Bachmann: Newt Gingrich is a “frugal socialist”

posted at 12:55 pm on December 6, 2011 by Tina Korbe

In an interview on GBTV, Michele Bachmann criticized Newt Gingrich’s support for the Medicare Part D prescription drug entitlement program, calling him a “frugal socialist.”

“It doesn’t help to have a frugal socialist,” Bachmann said. “That’s really what we’re talking about is managing socialism and trying to be a frugal socialist.”

Host Glenn Beck invited her to repeat the accusation, asking her pointblank whether she was calling Newt Gingrich a socialist.

“I’m saying a frugal socialist, yes! Because you’re looking at proposals and programs that are in effect redistribution of wealth and socialism-based, and are we going to have real change in the country or are we going to have frugal socialists?”

Bachmann then delivers an inspiring soundbite in which she explains why the solution to high health care costs is to eliminate federal involvement in the health insurance space entirely.

“What I would do is have free markets in health care,” she said. “The problem has been the federal government intervening in free markets in health care. That has driven the cost up everywhere. What we need to do is go back to allowing people to buy any health insurance policy they want anywhere in the United States with no federal minimum mandate requirement … and then have them pay for their policies with their own tax-free money … and then have true medical malpractice reform.”

Bachmann’s responses were daring — and they’ll earn her media attention for their “extremity.” But is it extreme to say a federal prescription drug program is frugal socialism? Why is it automatically considered over-the-top to call a person or a program socialistic? Especially, I wonder why progressives object to the moniker “socialist.” Don’t they favor redistributive policies? Stop ducking the label and start defending the economic system, people! To identify an ideology accurately or to ascribe an ideology to a person who actually holds it is not to insult a person, but rather to describe a person.

Ultimately, Bachmann’s remarks underscore that what passes for conservatism — not necessarily in Newt Gingrich, but in virtually all conservatives in the 21st Century — is advocacy for a slightly less big government, not necessarily advocacy for an actually small government. The grounds of a couple debates illustrate this: It’s difficult enough to talk about entitlement reform in this post-New-Deal-era, let alone the abolition of entitlement programs. It’s difficult enough to talk about limiting federal involvement in education, let alone the abolition of the Ed Department entirely. We have accepted a certain size of government as fixed and permanent — and now just seek to keep it from expanding further.

Bachmann isn’t a brilliant politician; she’s willing to point out truths that make even conservative voters uncomfortable with her. Nor is she pragmatic in any way; she’s principled almost to a fault, if such a thing can fairly be said of anyone. Gingrich, I’d argue, is both a brilliant politician and, often, a pragmatist. (He has a reputation for bombast and a flair for the dramatic, but, at his core, he seems able to measure the appetite for reform and to not seek to achieve more than the electorate wants.) As Right Wing News’ John Hawkins recently pointed out in his endorsement of Gingrich, as Speaker, Gingrich truly moved conservative legislation; he didn’t just say “no” to everything that came down the pike because it wasn’t “conservative enough.”

Arguably, the most extreme conservatives in our day and age will have to content themselves with pragmatic politicians and moderate governance — now and always — because progressive forces have fundamentally reshaped the debate, are still at play in our political system and have to be worked around. The only viable option conservatives have is to work within the political system and to gradually roll back government.

Still, Bachmann’s question is worth asking, not just in 2012, but always: “Are we going to have real change in the country or are we going to have frugal socialists?”

Click the image to watch the interview.


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 3

Romney didn’t.

didymus on December 6, 2011 at 2:35 PM

He used a 100% free market system to deliver health insurance. People do not see government doctors etc. He did not grow the size of government. He did move away from one system to another. In my estimation it was a wash.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 2:59 PM

The government required you to buy insurance and regulated what insurance you could buy, but it was a 100% free market system? And this did not grow the size of government?

The more you try to defend Romney’s socialist impulses, the sillier you get. The only thing you really prove is your loyalty to Romney.

didymus on December 6, 2011 at 3:13 PM

Are you a Tea Partier or not? If you are then Gingrich is NOT the answer to getting a reduced gov’t. Not from a guy that has been in or started running for Congress since 1973!

g2825m on December 6, 2011 at 2:53 PM

How about the only guy to reduce the size of government in the last 80 years?

cpaulus on December 6, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Of course he did. I mean, the interview wasn’t in the context of a national program at the federal level or anything.

You people are funny in the hoops you’ll jump through.

lorien1973 on December 6, 2011 at 3:03 PM

So because YOU think that is what he REALLY meant then that makes it true?

He said in that interview that I posted earlier for you that it IS NOT A NATIONAL PLAN!

THIS. is the problem I have with people who DO NOT back Romney. You apply something you think Romney believes or YOU THINK he has said and when csdeven, BuyDanish, basilbeast, nswider, myself, etc…point out the ACTUAL quotes you do not accept you were wrong in your assumption.

SO WHAT IS THE REASON YOU ARE NOT BACKING A GUY THAT HAS THE EXACT EXPERIENCE OUR COUNTRY NEEDS?

We are in a mess financially and Romney is the candidate that has taken care of these issues over and over and over…and yet people want to continue the demise of our country by not backing the guy that can turn it around.

g2825m on December 6, 2011 at 3:15 PM

In my estimation it was a wash.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 2:59 PM

The pinacle of Romney’s career was a “wash” – I think that sums up Romney quite perfectly actually.

Romney 2012: Meh.

lorien1973 on December 6, 2011 at 3:16 PM

How about the only guy to reduce the size of government in the last 80 years?

cpaulus on December 6, 2011 at 3:14 PM

He AND THE REPUBLICAN Congress BALANCED the budget but it did not get reduced. Gov’t spending has always increased which is the main challenge is to get gov’t on BOTH sides to reduce spending.

g2825m on December 6, 2011 at 3:17 PM

We are in a mess financially and Romney is the candidate that has taken care of these issues over and over and over

I agree. Why are you fighting with me?

I’ve said I agree that the answer to a poorly thought out government idea is a worse thought out government idea.

