There is nothing special about the number 50, but I’d like to think there is something special about this set of questions. I doubt anyone will ask Newt these questions before the primary; but if they did, and the answers went viral, I think we’d all be better of knowing where Newt stands philosophically and on the constitution.
If I were to issue a challenge, it would look something like this:
This is my challenge to Newt Gingrich supporters and non-Gingrich supporters in South Carolina. I challenge you to grab a camera, print out these questions, and ask Newt Gingrich all of them.
The Questions:
- The Linchpin of your credibility seems to be the fact that you were a part of the Congress that balanced the budget for four years (although you were not in office for two of those years), which you boast about all the time, and had 3-4 budget surpluses. Yet Conservative columnists Craig Steiner and Jeff Dunetz said that neither Democrats, including President Clinton, or Republicans can boast about a balanced budget or surplus because both never existed. It all adds up to an accounting fiction. What is your response to their findings?
- On Social Security reform, you said cited the Chilean model and Galveston Pension plan as models that work. But when asked in September 2011 whether he thought Herman Cain’s suggestion that we follow the Chilean model was a good idea, Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and Obama’s Fiscal Responsibility Co-Chair said that switching to personal retirement accounts would be impossible–citing differences in demographics and the lateness of the suggestion. Had the idea come about during a time of when we were running surpluses, the idea would have been more plausible. What are your thoughts on Simpson’s comments?
- You are pushing Mitt Romney to release his tax returns before the South Carolina Primary, yet you have not yet released your advisory memos to Freddie Mac. Could you release some of your advisory memos to Freddie Mac so that we could see what exactly you were advising them on before the South Carolina Primary?
- You said that you wanted to get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency and replace it with an Environmental Solutions Agency — that will focus on market-based solutions. Aren’t you picking and choosing which market-based will be utilized?
- On that same note, aren’t you contradicting yourself that you will be choosing what the free market wants?
- Again on that same note, do you believe that the government needs to push the free-market in a certain direction before taking its hand completely off?
- You criticized Ron Paul’s views for being quote ”totally outside the mainstream of every decent American.” Who qualifies to be a decent American?
- Ron Paul has also been said to be outside the views of the mainstream GOP voters & the GOP establishment. Given that his outside-the-mainstream views and influences have helped him understand the economic crisis and proved prescient in understanding foreign policy and predicting some major global events, don’t you think his ideas deserve more currency than what they are currently getting?
- Do you agree with Sen. Demint (R-S.C.) that more libertarian views should be taken seriously by the GOP?
- You often tout your accomplishments as Speaker of the House. Yet, former Rep. Scarborough, who you worked with in Congress, said that you almost caved in certain situations and had to be pushed, implying that you needed pushing on balancing the budget and tax cuts. Assuming that there actually was a balanced budget, is the former Congressman recalling the facts correctly?
- If they are correct, how can we be sure you will fight for the American people this time around as President?
- On that same note, you tout balancing the budget and often omit the fact you had to be pushed, and that the perception of you helping balance the budget was based on an accounting fiction. How can we trust that you won’t be using Washington math when you are president, if you are still using Washington Math on the campaign trail?
- How can we trust that you won’t portray your accomplishments in a way that doesn’t line up with reality?
- Several of your former colleagues have called you “not reliable as a leader,” “inconsistent, erratic, untrustworthy and unprincipled,” and that your leadership was “lacking.” How do you respond to their evaluations of your leadership?
- What did you mean when you wrote: “Gingrich–primary mission: advocate of civilization, definer of civilization, teacher of the rules of civilization, arouser of those who fan civilization, organizer of the pro-civilization activists, leader (possibly) of the civilizing forces.” Do you still consider yourself the “definer” and “teacher of the rules of civilization?”
- WSJ Writer Peggy Noonan wrote that you are a “human hand grenade who walks around with his hand on the pin, saying, “Watch this!“ Aren’t you proving her words to be true with your recent attacks on Ron Paul and Mitt Romney?
