The King Of The Flip-Floppers

Last week I wrote a post about Newt Gingrich, saying that the man had no moral or ethical base and would say anything that he thought would get him another vote (he currently wants to be president). It looks like I didn't really need to write about his ethical ambivalence. If I had just waited a few days he would prove the point himself -- and that's just what he did.

This political degenerate has just proven himself to be the king of the flip-floppers. A couple of weeks ago Gingrich was bad-mouthing the president for not intervening in Libya. He told one interviewer that if he were president he would, "Exercise a no-fly zone this evening. . .We don't need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we're intervening." He went on to say about Kadaffi, "This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with."

Those were some pretty concrete views -- or at least it seemed to be at the time. But now that President Obama got a United Nations resolution and has intervened in Libya (like Gingrich wanted him to do), it seems that Gingrich has flip-flopped on the matter of Libya.

Here's what Gingrich is now saying, "I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces." Wow! That was one of the quickest flip-flops on record.

Obviously Gingrich has no real views on the situation in Libya -- except to be against whatever the president is doing (or not doing). And I doubt his views on anything else can be trusted either. He is the very definition of an opportunistic politician -- tell everyone what you think they want to hear (and his teabagger base wants to hear that Obama is wrong, on everything).

Do the Republicans really want a man with no real beliefs to be their nominee in 2012?