Showing posts with label Newt Gingrich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Newt Gingrich. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

What's the REAL Story Between Newt Gingrich and Glenn Beck?


I need to qualify this post a little before I get into what is to me a most perplexing situation between GOP Presidential contender Newt Gingrich and Radio/TV host Glenn Beck. First off, I have not endorsed Newt Gingrich for the GOP nomination for President...in fact, I'm leaning a bit more towards Perry than anyone else. Secondly, I am not a Glenn Beck groupie NOR am I a Glenn Beck hater. I generally have liked Glenn Beck - I signed up for GBTV back when Glenn went to do the Israel special - I did cancel my subscription though when Glenn went too far and insinuated that me, as a Tea Party member who was considering Gingrich as a candidate, must be against Obama then due solely because of Obama's race.

So, most days I get to listen to the morning broadcast of Glenn Beck's radio program and it's been obvious from the day that Beck interviewed Gingrich that something just isn't right between those two. Beck was pretty rough on Gingrich in that interview and since that took place, I don't have to tell most people that Beck has been on a witchhunt against Gingrich.

Now, according to Beck, his disdain for Gingrich is because Newt is a progressive. I found that curious as I think many people might say that Gingrich is a little too fond of "big government" but I truly fail to see a link to Gingrich's being labeled a flat out "progressive." So, these attacks on Gingrich by Beck drew my attention and they have not let up over the past few weeks. It started to dawn on me that Beck's tone and rhetoric heightened when Gingrich's name came up...he seemed to get almost "emotional" about Gingrich. In fact, he sounded a little angry, a little bitter.

So here is my hypothesis. Glenn Beck's problem with Newt Gingrich is a personal one, not a political one. I am surmising that something happened between these two men in the past - I have no idea what it is or when it happened but it is becoming OBVIOUS to me that Glenn Beck simply hates Newt Gingrich, the man.

As this became more and more evident to me, I started honing in more on what seemed to be irrational takes on Gingrich by Beck. I even started to see Beck's cohosts Pat and Stu kind of back away a little from the Beck tirades - that's not to say they don't all dislike Gingrich as a candidate because they do but Beck is the one where you can tell it is PERSONAL.

All of this culminated today for me when I heard the Beck broadcast this morning. Here's the two things I heard today which still have my jaw on the ground:

1. Glenn Beck, talking to guest Rick Santorum on the show, asked Santorum who he thought was the one candidate who was favored by the GOP machine, the GOP establishment. Before Santorum could answer, Beck said that Santorum certainly wasn't and neither was Perry or Paul and then he hit the freak meter....Glenn Beck then said that he didn't think it was Romney either and that, in fact, the GOP establishment's candidate choice, their favorite is NEWT GINGRICH! I kid you not. Look up the archive of the show. Glenn Beck is not a stupid man - he knows that Newt Gingrich is not the GOP's favorite son....he knows full well it is Romney but the hatred of Gingrich is causing this recklessness in Beck. The funny part of this segment of the show is that Santorum finally was asked after all of that mind numbing insanity and Santorum kindly sad...."well, all I'll say is it isn't me!"

2. On the same show today, I believe it was Stu that brought up the possibility of Newt Gingrich getting the nomination....and with that, Glenn Beck cut in and said that he would never vote for Gingrich as the candidate....at which point both Stu and Pat jumped in and exclaimed that even though Gingrich isn't their choice, they would still vote for him over Obama....so Beck had a chance to make the correction at that point and Beck did not. At that point in time Beck said THAT HE WOULD VOTE 3RD PARTY BEFORE HE WOULD VOTE FOR GINGRICH. He even conceded that his actions would probably give the Presidency back to Obama.

I don't know what Gingrich did to Beck - I don't know if he stiffed Beck on an interview, if Gingrich said some nasties about Glenn, if Newt ran over Glenn's dog or what....but it has to be something MAJOR for Glenn Beck to admit he'd be willing to see Barack Hussein Obama win reelection. All I know is I would love to know what in the hell went down between these two men.


