We could have taken out Newt and Romney all along

[Palmetto2012]

My guess is 95% of those who voted for Newt in SC wouldn't have if they had known he is an admitted anti-constitutional socialist who believes in mandatory healthcare.

Transcript of Newt Gingrich interview - Glenn Beck GBTV
Tuesday, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:14 AM EST

GINGRICH: 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 it will ensure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.

GLENN: Okay. That’s 1993. Here is May 2011.

GINGRICH: All of a sudden responsibility to help pay for healthcare. And I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement to either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you are going to be held accountable.VOICE: That is the individual mandate, is it not?

GINGRICH: It’s a variation on it.

---

So why not mandatory life insurance too Newt? Can't have people dying and leaving their family with nothing can we?

How about mandatory membership at the local gym?

The individual mandate is the most hated part of Obamacare and Newt is for it?

Where's the media on this? Newt and Romney obviously have a gentleman's agreement not to discuss it.

Romney has tried to weasel his way out of the issue by claiming he dosen't believe the federal government has the right to impose mandatory healthcare and since he only imposed it at the state level that somehow that's OK.

Newt on the otherhand is openly pro mandatory healthcare.

This is a HUGE Constitutional issue.

Ron Paul should have been all over this in every debate.

Why wasn't he?

[SurfsUp]

bump for the campaign

[milo10]

Because these aren't issues that are handled well in a debate. Gingrich is too slippery on issues like this. Romney cornered him several months ago on this issue, and did so quite well, but they always give Mitt lots of time to do back and forths, plus the impact was minimal because they are both pro-mandate at some level.

This is what it would look like.

Ron Paul: (Criticizes Newt for being for individual mandate.)

Newt Gingrich: I would like an opportunity to respond to that. And the answer is no, you're simply wrong. (pauses) What my healthcare would provide (lots of words that mean nothing and skirt around the issue).

You would need to be familiar with what Newt's plan is in detail, and be prepared for at least 2-3 rounds with him before it is made clear that this is what he is proposing.

I don't think Ron would do that, plus it would go over a lot of people's heads.

I would agree that there are other ways of demonstrating this, such as through a longer video.

[anewvoice]

The media don't report negatives about Newt or Romney
People don't "get" the Constitution, they look for someone who sounds smart (pompous windbag accomplishes that)
Issues are complex, style and appearances are not. Most people will pick former rather than latter (which is why we're going so hard during the primary season)

BUT, I think we'll start seeing a good deal more attacks between Romney and Gingrich now, pot n kettle.

[Anti Federalist]

LoL- people like being swindled.



My guess is 95% of those who voted for Newt in SC wouldn't have if they had known he is an admitted anti-constitutional socialist who believes in mandatory healthcare.

Transcript of Newt Gingrich interview - Glenn Beck GBTV
Tuesday, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:14 AM EST

GINGRICH: 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 it will ensure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.

GLENN: Okay. That’s 1993. Here is May 2011.

GINGRICH: All of a sudden responsibility to help pay for healthcare. And I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement to either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you are going to be held accountable.

VOICE: That is the individual mandate, is it not?

GINGRICH: It’s a variation on it.

---

So why not mandatory life insurance too Newt? Can't have people dying and leaving their family with nothing can we?

How about mandatory membership at the local gym?

The individual mandate is the most hated part of Obamacare and Newt is for it?

Where's the media on this? Newt and Romney obviously have a gentleman's agreement not to discuss it.

Romney has tried to weasel his way out of the issue by claiming he dosen't believe the federal government has the right to impose mandatory healthcare and since he only imposed it at the state level that somehow that's OK.

Newt on the otherhand is openly pro mandatory healthcare.

This is a HUGE Constitutional issue.

Ron Paul should have been all over this in every debate.

Why wasn't he?