- Since you want to bring up old news, CNN “turns up a cache,” as Politico puts its, that contradicts your claim that your first wife requested a divorce. Those documents say that your wife did not request a divorce at that time and rejected your filing. Why would your wife ask for a divorce but reject your filing?
- The Christian Science Monitor recently published an article detailing the mainstream media’s reporting on Iran’s nuclear capabilities. That article, titled “Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979,” goes into detail about how intelligence sources have mislead the public on Iranian nuclear capabilities for over 30 years. Do you think that there is some justification for those who are skeptical about Iran’s nuclear capabilities?
- On the same note, do you believe this time is different?
- Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said recently that Iran is not trying to build a nuclear weapon, although he expressed that he doesn’t want them to gain a nuclear capability. Are you in agreement with the CIA director and why or why not?
- You mentioned that you would fire Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke as president. Who would you replace him with?
- And what is your solution to our declining dollar crisis? Details.
- In a recent interview with Wolf Blitzer, you said it would be a very hard choice between voting for Barack Obama or Ron Paul in a presidential election. Ron Paul has proposed to cut $1 trillion from the budget within the first year, repeal Obamacare and Sarbanes-Oxley, end corporate subsidies, end 5 departments including the Department of Education, lower the corporate tax rate to 15 percent, end the death tax, and proposed to end the IRS. Given his proposals, do you stand by your statement that it would be a very hard choice between Ron Paul and Barack Obama in a presidential election?
- Bloomberg News reports that your business relationship with Freddie Mac spanned for over eight years and that you earned between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in consulting fees for the mortgage giant. The CNBC “Your Money, Your Vote” debate transcript shows that you said that Freddie Mac came into your office–figuratively speaking or not–and said, “We are now making loans to people who have no credit history and have no record of paying back anything, but that’s what the government wants us to do,” as I said to them at the time, this is a bubble. This is insane. This is impossible.” What time exactly during your eight years working with Freddie Mac did you realize that it was a bubble?
- If you truly realized that it was a bubble, then why weren’t you shouting from the rooftops that there was?
- Don’t you think America needs leaders with the courage to tell the American people the “bad news” even if that will cause some kind of panic?
- How has your conversion to Catholicism helped to change your character?
- How influential is your faith in your personal decision-making processes?
- Congressman Paul has stated that, he has “accepted Jesus Christ as” his “personal Savior,” and that he “endeavor(s) every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.” Could you say the same that one you have accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior and two you endeavor to follow him in all that you do and every position you advocate?
- Congressman Paul suggested that we have a foreign policy of the golden rule, adding that we should”not treat other countries any way other than the way we want to be treated.” Do you agree?
- You have constantly warned about an EMP attack. Don’t you think you’re warnings are a little bit overblown?
- Pentagon Spokesmen Richard Lehner has said that they have an arsenal of interceptor missiles that will intercept the missile before the EMP explodes. Don’t you think the Pentagon has the situation under control?
- You have lived in Virginia for 12 years, yet you did not make the ballot in your own state and yet Ron Paul and Mitt Romney did. Given that you had at least five months to do so, why didn’t your campaign get the necessary signatures that it needed before the deadline?
- Do you think it is unfair if Virginia authorities extend the signature-gathering process for you? Other candidates?
- Don’t you think going to a Federal Court to overturn a state law is unconstitutional? From the outsider looking in, doesn’t this look like just you’re against states rights? Or that just because the states aren’t doing something your way you are forcing them via a federal court to bend your way?