--

Monday, December 12, 2011

Why Newt Gingrich Was Spot On With His "Palestinian" Comments


You could nearly hear the gasp across America as liberals and progressives shuddered at Newt Gingrich's comments that the so-called Palestinians are an "invented" people because the leftists have invested billions of dollars and years of propaganda to legitimize this group of people in the Middle East. Well, the fact of the matter is this - Newt Gingrich is spot on, he nailed it with that comment and this article from Family Security Matters tells the world just why Newt is correct.

From the article:

Increasingly, many Americans are coming to understand the facts surrounding the origins of the “Palestinians.” Understood is that at its genesis, Palestine – derived from the word "Peleshet", English for "Philistine" – did not refer to a nation state but, instead, to a geographical location; a land with no governance. So, too, is the American public – as well as many informed peoples around the world – coming to understand that the use of the term "Palestinian," as a label for an Arab ethnic group, is a modern political creation with no basis in historical geographical fact, never having had any international or academic credibility before 1967.

But, perhaps the most damning evidence to date that the “State of Palestine” never existed comes from the mouth of Hamas leadership.

In 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO Executive Committee member, said:

“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.”

Sure, we have a bunch of Americans who have bought the whole "story" of the so-called Palestinians and they get whipped into this fury when they think the Israelis actually occupied their land but the majority of the Left in America knows it's all a lie and that it was constructed as a lie by the Arabs. Thankfully, we have someone with the 'nads of Newt Gingrich to speak the truth and I'd suggest that the next MSM reporter or commentator that wants to take on Gingrich's statement better be prepared to be laid out with the truth.

I'm not sure how aggressive the MSM will be on this issue for they don't want to risk the exposure of the lie they have been feeding the American people for 30 or so years.




"Palestine": History and the Eye of Newt


Former US House Speaker and GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich was instantly assailed by a plethora of people for statements critical of the modern-day understanding of the Palestinian history. From Palestinian Authority leaders, to mainstream media political analysts and even those who share the GOP presidential primary debate stage with the former Speaker, each offered denunciation ranging from outright condemnation of Mr. Gringrich’s statement to disagreement based on its diplomatic political incorrectness. But, the fact of the matter is this: Mr. Gingrich’s history on the matter is solid.

In the interview with The Jewish Channel, Gingrich said:

"Remember there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we've had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community...And they had a chance to go many places. And for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940's, and I think it's tragic."

He went on to say that it is "delusional to call it a peace process," pointing out that the Fatah-run Palestinian Authority and Hamas "represent an enormous desire to destroy Israel."

Anyone debating the base declaration of Mr. Gingrich’s assertion – that there has, through history, never been a Palestinian state – is either disingenuous or an extremely poor student of World History.

Increasingly, many Americans are coming to understand the facts surrounding the origins of the “Palestinians.” Understood is that at its genesis, Palestine – derived from the word "Peleshet", English for "Philistine" – did not refer to a nation state but, instead, to a geographical location; a land with no governance. So, too, is the American public – as well as many informed peoples around the world – coming to understand that the use of the term "Palestinian," as a label for an Arab ethnic group, is a modern political creation with no basis in historical geographical fact, never having had any international or academic credibility before 1967.

Dr. Daniel Pipes, a medieval Middle East historian who heads the Middle East Forum, wrote in 1988:

“The Romans introduced the word Palestine as a way to expunge the name Judea from the map – a punishment for the Bar Kochba rebellion suppressed in 135 C.E. Naming the region after the Philistine residents of the coast, they called it Palaestina.”

Rabbi Joseph E. Katz, a Middle Eastern political and religious history analyst, notes:

“The word itself derives from ‘Peleshet,’ a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as ‘Philistine.’ The Philistines were Mediterranean people originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities. They reached the southern coast of Israel in several waves. One group arrived in the pre-patriarchal period and settled south of Beersheba in Gerar where they came into conflict with Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. Another group, coming from Crete after being repulsed from an attempted invasion of Egypt by Rameses III in 1194 BCE, seized the southern coastal area, where they founded five settlements (Gaza, Ascalon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gat). In the Persian and Greek periods, foreign settlers - chiefly from the Mediterranean islands - overran the Philistine districts. From the time of Herodotus, Greeks called the eastern coast of the Mediterranean ‘Syria Palaestina.’

“The Philistines were not Arabs, nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs. The name ‘Falastin’ that Arabs today use for ‘Palestine’ is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Greco-Roman "Palastina"; which is derived from the Plesheth, (root palash) was a general term meaning rolling or migratory. This referred to the Philistine's invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea.”

