• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Krauthammer on Gingrich's Presidential Aspirations: "Now it's Over"

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
As the day has progressed, former Speaker of the House [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]Newt[/COLOR] Gingrich’s comments on Sunday’s “Meet the Press” attacking House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget plan have come to haunt him. On Monday’s “Special Report,” syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer became the latest conservative figure to criticize Gingrich, calling his bid for the presidency “over.”
[/COLOR]​

But Gingrich called it right when he said that the Ryan plan was an attempt at "social engineering". For that, he will most likely be called a radical hippie commie Liberal now.

Article is here.
 
But Gingrich called it right when he said that the Ryan plan was an attempt at "social engineering". For that, he will most likely be called a radical hippie commie Liberal now.

Article is here.

So will you called one for your comment.
 
You two have found your new hero.
 

It looks like he is saying something from your links.
Meet the Press Press Release

On healthcare and the individual mandate: “I agree that all of us have a responsibility to... help pay for healthcare.”

DAVID GREGORY: Now I know you've got big differences with what you call Obamacare, but back in 1993 on this program this is what you said about the individual mandate. Watch.

GINGRICH ON VIDEO [1993]: “I am for people -- individuals, exactly like automobile insurance, individuals -- having health insurance and being required to have health insurance and I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy -- so ensure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.”

DAVID GREGORY: What you advocate there is precisely what President Obama did with his healthcare legislation, is it not?

NEWT GINGRICH: No. It's not precisely what he did. Fir-- in the first place, Obama basically is trying to replace the entire insurance system. Creating state exchange. Building a Washington-based model. Creating a federal system. I believe all of us-- and this is going to be a big debate. I believe all of us have a responsibility to help pay for healthcare. I think the idea that you--

DAVID GREGORY: You agree with Mitt Romney on this point?

NEWT GINGRICH: Yeah, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay-- help pay for healthcare. And-- and I think that-- there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I've said consistently-- where there's some requirement you either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you're going to be held accountable.

 
It looks like he is saying something from your links.
Meet the Press Press Release

On healthcare and the individual mandate: “I agree that all of us have a responsibility to... help pay for healthcare.”

DAVID GREGORY: Now I know you've got big differences with what you call Obamacare, but back in 1993 on this program this is what you said about the individual mandate. Watch.

GINGRICH ON VIDEO [1993]: “I am for people -- individuals, exactly like automobile insurance, individuals -- having health insurance and being required to have health insurance and I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy -- so ensure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.”

DAVID GREGORY: What you advocate there is precisely what President Obama did with his healthcare legislation, is it not?

NEWT GINGRICH: No. It's not precisely what he did. Fir-- in the first place, Obama basically is trying to replace the entire insurance system. Creating state exchange. Building a Washington-based model. Creating a federal system. I believe all of us-- and this is going to be a big debate. I believe all of us have a responsibility to help pay for healthcare. I think the idea that you--

DAVID GREGORY: You agree with Mitt Romney on this point?

NEWT GINGRICH: Yeah, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay-- help pay for healthcare. And-- and I think that-- there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I've said consistently-- where there's some requirement you either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you're going to be held accountable.



This was back when this idea was considered a free-market and pro-capitalist way to reform healthcare and cap-and-trade was considered a free market way to eliminate sulfur in the atmosphere.

Now, those same ideas that were once proposed and supported by conservatives are considered to be radical Commie ideas. Because Obama thought they were good ideas. Therefore, they are Commie ideas, and NOT free-market, capitalist ideas.
 
It looks like Newt is trying for the independent vote which is all well and good. However, he just lost all real conservatives. We'll see how he does, but I think he made a big mistake.
 
Newt never really had a chance. Actually, I'm afraid Mitt "Next guy in line" will get the nod, and that's a real shame.
 
I'm happy that the Newt is being exposed as the two-faced ass-hat that he is. But in reality, he doesn't have a chance no matter what he says. Though I would absolutely love to see him win the Republican nomination.
 
This was back when this idea was considered a free-market and pro-capitalist way to reform healthcare and cap-and-trade was considered a free market way to eliminate sulfur in the atmosphere.

