« | »

Gingrich: Ryan’s Medicare Plan Is Radical

From the Wall Street Journal:

Gingrich Blasts House GOP’s Medicare Plan

Presidential Candidate Calls It ‘Right-Wing Social Engineering,’ Agrees With Obama About Need for Insurance Mandate

May 16, 2011

White House hopeful Newt Gingrich called the House Republican plan for Medicare "right-wing social engineering," injecting a discordant GOP voice into the party’s efforts to reshape both entitlements and the broader budget debate.

In the same interview Sunday, on NBC’s "Meet the Press," Mr. Gingrich backed a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance, complicating a Republican line of attack on President Barack Obama’s health law.

Apparently, Mr. Gingrich has spent too much time on that couch with Nancy Pelosi.

Paul Ryan’s proposal would have people to choose from a list of coverage options and have Medicare make “premium-support payments” to the plan they chose.

Unless Mr. Gingrich is proposing doing away with Medicare all together, which he is not, then it is hard to see how allowing people more choice in their Medicare plan is "social engineering" or "radical."

The former House speaker’s decision to stick with his previous support for an individual mandate comes days after former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney defended the health revamp he championed as governor, which includes a mandate…

So it is clear that this is the ‘moderate’ Republican view of how to approach Obama-Care reform. Which is to say, this is the ‘Democrat lite’ view.

Later Sunday, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, he also acknowledged that many Republicans are uncomfortable with requiring insurance coverage but challenged them to offer an alternative solution

There are plenty of alternative healthcare plans. Most of which are centered around lessening government’s role in insurance rather than increasing it.

Mr. Gingrich also said he would like to see the mandate implemented at the state level, with states experimenting with alternative approaches. But he said [it] should apply to all Americans…

What an experiment in "alternative approaches," huh?

He said on NBC’s "Meet the Press" that seniors should not be required to use a new Medicare program, as envisioned by the House GOP, but should be persuaded to voluntarily migrate to a better system.

What "better system" would that be?

"I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering," he said when asked about a Medicare plan championed by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) as an element of the party’s 2012 budget proposal. He said he was against "radical change" on the right and the left

If nothing changes, then nothing changes. And Medicare will simply go broke. Or, more accurately, broker.

In the interview with the Journal, Mr. Gingrich also said that in advocating for big changes to Medicare, House Republicans have failed to both come up with the right policy, and to properly sell it to the country. He said bad salesmanship was part of President Obama’s problem in pushing his own health care plan. "Republicans should learn. There’s a big lesson there," he told the Journal.

Spin-meister heel thyself. Besides, if it is a bad plan, why criticize them for selling it poorly?

Mr. Gingrich also stuck with his past support for the central plank of the Obama health plan—the mandate to buy insurance.

In 1993, Mr. Gingrich said Americans should be required to have health insurance just as they are required to have automobile insurance.

This was an idiotic analogy even 18 years ago.

Back then, he endorsed the use of vouchers to help everyone buy insurance. He also endorsed the use of income-based vouchers to help everyone buy insurance.

So much for personal responsibility then. In fact, this just becomes another giveaway. More income redistribution. Still, it’s good to be reminded that Mr. Gingrich was never a conservative, at least where healthcare is concerned.

On Sunday, Mr. Gingrich said he opposes the Obama plan because it creates a "Washington-based model, a federal system" with exchanges that try to "replace the entire insurance system."

He also contended that people should be required to buy coverage or post a bond to cover their costs should they need care and lack insurance. Like Mr. Romney—and Mr. Obama—Mr. Gingrich spoke of the "free rider" problem: those who go uninsured and then don’t pay their bills when they get sick, spreading the costs across the system.

"All of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care," he said Sunday

No matter how you slice it, Mr. Gingrich’s plan, just like Mr. Obama’s plan, boils down to giving some people ‘free’ government healthcare that is paid for by their neighbors.

So how it that making everyone be responsible? And how it is any different from what we have now, except that the federal government gets to play an even larger role in our lives?

In 2012, Mr. Gingrich may find these views problematic in the Republican contests, where a large number of voters view the Obama health plan as Exhibit A in government overreach…

"I’d like Speaker Gingrich to show me in the Constitution where the government has the right to force people to buy health insurance," said Debbie Dooley, state coordinator for the Georgia Tea Party Patriots. "That’s going to hurt him among tea party activists, extremely."

