Our Choice For 2012

People are constantly faced with choices in their lives. At times the choice which appears to be the correct one to make may in the long run reveal itself as not that good of a decision and the same is true vice versa. This is especially so when faced with the choice of whom to support amongst several candidates during a primary. Although some folks have become discouraged over the years when the choice they’ve selected turned out to not be as originally envisioned, it’s important to continue making decisions and choosing the candidate which appears best at the time. At other times, one choice is obviously negative and although the other option may not be perfect, it is definitely the better of the two - as explained all the way below.

Since no-one is perfect and it is impossible to agree with one’s candidate/supported official 100% of the time, even when making a correct choice it is often accompanied with many gray areas which at times overshadow the white. Prior to the 2010 elections Arlen Specter, Republican Senator of purple-blue Pennsylvania was approaching a reelection and wavered on a decision before ultimately shocking and angering Republicans when he cast his vote in favor of Obama’s stimulus plan. This was the first time he sided with the Democrats on a major bill and his action resulted in conservatives and Tea Partiers to declare war on Specter at every cost. Their mission appeared noble and correct, and Pat Toomey is now the Republican Senator of Pennsylvania after barely winning the general election with a single point in the 2010 mid-term elections; a year in which Republicans swept victories across the country. He is surely a better representative of conservative values in the Senate than Specter had been.

However, the price tag it had cost for conservatives to place Toomey in the Senate had turned out be unexpectedly sky-rocketing expensive and resulted in many to question whether the goal was worth the consequences. When Specter saw he would be unable to win the Republican Primary, he made a mad dash to save his seat, switched parties, and provided the Democrats with the 60th vote which led to the passage of their infamous Obamacare. Thus, although we now have a solid conservative in the Senate who replaced a RINO (not an outright liberal) we are now weighed down with Obamacare which threatens to overtake a sixth of the private sector and is currently awaiting judgment on its constitutionality by the Supreme Court Justices.

Incidentally, two of our current conservative Supreme Court Justices, Roberts and Alito, are currently on the bench thanks to Specter, after Senator Santorum had made the choice to support Specter for reelection in ’04 when he was challenged in a primary by Pat Toomey. At the time, Senator Santorum was faced with the difficult choice whether he should support the incumbent Senator Specter and his senior colleague who although was a less conservative choice than Toomey, was far more probable to be successful in keeping the seat red during an election where the balance on Senate was up in the air and anti-Republican emotions were thick. This surmise turned out pretty accurate since Toomey barely managed to eke out a 1% victory in 2010 when the public was outraged at Obamacare and looked favorably upon the Tea Party candidates.

Maintaining the Republican control of the Senate was by far not the only factor which Santorum focused on when making his decision. He was also strongly aware that Bush would be nominating at least two and possibly three justices for the Supreme Court and that Specter who headed the judiciary committee would be extremely influential whether Bush’s proponents would ultimately be approved by the Senate. Santorum therefore opted to support Specter after receiving his word that he would support the conservative candidates for the Supreme Court which Bush would propose, something which will influence U.S. history for years to come as is visible now with the Obamacare hearings.

Santorum’s support of Specter indeed resulted in two strong conservatives on the bench, although it may have likely cost him the nomination in the current GOP presidential primary. In addition to having been hammered for supporting Specter in’04 for actions taken years later and were impossible to foretell six years earlier, his act resulted in Specter’s former opponent and the current Conservative Senator of Pennsylvania and Santorum’s home-state, Pat Toomey, to act favorably towards Santorum’s opponent – the author of Romneycare. In fact, immediately after Santorum announced he was suspending his campaign yesterday, Toomey released an official endorsement endorsing Romney, causing many to speculate whether the endorsement would occur regardless prior to Pennsylvania’s primary and whether it was one of the causes which led to the Santorum campaign suspension.

The above two examples clearly illustrate how when one makes a choice which appears to be good, it isn’t necessarily all good as is later revealed. It shouldn’t however leave us disheartened for ultimately many good also emerged from those choices. Additionally, many decisions are pretty clear-cut where one option is definitely bad. Even if the other one doesn’t necessarily turn out to be all that good, we still know it is better than the alternative.

Supporting a candidate doesn’t necessarily mean that one agrees with all they’ve done or stand for, although a candidate usually will have some supporters who do identify with them to an extreme. Many supporters of a specific candidate usually support the candidate because they identify with them on a single issue while many others don’t even have that. They simply support a certain candidate because he’s the better choice than the alternative. This was visible numerous times amongst this primary and is very typical. After Palin chose not to run, a majority of her supporter split between Cain and Newt. After Bachmann, Cain, and Perry exited the race, their supporters too turned to find a second or third ro fourth choice amongst the remaining candidates. This led to the momentum to shift from Perry to Cain to Newt to Santorum as voters were forced to reevaluate the field once it was clear the person they supported wasn’t running at all or any longer. I too have first supported Palin, and when she announced she wasn’t running though long and hard until turning to support Santorum approximately a month prior to the Iowa caucuses.

With Santorum now having suspended his campaign, the primary is sort of wrapped up despite the many voters including myself who haven’t yet received the opportunity to cast their ballots. Unlike the primary where the choices were plentiful - at least at the start, the general will boil down to two choices; four more years for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. Obama has already been in office long enough for everyone with an open mind to recognize the damage he’s wrought upon this country. Obama is clearly not only the bad choice but an utter disaster for this country. Any alternative will be far better and less to the left than the Marxist Obama.

