Santorum Blasts Gingrich Over 'Romneycare'

CNN ^ | March 10, 2012 | Chris Welch

[Steelfish]

Santorum Blasts Gingrich Over 'Romneycare'

Chris Welch Springfield, Missouri (CNN) – It's a common aspect of Republican Rick Santorum's stump: attacking Mitt Romney for creating - and then "recommending" - "Romneycare" to President Barack Obama.

But Saturday, fresh off his projected win in the Kansas caucuses, Santorum added that GOP presidential rival Newt Gingrich is "honestly not a whole lot better."

"For 20 years when I was pushing medical savings accounts, he was pushing a federal mandate for health insurance," Santorum said. "And when 'Romneycare' passed, he sent out a glowing statement talking about how this wonderful bill had just passed in Massachusetts."

Santorum argues that Obama, Gingrich and Romney all line up on the same side when it comes to their support for an individual mandate.

The campaign points to a 2006 newsletter Gingrich wrote for his consulting firm, the Center for Health Transformation, in which he praised Romney's Massachusetts health care reform.

"The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system," Gingrich wrote, according to the report.

Also in the newsletter, Gingrich expressed his support for the individual mandate in Massachusetts, but only for those making at least $54,000 a year. And while he commended Romney's effort in building the plan, he acknowledged the bill will likely face "tremendous scrutiny" from those who doubt the law will work.

[presently no screen name]

LOL!! Now I know why you support NEWT!! You think for yourself and clearly! You can see through the smoke and mirrors the media/Mitt/Rick/GOP E has put up against NEWT the Conservative.

[true believer forever]

There isn’t a Santorum thread anymore without you guys coming in and going to town on our guy like it came straight from the talking points of MSNBC. What is the point to it from your perspective?

I am going to answer you seriously. Because of stuff like the following, which shows the huge gap between who rick santorum REALLY is and who he says he is, and who his supporters believe he is.

You probably won't agree with me, but I think the fact that Santorum was capable of something like this is totally reprehensible from someone who is considered the only moral principled conservative. How he used govt power to enrich the church. but mostly, as someone who comes from a military family, I found it terrible. I wrote it, and I footnoted it to death, so as to show my respect for the intellect and character of Santorum supporters. It has greatly impacted some people, and changed their minds about Santorum, or atleast set them about researching him for the first time on their own. Others just refused to answer my question to them: what do you think this says about Santorum and about the people who support him because they think he is the only candidate of character and morality?

The difference between Newt's supporters and Rick's. We know about Newt's sins, we have made that journey in our hearts and we forgive them. But santorum supporters have no real idea who he is... by the time they realize it, it will be too late.

[Bizhvywt]

“The best evidence of this came from Carl Cameron...”

Oh, and we never get manipulative spin from that guy. Give me a break.

[Bizhvywt]

“Newt leads and Santorum follows along.”

And then Santorum back stabs. Santorum is in this to be VP, nothing more. He will sell out to Romney first chance he gets.

[nurse-rn]

Thank you for posting that info about the Army retirement home and Santorum frauding them.There’s plenty of info out there that the msm will not reveal YET. The K Street lobbying by Santorum is a small sample. GO NEWT.

[presently no screen name]

He will sell out to Romney first chance he gets.

Yep. The deal all along.

[Sun]

Nice map, and I wish Dems would be the ones to “reach across the aisle” for a change.

Don’t forget to watch Rick on Meet the Press. I recorded it, due to insomnia tonight. :)

[JohnBovenmyer]

How many Republican candidates running this election cycle have any record of altering Congress?

Actually two!

Rick was one of the seven who exposed the House Bank check scandal! That was the first blow leading to the takeover in '94. Newt was silent there, having been one of the (quite minor) offenders although his subsequent leadership on the Contract became the biggest factor in the takeover. Rick was a major contributor to ending the only federal entitlement program ever ended, working on it in both Houses and floor managing it in Senate. Newt was obviously also a major contributor on that, but both deserve credit.

Newt did a lot of good in Congress. He wasn't perfect, none in congress were, but his net was excellent until he took himself out after the '98 election. If you look at Santorum's record as of when Newt left Congress pretty much all would have said he was a rising star, perhaps the biggest young star conservatives had in Congress. Ending welfare as we knew it certainly slashed spending and Rick certainly voted for those balanced budgets even though he had less responsibility for them. Certainly some of what Rick has done since has affected folk's perception of him. What Newt has done since deserves the same kind of attention, no more, no less.