Mr. Gingrich just told the Tea Party to kiss off. Apparently, he believes the media reports that it is no longer a power in American politics.

Mr. Gingrich is badly mistaken.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, May 16th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

34 Responses to “Gingrich: Ryan’s Medicare Plan Is Radical”

  1. proreason says:

    Newt joins Mitt as also-rans never-really-rans.


    He favors an individual mandate. To be fair, he makes the point that Obamycare is much more, as in is a complete redesign of health care into marxistcare, but that won’t matter. The individual mandate is the lynchpin in most peoles’ minds. If WE can force YOU to buy health care, WE can force YOU to buy anything. But Newt proudly puts on his uber-government shirt and goes for it.

    What he got was a transformation into an also-ran candidate before he started. Guess he wants to be the smartest guy in the room more than he wants to be president. Maybe his ambition is to be a gadfly.

    Bye bye Newt.

    I really want to support these guys, but my god, don’t they have any sense at all? They can’t take themselves seriously as candidates and attack what is routinely considered to be the Republicans #1 or #2 issue. That’s looney. NOBODY ON THE RIGHT IS PUSHING FOR AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE, YOU DUMB SHIT. Being coy about it might be borderline acceptable. Being a proud opponent of what the public wants and what has become the leverage point of the election is just plain dumb. Newt ain’t gonna persuade nobody. He’ll even lose Hannity for this.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      As long as professional politicians (God forbid) jump into this race, the American people will NEVER reign in this monster.
      The GOP in stepping all over their own gonads.
      The people have spoken and now they turn a deaf ear to the roar.
      All politicians had best heed the roar before it becomes the tornado
      on the ground………chewing!!

    • proreason says:

      To me, the last 2 weeks have been stunning.

      2 weeks ago, the top candidates, or at least the best know candidates were Romney, Trump, Huckabee, Palin, and Newt. Now there is Palin, and she probably will not run either.

      Essentially, the rinos all shot themselves in one way or the other, except Pawlenty and Davis, and it looks to me like Davis is trying hard to find the trigger by letting his wife decide for him whether he runs. Even if he eventually comes to yes, that alone has to cost him big-time.

      If Pawlenty keeps his mouth shut for the next month, he’ll win by default. But the way things are going, what are the odds of that happening?

      Christie and Paul Ryan have to be licking their chops. It’s going to be desperation time soon, because the big-money guys are not going to open their wallets for Palin, Bachman, Cain or Santorium…and Ron Paul doesn’t count.

      There also may be some new names lured in by the open playing field. Not sure who they might be, but hey, maybe there is somebody lurking out there who can contend.

      Palin is also helped enormously if she decides to join the field. Her strategy, if she has one, is looking pretty good so far. Let everybody else commit suicide.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      Gawd…..I love this place.
      Thanks guys and gals!
      You too, Steve!

    • tranquil.night says:

      I’m just glad the phonies are outting themselves early. The less time we take frauds seriously, the more we have to make arguments based more on principle.

    • Chase says:

      Rusty expresses it as well as anyone.

      I have said for years, while people listening looked worredly at me and around for a caretaker, that I would be most satisfied if Congress came into session, passed a budget, and went home and did nothing for a couple of years, just to see what happened.

      When did national or gov’t health care become a done deal? Just because there was a year-long spiral to Obamacare, does that mean it is already a part of the national mindset, a declared right and established entitlement? Why are the dopes-on-a-rope talking about modifying, or cancelling only portions?

      We are Americans, and we take care of ourselves! We build businesses, and let the markets decide if we are getting a fair deal, and we suffer consequences of bad decisions, and rally our family around us and get going again.

      But no? Now we are all settled on Medicare being a part of the fabric of everyone’s life, and that we have to live with it, can’t live without it, and we are just hammering out the details?

      I am amazed at how the Dhimmos can just declare something as necessary and right, and the Right just moves Left in step.

      No, not Gov. Christie. And no, as much as I like Sarah Palin, I am afraid she has too much baggage, unjustifiably pelted and the shameful 24-hour press cycle, making it discolor her enough that I don’t think she is electable. Romney would be an honest broker, I think, and a good figurehead, but I think his Left leg is shorter than his Right, so in a long walk, he would be steadily veering Left. Pawlenty seems pretty good, but who knows in an election lead-up.

