(Especially since it so perfectly matches my own...
)Why I Like Newt
Re: Why I Like Newt
As usual Long Run, I find your analysis excellent.
(Especially since it so perfectly matches my own... )
(Especially since it so perfectly matches my own...
)
Re: Why I Like Newt
Not a bad analysis, LR.
But notice that Newt's "lack of character" is generally manifested in (1) his dreadful marital history, (2) his being willing to work with the opposition to get things done.
I submit that neither one of these is disqualifying, when considering a candidate for the U.S. Presidency. Compare Gingrich's "crimes" with some of the things that Clinton did - that are not even in dispute. WJC was presumed to be a serial adulterer even by his most ardent supporters, and can any Gingrich treachery compare to the disgraceful way that Clinton handled his draft status?
And we NEED someone who will fight the good fight, but ultimately be willing to compromise to get the best deal possible. The American people will not vote for an ideologue unless he hides it very well (e.g., Barry).
But notice that Newt's "lack of character" is generally manifested in (1) his dreadful marital history, (2) his being willing to work with the opposition to get things done.
I submit that neither one of these is disqualifying, when considering a candidate for the U.S. Presidency. Compare Gingrich's "crimes" with some of the things that Clinton did - that are not even in dispute. WJC was presumed to be a serial adulterer even by his most ardent supporters, and can any Gingrich treachery compare to the disgraceful way that Clinton handled his draft status?
And we NEED someone who will fight the good fight, but ultimately be willing to compromise to get the best deal possible. The American people will not vote for an ideologue unless he hides it very well (e.g., Barry).
-
Sue U
- Posts: 8895
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: Why I Like Newt
Yeah, I'd say he's hiding it very well indeed!dgs49 wrote:The American people will not vote for an ideologue unless he hides it very well (e.g., Barry).
GAH!
Re: Why I Like Newt
Obama seems to have managed to convince many on the left that he's a wishy-washy sell-out , while simultaneously persuading many on the right that he's a strident ideologue who prefers The Internationale to the The Star Spangled Banner....
Who says you can't succeed at seeming to be all things to all people?
Who says you can't succeed at seeming to be all things to all people?
Re: Why I Like Newt
And Barry was able to convince the African Americans that he really was, "Black," while convincing the whites that he really wasn't.
I believe Biden secured the VP office when he observed that Barry was "clean" and didn't speak like a typical nig.... probably better not say it.
I believe Biden secured the VP office when he observed that Barry was "clean" and didn't speak like a typical nig.... probably better not say it.
-
Sue U
- Posts: 8895
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: Why I Like Newt
Who thought this was a good idea?????
Well, if nothing else, it seems to demonstrate that Newt actually got nine or ten people to work (?) on his New Hampshire campaign. (Which is evidently at least eight or nine more than are working his Virginia campaign.)
Well, if nothing else, it seems to demonstrate that Newt actually got nine or ten people to work (?) on his New Hampshire campaign. (Which is evidently at least eight or nine more than are working his Virginia campaign.)
GAH!
Re: Why I Like Newt
That's...uh...
disturbing....
I would have thought nothing could have been weirder than The Psycho Elf....
Until I saw The Gratuitous Disco Dancing Bearded Fat Man In A Tuxedo....
Looks like Newt has hired Herman Cain's ad agency....
disturbing....
I would have thought nothing could have been weirder than The Psycho Elf....
Until I saw The Gratuitous Disco Dancing Bearded Fat Man In A Tuxedo....
Looks like Newt has hired Herman Cain's ad agency....
Re: Why I Like Newt
Anyone care to make a wager?
I will bet $5.00 that by Super Tuesday, it will be possible to vote for Newt in the Virginia Republican primary. Right now, he is not on the ballot, and write-ins are not allowed.
I am betting that somehow the obstacles will be cleared - without Newt having to do anything more - so that it will be possible to vote for him, and have that vote counted in the total.
I will bet $5.00 that by Super Tuesday, it will be possible to vote for Newt in the Virginia Republican primary. Right now, he is not on the ballot, and write-ins are not allowed.
I am betting that somehow the obstacles will be cleared - without Newt having to do anything more - so that it will be possible to vote for him, and have that vote counted in the total.
