Gingrich Schools Stephanopoulos: 'I'll Be Glad to Swap History Credentials With You'
In today's "Don't Bring a Knife to a Gunfight" segment, ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Sunday once again failed miserably in a battle of wits with Newt Gingrich.
After the This Week host claimed past experience has shown long primary battles "[mean] that party loses in the general election," the former Speaker of the House marvelously responded, "George, I'll be glad to swap history credentials with you" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
STEPHANOPOULOS: But, Mr. Speaker, there's really no way for you to get enough delegates before the convention, so this, as you said, could be a long fight if it's going to be successful for you. When we have seen this happen in the past -- 1952 for the Democrats, 1976 for the Republicans, 1980 for the Democrats -- it means that party loses in the general election. Are you worried that this kind of long fight is going to put your nominee at risk?
GINGRICH: No. George, I'll be glad to swap history credentials with you. Four years ago, I believe it was, that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton went all the way to late June before their race ended. And yet that seemed to actually be more advantageous to then-Senator Obama than Senator McCain having gotten the nomination early. So I think it all depends on which year you're talking about and how it evolves, what happens.
Irrespective of Gingrich's far superior knowledge of history - he does after all possess numerous degrees including a Ph.D having written dozens of books on the subject - this really was a pretty pathetic question from Stephanopoulos given what happened in the previous presidential election.
There isn't a political observer on either side of the aisle who doesn't agree that the long drawn out Democratic battle between Obama and Clinton didn't tremendously help the current White House resident.
In fact, the first quarter 2008 junior senator from Illinois would never have fared as well in debates with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) as the third and fourth quarter iteration.
As such, all this talk about a long Republican battle this year hurting the eventual nominee is a mixture of wishful thinking on the part of folks like Stephanopoulos and predictable historical ignorance.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Newt
Submitted by mmilesll on Sun, 03/04/2012 - 3:01pm.
I just hope Newt is right. He is the only candidate who will really change things in DC
Like what?
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 03/04/2012 - 6:10pm.
They balanced a budget on paper, but it didn't change DC.
What Exactly DID Newt Do in 1994?
Submitted by Winghunter on Mon, 03/05/2012 - 9:53am.
What Exactly DID Newt Do in 1994? bit.ly/A9tWkz
I say again
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 03/05/2012 - 10:18am.
How did he change DC? They balanced a budget by using the Social Security surplus. What changed?
Why?
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Sun, 03/04/2012 - 3:21pm.
Seems to me that Newt would be better served if he spent his time in upcoming primary states talking to voters than with a person that has Obama Supporter tatooed on his forehead in invisable ink. Does he actually believe that the average voter sits glued to the tube awaiting Stepanadimicrats' show?
Well,
Submitted by misterbee241 on Sun, 03/04/2012 - 3:22pm.
What do you expect from a Clinton hack?
Memo
Submitted by Chulio on Sun, 03/04/2012 - 3:28pm.
Dammit, that's what the Media Matters memo instructed us. It must be correct. By the way Speaker, what do you think about sex?
I am so glad that Newt
Submitted by Bodini on Sun, 03/04/2012 - 3:30pm.
I am so glad that Newt spends a little time schooling the Marxist-Media Obamites in front of the dumb-masses that tune in to their shows. Since public education has failed so miserably, Newt provides them a free education that is far superior to that which they received at the hands of the NEA. Now, if only the Marxist-Media shills could understand that being an authoritative pretty-boy doesn't equal smart, the education would be complete.
Go Newt!
Gingrich is the man
Submitted by Ogundipe S.O. on Sun, 03/04/2012 - 3:35pm.
Number one quality the president of any country must have at his finger tips is/was/should/must be History. Mr. Gingrich knows history well enough not to let it repeat itself as I'm sure the former speaker will emphasize a lot on history when confronted with a major decision. I believe every incident has a precedent.
Obama is not witty when it comes to history or he's just willingly ignoring it, either way, we know he made the same mistakes FDR made with New Deal. And also the fact that he continues to sucker up to the Islamists means he knows little about the occultic religion and its past deeds.
I was thinking along those lines, too.
Submitted by Order270 on Sun, 03/04/2012 - 4:48pm.
He won the whole state of South Carolina with one snappy comeback! Why doesn't he tap into that? After that success, I would have booked an interview with one of these talking heads before every election.
Why isn't it out there that he would be only the second sitting president with a Ph. D? And he isn't so ashamed of his grades that he won't show them.
I think there is a sizable segment of society fed up with an arrogant president and suspicious of his accomplices in the liberal media.
He's a former Speaker for a reason
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 03/04/2012 - 6:17pm.