Romney’s Attorney General will not be someone like Eric Holder who looks the other way when the Black Panther sets a price-tag of a million dollars on Zimmerman’s head and refuses to take responsibility or even answer basic questions regarding Fast & Furious. Nor will Romney chose the dopey Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services, the unqualified leftist Janet Napolitano as his Secretary of Homeland Security, and so on and so forth.

The choice now has boiled down between two people; Obama and Romney and it is time to unite under the better of the two – Mitt Romney. There are many who have announced that they refuse to vote for Romney and are planning to sit out the 2012 election, all the while talking of setting him up with a conservative in 2016. It is okay to talk of 2016, but only after the 2012 elections have taken place and giving Romney a chance at the presidency, if he reaches it. He may or may not make a good president but he’s not a definite Obama, and if conservatives will dislike him so greatly we can challenge him in 2016 just as we would put out a conservative against Obama.

We conservatives have proven our power the last couple of years by successfully challenging lots of incumbents in primaries and Romney is aware of it.. He won’t want to face a primary from his own party and will probably go along with whatever conservatives in Congress present him. Obama, on the other hand, is aware it’ll be his last term and will have no need to appease to any voters except for his leftist base who will replace Karl Marx with Barack Obama. If we thought he was radical in his first term, a second Obama term will be so much more disastrous it defies description. I plead with you fellow conservatives, w can look ahead to the future but at the same time we MUST REMEMBER THE HERE AND NOW AND MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE FOR 2012. WE MUST SAY NO TO OBAMA AND THUS SAY YES TO MITT ROMNEY.

There is another Option for Floridians besides for Mr. Right-Wing Social Engineering

Below are several excerpts of an article I've written which appears today on American Thinker.

... 

Teaming up with even one liberal in order to promote a single aspect of liberalism is usually reason enough for conservatives to dump and despise a candidate. Newt has palled around with, teamed up with, and praised the vile Al Sharpton as one who "did a lot of good things" despite Sharpton having organized riots which resulted in the deaths of at least a dozen innocent individuals. And Newt's chummy behavior with a liberal like Al wasn't a one-time occurrence. He's joined a whole lot of liberals, including Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and Arne Duncan.

Yet, contrary to the norm, Newt isn't despised for his love of liberals and their big-government ideas.
...

Regarding his vote under Carter in support of the creation of a Department of Education, Newt can't say that he was merely following the will of the conservative voters in Georgia, whom he supposedly represented. Nor can he throw back at the Georgians his vote as speaker for an additional 3.5 billion dollars for the Department of Education, which was the largest single increase that department has ever received. Ditto for his Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989, co-sponsored with Nancy Pelosi, which declared that climate change is "a major threat to political stability, international security and economic prosperity." Similarly, Newt's co-sponsoring the 1987 Pro-Fairness Doctrine was the result not of pressure from his constituents, but instead of his own big-government beliefs.

Even after he resigned, Newt spent hours persuading and cajoling fellow Republicans to vote for government-expansion bills. He supported individual mandates as late as May of 2011, Bush's amnesty for illegals in '04, government intervention to control global warming, and TARP, to name a few. In 2003, Newt demanded that "[e]very conservative member of Congress should vote" for Bush's prescription drug bill despite the fact that it added $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Prior to the 2010 midterm elections, Newt melted the phones of conservatives to ensure that social issues wouldn't be discussed.
...

There is another candidate whose record is far more conservative than the others despite having represented a purple-blue state. He didn't flip-flop his positions to please voters or garner media attention; instead, he remained true to his family and ideals because of inner convictions. He was and is a proud pro-lifer and a supporter of traditional marriage, lower taxes, and smaller government. He actually listened to the voices of those who sent him to Washington prior to voting and didn't originally support amnesty for illegals or federal action to curb global warming, as Newt and Romney have. And unlike Newt, this candidate actually supported some Tea Party conservatives over RINOs in the 2010 primaries.

This candidate is none other than Rick Santorum, who, as a newcomer to Congress, joined six others and fought corruption in both parties in what became known as the Gang of Seven while Newt -- the old-timer -- said nary a word. Rick Santorum has never linked hands with the left to destroy conservatism or grow liberalism, as Newt has. As a freshman in the Senate, it was Rick Santorum who led the fight for welfare reform and has been credited for its success, and it is Rick Santorum who continues to champion for entitlement reform. On the flip-side, although Newt supported welfare reform in the House, he also led the successful fight against entitlement reform, and again, he expressed his ardent support of Medicare in Florida this past week.

Newt can best be characterized as the Rod Blagojevich of the Republican Party: a smooth talker wearing a righteous mask who loves attention and makes a lot of noise. When removing his outer layer, though, one discovers a corrupted, immoral individual who has never met a liberal idea he hadn't tasted, liked, and then clothed in conservative clothing.

Three states have held primaries/caucuses so far, and three separate candidates won, so the race is still wide open. Floridian voters, cast your ballots wisely.

Please click here  To read the entire article.

Video Surfaces of Rick Santorum Criticizing Individual Mandates in 1994

As Nicole Coulter pointed out yesterday the mainstream media has been feeding rumors for the last several days that Santorum was “quitting the race” and leaving Florida immediately after Thursday night’s debate despite Rick having made it clear that he was continuing to campaign until the night prior to the elections and was nowhere near quitting. 