[Captain Caveman]

Never argue with idiots (newt, mitt)... they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

heh

[Palmetto2012]

Because these aren't issues that are handled well in a debate. Gingrich is too slippery on issues like this. Romney cornered him several months ago on this issue, and did so quite well, but they always give Mitt lots of time to do back and forths, plus the impact was minimal because they are both pro-mandate at some level.

This is what it would look like.

Ron Paul: (Criticizes Newt for being for individual mandate.)

Newt Gingrich: I would like an opportunity to respond to that. And the answer is no, you're simply wrong. (pauses) What my healthcare would provide (lots of words that mean nothing and skirt around the issue).

You would need to be familiar with what Newt's plan is in detail, and be prepared for at least 2-3 rounds with him before it is made clear that this is what he is proposing, and he might still deny it.

I don't think Ron would do that.

Ron could simply response with "Newt, you said last month in an interview with Glenn Beck and I quote "I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement to either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you are going to be held accountable."

Newt, you are for the most detested and unconstitutional part of Obamacare.

The crowd would gasp and it would be the end of Newt's campaign.

[YumYum]

The South Carolina audience went ballistic applauding, and cheering wildly on their feet when Newt said "Kill them" during the debates. The most important issue with South Carolina Republicans is more war and empire building, and for the military industrial complex to maintain its power.

[Orgoonian]

Ron could simply response with "Newt, you said last month in an interview with Glenn Beck and I quote "I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement to either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you are going to be held accountable."

Newt, you are for the most detested and unconstitution part of Obamacare.

The crowd would gasp and it would be the end of Newt's campaign.

I think you give tv addicted humans too much credit for their critical thinking skills.

[MichaelD]

It would never stick on Newt, first he would denie it, then blame it on the media or Hilary Clinton, and finally he would say he was wrong and learned from it.

Fox news would then go on and on about how we need a guy like that can learn from past mistakes.

[Palmetto2012]

It would never stick on Newt, first he would denie it, then blame it on the media or Hilary Clinton, and finally he would say he was wrong and learned from it.

Fox news would then go on and on about how we need a guy like that can learn from past mistakes.

When he denies it tell the audence a link to the audio clip of him saying it is posted on the Ron Paul 2012 website.

Call him a liar, and repeat the quote.

This should have been done in EVERY debate.

Demand to know if he's for mandatory life insurance.

Demand to know why not since he is for mandatory health insurance.

This is THE issue that could have won Ron Paul the nomination.

[Snowball]

Newt is not for mandatory health insurance. Your post quoting the Beck show
was a replay of him in 1993, when the individual mandate was being considered
by some Republicans as an alternative to Hilary care, which would have been
total Federal administered system, even more Federal than Obamacare.

