Posted on 12/27/2011 7:11:11 AM PST by Outlaw Woman
To conservatives, the biggest strike against Mitt Romney is the health care plan he put in place in Massachusetts, but Newt Gingrich lavished praise on Romney’s plan after it was passed in 2006.
“We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100 percent insurance coverage for all Americans,” Gingrich wrote in 2006.
And, Gingrich wrote, the key to achieving that goal was doing what Romney did in Massachusetts: Requiring everybody...
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Newsbusters dissects Jonathan Karl's lies about Gingrish & Romneycare on another thread.
You should write headlines for ABC News.
So let’s see... I should not vote for Newt because he supported Romney. So I should vote for Mitt because...???
Yikes! They will both grow the government! We need a candidate who will not just stop the bleeding, but drastically reduce the size and scope of government!
“Can someone explain to me why they think Newt Gingrich is a honest, principled conservative?”
No, because Newt isn’t an honest, principled conservative. He just fakes it when it suits his purposes, kind of like he does with his wives.
And all this time I thought it was posted on FR that the anti-Christ is Obama.
I'm less impressed with Marco Rubio, particularly with his RINO-lite views on illegal immigration. But he would certainly be an improvement over anything in the current GOP field with the possible exceptions of Santorum and Bachmann
Newt has the best chance of winning?
If you have checked Rasmussen, and apparently you haven't, Newt is running farther behind Obama than Santorum,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html
Why not go with a real conservative rather than a fraud who has tons of garbage the Democrats and MSM are just waiting to release?
So if you don't like any of the current candidates, that may actually win the nomination, then who are we left with?
I for one will NOT let the MSM pick the candidate for me, like they did McCain. The MSM is digging up all sorts of stuff on Newt and others while saying Romney is the best choice for us. If Romney gets the nomination, you know it will be Wall Street versus the average person. Just what the Democrats want, can you say OWS?
Let the MSM dig up stuff on Newt now. Newt isn't all that perfect, I don't think anyone is, but he knows his facts, something that Obama doesn't without a teleprompter. Newt can not push all his ideas on the American people, because it still takes a vote from Congress. He will downsize the government, including the EPA, which is the worst department.
So let's try and hold our own and not throw all the top tier candidates under the bus because of something the MSM dug up and is probably out of context. Our goal is to replace Obama, even if our candidate isn't the purest.
If you think my "attacks" on Gingrich are terrible, just wait for the Dems to turn him inside out. If you recall, Gingrich had and has very high negatives. He is not a very likable politician and has been on both sides of every major issue. His personal life is a mess. And I question his ability to run a national campaign, one in which Obama will have $1 billion, vastly more than Gingrich or any other Rep will have. And frankly, I don't see Gingirch or Romney being committed to rolling back the welfare state. Both are big government Reps or "frugal socialists" like Bachmann calls them.
Last time, McCain became the presumptive nominee of the party garnering just 33% of the primary vote. The race was over after FL and SC. I followed the McCain campaign during the primaries for four days each in FL and SC demonstrating against his amnesty policies. After seeing him firsthand in action at these events, I knew he was a sure loser despite the MSM adulation (at least during the primaries.) This time around, due to changes in the primary rules, including the elimination of some winner take all primaries, the primary season will last longer and be a better test of the candidates ability to run good ground games and raise money. The first vote has yet to be cast so it is a little premature to rally around one candidate or to conclude that this is just a two person race.
The LSM DNC propaganda machine blabbering on... so they want Willard versus Barack so bad they can taste it! And clueless brainiac haters of Newt are falling for their LIBERAL scam.
You are correct, 10% is “double digits”.
Wouldn’t want to short the 2nd tier.