What’s your problem?

lorien1973 on December 6, 2011 at 3:18 PM

See there, lorien1973. Government mandates are a free market response to socialism. That’s not a bit Orwellian!

didymus on December 6, 2011 at 3:09 PM

The free market system was further away from the socialism that was in place. That’s an improvement dopey.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 3:13 PM

The free market system was not a free market system. The “socialism” that was in place only required hospitals to treat patients in case of emergency whether or not they could pay. The hospitals were still free after the fact to take their best efforts to collect the money that was owed them. Those best efforts still included the usual debt-collection techniques. It was a law with bad consequences, but hardly galloping socialism. The mandate galloped further along the path to socialism rather than being some move away from it.

When Romney’s questioned, there’s apparently no limit to the nonsense you will claim in his defense. But spewing nonsense will accomplish nothing.

didymus on December 6, 2011 at 3:18 PM

didymus on December 6, 2011 at 3:18 PM

They won’t listen. I’ve said the same thing already. It’s mind boggling.

lorien1973 on December 6, 2011 at 3:20 PM

So, if I get you…it’s okay for a state government to take away the rights of a minority of its citizens; but not okay at the federal level?

Um. Okay. Fine, I guess. What do you want me to say?

I don’t think the state should force people to enter into contracts with people; you do.

Have fun with that.

lorien1973 on December 6, 2011 at 3:11 PM

It surely is okay because the citizens gave the state the authority to do so.

Personally, I don’t think the citizens of any state should give that much authority to the state. But they certainly do have the right to do so. And those who don’t like it, have the right to move.

You are treading dangerously close to imposing your desires on the majority of the citizens of MA. I suppose you want them to move so the minority can rule? Is it right for the minority to deny the majority the right to ask the state to place a mandate on themselves rather than be forced to continue to support a fully socialized system that forces the 92% to support the 8%? Since when is minority rule the standard of a democracy? Especially when the documents that rule the state gives the majority the right to impose itself on the minority.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 3:20 PM

He used a 100% free market system to deliver health insurance. People do not see government doctors etc. He did not grow the size of government. He did move away from one system to another. In my estimation it was a wash.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 2:59 PM

A free market solution that appropriated nearly 400 million in the first year and is now bankrupt while simultaneously depleting the supply of Healthcare providers AND choking demand netting increased ER care. Unintended consequences can be such a wash. Or as Mittness would say, it’s winning the future.

AH_C on December 6, 2011 at 3:21 PM

didymus on December 6, 2011 at 3:18 PM

They won’t listen. I’ve said the same thing already. It’s mind boggling.

lorien1973 on December 6, 2011 at 3:20 PM

That is funny as csdeven et al were thinking the same thing.

We just backed our Romney support by FACTS and not what you think he said or did!

Good nite all!

Enjoyed the debate and overall whether it is Romney or Gingrich THE MAIN GOAL is to remove Obama…I hope we can ALL agree on that at least. :o)

g2825m on December 6, 2011 at 3:22 PM

It surely is okay because the citizens gave the state the authority to do so.

Excellent. Just excellent. I love you Romney supporters.

What you’ll support in the name of him is just astounding. Are you even reading, or understanding, what you are suggesting here?

You are treading dangerously close to imposing your desires on the majority of the citizens of MA.

Here I thought that the government was there to protect the rights of the small minority against the majority?

Weird.

Is it right for the minority to deny the majority the right to ask the state to place a mandate on themselves rather than be forced to continue to support a fully socialized system that forces the 92% to support the 8%?

MA could have said, “Hey, let’s not force hospitals to pay for the 8% who won’t pay for themselves” – that might have been a real free market solution. No?

lorien1973 on December 6, 2011 at 3:24 PM

The large majority of people should really tell that minority of people to work on farms for free. The state gives them the power to demand it! – csdeven

lorien1973 on December 6, 2011 at 3:26 PM

didymus on December 6, 2011 at 3:18 PM

“Only required hospitals”?? Seriously? hahaha!! The indigent used the hospitals like doctors offices. They were charged emergency room prices for services that should have been taken care of in a doctors office. It was out of control and the hospitals wrote off the costs to the state. Masscare moved those people from the emergency room to doctors offices where the costs were cheaper and a better deal for the citizens. The 8% now had a choice of doctors rather than being forced to certain hospitals. That is further away from socialism.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Just wanted to show you why others remain static AGAIN…Romney added 6 more in the last 48 hours.

Who does our CONGRESS want to work with to try to accomplish its goals? Romney

2012Presidential@cqrollcall.com.

Mitt Romney (54)
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.)
Sen. Roy Blunt (Mo.)
Sen. Scott Brown (Mass.)
Sen. Thad Cochran (Miss.)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah)
Sen. John Hoeven (N.D.)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Sen. James Risch (Idaho)
Sen. John Thune (S.D.)
Rep. Rodney Alexander (La.)
Rep. Mark Amodei (Nev.)
Rep. Charles Bass (N.H.)
Rep. Judy Biggert (Ill.)
Rep. Brian Bilbray (Calif.)
Rep. Rob Bishop (Utah)
Rep. Diane Black (Tenn.)
Rep. Mary Bono Mack (Calif.)
Rep. Ken Calvert (Calif.)
Rep. John Campbell (Calif.)
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah)
Rep. Howard Coble (N.C.)
Rep. Ander Crenshaw (Fla.)
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.)
Rep. Robert Dold (Ill.)
Rep. John Duncan (Tenn.)
Rep. Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
Rep. Virginia Foxx (N.C.)
Rep. Jim Gerlach (Pa.)
Rep. Tim Griffin (Ark.)
Rep. Michael Grimm (N.Y.)
Rep. Nan Hayworth (N.Y.)
Rep. Joe Heck (Nev.)
Rep. Wally Herger (Calif.)
Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.)
Rep. Leonard Lance (N.J.)
Rep. Jerry Lewis (Calif.)
Rep. Cynthia Lummis (Wyo.)
Rep. Connie Mack IV (Fla.)
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.)
Rep. Patrick McHenry (N.C.)
Rep. Buck McKeon (Calif.)
Rep. Jeff Miller (Fla.)
Rep. Jim Renacci (Ohio)
Rep. Phil Roe (Tenn.)
Rep. Hal Rogers (Ky.)
Rep. Mike Rogers (Ala.)
Rep. Todd Rokita (Ind.)
Rep. Tom Rooney (Fla.)
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.)
Rep. Aaron Schock (Ill.)
Rep. Mike Simpson (Idaho)
Rep. Lamar Smith (Texas)
Rep. Greg Walden (Ore.)
Rep. Ed Whitfield (Ky.)
Rick Perry (14)
Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.)
Rep. John Carter (Texas)
Rep. Mike Coffman (Colo.)
Rep. Mike Conaway (Texas)
Rep. John Culberson (Texas)
Rep. Sam Graves (Mo.)
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Texas)
Rep. Sam Johnson (Texas)
Rep. Kenny Marchant (Texas)
Rep. Michael McCaul (Texas)
Rep. Candice Miller (Mich.)
Rep. Mick Mulvaney (S.C.)
Rep. Steve Scalise (La.)
Rep. Pete Sessions (Texas)
Newt Gingrich (7)
Rep. Joe Barton (Texas)
Rep. Michael Burgess (Texas)
Rep. Phil Gingrey (Ga.)
Rep. Andy Harris (Md.)
Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.)
Rep. Tom Price (Ga.)
Rep. Austin Scott (Ga.)
Ron Paul (3)
Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.)
Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.)
Rep. Walter Jones Jr. (N.C.)
Michele Bachmann (1)
Rep. Trent Franks (Ariz.)