Again, Dr. Pipes:

“Not only did the border [vacillate] during Roman and Muslim rule, but Palestine never constituted a single political unit between the fall of the Second Jewish Commonwealth in 68 C.E. and 1917 - with the one exception of the Crusades. Therefore, it is nonsense to speak of "historic" Palestine as if it were a single long-standing polity. Palestine lived in the hearts of those who loved it, and that was in a realm without boundaries. In medieval Europe, for example, "Palestine" referred to that area occupied by the Hebrews before the Diaspora, but since this area had changed size many times, the definition implied no precise boundaries on a map.”

In addition to these facts, it is becoming common knowledge among those who have attempted a cursory examination of the issue, that the contemporary boundaries, circa the creation of the now-recognized State of Israel, have the overwhelming bulk of recognized “Palestinian lands” in the nation of Jordan, an Arab-Islamic country.

With the end of World War I came the break-up of the Ottoman Empire. The League of Nations (the precursor to the now dysfunctional and corrupt United Nations) and the occupying powers mandated – by virtue of the spoils of victory – new borders for the countries and territories of the Middle East. The results: the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which gave birth to the French Mandate for Syria and the British Mandate for Palestine. More than 70 percent of the British Mandate for Palestine territory was east of the Jordan River and was known as "Transjordan," or what is today known simply as Jordan.

Even Jordanian officials – royalty and politicos alike – have maintained that the bulk of recognized “Palestinian lands” are in the nation of Jordan, as is evidence by a number of quotes:

· “Palestine and Transjordan are one.” – King Abdullah, Arab League meeting in Cairo, 12 April 1948.
· “We are the government of Palestine, the army of Palestine and the refugees of Palestine.” – Prime Minister of Jordan, Hazza’ al-Majali, 23 August 1959.
· “Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine; there is one people and one land, with one history and one and the same fate.” – Prince Hassan, brother of King Hussein, addressing the Jordanian National Assembly, 2 February 1970.
· “Jordan is not just another Arab state with regard to Palestine, but rather, Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan in terms of territory, national identity, sufferings, hopes and aspirations.” – Jordanian Minister of Agriculture, 24 September 1980.
· “The truth is that Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan.” – King Hussein 1981
· Thus, many who have expunged the politically correct, pro-Palestinian propaganda from their knowledge base are asking the legitimate question: Why aren’t the Palestinians as violently caustic towards the Jordanian government, since the bulk of their land claim rests within sovereign Jordanian boundaries?
But, perhaps the most damning evidence to date that the “State of Palestine” never existed comes from the mouth of Hamas leadership.

In 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO Executive Committee member, said:

“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.”

During the nationally televised Republican Presidential Primary Debate on December 10, 2011, hosted by ABC News, Speaker Gingrich stood by his original statement exhibiting the authority of the historian that he is, saying:

“Is what I said factually correct? Yes. Is it historically true? Yes. We are in a situation where everyday rockets are fired into Israel while the United States – the current administration – tries to pressure the Israelis into a peace process...Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth. These people are terrorists, they teach terrorism in their schools...it’s fundamentally the time for somebody to have the guts to say enough lying about the Middle East.”

Imagine that: a politician putting the truth ahead of political opportunism; ahead of political correctness; and ahead of advancing a commonly held belief based on an exquisite propaganda campaign...and on a subject that almost every other political figure in modern times runs from like coward.

The facts, from a historical point of view, support Speaker Gingrich. It is the politically correct in Washington – and among the GOP primary field – who, by attacking the former Speaker, are advancing a lie; who are facilitating the status quo politically correct fallacy.

If we are to base our foreign policy on sound, solid facts – and we need to, it would be time for not only the Palestinians to seek peace in a way that dispenses with fiction, but for American politicians to embrace truth over political opportunism and political correctness. On this notion Mr. Gingrich has crossed the proverbial “Rubicon.”

