[Fred]

Hillary/Gingrich 2012

[Snickering Hound]

He was also for Cap and Trade.

[thatdewd]

Didn’t he run as a flaming liberal his first attempt at office, and Then suddenly ‘found’ the truth of Conservatism after being thoroughly trounced at the polls?

[thatdewd]

Didn’t he run as a flaming liberal his first attempt at office, and Then suddenly ‘found’ the truth of Conservatism after being thoroughly trounced at the polls?

[cripplecreek]

He’s a repudiation of everything the tea party stands for.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Let me just say, look at my moniker. I used to be liberal. Many of us have changed and altered our positions over the years.

I believe there is a big difference between a RINO and a person who USED TO BELIEVE certain things and who now believes differently.

I know many here on FR would like to have us all believe they’re the ones who’ve never changed their mind on social and economic beliefs. Which is fine...they can POSE all they want to pose.

My question when assessing a politician is: Are they moving in the right direction? If so, then they’re more likely to get my vote.

For this reason, Jon Huntsman in my opinion is a worse candidate than Mitt Romney. Romney is accused of moving to the right for political convenience....but Huntsman has been moving to the left while still proclaiming to be a Republican!

Consider: Huntsman went to WORK for Hussein right after Hussein took over. That disgusts me....and to think he NOW wants to represent us?!

I also saw Huntsman speak to a group of Republican activists in Florida. He openly spoke of wanting to appeal to liberals. He is definitely worse on the issue of flipping and flopping than Romney.

Huntsman is kind of like the Charlie Crist of national politics...calls himself a Republican, but publicly embraced Hussein when it was good for him.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Let me just say, look at my moniker. I used to be liberal. Many of us have changed and altered our positions over the years.

I believe there is a big difference between a RINO and a person who USED TO BELIEVE certain things and who now believes differently.

I know many here on FR would like to have us all believe they’re the ones who’ve never changed their mind on social and economic beliefs. Which is fine...they can POSE all they want to pose.

My question when assessing a politician is: Are they moving in the right direction? If so, then they’re more likely to get my vote.

For this reason, Jon Huntsman in my opinion is a worse candidate than Mitt Romney. Romney is accused of moving to the right for political convenience....but Huntsman has been moving to the left while still proclaiming to be a Republican!

Consider: Huntsman went to WORK for Hussein right after Hussein took over. That disgusts me....and to think he NOW wants to represent us?!

I also saw Huntsman speak to a group of Republican activists in Florida. He openly spoke of wanting to appeal to liberals. He is definitely worse on the issue of flipping and flopping than Romney.

Huntsman is kind of like the Charlie Crist of national politics...calls himself a Republican, but publicly embraced Hussein when it was good for him.

[South40]

Was?

We don't believe Mitt when he says he has changed on issues, why would we believe Newt?

FReepers of every stripe were critical of John Kerry for his flip-flopping on issues. Why is it acceptable when Newt Gingrich does it?

[Parley Baer]

Seeing what has happened in Massachusetts and ObamaCare I would be interested in hearing what Newts position is on the subject today. Same thing with Cap and Trade with all the new information on the subject that is out. Has he “grown” with the new information or is he stuck in the past? Romney is still defending Romney Care as an example. Newt has been on the political scene for a long time and there is a ton of material out there on him. I want to know what his current position is about a subject. Has he learned or is he still stuck in the past.

[libertarian neocon]

He is a big government conservative. Just read this interview, it’s all right there http://www.riponsociety.org/forum-newt.htm

Unfortunately, there just arent any other realistic choices. Santorum would be nice but he can’t even sustain 5% support. Even Republican voters in Pennsylvania dont like him. Cain is probably withdrawing. Voters dropped Bachmann the second Perry got in. Perry is in over his head. Hunstman is too much of a dove on foreign policy and was for cap and trade.

If it is Newt vs Romney, I choose Newt.

[bwc2221]

With Cain misfiring on all cylinders, it’s not looking good for conservatives.

But then, not everyone who posts at FR is a conservative; lots of establishment Republicans are running around,

[bwc2221]

With Cain misfiring on all cylinders, it’s not looking good for conservatives.