GOOD NITE FROM AFG!

g2825m on December 6, 2011 at 3:28 PM

So the woman who hired Ed (hit man)Rollins to take down Palin, is now firing her Judas guns at Newt -helping only Romney and the establishment GOP. Why? Is this to time to make friends with the right wing establishment enemy in Washington? Methinks she has an empty gun now. No one really cares what she thinks, she’s not in contention anymore. No true conservative would have taken down another great conservative-Palin. She did, and now she’s taking down Newt – Why?

Don L on December 6, 2011 at 3:28 PM

I think that sums up Romney quite perfectly actually.

Romney 2012: Meh.

lorien1973 on December 6, 2011 at 3:16 PM

You wont get an argument from me. Romney is less than exciting but he can and will beat Obama.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 3:28 PM

The large majority of people should really tell that minority of people to work on farms for free. The state gives them the power to demand it! – csdeven

lorien1973 on December 6, 2011 at 3:26 PM

The minority are free to move to my state where we don’t engage in such nonsense. – csdeven.

“Telling lies about what csdeven says is what I do best.” – lorien1973

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 3:30 PM

The minority are free to move to my state where we don’t engage in such nonsense. – csdeven.

You don’t even disagree with the concept. Amazing.

lorien1973 on December 6, 2011 at 3:31 PM

A free market solution that appropriated nearly 400 million in the first year and is now bankrupt while simultaneously depleting the supply of Healthcare providers AND choking demand netting increased ER care. Unintended consequences can be such a wash. Or as Mittness would say, it’s winning the future.

AH_C on December 6, 2011 at 3:21 PM

All lies. Masscare is within projected costs. Care is improved. Wait times are not affected.

There are unintended consequences in all legislation. Lying about what they are is intellectual dishonesty on your part. But, that’s you all over.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 3:33 PM

You don’t even disagree with the concept. Amazing.

lorien1973 on December 6, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Liar.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Don L on December 6, 2011 at 3:28 PM

She did not take down Palin! Palin decided NOT TO RUN. It was HER decision.

Bachmann as a TP’er sees what MANY OF US SEE. Gingrich is NOT a conservative.

Has he passed conservative issues? Yes.

Does he have grand, global, even bordering socialist ideas? YES!

Forget who I support.

Please people READ HIS MATERIAL.

We think Obama is a narcissist. Gingrich has a HUGE EGO and loves to feed it by HIS OWN SPEECH.

g2825m on December 6, 2011 at 3:33 PM

didymus on December 6, 2011 at 3:18 PM

“Only required hospitals”?? Seriously? hahaha!! The indigent used the hospitals like doctors offices. They were charged emergency room prices for services that should have been taken care of in a doctors office. It was out of control and the hospitals wrote off the costs to the state. Masscare moved those people from the emergency room to doctors offices where the costs were cheaper and a better deal for the citizens. The 8% now had a choice of doctors rather than being forced to certain hospitals. That is further away from socialism.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 3:27 PM

So states that don’t have a government mandate to buy insurance are more socialist than Massachusetts? And yet you claim that you would move from Massachusetts to a state that was more socialist?

You don’t even believe your own line of BS.

didymus on December 6, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Liar.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Am not, you just can’t face the grim reality of your position.

What you are saying is, “If you don’t want to be a slave, move.”

That is not the correct answer. Sorry.

lorien1973 on December 6, 2011 at 3:36 PM

The government required you to buy insurance and regulated what insurance you could buy, but it was a 100% free market system? And this did not grow the size of government?

didymus on December 6, 2011 at 3:13 PM

And what happened to the government agencies that dealt with the burden placed on hospitals etc? Oh that’s right…it was eliminated for the most part.

Ya know, the more you talk, the stupider and shallower you show yourself to be.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 3:36 PM

That is not the correct answer. Sorry.

lorien1973 on December 6, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Again, you lie about my position.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 3:37 PM

One more:
As Americans observe the wreckage of our country over the last three years — continued high unemployment with 300,000 people last month dropping out of our workforce, the loss of respect for America around the world, fewer opportunities for the next generation, a government that refuses to control spending and faces bankruptcy — it is obvious that this presidential election is crucial for the future of our great nation.

Because of President Obama’s failed leadership, Washington has become dysfunctional. We need a leader from outside of the Washington establishment. We need a president with a proven track record of innovative thinking and a proven ability to make tough decisions and implement them.