Re: Why I Like Newt
I take it you've heard about Rick Perry's lawsuit, Dave....I am betting that somehow the obstacles will be cleared - without Newt having to do anything more -
Re: Why I Like Newt
Newt Gingrich is an amoral liar. Only someone who hated us and wanted us to suffer would want him to be president. Or even 3rd undersecretary for sewer outfalls.:
http://web.archive.org/web/200608220611 ... etterid=20
_____________________________
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/12/n ... n-man.html
Gingrich Applauded Romney's Health Plan: Newt Gingrich voiced enthusiasm for Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health-care law when it was passed five years ago, the same plan he has been denouncing over the past few months as he campaigned for the Republican presidential nomination…. "The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system," said an April 2006 newsletter published by Mr. Gingrich's former consulting company, the Center for Health Transformation. The two-page "Newt Notes" analysis… continued: "We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans."...
R.C. Hammond, a spokesman for Mr. Gingrich, said the April 2006 essay shouldn't be read as an endorsement of Mr. Romney's health plan…. Mr. Hammond said the Newt Notes essay wasn't written by Mr. Gingrich himself…
America cannot be great until the Republican Party as we know it dissolves itself back into the primordial slime from whence it sprung.
Center for Health Transformation: Newt Notes: April 2006:
The most exciting development of the past few weeks is what has been happening up in Massachusetts. The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system.
We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans. Individuals without coverage often do not receive quality medical attention on par with those who do have insurance. We also believe strongly that personal responsibility is vital to creating a 21st Century Intelligent Health System. Individuals who can afford to purchase health insurance and simply choose not to place an unnecessary burden on a system that is on the verge of collapse; these free-riders undermine the entire health system by placing the onus of responsibility on taxpayers.
The Romney plan attempts to bring everyone into the system. The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage, and subsidies will be made available to those individuals who cannot afford insurance on their own. We agree strongly with this principle, but the details are crucial when it comes to the structure of this plan. Under the new bill, Massachusetts residents earning more than 300% of the federal poverty level (approximately $30,000 for an individual) will not be eligible for any subsidies. State House officials had originally promised that there would be new plans available at about $200 a month, but industry experts are now predicting that the cheapest plan will likely cost at least $325 a month. This estimate totals about $4000 per year, or about 1/5 of a $30,000 annual take-home income.
While in theory the plan should be affordable if the whole state contributes to the cost, the reality is that Massachusetts has an exhaustive list of health coverage regulations prohibiting insurers from offering more basic, pared-down policies with higher deductibles. (This is yet another reminder that America must establish a cross-state insurance market that gives individuals the freedom to shop for insurance plans in states other than their own.)
In our estimation, Massachusetts residents earning little more than $30,000 a year are in jeopardy of being priced out of the system. In the event that this occurs, Governor Romney will be in grave danger of repeating the mistakes of his predecessor, Mike Dukakis, whose 1988 health plan was hailed as a save-all but eventually collapsed when poorly-devised payment structures created a malaise of unfulfilled promises. We propose that a more realistic approach might be to limit the mandate to those individuals earning upwards of $54,000 per year.
While the Commonwealth’s plan will naturally endure tremendous scrutiny from those who assert that the law will not work as intended, Massachusetts leaders are to be commended for this bipartisan proposal to tackle the enormous challenge of finding real solutions for creating a sustainable health system. I hope that Massachusetts’ initiative to provide affordable, quality health insurance for all continues to ignite even more debate around the subject of how to best address our nation’s uninsured crisis and the critical problems within the health system at large.
On a different note, I am pleased to report that our work on accelerating the Right-to-Know movement continues to build. Leaders in Washington are now demanding that Medicare disclose its data, and CHT is helping to carry the message to the states. During my recent trip to Sioux Falls, South Dakota, our work on accelerating the Right-to-Know movement played a key role. My host in South Dakota was state senator and majority whip Tom Dempster, who is the recognized leader in South Dakota healthcare policy.
Senator Dempster is responsible for passing legislation in 2005 that requires all hospitals in the state to post the prices of their 25 most commonly-performed procedures. The law takes full effect on July 1, 2006, and will be the first of its kind in the country. The Sioux Falls Argus Leader did a poll last year that found 85 percent of South Dakotans supported this law. Senator Dempster said he looks forward to working with CHT to develop transformational ideas relating to Medicaid, health insurance, and their state employee health plan.
