Video: Newt pitches “green conservatism”

posted at 9:24 pm on August 6, 2007 by Allahpundit

He’s making a point I’ve made before myself, that what conservatives really object to about environmentalism isn’t so much the policy as the collateral leftist causes — and loathsome celebrity spokesmen — that come bundled with it. Putting Gore and various fey British pop stars out in front is like signing up Bush and Cheney to spearhead an African anti-poverty drive: the left may agree with the cause with they’ll be too busy dry heaving at the thought of making common cause with the Chimperor to donate. Prune away the loathsome Hollywood faddishness and unserious hippie subculture that too often surrounds the issue, be prepared to make a few hard concessions (the most critical of which Newt identifies here), and you’ll find plenty of righties willing to play ball.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Newt is gonna make it tough for any of the candidates to ignore these series of meetings he’s gonna do in October.

csdeven on August 6, 2007 at 9:35 PM

Right on Allah. It is sad that “environmentalism” has been tangled with the looney left since Silent Spring. Democrats saw environmentalists as new constituents, and in the process of out-pandering Republicans have turned legitimate goals into unintended consequences, bureaucracy, anti-development, etc. I.e., it followed the same pattern as every other issue where Democrats pander better.

Anyway, Newt continues to impress. That dude’s a visionary. Too bad he has more luggage than a 747

BillLalor on August 6, 2007 at 9:37 PM

Well he is right, of course, as he so often is. But the lefts glomming on to greenism is really just a tool for their push toward communism. They don’t really give a rats ass about the environment.

TheSitRep on August 6, 2007 at 9:40 PM

Good job Newt, I think he’s at his best with stuff like this.

Dash on August 6, 2007 at 9:40 PM

Anyone who believes in man-made global warming is either a leftist, or ignorant of the facts.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566

Newt is trying to jump on this bandwagon thinking that he can draw those concerned about the global warming to his party. Nonsense. Those people have already bought the gore marxist argument. Only time will show those people they were conned. Only then, after realizing they were conned by the Left, will those people vote Right.

Moreover, there is no need to talk about green conservatism. That is a stupid moniker, and redundant, for it creates the false impression that conservatism intrinsically is wasteful and liberalism husbands. Just the opposite is true. To be a true conservative, one needs to conserve for the future. It is a liberal that spends now and leaves nothing for his grandchildren.

After all, they do not call them liberation areas. They call them conservation areas.

jihadwatcher on August 6, 2007 at 9:40 PM

Yay! Great! He still can’t win!

see-dubya on August 6, 2007 at 9:40 PM

As usual, Newt is spot on.

Vanquisher on August 6, 2007 at 9:41 PM

I hope he runs…I’d vote for him hands down.

PBoilermaker on August 6, 2007 at 9:44 PM

jihadwatcher on August 6, 2007 at 9:40 PM


Wow. Just … wow.

apollyonbob on August 6, 2007 at 9:47 PM

Spot on, AP. I sure enjoy Newt.

BJ* on August 6, 2007 at 9:49 PM

Newt is very smart, but ultimately I think he still places too much emphasis on government as a tool of regulation. His preferred tool is tax credits that are friendly to business and people. But let’s not kid ourselves that he likes to play in the sandbox of regulation, just like the liberals.

Sydney Carton on August 6, 2007 at 9:51 PM

Its also not only the hollywood phonies and liberal nutjobs but it is also the pruning away of our liberty all in the name of Gaia.

If you tell me to give up my SUV because its killing the planet i’ll tell you to frak off. Give me an SUV that runs at least as well as my Xterra and greener and you’ve sold me.

Don’t force me to install CFLs especially because of the mercury content, give me a light bulb that will work well, not be toxic and save the environment.

Don’t demand I use less electricity or none because it comes from oil plants but instead build nuclear/clean coal/natural gas plants and give me technology to have my way of life and be green.

If you force me, I will not yield. Win me over

Defector01 on August 6, 2007 at 9:58 PM

I’m a green conservative and as a result have never identified with the Republican Party. I hope Newt runs because I’d like to hear more about his ideas.