Next year, the choice for Americans is whether to stay the course or to acknowledge that the “President of Hope and Change” has to go. Republicans must choose the candidate that can best defeat this entrenched incumbent who is the darling of the fawning media. This person must be ready to lead and a person of character. This person must be willing to take on the Washington establishment, the media and all big spenders in government.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2011/12/05/20111205quayle1206-romneys-qualities-best-candidate-president.html

g2825m on December 6, 2011 at 3:38 PM

BTW, hats off to you Mittdogs. You took a thread that should have been about whether Gingrich was a “frugal socialist” or whether that was an overstatement, and turned it into a spectacle of pretending that Romney pushed a government-imposed free market solution by a government mandate to require people to buy health insurance.

didymus on December 6, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Again, you lie about my position.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 3:37 PM

No doubt. This is the normal accusation from people when faced with the truth of their position.

lorien1973 on December 6, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Continued:
“There are four criteria I use in determining who I will support for president. These are: leadership, character, conservative philosophy and electability.

Leadership. We must have a president who has the ability and strength to lead. Our current president has proven over and over again that he neither has the willingness nor the ability to lead. He has been absent when our country most needed him to lead us to sound fiscal footing. We need a person who has a vision for the nation and the leadership qualities to implement this vision.

Character. This is profoundly important. Our president needs to have the temperament and principled character to lead. He must be a person of integrity. He must have demonstrated the he can be trusted. Trust is something that is earned.

Conservative Philosophy. We must have a president who understands the importance of getting our country on a sound fiscal track. We need a person who knows that government is best that governs least. And, we need a president who will always put America and Americans first.

Electability. We need a candidate who can defeat Obama. Our country will be economically bereft and internationally enfeebled if he is reelected. Our candidate must attract independents, moderates and conservatives. We need to reach out to Hispanics, Asians and African-Americans. We need the conservative who can get elected.

There is only one candidate in the field that meets all of these criteria. It is Mitt Romney. He has proven over and over again that he is a leader. He has demonstrated he is capable of making tough decisions and turning things around. He is a man of integrity. He understands budgets and financial markets. He balanced budgets and met a bottom line. He is strong on national defense and has a deep love of the principles that make America great.

Mitt Romney has what it takes to be a great president of the United States, and that is why I enthusiastically endorse him for president.”

Dan Quayle is the former vice president of the United States.

g2825m on December 6, 2011 at 3:41 PM

didymus on December 6, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Not all states have the same burden on the citizens that MA did. Many states are better off with what they have.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 3:43 PM

Not all states have the same burden on the citizens that MA did. Many states are better off with what they have.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 3:43 PM

Not all states had slavery. Some states were better off with what they had.

Discuss.

lorien1973 on December 6, 2011 at 3:44 PM

BTW, hats off to you Mittdogs. You took a thread that should have been about whether Gingrich was a “frugal socialist” or whether that was an overstatement, and turned it into a spectacle of pretending that Romney pushed a government-imposed free market solution by a government mandate to require people to buy health insurance.

didymus on December 6, 2011 at 3:39 PM

No. Didymus, if you were following the thread it was because we were PROVING that Gingrich is a BIG gov’t guy with socialist tendencies on what he has publicly backed and instead of seeing those facts many of you turned it around and said “Romney did it too!” Yet, actually misreporting what he ACTUALLY did in MA.
So, no, we kept it to Gingrich but you could not disagree on Gingrich and turned your attention to Romney.

JUST LIKE EVERYONE DOES ON HA WHEN THEY CANNOT COME UP WITH FACTS ON ROMNEY. Let’s mischaracterize him.

Good nite.I am done. :o)

g2825m on December 6, 2011 at 3:45 PM

lorien1973 on December 6, 2011 at 3:40 PM

You really do have trouble with the English language don’t cha.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Not all states had slavery. Some states were better off with what they had.

Discuss.

lorien1973 on December 6, 2011 at 3:44 PM

That is a moronic comparison. No one has the people of MA in chains and tracking them down if they try to get out of the state.

I would accuse you of two dimensional thinking, but it’s pretty clear you are thinking in one dimension.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 3:48 PM

didymus on December 6, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Not all states have the same burden on the citizens that MA did. Many states are better off with what they have.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 3:43 PM

So EMTALA was only socialist in some states…….

didymus on December 6, 2011 at 3:56 PM

No one has the people of MA in chains and tracking them down if they try to get out of the state.

So it’s okay as long as they have the ability to leave the state?

lorien1973 on December 6, 2011 at 3:57 PM

So EMTALA was only socialist in some states…….

didymus on December 6, 2011 at 3:56 PM

There aren’t as many people using the emergency rooms.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 3:59 PM

So it’s okay as long as they have the ability to leave the state?

lorien1973 on December 6, 2011 at 3:57 PM

As long as the citizens gave that right to the state. What is so tough about this for you? Perhaps you should go read the tenth amendment for some context.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 4:00 PM

So EMTALA was only socialist in some states…….

didymus on December 6, 2011 at 3:56 PM

There aren’t as many people using the emergency rooms.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Riiight….. Yep, that sounds plausible.

didymus on December 6, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Riiight….. Yep, that sounds plausible.

didymus on December 6, 2011 at 4:01 PM

It is because it is the truth. Some states aren’t burdened by the EMTALA requirements because the people who live in those states are more conservative and able to pay their own way.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 4:09 PM

A snippet from http://www.washingtonpost.com posted here on HA

“The slobbering practically drips from the page:

Your campaign has been brilliant. It has given you more support and more momentum than most analysts expected a year ago. Keeping things simple and vague has worked so far, and it might work all the way to the White House. “Change you can believe in” is a great all-purpose slogan. It allows every person to fill in his or her own interpretation of what it means. In some ways, it’s reminiscent of Jimmy Carter’s 1976 promise to run “a government as good as the American people.”

The challenge you will face in the next few months is stark. Do you want to remain vague? You might win—but you might find that, in winning, you have a “victory of personality” with no real policy consequences. Or do you want to provide specifics? If so, your victory could be a clarion call from the American people to Congress to join you in achieving your goals.

Well, obviously such a person, we could reasonably predict, would find conservatives an annoyance and crave the approval of such people as the Clintons and other royalty of the Democratic Party. But we don’t have to speculate.