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Maria Bartiromo Learns About Media Inaccuracy from Professor Newt Gingrich

I had to leave my office this morning before this video was available. Couldn't wait to get home and post it. In the CNBC debate last night, Newt Gingrich had the hands-down best response of the night, perhaps of any debate anywhere, anytime. Jim Kramer asked him about Occupy Wall Street, and Newt, along with numerous points, called out the media's inability to report history and the economy accurately. Maria Bartiromo follows up and, unfortunately, she asks this:







BARTIROMO: Mr. Speaker -- I'm sorry, but what is the media reporting inaccurately about the economy? 
GINGRICH: What? 
BARTIROMO: What is the media reporting inaccurately about the economy?
(LAUGHTER) 
GINGRICH: I love humor disguised as a question. That's terrific.  I have yet to hear a single reporter ask a single Occupy Wall Street person a single rational question about the economy that would lead them to say, for example, "Who is going to pay for the park you are occupying if there are no businesses making a profit?"
It was the premier put-down of all well-deserved press put-downs, shaming the Left for their lies and their lies of omission. Sad that we couldn't see her face as he was making her look like the arrogant fool she was.


I live-blogged the debate. My notes are here.


Newt Gingrich and Maria Bartiromo - OWS and Media Inaccury (video)

Saturday, November 5, 2011

Notes From Cain Gingrich Debate

Holger Awakens readers, I live-blogged the Cain-Gingrich debate tonight. If you didn't see it, I captured some of the main thoughts and am sharing them here with you. I couldn't get everything, and it is a very casual blog, so grammar and spelling were not imperative. I was impressed, loved the format. The dialog covered only entitlements: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Moderators Ben Streusand from Americans for Prosperity, and Congressman Steven King (R-IA). King will give background on Congressman Paul Ryan's Budget Plans pertaining to the three entitlements. Here it is:



6:55 pm CDT: Julie Turner, President of Texas Patriots Pac is introducing moderators.

Introducing Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich, both from Georgia.

There are two comfy looking highback chairs and table.

7:00 pm, Congressman King saying a Lincoln-Douglas-style debate is a great idea and talking about entitlements should be a worthy debate. King is talking about his one-year-old granddaughter Reagan Ann King and her share of the National Debt today is not quite $48,000.00. By the time she reaches 5th grade, her share of the National Debt will be $88,000.00.

KING: 62.3% of the National Debt is on auto-pilot. No votes, it just renews itself every year. Total spending 37.6% is all that be addressed under discretionary spending. In other words, today, 37.6% is all Congress has power over without making changes.

King turns the debate over to Streusand

STREUSAND: Explain what happens to Medicare and Medicaid if we do nothing, and what happens if we implement the Ryan plan, and do you like Ryan's plan?

GINGRICH: First of all we are stupid if we do nothing. I support a premium support model but not a mandatory premium support model. My argument is, we must come up with solutions that make people want to accept them because they are a better value and meet their needs. The scale of need is so huge, but we must offer a better future. We have to get to a better health system. Pays 70 120B/yr to crooks for Medicare and Medicaid. There is a dentist who files over 900 procedures a day. The SuperCommittee is not looking at this. We have to weed the crooks out of the system.

CAIN: I'm supposed to have one minute to dispute what Newt says, but I agree with him totally, so I'd like three minutes to give some historical perspective. He talks about the history at Godfather Pizza. We were told Medicare would cost $6 Billion. By 1990, it wasn't $12B, $25B $50B. It was $109B - a 900% miss. How many businesses can survive missing a target like that. Longterm projections by the government have never been right.

I like the Ryan plan because he goes to the source, to the people to the doctors to the state. Get it out of Washington D.C. Politicians have overpromised for decades. We are headed off of a cliff and we must stop it.

STREUSAND: I'm suspending the clock. Take as long as you need. What do we do about rising health care cost. Going up 6 10 15% irrespective of the economy. Can we really solve the Medicare problem, until we solve the health care problem.

CAIN: We have the best health care in the world. We have a health care cost problem. To solve it we must use market-driven, patient centered approaches. I've talked to doctors - you cannot micro-manage health care costs out of D.C. At Godfather's we designed a health care plan that met our needs. We need Loser-Pays Laws - a big step toward overall tort reform.

GINGRICH: The mess of the health problems is a doctor, patient, hospital, insurance - you name it, we have caused the mess. Herman and I are the two most radical candidates because we both believe in common sense. We must abolish congressional budget office. They are dishonest. They are putting out a book on end-of-life. They refuse to accept any savings of costs - the costs that families bring to end-of-life, as they make decisions with their families about the end of their loved ones life.