Newt's plan to save lives and save money
*
Make health insurance more affordable and portable by giving Americans the choice of a generous tax credit or the ability to deduct the value of their health insurance up to a certain amount and by allowing Americans to purchase insurance across state lines, increasing price competition in the industry.
Create more choices in Medicare by giving seniors the option to choose, on a voluntary basis, a more personal system in the private sector with greater options for better care. This would create price competition to lower costs.
Reform Medicaid by giving states more freedom and flexibility to customize their programs to suit their needs with a block-grant program similar to the successful welfare reform of 1996. *With that block grant, each state can focus on providing the assistance to low-income families that they each need to buy health insurance.
Cover the sickest with a High Risk Pool set up by each state to cover the uninsured who have become too sick to buy health insurance.
Protect consumers by reinforcing laws which prohibit insurers from cancelling or charging discriminatory rate increases to those who become sick while insured.
Extend Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) throughout the health care system. *Everyone on Medicare and Medicaid should be free to choose an HSA for their coverage. *All workers should be free to choose an HSA in place of their employer coverage if they desire.
Reward quality care by changing the Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement models to take into account the quality of the care delivered and incentivizing beneficiaries to seek out facilities that deliver the best care at the lowest costs.
Reward health and wellness by giving health plans, employers, Medicare, and Medicaid more latitude to design benefits to encourage, incentivize, and reward healthy behaviors.
Stop health care fraud by moving from a paper-based system to an electronic one. Health care fraud accounts for as much as much as 10 percent of all health care spending, according to the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association. That's more than $200 billion a year. Compare this to the 0.1% fraud rate in the credit card industry thanks to its high-tech information analysis systems.
Stop junk lawsuits that drive up the cost of medicine with medical malpractice reform.
Speed medical breakthroughs to patients by reforming the Food and Drug Administration.
Inform patients and consumers of price and quality so they can make informed choices about how to spend their money on care. Patients have the right to know this information, but finding it is virtually impossible.
Invest in research for health solutions that are urgent national priorities. Medical breakthroughs--ones that prevent or cure disease rather than treating its symptoms--are a critical part of the solution to long-term budget challenges. *More brain science research, for example, could lead to Alzheimer's Disease cures and treatments that could save the federal government over $20 trillion over the next forty years.
With these Patient Power reforms, healthcare can be transformed from an anchor on our economy to an engine.* From a broken, fragmented system to a coordinated, innovative system that delivers more choices at lower cost for all Americans.
This comprehensive approach—cost, quality, competition, and coverage—can solve the problem of the uninsured with no individual mandate and no employer mandate.* Everyone would be able to obtain essential health care and coverage when needed.* For those who are too poor to buy health insurance, states will have more flexibility to provide them with the assistance they need to buy it.* For those who nevertheless choose not to purchase coverage and then become too sick to do so, high risk pools will provide access to coverage.* Once you have health insurance, you are assured you can keep it.* By contrast, even Obamacare for all its trillions in taxes, spending, new entitlements, and new bureaucracy still does not achieve universal coverage.
http://www.newt.org/solutions/healthcare

[Palmetto2012]

Newt is not for mandatory health insurance. Your post quoting the Beck show
was a replay of him in 1993, when the individual mandate was being considered
by some Republicans as an alternative to Hilary care, which would have been
total Federal administered system, even more Federal than Obamacare.

Newt's plan to save lives and save money
*
Make health insurance more affordable and portable by giving Americans the choice of a generous tax credit or the ability to deduct the value of their health insurance up to a certain amount and by allowing Americans to purchase insurance across state lines, increasing price competition in the industry.
Create more choices in Medicare by giving seniors the option to choose, on a voluntary basis, a more personal system in the private sector with greater options for better care. This would create price competition to lower costs.
Reform Medicaid by giving states more freedom and flexibility to customize their programs to suit their needs with a block-grant program similar to the successful welfare reform of 1996. *With that block grant, each state can focus on providing the assistance to low-income families that they each need to buy health insurance.
Cover the sickest with a High Risk Pool set up by each state to cover the uninsured who have become too sick to buy health insurance.
Protect consumers by reinforcing laws which prohibit insurers from cancelling or charging discriminatory rate increases to those who become sick while insured.
Extend Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) throughout the health care system. *Everyone on Medicare and Medicaid should be free to choose an HSA for their coverage. *All workers should be free to choose an HSA in place of their employer coverage if they desire.
Reward quality care by changing the Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement models to take into account the quality of the care delivered and incentivizing beneficiaries to seek out facilities that deliver the best care at the lowest costs.
Reward health and wellness by giving health plans, employers, Medicare, and Medicaid more latitude to design benefits to encourage, incentivize, and reward healthy behaviors.
Stop health care fraud by moving from a paper-based system to an electronic one. Health care fraud accounts for as much as much as 10 percent of all health care spending, according to the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association. That's more than $200 billion a year. Compare this to the 0.1% fraud rate in the credit card industry thanks to its high-tech information analysis systems.
Stop junk lawsuits that drive up the cost of medicine with medical malpractice reform.
Speed medical breakthroughs to patients by reforming the Food and Drug Administration.
Inform patients and consumers of price and quality so they can make informed choices about how to spend their money on care. Patients have the right to know this information, but finding it is virtually impossible.
Invest in research for health solutions that are urgent national priorities. Medical breakthroughs--ones that prevent or cure disease rather than treating its symptoms--are a critical part of the solution to long-term budget challenges. *More brain science research, for example, could lead to Alzheimer's Disease cures and treatments that could save the federal government over $20 trillion over the next forty years.
With these Patient Power reforms, healthcare can be transformed from an anchor on our economy to an engine.* From a broken, fragmented system to a coordinated, innovative system that delivers more choices at lower cost for all Americans.
This comprehensive approach—cost, quality, competition, and coverage—can solve the problem of the uninsured with no individual mandate and no employer mandate.* Everyone would be able to obtain essential health care and coverage when needed.* For those who are too poor to buy health insurance, states will have more flexibility to provide them with the assistance they need to buy it.* For those who nevertheless choose not to purchase coverage and then become too sick to do so, high risk pools will provide access to coverage.* Once you have health insurance, you are assured you can keep it.* By contrast, even Obamacare for all its trillions in taxes, spending, new entitlements, and new bureaucracy still does not achieve universal coverage.
http://www.newt.org/solutions/healthcare