Now, those same ideas that were once proposed and supported by conservatives are considered to be radical Commie ideas. Because Obama thought they were good ideas. Therefore, they are Commie ideas, and NOT free-market, capitalist ideas.

I don't recall cons ever proposing anything like Obamacare or Hillarycare, and cons like Schlafly and Bozell were very vocal in their warnings to Gingrich and Dole about conservative opposition to any compromise with the Clintons on HC reform.
 
Newt never really had a chance. Actually, I'm afraid Mitt "Next guy in line" will get the nod, and that's a real shame.

Oddly, while I would have phrased it differently, I agree with MrV on this. Romney feels the most likely choice, despite the fact he does not really represent mainstream republicans that well these days. He feels like a give up candidate, given the nod simply because unseating a sitting president is unlikely and it's his turn and it gets him out of the picture for the serious election in 2016.
 
I don't recall cons ever proposing anything like Obamacare or Hillarycare, and cons like Schlafly and Bozell were very vocal in their warnings to Gingrich and Dole about conservative opposition to any compromise with the Clintons on HC reform.

The insurance mandate was considered a market-based way of opposing health-care reform during the Clinton administration.

Republicans Spurn Once-Favored Health Mandate : NPR
Conservatives Run From the Individual Mandate They Once Embraced - John A. Farrell (usnews.com)

It was an idea originated at the Heritage Foundation in 1989 and Republicans TWICE introduced alternative health care reform bills that included the insurance mandate.
History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010 - Health Care Reform - ProCon.org

Cap and Trade was introduced by Republicans to clean up sulfur from the air (remember acid rain)? It was a right-wing, market-base solution (before it wasn't).
Remember when Republicans liked cap-and-trade? | Grist

This is why I don't buy any of this. This is what Republicans do. Come up with an idea, call it good. When people agree with them, then they have to run further right and pretend that people who think their idea is good are actually Commies and Pinkos out to destroy America.
 
Newt is normally a very intelligent person but he was never going to get my vote because he cheated on his wife, made a Cap and Trade commercial with Pelosi and much more.
 
It looks like he is saying something from your links.
Meet the Press Press Release

On healthcare and the individual mandate: “I agree that all of us have a responsibility to... help pay for healthcare.”

DAVID GREGORY: Now I know you've got big differences with what you call Obamacare, but back in 1993 on this program this is what you said about the individual mandate. Watch.

GINGRICH ON VIDEO [1993]: “I am for people -- individuals, exactly like automobile insurance, individuals -- having health insurance and being required to have health insurance and I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy -- so ensure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.”

DAVID GREGORY: What you advocate there is precisely what President Obama did with his healthcare legislation, is it not?

NEWT GINGRICH: No. It's not precisely what he did. Fir-- in the first place, Obama basically is trying to replace the entire insurance system. Creating state exchange. Building a Washington-based model. Creating a federal system. I believe all of us-- and this is going to be a big debate. I believe all of us have a responsibility to help pay for healthcare. I think the idea that you--

DAVID GREGORY: You agree with Mitt Romney on this point?

NEWT GINGRICH: Yeah, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay-- help pay for healthcare. And-- and I think that-- there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I've said consistently-- where there's some requirement you either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you're going to be held accountable.

The odd thing here is folks (mostly on the Right) are acting like Newt's position is something new. It's not. He made the exact same claim in one of his recent books. This is only a shock to those (on the Right) who weren't paying attention.
 
Last edited:
But Gingrich called it right when he said that the Ryan plan was an attempt at "social engineering". For that, he will most likely be called a radical hippie commie Liberal now.

well, according to ye olde Wiki Page: all political campaigns are social engineering:

Mighty Wiki said:
Social engineering is a discipline in political science that refers to efforts to influence popular attitudes and social behaviors on a large scale, whether by governments or private groups. In the political arena, the counterpart of social engineering is political engineering.

For various reasons, the term has been imbued with negative connotations. However, virtually all law and governance has the effect of changing behavior and can be considered "social engineering" to some extent. Prohibitions on murder, rape, suicide and littering are all policies aimed at discouraging undesirable behaviors. In British and Canadian jurisprudence, changing public attitudes about a behaviour is accepted as one of the key functions of laws prohibiting it. Governments also influence behavior more subtly through incentives and disincentives built into economic policy and tax policy, for instance, and have done so for centuries....

