Audio: Newt responds, says conservatives are taking him out of context; Update: Newt’s statement

posted at 11:36 am on May 16, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Did Newt Gingrich get misunderstood in his appearance on Meet the Press yesterday? That’s what Gingrich told Mike Gallagher this morning in a lengthy interview that aired live on Gallagher’s Salem Radio show. Gingrich says that conservatives have taken his remarks out of context, although he admits that the “social engineering” may have been a little too strong. He tells Gallagher that his response was to David Gregory’s question about whether Republicans should force a Medicare reform over public opposition, saying it would be the same “social engineering” mistake Democrats made with ObamaCare:

Well … maybe.  Let’s take a look at the transcript from yesterday’s MTP appearance and give the entire question and answer series.  This was the entire exchange on Medicare and Medicaid, ellipses in the original:

MR. GREGORY:What about entitlements? The Medicare trust fund, in stories that have come out over the weekend, is now going to be depleted by 2024 , five years earlier than predicted. Do you think that Republicans ought to buck the public opposition and really move forward to completely change Medicare , turn it into a voucher program where you give seniors…

REP. GINGRICH:Right.

MR. GREGORY:…some premium support and — so that they can go out and buy private insurance ?

REP. GINGRICH:I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left- wing social engineering . I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate. I think we need a national conversation to get to a better Medicare system with more choices for seniors. But there are specific things you can do . At the Center for Health Transformation , which I helped found, we published a book called “ Stop Paying the Crooks .” We thought that was a clear enough, simple enough idea, even for Washington . We — between Medicare and Medicaid , we pay between $70 billion and $120 billion a year to crooks. And IBM has agreed to help solve it, American Express has agreed to help solve it, Visa ’s agreed to help solve it. You can’t get anybody in this town to look at it. That’s, that’s almost $1 trillion over a decade. So there are things you can do to improve Medicare .

MR. GREGORY:But not what Paul Ryan is suggesting, which is completely changing Medicare .

REP. GINGRICH:I, I think that, I think, I think that that is too big a jump. I think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options, not one where you suddenly impose upon the — I don’t want to — I’m against Obamacare , which is imposing radical change , and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change .

Gingrich has an argument, but not a terribly convincing one.  Two weeks ago, Gingrich called the same plan “brave” and said he’d vote for it.  American public opposition to Medicare reform hasn’t undergone some sort of tectonic (or Teutonic!) shift in that period.  While Gregory in part posed the initial question as one of political strategy in the face of public opposition, the follow-up question was about Ryan’s plan specifically — which Gingrich called “radical,” although framing it once again in terms of “imposing” solutions.

Besides, the oncoming entitlement disaster can’t be avoided with incremental adjustments to the current system.  His argument on waste, abuse, and fraud is not a bad point, but it’s entirely insufficient as a solution.  Medicare will cost us a lot more than $1 trillion over the next decade in deficit spending — and Ryan’s plan makes the “waste, fraud, and abuse” a problem for insurers and the private sector to handle.

Update: Newt’s campaign put out a very brief statement on video a few minutes ago:

I am completely opposed to the Obamacare mandate on individuals. I fought it for two and half years at the Center for Health Transformation. You can see all the things we did to stop it at HealthTransformation.net. I am for the repeal of Obamacare and I am against any effort to impose a federal mandate on anyone because it is fundamentally wrong and I believe unconstitutional.

Daniel Foster at The Corner points out that Gingrich wasn’t nearly as categorical yesterday on the general topic of mandates, emphases his:

DAVID GREGORY: Now I know you’ve got big differences with what you call Obamacare, but back in 1993 on this program this is what you said about the individual mandate. Watch.

GINGRICH ON VIDEO [1993]: “I am for people, individuals — exactly like automobile insurance — individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we ensure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.” . . .

DAVID GREGORY: You agree with Mitt Romney on this point?

NEWT GINGRICH: Well, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay — help pay for health care. And, and I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond. . . .

DAVID GREGORY: But that is the individual mandate, is it not?

NEWT GINGRICH: It’s a variation on it.

We seem to have to parse terms a lot in order to agree that Gingrich got misunderstood yesterday, and I don’t think that voters are in a mood to mince words.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

tha tis always the last defense of the politican when they say something stupid.

unseen on May 16, 2011 at 11:38 AM

shut up scuzzafavva lover.

moonbatkiller on May 16, 2011 at 11:38 AM

GO AWAY NEWT (and take McCain with you)

angryed on May 16, 2011 at 11:39 AM

Dirty liar.

steebo77 on May 16, 2011 at 11:40 AM

This isn’t convincing. The only reason why I’m even tempted to believe it is that I can’t imagine anyone would be stupid enough to try and win the primary saying things like this.

Kataklysmic on May 16, 2011 at 11:40 AM

He tells Gallagher that his response was to David Gregory’s question about whether Republicans should force a Medicare reform over public opposition, saying it would be the same “social engineering” mistake Democrats made with ObamaCare:

Stopping people from taking other people’s money and indebting other people’s children is just like establishing a new program to take people’s money, indebt people’s children, and force everyone to purchase government-approved plans?

Interesting perspective. I was unaware “social engineering” was defined by poll numbers at the moment.

amerpundit on May 16, 2011 at 11:40 AM

politically dead man talking.

michaelo on May 16, 2011 at 11:40 AM

I think we need a national conversation to get to a better Medicare system with more choices for seniors. But there are specific things you can do

Translation: We need a new commission to review the facts and come up with recommendations that will be reviewed by another commission which will propose a study.

angryed on May 16, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Kataklysmic on May 16, 2011 at 11:40 AM

of course Newt’s intellignece could be greatly overestimated.

unseen on May 16, 2011 at 11:41 AM

I alway considered myself a Gingrich Conservative.

Those Days ARE GONE!

SayNo2-O on May 16, 2011 at 11:41 AM

No, the conservatives heard Newt speak correctly and they interpreted it correctly. It was the same as when he was casually sitting with Nazi Pelosi on the couch agreeing that man-made GlowBall would require fixing.

Newt cooked his own ass and now realizes it and is trying to backtrack as fast as his fat ass can move.

Keep moving Newt, right out the door and don’t come back. Oh, BTW take that other socialist Mittins with you.

belad on May 16, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Que shovel.

jake-the-goose on May 16, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Newty: Exiled to the dustbin of political history.

WordsMatter on May 16, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Not that I was real hot for Newt anyway but he has lost me completely on this.

*scratches Newt off the list…*

catmman on May 16, 2011 at 11:43 AM

Messaging.

fossten on May 16, 2011 at 11:43 AM

Sorry, not only does that explanation not hold water, but Newt’s sounding way too much like a Democrat in that transcript. “We need a national conversation”, “radical change”, targeting waste, fraud and abuse? It sounds exactly like Obama or Harry Reid trashing the GOP while offering no solution of their own.

Doughboy on May 16, 2011 at 11:44 AM

I think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options

That’s Newt’s plan…WTF?!

I knew Newt would attempt to walk this back, but he should have taken the “I was thinking how wonderful Callista is and my answer came out wrong!” tack.

cartooner on May 16, 2011 at 11:45 AM

I think Newt was trying to talk to the moderates and large elderly voter contingent, to assure them

jp on May 16, 2011 at 11:45 AM

“Force” a Medicare reform? You’re damned right.

Medicare’s getting reformed one way or another. The difference is whether is costs the seats of whoever reforms it. It’s pretty simple. If we convince the people, especially seniors, that Medicare reform is necessary, then we reform Medicare and keep our majority. If not, then we reform medicare and lose our majority.

If Newt wants to keep kicking this can, he can find the exit and use it. Budget reform is not for opportunists, and neither is the 2012 nomination. We’re not playing around this time – the nomination is not going to be decided by stupid rinky-dink considerations like who can have dinner the most times with James Dobson.