      And why do candidates HAVE to declare by June, 16 months out? Who made that rule? If our GOPs all develop ego-driven diahrrea of the mouth, what laws say Rubio or West could not be put forward to oust the Occupying Vermin….we don’t need all these systems and burdens and hurdles in place…..America has got to get back to making sense, not being limited by bureaucracy, and gaming a system.

      There, I am ready for the looney bin….

    • proreason says:

      Newt made me think, which is dangerous. The issue he is trying to address by supporting an individual mandate is a legitimate issue. The way the 2008 medical system worked was that people could just not buy insurance, sometimes for decades, and then when they got sick, they would get virtually the identical medical care as the millions who had been responsible, for free. That is definitely an issue, but Newt goes off the rails by forcing people to buy a product.

      Here is another idea, which probably has holes, but at least it’s an alternative.

      We already have a secondary medical system. Essentially, it’s ER care, which is often free to people who use it. A problem is nobody really knows what it costs, and what burdens it inflicts on the rest of the system. Why not formalize it? Call it “Canadian style healthcare for people who can’t or won’t buy health insurance”. In that system, no doctor would be asked to provide lesser care than in the “insured” system, but the doctor/nurse/equipment/PT/PA ratios would all be larger, which would necessarily increase wait times, just like in Canada and other bigGov systems. If you got sick, you would be in a ward, not a private room. The equipment would be older, You would have to pay for meals. Maybe you would have to pay $100 up front for most services. You wouldn’t have a private physician. You couldn’t choose either. This is not a cruel system. The military systems largely work that way. I think the free ER systems do as well. It’s still good medical care, but the Kia version, not the Mercedes version. If private business understood the rules, they could build systems that would actually work (as opposed to government which would build a system that costs 10 times as much with 1/3 the capabilities), and adjust it over time to meet then-current needs. How to pay for it? Not sure, but one idea would be to decrease income taxes by 2%, and then have a 2% flat tax for “Canadian style healthcare”. The system would be targetted at only 20% of the population, so if somewhat less the 20% of GDP currently goes to medical care, 2% of GDP should be enough to build a “Canada style” tier. Localities that would want more, like all over the oh-so-empathetic libwit localities could supplement that, which certainly they would (ha ha). I know of at least one city that actually has local taxes to support a hospital system for poorer people (but it’s in a red state….amazing huh? There are probably many more.). One last feature would be a hop-the-line cabability. At any point, if you wanted to “catch up” on insurance payments, you could….something like 1 year of average payments for people under 25, 2 years up to 30, 3 years up to 40, etc. If you “caught up”, you would be in the normal system with single rooms, shorter waits, better ratios, private physicians, etc.

      Anyway, there are certainly ways to solve the problem of people gaming the system and then getting the same care you paid 30 year of insurance for, without mandates and without forcing EVERYONE into a Canadian style system.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Pro, you’re right. The infrastructure of the Secondary Medical system, as you termed it – the public clinics, etc – already exist and were growing more robust in the time leading up to TWMBR’s passage. Nursing clinics in the private sector were developing especially as cheaper local alternatives to hospitals for non-insured patients who end up in the ER too often in non-ER situations.

      My problem with debating the need to tinker with all these nuanced structural ideas is that it marginalizes what the problems causing the real cost burdens are. The Ryan Plan doesn’t address every structural ptoblem we have but it does attempt to solve some very key ones. If those reforms were to come into place, then the government and the medical industry would have vast more liquidity to continue massaging the system towards efficiency.

      Newt is just 100% off message, no matter what truth he’s co-opting to peddle his lines.

    • proreason says:

      tn, my idea only addresses Newt’s inidividual mandate idea. I agree completely that slamming Ryan as Newt did was stupid, and also don’t think that seriously proposing alternatives to the government takeover of health care is the correct approach politically at this time, since it might turn the repeal discussion into a “modify it” discussion. The right approach is repeal and reform. My idea could be a part of the reform discussion, along with the better known proposals to allow interstate competition, tort reform, tax reform re health insurance, etc..