Unfortunately his special-needs daughter, Bella, had been rushed to the hospital and Santorum has rushed there as well. Although he’s canceled his appearances at several events for today, his eldest daughter Elizabeth and members of the famous Duggar family will represent him at various events. He also appeared today on “Meet the Press” and will be holding two tele-town hall meetings later today.

The quitting rumor which is being spread to discourage his supporters from sticking to him, is not the only obvious lie being thrown about Santorum across cyberspace and media channels.

During the debate Thursday night Santorum made a very strong case detailing why Romney, the author of RomneyCare, will have great difficulty taking on Obama on ObamaCare if he is the ultimate nominee. Santorum explained that in order to successfully challenge Obama one must provide a clear contrast to Obama’s policies, and reminded the audience that he had never supported individual mandates. You can watch their exchange over here.

Over the weekend media headlines announced that Santorum too had endorsed individual mandates during his career. The only problem though, was that they all linked to one source which was based on a third party with no direct quotes from Santorum.Well, guess what? Consistent Rick has opposed ObamaCare in concept way back in 1994 and continues to oppose it in 2012. The Daily Caller’s article has found a video dated October 31, 1994 in which Rick Santorum while running for Senate in the purple state of PA had clearly denounced any and every form of individual mandates. Here are some excerpts from The Daily Caller’s article and you can watch the video over here.

Running for the U.S. Senate in 1994, however, Santorum actually said just the opposite of that, as a video from CSPAN shows. The Oct. 31, 1994 video has Santorum saying government shouldn’t “dictate” anything on health care.

“I think what the role of the federal government is to provide opportunity for everyone to get what they want, to live their dreams and not to dictate what everybody should have,” he said.

And he explained why, which is even when certain things are mandated by the federal government, they often don’t work and added it simply is “not the American way of doing things.”

“You can’t force every American to do something they don’t want to do,” Santorum explained. “You can force people to be in Social Security, yet I think it’s only about 96 percent of Americans that are in Social Security. There are lots of mandates we put on people and they don’t obey. That’s wrong. That’s not the American way of doing things. The American way of doing things is getting people to live their dreams to make their choices.”

Nice try, LSM. Keep trying. 

Who Will be Thrown Under the Bus Next After Marco Rubio?

About a month ago, many conservatives pounced upon Nikki Haley when she endorsed Mitt Romney and branded her as a traitor and RINO as though she is failing to govern South Carolina in a conservative manner.

I’ve asked it at the time and I’ll ask it again; where had Newt Gingrich been when these very conservatives including Nikki Haley and Marco Rubio challenged establishment Republicans in primaries in 2010? Why, he was busy endorsing others like Dede Scozzafava over tea-partier Doug Hoffman, Robert Bennet over Mike Lee, and so on. Not only has Newt chosen to support left-leaning candidates over Tea-partiers, he had repeatedly supported liberal legislation first as a Congressman and later as a private citizen.

The Drudge Report has become the number one news source for millions of conservatives who are refreshed to see news which the mainstream media fails to report. Drudge has linked to and helped make viral many liberal-exposures including Breitbart’s explosive Acorn videos.

I remember listening to the Mark Levin Show October 5th when he stunned us with Governor Palin’s letter informing us she won’t be seeking the nomination. A bit later, after Governor Palin called into his show, Mark informed her and the audience that Matt Drudge had sent him an email saying “It’s a sad day for America.” I wasn’t the slightest bit surprised to hear him echoing the precise sentiments I and millions of others had felt, for The Drudge Report had always been from the handful of sites that reported the truth about the Governor and refused to participate in the liberal hateful slander machine which spread ridiculous lies about Palin.

Last week, Drudge had a headline about a network’s upcoming interview with a presidential candidate’s ex-wife; a news that would under normal circumstances be featured on every website. Although divorces are usually a messy business and many ex-spouses seek to slander their former spouse, it is only reasonable that voters will still want to hear what the candidate’s ex-wife has to say (taking it perhaps with a grain of salt) especially since the court documents regarding his first divorce have shown that Newt and not his wife had requested the divorce, contrary to his claims.

Drudge had come under heavy attack from Newt supporters for reporting this news, and Saturday night after Newt had won South Carolina, twitter was loaded with messages proclaiming Matt Drudge had lost. What has he lost? He owns a news site, and reported this piece news as he does with all other news.

Also, what’s wrong if he personally doesn’t support Newt (although I haven’t heard him say so)? It has come to the point that anyone who says anything not so complimentary of Newt, even when it’s the truth, is branded as in the camp for Romney. I, for instance, support neither Newt nor Romney. I support Rick Santorum. I’ve found it quite disturbing, though, to have been told by Newt that supporting Santorum is equivalent to supporting Romney. No, it isn’t and being told so won’t change that. I don’t support many of Romney’s policies of which Santorum has always held contrary views. I’m of the opinion that I will support the person who appears to me as the only principled conservative still in the race and I also feel that supporting Newt is similar to supporting Romney since they’ve held similar views on a majority of the issues. You may disagree with that, but don’t say I’m not allowed to support someone other than yourself.

It’s true that a huge chunk of conservatives are currently supporting Newt. However, that doesn’t mean one isn’t a conservative if he supports another candidate, including Romney. Furthermore, disagreeing with Newt doesn’t automatically mean the individual supports Romney; he may be supporting an alternative candidate such as Santorum or has not yet made up his/her mind.

