Newt and Obama Care (and one other Newt thing)

Newt made a very good point about his earlier support for an individual mandate when it came to health care:  The Heritage Foundation, as reputable a conservative think tank as one can find, actually thought the idea was a good one.  Then, as Newt did, it backed off when it realized the ramifications:

Scott Pruitt, attorney general of Oklahoma: “Mr. Speaker, you speak passionately about first principles and small government — smaller government, yet you supported individual mandates for health insurance….Why should limited government conservatives like me trust that a President Gingrich will not advance these sorts of big government approaches when you are president?”

Newt Gingrich: “Well…the original individual mandate originally was developed by [the] Heritage Foundation and others as a method to block Hillarycare in 1993, and virtually all of us who were conservatives came to the conclusion that, in fact, it was more dangerous and more difficult to implement, and guaranteed that politics and politicians would define health care. And that’s why virtually every conservative has, in fact, left that kind of a model.”

Speaking of Newt, was I the only one who was delighted with his response when Nancy Pelosi threatened to reveal secrets?  Rather than cowering, he said (a) bring it on and (b) I’m going to ream you for violating ethics rules.  And then she backed down.  This is why conservatives like Newt.  He’s not afraid of the establishment.  He may be a fruitcake, but he’s our warrior fruitcake!

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Oldflyer

    Another parallel between Newt and fruitcakes.  Everyone jokes about the gift fruitcake, but most everyone secretly enjoys a taste of good fruitcake.  It is actually the richest, in terms of ingredients, of all cakes.  Many of those ingredients are not identifiable, nor are they items that folks would consume individually; but, combine to make a fascinating whole.

  • suek

    Here’s an interesting read:

    I’m not in favor of Gingrich for President. On the other hand, I think he’s absolutely a person I’d want on the President’s team. Would he settle for VP? I wonder.

    The problem Bush had, the problem either Perry or Romney would have is that being the governor of a state simply isn’t the same as dealing with Washington. The one skill that Gingrich unquestionably has is exactly that – dealing with Washington. It seems to me that as VP, he’d be an incredibly effective XO – give him a job to do, and he’d get it done. He loves the challenge and the fight … the scheming and manipulating. I just question whether I’d want him to be the guy in charge.

    To me, it isn’t a question of principles, it’s a question of individual talents.

    I’m leaning more towards Romney/Gingrich. Not entirely happy with it, but at this time…I think it would be the most effective pair…as long as Romney put Gingrich to work, not just put him out to pasture until needed. I’m not thrilled about Romney. He’s not nearly as conservative as I’d like. But…anything is better than Obama, and Romney has the executive ability/skill we need, and has proven it. Gingrich could show him where the bodies are and help his navigate the swamps of DC.

    As much as I prefer the ideals of some of the other candidates, at this point in time, I’m not sure any of them have what it takes. Maybe as follow-ups, but not as initiators.

    Which is more likely to succeed…a definite but not so extreme change of direction, or a complete reversal of course? I think I could argue for either one. It’s probably going to depend more on the congressional election outcome than the presidential election, though.

  • Wolf Howling

    Steve Hayward has a fascinating post at NRO evaluating Newt with Churchill as a yardstick.  If you are interested: