Very green country.
Posted on 03/10/2012 7:48:30 PM PST by Steelfish
Nope. He endorsed specter because bush asked him to. Flat out, pure simple. NO other reason.
If you have the balls to sell FDR today, all the best to you. FDR was a POS. There is nothing good about that piece of human debris. FDR did things so unconstitutionally that they made laws to keep a Presidency 2 terms. Newton selling that he was a swell dude is outrageous at the least.
When I heard Newt talk on health care reform in '08 he was for pushing EMRs on everyone. One guy I trained with is retiring this year, at age 53, because he can't stand EMR. Another complains of the several hours a week they add to her tasks. Gripes about it seem to be the most popular subject at my state Dermatology meetings. In my specialty it's darn hard to see lifesaving business from it as darn few of our diseases are life threatening or even emergencies. I receive (printed) computer generated referral notes with 3 or 4 pages of useless information including stating skin was 'normal' - odd for a Dermatology referral! Speed in communication with colleagues, in either direction, isn't the top of my priority list. Having enough time left to see more patients and see them sooner, is a bigger priority! I can conceive of some potential time savings if I could dictate my notes directly and accurately into a chart but those I know well, who are doing similar things, tell me Dragon isn't ready for our prime time yet. I'm a solo practitioner so I can't divide the costs amongst partners. Dealing with computer problems is already one of my biggest time sinks. As the second generation in the practice I have, literally, 50 years of paper records. Should I throw them out? It's absurd to think of scanning them all, even just as they come back in. My paper charts are organized so I could throw out all who haven't been in in twenty years if storage becomes a problem, but I also have many I've been seeing for that long. Logically I should be one of the last to adopt EMRs even though I'm computer savvy.
If people want to do EMRs fine, but don't mandate them. Let the technology evolve organically as did the internet. As it becomes useful for them more folks will adopt it. Don't force everyone to adopt it based on some politician's wish or because some government or insurance bureaucracy politicians have empowered wish it. Shrink the dang bureaucracy with individually based health care models and payment models, like Santorum has been supporting for 20 years. At most the government should be developing data exchange standards. I wouldn't even grant them authority over data security as they always give themselves access to any data they want and I trust them with my health data less than any private security risks.
At the time, I sent Santorum an email about being disappointed that he didn’t endorse Toomey.
BUT when I found out it was because he thought that Specter would have a better chance of winning than Toomey, and he wanted the Republicans to have the majority so they would have control of the Judicial Committee, I understood Santorum’s logic. Controlling the Judicial Committee is HUGE, because activist judges can destroy our Constitution and have already harmed it tremendously.
When the Dems have control of the Judicial Committee, they wouldn’t allow many of Bush’s conservative judicial picks to go to the floor for an up, or down, vote. And libDems especially do this if it is a conservative minority, like Estrada.
Pat Toomney later endorsed Santorum, because he knows Santorum is a good man.
I’ve never heard Newt say that FDR was a “swell guy” or anything of that nature. An impactive historical figure, yes. But recognizing that a figure has had a great deal of impact on the course of history, isn’t the same as praising them in a positive light.
You're right...
“There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.”
I never blamed my drinking on my love of country.
Neither did Newt. Stop bearing false witness against the man.
From my automatic email from Weekly Standard:
“Following Rick Santorum’s somewhat devastating appraisal of the problem Romney will have engaging Obama on his healthcare reform, Paul Gigot (and others) began asking whether or not Santorum might be right.”
Rick got a lot of people thinking. He’s a great debater. Good thing he’s there, as he always nails it.
Bain is to capitalism as Westboro Baptist is to Christianity.
Newt figured that out.
Rush didn’t.
Neither did you, apparently.
Very green country.
And barely campaigning in major swing states makes Newt a better candidate how? We need OH in the fall and MI is begging for an Obama breaking pick up.
None of our candidates are perfect (strange how that is only expected of conservative candidates.) All, including Rick, have made mistakes. So far Santorum has recovered from his quicker than Newt did from Florida. Part of the purpose of the primaries is to polish off their rough spots, when fewer are watching, to get them ready for the general.
LOL...You posted Newt's answer, but not the question. When you read the question he was responding to, it's obvious he was offering an explanation for his past behaviors. Part of his explanation was, "...how passionately I (Newt) felt about this country..."
