Best Gingrich interview ever: Obama the food stamp President

OK, that’s the red meat line but honestly, the entire interview is worth every second. From CNBC’s Larry Kudlow program. Unless you are a committed ideologue, it is hard not to like this man as he covers every issue from global warming to medicare.

Even better he outlines his accomplishments which are many. Watch my little mobsters and you tell me … Romney or Gingrich in the ring with Obama.

The H/T goes to Real Clear Politics on this one. Yes he believes government plays a role in the economy, but then so did my hero, Alexander Hamilton. Enjoy.

The money line starts at 4:30 and the rest just as much fun. Transcript from RCP:

“This is going to be the finest exercise in self government in your lifetime,” Gingrich said. “We’re going to have the candidate of food stamps. The finest food stamp president in American history in Barack Obama. We’re going to have a candidate of paychecks.”

“And I’m going to make a simple case. You want class warfare? Fine. You’re going to get stuck on food stamps, because it’s going to kill jobs. You want high tax rates? Fine. You’ll be stuck on food stamps because it kills jobs. You want to watch America decay and China become the leading country? It’s Obama. I want to get equality by bringing people up. He wants to get equality by bringing people down,” Gingrich said on CNBC.

Filed in: Featured, Government, Politics Tags: 

Recent Posts

Bookmark and Promote!

From the owners: This section is for comments from Radio Vice Online's registered readers. Never assume the owners of this site agree with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use - a must read if you wish to contribute here - may lose their posting privileges. Just because we've let a similar comment stand in the past does not mean we'll let it stand in the future.


58 Responses to "Best Gingrich interview ever: Obama the food stamp President"

  1. Anne-EH says:

    Give Mr. Gingrich CREDIT for saying what NEEDS to be said. Government CANNOT create economic sucess.

  2. Don Lombardo says:

    Gingrich is doing what all Republicans should be doing – attacking the class warfare – socialism – of Obama. Obama has to be exposed as the America hating Marxist that he is.

  3. Dimsdale says:

    It would be worth the price of admission to watch Newt vs. Øbama.  Without huge cram sessions and likely requiring the questions beforehand, Øbama would never be able to handle the facts and figures as deftly as Newt, and everyone would know that Øbama was lying anyway.
    Personalities and personal stuff aside, what does Øbama bring to the table?  Economic success?  A track record of successful diplomacy?  Competency?  Nope.  None of the above.  He has to go hard negative, because at the end of the day (term), the question will be: are you better off today than you were four years ago, and only people like the owners of Solyndra will be able to answer affirmatively.
    Like him or not, Newt knows what he is talking about and can back it up without a Teleprompter.

  4. sammy22 says:

    Well Jim and Co. you’re going full circle: from the ultimate outsider (Cain) to the ultimate insider (Newt). All in the name of what is good for the country or simply get rid of Pres. Obama?

    • Dimsdale says:

      That’s a false choice: getting rid of Øbama is good for the country.  I like ALL the candidates better than the current occupant of the Oval office.

    • crystal4 says:

      Sad about Cain. As Colbert said, he touched so many people.

    • ricbee says:

      You’re on the money Sammy. I don’t really trust him. He’s been running for 5 years. I got mail from him monthly & never sent him a dime.

  5. Lynn says:

    Holy Cow! I can’t believe it! I was determined I did not want another paunchy, white-haired, middle-aged crises(ed), now in his silver years, white man for a candidate.  Newt is confident almost to the point of being self absorbed, yet he can back up his claims with action.  His record is good enough for me, he answered brutal questions with unswerving honesty AND did not criticize Romney. I too,  backed Kemp and thought he got short shrift. Newt did too. I am throwing my considerable weight  (despite endless hours in the gym) to Newt. Go Baby!

  6. Lynn says:

    Ya got me, Sammy. I am firmly for “what is good for the country AND simply to get rid of President Obama”. I do not find them to be mutually exclusive, instead they are exactly the same to me. Also, I have never swerved from this from the first month President Obama was in office.

  7. RoBrDona says:

    Simply for the good of the country. I’d vote for a splat of vomit before I’d vote for the O.
    But also as Dims happily points out, mostly to watch the little Marxist wanker get crucified in the debates.