WRONG

Did you read the transcript?

Glenn quoted a statement from Newt in 1993 and then asked Newt if he still believed in mandatory healthcare.

New responded (last month) with:

"GINGRICH: All of a sudden responsibility to help pay for healthcare. And I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement to either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you are going to be held accountable."

There is no debate. Newt admitted a month ago that he not only WAS for mandatory healthcare, he still IS for mandatory healthcare.

The most reviled and anti-constitutional part of Obamacare.

Listen to Newt say he's PRO mandatory healthcare in 2011 for yourself right here in the GBTV interview:

It's at the start of Part 2

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/12/06/glenns-revealing-interview-with-newt-gingrich-story-and-video/

Even the Romney pac has a new attack ad attacking Newt for being PRO Mandatory healthcare

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-09/politics/30497254_1_newt-gingrich-mitt-romney-60-second-spot

[cindy25]

they voted for Newt because they want to see the Newt - Obama circus (debates)

substance had little to do with it. if it did the 3 wives open marriage would have killed him with the fake Christians

[jtbraine]

Gimm,mm

[Feeding the Abscess]

I still think the campaign should have hit harder on the individual mandate and left the disagreement with Paul Ryan's budget (which, for posterity, Ron also opposed) in the trash heap.

[MsDoodahs]

Snoball is a Newt supporter here to try and siphon off Ron's people.

Your guy is a lying sack of shit. He is a DEMONSTRATED CHEATER.

And remember that old adage about cheaters:

"If he'll do it WITH you, he'll do it TO you."

Newt cannot be trusted. Period.

[Mister Grieves]

The media won't start really highlighting the treasure trove of negatives against Romney or Gingrich until they're running against Obama. I figured it was impossible for Obama to win a second term and then I see the GOP in action and stand in awe. It is a party that should be thrown on the scrap heap of history.

[jbox]

Romney and Gingrich will likely bash each other over the head about healthcare for the near future. Quite frankly I think that's just what we need. If there was no Gingrich at this point Romney might be in a position to pull away as a clear cut nominee before the February break. Neither of them have a real clear plan to balance the budget... actually the only plans I ever hear from them begs the question "How do we pay for that?"... and a foreign policy that is no different than Obama and Bush. This, in addition to promoting himself as the candidate of restoring peace, prosperity, and lierty, I would believe helps Paul move up rather than taking another candidate out. Personally I was hoping to see Huntsman and Perry stick around through SC to siphon votes from Romney & Gingrich. It's my theory that both brokered deals through endorsements for either a VP or cabinet position down the road, should either one survive the Revolution!

[PaulConventionWV]

My guess is 95% of those who voted for Newt in SC wouldn't have if they had known he is an admitted anti-constitutional socialist who believes in mandatory healthcare.

