Gingrich in 2006: RomneyCare has “tremendous potential”; Update: Newsletter article added

posted at 8:54 am on December 27, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

In academia, the common axiom instructs would-be professors to “publish or perish.”  In Politiciana, it’s becoming clear that the axiom is “publish and perish.”  Another newsletter might trip up a Republican presidential hopeful, but this time it isn’t Ron Paul:

Newt Gingrich voiced enthusiasm for Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health-care law when it was passed five years ago, the same plan he has been denouncing over the past few months as he campaigned for the Republican presidential nomination.

“The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system,” said an April 2006 newsletter published by Mr. Gingrich’s former consulting company, the Center for Health Transformation.

The two-page “Newt Notes” analysis, found online by The Wall Street Journal even though it no longer appears on the center’s website, continued: “We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans.”

Whenever people ask me whether I will run for public office, I always respond half-jokingly that if I wanted a career in electoral politics, I wouldn’t have spent the last eight-plus years writing down my every thought on politics and policy.  This is the reason why.  It’s not that politicians shouldn’t be honest; of course they should be, on policy as well as their records.  It’s just that they so often aren’t, and voters don’t usually reward nuance, either.

So how does Newt Gingrich square this circle?  If you’ve been following the Ron Paul newsletter controversy, this is going to sound dreadfully familiar:

R.C. Hammond, a spokesman for Mr. Gingrich, said the April 2006 essay shouldn’t be read as an endorsement of Mr. Romney’s health plan. He noted that it raised several questions about the Massachusetts effort, including whether the plan would work in the state. “Being critical…isn’t endorsing it,” he said.

Mr. Hammond said the Newt Notes essay wasn’t written by Mr. Gingrich himself. The Journal was able to view a copy using a web search engine that archives old and even deleted versions of Web pages.

Well, let’s be fair.  Newt published that newsletter, and it’s almost certain that he profited from it.  That makes him responsible for what got published under his byline, does it not?  In fact, let’s recall that Gingrich attacked Paul last week for claiming not to know what Paul himself had published and sold (at a significant level of revenue).  Gingrich was right in that criticism, but it applies here as well.  For the last several months, Gingrich has attacked Romney for this plan, but now we’re supposed to ignore the fact that Gingrich’s newsletter offered significant, if somewhat qualified, praise for RomneyCare?

Nor was that the only entry in the newsletter series:

A follow-up August 2006 newsletter from the center called Mr. Romney’s plan “the most interesting effort to solve the uninsured problem in America today.” It praised “a Republican governor working with a Democratic state legislature to find a bipartisan reform that is based on market-oriented principles.”

The 2006 essays aren’t signed, but the Center for Health Transformation’s inaugural newsletter said the updates would be “periodically sent to members of the [center] from Newt, providing an insider’s view of key events and opportunities for transformation.” A sign-up page for Newt Notes now appears on the candidate’s campaign website.

These days, Gingrich attacks the plan for not hewing to free-market principles, a position with which I agree.  Perhaps Gingrich believes this honestly now, too, but it seems that his view on RomneyCare has at best evolved since 2006.

Update: Gingrich might have another document issue, but this one’s more mundane and less damning than it looks:

Newt Gingrich claims that it was his first wife, not Gingrich himself, who wanted their divorce in 1980, but court documents obtained by CNN appear to show otherwise. …

The documents, and interviews with people close to the couple at the time, contradict the Gingrich claim about who wanted the divorce.

Newt Gingrich filed a divorce complaint on July 14, 1980, in Carroll County, saying that “the marriage of the parties is irretriebably (sic) broken.”

Jackie Battley Gingrich, the congressman’s wife and the mother of Jackie Gingrich Cushman, responded by asking the judge to reject her husband’s filing.

“Defendant shows that she has adequate and ample grounds for divorce, but that she does not desire one at this time,” her petition said.

“Although defendant does not admit that this marriage is irretrievably broken, defendant has been hopeful that an arrangement for temporary support of defendant and the two minor daughters of the parties could be mutually agreed upon without the intervention of this court,” her petition said. “All efforts to date have been unsuccessful.”