But then, not everyone who posts at FR is a conservative; lots of establishment Republicans are running around,

[DannyTN]

Any chance we can get a DINO to run?

[Sudetenland]

Actually the Heritage Foundation was the parent of that concept. It was a proposal by their health care analysts back in 1989. It was published in a book,"A National Health System for America" by Stuart Butler and Edmund Haislmaier. Newt simply adopted their recommendations, as did many conservative Republicans, as a response to Hillary Care.

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010
Republican Origins of Democratic Health Care Provision

Two separate bills were introduced by the Republicans in 1993.

The first was SB 1743 - Consumer Choice Health Security Act. It was sponsored by Senator Don Nickles and co-sponsored by:

"Mr. HATCH, Mr. MACK, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BROWN, Mr. BURNS, Mr. COATS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. COVERDELL, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. DOLE, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr. GREGG, Mr. HELMS, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. LOTT, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. SMITH, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. WALLOP, and Mr. GRASSLEY."

The Second was SB 1770, The Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act. It was sponsored by Senator John Chaffee and co-sponsored by:

"Mr. DOLE, Mr. BOND, Mr. HATFIELD, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. HATCH, Mr. DANFORTH, Mr. BROWN, Mr. GORTON, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. COHEN, Mrs. KASSEBAUM, Mr. WARNER, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. DURENBERGER Mr. BOREN, and Mr. KERREY

The argument Newt is putting forward is not simply requiring all citizens to purchase insurance. Under Newt's plan, it is up to the individual to either purchase insurance or provide proof of his ability to pay for his own healthcare by posting a bond or some other proof of financial sufficiency.

How else do we deal with what Newt calls a "free rider?" Liberals are right (occasionally they stumble across the truth), every time an uninsured person goes to an emergency room for treatment and is unable to pay and has no insurance, everybody else gets stuck with the bill. It's a fact of life.

By law, hospitals are required to render aid to anyone who seeks it. Those costs have to be defrayed in some way. The way it happens currently is for hospitals to charge those of us who are fiscally responsible more for the services they provide.

There are two ways of dealing with that situation. The first is to repeal all laws which require hospitals to provide aid to anyone who seeks it. This is the "let them die on the street" plan and, though it is a perfectly valid if somewhat cold-blooded means of coping with the situation, good luck with getting that passed through any Congress be it a veto proof Republican Congress or a veto proof Democrat Congress.

The first time the MSM puts their cameras on some poor slob lying outside of a hospital emergency room dying, that plan will disappear altogether. Like it or not, we have passed beyond the point of return on achieving that level of self-reliance/rugged individualist society.

The second way of dealing with the "free rider" problem is some variation of what Newt, and Mitt, and yes--the Democrats--have put forward. You have to find some means of getting those who are financially able but unwilling to pay for their healthcare to do so. I think it is well within reason to require, at the minimum, every citizen to furnish proof of their ability to pay for their own healthcare. If there is another reasonable means of solving the problem, I am certain Newt would be all ears.

It is easy for someone to attack the plans of another, but they sure as heck better have an alternative that is at least as practical as and meets the needs as fully as the plan they are blasting.

The one solution used in the past was to fund a "charity" hospital system, where care for the indigent and the uninsured was provided by only certain hospitals.

We moved away from that system to the mandatory treatment system because people were dying when they went to the wrong hospital and were then told to go to one of the charity providers--sometimes in an ambulance that the first hospital provided. The MSM had a hay-day with the stories--which is why we are where we are.

The question remains, how do we deal with the "free rider" problem other than, as we deal with it in auto insurance, by requiring a surety bond as proof of fiscal responsibility?

It can certainly be one of the problems that we return to the purview of the states, but ultimately the only viable solution I see is one like Newt is suggesting.

I simply don't see America returning to a place where failure to provide for one's healthcare results in a person's death. I don't believe that the American electorate has the stomach for it, once those cameras get rolling.

[kabar]

Newt is just another Big Government RINO who believes that government is the answer to all of our problems. Newt never mentions the Constitution in this screed with Hillary looking on. We just force the people to behave like we want them to.

[Rick_Michael]

BS thread and BS link.