Transcript of Newt Gingrich interview - Glenn Beck GBTV
Tuesday, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:14 AM EST

GINGRICH: 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 it will ensure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.

GLENN: Okay. That’s 1993. Here is May 2011.

GINGRICH: All of a sudden responsibility to help pay for healthcare. And I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement to either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you are going to be held accountable.

VOICE: That is the individual mandate, is it not?

GINGRICH: It’s a variation on it.

---

So why not mandatory life insurance too Newt? Can't have people dying and leaving their family with nothing can we?

How about mandatory membership at the local gym?

The individual mandate is the most hated part of Obamacare and Newt is for it?

Where's the media on this? Newt and Romney obviously have a gentleman's agreement not to discuss it.

Romney has tried to weasel his way out of the issue by claiming he dosen't believe the federal government has the right to impose mandatory healthcare and since he only imposed it at the state level that somehow that's OK.

Newt on the otherhand is openly pro mandatory healthcare.

This is a HUGE Constitutional issue.

Ron Paul should have been all over this in every debate.

Why wasn't he?

If you really think this would have changed anything, you are really naive. Most of the voters are really uninformed. In any case, you can't expect 95% of the Gingrich voters to suddenly vote for someone else just because we had pushed that one issue a little harder. We have been saying these people are all big government conservatives, they want more spending overseas instead of less. ALL OF THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. People know that what they are proposing is unconstitutional, but they haven't changed their minds. The Ron Paul campaign can't be expected to magically change the minds of 95% of the Gingrich people.

It is unbelievable how naive you are. You have to realize this whole process is rigged from the media perception of candidates to the actual vote tally. You know that question that Gingrich got about his wives in the last debate? That was such an obvious plant. They gave him something they knew he would get a grand slam on, ON PURPOSE. Saying something is unconstitutional doesn't change one iota of what we have done because we have been saying this stuff all along.

[PaulConventionWV]

Ron could simply response with "Newt, you said last month in an interview with Glenn Beck and I quote "I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement to either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you are going to be held accountable."

Newt, you are for the most detested and unconstitutional part of Obamacare.

The crowd would gasp and it would be the end of Newt's campaign.

I cannot believe you think it's that simple. I just cannot fathom the naivete that one has to have to think it is that simple. The end of Newt's campaign because of one question that Ron Paul asked? Really? Newt has been asked TONS of difficult questions, one of the most damaging of which was the warhawk question, and you think his campaign is going to be felled by saying he's for individual mandates? That didn't bring Romney down, why would it bring Newt down?

I just can't believe this. I thought Ron Paul supporters would know better than to make assumptions like this.

[Ronulus]

I thought santorum did a good job in smacking newt around during that debate, but clearly it had no effect on the masses. As much as I dislike santorum I thought he was helping us by attacking newt on his big government policies.

[MsDoodahs]

I just can't believe this. I thought Ron Paul supporters would know better than to make assumptions like this.

Ron Paul supporters do. ;)

[sailingaway]

Santorum came out for the mandate too. Ron is the ONLY one who has principles against it even when it is popular in DC.

[Palmetto2012]

I cannot believe you think it's that simple. I just cannot fathom the naivete that one has to have to think it is that simple. The end of Newt's campaign because of one question that Ron Paul asked? Really? Newt has been asked TONS of difficult questions, one of the most damaging of which was the warhawk question, and you think his campaign is going to be felled by saying he's for individual mandates? That didn't bring Romney down, why would it bring Newt down?

I just can't believe this. I thought Ron Paul supporters would know better than to make assumptions like this.

Romney was smart enough to say he's not for a Federal mandate for mandatory insurance.

Newt is too arrogant to back off and last month said he's still in favor of mandatory healthcare.

YES this would blow Newt out of the water if this was widely known.