That’s interesting, but not terribly enlightening.  Clearly the couple was already negotiating a split, with the first Mrs. Gingrich looking for a level of spousal and child support, without an agreement.  Getting to the court first may very well have been a strategic legal maneuver.  I’d trust the account from the Gingrich’s own daughter rather than read tea leaves via court filings on the question of who wanted out first.

Update II: ABC pulled the Newt newsletter from the Wayback Machine, and here is the RomneyCare portion in its entirety:

The most exciting development of the past few weeks is what has been happening up in Massachusetts. The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system.

We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans. Individuals without coverage often do not receive quality medical attention on par with those who do have insurance. We also believe strongly that personal responsibility is vital to creating a 21st Century Intelligent Health System. Individuals who can afford to purchase health insurance and simply choose not to place an unnecessary burden on a system that is on the verge of collapse; these free-riders undermine the entire health system by placing the onus of responsibility on taxpayers.

The Romney plan attempts to bring everyone into the system. The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage, and subsidies will be made available to those individuals who cannot afford insurance on their own. We agree strongly with this principle, but the details are crucial when it comes to the structure of this plan. Under the new bill, Massachusetts residents earning more than 300% of the federal poverty level (approximately $30,000 for an individual) will not be eligible for any subsidies. State House officials had originally promised that there would be new plans available at about $200 a month, but industry experts are now predicting that the cheapest plan will likely cost at least $325 a month. This estimate totals about $4000 per year, or about 1/5 of a $30,000 annual take-home income.

While in theory the plan should be affordable if the whole state contributes to the cost, the reality is that Massachusetts has an exhaustive list of health coverage regulations prohibiting insurers from offering more basic, pared-down policies with higher deductibles. (This is yet another reminder that America must establish a cross-state insurance market that gives individuals the freedom to shop for insurance plans in states other than their own.)

In our estimation, Massachusetts residents earning little more than $30,000 a year are in jeopardy of being priced out of the system. In the event that this occurs, Governor Romney will be in grave danger of repeating the mistakes of his predecessor, Mike Dukakis, whose 1988 health plan was hailed as a save-all but eventually collapsed when poorly-devised payment structures created a malaise of unfulfilled promises. We propose that a more realistic approach might be to limit the mandate to those individuals earning upwards of $54,000 per year.

While the Commonwealth’s plan will naturally endure tremendous scrutiny from those who assert that the law will not work as intended, Massachusetts leaders are to be commended for this bipartisan proposal to tackle the enormous challenge of finding real solutions for creating a sustainable health system. I hope that Massachusetts’ initiative to provide affordable, quality health insurance for all continues to ignite even more debate around the subject of how to best address our nation’s uninsured crisis and the critical problems within the health system at large.

So once again, in 2006 this time, Gingrich “agreed strongly with this principle” in regard to the individual mandate, which he now criticizes heavily.  Perhaps he changed his mind, and there isn’t anything wrong with that, but until now we have not heard from Gingrich that he ever supported RomneyCare at all.  He needs to walk voters through that process in a manner similar to Romney’s explanation of his evolution to the pro-life position if Gingrich wants to square this circle.  Simply claiming that he didn’t write (or presumably read) his own newsletter won’t cut it.


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

I’m begging you all . . . give Perry a second look.

You may disagree with him on immigration, but it’s not like these other guys will seriously address the issue (and lose the Latino vote for a generation).

jazz_piano on December 27, 2011 at 11:13 AM

Seriously, all of our candidates are pitiful. They’re either liars, rampant adulterers, loons or dunces.

KickandSwimMom on December 27, 2011 at 9:11 AM
Yeah, but they’re our “liars, rampant adulterers, loons or dunces”.

/

Flora Duh on December 27, 2011 at 9:29 AM

I was thinking that!
Was not thinking of the / tag either!
(:>)

KOOLAID2 on December 27, 2011 at 11:14 AM

OK Peeps….all this bickering and name calling is fun….but in the end..what is most important?