He was removed by his own party after an ethics investigation, from which he had to pay $300,000.
Gingrich is a Washington Insider, and I think most of the primary voters are suspicious. No matter how intelligent he is, he can't run away from his own history.
Bill Clinton
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Sun, 03/04/2012 - 8:56pm.
was impeached and disbarred, yet there are a sizable number of Democrats and Independents that would vote for him again if possible.
The difference is....
Submitted by GeneralAl on Mon, 03/05/2012 - 8:51am.
The difference is, Clinton is a LIBERAL Democrat! The Libs go down with the ship. Our side waves the "PRINCIPLED" flag and sits out the election or votes for a third party or even the LIBERAL!
"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!
Sorry, Phil, but if that's the standard for integrity . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 03/05/2012 - 10:27am.
. . . then I must've missed the bus someplace.
You're saying that because Bill Clinton could get elected by Democrats, Gingrich is okay for Republicans?
Well, I'm proud to say that I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican, and I guess this is one reason why. This sort of relativism is just what Obama apologists have used when they consistently raise the "Bush did it too" flag.
In a nation of 340 million citizens, why should a politician with a blemished record get elected to the Presidency? If the Republicans can't do better than Gingrich, then they deserve to lose.
Paul Ryan and Jim Demint are
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 03/04/2012 - 11:14pm.
Paul Ryan and Jim Demint are now "Washington Insiders". Are they disqualified too? Not all "insiders" are bad. You need someone who knows the system to be able to work that system towards a goal.
Byron York writes of the Gingrich ethics investigation here. 2 men brought the lion's share of the 84 total charges as part of a scheme to hurt Gingrich. Other Dems joined in the game and viciously added more spurious charges. 83 of the 84 charges were vacated, and the final single was plead to a lesser charge. The IRS poured over records and video tapes of Gingrich lecturing in the college course - the initial charge that started the investigation - and found zero wrongdoing. The $300K was not a fine but to reimburse the Committee for their costs incurred in the investigation based on one plead charge. Gingrich claims he personally asked Congressional members to vote on finding him guilty so as to end the distraction and get back to business.
See more here and here.
Suspicion is part of vigilance but should not be pretense to vigilantism against a proven Conservative warrior
There is no other in the race than Gingrich with the wisdom, knowledge and proven track record of advancing Conservative policies while beating the crap out of Leftists.
Ethics chaarges
Submitted by TBAR on Mon, 03/05/2012 - 3:01am.
Thanks, stratman, for being informed on the history of the ethics charges against Newt. The only problem is that the very people you're trying to convince will never give up their version of that history. So sad for them to be so blind to the truth.
TBAR
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 03/05/2012 - 3:54am.
I do not give up hope that reason and facts can still act as sunshine to disinfect the political soul of this country. Like Mark Levin says, we must all be Paul and Paulette Reveres.
So, because Gingrich pled guitly to a "lesser" ethics . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 03/05/2012 - 10:34am.
. . . charge, he's clean?
Apparently the Republican majority in the House wasn't satisfied. They removed him from the Speakership.
As for Ryan and Demint, if they are taking money from special interests (and I don't know if they are) or worked for Beltway oufits like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or ever lobbied for someone, they are then Washington Insiders, too. I don't know much about Demint, but Ryan appears to be pretty clean.
One can be an elected official without being a Washington Insider.
No one comes out clean in a witch-hunt.
Submitted by Order270 on Mon, 03/05/2012 - 10:59am.
Clinton LIED under Oath. Gingrich taught some classes.
Weak moral relativism
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 03/05/2012 - 2:03pm.
If Clinton is the yardstick for measuring the conduct of our politicians, we as a society are dead. Forget Clinton -- it's about who is going to have the moral standing to run against Obama.
If you want Gingrich to be your candidate, have at it. I don't participate in primaries, so I don't have a dog in those fights.
But Gingrich won't beat Obama. Neither will Santorum, and Romney is problematic because of Romneycare and his left-right flip-flopping. None of these candidates is strong.
The Dems are taking the economy off the table by turning everything into a social issue, like contraception and gay marriage.
If the GOP candidates allow themselves to be sidetracked by this manuever, the Republicans lose to Obama.
As a bona fide Beltway insider who made money off Freddie Mac (or was it Fannie Mae), he's not the solution; he's part of the problem.
Don't get me wrong...
Submitted by Order270 on Mon, 03/05/2012 - 5:51pm.
...Newt is not my first choice, but desperate times call for desperate measures and we are in desperate times. I'm unconvinced of any Gingrich wrongdoing so "moral relativism" wouldn't apply. Clinton may not be the yardstick but he did set a standard so no one can pretend it didn't happen or doesn't count.