- In an exchange with Congressman Ron Paul over the Patriot Act in a debate, you said that if you don’t like the Patriot Act then don’t conspire with terrorists. But what kind of response is this? Under the Patriot Act, which has numerous abuses to its name, law enforcement can search your home and not even tell you; COLLECT INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT BOOKS YOU READ, WHAT YOU STUDY, YOUR PURCHASES, YOUR MEDICAL HISTORY AND YOUR PERSONAL FINANCES; LABEL YOU A “TERRORIST” IF YOU BELONG TO AN ACTIVIST GROUP (Hi Tea Party!); MONITOR YOUR E-MAILS AND WATCH WHAT INTERNET SITES YOU VISIT; TAKE AWAY YOUR PROPERTY WITHOUT A HEARING; SPY ON INNOCENT AMERICANS; PUT IMMIGRANTS IN JAIL INDEFINITELY; WIRETAP YOU UNDER A WARRANT THAT DOESN’T EVEN HAVE YOUR NAME ON IT. (My apologies for the all capital letters. I copied directly from this list. I wasn’t yelling at the readers, although the Patriot Act does incite that kind of reaction from constitutionalists.)
- In that same debate you were asked if you would change the Patriot Act in any way, and you said, “No, I would not change it. I’m not aware of any specific change it needs. And I’d look at strengthening it, because I think the dangers are literally that great.” Given that this law overturns two centuries of American Constitutional law, do you still stick to your answer that there are no specific changes it needs? Do you want to change your position at all?
- What are your thoughts on the National Defense Authorization Act which would allow, as the ACLU put its, “the president to send the military literally anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial?” The ACLU further clarifies that it is “Prison based on suspicion alone. The power is so sweeping that the president would be able to direct the military to use its powers within the United States itself, and even lock up American citizens without charge or trial. No corner of the world, not even your own home, would be off-limits to the military. And there is no exception for American citizens.” What are your thoughts on this?
- What do you think about Benjamin Franklin’s statement, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety?” Is there ever a time when the American people should give up essential liberty in order to obtain a little temporary safety?
- Roger Pilon recently wrote an opinion piece saying that you are “promoting flim-flam constitutionalism–and dangerous nonsense besides.”In that piece and another piece, he also says that your “21st-Century Contract with America” launches a frontal assault on the nation’s courts and is filled with “constitutional confusions.” What is your response to Mr. Pilon?
- Barry Goldwater once said, “I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size.” What are your thoughts on this? Your past rhetoric seems to suggest that your view of government is in conflict with this statement. Would you agree and why?
- On that same note, your campaign message seems to be at times “smarter government, not less government.” What are your thoughts on that?
- On immigration, you say on your site that part of your solution to immigration is to “Ensure that every new citizen and every young American learn American history and the key principles of American Exceptionalism.” Could you go more into detail on this? Who would set the curriculum? Who would administer it? Will there be a test of knowledge?
- What are your thoughts on compulsory education in America?
- Callista Gingrich is in a newly-approved campaign ad, talking about the decline of Musical education. Can we expect her to be as active in government as Michelle Obama?
- How do you feel about Michelle Obama’s role as First Lady? What should the role of first lady be?
- Michelle Obama has been very active in the Let’s Move campaign. Would that program be coming to an end under a Gingrich administration? Is it the government’s role to ensure the nation has healthy children?
- Would President Gingrich be as public as Barack Obama was in his first term? Or can we expect a quieter presidency?
- On Ron Paul’s newsletters you said, “‘These things are really nasty, and he didn’t know about it, wasn’t aware of it,’ Mr Gingrich said. ‘But he’s sufficiently ready to be president? It strikes me it raises some fundamental questions about him.’ Speak your mind. What fundamental questions does it raise about him?
- On Ron Paul’s readiness for the presidency, Mr. Gingrich, is that the best you got?


Just wanted to let you know, Ron Paul is 76 years old!!!!! He has to go frequently back to Texas to rest because he is 76 years old!!! He’s a good man to be sure but one bad fall and he is not going to bounce back at 76 years old! It is the obvious.
Okay, you’ve made your points. Newt has warts and has made gaffes and mistakes over his career, but he would be an effective president, unlike Ron Paul.
There’s been much hoopla around Ron Paul having supposedly foreseen and warned about the housing bubble and the debt crisis. In all of his years in the House (12 terms = almost 24 years as of today), what has he done to try to change the course of history? Did he shout his warnings from the roof tops in every media venue available to him? Did he go to political leaders on both sides of the aisle and try to convince these leaders to wake up and change policy so as to prevent these calamities?