We know Newt Gingrich did all of this unctuous behavior. And Quin Hillyer reminds of us so much more. Hillyer quotes from a review of Gingrich’s book:”

Read more of Gingrich…at http://www.washingtonpost.com

Mr. Bloated EGO.

g2825m on December 6, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Riiight….. Yep, that sounds plausible.

didymus on December 6, 2011 at 4:01 PM

It is because it is the truth. Some states aren’t burdened by the EMTALA requirements because the people who live in those states are more conservative and able to pay their own way.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Nonsense on stilts. Massachusetts is one of the more prosperous states in the Union. There are many, many other states that have higher poverty rates. And yet we’re supposed to buy that Massachusetts was the state that had to do something because EMTALA was being abused.

Why not just be honest and admit that Massachusetts did this because Mitt Romney was governor and thought it was a great idea.

I know I want to vote for the Republican governor who did more to socialize medicine in Massachusetts than all the Democratic governors before him.

didymus on December 6, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Geeze y’all, one of these guys is likely to be the nominee. Gingrich has big government tendencies, while being the guy who got government to shrink a bit in the 90′s. He also steps in it occasionally and has an ego to match his big head. Romney wasn’t exactly Reagan II while he governed a really lefty state (heck Reagan doesn’t equal the legend he has been made out to be). Romney’s accusation about shifting his beliefs is not without merit.
Some of y’all are beginning to get really desperate in y’alls attacks on the other candidates.

Do y’all really think you are swaying anybody?

Take a chill and think about the prize next November.

cozmo on December 6, 2011 at 4:24 PM

didymus on December 6, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Hahahahaha!!! You are precious!

The liberal nature of the citizens of the sate is a component as is their desire to solve the problem. Romney’s business experience gave him an advantage in coming up with a free market solution.

Romney has already admitted he thinks it was a good idea. Why are you demanding that from me? He has said that reason he likes the idea was because more citizens had free market choices and to solve their budget issues.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 4:41 PM

g2825m on December 6, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Are you a paid Romney staffer?

karenhasfreedom on December 6, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Are you a paid Romney staffer?

karenhasfreedom on December 6, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Are you a paid staffer for a Romney opponent?

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 4:52 PM

He didn’t support cap and trade, he wanted to give tax breaks to companies that develop less carbon emissions. You may think there’s no difference because it involves carbon or the environment, but there is whether you like it or not.

cpaulus

Newt: I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support.

He absolutely did support cap and trade….and so did Nancy Pelosi. That might be why he sat on the couch with her.

I’m not Romney fan, but you seem to not have a grasp on the Constitution and just how much power the states have.

SirGawain

On the contrary, he understands just fine. What you and others don’t seem to grasp is that having the power to do something stupid to your citizens isn’t a defense for doing something stupid to your citizens. Romney could have vetoed this bill, but instead, he signed it. It may have passed without his signature, but at least his hands would be clean. Instead, he signed it, and now he has to live with the consequences.

You don’t get a pass for doing something stupid simply because you have the power to do something stupid. How many mittbots say in-state tuition for illegals in Texas is ok since Perry had the power to do it?

xblade on December 6, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Hmmm. He does think that government can fix a lot of our ills. One of them being his support for the big government “fix” of Cap & Trade.

I read a post somewhere last week that Newt is all for government telling us what to do, as long as he’s the one doing the telling.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on December 6, 2011 at 5:29 PM

All lies. Masscare is within projected costs. Care is improved. Wait times are not affected.

There are unintended consequences in all legislation. Lying about what they are is intellectual dishonesty on your part. But, that’s you all over.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 3:33 PM

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/17/the-masscare-massacre

Talon on December 6, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Well Michelle,
There are worse things than
Frugal Socialsts, Dingbat
Conservatives for instance.

“Let’S Roll”

On Watch on December 6, 2011 at 5:37 PM

g2825m on December 6, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Maybe you need to review recent history -Michelle hired and announce her hit man was Ed Rollins who immediately attacked Palin, who hadn’t even announced.

Then the gauntlet from the anti-reform establishment GOP punditry -in a parade of superstars attacked-first Rove, Will, Coulter (twice), Ingraham, Noonan, Parker, Krauthammer, and sadly Cheney, and understandably, the blustery bully of a liberal Christie.
Palin didn”t enter because though she survived the leftist worst attack (e-mailgate) she then ran head on into a gauntlet -and Michelle was on of the first to violate Reagan’s commandment and she had her hit man fire a salvo at Palin on her behalf -unless you choose to argue that is was an accident?

Then again, back in 2008, McCain boys roughed her up after the election on behalf of the silent GOP lest she entertain thoughts of running for pres.

Michelle was every bit part of that Palin firing squad.

Don L on December 6, 2011 at 6:01 PM

She has no change. She is only harming the GOP in general. She needs to drop out.

ladyingray on December 6, 2011 at 6:21 PM

“We need real change, like, bring home our ambassador to Iran.”

Akzed on December 6, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Talon on December 6, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Try this article.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 6:47 PM

Better a frugal socialist; than one who will spend us into oblivion skyrim.

lorien1973

Haldol on December 6, 2011 at 7:03 PM

I’m glad Newt flipped on the mandate. While Romney implemented one. Aren’t you? lorien1973 on December 6, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Obama’s mandate is unconstitutional. Romney’s mandate is not unconstitutional.

The arguments against Romney’s mandate are not merely not convincing but border on the irrational. The issue was how to cover the health care costs of the 8% who irresponsibly refused to provide for their own health care coverage despite being able to do so. Those who argue against the mandate are saying (most likely without realizing it) that the responsible people who provided for their own health care should also have paid – through higher taxes – for the freeloaders.

Think it through. Which coercion is worse: forcing someone to be responsible or forcing everyone else to pick up the tab for the irresponsible?

Those who aren’t capable of thinking this through are deluding themselves if they think higher taxes on the responsible is more conservative than a mandate on the irresponsible. It doesn’t meet my definition of conservative, but it does come within my idea of knee jerk stupid.