Conservatives have already dumped Nikki Haley. They’ve blasted Matt Drudge for the past week. Now Rubio has become the target of attacks. What has Rubio done? Rubio hadn’t questioned Newt’s conservatism or dared discuss Newt’s past. He simply responded to an analogy that Newt had made which included Rubio. Also, after having been questioned about a specific ad, he responded that it was more befitted for a liberal with its false fear-mongering message to Hispanics (much in the manner Obama has engaged in the 2010 midterms). The Newt team apparently felt Rubio was in the right for it responded quite quickly and promised to pull the ad.

Newt is beloved by many for his sharp responses and hard-hitting answers. At times, though his remarks seem to follow liberal tactics or deliver a punch which is contradictory with conservative values, and he’s admitted as much. Just as he’d apologized for his fear-mongering comments on the Paul Ryan Plan as “right-wing social engineering” which hurt conservatism at a time when the left attempted to portray conservatives as throwing grandma off the cliff, so too, his portrayal of Romney as anti-immigration without differentiating between legal and illegal immigration has struck the wrong balance.

If we’re going to throw under the bus every conservative who utters anything anti-Newt I think we’ll need super-long tractor-trailers to fit everyone under. We should be able to understand that conservative opinion will be split in a primary and that not everyone will agree with your choice of candidate. That’s what primaries are all about. Let’s stop the trashing and bashing of conservatives solely because their opinion conflicts yours.

From the Emboldening of a Serial Adulterer to the Bashing of Social Conservatives

In 2008 the conservative media, and with this I mean the conservative and not the mainstream or establishment media, has greatly emboldened and pedestaled Romney over McCain despite McCain having owned a more conservative record. They did have the justification, though, that Romney has years of executive experience under his belt, something McCain never had. However, four years later, after the power of the conservative media has diminished somewhat due to their own actions in ’08, the conservative media is once again doing what it seems to do best; destroy itself.

Instead of these conservatives proving themselves as the only ones who will stick to the truth no matter what, they choose to ignore all liberalisms which not only make up a large chunk of Newt’s record, but have been emboldened and become fact only because of Newt’s support and sly tongue. Where is their focus on his 2010 endorsements where he hadn’t endorsed a single conservative over a RINO during the primaries?

The conservative media, for whatever reason, despises Romney yet is okay with Newt despite the fact that Newt’s record is far more liberal than Romney’s AND Newt hailed from a conservative state so there was no reason to bend to the people’s will who elected him into office, unlike in Romney’s situation. They tout the words he currently spouts despite being aware that Newt never remains with his original positions, and he’s already flipped several times on the current campaign trail (which too gets ignored by these conservatives). I have made this comparison between Newt and Romney not because I support Romney since they are both at the lower end of my list, but in response to Erickson’s article from last week.

Erickson bashed the Iowans and social conservatives living in Iowa as responsible for the Santorum rise, blasted Santorum as a non-conservative, and listed the handful of big-government bills he’s voted for. That original article has been followed by about a dozen additional anti-Santorum articles. What Erickson failed to note in each of these articles, is that Newt too supported each of those expansions plus many many more.

Newt Gingrich had voted for the creation of the Department of Education, has greatly expanded its size during his speakership, and continues to support its growth. Unlike Santorum, Newt supported individual mandates, co-sponsored environmentalist bills, supported Bush’s amnesty plan, and said he would’ve voted for TARP if he were in Congress. The list can go on and on with examples of Newt’s liberalism in contrast to Santorum’s conservatism.

In addition to Newt’s terrible record, he’s also a serial adulterer (!) yet Erickson can’t understand why someone would support Santorum over Newt?

The entire conservative movement has united to impeach Bill Clinton because of his immoral behavior and his cover-up lies. Hasn’t Newt behaved cheated on two separate wives? As for lies, his leaked divorce records have proven he’s an adept liar as well. How can a conservative support Newt? How will a conservative currently supporting Newt ever be able to stand up for his values down the road if they had defended a serial adulterer in the past?

My fellow conservatives, you can argue whether Santorum is or isn’t a conservative and to which degree, but when Erickson only quotes the few negatives mentioned in Club for Growth, while totally ignoring his above average conservative ratings he’s received from them, totally ignoring his conservative aspects, totally ignoring the reasonable explanations for many of his not-so-conservative votes, and most important of all – totally ignoring similar and worse action from Newt, this leads to some serious questions. Where is Erickson’s article lauding Santorum for his positive aspects such as his having stood up as a freshman Congressman and fought corruption amongst fellow Congressmen, in what was later dubbed as the Gang of Seven?

More importantly, if the conservative media can’t distinguish themselves from the mainstream and establishment media guys in sticking strictly to the truth, what will make them any more credible than the rest? Why will anyone except for their own small base pay any attention to them in 2016 if say, Newt wins the primary yet loses the elections? The only reason they support Newt is because of his supposed electability, despite all this electability talk having been proven wrong in so many past elections. I don’t know whether Newt can make it to the White House if he wins the primary since it is something no one knows two years in advance, although some pretend to. One things that is clear, however, is that in all of American history, serial adulterers haven’t received too many votes from women, which happen to make a considerable percentage of the swing voters.

