-
Even the Europeans Rethink the Welfare State
April 21, 2013 | 4 comments
-
ObamaCare for Everyone Except Obama’s Appointees
March 8, 2013 | 3 comments
-
The Sensitive Saudis: They Want Democracy for Everyone Else
March 5, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Remember, There Is No Spending Problem!
February 26, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Another Useful Reminder that Communism was Loathsome
February 24, 2013 | 16 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Newt Gingrich is on the rise in the polls for the Republican presidential race. He still seems an unlikely nominee—someone who views himself as the reincarnation of Winston Churchill and who happens to be as philosophically inconsistent as was Churchill. You know, health insurance mandates are good; no, they are bad. Fix Medicare; no, don’t touch it. Vote for all those tired old agriculture subsidies; no, reimagine America. That sort of thing.
His predilection to lecture the American people also is not a noted vote-getter. But maybe that wouldn’t be quite such a liability if he was running against Barack Obama, who lacks Bill Clinton’s ability to connect with voters. (The latter might have been a fraud, but he was such a good fraud!)
Still, the potential of a Gingrich nomination has led to speculation about who might be an appropriate running mate. One of my friends—a sadly cynical fellow long active in New York Republican politics—has come up with the perfect choice. Rudy Giuliani.
Think of it. Gingrich-Giuliani. As my friend puts it, it would be the Henry VIIIth ticket! Just what you would expect when it comes to the Republican Party, whose leaders seem to have such a hard time living up to their rhetoric about morality. Certainly a perfect choice for values voters … .
View all comments (53) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Doug Bandow
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/11/19/the-henry-viiith-ticket-for-th
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
aware| 11.19.11 @ 4:28PM
"...who happens to be as philosophically inconsistent..."
No he's not, he consistently says one thing and does another. See, it depends whether he's running or he's ruling. He's just another alleged conservative who only hates big government when he isn't running it. Though he does quite well because of the State even when he's "out of power", I've noticed. All the good little cogs always do real well that way. They seem to be "on the team" whether they are "in the game" or just warming the bench.
Also the clearest example of too smart by half. Might have something to do with everybody always telling him how smart he is. But alleged conservative candidates have many alleged conservative voters to angle for. That probably explains why there are so many alleged conservatives crowding the field.
tmb| 11.19.11 @ 4:37PM
I prefer Henry the Vth , that is why I am voting for @thehermancain
Occam's Tool| 11.19.11 @ 4:43PM
Anybody not named Paul on the Republican ticket gets my vote this year.
aware| 11.19.11 @ 5:03PM
The State warmly thanks you!
Lesser Weevil| 11.20.11 @ 1:13AM
I'm going third party if it's Newt.
Willis| 11.20.11 @ 9:11AM
That means you're going for Obama.
Lesser Weevil| 11.20.11 @ 2:36PM
Yes, that's correct. Of the various unpalatable alternatives on offer, Newt and Ron Paul are the only two that I absolutely can't swallow. Better to leave the bumbling Marxist in office as a target for the GOP to focus on than to usher in an arrogant uber-RINO with disastrous executive skills who will completely wreck the conservative movement. Though it kills me to think that that is what we might be reduced to.
MOS was 71331| 11.21.11 @ 10:25AM
Well said, LW. The only GOP presidential ticket I could vote for without reservations is Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. I'd support them in a heart beat.
Clint| 11.19.11 @ 4:50PM
In May, when Gingrich sharply criticized Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform plan, FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey reminded National Review that Gingrich had been a serial offender:
Citing Gingrich’s support of Dede Scozzafava in the 2009 congressional election in New York’s 23rd district, his backing of Medicare Part D and TARP, and his commercial with Nancy Pelosi about climate change, Armey observes that “Newt entered the race with serious ground to make up with these 2 million Tea Party activists.”…
Brendan Steinhauser, director of Federal and State Campaigns for FreedomWorks, reports that the Tea Partiers he’s talked to are “irate” at Gingrich… “I never met a single Tea Party activist that supported Newt Gingrich for president,” he adds."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
Clint| 11.19.11 @ 4:51PM
The RINO-CINO Gingrich Endorsed Dede Scoozafava.
Scozzafava is an abortion rights advocate who favors gay marriage. It would be one thing if Scozzafava balanced that social liberalism with fiscal conservatism. But as a state assemblywoman, she voted for massive tax increases, Democratic budgets and a $180 million state bank bailout. She also supported the trillion-dollar federal stimulus package — which every House Republican voted against.
