Gingrich Backs Obamacare's Individual Mandate Requiring Health Insurance (Newt praises Romneycare)

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday that he strongly supports a federal mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance – a position that has been rejected by many Republicans, including several who likely will be running against him for the Republican presidential nomination.

Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Gingrich told host David Gregory that he continues to advocate for a plan he first called for in the early 1990s as a Congressman, which requires every uninsured citizen to purchase or acquire health insurance.

Gregory asked Gingrich if he would criticize GOP presidential rival Mitt Romney, whose "Romneycare" health program enacted during his time as Governor in Massachusetts mandated that all uninsured purchase health insurance.

Gingrich replied he would not make it an issue in the campaign and said he agreed with key aspects of Romneycare.

"I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay--help pay for health care," Gingrich said, adding, "I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond ..."

>> I mean, seriously, the field of Republican candidates is so far nothing more than a sick joke, and unless a dark horse (and I’m not talking about Bachmann here) emerges, I think we’re looking at four more years of Obama, largely thanks to Republican incompetence and ineptitude. <<

I said on another thread that the field of "likely" 2012 candidates is considerably less inspiring than the 2008 field (which wasn't very inspiring to begin with) and I stand by that. I wouldn't go as far to say Obama is guranteed re-election with the current crop of hopefuls, but we certainly need better options. Right now, I can find no candidate I want to rally around.

I would agree that Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann, and Herman Cain make my "acceptable" list (I could stomach them as our nominee). But Field said it said, when we look at those four we're pretty much debating over who the "best mediocre" candidate. Even Herman Cain, 2012's answer to 2008's Duncan Hunter (an articulate solid principled conservative) is no where near on the level of Hunter, who was a decorated Vietnam vet, proven winner in a Democrat district, and long-time established conservative official who served as chairman of the armed services committee.

Let's face it, our likely choices suck thus far. I pray there's a surprising dark horse entry that no one is talking about. Carcieri, Rounds, and Heineman are intriguing "what if?" candidates. I doubt Carcieri could ultimately carry Rhode Island, but at least I think he would make this normally safe Democrat state competative for the GOP and force the Dems to spend money there. But whether those four electoral votes will matter much remains to be seen.

Since 1900, only one Republican became president by defeating an incumbent. That was Ronald Reagan, in 1980. He had these four traits that might have helped him:
1. He was conservative.
2. He was a governor.
3. He sought the nomination, in a previous election.
4. He was from the West.

These Republicans, who might run, have at least three of those four traits: Sarah Palin, Dirk Kempthorne, and Mitt Romney. I hope that all of them will run, and I hope that Tim Pawlenty and Buddy Roemer will run. I hope that at least four of them will continue campaigning until the convention. If that happens, no one will get the majority of the delegates before the convention. The convention will be more suspenseful and exciting, causing more people to watch and hear the great republican ideas. That happened in 1980, and Reagan won about 40 states.

Romney was a governor. He ran for president. He’s conservative. Many people argue about the last one, since “conservative” is a relative term.

I'm one of those people. Honestly I'd take Guiliani over Mitt. Decent mayor for a town with few Republicans versus a lousy Governor. Aside from Romney 'claiming' to be pro-life, Guiliani is better.

Slick Willard is a lot of things, but Conservative has never been one of them... ever (lying to a crowd of dupes or the uninitiated doesn’t count). I’ll tell you that having known him 17 years, I find it exceedingly doubtful he has ever cast a vote for a Republican (save himself) in a general election, and I have no hesistation in calling him a Democrat agent with intent to destroy the Republican party (and he already did that). If 68% of “Conservatives” think he is one of them, they are either polling liberals, polling his paid operatives or polling idiots (and those aren’t mutually exclusive). And as for the execrable Mark Kirk, Slick Willard makes him look as honest, principled and Conservative as Jesse Helms, and that’s a hell of an accomplishment.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.