Posted on 12/08/2011 1:19:41 PM PST by smoothsailing
Rachel Weiner
December 8, 2011
While former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney take aim at each other, Texas Gov. Rick Perry is hoping to get in on the action with an ad that targets both rivals for supporting individual health-care mandates.
Trying to claw his way back into the top-tier of the GOP presidential race with only three weeeks to the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, Perry ties his rivals to President Obama in the new ad and “the big government liberals.”
“We dont want government-mandated health-care,” the narrator said. ”Yet, Newt Gingrich supports it, and Mitt Romney, he put it into law in Massachusetts.”
The ad ends with President Obama signing his health-care law and concludes with Perry saying, “I won’t let the big government liberals ruin this country.”
(AD VIDEO and more at link below)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Yeah, but his actual accomplishments trumps all of that. He’s a known hardcore Reaganite fighter and has the battle scars to prove it. Hated by the left and the RINOS he trampled to get his conservative agenda actually accomplished!! Sure he has warts, who doesn’t? But Romney has lib Leprosy (politically speaking). Unfortunately, Perry, Bachmann, et al, are left in the dust. Cain crashed and burned. Palin is unavailable. No one’s calling Santorum or Huntsman. Paul is a joke. Who you gonna call?
Rick Perry is ok by me too. Too bad he fizzled.
OT I know but....you got your old name back? :-)
Cain Newt Romney?
This reminds me of the kid with a raging case of Flu. Screams and sreams ashe/her gets chased down by his/her Mother with the Medicine
No, that is a total misreading of the school vaccination program.
The school vaccination program exists because as a society, we have decided that having children relatively safe from preventable debilitating illnesses is a good thing, and that goal is best acheived if virtually all children are vaccinated so that there is no way for disease to get a foothold.
We have been doing this for decades, and it has been quite successful at eliminating some serious health risks, and increasing life expectancy.
Up until now, I haven’t seen conservatives arguing that we should eliminate these vaccination requirements for school attendance — because they know it would be nuts to do so. Bachman hasn’t proposed a single piece of legislation to stop vaccination requirements. NO conservative governor in ANY state has tried to halt their state vaccination programs.
To attempt to attack a political opponent by drawing a false and dangerous parallel between vaccination requirements and health insurance mandates is a dangerous game — it makes a mockery of the real problems associated with forcing people to buy the health insurance YOU think is best for them.
And you bastardize the english language when you try to claim that any program with an opt-out is a “mandate”. A mandate is something you HAVE to do. a “mandate” with an “opt-out” is a suggestion. A strong one; by requiring opt-out, you get compliance with your suggestion by all but those who really think about it, while an “opt-in” does the opposite.
I would note that under one of our new financial regulations (not Dodd-Frank, that has done other things) companies offering 401K programs now default the contributions into a class of reasonable investments, rather than cash. The idea was that too many people made the wrong investment choices by default.
Under your definition, people are now “mandated” to buy specific stock products — when in fact, anybody who wants to can simply choose a different product when they sign up.
The worst part of your faulty argument is that it misses the real reason to oppose adding Gardasil to the list of required vaccines. By making an absurd argument that vaccine requirements are “health care mandates” that should be opposed, you miss the argument that HPV isn’t spread by casual contact, and therefore the risk of contracting HPV isn’t increased by requiring students to attend school.
Since there is no increased risk of HPV from school attendance requirements, there is no need to make an HPV vaccine a requirement for attendance. THAT is the conservative reason to oppose Gardasil, not some absurd false soundbite about “forcing young girls to get a vaccine” — which begs the question, don’t we force young girls to get all sorts of vaccines and shots and examinations, are you against all of them as well?
I understand why someone wants to put Gardasil on the required list — it’s how you get insurance to cover it, because we over-requlate insurance and by mandating that they cover required vaccines, we make it certain they WON’T cover vaccines that aren’t mandated.
I no longer oppose Gardasil vaccinations on principle — the science has shown it to be effective and safe (the luddites who improperly use statistics to argue otherwise notwithstanding). I’ve told my daughter to consider the vaccine, talk to her docter and make a choice (we skipped it before because I didn’t see it as effective, she’s an adult now so can make her own choices).
I still oppose putting it on the required list, although I wouldn’t mind if we had a simple opt-out like the one Texas has (Texas opt-out is about the easiest anywhere — you go online, fill out and submit a form that takes 30 seconds, and they send you a filled-out-form by mail. You check off the vaccines you don’t want, sign the form, and send it to your kid’s school. The only bad part is you have to repeat this every 2 years, although at least that makes you think about it and maybe change your mind).
The ones that proudly proclaim:
Of course, it would be even more meaningful if we draft Palin and she picks Newt as her running mate.
That is the one saving grace — whatever his faults, if Gingrich holds on and doesn’t crash like the others, he looks like he’ll beat Romney. Whether he’ll end up beating Obama, only time will tell. I certainly would back Gingrich over Romney, Paul, or Huntsman.
Take that gardasal lie to a Newt thread, my friend.
It’s been explained countless times. I’m not gonna bother to do it again.
I’m thinking he has learned what the difference between opt in vs opt our are. LOL
I hear ya.
Yeah. The cat got his tounge. Too bad.
Well, as long as Newt doesn’t revert to his angry Badger persona to any great degree, he could muddle through. Playing a knowlegeable grandfatherly figure is his best bet.
All of his noted accomplishments, while certainly laudable, are distant memories to most voters, if they remember them at all.
He will face a gauntlet of criticism and attack, not all of it fair. How he handles his questionable history and associations will tell us alot about just how successful he will become as a candidate with lasting appeal to social, Christian, and perhaps even fiscal conservatives.
If he emerges as our eventual nominee, he will be battle tested and well prepared to take on Obama.
Over? Did you say “over”? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Perry got his tan the honest way, out ploughing the fields and hunting stuff.
Way to go marty ... that’s puttin’ your money where your mouth is.
And, Jim, write that down somewhere! :)
Well, Romney’s a lifelong hunter too, y’know. And he’s always been pro-life. And he’s now a rock-ribbed Reaganite!! Just ask him. And RomneyCare really is a free-market conservative solution. He’s very proud of that.
” We allocated an additional $4 billion to the Medicaid program, and more than $900 million to the Children’s Health Insurance Program. I urged legislators to pass a telemedicine pilot program that will enable, through technology, a sick border resident of limited financial means to receive care from a specialist hundreds of miles away. But the effort to combat disease and illness requires g...”
http://governor.state.tx.us/news/speech/10688/
It really ticks me off when someone calls a slow-talking Texas dumb... maybe that’s because I am a slow-talking Texan.
But I might remind you that while Newt is admittedly brilliant and his cute little gray head is just busting with information, he’s not steadfast. He vacillates from one great idea to another and he’s not good at steering a course and sticking to it.
That being said, I will be for Newt if he gets the nomination.
In the meantime, my support goes to a better man.
Why no go for Perry?
Don’t think he can win? He’s never lost an election.
I am, first, in favor of knocking out Romney.
Gingrich has so many assets it’s amazing. If I could combine him and Perry, though, I would. Wouldn’t that be an amazing candidate.
So, I support a Gingrich/Perry ticket probably, but I’d just as heartily support a Perry/Gingrich ticket.
Perry has an awful lot of work to do, though, between now and Florida. This next debate is critical for him. If he does more than survive — if he delivered a command performance — I think he’d be back in the running.
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.