Dec29
Why both Gingrich and Romney are awful, and unconservative, though at least Gingrich has figured out the score, while Romney continues to double down.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here’s video of Romney continuing to defend the mandate as “conservative.” This tells us that he has no idea what conservative principles are, because in fact it is tyrannical.
Did we really NEED video to show Romney for the RINO he is?!
Unfortunately, the individual mandate was the brain child of the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank. Sometimes, think tanks at least as poorly grounded in the real world as academia. They fall in love with an idea and since they’re so smart, they’re blind to the weaknesses.
OMG, someone’s wrong on the internet! I must respond!
But seriously, you know that Newt has described many times that they were trying to find an alternative to Hillarycare, and yet the more they worked with the mandate, the more they saw it was terrible and totally unworkable and tyrannical, or words to that effect.
It does seem to me that the fact that Newt admits this was wrong, about the individual mandate, and a terrible idea, ought to count for more than getting him included with Romney on this.
In fact, Newt opposes mandates on pretty much every topic I’ve heard him talk about: –he proposes an OPTIONAL flat tax; an OPTIONAL social security personal savings account for younger people… Newt explicitly says he thinks it is very dangerous to try to force people to change something people care about like social security, and it is much better to allow people to choose for themselves.
In fact, BTW, mandatory unpopular law is what Newt was talking about when the interviewer asked him about forcing through laws that are unpopular and he said, that right wing social engineering is no better than left wing social engineering. I went back and watched the interview. Everybody says Newt was bashing Paul Ryan. Not really. The question was whether lawmakers should force unpopular laws on people when the people are against the laws.
I continue to support Newt more than ever, and I think that the more people who watch Newt’s speeches, and find out more about Newt’s actual proposals, the more people will join in.
I think Newt’s proposals will give the American people a fighting chance to return to constitutionally-based government and freedom and prosperity.
Maybe we can dig out all the Leftist traps that have been buried in our laws, regulatory agencies and institutions. Dear heavens, I would love that.
The Establishment and RINOS in Washington, D.C. and New York hate Newt. What does that tell you? Doesn’t that give you some clue that he’s not a progressive?
Remember this from July 2010, Angelo Codevill “America’s Ruling Class”: http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print
They’re all going after Newt.
Here’s something by Matt Lewis at The Daily Caller, “Inside Game?”
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/23/inside-game/
Are you denying that the Heritage Foundation came up with the idea of the individual mandate? If so, then you’re wrong. Newt has back-peddled away from the idea and good for him. There’s nothing wrong with changing your mind if new facts come to light showing your earlier opinion was in error. In fact, that’s a good thing.
Mandated health insurance is supposed to be a “lesser of two evils” from the economic conservative point of view: if the community has to give you care when you show up unconscious at the emergency room, and if we don’t want to end up with free riders, then you have to pay whatever premium covers the statistically expected cost of emergency care. That doesn’t imply mandating that everyone get a “cadillac” health plan, just the equivalent of liability-only auto insurance.
Of course, it may be gross blindness to imagine that such an idea will do more good than harm when it gets implemented by politicians who don’t even understand the difference between liability and comprehensive insurance.
By his own admission, Romney is a progressive. He said it on tv during his 2002 run for Guv’ner. You can see it on Youtube.
Could it have been pap for the Massachusetts masses? Maybe.
But that sort of pandering doesn’t give me much confidence either.
If it’s Romney vs Obama I’ll hold my nose and vote for Romney. But I will not have any Hope that he’s a conservative.
Romney? Conservative? That explains why Romney received the coveted endorsement of George Herbert Walker Bush! Can you say, “read my lips”?
If Romney does become President, he has one-termer written all over him. Which begs the question, which Democrat would run against Romney in 2016?
If Romney does win next year he’ll have a good shot at two terms. The direction of economic performance is the biggest predictor of elections, and odds are good that the economy will be better in 2016 than 2012. Whichever party wins next year can claim credit for an inevitable recovery.
I’d be surprised if Obama ran again after a loss. I could see Clinton running in 2016, or Mark Warner, Tom Kaine, Andrew Cuomo, ….
Brad, personally I think that if Romney wins in 2012, Barack will run against him in 2016, wanting to complete his work of destroying America.
Not that Romney will be any better, which is why I will vote 3rd party rather the Repubs if Romney wins the nomination.
In 2016, will we see pictures of Obama playing with a caption, “miss me yet?”
Negative — Democrats bury their dead. If Obama looses next year, he is forever gone from the Executive branch, as is Hillary.