NEWS JUST IN:

Obama to ask for debt limit hike: Treasury official
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The White House plans to ask Congress for an increase in the debt limit before the end of the week, according to a senior Treasury Department official.

The debt limit is projected to fall within $100 billion of the current cap by December 30. President Barack Obama is expected to ask for additional borrowing authority to increase the limit by $1.2 trillion.

WE ARE A SINKING SHIP! Please Stay focused on who REALLY needs to be defeated in November!!!

coach1228 on December 27, 2011 at 11:15 AM

. . . That isn’t a left or right thing, it is the way that subsidies work and when coupled with the ‘tragedy of the commons’, which is what a 100% mandate is in case it has been missed, then you get a net effect that is horrific to all involved. More ‘regulation’ doesn’t help this but only adds on an overhead burden that the entire system must absorb and pass on. The more you mandate it, the more you regulate it, the more you subsidize it the more costly, less available, less affordable, it gets while suffering a deterioration in quality, to boot, because no one cares enough to value it properly. This is why centralized, mandate based systems fail: they are too rigid, have too many middlemen, too much overhead and no one values the outcome as much as if they were paying through the nose up-front and had control of it themselves.

Until someone in the field of candidates can actually express this in some cogent fashion, this election will turn out to be one of the worst for the republic of the United States ever, including the one that got us Buchanan, Wilson, Grant, Hoover and FDR. That no one with a business background can say this is flat out amazing… that no one who is working in government will DARE to say it shows cowardice. The American people need this to be front-and-center during this election cycle and all the back-stabbing, infighting and the rest of it clouds that until the magic of the MFM appears to lull everyone to sleep again.

ajacksonian on December 27, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Excellent analysis from an historical perspective, AJ. Unfortunately, for all the talk of ‘small government’ on the Republican side, even going back to President Reagan’s “Government is not the solution; it is the problem,” the Federal government and all its associated appurtenances, agencies, programs, bureaucracies, ‘entities’, etc. have just continued to grow unchecked. Republicans just tinker at the margins with the ‘rate of growth’; it is never reversed.

The healthcare ‘entitlement’ will continue to grow (the Supreme Court is likely to endorse the individual mandate, because it will not countenance reversing the expansion of the Commerce Clause back in the ’30s) until and unless there is a concerted effort by a President and Congress determined to not only chop off the tentacles of the Federal octopus, but to devolve responsibility for healthcare back to individuals and local institutions. There are ways to do this (Health Savings Accounts, for example, coupled with subsidies for the truly indigent), but it will take shutting down Medicare and Medicaid and replacing them with a low-level safety net. Does anyone running for office have the stones to attempt such radical surgery (aside from extremists like Ron Paul, who would eviscerate and emasculate the United States in the process)?

MrLynn on December 27, 2011 at 11:20 AM

Rovin on December 27, 2011 at 11:11 AM

I’ve always thought the purchase of insurance over state lines might be helpful.

Cindy Munford on December 27, 2011 at 11:20 AM

Newt’s such a joke. Romney never pushed for a national mandate and Newt has been consistently pushing for one for well over a decade. Newt’s further left than Romney’s ever been on almost every issue, and yet clowns like portlandon, punchenko and others continue to beat the drums because “anybody but Romney” is more important than getting the most electable conservative candidate and also beating Obama.

Says a lot about the “true conservatives” in the Tea Party that are all rallying to Newt Gingrich of all people.

Ruiner on December 27, 2011 at 11:25 AM

coach1228

It’s not news….that was part of the debt ceiling deal of the summer. If Congress votes against it (which would look childish since they already voted for it to pass) Obama can veto it or it will automatically take affect on Jan 13.

Lost battle.

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on December 27, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Says a lot about the “true conservatives” in the Tea Party that are all rallying to Newt Gingrich of all people.

