Eye of Newt; Tongue of Dog.

I've been asked to tackle the issue of Newt Gingrich. More specifically, why we should be afraid of him. My knee-jerk reaction was "we shouldn't. He's innocuous enough, and more or less a joke." Then I sat back and thought about it for a minute. There must be something inherently wrong with him on a fundamental level. Why? Well, for starters, his name is Newt. I thought, how can a simple charmander, who does nothing be any threat to anything? Then I remembered that if you leave charmander to its own devices, it become charizard, and that, my dear readers, is bad fucking news.

Newt Gingrich is a witch. You want proof? Okay, for starters, his name rhymes with witch. Not only that, if you set fire to him, I'm certain he'd burn, and is therefore made of wood. See? Obviously a witch. There's only one solution... BURN HIM!

I mention this because I recently looked up Newt's voting record... and it reminded me of Monty Python. Now, while I absolutely adore, worship and idolize enjoy the occasional Monty Python skit, I don't feel he, like Newt, has any place in American politics. For starters, Monty Python isn't a real person (and I'm not entirely convinced Newt is), but simply the name of a troupe of terribly funny clowns. Hmm... I digress.

To be honest, I'm not certain where to begin with out dear friend, Newt. Do I examine is voting record? FYI, do NOT click on that link if you have a weak stomach! Let me sum it up for you: From '92 to '98 there were 433 votes our salamander-like friend could have voted on. He was present to vote on 219. That's about 50% of the time he was doing his job. As a matter of fact, it seems he didn't vote on nearly ANYTHING important. Abortion, free trade, juvenile crime, nothing. So let's just focus on the time he was present and earning half of what we, as citizens, paid him, shall we? Oh, wait... we really can't. It seems Mr. Gingrich is a little too busy running around on / divorcing / ignoring his wives to be bothered with anything the American people hold dear. Looking at his voting record, it seems like he's a bit too busy destroying the sanctity of marriage with one foot in his mouth, while running away from accountability with the other.

So where does he stand on the latest turd the senate has squeezed out? Let's see: Oops... looks like we can't.

Okay, fine, so let's take a look at his "solutions" then, shall we?

Well for starters, it looks like Newt wants to beg borrow and steal notions that worked for bygone presidents in bygone eras. On Jobs and economy, he says:

America only works when Americans are working. Newt has a pro-growth strategy similar to the proven policies used when he was Speaker to balance the budget, pay down the debt, and create jobs.

Now, while I agree to a certain degree with the first seven words of that statement, it seems to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that when charmander was Speaker, Clinton was president. A democrat, by the way, who not only balanced the budget, but left office with a surplus that his successor promptly obliterated. In this same "solution" area, he claims a want to "Strengthen the dollar by returning to the Reagan-era monetary policies that stopped runaway inflation." Really, charmander? Reaganomics? That's your bold new idea?

Hey, Newt? The eighties just called, they want their economic policies back.

Now, how about healthcare? There's a big topic. What's Newt's big new idea on this? Oh... there really isn't one. It's the same nonsense that the right has been spouting since day one, and it all boils down to: privatize health insurance, and let the poor people sort it out. That's no solution. I'm still waiting on a solution, charmander, the damned heading of the page is called solutions, now give me one! Newt seems to think "We must repeal and replace the left's big government health bill with real solutions that will lower costs and improve health outcomes." You know what would be a great real solution that will lower costs and improve health outcomes? UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE! Dare I say it? Some of you may want to cover your eyes... SOCIALIZED MEDICINE! There's a reason Canada and the United Kingdom (not to mention a few other places) have one manifestation or another of socialized medicine. It fucking works! Have you ever seen a Canadian digging through the garbage for a peach pit, taking their child to the emergency room for a cold, or dying from some minor affliction simply because they didn't have the money for the good medical care? I haven't.

One of the more glaringly disturbing pieces on this hemorrhoid of a website is the section where charmander talks about protecting life and religious liberty. I'm going to tackle these piles of shit one by one. Ready?

"Nominate conservative judges who are committed to upholding Constitutional limited government and understand that the role of the judges is to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench."

See, there's again, a fundamental flaw here. Conservatives, in your definition, mean right wing nutjobs. Right wing nutjobs Think it is their sole charge in life to legislate morality. Either you're full of shit, or you're an idiot.

"Combat judicial activism by utilizing checks on judicial power Constitutionally available to the elected branches of government."

1) Stop using the word "combat." it's a concept a draft dodger like yourself would never know. B) That's what the branches of government were set up for in the first damned place, any grade-schooler knows this! You might as well be telling me you're going to institute a program that will officially declare water to be wet!

"End taxpayer subsidies for abortion by repealing Obamacare, defunding Planned Parenthood, and reinstating the “Mexico City Policy” which banned funding to organizations that promote and/or perform abortions overseas."

Wow... just wow. Yeah, there's a great idea, let's roll back any progress we've made as a civilized society, what are we, Wal-mart?! De-fund planned parenthood? Seriously?! What's going to happen when you do this, and in 2 years you have 14 interns beating down your door to serve you with child support orders, naughty, naughty Newt? Funding for planned parenthood minimizes the need for women to go overseas to get abortions, and abortions are NOT the only service planned parenthood provides. They also provide education for young women to avoid getting pregnant in the first place.

"Protect religious expression in the public square such as crosses, crèches and menorahs."

Religious expression, and religious freedom are not the same thing. I will direct you to an interesting piece written quite some time ago for reference, it's called the 1st amendment.

"Protect healthcare workers right to conscience by making sure they are not forced to participate in or refer procedures such as abortion."

You know, for a guy who rarely voted on any abortion issues, you sure have a lot to say about it. Healthcare workers are bound by the Hippocratic oath. Healthcare workers who don't want to participate in or refer such procedures need not practice that area of medicine. However, if a woman's doctor finds that pregnancy will endanger the life of the carrying mother, s/he is bound by that oath to offer alternatives to death. It's a first, do no harm kind of thing.

 "Protect the rights of home-schooled children by ensuring they have the same access to taxpayer funded, extra-curricular educational opportunities as any public school student."

They already do. Not only that, in most states, the home-schooling parent is obligated to follow a curriculum, and several set guidelines to ensure that their children are being adequately educated.

"Protect the rights of teachers to use historical examples involving religion in their classroom. Nor should they be discouraged from answering questions about religion or discussing it objectively in the classroom."

The key word here is objectively, and unfortunately, I've found atheists to be the most objective when dealing with religion. Unless the class is about religion, it need not enter the curricula except as explanation. If you muddy these waters, you WILL have teachers proselytizing.

"Protect the frail, infirm and the elderly from the state’s arbitrary decision to terminate life."

I'm sorry, when has this ever been the state's decision? Perhaps in case where the patient was a ward of the state, but how long has that been?

Okay, you know what? Yes. Yes, we need to be afraid of this... "man." Why? Because right now, he's too close to the GOP nomination for my comfort, not to mention the comfort of millions of gay, black, Hispanic, and female Americans. If he gets into office and does nothing, we're fucked, and if he gets into office and does what he says he will, we're definitely fucked. Educate yourselves.