2011 December 27 Tuesday
Newt Gingrich On Marriage And Medical Insurance Mandate

Newt Gingrich is such a big supporter of marriage that he's divorced two wives so he could do 2 more marriage ceremonies. With Newt as the front runner for the Presidency in the Republican Party I'm wondering how his supporters square their support of him with his history of adultery and divorce. Newt can't even lie competently about his divorces.

The Republican presidential candidate insists that it was his then-wife, Jackie Battley, who sought a divorce in 1980. After court records showed he filed the action, the Gingrich campaign said he’d done so at her request. Court documents, Gingrich’s own previous explanations and the recollections of two former Gingrich aides refute his current claim.

Surely the Republican Party can come up with someone

Newt actually favored the sort of individual health insurance mandate that Mitt Romney gets criticized for.

Acknowledging that it was, “for a conservative, a little controversial,” Gingrich said in 2008 that he believed, “You’ve got to require everybody to either have insurance or to post a bond.”

Now's he's attacking Romney on a position he supported for years up to as recently as 3 years ago.

The National Review has come out against Newt for President.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2011 December 27 09:13 PM  Politics American Presidency


Comments
bbartlog said at December 27, 2011 9:45 PM:

He won't win the Republican nomination. It's possible to win it without a strong organization *if* the GOP establishment supports you (collects signatures, lines up delegates, etc.). That's how McCain won in 2008 despite a frankly shabby and underfunded campaign organization. But if you don't have their support, you have to bring a ton of logistical skill to bear, preferably in combination with a volunteer army and/or a huge bucket of money. Gingrich doesn't have that skill, and neither does his campaign manager... nor does he have a volunteer army.
This is why he failed to get on the ballot in Virginia. It's a tough state in terms of ballot access (10K signatures, really more like 15K needed because so many get disqualified), but despite that there were six Democrats and six Republicans on the ballot there in 2008, including e.g. Kucinich. Alan Keyes managed to get on the ballot in 2000. The fact that Gingrich failed doesn't by itself make it impossible for him to win, but what it tells you is that he just doesn't have the organization to pull it off. It's also clear from other evidence that it isn't some weird fluke - those guys just aren't up to speed for whatever reason (look at his NH ballot filing for another example).
With Romney having both a very strong organization *and* the backing of the GOP establishment, he's basically unbeatable. I'm still rooting for Ron Paul, and he does have the second-best campaign organization, but realistically you'd need a candidate who was far more personally formidable (younger, more charismatic, better at speeches) in order to have a shot.

Lono said at December 28, 2011 8:59 AM:

Fortunately we have the very epitome of the American Ideal in Ron Paul.

For the first time in a very long time the best choice for hard working citizens and businesses is simple and clear.

Dr. Paul in 2012!

(time to take out the trash)

Newt my Nut! said at December 28, 2011 12:47 PM:

Newt?

I mean, is that name for real?

Makes me think of frogs, salamanders and other amphibians

Newt my Nut! said at December 28, 2011 12:48 PM:

Ron Paul all the way!
Ron Paul all the way!
Ron Paul all the way!
Ron Paul all the way!
Ron Paul all the way!

solaris said at December 29, 2011 6:55 AM:

Gingrich has all of Romney's flaws and several others as well. The people supporting him as the "conservative" alternative to Romney need to do a little research.

Lou Pagnucco said at December 29, 2011 8:31 AM:

In an Obama vs. Newt-or-Mitt race, we would sure need Establishment Media wisdom to discern the lesser of two evils.

But speaking of Ron Paul, today's LewRockwell.com piece at: http://lewrockwell.com/keller/keller24.1.html

- shows that by Google-Trends figures, Ron Paul is VASTLY more popular than NewtMitt - even in Washington D.C.!
not to mention on social networking sites.

Google's news-index numerics also clearly exposes the Establishment Media's black out of the Ron Paul campaign.

Maybe the Oligarchy needs to make its motives less transparent?

solaris said at December 30, 2011 7:02 AM:

Ron Paul is poor on the immigration issue, and that's a very big issue to be poor on. Unless something is done about immigration there's not going to be any America left to argue over.

Lono said at December 30, 2011 1:00 PM:

Solaris,

As a nationalist Ron Paul is anything BUT poor on the immigration issue!

He simply admits that we should give one final amnesty for current long term illegal residents (get them to start paying taxes like everyone else) and then forever forward use the full force of law to actually enforce immigration laws.

Good luck enforcing our borders if you elect one of those sleazy globalist candidates - they are actively working FOR a North American Union right now - it is not in their interests to worry about YOUR job but rather to worry about Big Business's cheap labor force.

solaris said at December 30, 2011 2:37 PM:

>"He simply admits that we should give one final amnesty"

Hardy har har. If I was twenty years old (as so many Paul supporters seem to be) perhaps I'd fall for this "one final amnesty" hokum. But I'm old enough to have already seen several "one final amnesties".

WJ said at December 30, 2011 7:01 PM:

Gingrich demonstrated his incompetence by not even getting on the ballot in the 12th largest state in the nation. He won't be the nominee. It's now down to either Santorum or Romney, or really just Romney.

Republicans, and evangelicals especially, would be making a huge mistake to make their second nominee in a row an adulterer. Any pretense of being the party of family values would be pretty much destroyed. Actually, the GOP might benefit by looking a little less staid. It's the nation that needs a party that respects family values.

Not Really said at December 31, 2011 1:14 PM:

It seems to me that double moralists here are implying that all illegal aliens should be kicked out, even if it means separating children from parents and siblings. As if there were no American illegal aliens in other countries. I suppose they should get the same treatment, right?

What aboout all those Americans who illegally entered Afghanistan and Iraq?

Every invasion against international law is illegal and so is every soldier that is part of it.

Of course the American illegal alien looks a little different from the Latin American, Asian or African immigrant looking for work. No, no; instead the illegal Americans are the average neanderthal ready to kill civilians if orders be given. High-skill workers, right? Cause it must take a lot of skill pulling triggers and yelling "go, go, go!" or frightening families with their loud "get on the fucken floor!" as they point their guns to women and children.

What country should prepare next for receiving all that illegal American immigration? Iran? Venezuela? perhaps Mexico?

All those double moralists are out of touch. They have become boring, irrelevant and outdated, just like golfers or morning entertainment shows. They don't come up with any new real ideas to solve problems.

Happy New Year, by the way

bbartlog said at December 31, 2011 3:27 PM:

I believe most of the commentariat here would be happy to have US soldiers brought home from overseas, wherever they might be. Some, like me, would also support mass deportation of illegal aliens from the US, regardless of the consequences. My father and his parents were deported from their ancestral home near Breslau (along with millions of others) somewhat over sixty years ago for reasons no more just and with results no more disruptive than what we would see if the Mexican illegals in the US were deported.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©