So, what Newt is basically doing is finding some negative verbage, and throwing it out there. Hooray, he got headlines, I guess that's what he wanted. He did adopt the "let's just cut waste fraud and abuse" line, which is even to the left of the Obama Administration's approach to Medicare (as i recall it's Nancy Pelosi's); and so Gingrich will (rightly) get hammered on that, as well as getting hammered on undercutting all but four Republicans in the House of Representatives and giving Democrats in every district their lead campaign ad in order to get his name back in the headlines.
 
Newt is normally a very intelligent person but he was never going to get my vote because he cheated on his wife, made a Cap and Trade commercial with Pelosi and much more.

he's smart, but he's personally unstable. The kind of guy that you want in the backroom coming up with ideas, but not ever in a leadership position where people depend on him.
 
I think this would get Gingrich called a radical hippie liberal.
Gingrich Backs Obamacare's Individual Mandate Requiring Health Insurance

Yep, lets throw Richard Nixon, Mitt Romney, Orin Hatch, Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley and the Heritage Foundation in the mix of radical hippie liberals.... given they all suggested and/or endorsed the mandate.

Health insurance mandate began as a Republican idea - The Boston Globe

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4896&type=0

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/sourcefiles/senate_bill_1743_1993.pdf

With everyone being deemed a radical hippie liberal, perhaps we have our perspective all wrong and those that think these people are radical hippie liberals are just wacko right-wingers that have lost touch with reality (and humanity).
 
Last edited:
Newt is normally a very intelligent person but he was never going to get my vote because he cheated on his wife, made a Cap and Trade commercial with Pelosi and much more.

That commecial was a killer for him in my opinion. It made my jaw drop.
 
I'm happy that the Newt is being exposed as the two-faced ass-hat that he is. But in reality, he doesn't have a chance no matter what he says. Though I would absolutely love to see him win the Republican nomination.

What difference does it make, you'll still vote for your two-faced ass-hat anyway.
 
well, according to ye olde Wiki Page: all political campaigns are social engineering:



So, what Newt is basically doing is finding some negative verbage, and throwing it out there. Hooray, he got headlines, I guess that's what he wanted. He did adopt the "let's just cut waste fraud and abuse" line, which is even to the left of the Obama Administration's approach to Medicare (as i recall it's Nancy Pelosi's); and so Gingrich will (rightly) get hammered on that, as well as getting hammered on undercutting all but four Republicans in the House of Representatives and giving Democrats in every district their lead campaign ad in order to get his name back in the headlines.

I agree, pretty much all policy, even policy advocating government be shrunk can be boiled down to social engineering. In the mentioned case, forcing people to be more self reliant as many here would describe it.
 
But Gingrich called it right when he said that the Ryan plan was an attempt at "social engineering". For that, he will most likely be called a radical hippie commie Liberal now.

Article is here.
stating the obvious seems to always upset the gullible
 
Oddly, while I would have phrased it differently, I agree with MrV on this. Romney feels the most likely choice, despite the fact he does not really represent mainstream republicans that well these days. He feels like a give up candidate, given the nod simply because unseating a sitting president is unlikely and it's his turn and it gets him out of the picture for the serious election in 2016.

That's assuming that Republican primary votes feel like unseating Obama is unlikely. Regardless of whether it is, I'm almost positive they don't. Anyways, Intrade now gives Obama something like a 60% chance of winning re-election, meaning a pretty substantial 40% chance that he won't.

I really doubt Romney will get anywhere. He won't survive the smearing that's to come, when all of his flip-flopping and liberal-policy-supporting will be exposed.
 
What difference does it make, you'll still vote for your two-faced ass-hat anyway.

appears that a better - republican - option will not be available


bloomberg could win, but won't likely run
gary johnson could be competitive, but the repubs won't allow him to be nominated
 
I agree, pretty much all policy, even policy advocating government be shrunk can be boiled down to social engineering. In the mentioned case, forcing people to be more self reliant as many here would describe it.

Not really. Social engineering is actively influencing society, using the government. Shrinking the government isn't so much laying out a plan for society as it is assuming that society can take care of itself. It's kind of a stretch to call that social engineering.
 
Back
Top Bottom