Also, last month the Center held a two-day Pandemic Influenza Strategic Simulation with our partner and CHT member, Booz Allen Hamilton. The exercise, hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce at their Washington headquarters, was sponsored by MedImmune and Securitas. We were honored to be joined by 150 leaders of pandemic influenza preparedness planning drawn from federal, state, and international government organizations, as well as by business and health sector leaders.
Thanks both to Booz Allen’s excellent facilitation of the event and the insights shared by all who attended, participants have told us that they regarded the event as a great success. We expect to release a report of strategic simulation’s results and findings by the close of this month. (For more information, please contact Robert Egge, the director of CHT’s Health Preparedness and Homeland Security Project, at 202-375-2001 or regge@gingrichgroup.com.)
Finally, I want to take a moment here to challenge the Congress to put forth genuine effort to fix major faults compromising the quality of our health system. The House absolutely must pass a health IT bill this year. Hurricane season is fast approaching – how many lives will be lost this year to our disconnected, paper-based health system?
__________________________________________
yrs,
rubato
http://web.archive.org/web/200608220611 ... etterid=20
_____________________________
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/12/n ... n-man.html
Gingrich Applauded Romney's Health Plan: Newt Gingrich voiced enthusiasm for Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health-care law when it was passed five years ago, the same plan he has been denouncing over the past few months as he campaigned for the Republican presidential nomination…. "The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system," said an April 2006 newsletter published by Mr. Gingrich's former consulting company, the Center for Health Transformation. The two-page "Newt Notes" analysis… continued: "We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans."...
R.C. Hammond, a spokesman for Mr. Gingrich, said the April 2006 essay shouldn't be read as an endorsement of Mr. Romney's health plan…. Mr. Hammond said the Newt Notes essay wasn't written by Mr. Gingrich himself…
America cannot be great until the Republican Party as we know it dissolves itself back into the primordial slime from whence it sprung.
Center for Health Transformation: Newt Notes: April 2006:
The most exciting development of the past few weeks is what has been happening up in Massachusetts. The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system.
We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans. Individuals without coverage often do not receive quality medical attention on par with those who do have insurance. We also believe strongly that personal responsibility is vital to creating a 21st Century Intelligent Health System. Individuals who can afford to purchase health insurance and simply choose not to place an unnecessary burden on a system that is on the verge of collapse; these free-riders undermine the entire health system by placing the onus of responsibility on taxpayers.
The Romney plan attempts to bring everyone into the system. The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage, and subsidies will be made available to those individuals who cannot afford insurance on their own. We agree strongly with this principle, but the details are crucial when it comes to the structure of this plan. Under the new bill, Massachusetts residents earning more than 300% of the federal poverty level (approximately $30,000 for an individual) will not be eligible for any subsidies. State House officials had originally promised that there would be new plans available at about $200 a month, but industry experts are now predicting that the cheapest plan will likely cost at least $325 a month. This estimate totals about $4000 per year, or about 1/5 of a $30,000 annual take-home income.
While in theory the plan should be affordable if the whole state contributes to the cost, the reality is that Massachusetts has an exhaustive list of health coverage regulations prohibiting insurers from offering more basic, pared-down policies with higher deductibles. (This is yet another reminder that America must establish a cross-state insurance market that gives individuals the freedom to shop for insurance plans in states other than their own.)
In our estimation, Massachusetts residents earning little more than $30,000 a year are in jeopardy of being priced out of the system. In the event that this occurs, Governor Romney will be in grave danger of repeating the mistakes of his predecessor, Mike Dukakis, whose 1988 health plan was hailed as a save-all but eventually collapsed when poorly-devised payment structures created a malaise of unfulfilled promises. We propose that a more realistic approach might be to limit the mandate to those individuals earning upwards of $54,000 per year.
While the Commonwealth’s plan will naturally endure tremendous scrutiny from those who assert that the law will not work as intended, Massachusetts leaders are to be commended for this bipartisan proposal to tackle the enormous challenge of finding real solutions for creating a sustainable health system. I hope that Massachusetts’ initiative to provide affordable, quality health insurance for all continues to ignite even more debate around the subject of how to best address our nation’s uninsured crisis and the critical problems within the health system at large.
On a different note, I am pleased to report that our work on accelerating the Right-to-Know movement continues to build. Leaders in Washington are now demanding that Medicare disclose its data, and CHT is helping to carry the message to the states. During my recent trip to Sioux Falls, South Dakota, our work on accelerating the Right-to-Know movement played a key role. My host in South Dakota was state senator and majority whip Tom Dempster, who is the recognized leader in South Dakota healthcare policy.
Senator Dempster is responsible for passing legislation in 2005 that requires all hospitals in the state to post the prices of their 25 most commonly-performed procedures. The law takes full effect on July 1, 2006, and will be the first of its kind in the country. The Sioux Falls Argus Leader did a poll last year that found 85 percent of South Dakotans supported this law. Senator Dempster said he looks forward to working with CHT to develop transformational ideas relating to Medicaid, health insurance, and their state employee health plan.
Also, last month the Center held a two-day Pandemic Influenza Strategic Simulation with our partner and CHT member, Booz Allen Hamilton. The exercise, hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce at their Washington headquarters, was sponsored by MedImmune and Securitas. We were honored to be joined by 150 leaders of pandemic influenza preparedness planning drawn from federal, state, and international government organizations, as well as by business and health sector leaders.
Thanks both to Booz Allen’s excellent facilitation of the event and the insights shared by all who attended, participants have told us that they regarded the event as a great success. We expect to release a report of strategic simulation’s results and findings by the close of this month. (For more information, please contact Robert Egge, the director of CHT’s Health Preparedness and Homeland Security Project, at 202-375-2001 or regge@gingrichgroup.com.)
Finally, I want to take a moment here to challenge the Congress to put forth genuine effort to fix major faults compromising the quality of our health system. The House absolutely must pass a health IT bill this year. Hurricane season is fast approaching – how many lives will be lost this year to our disconnected, paper-based health system?
__________________________________________
yrs,
rubato
-
Mr. Duality
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:15 pm
- Location: The High Plains of Wyoming
Re: Why I Like Newt
If Newt were to be elected President, in 2 or 3 years he would be fooling around with a younger country.
Re: Why I Like Newt
Dear rube,
If you were capable of rational thought, you would recognize that Mr. Newt has long understood and been an expositor of Federalism, as it is understood here in the U.S. That is to say, he supports the concept of states trying public policy initiatives that might very well be unconstitutional if done on a national scale, by Congress. The powers of state governments are not encumbered by the Tenth Amendment, as is the Federal government, at least in theory.
Universal health insurance - including an individual mandate - is just such an initiative. It was constitutional in Massachusetts, and has certainly provided valuable information for any policymaker in another state, or in Washington, who would want to craft a Constitutional, national program. It was appropriately lauded by Gingrich at the time.
Obamacare is not "the same thing," and even if it were, the criteria for evaluating it would be substantially different than the criteria for evaluating the Massachusetts plan five years ago. There are different constraints on the USGovernment, and there have been legal, administrative, and technlogical developments since 2006.
I recognize that to someone like rubato, for whom words mean anything it wants them to mean, the word, "liar," could mean anything at all. But for those of us who like to try to use words according to their common meaning, there is no basis whatsoever for calling Newt an, "amoral liar," because his 2006 review of a Massachusetts law was laudatory and his evaluation of completely different 2009 law is critical.
Based on past history, I'd say that to rube, the word "liar" simply indicates it is someone he disagrees with.
If you were capable of rational thought, you would recognize that Mr. Newt has long understood and been an expositor of Federalism, as it is understood here in the U.S. That is to say, he supports the concept of states trying public policy initiatives that might very well be unconstitutional if done on a national scale, by Congress. The powers of state governments are not encumbered by the Tenth Amendment, as is the Federal government, at least in theory.
Universal health insurance - including an individual mandate - is just such an initiative. It was constitutional in Massachusetts, and has certainly provided valuable information for any policymaker in another state, or in Washington, who would want to craft a Constitutional, national program. It was appropriately lauded by Gingrich at the time.
