Newt Gingrich: Fucking Idiot

Ok, well, that's not technically a picture of Newt Gingrich, but you get the idea.

I'll tell ya, these Republican candidates keep coming up with more and more surprises.  It seems like around every corner there's some big government, statist plan that they've supported.  (Well, all of them except Ron Paul of course.)

The one that surprised me was that apparently Gingrich supported gun control.

In case you don't know why "gun control" is a bad idea:

1.)  It's your constitutional right to have a gun and you shouldn't have to be dependent on anyone (the police) to defend you when you can defend yourself.

2.)  Everywhere "gun control" has been enacted crime has gone up.

Look at D.C., Chicago, Britain.  Anywhere.  The evidence is overwhelming.  Because, although it sounds trite, that old slogan is true: if you take guns away from the people, criminals will be the only ones with guns.  Or something like that.  The original slogan was catchier, but you get the point.

Ok, so the fact that Newt supports some form of this is astonishing to me.  I thought it was "conservative" bedrock.  I don't know how it ever could have not been.  (Of course, Regan supported a terrible "gun control" law when he was governor, but that's a different story.)

Ok, so here's a bit from the article:

In 1996, Newt Gingrich turned his back on guns and voted for the anti-gun Brady Campaign’s Lautenberg Gun Ban, which strips the Second Amendment rights of citizens involved in misdemeanor domestic violence charges or temporary protection orders –- in some cases for actions as minor as spanking a child or grabbing a spouse’s wrist.

[...]Gingrich also stood shoulder to shoulder with Nancy Pelosi to pass the “Criminal Safezones Act” which prevents armed citizens from defending themselves in certain arbitrary locations. You and I both know that Criminal Safezones don’t protect law-abiding citizens, but actually protect the criminals who ignore them.

Although that's not terrible, it's still not great. These people are supposed to defend these things on principle. Of course, none of them except for Ron Paul have any principles (with the possible exception of Michelle Bachmann, although I don't agree with her on many things.) They go with the wind. Or some of their beliefs contradict other beliefs. For instance, you say you believe in "limited government" then try to regulate people's personal lives.

Let's just give a bit more info on Newt:

Did a stupid "climate change" commercial with Nancy Pelosi:



Supported cap-and-trade.

Dismissed Paul Ryan's Medicare vouchers as "Republican social engineering."

Said that No Child Left Behind "isn't big enough."

Collected $1.5M working as a "consultant" for Fannie Mae  

Claims that "opposition to ethanol subsidies and mandates stems from "big city" folks who just don't like farmers."

Supported the line-item veto.

Voted to give China most favored nation status.

Stumped hard for 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill

Endorsed the individual mandate.
 
Supported subsidizing "clean coal" and "investing in a conversion to a hydrogen economy."

Voted to create the federal Department of Education.  (This vote was 210 - 206.)


Advocated paying kids if they got above a B in math or science.

Supported the WTO.

"[R]eluctantly supported a scaled-down [bailout] plan."

Was a co-sponsor of a bill to re-instate the "Fairness Doctrine."

Wants higher mandatory minimum sentences for drug "dealers" and mandatory rehab for drug users.

I was thinking I'd go into a long list of exactly why all of these candidates beside Ron Paul are not only terrible but hypocrits/flip floppers, but it would be too long of a list!