FloatingRock on August 6, 2007 at 10:08 PM

Newt makes a cogent argument. I would love to see Michelle do an in-depth Vent interview with him here at Hot Air. I would like to hear more of what he has to say.

Zorro on August 6, 2007 at 10:10 PM

Conservation vs preservation is a major difference between conservatives and those who support environmental actionism.

The environmental movement has been controlled for decades by those who favor no development – the preservationists. As usual, the conservatives/conservationists are the voices of reason.

AtomicAmish on August 6, 2007 at 10:26 PM

Green Conservative

or

Bull Moose

BDU-33 on August 6, 2007 at 10:29 PM

I don’t think Newt is ever going to be the “face” of the Republican ticket (candidate or veep), but I sure hope he’s got a spot on the policy and campaign team, behind the scenes. Those who want to see his name on the ticket should remember how easily Clinton turned him into a punching bag – sure, the MSM was viciously cruel to him from Day One, but he did a lot of things that made their job easier. (Remember the school lunch debacle? The entire “Revolution of 1994″ broke on those rocky shoals, and eventually we ended up with Newt whining about being forced to sit in the back of Air Force One.) His personal baggage from the late 90s is equal to twin steamer trunks packed with plutonium. He’s an idea guy, and I hope he gets to perform that service for whoever gets the marquee spot on the GOP ticket in 2008.

Doctor Zero on August 6, 2007 at 10:37 PM

He makes the good point that there is no need to have this battle over the (apparently incorrect) assertion that human activity will make the sea rise 20 feet, and all of the other idiotic baggage that comes with it. There are ways to reduce our carbon emissions that few conservatives would quibble with — they just make sense.

This should be great news for the goofy leftists — they can pretend to be green in their private jets.

This is great news for skeptics as well, because we’re right, as usual, but there is no point in the fight. We win by controlling the solutions.

Jaibones on August 6, 2007 at 10:39 PM

TheBigOldDog on August 6, 2007 at 10:17 PM

I question the timing.

And I look forward to the recantation of his recantation.

Jaibones on August 6, 2007 at 10:42 PM

Boring as paste. He’d make a fine advisor, but these “New coal burning plants produce 25% less carbon” Poindexterisms will get him exactly NOWHERE in the face of the leftist enviroslander machine.

How about this: “If you Democrats really think CO2 will destroy the world if we don’t do something RIGHT NOW, then let’s cut the crap and build 20 nuclear reactors in the next 10 years. Now do you want to help me save the world, or would you rather pay money to Communist China like the Kyoto Accord says?”

The President’s job is to paint the big picture. Let the pencil-pushers work out the damned details.

logis on August 6, 2007 at 10:43 PM

Newt is trying to jump on this bandwagon thinking that he can draw those concerned about the global warming to his party.

You absolutely missed the entire point of what he was saying. His point was the left seizes onto these emotional issues in order to further their own agenda and twists everything around to make it seem that conservatives are always bad guys. His point is to seize back these issues through reason and commitment. He doesn’t say we are going to win over the moonbats, he says we will get those who are rational enough to listen and understand while putting forth real solutions.

The left saw 15 years ago that Newt had legitimate ideas and solutions and could communicate them to anyone and the left set out to systematically destroy him. And sadly, not only do the moonbats hate him, even conservatives fall for the demonization.

peacenprosperity on August 6, 2007 at 10:46 PM

I know he’s probably not our vision of presidential material (to my utter dismay), but he is an intellectual treasure I hope never fades from public view. He’ll have an audience as long as he continues promoting this kind of common sense and balance. Long live Newt!

thedecider on August 6, 2007 at 10:48 PM

Doesn’t it just piss you off that Newt is unelectable? He’s been my favorite guy for a decade now. but he can’t win; and that sucks.

lorien1973 on August 6, 2007 at 10:48 PM

Doesn’t it just piss you off that Newt is unelectable?
lorien1973 on August 6, 2007 at 10:48 PM

Yes, in fact it does. Why does the presidency largely seem to go to otherwise unimpressive men. Sure there have been a few exceptions, but intelligent, clear-thinking men somehow must sit on the sidelines. Perhaps their value is best used as Newt’s is. If Newt were POTUS, his intellect would be spent on battling the MSM, the Dems, and every liberal bias hurled against him. In the end, isn’t he more valuable to us in his current role as public speaker?

thedecider on August 6, 2007 at 10:52 PM

Doesn’t it just piss you off that Newt is unelectable? He’s been my favorite guy for a decade now. but he can’t win; and that sucks.

