Talk:Political positions of Newt Gingrich

COI edit request: Health care

{{request edit}} This language about Newt Gingrich's support of a federal mandate to purchase health insurance at the top the Health Care entry is incorrect and uses a citation that is incorrect. The quote provided (“I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay - help pay for health care") does not mean Gingrich is for a federal mandate to purchase health insurance. Furthermore, Newt Gingrich has clearly stated in this video and statement posted on his campaign website that he is opposed to a federal mandate to purchase health insurance. I am asking that this sentence be removed because it is inacurate. --Joedesantis (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done (In a manner of speaking...) I made a copy edit that, IMO, reflects sources more accurately; may still need another pair of eyes to review accuracy and NPOV. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

References

Entitlement reform

{{request edit}} A similar request: in the section Entitlement reform section there is currently a sentence about Newt Gingrich's comments on Meet the Press involving the phrase "right wing social engineering." It currently states that Gingrich "condemned" the Ryan plan using this phrase. While this has been a viewpoint expressed in the media, Mr. Gingrich has discussed this several times since, and I hope that his explanation can be included. Here is a suggested alternative for this sentence:

In May 2011, Gingrich was criticized for appearing to use the phrase "right wing social engineering" in relation to the Medicare reform plan proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan.[33]p[34] Gingrich later clarified that he was responding to a "hypothetical question" about passing a Medicare change without the American people's support, not the House GOP Medicare proposal.

Current sources 33 and 34, from the Washington Post and Politico, respectively, are fine. The source for Newt Gingrich's clarification is this May 18, 2011 interview transcript from On the Record with Greta Van Susteren. I hope that some version of the above can be incorporated in this sub-section. --Joedesantis (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Following on this request from last week, another user has written a better, more balanced treatment of this same topic for the article section Newt_Gingrich_presidential_campaign,_2012#Meet_the_Press_interview. That is a longer version of what I have proposed here, and it could be adapted for this page as well. There is also this interview from CBS Face the Nation where he made clear that he was speaking to a general principle that large scale change should not be imposed without the consent of the American people.. It seems that this perspective should be included. --Joedesantis (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Since there have been no further comments on this page, I have gone ahead expanded the paragraph by just a bit to include Mr. Gingrich's subsequent explanations, consistent with my explanation above and, to the extent that I am familiar, with Wikipedia's content policies. Please be in touch if you have any questions. Thank you. --Joedesantis (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As it looks like you have already made your requested changes, I am deactivating your edit request. Please feel free to reactivate it or add a new one if you want to. Monty₈₄₅ 17:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

References

Possible bias

This article seems to dodge his positions on issues relating to homosexuals. I'm thinking that this might be an attempt to make him look better. I want to know his positions on same sex marriage and I feel like this page is hiding something. JohnnyRH (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Social Issues

Why is there no mention of his social political believes? Like what does he think about gay marriage, abortion etc? This is important info that is missing. --JDDJS (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Added subsections on Abortion and Marriage/LBGT Rights Steve Radant (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources for health care

Newt's position on advance directives is worth mentioning.[1][2] See also: death panel. Jesanj (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"Legislating from the bench"

I replaced an inflammatory sentence in the middle of the same-sex marriage section. I tried to make it politically neutral, but the result is kind of clunky and lacks a source (although it is pretty common knowledge AFAIK) so clean-up (or removal? It doesn't seem to be of critical importance) would be appreciated. However, please avoid implying that this phrase is some kind of a "code word" unless you have a solid academic citation showing that Gingrich doesn't actually believe what he's saying. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.37.180 (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the explanatory sentence. Which is what I should have done in the first place instead of simply piping the original editor's "dog-whistle" to "code word", since any attempt on our part to explain what he means by the term is POV and original research. There's a good article on the term itself, pointing out its use by both liberals and conservatives, at Harvard Political Review, but using it would still be OR and synth. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Marbury v. Madison and judicial review

Hello, this is Joe DeSantis, the communications director for Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign. The purpose of this note is to request a change in the section now called Marbury v. Madison. Right now, it states:

Gingrich supports abolishing the principle of Supreme Court judicial review as enunciated in Marbury v. Madison.