Erickson’s and the others who cry foul play over Rick Santorum’s endorsement of Arlen Specter in ’04, are absolutely wrong in their assessment since they ignored the complete picture. Which junior Senator from a state has failed to endorse the senior Senator if the senior was a member of his own party? Don’t forget that the Specter of ’04 hadn’t yet voted for Obama’s stimulus package, nor was imagined to switch parties in the future. On top of the junior/senior explanation, Santorum served as chairman of the Republican Conference in the Senate, and as such,was expected to support an incumbent senator’s reelection campaign.

When questioning one’s endorsement one must also remember to look at the broader picture. ’04 was prior to the Tea Party and a time when anti-Bush and Anti-Republican sentiments were pretty strong. A Toomey victory in purple Pennsylvania was quite questionable while a Specter victory was basically guaranteed. Specter’s victory gave the Republicans the 60th vote they needed in Senate to prevent Democratic filibuster. Specter’s vote thus enabled President Bush to appoint TWO CONSERVATIVE JUDGES TO THE SUPREME COURT; Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. No additional explanation necessary.

Besides, how about listing the conservatives Newt had endorsed over the establishment candidates during the primaries of 2010? When you find none, how about taking him to task for it?

Similarly, Santorum’s reeelection loss in ’06 is given greater credence than necessary. Those who focus on it, stress that he lost his own state yet fail to mention that Newt had been thrown head-first from his leadership position in the House by his fellow Republican colleagues! Santorum has won two state-wide elections in the purple-blue state of Pennsylvania before facing defeat. Newt served in a red state and has never won a state-wide election, period. One of Santorum’s victories occurred at the same time that Bush lost the state of Pennsylvania. Santorum is the only current Republican candidate who won reelection in a blue state-wide election. (Gary Johnson did too lol)

It’s a shame to watch Conservatives embracing a big-government guy like Newt who belongs behind Santorum, Perry, Bachmann, and yes, even Romney. Only nuts like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are less conservative than him. Iowans will let us know tomorrow who they support, and just as no one would’ve predicted two months ago that Santorum has gotten a chance in winning Iowa, no one can definitely declare that an Iowan victory won’t be sufficient to continue and grow the Santorum surge onward to other states and throughout the entire election.

Instead of being pessimistic and attempting (uselessly) to prevent his surge, how about doing everything in your power to help the surge from changing directions? 

Newt Demands Congress to Impose Individual Mandates in 06 AND 07

In April of 2006, Newt Gingrich wrote a note on his organization's website, Center for Health saying "we agree entirely" with  Romneycare. He strongly suggested the federal government to model it.

Here's  the complete Newt Note:

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?

 
If this is not enough, here's more.

In 2007, Newt wrote an additional note in which he demanded Congress to take action to ensure every individual has health insurance. Included in his statement is a demand for individual mandates.

In order to make coverage more accessible, Congress must do more, including passing legislation to: establish a national health insurance marketplace by giving individuals the freedom to shop for insurance plans across state lines; provide low-income families with $1,000 in direct contributions to a health savings account, along with a $2,000 advanced tax credit to purchase an HSA-eligible high-deductible health plan; make premiums for these plans tax deductible; provide tax rebates to small businesses that contribute to their employees’ HSAs; extend and expand grant funding to high-risk pools across the country; and require anyone who earns more than $50,000 a year to purchase health insurance or post a bond.

Here's a link to the entire lengthy article Newt wrote in June of 2007 

 

Video: Conservatives Criticize Haley for endorsing Romney yet disregard Newt's endorsement of Pelosi Law for the USA

 

 

Below are several additional shocking videos of Newt in his own words bashing conservatism! You probably haven't seen these since the Newt Supporters don't want anyone to become aware of his non-conservative past.

Video: Newt Stumped for a State Department Increase of 50% in 2007  

Shocker Video! Newt Gingrich Demands the GOP to Drop Conservatism in order to win California and Maine  

 
Video: Newt Rips Conservative who Support Conservatives

Video: Newt Stumped for a State Department Increase of 50% in 2007

 

h/t @Norsu2

via Akaczynski1

Video: Newt Rips Conservative who Support Conservatives

Newt Gingrich is currently playing the role of the Tea Party candidate, and quite convincingly so.

So successful is he in adapting new roles, that many actual conservatives have become so strongly convinced by his current talk, that it seems that nothing about Newt's opposing history is enough to convince them otherwise. And when I talk about his history that includes items from several decades ago, several years ago, and even barely several months ago.

This video is of Newt at the end of 2009 on Fox News, where he not only defends his decision to support liberal Dede Scozzafava over Tea Party candidate Doug Hoffman in a Republican district, but criticize those who support Hoffman.

Newt's smooth talk at the debates may convince some that he's turned over to a new leaf overnight, however this very morning on CBS's Face The Nation, Newt announced he would subpoena Supreme Court Judges who rule contrary to his liking. He explained that he understood that such action would create history, nevertheless he stood strongly at his opinion.

Thus, this very morning he's convinced me once again that the old Newt who loves historic moments such as sitting on one love-seat with Nancy Pelosi and partnering Al Sharpton is ready to do anything and everything, including items contrary to conservatism and the constitution, all to receive some limelight, attention, and the creation of historic moments.

How long was Boehner, the RINO, in Congress & how many Bills did he co-sponsor with Pelosi? What about Newt?

