Replies

REmember how Newt lost the battled to reform Medicare? He made a perfectly valid point, but the way he said it gave the Democrats a national advertisement to beat up all republicans, and because of that, medicare reform was dead.

“Now, we don’t get rid of it in round one because we don’t think that that’s politically smart, and we don’t think that’s the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it’s going to wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it — voluntarily.”

As I said, a perfectly valid statement — talking about one specific aspect of Medicare. But it was the WRONG WAY to say it apparently, by the criteria used here against Santorum, because his quote became a national rallying cry against conservatives.

And if you somehow want to argue the point, just google Newt “whither on the vine”, and see all the thousands of references to that by the media.

Rick’s voice, by the way, said that the unemployment rate was not what was driving his campaign. The unemployment rate is manipulated by the administration, and if it drops in October of 2012, Obama still needs to go.

Freedom is all that government can really do to impact unemployment numbers conservatively. Freedom from regulation is what will get companies hiring again. This is the conservative message.

If I am asked “what will you do if the unemployment rate drops before the election”, I say “I’m not voting because of the unemployment rate, I’m voting to stop Obama taking away our rights and freedoms.”

There is a perception lingering about Newt Gingrich that he was a critic of Paul Ryan’s budget plan and therefore a critic of conservative fiscal policy in the House of Representatives. Is that conclusion true? Or is it an oversimplification? Like many misconceptions floating around during a heated political season, it is not true. Let’s examine the facts.

On April 5, 2011, Representative Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman, introduced the Republican budget for 2012. Included in that budget was a premium support model for Medicare. This budget was based on a similar plan previously laid out by Ryan called The Roadmap for America’s Future. That document had been a Republican Party policy call to change the budget and put it on sound fiscal grounds compared to the Democrats’ unwillingness to budget at all and tax and spend into infinity. The Harry Reid-run Senate has not passed a budget for over three years, even though they are required to by law.

Gingrich praised the Ryan plan in an article in Human Events on April 13. He called it the most serious attempt by an elected official to rethink our public finances and the modern welfare state in a generation. That is quite a compliment from a former speaker of the House to a current committee chairman. Using a golfing metaphor, Gingrich celebrated the plan, calling it a Ryan “eagle.” Is that comparison a negative critique, or is it commendation? One week later, on April 20, Gingrich in the same space heaped more praise on the plan. He compared Paul Ryan to Paul Revere, one of our nation’s great heroes, and compared the Ryan Medicare plan with his own previous welfare reform. Why would he disparage something he would compare to one of his greatest achievements? Gingrich later said he would have voted for the plan if he had had the opportunity.

On May 15, 2011, Gingrich was on Meet the Press. He had a slightly disjointed discussion with host David Gregory because Gregory kept interrupting him. After a substantial discussion on the debt-ceiling debate, Gregory turned to entitlements and asked Gingrich a hypothetical and loaded question. He said, “What about entitlements? The Medicare trust fund, in stories that have come out over the weekend, is now going to be depleted by 2024, five years earlier than predicted. Do you think that Republicans ought to buck the public opposition and really move forward to completely change Medicare, turn it into a voucher program where you give seniors...some premium support and — so that they can go out and buy private insurance?”

Notice that his question is not about whether the Ryan plan is a good plan. Gingrich had already praised the plan. The question was, should Republicans buck public opposition and completely change Medicare? Gingrich’s answer was a criticism not of the change, but how it should be implemented. Not because it wasn’t the right thing to do, but because politicians should get the public behind it first. Note what Gingrich said:..................

I need no reminding about Newt’s history.

Imperfect as it is, it stacks up great against Romney and Santorum.

There is no contest.

That you have chosen sides and chosen to try to make your weaker one appear better than Newt’s, history wise and performance wise, hurts your credibility with me.

Not that you care about that.

I say this to say, your horse is weaker than mine, by far. Not in polling and votes right now, but on the merits and the substance.

Imperfection with Newt, compare to imperfection with R or S, even with low numbers?

I’ll take that stand.

As we used to say, any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I think you're exactly right. This election has to be about the big picture. Gas prices and unemployment numbers are too transitory. Romeny is even rendering his own primary argument moot by continually admitting the economy is recovering. Once the Bush tax cuts go away and Obamacare starts to kick in after the election, everything will head south again, but I expect most things will look rosy in November. I watched the panel on Fox Special Report claim last night that Romney would still be able to attack Obama on Obamacare. Really? Obama will be able to construct commercials that will show how Obamacare is identical with Romneycare point by point. They will also be able to show Romney's many pro-Obamacare episodes leading up to it's passage. Romney will not only look like he's not really any different on the issue, he'll appear hypocritical. In other words Obamacare will not only not be a negative for Obama, it will be a negative for Romney.