Ruiner on December 27, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Politics is a tribal sport for many. I think this primary season’s jumps from Bachmann, Perry, Cain to now Newt Gingrich have been most revealing of just what people are willing to rationalize and throw away in an effort to stand by their perceived “team.” The mob is truly easily manipulated and I am thankful we have a long, idiosyncratic and complicated process to minimize the political impacts of these fluctuations and hotheadedness. Although even then it’s not foolproof as Obama’s election has shown.

haner on December 27, 2011 at 11:35 AM

Capitalist75 on December 27, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Explain how he makes all those cuts. There is no line item veto and congress controls the purse strings. If the pubs wanted to cut money and departments it would have happened when they controlled the house, senate and presidency. It didn’t happen and it won’t happen under a Paul presidency because even with a pub congress there won’t be enough conservatives to carry the day.

chemman on December 27, 2011 at 11:35 AM

I’ve always thought the purchase of insurance over state lines might be helpful.

Cindy Munford on December 27, 2011 at 11:20 AM

Me too Cindy….that and real tort reform, (which is what many Americans advocated for, but Peelosi and the liberal congress ignored to maintain their allegiance to the lawyers), but you won’t hear any media report that Newt was also in favor of these changes.

Rovin on December 27, 2011 at 11:36 AM

So when the dust settles, and if — and only if — it comes down to a choice between Romney and Gingrich, do you vote for the man who wrote favorably about Romneycare, or do you vote for the man who designed and implemented Romneycare?

Tennman on December 27, 2011 at 11:38 AM

For all the hassles of our long drawn out election processes, it’s so much better than the parliamentary “call elections at any time” system. Our system is much less likely to be manipulated by demagogues and external crises.

haner on December 27, 2011 at 11:38 AM

So when the dust settles, and if — and only if — it comes down to a choice between Romney and Gingrich, do you vote for the man who wrote favorably about Romneycare, or do you vote for the man who designed and implemented Romneycare?

Tennman on December 27, 2011 at 11:38 AM

Excellent question!

Rovin on December 27, 2011 at 11:54 AM

So many here are now discovering that Romney and Gingrich are two halves of the same establishment turd sandwich?

Gingrich is simply the plant to make conservatives think they are getting a Not-Romney. Most likely, voting for Gingrich will result in Romney being on the ticket and vice-versa. Either way the Establishment wins.

Vote for Perry. Only he will do what he says he will do and what he has always done. He is a small-government conservative, who believes strongly in power being returned to the states.

Will you let superficial arguments that he is a weak debater – debunked in the last few debates – stop you from voting for the only conservative candidate that can beat Obama?

Vote for Perry 2012. You will never regret you did.

TheRightMan on December 27, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Vote for Perry. Only he will do what he says he will do and what he has always done. He is a small-government conservative, who believes strongly in power being returned to the states.

TheRightMan on December 27, 2011 at 12:00 PM

So when the people of Massachusetts wants Romneycare 3:1, is that not power being returned to the states?

Or is power being returned to the states only when Perry through an executive order mandates Gardasil for all schoolgirls? (bypassing the TX legislature who were opposed.)

haner on December 27, 2011 at 12:05 PM

Uggg,,, these choices suck.

TheGarbone on December 27, 2011 at 10:10 AM

Nope. Perry doesn’t suck.

Isn’t it amazing that the other candidates have major flaws with regards to their authenticity and records but Perry doesn’t.

Perry is the only Not-Romney that many are using a superficial excuse to reject. “He can’t debate.” For real? Despite his good to great performances in the last few debates? Despite the fact that there will be three or less debates in the general and that will be it?

Vote Perry 2012. You will never regret you did.

TheRightMan on December 27, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Gingrich already said he used to support indvidual mandate and this newsletter also shows he was critical of Mass. Law. This is old news.

quill67 on December 27, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Six month ago most of us thought Newt Gingrich running for President was a joke.

It looks like we were right.

bw222 on December 27, 2011 at 12:08 PM

This is old news.

quill67 on December 27, 2011 at 12:07 PM

No. It is not.

There are many supporting Gingrich that do not realize that he has the bad traits of Romney, Bachmann, and Cain – all covered up with how good he talks and debates.

So, in essence:

Gingrich – bad record but excellent debter – Not-Romney frontrunner
Perry – good record, previously poor but now good debater – is being rejected.