Basilsbest on December 6, 2011 at 7:07 PM

Arguably, the most extreme conservatives in our day and age will have to content themselves with pragmatic politicians and moderate governance — now and always — because progressive forces have fundamentally reshaped the debate, are still at play in our political system and have to be worked around. The only viable option conservatives have is to work within the political system and to gradually roll back government.
Tina Korbe

Overton Window.

listens2glenn on December 6, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Hiring Ed Rollins was a mistake. He’s a snake.

The Gardasil comment was not handled correctly.

It’s one thing to make an error every now and then….

….but BIG IDEA NEWT is a TEDDY ROOSEVELT Big gov lover and that’s just the truth (in his OWN WORDS). Like it or not, warts and all we have two choices in this nominating process.

Only two candidates have been the most fearless (ready to take on Obama) Consistent Conservatives. Bachmann and Santorum.

You can either have TEDDY ROOSEVELT on the Democrat side or you can have it on the GOP side but Obama or Mitt or Newt will all get us bigger government and OBAMACARE and Death Panels now or later.

NO TEDDY IN 2012!!!

PappyD61 on December 6, 2011 at 8:18 PM

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 6:47 PM

Thanks for the link.

FTA:

The cost of the changes, while large, has proved manageable thus far, though there are some serious warning signs on the horizon, especially as federal stimulus funds, which have helped defray the cost, run out.

Talk to me when the federal funds run out. This “law” is even worse than I thought.

Romney passed health care costs in Massachusetts on to the rest of the nation.

Over the five-year life of the new law, total cost has been $9 billion, with the federal government picking up nearly 64 percent of the cost, the state’s share is more than 18 percent, and the remaining 18 percent split by hospitals and insurers, who pass it along to their customers, to pay into the Health Safety Net fund, which reimburses providers for treating the uninsured. The federal share consists of the usual 50 percent reimbursement for Medicaid, supplemented by stimulus money and additional funds awarded the state for its innovative program to subsidize insurance of the working poor.

You Romney supporters are REALLY going to defend this?

Talon on December 6, 2011 at 8:46 PM

Talon on December 6, 2011 at 8:46 PM

The legislation to address the coming shortfalls are in the works. I do not think a dem congress and governor will find a fiscally responsible way to cover them.

We defend it as a constitutional way to deal with healthcare as opposed to Obamacare and it’s obvious unconstitutionality. I would prefer that EMTALA never existed. But it does and has to be dealt with. Romneycare was an attempt to fix it and even Romney admits not everything worked as he would have liked.

But that isn’t the complaint leveled at Romney. The complaint is because he signed a mandate in MA that he will let Obamacare slide. In MA, Masscare is constitutional and Obamacare is not. Romney has committed to getting rid of Obamacare through a series of executive orders in the short term and an outright appeal through the legislature. But we all know the legislature must act first. Romney will render Obamacre moot iuntil congress acts.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Romney passed health care costs in Massachusetts on to the rest of the nation. Talon

He was the Governor of Mass. His job was to get the best deal for his state. If what you say is true he did his job brilliantly. Are you always this stupid?

Basilsbest on December 6, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Basilsbest on December 6, 2011 at 9:09 PM

He got the best for his state by screwing the rest? And now he wants to be POTUS?!?! I’m not even going to ask you if you’re always an azzhole cuz I’ve seen your posts punk. You were born that way.

Talon on December 6, 2011 at 9:22 PM

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 8:58 PM

I know that you are an ardent Romney supporter and you do a great job defending your candidate. I just don’t believe him.

Talon on December 6, 2011 at 9:25 PM

Mitt Romney (54)
[SNIP]

GOOD NITE FROM AFG!

g2825m on December 6, 2011 at 3:28 PM

And 80% of them are RINOs that I could never support, let alone agree with.

AH_C on December 6, 2011 at 9:30 PM

Bachmann isn’t a brilliant politician; she’s willing to point out truths that make even conservative voters uncomfortable with her… she’s principled almost to a fault, if such a thing can fairly be said of anyone.

Thank God Michele Bachmann isn’t a brilliant politician; she means what she says and I think she would be a good President. I believe she is sincere. I believe she has genuine principles. I mean, I really like Congresswoman Bachmann.

Gingrich, I’d argue, is both a brilliant politician

Brilliant politicians, that is one group of people that I can’t stand. Uh, I mean, I consider them to be egotistical, opportunistic, dishonest, corrupt, just horrible, immoral, people. In trying to be the Republican nominee, Gingrich has great answers on topic of conservativism, but I don’t think he believes his own arguments.

apacalyps on December 6, 2011 at 9:52 PM

A free market solution that appropriated nearly 400 million in the first year and is now bankrupt while simultaneously depleting the supply of Healthcare providers AND choking demand netting increased ER care. Unintended consequences can be such a wash. Or as Mittness would say, it’s winning the future.
AH_C on December 6, 2011 at 3:21 PM

All lies. Masscare is within projected costs. Care is improved. Wait times are not affected.

There are unintended consequences in all legislation. Lying about what they are is intellectual dishonesty on your part. But, that’s you all over.

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 3:33 PM

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/17/the-masscare-massacre

Talon on December 6, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Talon’s link is but one out of reams written about the fatal flaw that is RomneyCare. From that link, here are some highlights:

Massachusetts Treasurer Tim Cahill blows the whistle on President Obama’s health care plan — and Mitt Romney’s.
On Sunday, White House political adviser David Axelrod appeared on ABC’s “This Week” and tried to brush aside the message sent by Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-Mass.) improbable election. “Senator Brown comes from a state that has a health care plan that’s similar to the one we’re trying to enact here,” Axelrod said. “We’re just trying to give the rest of America the same opportunities that the people of Massachusetts have.”

[SNIP]

Cahill said, launching an all-out offensive against Romneycare in Massachusetts and its cousin Obamacare nationwide.

Medicaid costs have continued to explode, rising from $7.5 billion to an estimated $9.2 billion since the Massachusetts health care law has taken effect. More people now have coverage, but of the 407,000 newly insured only 32 percent paid for their insurance entirely on their own. The remaining 68 percent were either partially or wholly subsidized by the taxpayers. Only 5 percent of newly insured Massachusetts residents who are not receiving any taxpayer benefits obtained their coverage through the state’s “Connector” health care exchange.