However, this is not an accurate summary of his views. The current sentence is sourced to an article from The Hill, which has misleadingly paraphrased Mr. Gingrich. The reporter writes that "Gingrich’s position represents, in effect, a direct challenge to the interpretation of Marbury v. Madison" -- but nowhere in the piece is Mr. Gingrich quoted as saying that. This is simply the reporter's misinterpretation.

A fuller and more accurate quotation is found in a Capital New York article, which clarifies that Gingrich's argument is specifically about judicial overreach during and since the Warren Court:

"This is going to be a controversial conversation," Gingrich said during the call, after lecturing briefly about the history of the court's overreach, which he traces back to Chief Justice Earl Warren, and not Marbury v. Madison, which he said is "grossly overstated in modern law schools."

Newt Gingrich's actual position on the matter is further explained in a white paper available on Newt.org and in a USA Today op-ed this week. In these he clearly questions the concept of "judicial supremacy" in which the Court assumes a disproportionate weight in the checks-and-balance system. His argument is that the Cooper v. Aaron decision misinterprets Marbury's principle of judicial review to mean something it is not.

And he is not alone in making this argument. Stanford law professor Larry D. Kramer has also written:

"In 1958 ... all nine Justices signed an extraordinary opinion in Cooper v. Aaron insisting that Marbury [Marbury v. Madison] had “declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution ... This was, of course, just bluster and puff. As we have seen, Marbury said no such thing, and judicial supremacy was not cheerfully embraced in the years after Marbury was decided."

I suggest the current "Marbury v. Madison" section retitled and replaced as follows:

Judicial review

Gingrich has stated that he supports the principle of Supreme Court judicial review as enunciated in ''Marbury v. Madison'',<ref>[http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/Courts.pdf Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution], Newt 2012, November 7, 2011.</ref> however he believes the Warren Court misinterpreted ''Marbury'' in its ''[[Cooper v. Aaron]]'' decision, which went too far in asserting that only the Supreme Court has final and binding interpretive authority over the two other branches of the federal government in defining the meaning of the Constitution.<ref>([http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2011-12-19/Newt-Gingrich-judges-courts/52081988/1 Newt Gingrich: 'A dangerous despotism'], ''USA Today'', December 19, 2011.</ref>

If there are any questions about this topic, I can help clarify further. Thanks, Joedesantis (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The suggested wording looks pretty good overall. I think I would prefer replacing

"he believes the Warren Court misinterpreted Marbury in its Cooper v. Aaron decision, which went too far in asserting that only the Supreme Court has final and binding interpretive authority"

with:

"he believes the Warren Court misinterpreted Marbury in its Cooper v. Aaron decision and went too far by asserting that only the Supreme Court has final and binding interpretive authority"

as being slightly clearer in distinguishing his opinion from Wikipedia's. But I'll defer making the change for a bit to see if anyone else comments. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Joe. Perhaps the most common objection that a primary source (someone with a direct connection to the article subject) has to a Wikipedia article about them is that it is "inaccurate." Those of us who have not been the subject of media coverage often don't appreciate just how inaccurate media coverage can be. So your input is appreciated and although many in your position would not disclose their identity for fear their opinions will be discounted as excessively POV (point of view), your identity gives you some "expert" status on Political positions of Newt Gingrich in my view.

In and of itself, inaccuracy is not actually a decisive objection to Wikipedia content. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth attempts to provide some explanation for why this is so, but the really authoritiative policy is Wikipedia:No original research . What this means is that we don't do investigative reporting a la the New York Times. We instead relay what sources like the NYT say without attempting to directly screen out errors. All this to say is that if this Wikipedia article is faithful to what the The Hill appears to be reporting, there is not an immediate problem as far as Wikipedia is concerned. If the objection is that The Hill is overstating the extent to which Gingrich is opposed to Marbury v. Madison, this is not an objection that Wikipedia editors will quicky deal with, if at all. This isn't because there is not an interest in accuracy but because we don't have the resources or ability to correct sources like this. When there has been poor reporting, getting it corrected in Wikipedia directly will be difficult, because Wikipedia is a follower, not a trail blazer. You have to first change the "conventional wisdom" in the primary reporting, and then Wikipedia will follow.