See the superficiality?

Wake up, conservatives, and vote Perry 2012.

TheRightMan on December 27, 2011 at 12:13 PM

I’m begging you all . . . give Perry a second look.

You may disagree with him on immigration, but it’s not like these other guys will seriously address the issue (and lose the Latino vote for a generation).

jazz_piano on December 27, 2011 at 11:13 AM

As opposed to losing our national identity and being buried even deeper in social welfare spending?

The Latino vote has already been lost. The only way the GOP will gain it is by out-pandering the Dems.

No, Rick Santorum may be boring, but he is looking better by the day.

bw222 on December 27, 2011 at 12:14 PM

New flyer out…He’s got it all covered.http://buddysblog.typepad.com/.a/6a0134873aa66a970c0162fe7a41b1970d-pi
Can anyone tell me ONE CONSERVATIVE issue that ROMNEY PASSED into law while he was Governor of Taxachussettes? I am having trouble with this one…please help.

coach1228 on December 27, 2011 at 12:16 PM

I’m begging you all . . . give Perry a second look.

You may disagree with him on immigration, but it’s not like these other guys will seriously address the issue (and lose the Latino vote for a generation).

jazz_piano on December 27, 2011 at 11:13 AM

The Latino vote has already been lost. The only way the GOP will gain it is by out-pandering the Dems.

bw222 on December 27, 2011 at 12:14 PM

jazz_piano, Perry has an excellent record on immigration. Do not buy into the wrong meme that Romney et al tried to paint him with.

Those who reside in Texas know that few have fought and put more money to border security than Gov. Perry.

- Perry believes in a strong border, the securing of which is one of the few things the Federal Govt. is constitutionally mandated to do.
- In the absence of the Obama Admin. doing their work, Perry has done a yeoman’s job securing the Texas border pumping in over $400 million of State funds into it.
- The Texas Dream Act was also a state-devised way of making lemonade out of the lemons provided.

TheRightMan on December 27, 2011 at 12:21 PM

I don’t remember Rush, Coulter, Hannity, Hotair or other conservative blabbermouths jabbing Mitt for Romneycare during the 2008 election cycle.
chansen9 on December 27, 2011 at 9:05 AM

That’s because, back then, Obamacare was only a glimmer in the eyes of the Democrats.

Perspective, people!

JannyMae on December 27, 2011 at 12:29 PM

“Wake up, conservatives, and vote Perry 2012.

TheRightMan”

Alright already – Sheesh, somebody get the ritalin.

DumboTheAvenger on December 27, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Newt knows enough to get off a sinking ship, while Romney continues to deny the health care boat struck an iceberg and is sinking fast. Indeed he is championing his leadership in taking the ship into the iceberg.

eaglewingz08 on December 27, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Not news…

ColHogan on December 27, 2011 at 12:32 PM

…yet he’s the Tea Party candidate.

rubberneck on December 27, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Please stop repeating this lie.

Fallon on December 27, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Gingrich edged rival Michele Bachmann, founder of the House Tea Party Caucus, in the straw poll, conducted during a tele-forum this past weekend with 23,000 supporters.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/12/newt-gingrich-tea-party-patriots-straw-poll-michele-bachmann/1

rubberneck on December 27, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Now apparently the media has Newt’s sealed divorce records:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48386

I’m sure they won’t be pretty since Newt’s affairs ended his first two marriages.

bw222 on December 27, 2011 at 12:33 PM

rubberneck on December 27, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Does anyone put any credence in straw poll votes? Usually Ron Paul wins. I guess Newt’s people were giving better stuff this weekend.

bw222 on December 27, 2011 at 12:35 PM

“Wake up, conservatives, and vote Perry 2012.

TheRightMan”

How about “5 Illegals in Every Garage” for a campaign slogan?

bw222 on December 27, 2011 at 12:37 PM

rubberneck on December 27, 2011 at 12:32 PM

At 31% of the vote, I’d hardly say he qualifies as “the Tea Party’s candidate.”

The best you can say is the Tea Party voters chose the least objectionable of the candidates, IMO.