Look, I'm going to campaign for Gingrich. I just think he has better leadership qualities than the rest. And frankly, I can't believe he had the courage to take Washington on again. I commend him on that alone.
My First Choice
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 03/05/2012 - 8:38pm.
Fred Thompson.
America would be so much better domestically and internationally if that man had been elected. I guaran-damn-tee Iran would not be running full tilt boogie into our nuclear nightmare if Fred was in charge.
Oops...
Submitted by Order270 on Tue, 03/06/2012 - 9:51am.
...I meant to say, "...I'm not going to campaign for...". My apologies.
When a "society" elects a pos like Obama, and allows---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 03/05/2012 - 5:57pm.
miscreants like Reid, Pelosi, Durban, Schumer, Rangel, Waters, Kerry, and numerous others to be returned to office again and again and again - if said society isn't already on it's deathbed, the distance to it may be measured in microns.
MD
Galvanic
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 03/05/2012 - 4:27pm.
Do you know precisely what the charge was?
Understand the numerous vicious and trumped up charges began by 'Cooter' as reprisal for losing his election to Gingrich, then advanced further by his rabid buddy who piled on dozens more charges, and followed by hyena Dems joining in the ritual kill.
Understand that Congress, like the IRS, can find something wrong with every person.
Understand the stalemate and enmity created by the Left would only be broken by removing Gingrich regardless of the offense, real or not, no matter how consequential that offense may have been.
Understand that Gingrich earned the emnity of the Left because he helped devise and lead a voter revolution with Contract For America that retired 54 Democrats and gave Republicans control of the House AND then kept control of the House in the next interim election - something not done since before WWII.
Personally, I don't give a rat's arse about Gingrich's Fan/Fred association. Nothing was illegal and no proof of bad behavior has been presented. It's all innuendo.
As to "Washington Insider", we have a different opinion on what that constitutes. IMO, an insider is one who is part of the elite and powerful decision makers. It does not necessarily mean one does illegal or unethical things. It is doubtful an "outsider" will be a game changer or influential in Washington as a politician without access to the elite, including working with and within the elite. You can be an elected official in Washington but if you want to be effective then you will need to become an "insider". You want change then become part of the few who are responsible for making policy. Stay an "outsider" and your ability to influence and make those changes is severely limited. How are the Tea Party Congressmen doing so far? As wonderful as they are, too few of them in less than influential positions have had less effect on policy. More are needed. At a certain critical mass, the Tea Party folks, of Conservatives in general, will become the new "insiders" capable of effecting change.
All this is not to say I don't have gripes with Gingrich. I don't like that he joined in with the myth of AGW, regardless of Pelosi's involvement. Since then, Gingrich's opinion has changed. I don't think he has intentions of carbon offsets or any other economy killing policies involved in the myth. From an interview with Bill O'Reilly:
I agree with this statement. I give him some slack. He's an historian not a scientist. Not everyone knew everything when they first chose a position. The critical thing is Gingrich's position evolved as he became aware of more data. Plus the pressure from the Right helped motivate him to take a second look. I don't think he is pandering about not spending trillions on a theory with big flaws.
I also did not care for his comment on Ryan's budget. Flippant and uneducated. Gingrich almost immediately began walking it back. He flat out erred and was man enough to say he was wrong. As with his AGW position, Gingrich is not a rigid group thinker. He will adjust his position as more data is presented. Do not take this as rubbery Conservatism. Gingrich has a record of preserving Conservatism in his politics.
I am also skeptical of Gingrich's plans for health care in his application of Six Sigma principles. However, I do not doubt his commitment and skill set required for repealing ObamaCare.
Not voting in the Primary is often borne out of laziness, apathy, or claim of ideological purity by not declaring political affiliation. Failing to vote in the Primary is often nothing more than an absolution of duty as citizen. Voting is one of the most important things a citizen does. Let the power of your voice be amplified by others who join with you.. Vote!
Your Parrot Imitation Is Great!
Submitted by Winghunter on Mon, 03/05/2012 - 10:00am.
Now, how do you deal with the truth??
What really happened in the Gingrich ethics case http://bit.ly/x3rv31
Video: '99 CNN Report On Newt Gingrich's Exoneration By IRS Over Newt's Ethics Charges http://bit.ly/ziMo85
Newt Was Found Innocent Nearly 13 Years Ago – Networks Have Yet To Report It http://bit.ly/AdTOvb
Newt Is Vindicated, But Nobody Knows It http://bit.ly/vltGwI
BTW, Parrots suck.
Sorry Pal,now for the rest of the story.