Who says that? The msm that’s who. Put Newt on a stage with Hilary for two hours every week for the nine weeks preceding the election and if Newt wouldn’t win in a landslide this country doesn’t deserve to survive.

peacenprosperity on August 6, 2007 at 10:54 PM

If Newt were POTUS, his intellect would be spent on battling the MSM, the Dems, and every liberal bias hurled against him.

thedecider on August 6, 2007 at 10:52 PM

Whoever the next president is, from either party, is going to have to deal with the exact same thing, so it might as well be Newt if he can get there from here.

FloatingRock on August 6, 2007 at 10:56 PM

Whoever the next president is, from either party, is going to have to deal with the exact same thing, so it might as well be Newt…
FloatingRock on August 6, 2007 at 10:56 PM

I agree with the first part of your comment, however, freed from the tiresome, unwinnable chore of battling slander and misquotes, Newt is more valuable to us today as an independent speaker than he would ever be as POTUS. Send the dull, tiresome Yawn of the Fred! to the front line and leave us with someone who sees the bigger picture and has the luxury of speaking to us about it.

thedecider on August 6, 2007 at 11:04 PM

He needs to be appointed to a top cabinet post in the next administration(Republican)…I do not believe the independents and moderate dem’s really can or will support the whacko, left wing, commie Hitlery. Would help if a few of the repub’s would grow a set and hold her feet to the fire. Mitt’s looking better everyday.

oldernslower on August 6, 2007 at 11:12 PM

“Environmentalism” is the new home of far-left socialists and communist wannabes. It has far less to do with saving the environment and much more to do with centralizing goverment and limiting personal freedom and capitalisim.

It used to be called conservation. But that philosophy includes private property and mankind as steward. Neither of those two components are virtures in modern Environmentalism.

Asher on August 6, 2007 at 11:18 PM

Newt:Real Solutions to Fake Problems!

There are consequences to concedeing the carbon driven greenhouse effect that Newt hasn’t even dreamt of yet. Not to mention the fact that ignoring how awful (and fraudulent) a lot of this “science” is, is a terrible precedent to set.

You want energy diversification? Great, so do I. Let’s impose a fifteen year tax moratorium on the non carbon energy industry with the proviso that the tech can’t be exported (to avoid the WTO consequecnes to our broader economy) and that all manufacturing, research and developement must take place in the United States. No corporate taxes, no capital taxes, no income taxes, no retail taxes on anyone or anything involved in zero-carbon emission energy production. (Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Tidal, and it will exclude the awful, awful, awful idea of Biofuel)

Newt isn’t going to feel the price inflation like the rest of us will. He’s already got his millions. Meanwhile, I’m barely gettin’ by as it is and he wants to mandate price increases (but we’re increasing efficiency!) on every damn thing I buy because he doesn’t want to look bad arguing with that idiot Gore over the lies in his stupid movie. Newt’s smart and he’s articulate, but he’s an egomaniac. It’s why he’s unelectable, it’s why he’ll never accept a VP or cabinet offer, and it’s why he doesn’t even think about the consequences of increasing the cost of every product and service known to man for the sake of bad science and grant hungry liars. He only sees the credit he’ll get for the idea.

The Apologist on August 6, 2007 at 11:35 PM

Hey, look, I’m all for clean air and clean water, but I draw the line at this obnoxious, hysterical global warming nonsense!

What next? Are we supposed to embrace Kyoto because Newt wants to pander?

Get real! These people are nuts! They can’t even manage recycling programs in a way that makes sense both environmentally and fiscally. This kind of chicken little foolishness has never come true before; why are so many of you willing to go along with it now? Its own proponents aren’t even willing to subject the matter to any kind of rigorous debate or review. “The sky is falling” is all they’ve got!

Kensington on August 6, 2007 at 11:38 PM

Sorry, I don’t buy into it. Carbon hasn’t been proven to even be a manmade problem, it is junk science hyperbole. Global warming, if that’s even a applicable term, has been scientifically estimated to be a solar cycle with far more proof and credibility than “carbon emissions”.

Environmentilism has been hijacked by leftists and handwringing Oprah viewers who demand something be done. Like what, move the earth farther away from the sun, find some way to reduce cosmic energy?

Maybe global warming can be offset by a nuclear winter?

Rode Werk on August 6, 2007 at 11:39 PM

Just to be clear on this for those who are confused.

Eliminating carbon emissions from your product or service adds ZERO VALUE in exchange for a modest PRICE INCREASE, whether that cost is realised immediately (at the time of purchase) or is delayed (through block grants handed out by the federal govt. and adding to the overall tax burden).

Reducing carbon isn’t an increase in efficiency, it may in fact represent a decrease in efficiency depending on how you do it. Concedeing the carbon question without proof is dangerous and stupid. And Newt will play his pipe and every one will follow him off into the woods and then you’ll be devoured by wolves because rifles cost too much to make in the new carbon regulated economy.

The Apologist on August 6, 2007 at 11:49 PM

Maybe global warming can be offset by a nuclear winter?

You know, I’m even skeptical about nuclear winter nowadays. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if that turned out to be just another feverish doomsday fantasy, too.

This is what happens when the dorks cry wolf too many times.

Kensington on August 6, 2007 at 11:59 PM

Hmmmm… I don’t know… this would mean we would have to “play the game” and pretend that global warming wasn’t a giant fraud. Could be a very dangerous play. But out-greening them, but in a different direction is worth some thought.

Maxx on August 7, 2007 at 12:06 AM

we should support nuclear power because it is cool … not just green.

Use the nuke-green argument to make the leftards’ heads spin … but don’t obsess about such crap.

I want a nuclear SUV with a Strontium-90 powerplant. Cheap commutes, and it can heat my home at night.

45 years between fuel stops!

Kristopher on August 7, 2007 at 12:30 AM

You know, I’m even skeptical about nuclear winter nowadays. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if that turned out to be just another feverish doomsday fantasy, too.

It is. Michael Crichton (Jurassic Park, State Of Fear) wrote an excellent piece on this awhile ago. It’s probably at his website. Essentially nuclear winter is based on a formula which is entirely abstract. It isn’t even clear that there is a level of particulate matter in the atmosphere that would lead to a serious reduction in temperature without first destroying the whole earth in the blast necessary to throw said matter into the air.

You would have to destroy the planet in order to throw enough dust and ash in the air to dramatically effect the climate. At least, that theory is completely acceptable under Nuclear Winter theory as no values have ever been attached to any variable in the formula.

Similar to the Drake equation in this speech by Michael Crichton at the National Press Club. It is essentiallly a non-sense theory.

The Apologist on August 7, 2007 at 12:32 AM

How about this: “If you Democrats really think CO2 will destroy the world if we don’t do something RIGHT NOW, then …

logis on August 6, 2007 at 10:43 PM

How ’bout this … If you Democrats really think CO2 will destroy the world if we don’t do something RIGHT NOW, then stop breathing.

… Excuse me while I go fill up my big ol’ truck with gas.

AZ_Redneck on August 7, 2007 at 12:34 AM

Save the planet … kill yourself.

Remember, greenie, slice down, not across.

Kristopher on August 7, 2007 at 12:36 AM

Very Good,but with the level headed approach Newt is talking about won’t make Big Al all those greenbacks. And Big Al won’t get to be King of the Enviro Movement.

Irenaeus on August 7, 2007 at 12:51 AM

Since when did Gingrich become a super-smart intellectual?

Big S on August 7, 2007 at 12:59 AM

Umm, the global warming/nuclear winter thing is a joke, not meant to be taken seriously.

Rode Werk on August 7, 2007 at 1:01 AM

Newt is being paid by Big Coal!

I deny his reason.