I never said I was smart.I am saying I am sick of it all.And I am so sorry but I am not falling for McCain Newt with an encyclopedia.If you could show me where Newt would make all reps/house/senate PT and cut they’re pay and cease the mess and insider trading I would feel better holding my nose.Until then Perry has promised the most change and ROMNEY just said on Fox news literally he is progressive.I still have hopes Perry will pull through; the man got in late and had back surgery.
pubs
dems
pubs
dems
in between they promise everything in the world from border control to cutting spending
Obama is playing hardball thug.It will be right vs. left (I just saw remarks from supposed voters on FOX NEWS say that poor Obama tried to get a jobs bill and the mean bad GOP stopped him.)Obama has photo ops of him and MO in white walking into church in Hawaai.Only poli junkies like us know the SOB played golf his first day.I am just saying we don’t need the same old crap we need a Christie or a Perry to at least beat Obama and appease us with the most CHANGE.In the end Obama must lose but it looks like we may have another flavor of the week and Perry and Bachmann were bashed by conservatives.If you don’t like the Perry idea, got any others?Christie latecomer hopes TO BEAT OBAMA,anyone,anything?I am open.
I now view them as a bigger enemy than the other MSM Liberal outlets. At least they are honest about their bias. FOX still lies about being “fair & balanced”. (Nothing of the sort!)
After Newt 26 clears the other three conservatives-- Perry 8, Bachmann 6, and Santorum 3 next TUESDAY, let's get on with the business of NEWT VERSUS WILLARD, please.
Note: New Gallup daily tracking poll due out at 10 PST today (47 minutes from now) as usual AND Michele & the two Ricks COMBINED will still trail Newt by about double digits. Wake up CONSERVATIVES!!! Newt IS the choice for CONSERVATIVES over Obama-lite Romney and the full on Obama.
After Newt 26 clears the other three conservatives-- Perry 8, Bachmann 6, and Santorum 3 next TUESDAY, let's get on with the business of NEWT VERSUS WILLARD, please.
Note: New Gallup daily tracking poll due out at 10 PST today (47 minutes from now) as usual AND Michele & the two Ricks COMBINED will still trail Newt by about double digits. Wake up CONSERVATIVES!!! Newt IS the choice for CONSERVATIVES over Obama-lite Romney and the full on Obama.
[I still have hopes Perry will pull through; the man got in late and had back surgery.]
You must have a short little attention span. Remember when Perry first entered? He had a 30% polling average. Only Perry was a bumbling stuttering idiot and blew his lead all by himself. (Nice try, saying he has a lame excuse, but that just won’t fly.) Perry’s record also had a major role for his crash in the polls.
These polls are so fluid and volatile that I refuse to let them stampede me into voting for someone because of their position in the polls. At one time or another, Romney, Gingrich, Perry, and Cain have led in the national polls. And a single vote has yet to be cast in a primary save the straw vote in Iowa, which Bachmann won.
We're down to Rush and Levin on the radio. Maybe Hannity and a few more, although mainly local media in the South, Midwest, and Southwest --which is all Newt needs for the nomination, imho..
Or mine if either of the three second tier conservatives BEAT the first tier conservative. Which I highly doubt but we'll see.
I've come to the personal conclusion after being a Huckabee, Bachmann, Perry, and Cain staunch supporter this cycle... Gingrich/Rubio '12 & '16 ain't that bad in ANY way compared to Obama/Romney!
But to each their own.
I would hope not!
...Considering that Ron Paul & Mitt Romney are the only 1st tier candidates in Iowa, averaging over 20%, with the second tier bunched at 7.7%-14.7%, and Huntsman bringing up the rear, right where he wants it.
(IMO the Insider Advantage poll is an outlier, but I don't like to cherrypick.)
There are other sources as well documenting Gingrich’s position and under any other circumstance, he would be called (and rightfully so) a RINO.
Bachmann has it right: NewtRomney
“We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100 percent insurance coverage for all Americans,” Gingrich wrote in 2006
I actually agree with this. Newt is a conservative but he is also a political pragmatist. The whole medical system is in bad shape. The real fixes might be harder than universal health care. And if you look at the criticisms he has of Romneycare they’re pretty good.
Here’ what we need to do right now to fix the health care system without universal health care:
1) Allow hospitals to refuse payment to people who cannot pay. That’s a tough one but hospitals are businesses and if they can’t pay the bills they will close. The loss of a hospital affects many more people than one uninsured.
2) Aggessively pursue those who engage in Medicare and Medicaid fraud and impose harsh penalties for convictions.