  8. sammy22 says:

    I surely would never expect that 99% of those who comment on this blog would ever have or ever will vote for Obama. I am surprised, though, that you would settle for one great Washington insider. You hope he will bring back 1994?? That was 19 years ago, almost a generation.

    • GdavidH says:

      “That was 19 years ago, almost a generation.”

      How many generations ago was the founding of this once great nation, AND its constitution that is being slowly eroded by the progressive/socialist movement?
       Would an innocent man in prison rightfully say,” ahh, screw it. It’s been too long”?  
      Get this seditious phony out of the White house.

    • Dimsdale says:

      My only qualification is: Better Than Øbama.  Isn’t “99%” kind of low?  😉

  9. JBS says:

    Newt has “gravitas”. to resurrect an old term. Lucky life and politics is not a beer commercial, you can have both choices, or more. Getting rid of ZerØ is good for the country. True, any Republican candidate would be better that ZerØ. Out of that field has emerged Gingrich. Warts and all, Newt has the experience, name recognition, and poise, along with a healthy disdain for the liberal-jackal media, to defeat the current White House occupant. I believe he is electable. And, infinitely better for the country.
    ZerØ, no mas!

    • crystal4 says:

      He has experience all right…the first speaker to be guilty of ethics violations and booted out by his own party. But, hey, ethics and morals be damned…Newt 2012! (Hoping this one lasts.)

      • Dimsdale says:

        LOL!  Your accusations are tainted by fear, otherwise, why would you point out his so called failings?  Even looking at the politically motivated charges and the one that “stuck”, your response deserves howls of derisive laughter!   Now, to be fair, tell us about the ethics and morals of Øbama and Pelosi (for starters).   How about Ted Kennedy?  The list goes on!  You sound like one of those fundamentalist conservatives that demand a pure candidate.   Too bad they don’t exist.

      • JBS says:

        One word NOT used to describe the ZerØ’s Regime is scandal. The MSM just can’t seem to apply that term to the Regime but, they will be very happy to describe long and in depth any challenger to their darling, the  ZerØ. 

      • crystal4 says:

        Dimsdale ethics and morals of Obama and Pelosi??? keep pulling up myths out of your..nevermind. You think the House ( heavily Republican) would not run to bring up charges??  And Kennedy did not get the nomination by the dems, did he? And by the way, he spent his older years as a great advocate for his constituents and all Americans. He went to mass (children’s mass so he wouldn’t be recognized in his repentance. Newt can be forgiven all because he converted…but not any dem.
        Anyway, stop picking on me, I WANT Newt 2012!!!

      • Dimsdale says:

        I think Jim went through a nice list of the failings of this administration to date.  How does that compare to Newt?  Or Romney?  Kennedy was an advocate for Kennedy and liberalism.  Nothing else.  I live in MA so I know.  Now about that Pelosi “mythology”…. 😉

      • Dimsdale says:

        And let us not forget, Newtie’s failings are pretty much yesterday’s news, while Øbama and company are making new scandals almost daily.  I welcome the scrutiny if it is applied equally to both sides of the aisle.

  10. Gary J says:

    Gingrich is not a socialist, so of those that remain standing he has my vote.

  11. Lynn says:

    Madame Pelosi has no ethics. She passes legislation that benefits her husband’s business and although not technically illegal, buys stocks from her insider knowledge of legislation.  I can’t wait for her to release her “secret” documents about Newt especially because that is illegal.  Madame Pelosi in pinstripes (not Yankee pinstripes, the other kind), what a Christmas present!

  12. sammy22 says:

    Newt is as polarizing to Dems as Obama is to Repubs. If he gets in there will be stalemate/gridlock as there is now. Not good for the country no matter how you slice it. And yeh, who cares about ethics: nobody does in politics.

    • Dimsdale says:

      To be sure, but what political figure isn’t going to be polarizing in this climate?  Stalemate and gridlock can be good if it keeps politicians from applying tourniquets to our country’s neck.  How do you explain the gridlock that the Senate puts on making a legally mandated budget?  I would love to see all the Dem’s great ideas to fix the economy!  One that wouldn’t risk a presidential veto.

