in a hospital bed with cancer?

Good one Jim!

I bet no one on earth has ever had your level of intellect to arrive at such a thought provoking, never-been-asked question! I thought of another one, although admittedly not as good as yours, "Hey Bush, where were the WMD's?"

The closest workshop is three hours away in Bloomington, Illinois. (Just bellyaching.)

Ed,

Welcome to Atlanta. Hope "we" treat you well.

For Newt: He has been quoted as giving VERY long odds of a republican win in '08. Why then would he even consider spending so much time and so much money running for a projected POTUS bid? Wouldn't that money & time be better used pressing the "issues", such as border security, etc?

"Newt Gingrich, who has long been one of conservatism's leading intellectuals, seems particularly suited to lead an effort searching for big ideas."

When Gingrich recently said "to stay the course [in Iraq] I think in the long run is not a very sound strategy," it was then that I realized that Gingrich is a small man with smaller ideas.

Questions:

1) How can we Americans reclaim the individual citizen as sovereign under our constitution ?

2) How can we get rid of Political Action Committees and their undermining effect on the sovereignty of the individual ?

3) How can we extinguish the "corporatism uber al" attitude from our government institutions and elected officials ?

Is the next framing vehicle that the GOP will be looking for going to be The Federalist Party, or the Federalist Wing of the GOP? Will Federalism replace Conservatism as a noble panacea? Do you believe all the executive powers that Richard Cheney, David Adington, John Yoo and The President himself using Executive signing statements, have expanded without challenge, should remain with the next President even if it's the Democrats?

Mr Gingrich

Why do Republicans run on the right but rule from the left?

Mr Speaker:

Part of the Democrat strategy for winning the 1992 presidential election for a shady Arkansas governor was exploiting the ego and naivete of one H. Ross Perot to split the non-Clinton vote.

What would be your strategy to prevent a similar occurrence in 2008 by a self-obsessed Republican such as Lindsey Graham or Chuck Hagel type from playing the discontent spoiler? Would you be willing to forgo your own political aspirations for the presidency in 2008 to keep a dangerous Hillary out of office? Should you not be the GOP nominee would you be able to avoid temptation to run as an independent candidate mindful that to do so might enhance the chances of a Perot-esque squeaker win by a shady senator from New York?

Captain:

Please seek out Neal Boortz who will also be attending. He is the co-author (with John Linder) of the Fair Tax book that hit the best seller list recently. I know you have had concerns and questions regarding the Fair Tax. He would be a great resource to answer some of your questions.

Thanks for attending the conference...

Newt, behind closed doors you know you have zero chance of being president of the US. Why then, do you think it is helpful popping off about the failings of the current candidates, while at the same time speaking of Hillary's charms?

Practically speaking, is there now any aspect of an American's life that cannot be regulated or controlled by the federal government?

One of the biggest problems a Republican president faces these days is are bureaucracies whose members seek to thwart the goals of the administration, two notable examples being the CIA and Department of State. What can you or any other Republican president do to get these bureaucracies to work for the president instead of against him?

While it may be legal to do so, is it morally right for the government to take, by force if necessary, that which one person has earned and which could be used to support that person and his family, and give it to someone else?

If you answered anything but "no" to the question above, how does that make you any different from a Democrat, except in degree?

Newt:

Other than taxation, what's the point of US Citizenship?

Mr. Speaker,

I understand that in 1929 Federal spending was 2.5% of GDP. (current Hillsdale Imprimus report)

How do we lower federal spending and roll back the dependency FDR started and others carried forward? Do you think people would support some kind of cap on federal spending as a % of GDP based on historical numbers and set it at 10% e.g.?

Thank you.

Solutions? From the Government? I've had about all of the "solutions" from government I can stand for one lifetime. It's the same song,different verse every time someone in government comes up with a new idea. They have a new idea and my family gets screwed over to pay for it. Reminds me of the management ideas of a midsized company I used to work for. They couldn't see that it was THEM that was the problem. Now the company is closing and moving to Mexico. I wish I could believe that someone in government was able to do what Newt claims to want to do. I really do. But I don't. I've heard this all before.

Captain Ed,

Love you blog and your radio show! And thank you for all your fine efforts. I have two related questions for Mr Gingrich.

Why doesn't our federal government use its power of the purse to greater effect? For example, why don't the feds finally just say that cities or local authorities that refuse to cooperate with ICE or any other federal agency will receive no money from Washington. Similarly, after Monday's disgrace at Columbia, I researched Columbia's federal grants. It received nearly half a billion in 2005 and well over $200K in 2006. So why don't the feds just say, "No ROTC, no grants"? (I will not even go into the question of aiding and giving comfort to our enemy because I know that is a concept too difficult for most academics to comprehend.)

This business of opting out, or choosing what you will or won't accept from Washington, is damaging the cohesiveness of our national society and makes a mockery of the rule of law.

Thanks for listening.
E.V.

I will never in all my life forget the night about one year ago, when Newt was on Hannity and Colmes, and the subject was the Minutemen, the border security, and amnesty or "a path to citizenship" for illegal aliens.

