Skip to comments.Gingrich Applauded Romney's Health Plan [headline is a lie]
Posted on 12/26/2011 10:01:00 PM PST by Steelfish
DECEMBER 27, 2011 Gingrich Applauded Romney's Health Plan
BY BRODY MULLINS AND JANET ADAMY
Newt Gingrich voiced enthusiasm for Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health-care law when it was passed five years ago, the same plan he has been denouncing over the past few months as he campaigned for the Republican presidential nomination.
"The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system," said an April 2006 newsletter published by Mr. Gingrich's former consulting company, the Center for Health Transformation.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
” Newt Gingrich has made it a point to go after Obama, not other GOP candidates. The others should follow his example.”
Not when we have supposed “perfect” conservative candidates desperate to get out of single digits and Romney desperate to win.
Those idiots arent even remotely focused on Obama. It’s all about their egos now.
SHOCKED!!! MANDATE NEWT LOVES ROMNEY’S PLAN...SHOCKED
YOU MEAN NEWT CHANGED HIS STORY WHEN HE RAN FOR PREZ? THAT’S SO ROMNEY OF HIM
I think you’re on to something Perry was just reported on fox news to be making a rise in the Iowa polls and tie Gingrich at third with Paul and Romney supposedly in first and second.I am hoping for a Perry comeback or a dark horse Santorum.
You posted: The Constitution would have been the reason I never would have supported it from the start. Obviously, Newt Gingrich does not value the Constitution the same way that I do.
I think Newt said the constitutional issue is one reason for opposing the individual mandate. That’s good enough for me on this issue.
If we are going to require hospitals to treat everyone, regardless of their ability to pay, I support, reluctantly, an individual mandate, PROVIDED that it is done by state, and not federal, law. States arguably have that right, unlike the federal government. Let states handle the issue in their own ways, and the best system will later be adopted by other reasonable states. Then, citizens can vote with their feet on the issue.
NEWT! NEWT! NEWT!
Let’s get someone in the WH who understands history! :)
YES THERE IS A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE!... The fact that you don't see it CLEARLY should worry you.
What does worry me is Westboro Baptist Church type people posting on FR.
Meanwhile, Zippy just gained 10 points in his approval ratings.
And why not? Our people, and not the dems, are trashing each other. You are all CLEARLY working for the 0bama 2012 re-election campaign. Nice job.
It appears that both Gingrich and Romney flap in the wind and say whatever they think will get them elected at the time. Ron Paul is the only candidate who is saying the same things now as he has been saying for decades. Like him or not, he is clearly the most consistent and apparently committed to his beliefs.
Do the founders of this website and the majority of people here actually support Newt Gingrich?
Has there been any polling of Freepers to determine whom the majority of members are backing? I’m curious to know.
Meanwhile, I just posted this on a similar thread:
Obamas campaign will have a field day with ROMNEY. Romney STILL loves and defends RomneyCare and his mandates TODAY!! Its his crowning achievement and glory.
It will be impossible for Romney to defeat Obama on the healthcare issue.
Likewise, it will be impossible for Romney to defeat Obama on the issues of Roe v Wade, abortion, gay rights, gun control, global warming, individual mandates, liberal activist judges, setting time tables for ending the wars or even on Ronald Reagan, conservatism vs progressivism, etc, etc, etc.
I was an independent during Reagan-Bush, Im not returning to Reagan-Bush! Mitt Romney
All the Obama campaign and their allies in the leftist mainstream media have to do is play back Romneys own campaign debates and appearances where he promotes the progressive liberal line and sounds exactly like Ted Kennedy or Obama.
Here is a compilation of a couple dozen of those clips. Im sure there are many others that can be found on google or youtube and elsewhere and way too many to be scrubbed:
Watch it all the way through and weep. Might as well watch them now, because if Romney is the nominee, you will be seeing them played back every night on national TV right up until election day. And well all be wincing as Romney twists and squirms and puts out lie after contradicting lie trying to defend the indefensible.
If Romney is the nominee, Obama gets a second term.
Look, get used to it, because now, I am aiming for the Romney the PRO-FAG candidate... and this from a "Republican?" and a "conservative" at that? Ha!...I will not stand by and let him convert the Republican party into another "homosexual" party... not if I can help it. If Republicans decide to vote him... they will have to consider that he is the pro-FAG candidate and everything that entails.
Yes I watched it. NEWT DID NOT WRITE IT! That was said on Fox News.
LOL, it's still a "no" on Perry.
Perry's letter to Hillary...
The letter supports hillarycare, right?
That’s the lie.
As ag commissioner of Texas, Perry wrote to the one who Bill had put in charge of coming up with a reform plan. Perry knew rural folks had the d**** of a time getting to a healthcare location as the system then existed, and he was fearful that hillary’s plan would make it even worse for them to access. His letter has nothing more to it than that concern expressed.
This has been dealt with and absolutely put to bed, long ago.
He never supported either hillarycare or hillary.
Newt moans about trying to stop hillarycare but of the two men, I can find you quote after quote from Newt praising hillary in general, for years and years.
