Gingrich actually had an entirely different plan, and his point was that Ryan’s budget was basically rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Gingrich has since supported parts of it, and opposed parts of it. That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
But I forgot that you Kool-Aid drinkers want somebody you can agree with 100% So go cast your vote for Obama...er, I mean Romney.
So your contention is that Newt said Ryan's plan didn't go far enough, and was "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic?"
So, let's examine exactly what Newt said, shall we?
"I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate."
So, where in there was he claiming Ryan didn't go far enough? Answer: He doesn't. He claims that Ryan's budget is "radical" - that means "too extreme" not "insufficiently extreme" for those of you having difficulty with the English language.
When a conservative like Ryan stands up and offers an viable alternative, stabbing him in the back is not helpful. Calling it "Right Wing Social Engineering" - and implying that it was somehow "extreme" - was not helpful.
And, for the record, I don't like Romney any more than you do - but I'm not going to let that distort reality and proclaim Pelosi's loveseat buddy Newt a conservative. They both suck, and we're stuck with one of them, and I will hold my nose and support him, and push him to be as conservative as possible. If Newt pulls off the impossible and wins the nomination, my opinion will be exactly the same. Neither one of them is a conservative, and all the KoolAid in the world is not going to change the unfortunate reality.