JannyMae on December 27, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Does anyone running for office have the stones to attempt such radical surgery (aside from extremists like Ron Paul, who would eviscerate and emasculate the United States in the process)?

MrLynn on December 27, 2011 at 11:20 AM

Heh, no there isn’t besides Paul. The kicker is, you can’t save the system gently, you have to eviscerate and emasculate the US/fed gov. 10-15 years ago you could have maybe saved things and let the FreeStuffArmy and other dependents down easily. Now, there is no money left. Radical surgery now is all thats left and its risky.

oryguncon on December 27, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Yes…this is getting old..

I don’t give two craps about his private life…and certainly what he said as a PRIVATE CITIZEN about Healthcare and sitting on a couch with the Princess. Freddie Mac…again PRIVATE Small business Capitalism…..making a profit…it’s old people. What’s most important is PUBLIC OFFICE record. Compare Mitt to Newt to Paul or any other candidate. Choose from that…all this other crap should be for the National Inquirer.
WE HAVE A MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM WITH A MARXIST IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHO WANTS TO DESTROY THIS COUNTRY FROM THE INSIDE OUT.
Make your choice. Mine….Newt..that will never change.

coach1228 on December 27, 2011 at 1:02 PM

jazz_piano, Perry has an excellent record on immigration. Do not buy into the wrong meme that Romney et al tried to paint him with.

+100

Romney flat-out lied in the debate where the topic of in-state tuition came up ($100K subsidy – not even CLOSE to true). If that episode did Perry in, it’s a real shame – because he is a terrific governor and the law actually makes sense.

If he’s such an idiot, why are all these good bloggers (like Ace and others) coming out for him? Are they stupid too?

Of course not. They see what we do. This is a quality guy, a great on-the-ground campaigner, and people are looking right over him because he forgot a name once.

No wonder we’re in trouble.

capitalist piglet on December 27, 2011 at 1:05 PM

So when the people of Massachusetts wants Romneycare 3:1, is that not power being returned to the states?

haner on December 27, 2011 at 12:05 PM

Considering how Romneycare can’t sustain itself without the other 49 states subsidizing it through Federal funds, then NO it is not power being returned to the states.

You’re too easy to deal with.

Daemonocracy on December 27, 2011 at 1:18 PM

OK. OK. OK. I’ll take another look at Perry.

(Looks)

Still bears a startling resemblance to the goofy deputy in “The Dukes of Hazzard,” cowboy hat and all.

Maybe I’m not squinting enough or something.

Horace on December 27, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Ed, I thought you were more savy than this. Gingrich wrote about what someone else implemented. Maybe he saw some good in what Romney had done. Maybe he knew Romney was going to run for President in 2008 and wanted to blunt the idea of Romneycare. I would like to see some articles about how Romney supported Gingrich’s contract with America in 1992. Not. If you hide the truth from the the votes, we will find out at some point and you lose credibility just like the main stream media. Both men have a reoord of their governance. Examine which man has the conservative record and which is almost a liberal. They do not elect conservatives in Massachusetts. Romney was a corporate raider and is a RINO.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on December 27, 2011 at 1:26 PM

TheRightMan/bw222,

I like Perry on immigration, but his ‘heartless’ comment offended the tough-on-immigration crowd.

I don’t believe the Latino vote is already lost. If ‘pandering’ means stopping talk about an exorbitantly expensive border fence (which we cannot afford), splitting up families, and draconian measures like mass deportation of long-time residents . . . then I’m for pandering.

Much to admire about Santorum, but I can’t see that he’s electable–not much going for him as far as executive experience, economic record as a governor, or even winning his last election.

jazz_piano on December 27, 2011 at 1:27 PM

No surprise here. The man advocated a federal level insurance mandate at one point, which legally is a LOT more tenuous than a state-level insurance mandate.

Now, I’m gonna be fair, yes its legally not controversial at the state level. Regardless, I feel it is something we should be moving away from. Additionally, it takes a real special kind of hypocrisy to criticize the position as much as Gingrich has while praising it only a few years earlier.