That said, if Wikipedia is overstating what the Hill (or another source) says, that IS an objection demanding corrective action here. The case for correction would additionally be much bolstered if it can be shown that the Hill is not generally reliable for this sort of story or, less contentiously, that other reliable sources conflict.

You've largely pointed out this conflict but part of your argument is not quick or easy for busy editors to deal with. Your quote of Larry Kramer (legal scholar) would make for an outstanding debating point, for example, but it is not something that Wikipedians can readily acknowledge. It very much supports Newt's view, but the fact is that we can't quote Kramer here without having a W:NOR problem. We'd be making Gingrich's argument for him, you see, by hunting down such quotes or receiving them directly from his campaign, and this would be a violation of our neutrality. You can make that argument here, but no matter how convincing it is, Wikipedia cannot "make" arguments, it is a passive player. The reference to Kramer which appears here on the nytimes.com website is thus more useful to us as editors than linking directly to what Kramer has published.

Re the specific edit wording here, I am fine with the proposal as amended by F&H, except for the assertion that Gingrich supports Marbury v. Madison. It should be enough to say that Gingrich believes Marbury has been misinterpreted. If Gingrich has been battling people who want no judicial review at all by criticizing their failure to support Marbury, then the support assertion should be included, because he would have played a non-trivial role as booster. Otherwise, though, "I support a limited or basic form of X but... (generally play the role of opponent to X in the popular debate over X)" is generally just candidate disclaimer about their moderation that isn't especially informative re what drives the candidate.

By the way, although it is just my opinion, having identified your partisan affiliation here and having acknowledged the POV issue, I have no objections to you, Joe, editing the article directly except for non-minor removals of material, especially cited material. Because your preferred reading here meant removal of material cited to The Hill, raising the matter here on the Talk page was appropriate.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Flat Tax

Shouldn't this page at least mention some of his 2012 positions like the flat tax that he wants? 99.148.24.214 (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, what are you waiting for?--RadioFan (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

out-of-date information.

Blanket tags like this are not helpful. Unless more specific concerns can be spelled out here, this tag should be removed.--RadioFan (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

newt moonbase

some support of the feasability for 10 billions http://pjmedia.com/blog/newts-lunar-base/ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/28/science/space/for-a-moon-colony-technology-is-the-easy-part.html?_r=2 --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 07:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Energy policy

Hello, I'm Joe DeSantis, the communications director for Newt's campaign. If I may, I'd like to offer a suggestion to bring this article up to date on Newt's energy policies. Based on recent press, I have put together the following for adding to the "Energy policy" section:

Beginning in February 2012, Gingrich responded to the rising price of gasoline nationwide by emphasizing his proposal for American energy independence as a major theme of his campaign. In a letter published by Human Events, Gingrich called for expanding dramatically the federal land open for oils and gas production with the stated goal of increasing supply. Citing oil prices of $1.13 a gallon on average from 1995-1999, and $1.89 a gallon when President Obama took office, Gingrich suggested $2.50 a gallon could be an attainable price with policies that permitted the maximum increase in gasoline production. On February 19, 2011, in an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Gingrich was critical of the Obama administration's energy policies and accused the president of being "anti—American-energy." Subsequently, President Obama announced a speech on energy policy on February 23, 2011, which news organizations including MSNBC, CBS and the Wall Street Journal attributed in part to Gingrich’s criticisms.

