Posted on 12/26/2011 10:01:00 PM PST by Steelfish
R.C. Hammond, a spokesman for Gingrich, said the April 2006 essay shouldn’t be read as an endorsement of Romney’s health plan. He noted that it raised several questions about the Massachusetts effort, including whether the plan would work in the state. “Being critical … isn’t endorsing it,” he said.
Hammond said the Newt Notes essay wasn’t written by Gingrich himself. The Journal was able to view a copy using a web search engine that archives old and even deleted versions of web pages.
It is at the end of the article.
“Romney is absolutely unacceptable, while Gingrich can be kept in line. I’ll take Newt.”
I agree with you about Romney, but I can’t think of one person who has ever been able to keep Gingrich in line. Not even his wives.
Both of them can credibly take the position of saying that any health-care plan, and especially any health-care mandate, must be state-based. A federalism argument may seem a copout to some, but the truth is that it can be made pretty clearly and convincingly in this case.
Obviously, I'd prefer if neither of them was ever on record as supporting a mandate on any level, and were pushing for reforms more along what Indiana has done. But the truth is that in a general election, saying this should be an issue that states and local people should decide for themselves is a still a winner, both in substance and politically.
If they cant move their numbers up within the GOP where do you think their numbers would be against Obama?
If numbers don't matter... heck... let's write in Alan Keyes. Now THAT'S a REAL conservative.
1) Only John Kerry and Al Gore have him beat on flip-flopping. Romney's the type to run pro-life in a GOP primary and once he gets the nomination he'd run pro-abortion to win the democrat votes and somehow explain that he never changed his mind or flip flopped.
If there was a democrat majority in Congress he would nominate liberal judges and by the time his re-election comes up in 2016 he will claim that he had to nominate liberal judges in order to get them passed through the liberal Congress. That's Romney.
The other problem about Romney is that he's too "in your face" as a candidate. He could easily lose it in a debate and earn sympathy for Obama. We don't need that to be happening.
If Republican voters forgo voting for conservative candidates and instead surrender their votes to whichever candidate happens to be leading in the polls that particular week, then the Party as a whole has no prospects for leadership.
(Full disclosure: I voted for Keyes in 1996 and 2000)
Well, nobody can call you a hypocrite. I like Alan Keyes and would vote for him in a heartbeat.
Look, I think RomneyCare was a terrible idea, and if the guy was running for governor in my state based on implementing that, I wouldn't vote for him whether he had an (R) next to his name or not. But as long as both Gingrich and Romney oppose ObamaCare as national policy, then their position on it isn't a disqualifier for me, even if they are rightly disqualified for other reasons.
Can you please give some specifics.
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.