John Boehner has donned RINO clothing far too many times throughout his political career, especially these last few years under Obama. Instead of remaining strong in his demands from Obama at the debt-ceiling talks, he provided Obama with a free pass with the creation of a mock Super Committee, and this is only one example.

The fact that Boehner isn’t very conservative is old news. What surprised me, was the information that Newt, who is also no conservative despite his and others claims, when measured against Boehner, is to the left of Boehner.

Boehner has spent a total of 20 years together with Queen Pelosi in the House, and throughout those two decades had co-sponsored with her 104 bills. Sounds like a lot? How do you like this? Newt had served in Congress together with demagogue Pelosi for only 12 years, yet throughout that time had co-sponsored with Pelosi a whooping 418 bills!

His chummy environmentalist ad he’d done together with Pelosi was not something out of character for Newt despite his protests that it was the “dumbest thing he’d ever done.” If the ad was the dumbest thing he’d done, what does he think of The Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989 he had co-sponsored with Pelosi, a bill which thankfully never made it out of committee?

Here’s a glimpse of the bill’s contents, courtesy of the Daily Caller:

The legislation declared that climate change was “a major threat to political stability, international security and economic prosperity.”

The bill could also make the pro-life community uneasy with language about the availability of “family planning services” that included a declaration that, “curbing world population growth will be critical to achieving the goals.”

And while it prohibited funds from going towards “involuntary sterilization or abortion,” it doesn’t appear the bill would have prevented “voluntary” cases of abortion.

This is but one tiny example which illustrates that although Newt is NO CONSERVATIVE despite his current conservative talk. He’s been in Congress long enough for his record to speak louder than all his current glib talk, and his actions from even the last ten years are far more revealing as to what type of president he’d make, than all the speeches he has given the last few months.

It is simply mind-boggling to watch how so many conservatives have fallen for his smooth talk despite the fact that he’s often used his talent of convincing others to promote liberal ideas such as the Department of Education, gun control, and a one world government, and Bush’s prescription drug plan. He’s also used his power of speech to destroy conservative change such as Paul Ryan’s Medicare Reform Plan and Tea Partier Doug Hoffman’s campaign.

If we can all agree that Boehner ain’t a conservative, why can’t we all agree the same about Newt?



         

Rick Santorum, A Traditional Conservative Republican

Rick Santorum had served Pennsylvania for a total of sixteen years; four years in the house, followed by twelve years in the Senate. In the last two years of his Senate career, he had an average Club For Growth rating of 77%, compared to an average of 73% for all Senate Republicans over that same time period. In the previous thirteen years before the Club had a scorecard, Santorum had accumulated an average score of 76% on the National Taxpayers Union scorecard, a non-partisan group that advocates for limited government. This compares to a 71% average among all Republicans.

Santorum is your typical pro-life, traditional marriage, conservative who staunchly opposed the raising of taxes and most big government ideas as evidenced in his votes for a balanced budget amendment and line-item veto power in 1995. I think of him as a traditional conservative and not only in regard to social issues. He hasn’t fought the party or stood up against Bush but voted along with a majority of Republicans for some big spending bills like the “No Child Left Behind Act” and Bush’s Medicare Prescription Drug Act. These votes, which were in support of the Republican president, were the expected behavior of conservatives at the time, thus giving a new definition to the term “traditional conservatives.” These traditional conservatives generally behave in a conservative manner except when party norms demand otherwise.

This is the type of candidate we’ve looked for and accepted in the past, unlike the “conservative reformer” we currently seek. Santorum's record is not that of one who has consistently fought corruption and he hasn’t taken on the role of the “sudden and relentless reformer” we so desperately seek in order to root out the corruption and cronyism Washington is currently infested with. However, the same is true of the rest of the field. (See Update below)

On the flip side, Santorum can't be described as the “bipartisan” guy who voted with a majority of Democrats against his party, a basher of conservatism, or someone who has praised the Obama agenda. The same can’t be said of Huntsman who has joined the Obama administration, or of Romney who had expressed great pride in running to the left of Kennedy, or of Newt who promoted Obama’s education agenda. Santorum has never done anything which comes close to such action.

Is Santorum the greatest conservative who will bring about “sudden and relentless reform”? Probably not. Can he be trusted to implement stick to his promises of basic reform such as overturning Obamacare and cutting down the size of the federal government? It definitely seems to be so.

Santorum’s strong stance for social issues, which has always been a top priority for many conservatives, is usually the first (and for some the only) thing which comes to mind, thanks in part to his repeated vocal support, and partly thanks to the media’s ability to focus only on the social sentences which emerge from his mouth. As a pro-lifer, I consider his being a social conservative as an important bonus which doesn’t contradict or minimize his promises to repeal Obamacare or his proposed economic plans which include the elimination of the corporate income tax for manufacturers.

Individual mandates, which greatly expand the power of the government and limit individual choice, is guaranteed to remain a hot topic throughout the campaign especially since the Supreme Court will take on the case prior to the elections. Three of the candidates, including the two current frontrunners, have supported individual mandates at some point during their political career: Perry wished to enforce mandates for the Gardasil vaccine, while Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney endorsed health-insurance mandates. All three have expressed great opposition to Obamacare and vow to repeal the federal health care mandate, and we can hope they will keep their word regarding Obamacare. The knowledge, though, that they’ve supported similar ideas in the past, indicates a greater possibility of them turning to big-government solutions when forced to deal with other issues throughout their presidency. 