Newt was in 100% total greement with Alan Colmes, against a border fence, disagreeable about the Minutemen, and telling Sean to get pragmatic about the vital necessity of a "path to citizenship" for illegal aliens.

His remarks so provoked Sean that soon, Sean was angrier than I have ever seen in all my life. That anger started as Sean tried desperately to warn Newt that if he was even REMOTELY considering a run for office again, which Sean wanted him very very much to do, that he needed to consider the wisdom of publicly philosophically being in agreement with Alam Colmes about anything, but most particularly on this very sore and very raw subject.
Newt just began to laugh at Sean and began to immensely enjoy that position, as I have never ever ever seen Newt relaxed and enjoying the moment - EVER!

Colmes was stunned and shocked, and delighted and confused and bewildered, and waiting to discover it was just a joke and he would once again be the butt of one of Sean's jokes at him.

But it was not to be - Newt was deadly serious about the need to be pragmatic about this issue and of the need to assimilate the ILLEGAL ALIENS, "because they are already here", "...breaking up families...", blah blah blah.

Laughing absolutely very delighted, in complete enjoyment of the moment, and of Sean's deep and sore distress.

Now, within weeks, Sean and Newt appeared on the same stage again, and there was NO HINT of the problem from Sean. Sean has not changed his mind. But he put the disagreement behind him, his long-standing admiration for Newt, and his long friendship with him meant too much to Sean on a personal level, and he is trying to keep it from penetrating his heart.

I don't for a minute think he has forgotten it - I don't see a certain glint in his eye anymore.

I live less than an hour and half from the Mexico border in Texas.

And like a little wet mother Red hen, you better not try to get between me and my chicks.

Newt will never get my vote, even though I have heard him say some things about how much we need border security, now - "FIRST!" A few months after that SHAMNESTY VOTE this last Spring!
THIS INTERVIEW was a bit before the '06 election, AND BEFORE the '08 Presidential Campaign season began.

Newt has picked his camp.

He slapped my face hard enough that night for ME to get the message. And hard enough to insure that I will NEVER forget it.

Newt and Alan Colmes are perfect for eachother.

Posted by Jim | September 26, 2007 5:45 PM

Newt,

Could you tell us about the adulterous affair you had with an intern while your wife lay in a hospital bed with cancer?

*****************************

Are you aware that Newt is now married the THIRD TIME? and that #2 and #3 were both the mistresses from #1 and #2??? And a few other NAMES are listed in between whom he did NOT marry???

Now he flip flops on SHAMNESTY....

And says a GOP CANNOT WIN unless they distance themselves (bash soundly) from Bush...

What did he do to stop illegal immigration when he was Speaker of the House?

What did the Speaker do to confront the growing threat of Radical Muslim Militancy in the 1990s?

Is it a sign of a weak character, when someone demeans those serving their interest, if it suddenly becomes unpopular?

Especially when they are implementing policy, which involves grave difficulty, like the mission in Iraq?

Or, is this just another opportunist, who prefers posing for photos with Mrs. Clinton?

The Veteran Affairs Health Care System is often touted as the system to look at for national (govt run) health care. While the VA has come a long way and is a great work environment for many health professionals, many of our veterans would prefer to be followed by their outside physicians and just receive their medications from the VA. Many express this request daily. Is there any thought, and if not, then why not, to creating some type of system that would allow this to happen? My suggestion would be to allow a Medicare Part B plan for veterans so they could have this option they so frequently ask for. The VA is paying a very high price per patient when you consider that a good many of the patients are seen by private physicians reimbursed thru Medicare anyway. The patients then "double-dip" by going to their VA provider to (re-)write for the medication so they don't have to pay as much for it. The VA copay, if required, is only $8 per month per rx. If VA patients were allowed to see their individual private providers and then were allowed to have their prescriptions filled thru some type of mail order for veterans thru a part B plan....just think of the money that could be saved. Much of the money going into VA outpatient programs would not be needed...the patients wouldn't come. Let's give them what they ask for and save the government millions, if not billions of dollars.

Newt:

Is Alan Keyes a nutjob or does he just act like one?

Hugh

Regarding Immigration If we really need more people in the US what can be done to increase the quotas for legal immigration so we can choose who we want to let in? Can we set up a system of community involvement in administering a federal program - what about an immigrant board to monitor legal aliens during the citizenship/visa period (similiar to the old draft boards)More people would be involved and instead of a bureaucratic system with no incentive or resources to vet and monitor these people we have the whole community (self selected individuals who are motivated to be involved) keeping track

I'll never forget your praise of Alvin and Heidi Toffler - particularly their books 'Future Shock' and the "Third Wave."

The books are about a technological age of 'the future' (actually now) where knowledge and computers in the hands of enemies soon become weapons of mass destruction on an economic and physical scale capable of destroying whole nations and cultures - and the economy (if not the whole) of the United States.

If you believe the Toffler's predictions of mass-world-culture-merger will end traditional cultures, then how do you predict the dominant leftist academia will shape our cultural future?