    • tranquil.night says:

      I understand and forgive me as it was not intentional to sound like I was challenging the substance of your idea in the context of that reform debate. It might very well be a practical solution to the problem of the uninsured (and the inevitable Statist assertion that it requires a mandate), but I think it’s a solution to a problem that would not be not be so severe ’twere it not for the circumstances already hefted upon the industry by so many other factors – regulations, illegal immigration, national decline in income/increase in dependency class leading to unsustainable deficits for the government plans, etc.

      If we stress those larger reforms as part of our over-arching goal to see that more people are able to afford their own coverage, then the Secondary Medical System (which is already as overburdened currently as the primary because it’s practically pro-bono medical care) will fill the niche you’re describing naturally, without the need to define it federally, just give localities the power to develop the type of health services their communities need. Do this in addition to handing Medicare/Medicaid over to the states where they have BBA’s and the Federal share in coverage obligations will drop dramatically – along with overall costs. That frees up resources for some sort of federal catastrophic care program employing the Secondary Medical System, like what you’re describing.

      I guess my point is a small one about messaging. Change the circumstances first, then you can change the structure.

  2. Liberals Demise says:

    Salamander Gingrich just depth charged his own submarine.
    That’s that for that!
    See Ya!!

    Btw……what’s he doing on Nancys ‘Casting Couch’?

    • untrainable says:

      …what’s he doing on Nancys ‘Casting Couch’?
      I’m pretty sure that they were making a global warming commercial. Professing that reaching across the aisle could save the planet. THAT was strike one for Newt in my book. Well… ok strike one is that the guy is named after a salamander. Small, slimey, living under a rock somewhere. Sounds right, but I digress.

  3. heykev says:

    Add Gingrich’s name to the ever growing list of Republican presidential hopefuls who are now out of the running for the nomination.

  4. tranquil.night says:

    The GoP establishment has been convinced for decades that doing anything with Medicare and Social Security other than adding to it is political suicide with seniors.

    I’m not convinced that’s the reason anymore because political circumstances are obviously changing but the establishment isn’t; from Trump to Gingrich they repeat the talking points and refuse to embrace truth and reason. It really is run by a clique of Democrat Lites who understand just as well as the rest that the 3rd rails amount to tremendous social and political control. I think that’s why the establishment is desperate to run so many candidates against grassroots conservatives in hope of finding someone who we can stick with long enough without actually having an executive who’ll clearly govern as a true American. I guess if there’s anyone from that clique who hasn’t completely flubbed it so far, it’s T-Paw, but he isn’t inspiring much confidence in me either. I’m expecting the establishment to get ahold of his message sooner than later and he’ll let some moderate position slip out too – probably later when he’s more threatening and the MBM scrutiny’s up.

    Sorry guys, you hate me for sayin’ it I know, but right now I still think Governor Palin is leagues more prepared not just policy-wise, but actually in the best position to raise her numbers if she were to get back in the mainstream (while the other front-runners are going to be on defense a lot trying to maintain theirs). I don’t think the MBM would be able to caricature her as effectively as in 2008, those were more or less one time circumstances that have since drastically changed.

    Really her biggest problem is swaying the moderate and elitist Republicans and ‘conservatives’ who won’t take her seriously because she’s a proud, independent mother who’s also a self-made powerful woman. Reason and Principles won’t work to convince them, she’ll have to find another way if she runs.

    On the path to overcoming Obama, this group of Ruling Class Lites must be challenged and defeated though. Because at the end of the day, like Democrats, they don’t define their governing ideas through reason or principle but by power and control. Liars.

    • Right of the People says:


      I’m with you, I think Sarah is the best, most realistic candidate out there by far. I believe if they let her run her campaign the way she wants to she can win. She is the anti-Barry. Everything she stands for is diametrically opposite of the the Bungler and I think exactly what this country needs.

      Of course that would really frost the libs because they don’t believe any woman can be both strong minded and beautiful at the same time. They also feel if a woman (or any other minority like Barry the Bumbler) is going to become president that they HAVE to be a Dimocrap.