Santorum, on the other hand, hasn’t actively engaged in promoting greater government control or turned to government as the solution to any and every situation on hand. Although Santorum has never really gone against the flow and has voted for several big-government bills such as Bush’s Prescription Plan, he stood together with conservatives in the opposition against Obamacare, Cap & Trade, and other bills destructive to American economy and American freedom.

Throughout his years in public service Santorum has taken an active role and had sponsored/co-sponsored many bills. His leadership was also visible in his endorsement of Doug Hoffman, the Tea Party candidate of NY-23 who ran against RINO party-backed Scozzafava. Santorum was the second conservative (Governor Palin was the very first) to throw their support behind Hoffman, who was unknown at the time.

Santorum’s biggest detraction is his inability to garner more than a couple of point in the polls which leads to people wary of supporting someone so low in the polls. He’s not the cool and calm guy as Obama had been in 2008, and his imperfect debates performances where he came across to many as whiny has not helped his image. Although he has adopted a somewhat better tone, he still needs additional improvement.

Santorum’s endorsement of his fellow Pennsylvanian Arlen Spector in 2004 - five years prior to Specter’s defection to the Democrats - is not that difficult to understand when taking into consideration that Specter was chairman of the Republican Conference in the Senate, and as such, was expected to support an incumbent senator’s reelection campaign.

Similarly, his massive defeat in 2006 where he lost with seventeen points may be a perfect bumper slogan although it was simply the results of a tough year for many conservatives who faced reelection due to the intense anti-Bush sentiments. Many respected conservatives in red states barely won with a small margin while quite a few seats went blue. George Allen, a conservative Senator who was up for reelection in the conservative state of Virginia lost his reelection bid in 2006 to Democrat Jim Webb. Santorum’s loss in Pennsylvania, which is a blue-leaning state and had gone for the Democrats during the last five presidential elections, is thus not that eyebrow-raising. Even with the Tea Party momentum and anti-Obama sentiments in 2010, Toomey won the senatorial race in PA with a mere two percent.

In addition to the anti-Republican emotions which ran extremely high, Santorum was smeared by many liberal groups such as the Trial Lawyers of America PAC who ran misleading television ads against him because of his attempts to pass tort reform.

You can see additional specific details of Santorum’s record, both negative and positive, at Club For Growth.

Voters who are seeking stability, substance, trustworthiness, and basic conservatism can find them all within Candidate Santorum and Senator Santorum. Although the dream candidate would be a conservative reformer, we are currently faced with compassionate conservatives, flip-flopping conservatives, conservatives in talk only, or a traditional conservative, of which the traditional version seems like the best option. 


UPDATE:

I’ve originally written “Santorum has no record of having fought corruption …” but it has been brought to my attention that I've missed the important role he’d played as a freshman still as congressman. He, together with six other highly influential Congressmen formed a group known as the “Gang of Seven” who publicly criticized what is now known as the Housing Banking Scandal. The scandal, which involved over 450 representatives who were allowed to overdraw their congressional accounts without penalty, received heavy media attention mostly due to the diligent efforts of the Gang of Seven. Santorum’s involvement with the Gang of Seven gained him a lot of notoriety early in his career as an advocate against government corruption.

Sean Hannity: I Have Never Tired When You Blasted Wright; Why Are You Tired When I Blast Al Sharpton?

Sean Hannity has expressed his frustration and weariness today on his radio show over the conservatives who are constantly criticizing the Republican presidential candidates be it regarding Romneycare, candidates' association with controversial characters, fifty-second brain freezes, and so on and so forth.

He explained his tiredness and opposition against enumerating the candidates' flaws by countering that Obama had never been properly vetted so why the scrutiny of the Republican field.

I remember listening back in 2008 to Hannity, Limbaugh, and the few others who haven't been afraid to discuss Obama's shady and non-patriotic background. I had found Hannity's constant replays and reminders of the characterless characters like Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers an extremely vital and critical part in the effort to vet the unknown and record-less Obama.

Character is an absolute requisite in order for a president to lead in a virtuous and truthful matter. In governing, one must often choose between one's personal benefit and the benefit of those who have put them into office, and politicians lacking character have caused devastating destruction to this country especially during last couple of decades.

I, and so many others, have therefore never tired in hearing about Obama's Reverend of twenty years or of Ayers at whose house he had held his first political fundraiser. It is therefore incomprehensible to me how a true conservative like Hannity, who had been one of very few who seriously vetted Obama, can dismiss the necessity of vetting our current primary candidates.
 
Hannity had understood the necessity of character and had focused considerably on Obama's relationships with shady individuals since those were the clearest indicator of Obama's characterless character.

Yes, it is imperative that Obama go in 2012 and this an objective which is shared by all conservatives. Thus, as in 2008, we will all unite behind the Republican nominee even though he/she may not be our first choice for we have not lost sight of the larger picture.

Now, however, is primary time and not general election time.
None of the candidates are flawless which is why vetting them is even more important. Since no one's perfect every individual must choose which flaws they are most comfortable with when casting their ballot. But if we don't vet them, how can we know what the choices truly are? We can't just listen to what the media and talking-heads have got to say precisely because, as Hannity had said, they've refused to vet Obama and aren't trustworthy. We therefore must do the work on our own and spread the word with whatever we discover.