This primary’s going to separate the wheat from the chaff, and Gingrich has shown us all too well what his intentions are. “Out of context” my foot.

KingGold on May 16, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Blah blah blah blah………there is no difference between Newt and most other politicians. NONE.

ORconservative on May 16, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Newt: Pay no attention to my evil twin on the Sunday show.

debg on May 16, 2011 at 11:45 AM

I think Newt was trying to talk to the moderates and large elderly voter contingent, to assure them

jp on May 16, 2011 at 11:45 AM

So he was lying? Fabulous.

angryed on May 16, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Conservatives are taking him out of context contention.

Fixed.

Christien on May 16, 2011 at 11:46 AM

of course Newt’s intellignece could be greatly overestimated.

unseen on May 16, 2011 at 11:41 AM

He, like so many others, has become a victim of Beltway speak. Saying something “nuanced” more often than not makes one sound like an idiot as opposed to sophisticated which is what I’m sure he was going for. There aren’t easy solutions but there are simple ones. People worth voting for understand this.

Kataklysmic on May 16, 2011 at 11:47 AM

I think Newt took himself out of contention, years ago.
Or maybe it was “Calista and I”.

ORconservative on May 16, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Hey, Newt, how does your foot taste???

manwithblackhat on May 16, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Newt “two time” Grinch.

the_nile on May 16, 2011 at 11:48 AM

I used to look forward to segments on Fox with Newt because he was so critical of Obama and he’d offer thoughtful alternative to Obama administration craziness.

From now on, Newt gets the mute.

BuckeyeSam on May 16, 2011 at 11:48 AM

I think we need a national conversation to get to a better Medicare system with more choices for seniors. But there are specific things you can do

Translation: We need a new commission to review the facts and come up with recommendations that will be reviewed by another commission which will propose a study.

angryed on May 16, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Translation: Business as usual.

cartooner on May 16, 2011 at 11:48 AM

KingGold on May 16, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Simple litmus test for Iowa primary.
Would you favor eliminating ethanol subsidies.

a capella on May 16, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Now, we are stupid?

faraway on May 16, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Nice refudiation, Ed.

BTW, I missed this the first go-around:

Do you think that Republicans ought to buck the public opposition and really move forward to completely change Medicare , turn it into a voucher program where you give seniors…

Wasn’t Medicare the one entitlement that had majority support in the polls to do something about? Seems to me that Gregory used the old false flag operation to trap the interviewee and Newt swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Dusty on May 16, 2011 at 11:50 AM

How soon will Gingrich be on Hannity trying to walk this clusterf*ck back?

BuckeyeSam on May 16, 2011 at 11:50 AM

If Newt’s interpretation is correct, then he got owned by Mr. Gregory, since he bought Gregory’s hypotheticals, hook, line, and sinker.

Better would have been to push back with the point that in nearly every demographic, Americans want Medicare to be fixed before it fractures completely. Ryan’s proposed change is the only thing on the table. Newt had the chance to put something better on the table, but didn’t — he merely disparaged what was there without offering his better solution.

Any solution to the problems Medicare and Medicaid face at this point is going to be “radical”.

Newt is not Presidential material if he’s going to ankle-bite. We’ve had enough of that with the current Administration.

unclesmrgol on May 16, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Guys, I’m telling all of you to give as much of your time as possible to studying Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, or Herman Cain. They are the only viable options in this field.

Indy82 on May 16, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Dropping like flies.I actually agree that the only realistic option is reform within the entitlement programs. The Dems disregarded the will of the people and they paid. Same applies to Republicans.

Southernblogger on May 16, 2011 at 11:51 AM

I never thought I would say this, but “Thank you, David Gregory”.

faraway on May 16, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Pandering of the highest order… not going to get you the nomination Newt.

davek70 on May 16, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Newt “two three time” Grinch.

the_nile on May 16, 2011 at 11:48 AM

steebo77 on May 16, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Sounds more like a bit of “damage control” than anything else.

JetBoy on May 16, 2011 at 11:52 AM

Slogan: Newt Deserves Our Boot

BuckeyeSam on May 16, 2011 at 11:52 AM

Simple litmus test for Iowa primary.
Would you favor eliminating ethanol subsidies.

a capella on May 16, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Still too small in thinking. Personally, I could live with a candidate who’s squishy on social issues and a history of being wrong on foreign policy, so long as they make budget reform their absolute priority and will destroy every other desire to see it happen.

I don’t care about giving federal subsidies to screw around with commodity prices. But if you say that SS and especially Medicare are hunky-dory and it’s dangerous to talk about them, you need to leave the stage. Right now.

KingGold on May 16, 2011 at 11:52 AM

Guys, I’m telling all of you to give as much of your time as possible to studying Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, or Herman Cain. They are the only viable options in this field.

Indy82 on May 16, 2011 at 11:50 AM

After having studied the records of Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty in depth, I would say they are little better than Newt or Mitt.

steebo77 on May 16, 2011 at 11:52 AM

I’d like to see Gingrich taken completely out of the GOP Primary context. Sort of a re-contextualization.

Then he could write another book or something.

SlaveDog on May 16, 2011 at 11:53 AM

I can’t remember the last time a politician has committed political suicide so completely in the first weekend of his/her campaign.
It took Sharon Angle a few weeks to go nuts. Newt does it a few days.

J_Crater on May 16, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Who needs debates? RINOs are dive-bombing into the USS Paul Ryan.

faraway on May 16, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Clearly Newt is doing what professinal politicians – not leaders – always do, he is accepting the premise of the interviewer, Gregory, and telling Gregory what he thinks he wants to hear. This is not a leader. I love that Newt says we have to ‘Start a conversation.’ (which, by the way is one of Obama’s favorite dodges as well) Well what does he think Ryan is doing if not starting the conversation? This a case of ego, and manipulation plain and simple. Newt is playing politcal games, not being a principled leader, and it is the games-players we need to dump fast, because they are the ones who got us into this mess.

Mr A on May 16, 2011 at 11:53 AM

How can we miss him if he won’t go away?

Naturally Curly on May 16, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Messaging.

fossten on May 16, 2011 at 11:43 AM

Massaging?

Fallon on May 16, 2011 at 11:54 AM

If Newt didn’t have such a history of opening his mouth and inserting his foot — going back to making it seem like the government shutdown in 1995 was related to his pique about being snubbed by Clinton on a plane — I might be inclined to listen.

But, then there was his cozy Pelosi ad, his treatment of his wives, and so much more.

No, Newt is a loose cannon who will sink the Republicans if we can’t get him to just go away.

CatoRenasci on May 16, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Moderate Elitists are never wrong. We Conservatives are just too dumb to understand them.///

kingsjester on May 16, 2011 at 11:54 AM

For all his allged intelligence, Newt seems like a political opportunist/free rider. He doesn’t have his pulse on the current conservative movement or the country at large. Sad, bye Newt.

WordsMatter on May 16, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Talk about papering over your gaffe, Newt! You are supposed to attack the opposition party, not your own. You could have refuted Gregory’s premise about public support by pointing out that Ryan has been met with resounding approval in his townhall presentations, where senior citizens have made up the bulk of the audience.

onlineanalyst on May 16, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Guys, I’m telling all of you to give as much of your time as possible to studying Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, or Herman Cain. They are the only viable options in this field.

Indy82 on May 16, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Pawlenty and Cain yes, Daniels absolutely not. Two words make him dangerous – VAT tax. The liberal shoehorn to end all liberal shoehorns, it’s the tax that can tax everything. A VAT can only exist in the absence of all other taxes, and Daniels did not specify that.

KingGold on May 16, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Newt responds, says conservatives are taking him out of context

No, Newt, we’re taking you out of the contest.

BobMbx on May 16, 2011 at 11:56 AM

Sorry Newt you lost me after your elitist stupidity yesterday. Unforgivable way to stab Paul Ryan in the back!

Sandybourne on May 16, 2011 at 11:57 AM

The left is telling us who can beat Obama

Poll – The Daily KOs Libs Fear Michelle Bachmann More Than Other Potential GOP Candidate

Nearly Nobody on May 16, 2011 at 11:57 AM

here is newt’s problem and most politicans. Newt was speaking to the audience of the show who tend to be older senior citizens and those more of the politcal class. he crafted his message for that narrow group. Which 10 years ago would have been smart politics. however the internet came along and changed the politicans ability to craft a messag eto a narrow group. Now what is said on the sunday shows or in tulsa OK is seen by millions of others of which it doesn’t play well.

the only chance ofr a politican to be able to win in this day and age of mass information and instant reach is to have core bleiefs and do not change those beliefs depending on the audience he/she is talking too. It is now the successful politican that doesn’t pander but instead enlightens voters to the persons’s character and beliefs and sales them on the person not the words.

unseen on May 16, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Pawlenty and Cain yes, Daniels absolutely not. Two words make him dangerous – VAT tax. The liberal shoehorn to end all liberal shoehorns, it’s the tax that can tax everything. A VAT can only exist in the absence of all other taxes, and Daniels did not specify that.

KingGold on May 16, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Daniels only is open to VAT if coupled with a flat income tax. I wish people would understand that.

JetBoy on May 16, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Newt hasn’t figured out that waste, fraud and abuse are not bugs in the system.

They are its prime FEATURES.

Medicare and Medicaid are corrupt and corrupting, and no tinkering can ever fix a Ponzi Scheme.

ajacksonian on May 16, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Nearly Nobody on May 16, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Bwahahaha.They are wetting themselves hoping for Palin or Bachmann

Southernblogger on May 16, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Daniels absolutely not. Two words make him dangerous – VAT tax. The liberal shoehorn to end all liberal shoehorns, it’s the tax that can tax everything. A VAT can only exist in the absence of all other taxes, and Daniels did not specify that.

KingGold on May 16, 2011 at 11:55 AM

and his stance on udge selection ensures that the liberals will always control that branch of government

unseen on May 16, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Daniels only is open to VAT if coupled with a flat income tax. I wish people would understand that.

JetBoy on May 16, 2011 at 11:58 AM

i don’t care what it is linked too. the vat is a bad idea

unseen on May 16, 2011 at 12:01 PM

So, what he’s saying is that he read the blogs last night and is covering his a$$.

He’s a politician thru and thru.

Go away, Newt. Just go.

Pablo Snooze on May 16, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Poll – The Daily KOs Libs Fear Michelle Bachmann More Than Other Potential GOP Candidate

Nearly Nobody on May 16, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Bachmann +1

Don’t think that run is happening in 2012 though.

shick on May 16, 2011 at 12:01 PM

steebo77: ditto!

Herman Cain is the real deal and makes Trump look like the egomaniac he is!! Newt has been history for years!

tomshup on May 16, 2011 at 12:02 PM

conservatives are taking him out of context

I’m a “senior.” (I think. Every time I hit a fivr year plateau, they bump up the age.)

I think medicare should be phased out entirely. A voucher plan is a great step toward that.

Then transition to basic medical with people buying their own catastrophic coverage. Then to requiring people to set aside part of their pay–in a private fund, not a government controlled fund–to purchase insurance at retirment age.

Then get rid of all government involvement. People can sink or swim on their own.

It may take fifty years to do this, but it can be done.

davidk on May 16, 2011 at 12:02 PM

A VAT can only exist in the absence of all other taxes, and Daniels did not specify that.

KingGold on May 16, 2011 at 11:55 AM

In fact, he favored a VAT in addition to a reduced income tax. He also favored increasing oil and gas taxes. As Governor of Indiana, he balanced the budget in large part by raising numerous taxes and fees and selling off toll roads without addressing underlying structural imbalances. He also implemented the Healthy Indiana Plan, which bears certain similarities to RomneyCare and ObamaCare and relies heavily on Federal money to stay afloat, even after raising taxes to pay for it.

Pawlenty, in addition to having once supported a regional Cap-and-Trade scheme, was also in favor of mileage taxes in Minnesota – and not to combat global warming, but as a revenue raiser.

steebo77 on May 16, 2011 at 12:02 PM

So long, Newt.

petefrt on May 16, 2011 at 12:03 PM

The only possible logic to his position is that he is taking the most extreme Left positions in order to conflict moderate GOP members, who have always disliked him, into not voting at all.

J_Crater on May 16, 2011 at 12:03 PM

It doesn’t make any difference if that’s what you mean if you give the Left soundbites that we will have to listen to until the end of time.

Cindy Munford on May 16, 2011 at 12:03 PM

This guy is way out of his league and exactly the type of person this country no longer needs in politics.

Hening on May 16, 2011 at 12:04 PM

I was way off on this… I wrote yesterday that he’d start the revision and obfuscation on Hannity’s show, not Gallagher’s.

Sorry, Newt!

/

mankai on May 16, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Nothing but a political hack opportunist without backbone or principle.

“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.”

_Samuel Adams

AZ_Redneck on May 16, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Nearly Nobody on May 16, 2011 at 11:57 AM

thinking who will mess up the country the most is not the same as fear. but I don’t doubt they fear the conservative woman. without a majority of the women vote the dems will be a minority party.

unseen on May 16, 2011 at 12:04 PM

For all his allged intelligence, Newt seems like a political opportunist/free rider. He doesn’t have his pulse on the current conservative movement or the country at large. Sad, bye Newt.

WordsMatter on May 16, 2011 at 11:54 AM

The understatement of the year. Newt is concerned about one thing: power. Political power, like the kind that comes from leading the majority political party of the US Government.

Newt understands the path to power comes from getting people to vote for you. No where, nor at any time, does Newt attempt to do anything for anyone who is not a major player in the GOP.

His fail-a-palooza in NY last year is a prime example. The conservative base was done with phony government, and wanted severe change. Newt decided that keeping the GOP the majority was a more valuable endeavor.

He didn’t get it then, he doesn’t get it now. He never will, either.

BobMbx on May 16, 2011 at 12:05 PM

I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left- wing social engineering .

Throw out the terms “right-wing social engineering” and you throw out negative buzz words used by the lefties.
If he thinks “right-wing” is as bad as “left-wing”, than what does he mean?

right2bright on May 16, 2011 at 12:05 PM

In the context of election , he’s now taken out.

the_nile on May 16, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Clearly Newt is doing what professinal politicians – not leaders – always do, he is accepting the premise of the interviewer, Gregory, and telling Gregory what he thinks he wants to hear. This is not a leader. I love that Newt says we have to ‘Start a conversation.’ (which, by the way is one of Obama’s favorite dodges as well) Well what does he think Ryan is doing if not starting the conversation? This a case of ego, and manipulation plain and simple. Newt is playing politcal games, not being a principled leader, and it is the games-players we need to dump fast, because they are the ones who got us into this mess.

Mr A on May 16, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Excellent synopsis. Your points need to be repeated.

onlineanalyst on May 16, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Guys, I’m telling all of you to give as much of your time as possible to studying Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, or Herman Cain. They are the only viable options in this field.

Indy82 on May 16, 2011 at 11:50 AM

You’re not the only one who has studied candidates. Most of the rest of us have as well and have come to different conclusions, with the possible exception of Cain.

Kataklysmic on May 16, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Oh what a tangled web Newt weaves … … …

HalJordan on May 16, 2011 at 12:08 PM

Daniels only is open to VAT if coupled with a flat income tax. I wish people would understand that.

JetBoy on May 16, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Isn’t it Cheri calling the shots there?

the_nile on May 16, 2011 at 12:08 PM

Nearly Nobody on May 16, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Bwahahaha.They are wetting themselves hoping for Palin or Bachmann

Southernblogger on May 16, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Wait, I thought just last week we were being told that Huntsman was who the left feared the most. I say we just take a few polls and listen to a few liberals and pick a nominee. Who’s with me?! /

Kataklysmic on May 16, 2011 at 12:09 PM

After that crap Barry pulled on Paul, Newt figured he could take a free shot, too.

He figured wrong.

Christien on May 16, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Isn’t it Cheri calling the shots there?

the_nile on May 16, 2011 at 12:08 PM

*facepalm*

JetBoy on May 16, 2011 at 12:10 PM

American public opposition to Medicare reform hasn’t undergone some sort of tectonic (or Teutonic!) shift in that period

Well the public opposition has undergone Newtonic change. Newt is in now. The “Ideas” guy. I actually like some of Newt’s ideas – Global Warming, sharing couch with Pelosi, Opposition to radical ideas, having a lady ready to replace dying wife….. Shooo

WALKBACK. Or better FLIP-FLOP.

Mitt/Newt 2012 .

Where is CK in the adult conversation?

antisocial on May 16, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Rush says no explanation for Newt

unseen on May 16, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Rush says Newt’s remarks are inexplicable/befuddling.

That’s being kind.

petefrt on May 16, 2011 at 12:11 PM

There’s a reason why Washington Post reporters David Maraniss and Michael Weisskopf titled their 1995 book on Gingrich “Tell Newt to Shut Up”. While the title did make liberals happy, Maraniss and Weisskopf didn’t think it up themselves; they got it from a member of the Republican caucus who was tired of Gingrich shooting his mouth off and saying things that got both him and them in trouble.

Sixteen years later, nothing’s changed — Gingrich still doesn’t have the self-discipline to stay on message, and is so enamored with his own brainstorming abilities he neglects to think of what flood damage may ensue from his spur-of-the-moment storms on national TV. Which is why you can’t have him as a candidate with most of the big media already hell-bent on keeping Obama in office, because for every nine things he says or comes up with that you agree with, he’ll drop a MOAB of a statement or plan with idea No. 10 that his supporters will have to spend weeks cleaning up, and which will the become part of the campaign spin for the Democrats all the way until Election Day.

jon1979 on May 16, 2011 at 12:11 PM

With people like Newt, who the heck needs Liberals?

upinak on May 16, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Rush is also perplexed about Newt’s statement.

Now Rush is kind of making digs at George Will, because he is saying that Mitch Daniels appointed one of the judges that ruled against the 4th amendment in that idiotic Indiana supreme court decision.

karenhasfreedom on May 16, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Kataklysmic on May 16, 2011 at 12:09 PM

It may not matter at this point. Everybody is committing suicide or cut n running.

Southernblogger on May 16, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Newt as POTUS is a thoroughly scary proposition.

ORconservative on May 16, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Say, Newt, here’s a ‘radical plan’ for you.

Take Medicare and Medicaid. Add them up. Divide by 2. Block grant to the States by population. Phase out over 5 years so the STATES can figure out if they want to go broke on this.

You can cut off almost all of HHS, spend half the money currently spent and put it in the hands of governments a bit closer to the people to figure out as the US federal government sucks like an electrolux on this.

ajacksonian on May 16, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Sorry, Newt!

/

mankai on May 16, 2011 at 12:04 PM

well you just underestimated how big of a problem it is…..

unseen on May 16, 2011 at 12:14 PM

mankai on May 16, 2011 at 12:04 PM

well you just underestimated how big of a problem it is…..

unseen on May 16, 2011 at 12:14 PM

I used the sarc tag thinking from the content that it wouldn’t be needed, but safer to use it anyway.

Is there another way I can mark my sarcasm? I got blasted yesterday for another sarcastic remark… and it continued after three posts stating clearly that I was being sarcastic.

We need to add a “sarcasm” option to the strong, emphasis, quote, etc. tags.

mankai on May 16, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Now Rush is kind of making digs at George Will, because he is saying that Mitch Daniels appointed one of the judges that ruled against the 4th amendment in that idiotic Indiana supreme court decision.

karenhasfreedom on May 16, 2011 at 12:13 PM

it worse than that…

But I have watched his handling of judicial issues, so I can speak to Rick’s assessment that “if we look at Governor Daniels’s record — in particular, his record on judicial appointments — we don’t find any reason to think that ‘truce’ means for him ‘caving on the merits’ or ‘downgrading the seriousness of the issue.’”

I respectfully dissent.

The single most important judicial issue in Indiana is the ongoing debate over the state’s method for appointing appellate judges. It’s not much of a debate, actually, thanks in part to Daniels. Indiana uses a form of the Missouri Plan, the commission-based method for choosing judges that was designed by Progressive Era lawyers to put “experts” in charge of judicial selection. The “experts,” of course, are lawyers. When the issue was in front of Daniels he took the worst possible approach. In 2009, overwhelming majorities of the Indiana General Assembly (88–3 in the House, 35–15 in the Senate) approved legislation to kill that method in parts of Indiana. Governor Daniels vetoed it and said:

The current method of selecting judges for the St. Joseph Superior Court has prevailed successfully for 35 years. It is a model to be emulated, not discarded. It is not broken; it requires no repair.

Then, when Indiana had a supreme court vacancy to fill, he failed to say a single word about the state’s flawed judicial-selection process and dutifully appointed a nominee sent to him by the state’s nominating commission.

The Missouri Plan suffers from design defects that would raise red flags for anyone who has carefully considered the political philosophy on display in the the Federalist Papers. But, aside from these defects, wherever it has been studied in practice it has been found to serve as a mechanism by which trial lawyers and left-leaning special interests can capture the state’s judicial branch. That’s no accident. The framers of the Missouri Plan wanted the lawyer class, which leans to the left, to dominate our courts and our legal culture.

This is how the people of Iowa ended up with a supreme court that unanimously ruled in favor of gay marriage, the people of Missouri with a supreme court that cited ” the views of the international community” to invalidate a death sentence, the people of Kansas with a supreme court that has repeatedly injected itself into the state’s budget process, and the people of Alaska with a court that invalidated the state’s reasonable, pro-life Parental Consent Act. In all of these cases, the state’s high court was well to the left of its citizenry. That’s one reason why the method is under assault by conservatives in all four of those states, with Republican governors Terry Branstad, Matt Blunt, Sam Brownback, and Sarah Palin criticizing it at various points in recent history.

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/259205/re-garnetts-defense-governor-daniels-carrie-severino

unseen on May 16, 2011 at 12:17 PM

He’s playing political mamby pamby. Thinking it’s still a time where Americans are just stupid enough to believe anything that’s thrown at them.

Wait a sec. Gingrich isn’t some long lost illegitimate son of Barack Obama Sr. is he? :o

capejasmine on May 16, 2011 at 12:18 PM

Sorry Newt you lost me after your elitist stupidity yesterday. Unforgivable way to stab Paul Ryan in the back!

Sandybourne on May 16, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Absolutely unforgivable. You do not sabatoge Paul Ryan like that and then call yourself a conservative or a “thinker” or a solution.

You are just a two-faced selfish politician to do that to Ryan and to OUR cause, simply to gain some moderate votes.

Elisa on May 16, 2011 at 12:19 PM

So, basically Newt set up an IED on the Road to Prosperity, and he was ready to blow up the GOP so he would seem like a Moderate, but once he Newt made the mistake to make a Martyrs video, the GOP was able to put up a concussion barrier as Newt detonated his IED. Only thing is, how much blow back did the concussion barrier have on Newt.

WoosterOh on May 16, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2