      I mean look, the LSM has already done their best to destroy her and she’s still going strong. We need a candidate who won’t be afraid to match the libs blow for blow no matter how dirty it gets, not some wimp like McLame who had lots of ammo to use but he decided he’d take the “high road”, like such a thing exists in politics, instead and look where it got him. Taking the high road is fine as long as your opponent does the same. Unfortunately those days are gone if they ever were here to begin with. The way I see it, whoever the Republican candidate is can take the high road or they can win, but not both. Not with the libs as an opponent.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Great post RotP. I’d say only that ours is naturally the high road, we’ve just played the game on their field for too long. Now’s the time for leadership who will redefine the game under our rules. Sarah, Michele, et al are reflective of the Tea Party as a whole in doing that with ever more clarity, boldness, and success. And we know it scares the crap out of both wings of the Ruling Class.

  5. GetBackJack says:

    Well I don’t know why I came here tonight,
    I got the feeling that something ain’t right,
    I’m so scared in case I fall off my chair,
    And I’m wondering how I’ll get down the stairs,
    Clowns to the left of me,
    Jokers to the right, here I am,
    Stuck in the middle with you.

    Stealers Wheel, 1972, A&M Records, Rafferty, Egan

  6. oldpuppydixie says:

    Gotta keep sucking up to those New York and DC RINO elites who run the Republican party, right Newtie??!!

  7. proreason says:

    Yep, Newt “Toast” Gingrich.

    He could have got away with this if he put it better. He should have praised praised Ryan for his political courage, and said that he 100% supports taking on SS as well as Medicare.

    THEN he could have expressed some disagreements and said that some alternatives are x and y. Together, he will work with….blah blah.

    What it indicates to me is a very tin ear, which is a disqualification. A military leader can get away with overruling subordinates, at least for a while. A political leader cannot. Even if the people are wrong, which in this case, we aren’t, a real leader knows how to guide the public, not attempt to force his unpopular will on it.

    Even Spike doesn’t do anything that stupid. Of course, Spike’s approach is to lie like he breaths. I give Newt credit for not lying. But it’s not a toggle switch. The only choices are not lying or slamming your natural allies.

    Again, the disqualification isn’t disagreeing with Ryan, or saying anything that people don’t agree with, it’s the artless, ruling-class, tin-eared way of saying it.

    Bye bye Newt.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Well put as always!

      Sad too because there are those areas where Newtoast can shine in policy debates, and I’d thought his presence would enhance the field in that regard. Maybe it still will if the strong grassroots candidate can come on strong in the plan’s defense. But we don’t have a strong grassroot’s candidate who’s done that yet (none that’ve declared at least).

      Open opportunity for those who’ll embrace and champion it.

  8. proreason says:

    Rush’s show is abuzz with theories about why Newt did it…none of which make any sense.

    Here’s mine.

    Newt knows that the timing of Ryan’s plan is horrible. Not the substance of the plan, the timing. Here we have A TRILLION in new spending, radicals in every government department, the massive and deceiptful take over by the government of health care, the apology tours….and on an on…so what do the idiot rinos do? They introduce the third rail of American politics and make it the showpiece of the 2012 strategy. You know, the single easiest thing to demonize in world history. Little lenin and the marxist dwarves are rubbing their hands in glee. It’s an unbelievable strategic error to introduce it now instead of in 2013, when Republiccans could have had 60%+ majorities in both houses and tons of political capital.

    Newt knows this and he was trying to distance himself from having to spend 55 minutes of every hour defending himself from the media accusing him of stealing granny’s dog food.

    The idea was good. But his execution was disastrous. So bad that it doesn’t matter whether the strategy was good. He’s toast.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Doesn’t say much for the mental abilities of the electorate, either.

      All subjects from healthcare to airport security are important. Equally? No. But salesmanship always leaves me feeling dirty. Why do politicians think they need to “sell” their version of horseshit?

      One of the biggest problems we face is the American voting public, who, as you’ve pointed out, are more fascinated with a flashy sequel to a dismal movie from the 80’s than how things will affect their own lives if we are laden with socialism. And many people don’t even know what socialism is.

      Ignorance and stupidity vary widely in degree and scope. When I ask many of my friends why they aren’t interested in the war on terror, or the latest stupid thing chairman Obie said, they simply reply they are too busy to care; That they have to clean the garage, pick up the kids from soccer practice and/or TiVo the latest installment of “Who Wants To Be A MIllionaire?”.

      And, invariably, “All politicians are the same” as far as they’re concerned so they have already gone down the path of hopelessness and stopped caring, as long as they can still shop online and have better 4G coverage in their area.

      On this basis, I submit that we are so royally screwed.