Scozzafava’s husband is a leading upstate New York union organizer. She supports the federal “card-check” legislation that would massively boost union rolls — and Democratic voting rolls — at the expense of rank-and-file workers’ free choice. And for that matter, at the expense of Republican electoral prospects. Card check is the key to a Democratic majority in perpetuity. Big Labor bosses have said as much.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
The Knife| 11.19.11 @ 5:09PM
Ron Paul has threatened a third party run and deserves no loyalty from Republicans. I would always have voted for him if he received the nomination but those days are gone. If he insists on working for Obama then he should get to it along with his annoying eunuchs.
C Bowen | 11.19.11 @ 5:29PM
Where did Paul "threaten" a Third Party run?
Side question: did you also think Iraq was a threat?
tRouble| 11.19.11 @ 5:44PM
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/k....._party_run
Holding the possibility open is indeed one way to "threaten" a third party run. If he didn't want to keep that threat alive he'd rule it out, but he refuses to rule it out beyond saying that it's not his intention at this time.
C Bowen | 11.19.11 @ 6:05PM
I have no doubt that to you, that constitutes a "threat."
If you could, for this survey, answer the following:
Did you think Iraq was a threat?
That should give us a good gauge on your meaning of the term, "threat."
The Knife| 11.19.11 @ 7:54PM
That is a threat. Such wordy constructions are intentional and he lost any chance of my support when he decided to play it that way. If he wishes to clear this up because he is just a wordy character that has no sense of what he is communicating, then he should clear things up with the straight forward, I will support the Republican nominee. Since you ask, Iraq has been and will be a total waste. Ironically we have made Iraq a lot less safe for Christians and more safe for our enemies. I am sure Iran appreciates our efforts. It was a giant and wasteful mistake that should never have happened. We also should be a long time gone from Afghanistan. We are on a fool's errand of trying to manufacture a government in our image and this won't end well either. Murderous Saddam Hussein was better than the democratically elected slime bags that we left In Iraq. Hamid Karzai couldn't be much worse if we would have left the country in the hands of a local strongman. I find the nation building arrogance of Bush and Obama a lot more of a threat than Saddam Hussein. I am even more threatened by four more years of Obama. Anybody that I see working for this will not be seen as a friend.
C Bowen | 11.20.11 @ 3:10PM
I appreciate the response, but I'd argue that a Romney nomination is a certain loss for not just the White House, but further down the ticket where dispirited Tea Party types won't bother--unless there was a meaningful rightish Third Party on the ticket to make bothering to vote worthwhile.
Anyway, this whole "threaten" to run Third Party is a bit much.
Clint| 11.19.11 @ 6:05PM
Do Your Homework.
WALLACE: So, does that mean that you might then consider an independent run?
PAUL: No, it doesn’t mean that at all.
WALLACE: But would you?
PAUL: I have no intention doing that. That doesn’t make sense to me to even think about it, let alone plan to do that.
WALLACE: Because?
PAUL: Because I don’t want to do it. That’s the reason.
tRouble| 11.19.11 @ 10:22PM
When someone tries that hard to avoid a simple "no" answer it's because the answer is something other than "no."
Clint| 11.19.11 @ 10:47PM
Read It Again, Sport.
WALLACE: But would you?
PAUL: I have no intention doing that. That doesn’t make sense to me to even think about it, let alone plan to do that.
WALLACE: Because?
PAUL: Because I don’t want to do it. That’s the reason.
Noooooowwwwww !
Were Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Perry TARPSTERS ?
Was Cain Against Auditing The FED ?
Did Romney Give Massachusetts RomneyCare ?
Did Perry Support HillaryCare ?
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
Willis| 11.20.11 @ 9:25AM
Whatever his threats or political tactics, Ron Paul is at least 50 percent doddering old fool and 50 percent hopeless dreamer. That averages out to an unattractive candidate with no chance to be nominated or elected nationally. However, he is not without some value to the Republican party should he choose to use his intellect in the effort to defeat Obama and congressional Democrats.
Clint| 11.20.11 @ 10:19AM
In a new Harris Poll, 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul beats President Obama 51 percent to 49 percent in a general election race.
“This is yet another poll that clearly proves how competitive Ron Paul is against the sitting President,” said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton. “Dr. Paul is making strides, affirming that the American people are looking for conviction instead of the typical status quo rhetoric being offered by establishment candidates.”