I wouldn’t rule out supporting a politician who used to hold that position, but they need to give me a logical reason why they wouldn’t support the position again, and they need to be honest about it.

Romney, at least has given a legal explanation why he wouldn’t support mandates on a federal level. Gingrich hasn’t even admitted that he’s supported mandates on both the federal and state levels, let alone explained why he wouldn’t support them in the future.

WolvenOne on December 27, 2011 at 1:32 PM

So when the people of Massachusetts wants Romneycare 3:1, is that not power being returned to the states?

Or is power being returned to the states only when Perry through an executive order mandates Gardasil for all schoolgirls? (bypassing the TX legislature who were opposed.)

haner on December 27, 2011 at 12:05 PM

excellent comment! spot on!

jimver on December 27, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Face it, this version of Newtie Version 3.1 is JUST THE SAME AS OLD NEWT.

he has always been a narcissist, always shot his mouth off with whatever current idea was in his head at the time, a shameless self promoter, and a practiced and experienced liar..

I don’t care about his numerous adulterous affairs, I care about the FACT that he is a very good liar. He kept up lying for YEARS on various people. if that does not concern a voter, I don’t know what should

he promised a positive campaign which he has lied about as he tries to attack Romney now, and he has “fundamentally and categorically” denied the fact he backed Romneycare..

Gingrich is a huge LIAR..

AirForceCane on December 27, 2011 at 1:44 PM

It’s becoming more clear by the moment that the best path to the White House involves little verifiable record of your prior existence. And this is not a birther statement, though I’m sure birthers would agree with this point.

There’s enough other records that could seemingly provide insight into a candidates ideology and intelligence. Education records, private/public sector employment records, military records, health records, voting records, etc. But if you can manage to keep most or all these things “on the down low” you’ve got a much better shot at fooling the voting public.

Aren’t there any GOP rising stars out there who’ve never really had a real job before? Someone, maybe, who has managed to vote present on all the important issues? You know, someone like that.

BKeyser on December 27, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Still bears a startling resemblance to the goofy deputy in “The Dukes of Hazzard,” cowboy hat and all.

Roscoe P. Coltrane looks like Perry

gerrym51 on December 27, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Well, I guess I will just have to face what I was trying to avoid…I have rather stuck my head in the sand over the marital history – Ignored the couch with Nazi promoting the Global Warming farce – Have tried to pretend Dede Scozzzawhatever did not exist…I give up, it can’t be done.. I can only fool myself for so long thinking about how (as stated earlier) Newt would hand it to the Zero.

I live in Texas and have seen Perry up close and personal for 10 years so can’t get excited there – only voted for him this last time because between him and Kay Bailey he had at least not sold out (For lack of opportunity, I am sure). Not to mention I am paying taxes for his retirement pension while he is an absentee Governor while he runs for POTUS…..?? I might as well just put the Romney sticker on the bike and get over it.

TEXAS BIKER CHICK on December 27, 2011 at 2:13 PM

I’m begging you all . . . give Perry a second look.
jazz_piano

I’ve been trying hard. He was my tentative choice last week. I like his AGW, Obamacare and 10th positions. He’s the Governor of a huge and successful state The 3 problems I have are
1.

it’s not like these other guys will seriously address the issue

That’s the point. I would be much happier if I thought he was not going to address the issue. The status quo would be better then a partial amnesty.I know he hasn’t advocated amnesty but neither did the warm hearted Bush II when he ran.

2. He does not come across as a bright guy. I’m not alone here. I personally don’t care about his IQ but for most it’s like he’s short and fat and trying out for the basketball team.

3. He didn’t make the Virginia ballot – that tipped the ballance for me.

BoxHead1 on December 27, 2011 at 2:59 PM

My problem isn’t with politicians that change their mind but those who want to stand by obvious failures.

Cindy Munford on December 27, 2011 at 3:03 PM

People get so miffed when Obama goes over the will of the people to implement his agenda, yet there is no mercy for Romney when he followed the will of the people in Mass and the 80% democrat legislature on Romneycare. Big double standard. You want a politician that represents the people, you can’t nail them to the cross for representing the people.