I deny his facts.

I deny his logic.

Leonardo DiCaprio is so much more cuter than Newt.

Free Nelson Mandela!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On a serious note–thank you Newt for delivering that speech which, sadly, will go un-reported by the Liberal Controlled Media. Can’t clog up the NYT with facts, reason and logic now can we?

I love the outdoors. I spend a lot of time in it–I live in Montana (hence my posting name) and I WANT very much to be “Green”. But Newt put it correctly. Green has been hijacked by Red.

Montana on August 7, 2007 at 1:26 AM

Oh yes, I almost forgot…

Algore, High Priest of Gorebal Warming, has stated that CO2 is a pollutant and must be regulated (in other words, he wants a new tax).

We all know that CO2 is what we exhale, right?

So Algore wants to tax our breath.

Liberals have finally tied together the two inevitable things in our lives. Death, and taxes. Govt wants to tax your last breath.

Montana on August 7, 2007 at 1:28 AM

Since when did Gingrich become a super-smart intellectual?

Big S on August 7, 2007 at 12:59 AM

About 9 years ago, duder. You should read more.

Hollowpoint on August 7, 2007 at 1:47 AM

Who says that? The msm that’s who. Put Newt on a stage with Hilary for two hours every week for the nine weeks preceding the election and if Newt wouldn’t win in a landslide this country doesn’t deserve to survive.

peacenprosperity on August 6, 2007 at 10:54 PM

Appoximately everyone says that. Look, aside from his Global Warming BS, I like the guy; I wish we had more elected Republicans like him despite his faults… but get 1000 people in a room with his picture on the wall and give each a dart, and there’s going to be 600 darts pasted on his mug. The damage has been done.

The MSM and their Democratic allies crucified him in a most unfair and undeserved way, but the fact remains- as vulnerable as Hillary is, Newt doesn’t have much appeal outside the Republican base.

Hollowpoint on August 7, 2007 at 1:55 AM

… but get 1000 people in a room with his picture on the wall and give each a dart, and there’s going to be 600 darts pasted on his mug. The damage has been done.

The MSM and their Democratic allies crucified him in a most unfair and undeserved way, but the fact remains- as vulnerable as Hillary is, Newt doesn’t have much appeal outside the Republican base.

Hollowpoint on August 7, 2007 at 1:55 AM

Hillary already has 550 darts in her, and that’s not a guess; that’s from poll data of the number of people who say they “will not vote for her no matter who her opponent is.”

In addition, as badly as Newt was trashed in 1996-97 (and it was by far the worst in history), his media image is not nearly as set-in-stone as Hillary Clinton’s is right now.

ANY Republican candidate will be attacked full-bore the day our Primary is decided. (That’s one reason I’m worried about the fact that the media have been screaming that Giuliani is our “front runner” for the past year – they’re sure as heck not doing that because they want Hillary to lose.)

So the fact that Gingrich has already been through the process that Bill Clinton called “the politics of personal destruction” on maximum setting is really a good thing, not a bad thing. He’s been annealed.

Negatives are not what we need to be worrying about. Our biggest fear (as Newt himself has been saying) should be failing to draw a clear enough distinction between our candidate and theirs. If we try to “out-moderate” that witch, we will get slaughtered.

There is of course way more than enough time to see whether Fred Thompson sticks to his guns after announcing his candidacy. But failing that, Gingrich beats the pants off of any candidate in the race right now.

logis on August 7, 2007 at 2:30 AM

All wrong. This is exactly what I mean by the RIght accepting the Left’s premise, then trying to do a “better” job of “fixing” the “problem” it has let the Left define! This leads, ultimately and every time, to defeat and disillusionment for the Right.

First, we have to stop this nonsense that there is such a thing as “the environment”. As used, the term – unheard of in human history until the dawn of the New Left – is meant to separate Man from the natural world, and assumes that the physical results of Man’s achievements are somehow unwelcome in, or not in balance with, the natural world. Think about what that means.

If you reject this false premise – a premise totally drenched in liberal guilt and even Marxist class warfare (working class/ruling class replaced by Mother Earth/Man) then the whole “environmental” house of cards collapses.