What’s more, according to figures obtained from Cahill’s office, only 23 percent of those enrolled in the state-managed health insurance programs pay anything toward their coverage. About 99,000 newly insured Massachusetts residents now receive free coverage through Medicaid. Another 87,000 receive 100 percent taxpayer subsidies through the Connector’s “Commonwealth Care” program. And another 26,000 are legal immigrants ineligible for federal subsidies who benefit under the Commonwealth Care Bridge program.

Not only has health care reform cost the state an additional $4.2 billion, but small businesses and consumers are getting walloped. Health care costs continue to skyrocket. Insurance premiums have jumped 12 percent over a two-year period. So much for bending the cost curve.

[SNIP]

Cahill argued that the consequences of repeating this at the national level will be even worse. First, Massachusetts already had a high percentage of its population covered. The 2006 Bay State health care reform only insured another 4 percent. In many states, the percentage of uninsured is far higher.

[SNIP]

Reporters asked Cahill for some of the benefits. Did near-universal coverage in Massachusetts bring about a drop in the reliance on emergency room care? No, the state treasurer replied. What about cost benefits from preventive care? Not that Cahill was aware of.

Could it have been better implemented by, say, Mitt Romney rather than Deval Patrick? “I could probably agree with that partially,” Cahill allowed. “I certainly have some concerns about how Governor Patrick has implemented it.” But Cahill called the bill “fatally flawed from the beginning.”

The treasurer noted that the theory was by increasing access, it would bring down health care costs. Instead Massachusetts has seen costs increase almost across the board. Those costs, he said, “are being passed on to businesses and consumers in the form of premium increases.”

Cahill’s timing has as much to do with Massachusetts politics as the looming national health care debacle. Elected state treasurer as a Democrat, Cahill bolted the party last July and is running for governor as an independent — a designation shared by 51 percent of the commonwealth’s registered voters. This stance allows him to outflank the Republican candidates, tap into the sentiment that propelled Scott Brown to the Senate, criticize the Democratic incumbent, and distance himself from his former party.

But by forthrightly attacking an approach to health care reform that has been embraced by Republican darlings, Cahill may be doing conservatives — and the country — a service. “The insurance companies were at the table, the hospitals were at the table, the large providers were at the table,” he said during yesterday’s call. “The taxpayers and small businesses weren’t at the table. It appears to be repeating itself at the national level.”

Mittness the smart businessman either forgot to include small businesses (of which he has zero experience) or considered them and more importantly the taxpayers as undeserving of having a seat at the table with the big boys.

Then we have your counter link

Try this article. http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/articles/2011/06/26/romneycare__a_revolution_that_basically_worked/?page=1

csdeven on December 6, 2011 at 6:47 PM

So you rely on the leading LSM mouthpiece for MA for your facts? Let’s review some of their slapping-lipstick-on-a-pig points:

A detailed Globe examination of voluminous health care and financial data, and interviews with key figures in every sector of the health care system, makes it clear that while there have been some stumbles — and some elements of the effort merit a grade of “incomplete’’ — the overhaul has, after five years, worked as well as or better than expected:

? The percentage of residents without insurance coverage is down dramatically, to less than 2 percent; for children, the figure is a tiny fraction of 1 percent, a state survey shows. These are by far the lowest rates in the nation.
? Many more businesses are offering insurance to employees than were before the law. The fear going in was that the opposite would happen.
? The cost of the changes, while large, has proved manageable thus far, though there are some serious warning signs on the horizon, especially as federal stimulus funds, which have helped defray the cost, run out.
? The plan remains exceptionally popular among state residents — indeed its popularity has only grown with time. There are some unhappy sectors — notably small business owners, who had hoped to see moderating premiums and chafe, in some cases, at the heavy-handed enforcement of the rules by the state. And support for the requirement that individuals obtain insurance is down to a slender majority, a recent poll shows. But there is no significant constituency here for repeal.
? And while health care costs continue to grow at alarming rates, as they have nationally, the consensus of industry leaders and health care economists is that this trend cannot be fairly traced to the makeover but rather to cost pressures baked into the existing health care payment system. Massachusetts does have the highest health care costs in the nation, but it owned this dubious distinction long before “RomneyCare’’ was born.

Accentuate the positive facts, minimize the negative truths.

“Massachusetts has, since 2006, been the prism through which ideologues attack or promote national policy on health care coverage,’’ Kingsdale said. “In this country, 99.9 percent of the people don’t understand the mind-numbing complexities of the financing of our health care system, so people are free to use factoids to promote or attack any reform.’’

Dazzle us, since we’re mind-numbed rubes.

It is a work in progress, an experiment at the state level, which Romney firmly believes is where such innovations should be forged and tested.

You do what you think is right, and, with time, if you’re right, other people will come to understand that or forgive you for your mistakes,’’ Romney said in an interview for this story.

I think that there is a recognition that what we did with my leadership and that of others was to follow the constitutional principle of states’ rights; that we were a laboratory of democracy,’’ Romney said. “We carried out an experiment, and that’s a right and proper thing to do under the Constitution . . . What the president did was to impose a one-size fits-all plan on the nation.’’

That’s not the issue, the fact that you even thot it was right is the issue. That and what you did was impose a one-size fits all for MA, just to gain 4% in new enrollments at out-of-proportion cost. OBTW, we don’t ‘understand’, hence don’t forgive you.

Is the law bankrupting the state Treasury, as some of the partisan critics claim?

No, but there is cause for concern. There is no certainty the state can afford the program’s cost indefinitely if the underlying costs of health care continue to soar.

The overall price tag is undeniably large — a projected $2.112 billion for the fiscal year ending June 30, according to data provided by the office of Jay Gonzalez, Patrick’s secretary of administration and finance. But the state’s share is less than a fifth of that sum — $406 million, up from $33 million in the year before the law went into effect. That’s down from a peak of $486 million in 2008, when the number of newly insured surged more than anticipated.

This is a daunting, but not unsustainable, price tag if health care costs can be contained.