Aaaaand,
Dr. Ron Paul, "I’ve offered to ride a bicycle for 20 miles in Houston when the temperature is 100° and the humidity is 100% and I will go 20 miles with them and then we’ll decide who’s the youngest."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
tRouble| 11.20.11 @ 7:19PM
Dr. Ron Paul, "I’ve offered to ride a bicycle for 20 miles in Houston when the temperature is 100° and the humidity is 100%
I told you he was nuts.
Clint| 11.21.11 @ 8:41AM
Obviously, Dr.Ron Paul Is Younger In Mind & Body Than You Are Sport.
The tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
Jim Hlavac | 11.21.11 @ 12:31AM
Out of all the problems facing this nation -- gay marriage is not one of them. It is absurd - it's the Deficits -- hello? If heteros are that panicked over sissy smoochers I fear for our nation far more. There are a tiny bunch of us who are gays -- the government recognizes our unions under commercial law, as LLC's and Partnerships -- and if you folks can't deal with us under family law -- while having no problem in dealing with reality under commercial law I don't know what to say.
But please -- stop trying to make Gayness a friggin' political position. I spend enough time on gay blogs trying to push those folks to the Tea Party Republican vision of limited government -- and explaining to them -- gayness is not a political position -- any more than autism is.
We gay folks are such a thing apart from anything else -- and we are a static few points in the firmament, like autism. Get real.
Meanwhile, Newt, Rick, Michelle and a few others seem intent on arresting and incarcerating us all at a cost of 100s of billions of bucks -- because heteros are that unsure of yourselves? Are you really that fearful? Mind boggling. Absolutely mind boggling. We gays simply cannot be that important -- put us on the autism spectrum and be done with us.
We don't contribute to the problem -- and pay so much in taxes it's not funny anymore. Get real about us, get real. It's simply moved into faith-hate and intellectual dishonesty. We make up less than 15 million out of 320 million -- we cannot be the problem -- it's absurd. How delusional can some of you be?
Bo| 11.21.11 @ 11:18AM
We should pay off the deficit by having a federal gay marriage tax.
Clint| 11.19.11 @ 5:27PM
The Israel Firster RINO-CINO Propaganda Squad Is Scared Of The Tea Party & Our Co-Favorite Presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul.
We Are Being Set Up By These Israel Firster RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.
These Are The Same Israel Firster RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Jack in Wi| 11.20.11 @ 1:16AM
Newt is like Henry the 8th, the Federal budget, and the and the Federal Reserve, Big, Bloated and Out of Control. Mr Bandow: Newt and Henry the 8th are a perfect match.
John| 11.20.11 @ 7:12AM
Newt surged because of his debate performance and his effort to unite the GOP field in order to oust Obama,considering his moderate stance on global warming and lobbying for Fredie Mac. He will make a good VP ticket with Rick Perry,who would ultimately close the deal in 2012 for GOP.
Jack in Wi| 11.20.11 @ 9:46AM
Ha Ha Ha Perry and Gingrich could not get 20% of the vote. They would be easily outpolled by any credible 3rd party. Obama would be re-elected in a landslide.
teflon93| 11.20.11 @ 10:10AM
I'd take Henry VIII over Bush III---but we're likely to get McCain II this time around.
JimH| 11.20.11 @ 11:35AM
Well the Gipper had a divorce and Rudy was at one time married to a cousin. That might appeal to some parts of he south. - Just Joking.
The Knife| 11.20.11 @ 12:45PM
Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death is the man who deceives his neighbor and says, “I am only joking!”
JimH| 11.21.11 @ 8:23AM
Hey gay blade, the citations regarding Reagan and Rudy are indeed facts. The intended humor, admittedly weak, was the imputation of how Rudy’s marriage would be received below the Mason Dixon line. If Foxworthy can make similar comments I don’t see what you are objecting to.
Thomas Hearne| 11.20.11 @ 1:18PM
Why the swipe at Churchill. Seems a little strained. I wonder if Churchill, were he alive, could get the nomination - an unrepentant smoker, drinker and gambler - all disqualifying traits for a large part of Republican primary voters.
teflon93| 11.21.11 @ 10:46AM
Except Churchill had big cojones, which utterly disqualified him in the eyes of Democrats and the GOP Establishment.
Thomas Hearne| 11.20.11 @ 1:19PM
Why the swipe at Churchill. Seems a little strained. I wonder if Churchill, were he alive, could get the nomination - an unrepentant smoker, drinker and gambler - all disqualifying traits for a large part of Republican primary voters.