KING: How do you get people off of entitlement rolls - later retirement, etc.

CAIN: If you are of retirement age now or approaching it, nothing will change for you. But if you are younger, the Ryan plan offers different planning. (sorry I'm not getting all of this, but the idea is the money in the Ryan plan is YOUR MONEY and it is built in already in the Ryan plan.

GINGRICH: Newts goes back and says we save Trillions by getting rid of crooks, so why will we penalize anyone without first stopping all corruption. We can do it through technology. He says we can pass a bill in Congress that in 60 days Mastercard, Visa handles all billing processes.

This can kick in next year, 2012. Let's contract out. The current Medicare rule is so restrictive it's unworkable.

7:30 pm CDT: Defined Benefit or Premium Support?

Cain can't explain Defined Benefit Plan and asks Newt to go first, which Newt says is only fair.

GINGRICH: The decision to deny male prostate testing is stupid (he's quoting a doctor). The bureaucratic panel on ObamaCare didn't even have a Urologist on the panel. That is a Defined Benefit plan. We will help people be able to buy insurance, but they should be able to deal with their doctor to make primary decisions. Bureaucracy should not stop innovation.

CAIN: You must have an account with your money in it, and the government makes a deposit. It is your plan. You choose what is best for you. That's the plan I think works best.

To CEO's, get involved and be a part of the solution. Get involved - you can't do it with an expensive lobbyist on down the road (he intimates that he encourages them to get with the Tea Party movement (or the citizens movement).

CAIN asks Gingrich, what are the three things you learned since being in, and leaving Congress.

1st thing: if you don't get up every morning trying to find a customer, please a customer, have a relationship with a customer, you don't have a customer. If you haven't earned your pay today, why do you think we will pay you.

2nd: Looking at a companies equipment and how it has evolved from the 1940's to now. In every part of the private sector, someone is doing something brilliant that could be brought to government. But there is a wall (lobbyists) that keep that from happening.

3rd: Balancing the federal budget must be an act of will. I called in CEO's. Set big goals, with tight deadlines, delegate like crazy and don't let any experts in the room.

CAIN: Strong proponent that bush introduced. Optional personal retirement accounts. Thirty countries have them. The Chilean model - why can't we do that? The answer is, we can but we have to fight the demagoguery. We have to educate the people. 30 years ago Chile's systems was broken. They changed it because they had to. When they gave workers the option in Chile, 90% wanted the option. It was their money with their name on it. Those who were near retirement had the option to keep the original plan. 7.65% paid by employee, 7.65% by the employee, 15.3% in total. Cain said to this we have to have the 9-9-9 plan or change the tax code to make it work. Now employers can deduct what they put into the employees plan, but employees cannot. It has to change. The payroll tax goes away.

GINGRICH: Hannity has asked Herman and I to take an hour with him in this style debate and we will do that and then we can discuss the 9-9-9 plan.

Any candidate not willing to let younger Americans have options

Put in half as much money and get back twice as much

1) Growth - go back to 4.3% unemployment. Don't look at a current static model from SS now. It doesn't work that way. If we get people back to work, SS will be healthier.

2) Honesty: Lyndon Johnson brought SS into general budget in order to hide the deficit. Until then it was a free standing account, until Lyndon Johnson. Totally dishonest when Obama said he might not be able to send out SS checks. There was $2.4 Trillion in the account. Obama was dishonest.

Go to a system where younger Americans choose - we don't abolish the current system for younger Americans. Stay if you want, but you should have the option to a greater return on your money.

GINGRICH: Herman turned around Godfather Pizza. It was a troubled company but an enthusiastic, optimistic leader (Cain) did it.

GINGRICH: SS is a fraud. Yes it's a piece of paper the government owes, but there is $2.4T there. Money does exist and it is a debt the government owes Americans. Take SS out of the budget and figure out how to get to a balanced budget without it. Since  1968 and Lyndon Johnson, we have been lying about the size of the deficit.

CAIN: All SS contributions will go toward SS benefits. it was defeated in the Senate. Let's spend SS money for SS benefits.

KING: Where will the SS money be parked until it has been spent?