Obamacare is not "the same thing," and even if it were, the criteria for evaluating it would be substantially different than the criteria for evaluating the Massachusetts plan five years ago. There are different constraints on the USGovernment, and there have been legal, administrative, and technlogical developments since 2006.
I recognize that to someone like rubato, for whom words mean anything it wants them to mean, the word, "liar," could mean anything at all. But for those of us who like to try to use words according to their common meaning, there is no basis whatsoever for calling Newt an, "amoral liar," because his 2006 review of a Massachusetts law was laudatory and his evaluation of completely different 2009 law is critical.
Based on past history, I'd say that to rube, the word "liar" simply indicates it is someone he disagrees with.
Re: Why I Like Newt
Ok, now THAT's funny!Mr. Duality wrote:If Newt were to be elected President, in 2 or 3 years he would be fooling around with a younger country.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Why I Like Newt
Oooops, now both Newtie and Perry have decided they aren't for state's rights after all!
(since some tasty little state has kicked them off the primary ballot )
(ok, I won't say he's lying I'll just say he is so mixed up now that he's said opposite things for so long he can't recall what he really does believe.)
yrs,
rubato
(since some tasty little state has kicked them off the primary ballot )
(ok, I won't say he's lying I'll just say he is so mixed up now that he's said opposite things for so long he can't recall what he really does believe.)
yrs,
rubato
-
Beer Sponge
- Posts: 715
- Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:31 pm
Re: Why I Like Newt
Tell him not to look north, would you? Thanks!Mr. Duality wrote:If Newt were to be elected President, in 2 or 3 years he would be fooling around with a younger country.
Personally, I don’t believe in bros before hoes, or hoes before bros. There needs to be a balance. A homie-hoe-stasis, if you will.
Re: Why I Like Newt
Mr. Duality wrote:If Newt were to be elected President, in 2 or 3 years he would be fooling around with a younger country.
Hold your applause ladies and gentlemen, he'll be here all week...
Re: Why I Like Newt
Hen, it is true that it is a problem that has been building up for a long time. But that is irrelevant; Obama is the president and it is his job to fit it. The current situation is unacceptable and someone has to go. If we fail to fire him for the situation we find ourselves in, it would mean that it is acceptable and that is not the case; we can not continue to go on like this. Obama has to go for the good of the nation or we can look forward to life as a third world nation.The Hen wrote:lib - You would be incredibly wrong to attribute the poor situation you now find your country in to a man that has only been in charge of it for such a short time. The situation you now find yourself in comes from decades of gross fiscal mismanagement.
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.
Re: Why I Like Newt
Sorry, but you'll have to lose on this one....Beer Sponge wrote:Tell him not to look north, would you? Thanks!Mr. Duality wrote:If Newt were to be elected President, in 2 or 3 years he would be fooling around with a younger country.
There's nothing Newt would like better than to run his hand up the backside of barely 19 British Columbia...
Re: Why I Like Newt
No president could fix the situation we're in within a four year term. The best anyone could do is get us on the right track with a long term plan.liberty wrote: Hen, it is true that it is a problem that has been building up for a long time. But that is irrelevant; Obama is the president and it is his job to fit it. The current situation is unacceptable and someone has to go. If we fail to fire him for the situation we find ourselves in, it would mean that it is acceptable and that is not the case; we can not continue to go on like this. Obama has to go for the good of the nation or we can look forward to life as a third world nation.
The problem is that nobody really seems to care about a long term economic plan. It appears to be more important to most republicans to block legislation that Obama endorses simply because he endorsed it.
Why would anyone want to be president?
Is it for the retirement benefits?
Re: Why I Like Newt
The financial collapse was caused by the prior administration and began on their watch. Firing Obama will reward precisely those who caused this mess and ensure the death of the United States as a first-world country.liberty wrote:"...
Hen, it is true that it is a problem that has been building up for a long time. But that is irrelevant; Obama is the president and it is his job to fit it. The current situation is unacceptable and someone has to go. If we fail to fire him for the situation we find ourselves in, it would mean that it is acceptable and that is not the case; we can not continue to go on like this. Obama has to go for the good of the nation or we can look forward to life as a third world nation.
yrs,
rubato