3) Tort reform. Liability insurance and lawsuit are a huge cost of any kind of medical practice. I know doctors who have abandoned private practices in order to be under the umbrella of a large hospitals insurance. Lawyers run this country and they look out for other lawyers and always remember they may be back in private practice someday. A loser pays court system similar to many European countries would go a long way towards cutting out frivolous and exploratory lawsuits.
4) Allow insurance companies to sell in any state and allow the market to determine what policies are sold.
5) Require Congress and federal employees to participate in any mandated health care system.
But the latest polls in Iowa do suggest two tiers:
First Tier
Paul 22.3%
Romney 21.0%
Second Tier
Gingrich 14.7%
Perry 12.0%
Bachmann 8.7%
Santorum 7.7%
The first tier seems pretty solid, and the second jumbled. I would bet on one second tier candidate faring poorly enough to leave the race, but not much beyond that. One second tier candidate could break 20% - or not. One conservative candidate could break out - or not.
Every day is a bash Ron Paul Day, because he is an Idiot that deserves it.
If you want to look at it like that every day is bash Bachmann Perry day on a conservative site.Now that’s crazy!
I’m down to 7 days to decide and for the first time ever I am undecided. But it won’t be Newt for sure. His second largest contributer is Poet LLC. He sat on Nancy’s couch for a reason !
Sadly it is, our bettors have decreed it shall be. The trick they unveiled in Virginia should show people how vile the Republican Progressive leadership really is, but it probably won't.
I was a big Palin supporter not because she was the brightest bulb in the rack, but because she represented a chance for the people to reclaim their heritage, I now fear they shall not. The Republic will soon fade away, along with any semblance of freedom, any where in the world.
Greengrinch LOL
OK but suppose you only have the choice of a Democrat who will do what you want <1% of the time and a RINO that will do what you want 40% of the time? Isn't that still a gain?
But suppose that other Republicans don't see it so clearly and still have trouble supporting the RINO then what? Then you use conservative inflation, tell other Republicans that he agrees with us 90% of the time and is a Reagan clone.
Then when he gets in the general election and starts trying to out-liberal Obama with proposals that you would curse if Obama made then you have to explain why they are really good ideas when the RINO says them, bad when the Democrat does, plus say the RINO has good intentions, the Democrat really bad ones.
Didn't you get the memo? :)
This is it...we get no do-overs anymore. If we don’t put someone in that will actually follow conservative principles, we are finished as a Nation.
What I have been finding out about Gingrich and his previous voting record, even before being speaker, will make your hair stand on end.
I’m currently in the process of getting independent verification because I know the falsehoods and distortions that happen but I’m telling you if even half of what I have found to be true, this is not a man we want in the oval office.
Yes I am a Rick Perry supporter, but if Gov Perry doesn’t make it and Gringrich does, I had made my mind up that I would support him; that is no longer the case.
The Progressives in both parties are counting on that being the goal. Looks like it is working too.
“OK but suppose you only have the choice of a Democrat who will do what you want <1% of the time and a RINO that will do what you want 40% of the time? Isn’t that still a gain?”
One thinks that if our guy only acts as a Leftist 60% of the time, that he’s acting as a Conservative 40% of the time. I would submit, that is not the case.
There are actually three status categories, not just two. There is Leftist, there is Conservative, and there is Republican (neutral or worse).
It’s important to remember that we can’t just be Republican, or neutral. Our guy has to be Conservative to turn things around.
If our guy acts like a Leftist 60% of the time, acts like a Republican for 35% of the time, he only acts the part of a Conservative 5% of the time.
The problem for you and I is, that our guys only act like a true conservative a percent or two of the time.
How much Leftist ideology do our guys reverse during their administrations? I would submit none. At the very best, they’re generally neutral or worse close to 100% of the time.
The level of socialism is massive in this nation. So far we don’t have true Communism, but we’re drifting that direction. They are going full tilt to destroy Capitalism right now. As for Fascism, our presidents are now toying with that too.
If our guy acts like a leftist 60% of the time, how long does it take to get 100% of what the Left wants done in this nation?
I would submit two administrations is all it would take to get to the 100% the left wants, if our guy acts like a Leftist 60% of the time.
We have got to get to the point where our presidents are acting like Conservatives 60% of the time, as a Republican (neutral or worse) 35% of the time, and as a Leftist 5% of the time.
Looking at the state of our nation, we can’t wait 20 years to implement that plan.
In November 2012, we must put a Conservative in, or we just as well register for the communist party to beat the rush.
Another luke warm Republican? HELL NO! If we’re going to go down, please let it be under a Democrat. Do not let the Left tarnish our representative republic for all time, as a failed capitalist society, even if we haven’t been acting like one for upwards of 100 years.
If someone wants my vote, they’ll make sure I a Conservative to vote for.
05/04/1979 – He voted for a federal land grab that put tens of millions of
acres of land in the hands of Washington bureaucrats.
09/20/1979 – He voted to raise the debt ceiling for the first time.
09/27/1979 – He voted to establish the Federal Department of Education.
06/04/1980 – He voted to raise the debt ceiling for the second time.
02/05/1981 – He voted to raise the debt ceiling for the third time.
06/28/1984 – He voted to raise the debt ceiling for the fourth time.
04/02/1987 – He cosponsored the 1987 Fairness Doctrine (anti 1st Amendment
legislation)
02/22/1989 – He cosponsored the Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989.
10/22/1991 – He voted for an amendment that would create a National Police
Corps.
03/–/1993 – He was “passionately in favor” of sending $1.6 Billion in
foreign aid to Russia.
11/19/1993 – He voted for the NAFTA Implementation Act.
11/27/1994 – He supported the GATT Treaty giving sovereignty to the U.N.
Yes Perhaps we should consider his record while in Congress. And this is only part 1.
How would you explain away his 90% lifetime ACU rating?
I can’t. Perhaps there are only certain issues that ACU takes into consideration. I really don’t know.
It’s so hard to read the scorecard it is so littered with half-truths, lies, and backstabbing.
The Media has become just an arm of the Democrat party.
There isn’t an honest journalist among them.
The Republican party RINO’s are insane in their insistence to run this loser Romney
I don’t want a “hip” president. I’ll take a geek or a genius, like Newt. I don’t want a young president. The most important job in the world should be held by somebody with a long life experience and many lessons learned, like Newt.
Please double check your facts. Santorum and Newt are running the exact same against Obama.
Ron Paul is running better against Obama. Do you seriously think Ron Paul would be performing that well against Obama by next fall? These polls this far out, before a single debate or a single campaign ad has been run, mean nothing...absolutely nothing.
Conservatives are for free trade and were in favor of going into deficit spending in order to bankrupt the U.S.S.R., especially when they didn’t have much choice given the Democrat congress unwilling to cut other spending.
Good ideas. Most of those are in Newt’s health care plan.
http://www.newt.org/solutions/healthcare
People need to get back to “the most conservative candidate who can win” and stop looking for Mr. or Ms. Pure and Perfect. We’re getting to the point where no one but people like Obama who vote “present” every time can be nominated. Everybody has to have a clean record where there’s no chance they’ve ever made a mistake.
Tu quoque is another logical fallacy seen too often.
Little things like this:
Newt Gingrich’s conservative credentials are rock-solid, he’s been arguing on the campaign trail — and they date to before some of his opponents had even reached the voting age. Gingrich told a crowd in Dubuque today, per a source:
“I went to a Goldwater organizing meeting in Columbia, South Carolina in 1964. I worked with Ronald Reagan starting in 1974. As I said before, I worked with Kemp and others to develop supply-side economics.”
But wait — didn’t Gingrich say this, in 1988?
“And I think this party in that sense is a very different party than it was, say, from the fights in the years of the Rockefeller-Goldwater process – a period in which, by the way, I was a Rockefeller state chairman in the South.”
The two statements are in tension with each other, but they’re not actually contradictory: It’s possible to have been intrigued by Goldwater while ultimately supporting Rockefeller. But in an election that could be decided* by the candidates’ positions on the 1964 Republican presidential primary, Gingrich’s statements leave more questions than answers.
*Not really
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/rocky-no-barry-no-rocky-108825.html
Sadly, the average politician flip flops and Newt is really just average.
Don’t confuse me with a Romney supporter, I just think Newt needs to get his surrogates to do the bashing while he gets out there and tells us how much better he would be than anyone else now in the race.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.