If he did these things, then clearly he has been woefully ineffective. We don’t need ineffective in the White House. Not now.
Oh, and he’s had a subcommittee chairmanship for over a year (Financial Services/Monetary Policy). What’s he done so far? He has squandered power bestowed upon him in this newly acquired position to undertake yet another futile run for the presidency, instead of doing his job.
So, if Ron Paul is such a prescient man who foresaw these disasters and tried his best to get those in the seats of power to listen to him —- and still has not been successful —- then either one of two things have been at play:
a) He lacks both the leadership skills and credibility necessary to get others in positions of power to listen to (and agree with) him, and/or;
b) His good ideas about fiscal and Constitutional matters are overshadowed by his loony positions on national security, drug legalization and other positions that are out-of-the-mainstream;or
c) See a) and b) above
Ron Paul is a good intentioned, patriotic American that has many good ideas. Unfortunately he also has some loony ones, and it’s the loony ones that most voters, and apparently other politicians, have rejected, no matter how many of his ardent supporters pack the townhalls, debates and internet venues.
Anyone reading this board can identify fifty questions to ask of any one of the candidates. But to what end?
Step back and look at the thing with a clear eye. My guess is that Romney (right now, today) has about an 80% chance of getting the nomination. Once he’s nominated, I hope that EVERYONE on this board will quit playing the fifty questions game, and (#1) do everything they can reasonably due to support our Anybody But Obama (ABO) candidate, and (#2) do everything they can to tear down Obama, a president who has set this country back for at least a generation.
Now about that other 20%: As I look around, Newt is the only candidate that has a chance against Mitt. And despite his warts – and there are many of them – he can decimate Obama in a debate. If the RNC will take the gloves off, using Newt as the attack dog, they can refute whatever Axlerod and his cronies throw out there. Nasty is as nasty does.
Paul doesn’t have a chance; you are fooling yourself if you think he does. Irrespective of his age, he has a disagreeable persona. He’s nasty, and he’s a fringe candidate. He cannot capture the independent vote. If Paul is the nominee, independents will either stay away from the polls or vote for Obama. I truly respect and admire the engagement and enthusiasm of the Paul supporters, If only the other candidates could engender that kind of support. But support for Paul is narrow and deep. A successful GOP candidate must have broad-based and deep support.
Paul may well stay in this thing until Tampa, but to what end.
Like him or not, Newt is the only viable alternative to Romney, And even then, it is improbable that he can derail the Romney train.
We all have to be practicable and realistic.
Newt has called himself a RealPolitik Wilsonian, a Theodore Roosevelt Republican, and an admirer of FDR as an example of self governing. Those are the 3 biggest progressives in history. Newt’s record is fairly consistent with these descriptions as well. Thus if it came down to it, I’d prefer Romney over Newt and Santorum because they all equally ignore the Constitution; but at least Romney is considered a moderate. So when he grows government, people will be more willing to jump on him and note he’s not conservative. When Newt and Santorum grow government, I don’t want it to be called conservative. Oh, also Newt is someone who sabre rattles at everyone, not just Iran. So I could really do without a war with North Korea and such, now. Santorum talked about a war with China and he also wants to keep giving aid to Pakistan. At least with Mitt’s inevitable war, its contained to just 1 country.
Obviously I’m not voting for any of them, just a personal opinion.
I’ll be SOOOOO glad when Saturday is done, and Ron Paul finishes 3rd, maybe 4th… and his supporters focus on the people of Florida… they have WORN me OUT… I have zero patience with them or their candidate anymore… his performance at the debate was really sad, he missed his afternoon nap, or his ritalin pill or BOTH… he could not focus, or complete a coherent sentence… he went on an on talking in circles and saying nothing… vote for him if you must but PLEASE stop running down the other candidates and PLEASE stop trying to shove this dotering old man into the white house.