Primary time is a time-period during which we are SUPPOSED TO VET OUR CANDIDATES and choose the candidate whose ideology and values are closest in line with our own. For me, character had been my strongest card against Obama in 2008 and has remained at the top of my list when seeking a candidate I can support in the 2012 primaries. So yes, Hannity; Newt's association, partnership, and praise for questionable characters like Al Sharpton, who is directly responsible for the murder of over a dozen innocent individuals, clearly equals a lack of character on Newt's part, as I've already discussed in detail last week in a post titled "Resist We Much...Mr. Gingrich for he's Character Assassination for Conservatism."

Additionally, although the primary season may feel like it's been going on forever for some of us, it has only seriously taken off a couple of months ago and many primary voters have only tuned in recently. Many are not aware of the ins and outs of each candidate, and it is the job of those who are in the know to spread the word.

I therefore respectfully disagree with you, Sean Hannity, and hope the discussion and vetting over our current candidates continues straight until primary day. Of course, the day after one candidate emerges victorious, be it after the primaries or after the convention, all focus must turn towards Obama. Now though, although we can't forget about Obama, we are rightfully focused at the candidates and their records.

The New Hampshire Union Leader Tells Us We Need a Leader – Even if He Leads us in the Wrong Direction

The Union Leader endorsed Newt Gingrich and explained within the endorsement that although they don’t agree with him straight down the line, he’s still better than those who say whatever one wants to hear without saying their true opinion on the matter, thus taking a swipe at Romney. They lauded Newt for his “positive leadership” he has shown capable of providing and which, they informed their readers, is what we currently are in critical need of.

The Union Leader, the largest and only statewide newspaper in New Hampshire, is absolutely correct in one aspect of their endorsement: leadership is crucial and sorely lacking. However, in addition to leadership, one must weigh whether the leader will lead in the right direction. Harry Reid is a hell of a leader, but I sure don’t want him to ever be president.

It’s easier to understand where I’m heading in this article with the following scenario.

Suppose you need to travel east, have no car for whatever reason, and are given a choice between the following three drivers: The first is a top notch driver who is traveling west. The second driver is a seasoned traveler who is traveling east but insists on racing down the highway against the wrong side of the traffic. The third guy, who has recently received his driving license, will also be driving east and promises to abide all laws, stay within the speed-limit and proper lane, and be really careful.

Which one would you choose?

Any sane individual would choose number three despite the greater qualifications of the other two since one is heading in the wrong direction while the other is heading straight into the face of danger.

The Union Leader has thrown their support behind a true leader, but where has he led us to in the past? 

He’s led to the destruction of Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform plan. It may have taken lots of guts, experience, and leadership to brand his plan “right-wing social engineering” but is that what we are seeking? He’s led the way to "Green Conservatism" and boldly proclaimed the need to act upon global warming on a couch with Nancy Pelosi. That was speeding down the road against the wrong side of traffic while weaving between the cars rushing straight into him.

Only a leader like Newt had been capable to convince enough Republicans to vote for Clinton’s bill, The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which placed many restrictions upon the 2nd amendment and increased the scope and power of the federal government. Newt was the leading conservative to fight a Tea Party candidate who ran in NY-23, by endorsing his opponent Scozzafava; a big-government radical who ran wearing GOP clothing.. (Perhaps he identified with her for he too has donned conservative clothing despite its clash with his interior.)

Examples of Newt’s leadership are countless though the results have often proven to be positive for the left and not the right.

The Union Leader’s endorsement of Newt should not be reason enough for a true conservative to change their mind and follow blindly. We can and should all choose a leader but one which we can trust will drive this country in the right direction.

Finally! David Frum Figured it Out!

At last David Frum has come to the conclusion that he is the one who has left the Republican Party and not the other way around. 

H/t to Legal Insurrection for alerting us to David Frum's latest article which is, as usual, loaded with nonsense. For a change though, I along with many conservatives have applauded the resolution he's reached, announcing that "It's Romney, Huntsman, Or Bust. " 

As Mark Levin has offered via twitter, Frum can not only leave the party but take it a step further and leave the country as well!

Frum's "threats" to abandon the Republican Party is a far cry from an article he's written just a couple of weeks ago where he had lambasted conservatives who criticize Romney's endless flip-flopping as the ones truly guilty of flip-flopping, explaining that the Party had flip-flopped on its ideology thus leaving Romney with only one choice: to flip-flop along with it. 

His original reasoning was so false and twisted as I've explained in this previous post, that I was shocked to see him admit in this week's article that Romney's positions are indeed unknown. Frum though explained that he doesn't see it as a substantial negative, and made certain not to mention Romney's flip-flops as the cause for the uncertainty.

Yet it’s also true that Romney has reversed so many of his positions so abruptly that voting for him is like taking a random walk. We can be sure that a Romney White House will be well-run. But what will it do? That’s anybody’s guess.

Unlike Frum, most conservatives are seeking to support someone whose policies are clear-cut and whose positions are well-known. 

Obama's White House is extremely well run. Democrats have attempted to pass Health Care reform for close to a decade, and the passage of Obamacare resulted from Obama's tenacity to accomplish his goal no matter what. 

Is that reason enough to vote for him?

I can't wait for the 2012 primary results if only for the possibility to wave goodbye once and for all to the phony fraudster, David Frum. 

Farewell! You won't be missed!