A party that cannot even unite on issues as fundamental as the sanctity of life is virtually monolithic on these two points, and Newt Gingrich has broken party unity on the question of mandate! Think about how staggering a betrayal that is: the essence of our Constitutional challenge concerns the mandate, and Newt has undermined those efforts. Whether he is for 0bamacare, per se is immaterial. A belief in the authority of the Federal government to coerce private individuals to engage is economic activity is NOT conservative, it is NOT Republican, and as a matter of fact, before 1937, it was NOT even considered American.
No conservative who actually believes in a Constitution which creates a limited government with specifically enumerated powers can possibly believe the mandate is Constitutional. The fact that Newt does, is disqualifying.
Period.
bttt
Your points are valid EXCEPT you defined mandate as Obama’s mandate is structured. Newt denies he wants anything even remotely like it. His idea of mandate is that first, you give states the role of creating plans. Then, the states can choose how to get more people insured or at the very least keep them from walking away from medical bills they can afford to pay on. Newt’s big bugaboo seems to be people who make enough to afford insurance who refuse it, then use healthcare, then don’t even pay their bills.
Newt’s problem is that people get lost in the weeds on this and keep wanting to assume his mandate is like Obama’s. It really is nothing like it. He disagrees with the Federal mandate that forces everyone to purchase health insurance or face penalty. Yet you believe he supports it.
Hello. Newt. Problem...