    • Lynn says:

      If gridlock prevents Congress from spending anymore money, I’m all for it.

  13. sammy22 says:

    Then you all should be happy (which you not). And also say that you do not want tax reform. And if gridlock does  produces no cuts in spending, that’s OK too.

    • Dimsdale says:

      Gridlock hasn’t kept Øbama from spending us into near oblivion.  Oh wait, he had a Democrat controlled Congress for his first two years.   THAT’S when we needed the gridlock.

  14. sammy22 says:

    We both know that the spending goes back more than 3 years, and the borrowing (which we to pay for) even longer. But that is a well worn story/argument.

  15. Lynn says:

    Sammy, many of us have said the spending was done by both sides.  President Bush started out laudably but then he gave millions to Africa for an Aids  Program (in my book, we should not have spent that money). Many of us, in my case, led by Cavuto were ticked off that his Administration was scared enough to fall for the first bailouts.  However, even you have to admit that the Obama Administration has been on steroids with spending. We need  tax reform. I have felt this way for 30 years. In 2012 election, if Newt is elected, and those members of Congress who are stuck in the cronyism are outnumbered,  we can possibly avoid  gridlock.  I agree with Dims we should have had gridlock in the first 2 years of the Obama administration. But if WE elect Obama again, I pray for gridlock because that man does not know how to cut spending. My new slogan: HOPE and REAL CHANGE!

  16. JBS says:

    Oh Sammy, Sammy, are you a RINO or a seminar poster? Cards on the table, dude.
    The ZerØ has doubled the national debt in his short time in office. Doubled it! Think about that! Well above $15 TRILLION and climbing FAST! Over the course of 1779 to 2008, a little over 225 years, the ZerØ has managed to out-spend ALL of the other administrations combined.
    Check the figures against the Congressional Budget Office.
    And, WE here are not going to vote for the ZerØ, any way, any day! Don’t you get it, Øbama IS the problem and he has to be defeated, not re-elected on some vague and airy pretext that things will be better in the future and that all Republicans are evil and are to be feared. Doesn’t Øbama scare you? Four more years of him and our country will be a United Nations nation.
    Your new slogan should be:  Hope for some Spare Change!

  17. sammy22 says:

    Oh JBS, JBS, how quickly you and the rest of Constitutionalists on this blog forget: CONGRESS decides how much money to spend and where to spend it. Pinning the tail on Pres. Obama can be fun, but it’s a diversion from the REAL culprit, and that is Congress. The national debt is climbing because money has to be borrowed to pay for past sins!

    • Dimsdale says:

      Okay, Øbama did most of the damage with a compliant (or was it Øbama that was compliant?) Democrat controlled Congress for the first two years of his administration.  You can’t blame the Repubs for that.  You don’t think that Øbama or the Dems really give a flying fig about the debt, do you?  Then why are they afraid to produce a budget (from the WH or the Senate) that would show us the way?  The clock has run out on a cyclical economic rebound that they could claim responsibility for.  They crushed that with their “stimulus” spending and the prospect of more “stimulus”.  All they have is unemployment, inflation and increasing debt to run on.

    • JBS says:

      A complicit Democrat Congress, for the most part, enabled your president to spend, spend, spend, did I mention, recklessly spend . . . and the beat (on us) goes on. You’ll give him another four more years to do what, complete the destruction of the United States economy?

  18. ricbee says:

    I still think Perry’s a better bet.

  19. crystal4 says:

    Wow, really off topic here.
    Whatever… anyway back to The newt’s speech….this was the best example of “dog whistle” politics  ever.

  20. JBS says:

    Newt’s speech is that of a candidate who will bring the questions to Øbama that need asking. Øbama can’t provide a positive answer anything based on his record. He has used every type of rhetorical and demonizing trick to portray Republicans and Conservatives as unpatriotic. All Newt has to do, really, is turn Øbama’s own campaign speeches and press conferences around on him.
    So far Newt is the most electable candidate to present himself so far. Perry? How about the conservative right-wing evangelicals? They would scare off the moderates and lead to Perry being a niche candidate?
    Has the ZerØ any positive accomplishments to run on? The guy is a cipher until he is compared to Marx and UN initiatives. With that comparison in place, his actions against the American people makes sense.