Willis| 11.20.11 @ 6:59PM
I'm only a small part of the Republican primary vote, but I believe you could take Churchill's corpse, prop it up in the corner of the Oval Office, play his old speeches and you'd have a better president than Obama.
Thomas Hearne| 11.20.11 @ 8:08PM
totally agree
PattyMor| 11.20.11 @ 6:12PM
I think Newt is just too compromised to be effective. Look, he didn't write history lessons for the Million Bucks he took from Freddie Mac. Its just that obvious. He was paid for his influence.
His support of Dede Suzzafava is just one insider helping another insider. And unforgivable was his global warming commercial with Miss Nancy. Global warming is just a scam cooked up by the financial industry and the United Nations and the other global socialists. I say no, no Newt.
Clint| 11.20.11 @ 6:36PM
The New Hampshire Gazette
The Chickenhawk Hall Of Shame
name:
Willard Mitt Romney
rank:
Chickenhawk First Class with Distinguished Fleeing Cross
date-of-birth:
March 12, 1947
home state:
Michigan
missed opportunity:
Vietnam War
excuse:
None to speak of
preferred activity:
Trying to talk people into becoming Mormons
occupation:
Climbing ambition's greased pole
When your daddy's a Governor and a Cabinet Secretary, it's amazing how your odds of being drafted diminish.
MOS was 71331| 11.21.11 @ 10:33AM
Amen!
Clint| 11.20.11 @ 6:42PM
The New Hampshire Gazette
The Chickenhawk Hall Of Shame
name:
Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich
rank:
Chickenhawk First Class with Distinguished Fleeing Cross
date-of-birth:
June 17, 1943
home state:
Georgia
missed opportunity:
Vietnam War
preferred activity:
Attending grad school
occupation:
Congressman
A virtuoso in the art of hypocrisy, the former Speaker of the House now claims the Vietnam War was a splendid idea, but at the time he opposed going himself. Newtie also speaks highly of morality, but as a serial adulterer he doesn't want to get too close to it himself
MOS was 71331| 11.21.11 @ 10:33AM
Amen!
somnolence| 11.21.11 @ 12:31AM
Those who continue to charge others who plan to vote third party, or cast a write-in vote, or just prefer to stay home next November, with treason, are actually the ones who most appropriately fit that description. If the nominee doesn't fit my political conservatism to a tee this time around I will sit it out----the first time since 1976. Just because everyone else decides to jump in the lake doesn't mean I follow. Where are our profit checks from GM? Is everyone on this page content with being lied to, when it was said we the taxpayers were also the shareholders of GM? Gingrich has some of the sorriest, most unforgiveable political insider baggage in recent history, not to mention his endorsement of Dede Scazzafova for congress. It is up to the citizens of the U.S. to curtail Obama's actions if he is reelected and aims for even more socialistic design to imperil us. Or are we going to continue to be complacent even then? I will support Cain until he calls it a day, and then I might, MIGHT, support Bachmann or Santorum. The rest are as far off the radar screen as Obama. Sweet talk and scurrilous promises. But my final thought: All who think refraining from voting is treasonous can just enjoy anatomical reverse coitus as far as I'm concerned. Non-voting is a type of dissent, and that is as precious as the blood and determination that went into fortifying the original documents that have sustained this country from the beginning. You give me someone serious to vote for and I'll readily change my mind. Other than Cain and Sarah I just don't see that many.
John| 11.21.11 @ 2:11AM
I love to see all the self-righteous comments on this site whenver Newt Gingrich (or insert other name that isn't your favorite candidate) gets mentioned in an article. I defy anyone to come up with a "perfect" candidate to defeat Barack Obama. One cannot do it. We are all fallible human beings. We need to unite behind the eventual nominee to defeat Obama. Let's vette the candidates without tearing the party apart. If we all divide against ourselves, then Obama wins re-election. Everyone needs to get a grip.
MOS was 71331| 11.21.11 @ 10:31AM
Sorry you consider it self-righteous for me to oppose the selection of a serial adulterer and a bribe taker. I guess I'll just have to live with it.
irish19| 11.21.11 @ 1:15PM
You miss the point. Defeating zero is and must be the priority. If you feel that strongly that the nominee, whoever he or she is (and remember that no votes have yet been cast so it's far too early to call the process finished), is not worthy of your vote, then at least go out and vote for conservative down-ticket candidates. Not to do at least that is disrespectful of the right to vote and, IMHO, spits on the sacrifices of those who shed real blood to ensure that we have that right.
Also, if you don't vote, you don't get to bitch about the result. Finis.