I've read thousands of pages of Churchill's writing, including his entire WWII history, and am well aware of his checkered course in British politics. He was a great man and history shows us that great men often have shortcomings nearly as great. Newt may well be a great man, but that is hard to judge other than in hindsight and I'd prefer to think, regardless of this race, that Newt's book has more chapters to follow. However, regarding Churchill, history records that he was the right great man for Britain in WWII because he'd spent his entire career attacking systems like Hitler and Stalin's. And his varied past services had developed the skill set required to thwart them. The issue of our time happily is no longer Nazism, nor Communism as threats to freedom, although Freepers can doubtless draw some parallels. It is more specifically Obamacare as the threat de jour to freedom. Sure, Obama provides additional threats to our freedom with every breath he takes, but there was a reason he took a whole year ramming through Obamacare. It will be the killing blow we don't stop it. Santorum was one of the creators of Health Care Savings accounts, the best pro-freedom solution available to the problems Obama will claim to have solved. It has been his issue for 20 years. He, like Churchill in 1940, is the best equipped to lead against the biggest threat of the day. Even if Newt is a great man he's one who spent a decade on the wrong side of that issue and as such he's not the right choice to lead against it. I would like to believe his conversion is sincere and that he can offer strong service on the team just as did many of Churchill's 1930s foes under his leadership.

Newt fans claim Santorum is saying nothing about energy policy and shrinking government. They're not listening very hard. He talks about it a lot and has been at least since my search for 'my' candidate, after Sarah bowed out and then Cain was chased out, lead me to him in time for the Iowa caucuses. He's big on domestic production of all carbon based energy, and unlike Mitt and Newt was never on the global warming bandwagon. He's talking about cutting spending $5 trillion and specifically discusses entitlement reforms with a record of having cut them. He talks up small business rather than big business as the way to grow the economy. His economic policies draw me to him more than his social ones, although I generally agree with them as well.

I'm no establishment apologist! I remember Goldwater beer. I was for Reagan in '68 over Nixon because I feared what Nixon's domestic policies would be. Boy was I right! Alas they wouldn't let ten year olds vote then. I've been reading Reagan's favorite publication, Human Events since then. My first vote was for Reagan in the '76 Iowa caucuses. I must have spoken up then because they made me one of the vote counters for my precinct. When Newt was a freshman congressmen I was arguing for conservatism against Paul Wellstone's students. I'd ID'd Wellstone as a liberal true believer my first couple weeks on campus. The only thing I've written against Sarah Palin was that her long tease as a potential candidate kept conservatives from considering, and vetting, other options. Leaving the RINOs with a significant head start. Is that not true? I wish she had run, but if her choice was going to be to not run I wish she'd announced it sooner. It's not been discussed much because of the love and respect so many have for her, but Sarah would be the first to say she's not above legitimate criticism. And it shouldn't be forgotten that, although Palin is supporting Newt now, it was her kind words towards Rick before Iowa that launched his rise.

I'm trying to make my points now because we are running out of time to stop Romney before the convention. (Plus I'll be stuck offline for awhile after AL and MS so need to get my FR fix in while I can). If we get to the convention with Romney having just a plurality the GOP-e will likely find some way to drag him over the line. The only places Newt has won are SC, GA and FR. (If Freepers alone could control the debate the country would be a better place, but our power is, so far, limited. Perhaps after JohnRob does more upgrades...) Newt's shown no ability to compete in other regions, where his negatives remain high, and that just doesn't leave him as a viable candidate in a national race. I wish Rick could have had a few more % in MI and OH, it would have made things easier. But if Rick can win AL and MI, where his social positions won't hinder him, and Newt finally concedes, he might receive enough stop Mitt momentum to win before the convention. Or at least go in close enough to make a deal with Newt to push him over the top there. They've been personal friends and worked well together, why can't their supporters?

[presently no screen name]

Thank you. The ‘real’ Rick but I’m not surprised. Screwing with our veterans, heartless b*^tard!

[Sun]

“Santorum further has a solid and conservative agenda for President. Romney timidly talks of getting spending maybe down to 20% of GDP. Rick Santorum fully supports the Republican balanced budget amendment that caps spending at 18% of GDP. He wants lower tax rates for all, going to a 10%/28% two tier tax rate and lowering corporate tax rates.

While Gingrich criticized the Ryan roadmap, Santorum embraced it. Newt supported Medicare Part D, supported at one time healthcare mandates, and supported all the Bush programs that conservatives object to in Santorum’s voting record. Romney has gone further of course, embracing not just TARP, but healthcare mandates and failing to even fully criticize the Obama stimulus spending.”

http://www.redstate.com/wosg/2012/01/06/rick-santorum-yes-he-is-a-true-conservative

[Joe 6-pack]

Our Constitution is itself philosophically rooted in the morality of Natural Law. Every law is rooted in somebody's morality. Laws, by their very nature, are a reflection and codification of a society's, a culture's, a nation's or a state's morality.

Where do you people get the notion that our laws should be amoral?

[true believer forever]

There’s plenty of info out there that the msm will not reveal YET.

I worry about Santorum supporters because they are being misinformed. The people supporting Newt know his past and his sins, and have decided how we feel about a sinner standing forth for the office. The Santorum supporters think they have a saint, and they can't handle any assertion to the contrary...

I just keep posting that piece wherever I can, not because I wrote it, but because if you can get a santorum supporter to sit still and read it, it does change their minds, or at least opens them a little. And you don't see that often.