Why do you think Newt just beat Romney? It's because the masses don't trust Romney because it's widely known he invented mandatory healthcare. They don't trust him because of it. The individual mandate is the single most hated thing that Obama has done. Romney's support of mandatory healthcare is a huge stone around his neck.

Meanwhile Newt is going around SC saying he's a Constitutionalist and the peasants believe him because they are not being told the truth.

TELL THEM THE TRUTH.

Once they realize that Newt has been outright lying to them they will turn on him like they just turned on Romney.

Sometimes it really is this simple. I can't believe you don't see this.

[mavtek]

The Campaign did the correct thing, Romney and his PAC will now have to unload on Gingrich, while Gingrich's PAC will have to unload on Santorum and Romney. We need to schedule events in Nevada, Minnesota, and Maine. The good part about last night is now Santorum may think he can stay in.

[Muwahid]

It's not as simple as "Ron shoulda just said this n that", he's been saying some disastrous things about the other candidates, it gets no post-debate coverage though whatsoever. People always post threads here saying Ron should just say <insert well written articulate quote block here> and think it's just that easy, try going up infront of cameras, pundits, other candidates, being interrupted, dealing with the crowd, and trying to remember a tailored message to say to everyone, Ron mostly does say this stuff about the candidates, it just comes out in a not so pretty way, hes not a plastic politician with all his answered written out and the moderators don't exactly give him softball questions.

He got over 70,000 votes! I don't care if that's fourth, imagine 70 thousand people went out in the rain to cast a vote for Ron Paul, that makes me feel good, idk about you guys.

[HOLLYWOOD]

I thought santorum did a good job in smacking newt around during that debate, but clearly it had no effect on the masses. As much as I dislike santorum I thought he was helping us by attacking newt on his big government policies.Well, it did... Santorum doubled his polling numbers into votes.


The people want a candidate that's stern, concise, aggressive, and the ability to relate and link how their policies effect people, additionally, how detrimental other's policies HURT the voters/viewers. Imagine and Impression are what counts... Media paints an image of each candidate(that's 50% of the battle), as well as the candidates paint their own image... if you are indecisive, ramble over your words, appear weak in letting media ignore you/roll all over you/timid, it doesn't attract the barbarian uninformed voters/viewers. This GOP Kabuki Theater wants someone tough and confident.

Frankly, most ignorant viewers are scared shitless of RP's foreign policies and cutting a Trillion dollars in the first year statement. People, which study after study reveals, 95+% are followers, are afraid to lose their jobs, and Safety / security are the biggest issues right now. You just can't keep barking at the 30,000 foot level without bringing it down to earth for the clueless people to understand what the repercussions can have on the people.

[One Last Battle!]

This is a pretty silly idea.

First, as has already been said, Newt is exceptionally slippery in the debates and can get past almost anything without lots of time to go after him. Unless the debate moderators were feeling very generous AND Ron was being far more concise than usual, it wouldn't end well. The proper way to attack Newt, as was shown in Iowa, is with lots and lots of ads.

Second, even assuming we enter Bizzaro World in which Ron takes out Newt in a flair of brilliance, what do you think happens next? For some inexplicable reason he refuses to attack Romney, and a lot of Gingrich's supporters prefer Romney to Ron. They would go to Romney over the "crazy anti-war guy" (remember, South Carolina is very much a pro-war state) and at BEST we'd come second with maybe 25% of the vote to Santorum's 20% and Romney's 50%. At that point, the race would be considered "over", Romney the defacto nominee, and we'd lose almost all of the remaining primaries in a sweep (Every single head to head poll I've seen against Romney puts us behind by something like 50%). This way, we can win later states without being cut off from achieving anything. Furthermore, if we're REALLY lucky and Gingrich beats Romney in Florida too (a state that is utterly unattainable for us and thus our performance doesn't matter much), then we might have a shot at Nevada and Virginia, state's Romney would otherwise sweep.

[Palmetto2012]

This is a pretty silly idea.

First, as has already been said, Newt is exceptionally slippery in the debates and can get past almost anything without lots of time to go after him. Unless the debate moderators were feeling very generous AND Ron was being far more concise than usual, it wouldn't end well. The proper way to attack Newt, as was shown in Iowa, is with lots and lots of ads.

Second, even assuming we enter Bizzaro World in which Ron takes out Newt in a flair of brilliance, what do you think happens next? For some inexplicable reason he refuses to attack Romney, and a lot of Gingrich's supporters prefer Romney to Ron. They would go to Romney over the "crazy anti-war guy" (remember, South Carolina is very much a pro-war state) and at BEST we'd come second with maybe 25% of the vote to Santorum's 20% and Romney's 50%. At that point, the race would be considered "over", Romney the defacto nominee, and we'd lose almost all of the remaining primaries in a sweep (Every single head to head poll I've seen against Romney puts us behind by something like 50%). This way, we can win later states without being cut off from achieving anything. Furthermore, if we're REALLY lucky and Gingrich beats Romney in Florida too (a state that is utterly unattainable for us and thus our performance doesn't matter much), then we might have a shot at Nevada and Virginia, state's Romney would otherwise sweep.

Yeah, it's a silly idea to expose your opponent is anti-Constitutional...

I'm from SC. SC is not a "pro-war" state and the people here are not "pro-war". We are a patriotic state and if you convince people here that there's some boggeyman over the horizon, then we be first in line up to go protect freedom, our mothers, and apple pie.

But you ask someone from SC if our grandfathers stormed the beaches of Normandy so we could be forced to buy mandatory healthcare and our childen could grow up socialist and you'll get an entirely different reaction.

Expose Newt for what he is: anti-american and anti-constitution, and the people of this state and most of the rest of the country, would turn on him faster than you could imagine.

But of course that won't happen because you and others like you think it's a "silly idea".

I was a max donor to Ron Paul's campaign the last time around when the Republicrats nominated McCain.

I never even got a thank you letter.

I chalked it up to inexperienced staffers.

This time around Ron Paul is obviously listening to people like you and it's going to cost him the nomination (again).

Sad thing is, most people will never know what Newt really believes until it's too late.

And it's because the one man that could save us won't speak up.

[One Last Battle!]

Yeah, it's a silly idea to expose your opponent is anti-Constitutional...

I'm from SC. SC is not a "pro-war" state and the people here are not "pro-war". We are a patriotic state and if you convince people here that there's some boggeyman over the horizon, then we be first in line up to go protect freedom, our mothers, and apple pie.

But you ask someone from SC if our grandfathers stormed the beaches of Normandy so we could be forced to buy mandatory healthcare and our childen could grow up socialist and you'll get an entirely different reaction.

Expose Newt for what he is: anti-american and anti-constitution, and the people of this state and most of the rest of the country, would turn on him faster than you could imagine.

But of course that won't happen because you and others like you think it's a "silly idea".

I think I'm done here.

Ron's favourability ratings were something like 36%-51% unfavourable or so, and the hypothetical "Romney vs Paul only" question resulted in Romney winning with 75+% of the vote.

[goldpants]

Joe Scarborough was on Meet the Press on NBC this weekend and he just brought up this argument. Pointing out Newt and Mitt were for mandated health insurance as well as cap and trade. He has set the narrative, that Newt is an opportunist, not a conservative and he was run out of the speakership because of his lack of adhering to the limited govt. principles the gop supposedly stands for.

[PaulConventionWV]

Romney was smart enough to say he's not for a Federal mandate for mandatory insurance.

Newt is too arrogant to back off and last month said he's still in favor of mandatory healthcare.

YES this would blow Newt out of the water if this was widely known.

Why do you think Newt just beat Romney? It's because the masses don't trust Romney because it's widely known he invented mandatory healthcare. They don't trust him because of it. The individual mandate is the single most hated thing that Obama has done. Romney's support of mandatory healthcare is a huge stone around his neck.