Ruiner on December 27, 2011 at 3:04 PM

RINO Republican vs RINO Republican… who ya got?

apocalypse on December 27, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Nope. Perry doesn’t suck.

Isn’t it amazing that the other candidates have major flaws with regards to their authenticity and records but Perry doesn’t.

Perry is the only Not-Romney that many are using a superficial excuse to reject. “He can’t debate.” For real? Despite his good to great performances in the last few debates? Despite the fact that there will be three or less debates in the general and that will be it?

Vote Perry 2012. You will never regret you did.

TheRightMan on December 27, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Perry is dumber than Bush. Bush at least got crappy grades from an Ivy League school. The nation will not elect another dumb Texan.

ZippyZ on December 27, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Too bad it doesn’t work that way here. He had to deal with a House and Senate that were 90% democrat, who would not pass anything even remotely conservative. He did use line item vetos to reject many left wing wastes of money, something we miss here in the land of cap and trade (aka the Green Communities Act) greatly.

Can anyone tell me ONE CONSERVATIVE issue that ROMNEY PASSED into law while he was Governor of Taxachussettes? I am having trouble with this one…please help.

coach1228 on December 27, 2011 at 12:16 PM

I don’t support Romney or Newt but it’s sad what is going on here. Who cares what Newt said about Romneycare in 2005 or 2006? Alot has changed since then, especially a radical left winger took over in 2006 and changed things.

I just hope that there are alot of people going through President Downgrades history and getting all the gotcha quotes to roll out all of 2012 up to the election.

If he wins another 4 years, we are all screwed.

shanimal on December 27, 2011 at 5:30 PM

Newt and Mitty sitting in a tree
A-G-R-E-E-I-N-G

Both the “frontrunners” are idiots. Aren’t we lucky?

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on December 27, 2011 at 6:22 PM

We need someone with the courage to take on all corrupt special interests:

1. Warmongering corrupt military industrial complex
2. Money Mafia wallstreet/Fed cartel
3. Propping up (Saudi) Sunni Muslim dictators / Big Oil crony contracts.
4. AIPAC unamerican ethnic cleansing racist pro Israel first lobby
5. Other corrupt corporate monopolies like Obamacare

That’s why we don’t want Americans to vote for Ron Paul. All other candidates are ok puppets.

Here is what we don’t want to happen:
1. Bring back the Fed under control. No bankbailouts, let TBTF fail, Money Mafia in jail!
2. Stop printing, restore dollar purchasing power in local communities (the real job creator)
3. Stop paying corrupt dictators, drugdealers, warlords like Musharraf and Karzai
4. Stop yielding to the warmongering Military industrial complex by following the law,
5. Defend America at home, bring troops home, stop blowback terror assassinations
6. Abolish all corporate welfare, crony corporate monopolies like Obamacare
7. Cut a trillion in crony government spending.
8. Give the money and the power back to the people.

ProtectDefend on December 27, 2011 at 6:39 PM

Look, Gingrich is the ONLY candidate who HAS herded cats in Washington, Successfully, while maintaining a 90% ACU rating. Gingrich HAS accomplished conservative efforts, like a balanced budget (4 TIMES!). Did he rub some folks the wrong way getting it done? Of course, but that’s just too bad (for them!). No one else can even come close to Gingrich’s accomplishments. Period.
As far as all that personal crap is concerned, well, JUST DON’T CARE!?!?!

Colatteral Damage on December 27, 2011 at 6:54 PM

Wake up, conservatives, and vote Perry 2012.

TheRightMan

Like many here, I was hopeful Gov. Perry would be the guy on the white horse who could galvanize conservatives–and the rest of the nation. But he proved slow on his feet, and subsequent appearances on talk shows and debates have done little to allay that impression. He’s better rehearsed now, but has he ever done more than reiterate five or six talking points? I like those points, but can’t vote for a dunce.

MrLynn on December 27, 2011 at 7:42 PM

Santorum is STILL the best choice.

Pork-Chop on January 24, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2