  21. crystal4 says:

    “So far Newt is the most electable candidate to present himself so far”
    Jbs..who will you be saying that about in 2 weeks? The next guy Jim touts?

    • Dimsdale says:

      I still harken back to the fact that Hillary was declared the heir apparent to the presidential “throne” on the cover of TIME.   Look what happened to her.
      It ain’t over ’till it’s over.

    • JBS says:

      Tom quote a famous ballplayer/manager, “It ain’t over ’til its over.”

  22. Lynn says:

    Oh Crystal who cares. Certainly I don’t. The GOP will select someone. I stand corrected by Dims, Better than Obama.

  23. winnie says:

    Newt vs. O?  Hellllooooo?  Gingrich didn’t vote present…and his list of accomplishments is impressive.  He actually HAS a list of accomplishments.  What’s o got to show for the past 3+years?  A crappy unemployment rate, an impressive ability to blame anyone and everyone and an inability to take responsibility for what has happened to this country on his watch.  Now, let’s get the popcorn and watch him circumvent congress on everything he needs to push through before the election rolls around.   The guy is a bad joke and he’s gotta go.

    • Dimsdale says:

      Accomplishments AND ideas.  Øbama has neither.

    • Lynn says:

      Remind me, doesn’t the President appoint the AG of the DOJ. Holder, a man who wouldn’t know Justice if he saw it. He is pathetic, as are most of the Obama cabinet.

      • JBS says:

        Eric Holder of the Fast and Furious BATFE debacle? How many more DOJ programs (pograms) against the American people are there that aren’t even publicized yet? There is a new WEB site about the Fast and Furious operation devoted to keeping the heat on Holder, the BATFE, the White House and the raft of people involved.
        As for Holder being pathetic, you are being too kind. He has already LIED to the congressional committee investigating the whole sorry, cynical mess. It is an old story of “what a wicked web is weaved . . . ” He just doesn’t seem to be that smart to figure out how to do an end-run around the Second Amendment so Ø and his crony-liberal, socialist friends, e.g.. George Soros, can attain their “dream” of a disarmed American people.
        How many czars has Ø anointed? 20? 30? And he’s mad because the Congress won’t appoint his latest choice for “safeguarding” American’s credit.
        The link:

  24. Anybody but Obama says:

    What you socialists can’t seem to get thru your heads is we put a candidate near the top and then let our own, fire on them to see  if they can stand the heat. If they can withstand that test then nothing the marxist left can do or say will deter us.

  25. rickyrock says:

    First of all I don’t think Obama is a good president..he is not a real leader and has failed in that regard .However no way in hell will I vote for Newt ..there are so many issues of hypocrisy with this guy that i think he is standing on the sociopathic precipice.Contract on or with America ..you have got to be kidding me ..how about that marriage contract you were to honor…a changed mature man ..hardly.essentially .selling books to himself ..this guy is a joke.American Solutions for winning the future  Newt’s 527 organization got 275,000 in contributions from Peabody energy ,millions from casino owner Sheldon Adelson”.It is true that the number of Americans who rely on food stamps is at a record high. Nearly 46 million Americans received benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — better known as food stamps — this year, the highest number in recorded history. But experts attribute that mainly to the weak economy and high unemployment. Additionally, George W. Bush’s administration expanded eligibility for food stamps to get more Americans to apply, which also contributed to an increase in recipients.”
    Get the facts people ….and as far as debating is concerned Obama will make Newt look very…

    • winnie says:

      President Bush’s admin expanded eligibility for food stamps to “get more Americans to apply, which also contributed to an increase in recipients”…Is that the reason on record, or your assessment?  When democrats expand food stamp programs they’re doing it for the good of the poor…when a republican expands the program they’re doing it to sign more people up (presumably for their own gain)?  Now, if that isn’t hypocrisy, I don’t know what is.

© 2008-2015 Radio Vice Online Inc. All rights reserved | FAQ | Terms of Use | Advertise
Implemented and managed by Spider Creations LLC.