Bo| 11.21.11 @ 11:23AM
Romney is a flip flopper because he pretended to be liberal to run in Massachusetts which makes him unpure. Gingrich made a global warming commercial. Cain made elevator eyes at some woman once. Bachmann got a farm subsidy which makes her a welfare queen. Perry went hunting at a camp with a racist name. I guess we have to vote for Obama.
macswftomov | 11.22.11 @ 12:50AM
Mac SWF to MOV
How to convert swf to mov? This is a perfect toolto convert swf to mov.
Nathan Albright | 11.26.11 @ 7:05AM
I don't think Newt's popularity is going to last, and his tendency to be a lecturer-in-chief is probably a turnoff to people besides myself. As for myself, I lean pretty strongly for Perry, and I'm definitely hoping that we don't get serial windsock Mittens as our nominee. I'm very curious to see how the primaries turn out, as I'll be an absentee voter in foreign lands this election cycle.
Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. | 11.26.11 @ 8:46AM
I have three main-questions [Israel, Libya and Healthcare]; I seek FOCUSED responses to them.
The format to be employed is to provide the download from http://www.newt.org/answers and then to pose the potential-contradiction separately.
Full Disclosure: I have donated both to Perry/Bachmann; although Guzzardi critiques my consistency, I believe I am a Constitutional Conservative.
I have NOT donated to Gingrich, but I would support anyone [except Paul] in November; I care not about his social/cultural/fiscal lifestyle/history.
I do care about whether he has yet to have developed a cogent/muscular Foreign Policy, particularly when subject to pressure from D.C.-Arabists.
ISRAEL
Zero-Based Budgeting in Foreign Aid/Inclusion of Israel
Newt believes that Israel is one of America’s closest friends and a key strategic ally in a dangerous part of the world.
Newt fully expects that Israel will continue to receive a robust package of aid from the United States under a new merit-based approach to foreign aid.
Newt believes that zero-based budgeting is a good approach to apply all across the federal government, not just for foreign aid. Before we spend money every year in various areas of the federal budget, we should ask the right questions of whether we should continue to spend like we have the year before. We have to break the "baseline" mentality that just assumes that spending will automatically be in place and grow every year.
The question has been raised as to how this budgeting approach applies to foreign aid to Israel.
At the moment, the United States has a multi-year aid agreement with Israel. Newt believes we must honor this agreement. And sometimes multi-year aid agreements will continue to be appropriate. But as a general matter, we should apply a zero-based budgeting approach to all recipients of foreign aid. Newt believes that Israel is one of America’s closest friends and a key strategic ally in a dangerous part of the world. Gingrich fully expects that Israel will continue to receive a robust package of aid from the United States under a new merit-based approach to foreign aid.
The essence of your position ["Israel will continue to receive a robust package of aid from the United States under a new merit-based approach to foreign aid"] is based on a viewpoint ["Israel is one of America’s closest friends and a key strategic ally in a dangerous part of the world"] that is vulnerable to attack by those Republican neo-isolationists who adamantly oppose the "neo-con" approach to Foreign Policy. What is the specific criterion you would emphasize when justifying not only the continuation of prior commitments ["multi-year aid agreement"] but also whatever expansion thereof that might arise...such as the necessity to engage in military action against Iran?
LIBYA
Changing Position on Libya
Watch the video embedded here which puts Newt’s comments about Libya in the proper context to show that his position was consistent.
Newt does not think the use of force in Libya was necessary to remove Gaddafi from power. He advocated the use of covert measures, specifically reaching out to the leaders of the Libyan military to convince them it was in their best interests to remove Gaddafi themselves. This has been Newt’s consistent position.
However, once President Obama declared on March 3rd that “Gaddafi has to go,” he put the prestige of the United States on the line. At that point, Gingrich advocated swift and decisive action to remove Gaddafi. Watch the video embedded here which puts Newt’s comments about Libya in the proper context to show that his position was consistent.
Unfortunately, instead of decisive action, we only got dithering. Obama showed more concern for obtaining UN approval of our actions than Congress’s approval for our actions. Sometimes a Commander in Chief will have to act decisively and quickly. But if there was enough time to secure a UN resolution, then there was more than enough time to secure Congressional authorization first, which Obama never did. Now he has set the dangerous and unconstitutional precedent of asking the UN, not the US Congress, for permission to start hostilities.
Obama ended up putting American troops in harm’s way under the auspices of a UN resolution for a chiefly humanitarian mission – Newt believed and still believes that that was a mistake. Today, it is increasingly unclear whether Libya will turn into something far more dangerous to American interests than the Gaddafi regime was in its final years.