  9. untrainable says:

    “All of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care,” he said Sunday…
    All of us have a responsibility to pay for healthcare. OUR OWN healthcare. Not everyone elses healthcare.

    These politicians have re-defined insurance to mean health. Like if you have insurance, you won’t get sick! They address the issue as if having health insurance is the cure for everything. Reject the premise.

    I’m 47 years old. I’ve been to see a physician twice in the last 30 years (I hate doctors). How is it “fair” to force me to pay for someone elses … anyone elses healthcare by government mandate. To steal money from me to pay for the healthcare of someone who is not my responsibility (not my parent, wife, or child). No matter what the Washington weasel squad says, the only healthcare I am responsible for is my own. I’ll say it now, if I get sick and I can’t afford treatment… just let me die. Because I’d rather die than take money that was stolen from taxpayers by the federal government, for something that IS my responsibility.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Yes, it is the “we are the world” collectivist BS that creates a lot of problems. Willie Nelson sang it with “Mind your own business and you won’t be minding mine”. Smart biblical scholars and men of the cloth fully understand “my brother’s keeper” and what that means.

      Somehow, self reliance has been bastardized to mean selfishness; That a handout is “helping”. In order to understand “helping” adequately, my parents gave me a lesson on how people become poor, and why they stay poor. In my own estimation, I would guess that those who are truly unable to be productive and care for themselves is but a minuscule fraction of the people who are actually on gubbmint aid. I am reminded of the woman in the photo living in the small building in Louisiana who’s house was destroyed in the hurricane. She sure had a nice cellphone and widescreen TV in there. The dining room table didn’t look half bad, either.

      I grant you, my sight glass is narrow, but I can’t help but think that there is a large portion of people who live sunup to sundown every stinkin’ day thinking that they are owed something and when the welfare check is late, they actually get angry. Indeed, I have seen the welfare lines with able-bodied young people in them. Why?

      Well, LBJ’s “Great New Society” may work in a Heinlein novel but not in reality. The takers eventually will outnumber the givers and….giving in this case is not voluntary. Hello, again, Rome, 400AD when crippling taxes destroyed it all. The Huns and Barbarians could move in and for another half a millennium Europe was “organized” into small duchies, townships, villages and kingdoms…usually with the gangster-in-charge having the largest pot of money and deciding or not to protect the source of his income….that being the people who toiled in filth and squalor to pay the gangsters.

      This is the direction we’re headed. Socialists are looking forward to it and republicans are too stupid to see the train coming from behind while they stand on the tracks, looking in the wrong direction. This is because they believe they only need to remain secure in their apparatchik position until such time as they can retire….hopefully with a large nest-egg to protect themselves. Again, Roman 101. “Don’t upset the applecart”. “Don’t draw attention to yourself”. “look busy”. A real mover and shaker would be destroyed in minutes by both sides. This is an untenable government in its present form. Well, not so much the form as it is the way it (dys)functions.

      I’m sure every freshman congress critter got the briefing from Boner. “Do as you’re told and we’ll get along fine. If anyone here thinks they are going to ‘save the world’, think again. We have an established order here and if you don’t follow it, you won’t be getting anything, let alone the ear of any leadership members, including myself.”

      Egos, brashness, nepotism, good-ol-boys. Call it what you will. Bidniss as usual. To paraphrase Sam Clemens, “It’s not that the government has so many stupid people in it; It’s that lightning isn’t distributed properly.”.

      And it goes beyond stupid. Vanity, political insider-ship, favoritism, “the way things work around here” all wrapped up in social convention, useless rhetoric and all culminating in the appearance of doing something. To that end, I am reminded of the classic movie “How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying”. The main character is a flurry of activity without ever doing any actual work. That is, until he runs into someone just like him and is temporarily at a loss how to do an end-run around him.

      We have all seen and know the type. Again, it’s what we have in our government now and yes, I am very cynical about them.

    • proreason says:

      Insurance is the problem not the solution. So what do the criminal politicians do? Put it on steroids.

      I’m pretty sure this is the central theme of liberalism. Think of any problem, the libwits solution is to take the worst aspect and amplify it. Medicare is a problem…expand it into Obamycare. Welfare is a problem…get more people on welfare. Detroit is a problem…make every libwit city just like Detroit. Spending is a problem…triple the spending. Crime is a problem…set the criminals free. Iran is a problem…make the entire Middle East like Iran. Hundreds more examples.