Meanwhile Newt is going around SC saying he's a Constitutionalist and the peasants believe him because they are not being told the truth.

TELL THEM THE TRUTH.

Once they realize that Newt has been outright lying to them they will turn on him like they just turned on Romney.

Sometimes it really is this simple. I can't believe you don't see this.

Nobody turned on Romney. That was a media-created surge by Newt. Everyone knew about Romney's support of individual mandates before South Carolina, and now you think they're just starting to see it? In any case, he hasn't lost that much, and certainly not 95% of his supporters.

Think about it. NOTHING in the news cycle lately has been about Romney's support for individual mandates and you think that people are somehow spontaneously becoming aware of his position? Romney has always held that postion. People didn't care about Newt's wives, even the evangelical Christians who look down upon failed marriages, so what makes you think they're going to care if some politician accuses him of supporting individual mandates? Romney has been attacked with quotes and what have you, and he has still led the race thus far. What makes you think Ron Paul making one little claim on stage is suddenly going to bring his campaign crashing down? You have no evidence of this and you are spouting it out on here as if it were the God-given truth and nobody can question it. In the very least, that is arrogant and ignorant of you.

Newt has already faced all kinds of attacks and he explains them all away by saying a bunch of BS. He would do the same with any accusations of individual mandates and it wouldn't hurt him much. He obviously took money from Freddie Mac, and somehow he slithered his way out of that one. He would slither his way out of this one too.

If you are just a troll, you need to give it up because nobody is falling for it. We're not going to resort to infighting over this stupid speculation.

[PaulConventionWV]

Yeah, it's a silly idea to expose your opponent is anti-Constitutional...

I'm from SC. SC is not a "pro-war" state and the people here are not "pro-war". We are a patriotic state and if you convince people here that there's some boggeyman over the horizon, then we be first in line up to go protect freedom, our mothers, and apple pie.

But you ask someone from SC if our grandfathers stormed the beaches of Normandy so we could be forced to buy mandatory healthcare and our childen could grow up socialist and you'll get an entirely different reaction.

Expose Newt for what he is: anti-american and anti-constitution, and the people of this state and most of the rest of the country, would turn on him faster than you could imagine.

But of course that won't happen because you and others like you think it's a "silly idea".

I was a max donor to Ron Paul's campaign the last time around when the Republicrats nominated McCain.

I never even got a thank you letter.

I chalked it up to inexperienced staffers.

This time around Ron Paul is obviously listening to people like you and it's going to cost him the nomination (again).

Sad thing is, most people will never know what Newt really believes until it's too late.

And it's because the one man that could save us won't speak up.

Ban this troll. He is obviously just here to stir up infighting. Why do you think he's saying all these infalmmatory comments about how Ron Paul "couldh ave done more but didn't." He's a plant, and an obvious one, at that. I doubt he ever donated to the Ron Paul campaign.

[Palmetto2012]

Ban this troll. He is obviously just here to stir up infighting. Why do you think he's saying all these infalmmatory comments about how Ron Paul "couldh ave done more but didn't." He's a plant, and an obvious one, at that. I doubt he ever donated to the Ron Paul campaign.

"Ban this troll".

Mods, if you want to know if I'm a "troll" just PM me and I'll give you proof of who I am and a link to opensecrets.org where you can see where I was a quite generious "troll" for Ron Paul during his 2008 campaign.

I'm just calling it as I see it.

If you can't handle that then go ahead, ban me.

[South Park Fan]

Ron could simply response with "Newt, you said last month in an interview with Glenn Beck and I quote "I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement to either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you are going to be held accountable."

Newt, you are for the most detested and unconstitutional part of Obamacare.

The crowd would gasp and it would be the end of Newt's campaign.

That would backfire since Newt would start running ads of Ron Paul saying those exact words.

[SurfsUp]

bump