I like Newt, but he is being too smart by half here, and letting himself get co-opted for a cause which cannot ever be anything other than a brake on human progress, whether the word “conservative” is inserted into it or not.

Halley on August 7, 2007 at 2:39 AM

About 9 years ago, duder. You should read more.

Hollowpoint on August 7, 2007 at 1:47 AM

My question may have come across as overly snarky. I’d actually be really interested in knowing what sources all of his fans are using to come to this conclusion. Sure, he’s written a few books and has taught a college class or two, but so have a lot of other people who I would not consider very intellectual (I have taught at a University as well, so I know from experience.) My general impression of him, from his innumerable TV and radio appearances, is that he’s more of an academic than an intellectual; he’s very comfortable talking about his indispensable ideas, but they’re usually just the same old stuff repackaged, and none of them are as revolutionary as he’d like to think. I’d love to be proven wrong, though. I read plenty, and might be able to find the time to make it through one or two of his books. If you could point me to the best place to start, I’d appreciate it.

Big S on August 7, 2007 at 3:01 AM

First, we have to stop this nonsense that there is such a thing as “the environment”.

The “environment” is an obvious and straightforward concept to me. On what evidence do you say that it doesn’t exist? To me, that’s like saying “Nature” doesn’t exist, or “natural selection” or “evolution” doesn’t exist. You sound like you are in denial of the very most basic realities of the natural world.

…is meant to separate Man from the natural world,…

That’s the first I’ve heard a claim like that. How does the concept of “environment” separate humanity from the natural world? To me it means exactly the opposite, that man and every other creature is a part of the natural world.

Think about what that means.

I have, but what you’ve said makes no sense to me. Please explain.

FloatingRock on August 7, 2007 at 3:19 AM

“Green” conservatism is as stupid and redundant as “compassionaite” conservatism.

Conservatism is already compassionaite because we prefer to teach men to fish, not give them a publicly funded fish every day of their lives by stealing the fish off from others.

For Green Conservatism, see Theodore Roosevelt.

BKennedy on August 7, 2007 at 3:43 AM

Conservatism is already compassionaite because we prefer to teach men to fish, not give them a publicly funded fish every day of their lives by stealing the fish off from others.

BKennedy on August 7, 2007 at 3:43 AM

Build a man a fire, he will be warm for a night, set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

- Sun Tzu’s nephew

MB4 on August 7, 2007 at 4:01 AM

Able to guzzle more energy than dozens of normal men! Producing more hot air than a locomotive! Able to pile up carbon credits higher than a tall building in a single bound!!!

Look UP in the sky! It’s ChickenLittle! It’s FlyingSnakeOilSalesman!
It’s the Sultan of [hanging]Chad[s]! It’s a Bloated Balloon! It’s the Ayatollah of Heat! No, it’s CarbonMan in a jumbo private jet painted green with an internet connection that he invented himself!

CarbonMan, strange visitor from an alternate reality who came to Earth with claims and scary predictions far beyond those of mortal men, disguised as Fat Albert, and now joined by other members of the Royal Green League such as HummerMan, EcoCleaningWoman and GreenNewt, they all fight a never ending battle for science-fiction, hypocrisy and the Hollywood way!

MB4 on August 7, 2007 at 4:05 AM

BKennedy, I agree that conservation is conservative but in the past several decades the association has been entirely lost. On that basis I disagree that it’s stupid to try to re-link to two. Actions speak louder than words, however, and words are louder than labels, so whether or not it’s prudent to use “green” as a modifier for “conservatism”, I’ll leave to the pollsters.

FloatingRock on August 7, 2007 at 4:10 AM

What I mean is that terms like “the environment” are the same as “the patriarchy” or “the bourgeois”, in that they are used to villify and create conflict. With so-called “green” issues (again, as defined by the Left) they’ve taken their Marxism to its illogical conclusion: the oppressed underclass is now the entire Mother Gaia, and the evil oppressor is Man himself (preferably capitalist Man). The whole “fragile planet” is now a designated victim (like gays and Palestinians!), and by agreeing to see it as such I’m merely saying that we fall into the trap the Left always sets for us, which is: buying into its premise through guilt and intimidation, which cedes to it the moral high ground even while we propose different “solutions”.