Here is the markup code:

Beginning in February 2012, Gingrich responded to the rising price of gasoline nationwide by emphasizing his proposal for American energy independence as a major theme of his campaign.<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203358704577237814186374428.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Gingrich Focuses on Gas Prices] Wall Street Journal, February 21, 2012.</ref> In a letter published by ''Human Events'', Gingrich called for expanding dramatically the federal land open for oils and gas production with the stated goal of increasing supply. Citing oil prices of $1.13 a gallon on average from 1995-1999, and $1.89 a gallon when President Obama took office, Gingrich suggested $2.50 a gallon could be an attainable price with policies that permitted the maximum increase in gasoline production.<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49525 $2.50 gallon gasoline and energy independence] Human Events, February 15, 2012.</ref> On February 19, 2011, in an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Gingrich was critical of the Obama administration's energy policies and accused the president of being "anti—American-energy."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/2012/02/19/newt-gingrich-resurrecting-his-presidential-campaign-eric-cantor-talks-payroll-tax-holida/print Newt Gingrich on resurrecting his presidential campaign; Eric Cantor talks payroll tax holiday] Fox News, February 19, 2012.</ref> Subsequently, President Obama announced a speech on energy policy on February 23, 2011, which news organizations including MSNBC, CBS and the ''Wall Street Journal'' attributed in part to Gingrich’s criticisms.<ref>[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/20/10460629-white-house-on-defense-over-gas-prices White House on defense over gas prices] MSNBC, February 20, 2012.</ref><ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7399591n WH admits no quick fix to rising gas prices] CBS News, February 21, 2012.</ref><ref>[http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/02/21/obama-to-talk-about-gasoline-prices-on-thursday/ Obama to Talk About Gasoline Prices on Thursday] Wall Street Journal, February 21, 2012.</ref>

I do not wish to add this to the article myself, but would ask for other editors to consider including this material. If there are any questions about the material or the policy in general, I can help to clarify. Thanks, Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done by Kenatipo. Reviewed and added as suggested. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

References

Request regarding Iran

{{Request edit}} In the last few days a new section on Iran has been added to the article, which contains biased or misleading wording and material not included in sources.

• Specifically, I'd like to draw attention to biased wording such "admitted" and material that is represented as Newt's comments when it is actually the source's interpretation, such as the first line of the section.

• The first sentence, sourced to Whiteout Press, presents their interpretation of Newt's comments at the Spartanburg GOP debate as a report of his actual comments.

• The "full deniability" quote given in the second sentence does not appear in the source at all.

• Newt's topline position is to bring about regime change in Iran, but this does not appear until late in the section. In numerous sources, Newt has been quoted as calling for a regime change. The following sources provide more detail on his comments, placing them into greater context:
  • Wall Street Journal, November 24, 2011
  • New York Times, November 7, 2011
  • Reuters, December 7, 2011
  • KTQV.com December 12, 2011

I suggest that the wording relating to regime change be amended to provide a more accurate summary based on these reports.

• The section currently includes a sentence that implies Newt's comments regarding regime change were solely focused on "cyber warfare", although this was just one aspect of the activities to promote regime change that he mentioned. This sentence also appears to be taken, almost word-for-word from The Hill's report, and the quote marks that are necessary to show what Newt actually said and what The Hill infers him to mean have been lost in the version in the article.

I would like to ask editors to consider rewording this section to improve its neutrality, and provide a more accurate summary of Newt's position on Iran. Thanks, Joe DeSantis Communications Director, Gingrich 2012 (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done by Kenatipo. Joe, I reviewed your request and found all the suggestions reasonable. I've made several changes to the Iran section. The sentences attributed to WhiteOutPress.com have been replaced. WhiteOutPress is not likely to be a Reliable Source—the "article" used is written like an editorial and made me distrust their transcription of the debate. The Iran section as I've re-written it now begins with Newt's position: regime change. There is one sentence in the middle that's sort of redundant, but I'll work it out. The quote about "collateral civilian casualties" appears to be from an editorial and perhaps unreliable source, but my sense tells me the quote is correct so I used it. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the edits I've made here at your suggestion are "well cited, neutral, and follow other Wikipedia guidelines and policies". --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much to Joe DeSantis and Kenatipo for proposing and then updating this section. In creating this section (my first Wikipedia entry), I did not want to introduce conflict but simply add a section similar to Mitt Romney's Political Position on Iran and remove a section titled "Assassinations" that I thought was biased by the title but actually referred to Iran policy. Thanks again; I have learned more about citations and sources. -Dasmi1929 (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution, Dasmi1929 — you added something important to the article that had been missing. You've made a good start and I hope you will continue editing. (Conflict is almost inevitable in these touchy political articles. ). --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)