      Gee it’s almost like they are trying to tear Western culture to shreds, isn’t it?

  10. Phil Byler says:

    In recent years, I was thinking that Newt Gingrich might assume the mantle of Ronald Reagan. Newt was making videos extolling Ronald Reagan and John Paul II. Last year Newt was delivering speeches and he published a book attacking the Obama Demcrats, in a nice piece of political analysis, for engaging in socialist machine politics. But this year, Newt has faltered badly, first a few weeks ago when he was asked about his personal failings and did not answer well and now with a very surprising attack on the Ryan budget proposal and a defense of an insurance mandate. Charles Krauthammer says Newt is done. Perhaps so.

    So, in 2012, if it won’t be Newt, who will it be to take on Obama? I have never thought it would be Romney; his RomneyCare, his flips on social issues and his thin foreign policy resume would and will preclude it. I have never thought it would be a first term Governor or a Congressman or Congresswoman, no matter how appealing the person might be. It cannot be Ron Paul; economic issues aside, he is off the wall concerning foreign policy, military matters and national security. An Indiana Governor? Makes me think of Wilkie against FDR; that is not good because we do have some rough times ahead due to foreign events, notwithstanding Osama being killed; but there was no reason for a Wilkie Presidency when the 1940’s brought the challenges of World War II.

    We need someone who: (i) stands for the old Reagan coalition of national security conservatives, economic conservatives and social conservatives; and (ii) is a person with real experience and real knowledge able to identify conservative solutions to domestic problems and handle with competence challenges from abroad based on American strength and exceptionalism. If Newt is out, I do not see anyone else in the current field filling what is needed. We are in trouble.

    • Steve says:

      It’s great to see you posting again, Phil!

    • Phil Byler says:

      Thanks. FYI: U.S. Marines Lieutenant James is at Walter Reed, but doing very, very well in his physical rehabilitation and leg prosthetics; he is off pain medication and at a very moving 3/5 Marines Memorial Service at Camp Pendleton on April 27, he wore his desert cami uniform (pants over the leg prosthetics) and was with his old platoon in formation. U.S. Army Captain John, after a mini-tour in Afghanistan training Afghani officers, is back at his home base before assuming a company command.

    • Steve says:

      That is great to hear. I think of him a lot.

  11. BigOil says:

    Where have we seen this before? A lecturer professor advocating for a healthcare mandate and decrying the dangers of Glowball Warming while playing footsie with Pelosi. I guess the biggest difference is Newt can do it without a teleprompter.

  12. tranquil.night says:

    You know what, instead of kicking dirt back in the face of Newtoast and crying about the damage he’s done to your position, the Republicans should be spending that time defending the advantages of the plan or challenging critics to produce a plan of their own with specifics that address the reality of the crisis. Paul Ryan’s the one with the biggest right to be insulted, but he also came out and vigorously challenged the incorrect assertions.

    We’re not going to let Newtoast be used as a scapegoat to back away from our banner of action, and any notion that it’s hurt us in debt ceiling fight is ridiculous. Should the leadership cave again, they know what’s coming their way.

    Get over it and get back to work. As Levin is saying, Gringrich will pay the price for his falter; we still got a country to save.

  13. Not so fast says:

    I can’t help but have a feeling that Newt and the other RINO candidates are trying to hook the MEGA financial backing of the Wall Street Big 5 bank donors from the popularity challanged Obama. The BIG POCKETS are the main reasons for ObamaCare since it will help their bottom lines by having mandated Government, ie taxpayer, funded health care. It’s the only thing that makes ANY sense since ANYBODY who can read political tea leaves knows that Obamacare and it’s concepts are poison to the general public after the 2010 mid-terms.

  14. BillK says:

    I’ve been saying it in one form or another since at least the last election and for several months before:

    I wholeheartedly support Sarah Palin for President in 2012.

    If Sarah doesn’t run, I’ll vote for Michele Bachmann.

    If Michele doesn’t run, I may very well stay home.

    I certainly would never vote for Mitt or Newt, as I don’t see where either is any worse than giving Obama another four years.

  15. canary says:

    Pelosi might have warned Newt she never washed her little blue suit.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »