Friday, December 16, 2011
Mandatory Newt
Tom Maguire, conceding that he does "not have as nimble a mind as Newt," struggles to substantiate Gingrich's claim that he has been "fighting against the individual mandate" for years. Rather, he discovers the reverse.
Since the individual mandate is inextricably linked to community rating and you cannot find a Republican against that, Newt's conversion has moved him from an intellectually honest position to a ridiculous one, all in the cause of a big pander.
Not that there is anything wrong with that. Just do not prefer Newt over Mitt on the grounds of consistency.
6 Comments:
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Fri Dec 16, 06:56:00 PM:
Can you believe that we once had politicians who were principled, and ended friendships and fought duels over said principles?
By 
, at
Fri Dec 16, 07:19:00 PM:
Can you believe the last man to balance the federal budget four years in a row, and actually reform an entitlement instead of talking about it... has to fight off charges that he's too liberal...
While a gentleman who actually wrote the state level health care reform which was the inspiration for the gigantic economic millstone known as Obamacare, is touted as the most conservative (or tied as) the most conservative candidate in the race by certain establishment types?
By , at
Fri Dec 16, 07:26:00 PM:
There is a thoughtful post on Gingrich here:
A quote:
"In summary, Newt Gingrich's approach can't be fully understood with an easy caricature of big or small government, status quo or radical change. What Newt stands for, and intends to carry out if elected, is a series of major changes in how government operates - done step by gradual step, introducing more popular choice and control and reducing public employment, rather than focusing on making dramatic and immediate cuts to public outlays or public functions. Newt's gradualism is an attitude that's inseparable from both his training as a historian and his obsession with the future: Newt sees change as a constant and a continuum, in which the future is reshaped by the way in which incentives are altered and power put in the hands of people who will not willingly cede it back."
Read more:
http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2011/12/politics_taking_3.php
By , at
Fri Dec 16, 11:37:00 PM:
Anonymous posted something about Gingrich "balancing the budget"...
Ironically, even Fox News had a chuckle on this claim.
"GINGRICH: "I balanced the budget for four straight years, paid off $405 billion in debt -- pretty conservative."
THE FACTS: In the 1996 and 1997 budget years, the first two years he shaped as speaker of the House of Representatives, the government actually ran deficits. In 1998 and 1999, the government ran surpluses. Two more years of surpluses followed, but Gingrich was gone from politics by then and had nothing to do with them.
Moreover, the national debt went up during the four years Gingrich was speaker. In January 1995, when he became speaker, the gross national debt was $4.8 trillion. When he left four years later, it was $5.6 trillion, an increase of $800 billion.l"
The problem is not the hubris, just that Newt's actual tenure as Speaker was such a poor offering, such bad leadership, so self interested, we missed out on so many serious opportunities. In the end Newt resigned in disgrace and the fiasco enabled a great deal of the opposite.
The issue for Newt on these grandiose claims remains his failure to actually have an Executive position. He was working within the House as par of a larger body with the Republican Party providing much of the positives at the time.
Anyhow, Newt was not healthy in that debate again, as his Beltway Insider "business" is the ultimate sign Gingrich is not what he is selling. Fannie and Freddie payments are but anchors around the neck, and the continued attempts to equate this quasi Public Sector influence peddling as the same as the genuine Free Market is child's play.
Of course, the Examiner's endorsement of Romney was huge. Romney had a great debate. He answer about what will drive the Markets was excellent - the Free Market determines our future, not the planners.
Ann Coulter, Chris Christie, T-Paw, Sen. Thune, Rep. Issa, John Hinderaker, Nikki Haley, etc.
One can hope we get the best offering, and remove this disaster named Obama. Romney is certainly up for the job and could make a good President.
By , at
Sun Dec 18, 05:26:00 PM:
What is to be done?
2012 shouldn't be a normal election decided by who out "squishes" moderate independents. Right now we're living in a "new normal" economy. It sucks, but it's not that bad for most of us. But it's unsustainable. There's a conspiracy of silence about this in our Establishment, most Republicans in Congress included. How many years of deficits over a trillion can we sustain? My over/under is 2.5.
The Republicans need to get Obama's "Strongly Dissapprove" to over 50% -- and make 2012 a referendum on Obama and crazy ass Democratic spending. If they do, they'll win the White House. But they'll also win 60 or more in the Senate. With a mandate. Normally I'm a fan of divided government, but not now. If the Republicans don't get a mandate to get serious, what's the point.
Now people here tell me that Mitt is an honorable man, but I don't see him taking the fight to Obama. I also believe strongly that "Carried Interest" will be quite vulnerable in the general. If Mitt should win the White House, he won't be able to sell federal down-sizing.
Mitt's running for his own ego, and to protect the interests of the 1% when the shit hits the fan. Which is why he's got support on TigerHawk. Am I wrong? But the huddled masses, including the ones clutching their guns and religion in PA, will see through this. There's a huge opening to grab the pissed-off middle. Nominating Mitt is a sure way to blow it. Perhaps that's intentional.
Newt's not a great candidate, but he's still well ahead of Mitt everywhere but in New Hampshire. That's a tell. Mitt's spending lots of money to drag Newt down won't solve Mitt's own issues.
It's not too late to open this up.
By , at
Sun Dec 18, 05:27:00 PM:
What is to be done?
2012 shouldn't be a normal election decided by who out "squishes" moderate independents. Right now we're living in a "new normal" economy. It sucks, but it's not that bad for most of us. But it's unsustainable. There's a conspiracy of silence about this in our Establishment, most Republicans in Congress included. How many years of deficits over a trillion can we sustain? My over/under is 2.5.
The Republicans need to get Obama's "Strongly Dissapprove" to over 50% -- and make 2012 a referendum on Obama and crazy ass Democratic spending. If they do, they'll win the White House. But they'll also win 60 or more in the Senate. With a mandate. Normally I'm a fan of divided government, but not now. If the Republicans don't get a mandate to get serious, what's the point.
Now people here tell me that Mitt is an honorable man, but I don't see him taking the fight to Obama. I also believe strongly that "Carried Interest" will be quite vulnerable in the general. If Mitt should win the White House, he won't be able to sell federal down-sizing.
Mitt's running for his own ego, and to protect the interests of the 1% when the shit hits the fan. Which is why he's got support on TigerHawk. Am I wrong? But the huddled masses, including the ones clutching their guns and religion in PA, will see through this. There's a huge opening to grab the pissed-off middle. Nominating Mitt is a sure way to blow it. Perhaps that's intentional.
Newt's not a great candidate, but he's still well ahead of Mitt everywhere but in New Hampshire. That's a tell. Mitt's spending lots of money to drag Newt down won't solve Mitt's own issues.
It's not too late to open this up.
