I realize he got caught between originally supporting Ryan, then calling it radical change.
I’ve heard him since then on various venues. He changed the word radical to “fundamental change” when pressed. I believe he either deliberately used the word radical to stir the pot for some hidden motive, or he misspoke. My reaction right after he was on MTP was to say, flat out, Newt you should not have used the words radical left change and radical right change in the same sentence.
He now explains that people could perceive it as a top down change which they don’t understand and which is forced on them, and in that sense only did he mean to equate it with Obamacare.
Mark Levin said, after interviewing Newt at Newt’s request, that Newt is addressing a nonexistent problem. Of course, that is Levin’s opinion.
Bill Bennett took Newt to the woodshed like I couldn’t believe. He told him in plain language to take back the word’s “right wing social engineering” which he equated with the left, and to announce that he had made a mistake and to apologize, or else he said, your campaign is finished before it starts.
Newt said he had a call into Paul Ryan and hoped to square the matter sometime today.
Rush seems to think Newt is playing some kind of game in which he knows he won’t win the nomination, but is trying to position himself on the McCain wing of the party for after the election.
If true, that would mean Newt lied to Rush personally, because Rush said he met with Newt awhile back and Newt told him he believed himself to be very likely the nominee by default, because Romney has too many problems, Mitch Daniel’s wouldn’t run because of his wife, etc etc on down the list of potential candidates.
Bennett took Newt at this words and said, either you are totally off base in your views, or you misspoke. If you misspoke, admit it now, back out of it, or you’re done.
And that above is a legitimate observation because that's exactly what the proposal does, and then as a sales point it says that anyone over 55 years old is protected from the Ryan medicare reform, by the reform itself, to avoid their opposition to it. How was that supposed to sell to voters? No one under 55 thinks of retirement? No one would see through that?
Newt using the term ‘radical’ was spitting in House Republicans faces. Especially after they voted for it after he supported it.
I have a related complaint about the House repealing Obama-care then moving on and giving up. Rather to expect to successfully force a repeal on liberal states, why didnt the house pass a second bill that gives each governor or state assembly the power to completely opt out of all parts Obama-care? Then they could force a vote on that in the Senate as part of debt ceiling. Seems like that would be a tough thing for Democrats to oppose.