It's an inseperable part of his answer. There's no way around the fact that he proffered that as part of his explanation. In your earlier post you stated that he only said this once. Of course he did, because nobody (well no thinking person) bought it. He was trying to clear the issue off the table in the months leading up to his announcement and this was the explanation he tried to float. It went over like a lead balloon. Like a bacon breakfast at a synagogue. Had people accepted it, or had it garnered him sympathy, you can bet we would have heard it more than once.
Thanks to mozilla, we now have Gingrich on tape. Watch it and squirm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO6493mR0vo
So now we have with “utmost certainty” you calling all of us who have expressed support for Santorum, including Rush, Levin etc as “Santorum hacks.” This is what your side does when it runs out of arguments and evidence. Gingrich to you is like the Kings of old summed up in the motto: “The King Can Do NO Wrong” even when independent columnists for The National Review, The Weekly Standard, and The American Spectator all begged him to quit prior to the MI primary. (Oh, wait a minute, now you’d attack these publications) . So now that we have Gingrich on tape, may be you’d put on your blinders and act like the proverbial three monkeys.
Admit to it. Gingrich has baggage enough to fill up a a fleet of commercial airliners, his unfavorability ratings are sky high, an unbridgeable gender gap, and in short he’s unelectable with his southern strategy all up in flames around him. No wonder he was earlier criticized for being erratic and unstable by his own colleagues in the House making outlandish claims, to say nothing about permanent moon based colonies in under eight years at a time of $16T national debt and $2.50 gallon/gas regardless of world energy markets or geopolitical conditions. Even the weak Obama is now having fun of these pie-in-the-sky, chicken-in-every- pot proposals.
One day his own campaign manager says that AL and MS is a must win for the candidacy to go forward and 24 hours later Gingrich contradicts this.
No way my friends to run a serious national campaign. Hopefully Santorum will wrap this up by Tuesday but right now Gingrich is trailing Romney in MS. What a world we live in!
Good post. I never got the $2.50/gal pitch. What was Newtie thinking with this? That big government would set the price of gas? WTF?!! Sounds like muslimcare (obamacare) to me.
yo, steel, got a little more reality for you. Take a deep breath:
you rush and levin are all wrong on this matter, and are just parroting media and dem talking points and badmouthing a good man
This fake controversy started with newt's remarks on MTP May 15th... where he didn't speak clearly, and it was jumped on by the press and people like you...
Here is what he said before that appearance about Ryan's plan. Read and learn.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/does_ryan_now_agree_with_gingrich.html
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 PaulRyan to PaulRevere, 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......
So Paul Ryan has now come to agree with Newt Gingrich about how Medicare reform should be implemented. No one should be surprised. Gingrich helped reform welfare during a Democrat presidency. He knows how to reform the whole entitlement leviathan.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/04/should-medicare-reforms-be-voluntary-newt-gingrich-would-tweak-paul-ryans-medicare-reforms/
Likely Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is making a very clear distinction between his plan for Medicare reform and that of Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc. In Gingrich’s latest Facebook post he says "one option is to move towards a 21st Century personal Medicare system that would allow seniors to choose on a voluntary basis a more personal system with greater options for better care." A Gingrich spokesman tells ABC that the former House Speaker is saying we “should not compel seniors into any one size fits all system. We should design a system that they will choose over the current system, one with more choices and better care but if they want to stay in the old system — bad as it is — they can stay.” That represents a significant departure from Ryan’s plan. Presidential hopefuls are trying to find the right balance of praising Ryan's approach, as they did when it was first released, while not endorsing the more controversial elements of the plan.
Yeah Gingrich supported the individual mandate at one time. He says he changed course, but he is quick to mention the heritage foundation came up with the idea he supported. So in Essence the Heritage Foundation gave him the idea for plans he was backing until it became unpopular.
Romney then claims he took the ideas to create his romneycare. And I don’t doubt the establishment helped Romney with ideas and implementation. But basically, romneyare was based in part on the hertiage foundation ideas which Gingrich supported.
Like I said, pointing out that someone had a profound effect on the course of history, isn’t the same as saying “they instituted wonderful policies!” Hitler was arguably the greatest political leader of the C20th, but we certainly don’t look fondly on what he did.
I don’t post every day. But I do check out the news and comments here.
You seem to be always commenting. You are amazing! 2:00 a.m. or 2:oo p.m.
I wonder how many Fishes there really are.
Hitler was not a great political leader. He was a piece of filth. The only thing you can say good about him was that he had a good idea about roads. The Reichstag fire kinda made the roads of little consequence.
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.