“This has not come close to breaking the state’s bank,’’ Gonzalez said.

The rest of the tab is covered by federal reimbursements, and by hospitals and insurers.

Really? A 13-fold increase in the State’s share won’t break the bank??? Sock it to the Feds (US taxpayers), hospitals & insurance (rates raised) — problem solved.

The state has needed new revenue sources to fill the gap. In fiscal year 2009, the state pushed through a $1-a-pack increase on the cigarette tax to raise an estimated $150 million to $175 million annually and also imposed one-time assessments totalling $50 million on hospitals and insurers to plug a projected budget shortfall the same year, with all proceeds earmarked for health overhaul-related costs.

The cigarette tax, however, has fallen well short of estimates. It raised $130.5 million the first year, and has been tracking still lower through the first 10 months of this fiscal year, according to the Office of Administration and Finance.

Ooooops. Darn static forecasting never works.

Another source of concern is that the state, during the economic downswing, relied heavily on federal stimulus funds — $582 million over three years — to meet the expense of the health overhaul. But that revenue source, designed to offset some of the expense of the unemployed moving onto Medicaid, expires June 30, meaning the state will have to come up with almost $200 million from another revenue source next year.

Without the bonus federal Medicaid funds, the price tag for the state’s share will rise from about 1.2 percent to about 1.8 percent of the total state budget.

As if all the doom and gloom wasn’t enough, a 33% increase in Medicaid cost.

So, please enlighten us here. Where did I lie?

AH_C on December 6, 2011 at 9:53 PM

We are having to watch as Obama tears our country to shreds, and now, we have to watch as Beck and Bachmann shred her competition. I listen to Beck regularly, but his performance with his presidential pick, Bachmann,was sickening. I had still considered Bachmann a possible choice for the primaries, but after today, she is permanently off my list. Thank you Mr.Beck and Congresswoman Bachmann for helping me make my decision.

mobydutch on December 7, 2011 at 12:17 AM

Btw, Apacalyps’ Christmas Blitz is making progress so join with us. Together let’s work to elect Michele Bachmann. Together let’s work to defeat Barack Hussein Obama. Together let’s work to save Israel, America, and Western civilation! Thank you.

apacalyps on December 7, 2011 at 12:30 AM

Some people still wonder why Bachmann’s popularity fell so quickly. I’ll tell you, she lost any hope for my support when she went ballistic on Gov. Rick Perry during one of the debates. Remember that? Bachmann kept going on and on and on about about young girls were being “forced” to take the HPV immunization shots in Texas (athough Gov. Perry made the point over and over that parents had the option to opt out). She even went as far as to say that the shots were causing “mental retardation.” Yep, when Bachmann had that crazy, frantic, flaky moment…she lost it with me.

jfs756 on December 7, 2011 at 9:32 AM

I think Bachmann is going to comeback and win…

conservativeBC on December 7, 2011 at 9:36 AM

I have to agree with MB. I dont care that the lefties have shapped this country…We can change it back! If enough people are willing to stand up and admit they are SICK of the current state of the State, if enough people are willing to openly walk the conservative walk, lead by example, others will follow.
We can have REAL conservative leaders run for office, not wimpy NE RINOs…We will be able to vote for true conservative values, not socialism-lite (or the lesser of 2 evils).

People should be proud of who they vote for…They should have to “hold thier nose”…

I think MB is on the correct path. Dont bow to the PC media or the beltway establishment.

Just my 2cents…

BigFrank on December 7, 2011 at 10:37 AM

I think Bachmann is going to comeback and win…

conservativeBC on December 7, 2011 at 9:36 AM

Much respect to conservativeBC.

apacalyps on December 7, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Ok - so now we need Michele Bachmann whining instead of the whiny little street organizer. Neither one has any idea of history or what they are doing. After all she hasn’t done anything but go after fellow republicans much like King and Coburn. There just doesn’t seem to be a reason to vote for a republican as even republicans don’t like their candidates.

pwb on December 7, 2011 at 2:18 PM

I have to agree with (Michele Bachmann). We can change it back! If enough people are willing to stand up and admit they are SICK of the current state of the State, if enough people are willing to openly walk the conservative walk, lead by example, others will follow.

BigFrank on December 7, 2011 at 10:37 AM

Whoa, I missed this EPIC post. Worth reading the whole thing. Amazing!

apacalyps on December 7, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Gingrich would still be an improvement over the un-frugal spend-us-bankrupt socialist now in the White House.

Steve Z on December 7, 2011 at 4:27 PM

IowaGunOwners.org Flood Iowans With Calls About Newt Gingrich’s Anti Gun Record

If you are a gun owner you might be interested in knowing that Newt Gingrichz not only supported the Brady Bill, but also supported the Lautenberg law that takes away gun rights for crimes as simple as spanking your child.

No wonder IowaGunOwners.org and the National Association for Gun Rights are using Robo-calls in Iowa, desperately trying to inform voters of Gingrich’s anti-gun record.

Here is what the Robo-call is saying.

conservativeBC on December 7, 2011 at 7:45 PM

conservativeBC on December 7, 2011 at 7:45 PM

WOW. I did not know this. No wonder Newt supported the gun-grabbing Scozzafava!!

Aslans Girl on December 8, 2011 at 6:02 AM

I like Congresswoman Michele Bachmann the most. I would like to see her as President. I think she’d be a good President. If you TRULY want change, vote for Michele Bachmann as President. If you do NOT want change and you want more of what we have now, then please vote for RomneyCare or Gingrich/Pelosi. Thanks.

apacalyps on December 8, 2011 at 4:17 PM

If you want someone to stand on a Soap Box and spew out Ideologue conservative montra… get NOTHING DONE….Vote Bachman. 6 years in Congress without a sponsored or co-sponsored bill passed. If you want a pragmatic Conservative with Pragmatic solutions….and having a Conservative “voting” record in Congress….and actually sponsoring and passing bills into law….vote Gingrich… Ideologue vs Pragmatic you make the choice….I know which way I’m going to save this country and thus why he is so far out in front today in the polls….in every state.

coach1228 on December 8, 2011 at 6:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3