So, that leaves what? 850 or so? Seriously, this guy has more baggage than adverbs, and THAT is a lot! The Lonely Conservative dishes on the latest
But this tidbit from Newt Gingrich’s past is another concern for GOP primary voters.
The legislation, the Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989 (H.R. 1078) had 144 co-sponsors, the majority of which were liberal Democrats such as Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), then-Rep. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). There were only 25 Republican co-sponsors, which included Rep. Gingrich.
The legislation, which never made it out of committee and was never voted on by House members, set a national goal of reducing carbon dioxide levels by at least 20 percent by the year 2000 “through a mix of federal and state energy policies,” as well as “the establishment of an International Global Agreement on the Atmosphere by 1992.”
In addition, the legislation’s summary includes the section “Title XI: World Population Growth.” That section states: “World Population Growth — Declares it is the policy of the United States that family planning services should be made available to all persons requesting them. Authorizes appropriations for FY 1991 through 1995 for international population and family planning assistance. Prohibits the use of such funds for: (1) involuntary sterilization or abortion; or (2) the coercion of any person to accept family planning services.
“Requests the President to initiate an international conference on population, and to seek an international agreement on population growth. Establishes a National Commission on Population, Environment, and Natural Resources to prepare reports and convene conferences. Terminates such Commission three years after the enactment of this Act.
To be perfectly fair, let us peek at the defense Team Gingrich is offering up
In an e-mail statement to CNSNews.com, Gingrich’s deputy press secretary, Michelle Selesky, said the former Speaker opposes an international agreement on population growth because “this would be a dangerous violation of sovereignty, and Speaker Gingrich would steadfastly oppose any international efforts to dictate or control population growth in sovereign states.”
Furthermore, “Newt supported a very limited aspect of the 1989 bill that promoted hydrogen energy research,” said Selesky. “This is consistent with his long support of aggressively developing American sources of energy, including American oil, natural gas, coal, and alternatives.”
He supported only a small part? Then why the Hell be a co-sponsor? If most of the bill went against Newt’s ideology, then he should not have had any part in it.Now, I realize no candidate is perfect, that is the way it goes. But these “imperfections” in Newt, and yes you too Mitt are starting to add up here. And yes, I know that my preferred candidate, Perry, is not perfect either. But most of his detractors will point out style point issues they have with him. Me? I can deal with the piss poor Gardasil executive order Perry issued, and the in-state tuition issue as well. On principles, Perry is really solid. I used to think Newt was too, but these skeletons keep popping up, and it reminds me that Newt is not the best option for the Republicans.