You predicate your flipped position regarding the military action against Libya on the flipped position of BHO ["once President Obama declared on March 3rd that “Gaddafi has to go,” he put the prestige of the United States on the line"] without articulating your own position regarding the need to adopt a policy-position regarding such conflicts, wherever they might arise [Central Africa, Syria]. Therefore, if you felt Libya constituted a "strategic interest" of America, why didn't you initially advocate an aggressive posture ["swift and decisive action"], if you felt Libya didn't constitute a "strategic interest" of America, why didn't you explicitly state this observation and its rationale, and if you felt American lives were at-stake when functioning through NATO ["Obama ended up putting American troops in harm’s way under the auspices of a UN resolution for a chiefly humanitarian mission"], how could that have occurred when NATO commanded no American troops and no American lives were lost?
HEALTHCARE
Mandate to Purchase health insurance
Newt opposes Governor Romney’s health insurance mandate, and Newt opposes President Obama’s health insurance mandate. Newt believes mandates to buy health insurance are wrong on principle, and in the case of the Obamacare health insurance mandate, unconstitutional as well.
With respect to President Obama’s health insurance mandate, Newt believes it is an unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of federal power. If the federal government can coerce individuals—by threat of fines—to buy health insurance, there is no stopping the federal government from forcing Americans to buy any good or service. It is a serious and unconstitutional infringement of individual liberty.
With respect to Governor Romney’s mandate, we have observed that it doesn’t achieve its goal of providing low cost catastrophic coverage for the uninsured. The intractable problem we have learned from experience with health insurance mandates is this: once you have a mandate, the government has to specify exactly what coverage must be included in insurance for it to qualify. This introduces political considerations into determining these minimum standards, guaranteeing that nothing desired by the special interests will be left out.
In the 1990s, Newt and many other conservatives, such as the Heritage Foundation, proposed a mandate to purchase health insurance as the alternative to Hillarycare. However, the problems outlined above caused Newt to come to the principled conclusion that a mandate to purchase health insurance was unconstitutional, unworkable and counterproductive to lowering the cost of healthcare.
Today, Newt carries the banner in fighting for the repeal of Obamacare and advocates for a “patient power” replacement that will create a free market framework for healthcare, provide affordable, portable, and reliable healthcare coverage, and establish a healthcare safety net focused on those truly in need. This system moves us towards the goal of healthcare for all with no unconstitutional mandate of any kind.
You predicate your position on the error of having co-adopted the erroneous position of the Heritage Foundation from almost two decades ago, a posture you repeated on FNC's "Center Seat" interview on "Special Report"; indeed, you claimed Romney should emulate your decision to decry what you now view as a statist/elitist intrusion upon a fundamental right not to be forced to purchase a private product or service. Yet, your endorsement of the "Individual Mandate" has been reinforced in two of your recent books: Real Change [2008, page 227: "Everyone should be required to have coverage"] and Winning the Future [2005, page 116: "You have the right to be part of the lowest-cost insurance pool and you have a responsibility to buy insurance."]. What is your current ["principled"] posture on this issue, when did you reach it, and what prompted you to reach it?
Nathan Albright | 11.26.11 @ 8:56AM
Those are good questions. I would like to make some brief notes. In particular, a defense of Israel must be more than merely a statement that they are a close friend of ours (which they are) but must also include some elements of an affirmative defense. For example, aid to Israel requires a substantial amount (75%+) of the aid to go into the purchase of American military equipment, meaning such aid directly benefits American companies. Additionally, Israel is the only functioning Middle Eastern democracy, making aid to Israel defensible both under our common worldview as well as enlightened self-interest. Our mutual and genuine loyalty only adds to that. A clear contrast can be made with nations like Egypt or Pakistan where no such genuine worldview alignment or loyalty exists.
In addition, the Libya question is serious as well. The lack of legitimacy in sending Americans into harm's way with a great deal of focus on UN approval but no focus on meeting the constitutional test of receiving the advice and consent of Congress is a very worrisome precedent. In addition, allowing presidents to put American prestige (and soldiers' lives) on the line without some kind of serious conversation about the goals and ends and worthiness of the effort is a very dangerous precedent to allow. What would happen if there was a humanitarian call for NATO action in Syria in light of Assad's continuing human rights violations there. Do we make it our goal to topple every dictator in the Middle East, or do we have some kind of idea where our national interest lies?