But I will not do your research for you.
If you can find the letter quote and remove it from its factual context to distort Rick Perry’s record, you can easily find the Newt praising hillary quotes.
P.S. Newt himself said he tried to use a mandate approach to help defeat hillarycare.
hillarycare died because the American people got a clue about it without a mandate being needed as an alternative.
Newt said eventually he came to think the mandate is unconstitutional...I would add that his conversion on that is fairly recent...except he tries to evade that point by saying he kept on looking for some version of a mandate, including the idea of someone having to post a bond if they didn’t buy insurance.
Perry has always believed a federal mandate is unconstitutional.
Rick Perry does not want the Federal Government to control healthcare...certainly not beyond what they already do in Medicare.
Newt has a different aim...it’s just a matter for him to find the right combination of legislative points to blend together into a federal plan.
Perry vs Gingrich on healthcare...world’s apart.
Newt = National Surplus
Mitt = Mass Debt
Newt = Welfare Reform
Mitt = More Government Handouts than any other Governor before him
Newt = Against Amnesty unless illegals have been here more than 25 years (under Reagan's original Amnesty program) and have committed no crime.
Mitt = Hiring illegals to do his yard work, not once, not twice but several times after finding out they were illegals the first time.
Newt = Drill Here Drill Now and Pay Less
Mitt = More restrictions on gas refineries in his state as governor.
Newt = Allow competition for insurance companies to serve all states (not just 2 or 3 insurance companies permitted in any particular state which increases the cost of healthcare.
Mitt - Romneycare
Need I say more????
The letter supports hillarycare, right? Thats the lie.
The letter speaks for itself. Perry described Hillary's efforts on healthcare as commendable and worthy. He was also clearly pitching to the feds about the "rural populations" who have a "high proportion of uninsured people, rising health care costs, and often experience lack of services".
Some Perrybots have the nasty habit of throwing around the word "lie" when they disagree with something. In that respect, your post doesn't disappoint.
Romney would be an unmitigated disaster. Gingrich is bold, and assertive but the question in everyone’s mind is whether he is electable in the general. If we need a fresh face, someone with less baggage, telegenic like Reagan, who can be assured of the evangelical vote and is capable of picking up the crucial female 29-49 demographic, it is hard to pass up Santorum as the last one who is both conservative and viable. Santorum himself makes this point in doing the rounds in Iowa that we have the establishment candidates (Romney, Perry and Gingrich),the libertarian in Ron Paul, and then the true conservatives in him and Bachmann. If Santorum fails to make it, then either Gingrich or Perry is the preferred choice of those of us who believe in a 180 degree reversal of the Obama policies, foreign and domestic.
Santorum is nice. A good conservative. Would be something if he or Bachmann or even Perry could suddenly set the world on fire.
Absolutely true! Plus if as favorite son, he peels of PA, it’s curtains for Obama.
saw FOX running with this and doing a great hit piece, weird how they don’t go after Romney or the nutty Paul.
Romney will do and say anything to get elected or at least the nomination and that does include paying staffers to come on sites like these and attack others.
Hell the social liberal network called FOX has been running hit pieces against all candidates except Paul and Romney, ah I know why , they’re frigging liberals and sadly some on the right actually defend Romney or Paula and do their dirty work for them.
I’ve not been on here for some time just because I was fed up of seeing the same names doing the attacks.
The artifice of lumping Rick Perry in with the others as if they were one, and saying they’re all establishment candidates, doesn’t make Rick Perry anything other than what he is. An outsider, looking in on DC, definitely anything BUT the establishment choice.
The Rovians and Bushies are most definitely for Mitt, but would’ve taken Huntsman or Christie or Daniels or just about anybody else if that had panned out. Ditto even for Dick Cheney.
These same people were for Kay Bailey Hutchison to unseat Rick Perry as Governor.
KBH, a DC insider and creature of Congress if there ever was one.
R.C. Hammond, a spokesman for Gingrich, said the April 2006 essay shouldn’t be read as an endorsement of Romney’s health plan. He noted that it raised several questions about the Massachusetts effort, including whether the plan would work in the state. “Being critical isn’t endorsing it”
Hammond said the Newt Notes essay wasn’t written by Gingrich himself. The Journal was able to view a copy using a web search engine that archives old and even deleted versions of web pages.
This was at the very end of the article.
Please tell me what is conservative about forcing hospitals to give medical care to anyone who shows up without finding a way to pay for it when those people are uninsured and can’t pay? What’s conservative about shifting those costs onto the people who do have insurance and onto the taxpayers who fund Medicare? You have to realize the status quo in health care was not working. Newt and others tried to come up with a solution, especially when Hilary and Obama were both pushing for single-payer socialized medicine. The individual mandate is far better compared to those. We certainly hope now we can come up with a better solution yet.
Electability in the general election presidential race always seems to go to the “toughest” candidate. Not necessarily the most aggressive, but the one who looks like he knows how to fight and is most willing to fight. I believe it transcends politics, because the squishy middle doesn’t understand politics, and ends up being a gut reaction to which candidate would be the STRONGEST DEFENDER of the country and its people. Both the will to defend and the ability to defend are considered. Consider these races...
