Were Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich right? (Just take a deep breath and hear me out, OK)

[bluestateguy]

During the primaries they warned GOP primary voters that Mitt Romney would not be able to run against Obamacare with any credibility. That given the similarity of Romneycare to Obamacare he would be vulnerable to charges of dishonesty and flip-floppery. That Romney would tie himself up in incomprehensible knots trying to differentiate himself from Obamacare. Santorum and Gingrich argued that only they could credibly oppose Obamacare, not having been tainted by supporting Obamacare-lite (although Gingrich had expressed some support for a individual mandate in the past, but never voted for any such plan in Congress).

Since the Supreme Court ruling Romney and his surrogates have been confusing and all over the map to say the least. If I were a Republican, I would find this inexcusable because it's not like the campaign didn't have three months to prepare for this possibility (among others).

Usually, it's the Republicans who have the simplistic bumper sticker messaging and everybody speaks from the same page, while the Democrats confuse everyone with contradictory messages and equivocal, nuanced glop. This time, however, the opposite seems to be playing out, at least for now.

So, did Santorum and Gingrich have a fair point back in the winter?

[RT Atlanta]

1. Even broken clocks are correct twice a day....

Interesting observation and I agree with your perspective.

Rmoney has twisted himself into a larger mass of confusion trying to 'splain his "stance" on "Obamacare."

[elleng]

4. You beat me to it,

and I have some old clocks around!

[Johonny]

2. No, remember Bush ran as a job creator

and first class CEO even though his business record showed he ran his companies into the ground. He ran on restoring ethics to the White House even though he had a police record and a number of drunk driving events on his record that he hid...

Republicans always run on BS that they didn't actually do or achieve. I mean Newt's health care that he pushed in the 90s as the alternative to Hillary Care was Obama care. So how would he be MORE credible. None of them have any credibility. Santorum was voting for GOP budget after budget that increased debt ceilings and the national debt. Seriously they are all fakes, Romney isn't MORE fake than the lot of them, he is only just as fake.

[phleshdef]

3. Of course they were right.

Romney can't run against the ACA. Even when he makes the argument that he believes its ok as a state program and not a federal program, there is footage of him saying the Mass system should be the national model.

[yellowcanine]

5. WSJ complaining also.......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002904864

[Ruby the Liberal]

6. Watching the debates last winter,

I thought that was Frothy's strongest claim against Rmoney and Rmoney had nothing in response to it. I don't recall Gingrich playing that card, but he is too hard for me to listen to. I just hear Charlie Brown's teacher when he talks, so probably missed it.

[Egalitarian Thug]

7. As usual, no.

Don't know about Santorum, but ObamaCare sprang from the fevered brain of Gingrich. What we have is the plan he and his cohorts came up with as an alternative to Hillary Clinton's plan. It was his (correct) opinion that if Clinton gave health care to all Americans, the republican party would perish.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. They made a good point

Santorum and Gingrich were the "red meat" ideological candidates. They would've lost by huge margins running against President Obama but they would have been at least consistently bad. However, despite my earlier reservations about Romney being the GOP's candidate (I thought that he would be able to be seen as an acceptably "moderate" candidate) I'm perfectly satisfied to have Mitt as their candidate. He is simply too compromised, both by his past record (i.e. Romneycare) and his need (and inability) to pander simultaneously to the indies and moderates he will need to win and the teabaggers he can't risk offending either. His campaign has become one ginormous gordian knot that he and the Republican Party has him tied up in and I rather doubt that he will be able to extricate himself from it in time to win in November.

[joeybee12]

9. Newt was right that Mittens is screwed, but Newt would have been tainted also...

Plenty of video with him supporting a mandate and supporting universal coverage.

[wandy]

10. Just a quick warning here. You are looking at Romney as the sane, rational person you are...

The teaparty party don't work that way.
Yesterday Romney gave them an alternate reality and it made them happy.
Today Romney gives them an alternate reality and it makes them happy.
Tomorrow Romney will give them a completely different reality and it will make them happy.
Don't expert them to notice that "BlueBlood speak with forked tung".

[dtom67]

11. The elites picked their candidate.

Romney was the nominee because he represents the ruling elite of the Republican party ( i.e. the 1% ).

The religious right, NRA, anti-gov't nuts, etc... do not really matter to those that rule the Republican party. The 1% are tired of the tendency of these groups to actually try to get results for their base. Those that lead the religious right, ( or nra ) are only there to whip up fear that the liberals are coming to take away their way of life. They are not actually supposed to "win" for those that they lead. They are just supposed to crank out votes.

Period.

But not everybody in the GOP leadership understands this.

I think even the Republican ownership ( 1% ) are tired of having to entertain the "pscho fundementalist and trigger-happy rednecks ". They just wanna run the show so they can make their money.

of course, to do this they have to undermine the Democracy.

The only problem they have is that they have almost squeezed the 99% to the point where the economy does not function anymore.

Santorum and Gingrich were never in danger of winning....