Submitted by swim-r-sink on Mon, 03/05/2012 - 11:25am.
Everything you said is true except he was exonerated by the IRS latter on which the Leftist Media dutifully always forgets to mention.Shocked are you?
Gingrich is the man
Submitted by Ogundipe S.O. on Sun, 03/04/2012 - 3:41pm.
Number one quality the president of any country must have at his finger tips is/was/should/must be History. Mr. Gingrich knows history well enough not to let it repeat itself as I'm sure the former Speaker will emphasize a lot on history when confronted with a major decision. I believe every incident has a precedent.
Obama is not witty when it comes to history or he's just willingly ignoring it. Either way, we know he made the same mistakes FDR made with New Deal. And also, the fact that he continues to sucker up to the Islamists means he knows little about the occultic religion and its past deeds. Or willingly ignoring them.
Because to be fair to Mr. Obama, he seems to know, and have learned, a lot from Karl Marx, Saul Alinsky, Mao Xedong and Che Guevara. And it takes a lot of history lessons to know these stuffs.
Knowing who and what to attack
Submitted by deadeyedan on Sun, 03/04/2012 - 6:15pm.
Newt has a distinct ability to attack the Democrats on both of their fronts; those in office and those who are their spokesmen.
It is the latter who are the pretentious, hide-behind-the cloak-of-apparent-neutrality "journalists" who masquerade as unbiased purveyors of news stories.
There is no doubt that knowing history is a large part of Newt's prowess at doing this and is among the traits he demonstrates that makes him the most qualified to take on Obummer in November.
Newt was way ahead of the field not only in pouncing on the media but in pointing out that their main target was religion - just take a look at the debate re-runs.
Obviously, the ability to call a spade a spade ("infanticide") is what we have to look for in our candidate. It also helps to know that, disdaining the easy path of just sitting back and watching our ship go down he came back into the political fray while knowing that the "baggage" (see his website for the refutations) would be used against him proves quite a bit about his intestinal fortitude.
LIBERALISM - government of the people by the theories and for the ideologists
Euphemisms
Submitted by Huapakechi on Sun, 03/04/2012 - 4:03pm.
The writer needs to update his euphemism catalog. While the Steffie was obviously over matched, I would have described the interview as a Gingrich having a duel of wits with an unarmed opponent.
I wish we could have seen
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 03/04/2012 - 4:23pm.
I wish we could have seen Steffie's face while Newt was goring him. I'll bet it looked like John King's when Newt answered HIS question about his ex-wife.
Unlike Boy George, Newt doesn't think history with this week's news cycle.
Don't bring a Knife? He doesn't even have THAT!!
Submitted by gopcongress on Sun, 03/04/2012 - 4:14pm.
"Don't bring a knife to a gunfight" would be good advice to someone who has weak arguments for rational discussions. But even a knife doesn't accurately analogize the situation. The true statement should be:
"Don't bring a water balloon to a gunfight."
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
History
Submitted by desert3030 on Sun, 03/04/2012 - 5:28pm.
The foot note for George will be the water boy for starting the birth control saga by questioning Romney. He was given the role of starting the plan of shift from Mr. Obama's performance.
He will win relection as the press made history by electing him and can not be viewed as failing to relect for the second piece of history. I won't be here to see or hear it, my grand children will and the laughs will evoke memories like today of Jimmy Carter.
Georgie needs a trip to the colorectal surgeon.
Submitted by drsamherman on Sun, 03/04/2012 - 6:05pm.
Not only is he rectocranially impacted but he needs Newt's boot removed too.
Pow! Bam!
Submitted by Herbster on Sun, 03/04/2012 - 6:14pm.
Twinkletoes gets slapped down again!
Oops Herbster
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 03/04/2012 - 6:55pm.
Rahm was the ballet dancer, not Steffie.
Stephie spends more time on his hair...
Submitted by P. Aaron on Sun, 03/04/2012 - 6:24pm.
...than studying history.
Stephanopodopulos
Submitted by Kleenex on Sun, 03/04/2012 - 7:43pm.
It doesn't matter what events unfold. Let's assume somebody already had the nomination wrapped up, he'd then ask if that was a bad thing. He's a partisan hack by trade and has never been a journalist. He has no history of anything else so why even pretend?
Short George's Creds
Submitted by Winghunter on Mon, 03/05/2012 - 9:52am.
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Admits Daily Calls with Rahm Emanuel
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/ABC-George...
Newt newtered another bought and paid for DNC
Submitted by David Kramer on Mon, 03/05/2012 - 1:08pm.
Mouthpiece. How do you spell that George's last name again? Stepinwhatsthis?