If you literally put those candidates in a boxing ring instead of a debate, all things considered, the winner of the general election is probably the same one who would’ve won the fight. Wimpiness doesn’t sell.
I think Romney has serious deficits in his willingness to fight. Look up Dukakis’ famous gaffe answer in the debate about what he would do if his wife got raped. The steady, unemotional presence with which he gave that answer is very similar to the presence Romney has. People hated that answer because they thought Dukakis should have showed some fight in him at that question.
Newt, by contrast, is as aggressive a fighter and defender of his beliefs as we’ve ever seen in Washington. That comes across clearly in the debates and in his general conversation. When it comes right down to it, I believe would trust Newt to guard the border of this country more than they would trust Obama to do it. My armchair psychological analysis indicates that Newt therefore is more electable than Romney and is likely to beat him.
I meant that Newt is likely to beat Obama. I think he’d beat Romney in a head-to-head too, but in a multi-candidate race, there’s too much vote-splitting to predict anything. Primary voters are also more ideological and vote less based on these primal factors.
How old is the photo of Gore? He just gets fatter and fatter. LOL. We really got stuck with some useless candidates.
There are other candidates on the ballot besides Gingrich and Romney. Some are even conservative.
“Voting for telegenic candidates is what got us Obama.’
Thank God you realize that unfortunate fact. We need to do the same IF we want to get rid of O. When you realize that the average-uninformed-legal-to-vote-American-public DOES NOT CARE about politics, and DOES NOT FOLLOW THE ISSUES, we will stop deluding ourselves into supporting an issues oriented candidate. It won’t work. And the nonsense of believing otherwise will return Obama right back to the White House. Depressing, yes. But it’s reality in this culture.
For the record, I want a CONSERVATIVE to run and defeat Obozo.
That means I don’t want Mittens or Newt or Nutty Ron Paul.
The perfect situation would be Sarah Palin - but that’s not going to happen.
Here is Newt supporting Romneycare/Obamacare way back in 2008. /s
I find that I’m warming to the same view. I love Rick Santorum as a proper conservative, but he just can’t achieve lift-off. That leaves only two alternatives. Romney is absolutely unacceptable, while Gingrich can be kept in line. I’ll take Newt.
The title says this headline is a lie.Where is the link that this is a lie?
its a lie...its a lie!!!! the mean people lying on newt reagan again...um ya ok
R.C. Hammond, a spokesman for Gingrich, said the April 2006 essay shouldnt be read as an endorsement of Romneys health plan. He noted that it raised several questions about the Massachusetts effort, including whether the plan would work in the state. Being critical isnt endorsing it, he said.
Hammond said the Newt Notes essay wasnt written by Gingrich himself. The Journal was able to view a copy using a web search engine that archives old and even deleted versions of web pages.
It is at the end of the article.
“Romney is absolutely unacceptable, while Gingrich can be kept in line. Ill take Newt.”
I agree with you about Romney, but I can’t think of one person who has ever been able to keep Gingrich in line. Not even his wives.
Both of them can credibly take the position of saying that any health-care plan, and especially any health-care mandate, must be state-based. A federalism argument may seem a copout to some, but the truth is that it can be made pretty clearly and convincingly in this case.
Obviously, I'd prefer if neither of them was ever on record as supporting a mandate on any level, and were pushing for reforms more along what Indiana has done. But the truth is that in a general election, saying this should be an issue that states and local people should decide for themselves is a still a winner, both in substance and politically.
If they cant move their numbers up within the GOP where do you think their numbers would be against Obama?
If numbers don't matter... heck... let's write in Alan Keyes. Now THAT'S a REAL conservative.
1) Only John Kerry and Al Gore have him beat on flip-flopping. Romney's the type to run pro-life in a GOP primary and once he gets the nomination he'd run pro-abortion to win the democrat votes and somehow explain that he never changed his mind or flip flopped.
If there was a democrat majority in Congress he would nominate liberal judges and by the time his re-election comes up in 2016 he will claim that he had to nominate liberal judges in order to get them passed through the liberal Congress. That's Romney.
The other problem about Romney is that he's too "in your face" as a candidate. He could easily lose it in a debate and earn sympathy for Obama. We don't need that to be happening.
If Republican voters forgo voting for conservative candidates and instead surrender their votes to whichever candidate happens to be leading in the polls that particular week, then the Party as a whole has no prospects for leadership.
(Full disclosure: I voted for Keyes in 1996 and 2000)
Well, nobody can call you a hypocrite. I like Alan Keyes and would vote for him in a heartbeat.
Look, I think RomneyCare was a terrible idea, and if the guy was running for governor in my state based on implementing that, I wouldn't vote for him whether he had an (R) next to his name or not. But as long as both Gingrich and Romney oppose ObamaCare as national policy, then their position on it isn't a disqualifier for me, even if they are rightly disqualified for other reasons.
Can you please give some specifics.