GINGRICH: Into US Treasury notes is fine, but it's a real debt that is owed.

Gingrich and Cain repeatedly mention the Chilean model.

CAIN: In the Private Sector, most companies have moved to a defined contribution approach for their employees. The employee's name is on the account and the company makes a contribution. The employee selects from a list - a low risk, a medium risk, a high risk. You can split it between those.

STREUSAND: Medicaid - Ryan plan designs block grants to go to the states. Do we agree that is the best plan or do you have another alternative?

CAIN: Agrees with block grants for the states. Definitely the way to go to cut the bureaucrats out.

GINGRICH: Repeal ObamaCare! I strongly support Ryan's approach of block grants to the states for Medicaid. We must rethink Medicaid. We can't help people in poverty by enabling them to be in poverty. There must be a consequence for abusing the system (AMEN). We must distinguish between the taxpayer being a concerned citizen and the taxpayer being a sucker.

CAIN: A waiter in a restaurant (young black man): give a man a fish he'll eat for a day, teach a man how to fish and he can live a lifetime. I can be supportive of a voucher system but the person must have some skin in the game.

GINGRICH: We should have genuine block grants. If a state wants to use vouchers, let them. Let the state decide. Washington can't fix this. If you are going to live in public housing, maybe you should participate in painting it or fixing it up. (huge applause)

CAIN: Put the responsibility at the state level.

GINGRICH: I believe in health information technology (electronic health care records). (he thinks it's like an ATM). (I HATE THE IDEA OF ELECTRONIC HEALTH CARE RECORDS - MAGGIE). Medicare and Medicade does paper. All the bureaucrats ask how are we going to deal with the paper? So much fraud is because you have a crook using technology, and a bureaucrat using paper! Centralized paper-based bureaucracy stops us from getting to a better future.

CAIN: Talking about voter I.D. and those fighting it because cheating is important to Democrats.

GINGRICH: Need people in government who are courageous. We have technology that shows us the cost of shipping a package and know where it is at any time. One of my proposals, to find everyone here illegally, we send them a package! (laughter)

States should bill the government every year, for the cost of illegals. (people are on their feet applauding)

CAIN: Changing entitlement programs, the model used in WI when Tommy Thompson was there. You could not get benefits unless you proved that you were looking for a job or taking classes to qualify for a job. We need restructure. (Cain is using this as an example for means-testing Medicare and Medicaid).

GINGRICH: Does means-testing encourage people to want to stay on food stamps. We have the most effective food stamp president in our history. Do people want to rise above the point of means testing. We are teaching people to be dependent, to fail, to give up the American dream. No one should get something for nothing unless they have a severe, severe disability. If you are able-bodied and getting something for nothing, WE ARE STUPID.

You could get an Associate's Degree while Obama has sat around waiting for jobs to come along.

Give the state's the primary responsibility for these domestic issues.

CAIN: Newt and I are willing to talk about entitlements. Few are. We must talk about these programs. It all comes back to the best form of help to get people off of Medicaid, and help them get a job. We must grow the economy. That's looking at the whole spectrum, so that people who want to get off of it. The people who choose to be lazy, that's their little "boogie woogie."

KING: What should the cap be on unemployment. We now have 99 weeks.

CAIN: Restructure. If you have 26 wks, you go back and have 13 weeks and after that it's 6 weeks. It will encourage getting out to find a job.

GINGRICH: If you don't sign up for a retraining program, on day one, you get nothing. Day one, get trained as fast as possible, to get a full time job, and then you won't worry about when your weeks will run out.

GINGRICH asking Cain a question, and Gingrich notes they haven't played "gotcha" once.

You've had a great success story. What is the biggest surprise while running for president.

CAIN: The nit-pickiness of the media - the flyspecking of the media. I expect to have to study, but the media is appalling. My biggest surprise. I thought thee are too many people in the media who are down-right dishonest, and doing a disservice to the people (people are standing and applauding.)

CAIN to Gingrich: if you were VP of the US, what would you want the President to assign you to do first? (huge laughter - Newt is almost falling off his chair)

GINGRICH: Well, I've studied my good friend Dick Cheney, and I would not go hunting. (that was the end and it brought huge laughter)


Posted by Maggie @ Maggie's Notebook