I think it has to do with the fact he screwed American veterans, that is why the response is so visceral. It wasn't just the usual sweetheart deal. IF you know anyone who might benefit from reading it, feel free, you can credit yourself if that will give it more heft, I just want the stuff out there so that maybe it can reach others..

[JohnBovenmyer]

Uh, Santorum endorsed romney while huckabee was still in the race...

You mean, Huckabee, the huge fiscal lib, who made a zillion dubious pardons and who was tag teaming with McCain against Romney... That's how nearly all freepers at the time characterized the huckster. He was, if anything, less liked than McCain. He certainly wasn't considered a viable alternative.

Many don't want to admit it, but when Santorum endorsed, a few days before Mitt quit, polls of Freepers showed Mitt to be the top choice here. That certainly wasn't true while Duncan and Fred were still pretending to run, which in hindsight was really all they were doing. Mitt since saw that this time there would be a crowd on the right, but clear sailing on the left, so he made up with the establishment and turned off many of his one time supporters. Also, in hindsight, Mitt faked being conservative then better than he fakes whatever he's pretending to be now. At least then he could pretend consistently.

FACTS, REALITY. Try 'em you like 'em. Or maybe not.

[Joe 6-pack]

Clearly you have comprehension issues. The poster to whom I was replying stated (falsely) that Newt's explanation was 'years' ago, and that he'd underwent a 12 step rehabilitation and self-appraisal in the interim. I merely pointed out that Newt's explanation was given one year ago, and that overwrought explanations for one's misdeeds/issues are not consistent with 12 step recovery.

I could have just as easily stated that I (since entering recovery) never blamed my ex wife, my job, my finances etc. For my drinking. I drank because I was a practicing alcoholic. Any other explanation or qualification or condition I'd place on it would be excuse making and an indication of something less than a full and sincere confrontation of the problem. If Newt had problems keeping it in his pants in the past and he's subsequently overcome the problem, more power to him. Just don't tell me he fell into bed with other women because he loved the country too much. If elected, will he have to restrain his love of the country in order to avoid future indiscretions? If not, and he let's his love of the country run unbridled, what poor judgment calls might he make as a result then?

[Gene Eric]

>> That morals are being forced down our throats by government officials is okay, though.

This exemplifies the division between Newt and Rick supporters.

As far as I’m concerned, we have enough law, especially the type of law that’s prosecuting individuals for not supporting ‘homosexual marriage’ for example.

If we’re serious about our Liberty, we need to reverse the trend of making law, and start the process breaking bad law in a legitimate manner of course.

[Sun]

#213, excellent post!

Constitutional scholar, Mark Levin, also stated that our Founders wrote the Constitution based on Natural Law.

[true believer forever]

You mean, Huckabee, the huge fiscal lib, who made a zillion dubious pardons and who was tag teaming with McCain against Romney... That's how nearly all freepers at the time characterized the huckster. He was, if anything, less liked than McCain. He certainly wasn't considered a viable alternative.

I dont know much about huckabee, but I thought he was a preacher before he was governor, and was considered the christian candidate back then, which I would have thought made him Santorum's favorite.

this is really only my first presidential election, and i worked some in the 2010 midterms. So I don't really have any opinion on 2008 - just that it seemed to me - erroneously I see - that huckabee would have been the choice of christians catholics and evangelicals. But guess I was wrong. I am surprised, though, that romney was. And I wonder what was different back then..

[JohnBovenmyer]

some people think it is very dangerous - to have so much data so generic.

I hadn't seen it put that way before. I like it. Part of my problem with EMRs is that I think of too much of my data as freeform, nongeneric data and can't conceive of how to render it into a generic form. Such thinking habits were formed in my training and are unlikely to change much. Certainly EMRs make more sense for younger docs, especially those just entering practice. Although the added capital expense, on top of student loan debt, would make starting a practice from scratch a bitch. If we warp the economics so that only larger practices are viable how are we going to offer care to rural areas where there aren't enough patients to support such? And my experience against EMRs isn't just in my field and from my age. A younger cousin married an FP, who first tried one right out of residency. She said then it added 1-2 hours to each day for her. Now my own FP uses one and makes it seem easy, but says they keep having to change their software vender.

Having worked with computers since I was 13 and watched their evolution I think this can be made to work eventually and become a 'good thing', but will take much longer that EMR proponents want to think and likely end up significantly different than they imagine. And it will get there sooner and better if it is permitted to evolve rather than mandated from above. One size fit all 'solutions' should be rejected out of hand.

I don't know anything specific about Santorum's take on EMRs either, but wouldn't expect him to be a hard core promoter of them based on his overall health care philosophy. I do know that like Newt, he's a proponent of "lean six sigma" reforms - they both state that often- although I don't understand much specifically of what's in that. Philosophically I'm leery of making government TOO efficient. As were the Framers. Governmental inefficiency is one of our protections against too much governmental power.