Halley on August 7, 2007 at 4:55 AM

To all naysayers who worry that Newt has too much **baggage** to win the executive office I ask….and Hillary doesn’t?

Alden Pyle on August 7, 2007 at 6:45 AM

99% of the time when this man speaks,, it is such genius! I wish more would follow his lead!

JellyToast on August 7, 2007 at 7:23 AM

My major fear in becoming a Republican has been environmental issues. By every appearance, George W’s approach to the environment is “Kill Everything Now”, so the environmentalists won’t have anything left to preserve. This plays a large role in why I will still vote Democratic from time to time despite my strong disagreements with Democrats on economic and foreign policy issues.

However, Newt is right and I hope he runs.

I have argued and screamed at typical Sierra Club environmentalists that their political efforts are deluded and that they need to make choices–decide either you want nuclear power or you want coal, decide whether you want to limit population growth or fetishize illegal immigrants, and so forth. I’ve pointed out that is a lack of focus for environmental movements to support “living wage” law” and to join in “blue/green” alliances with labor. My quote on the last issue is “why are environmentalists forming a political alliance to save the dinosaurs?” Sadly, the only lefty environmentalist I’ve been able to get to take an idea seriously is my brother–who is taking a leadership position in the Sierra Club in one of the most lefty flake towns in our country. It should be interesting to see what battles he fights with the Kucinich supporters. & to give him credit, he does despise Kucinich with the same intensity as most people here do.

thuja on August 7, 2007 at 8:10 AM

His point is to seize back these issues through reason and commitment.

If he is trying to “seize back” global warming, he is just as deluded as the rest of society, not just the moonbats. At least half of society buys into this global warming scam, and conservatives, true conservatives, must stand for reason, not pander to “environmentalism” just to win some votes.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566

jihadwatcher on August 7, 2007 at 8:19 AM

Newt has always wanted to show that he is the cleverest boy in the class. Got it.

Changing topic completely, who can beat Hillary for the Pres. race, Romney, Giuliani or Thompson?

JiangxiDad on August 7, 2007 at 8:37 AM

One of issues on global warming that few point out, is that most of scientists that have signed on to “global warming” theory are political scientists. Political Scientists and oxymoron if I ever saw one.

Newt lost me when bought into the same garbage spewed by the Goreites

Dasher on August 7, 2007 at 8:46 AM

Protecting the environment *without* new taxes and a bigger government? Newt, you are a madman!

Seriously though, if the Left couldn’t bend environmentalism to help push their other agendas, I’d be willing to bet Republicans would be greener than the Dems. Tax credits for more efficient coal-burning power plants? What’s in it for the Left? I think it would kill Al Gore to say “I saved the planet from ‘Global Warming’ with tax credits and economic sense.”

MaelstromX on August 7, 2007 at 8:57 AM

“Green Conservatism” needs to disown the global warming/climate change hysteria before it does anything. There are enough good reasons for developing alternative energy sources and improving existing ones:

- Cease funding of the global jihad
- Improve air quality (duh!)
- Move to sustainable/renewable energy sources

flipflop on August 7, 2007 at 8:58 AM

Newt.Brilliant as usual.

How about Cold Fusion or a zero point module in every home.
Maybe next year.

captivated_dem on August 7, 2007 at 9:15 AM

and it will exclude the awful, awful, awful idea of Biofuel

Depends on what you mean. Biodiesel and E85 are both biofuel, but I’d wager Biodiesel (which you can make yourself from recycled cooking oil for about $0.80 per gallon) isn’t what you intended to knock. E85′s a different story, as producing it has a much greater impact on the price of foodstuffs.

I’d agree with flipflop that Newt (or someone else) could come up with an equally compelling slideshow to Mr. Gore’s, focusing only on (1) what happens to fuel prices when China and India’s consumer classes start driving; (2) how petrodollars wind up in the hands of Chavez, Ahmadinezhad, the House of Saud, et al.

I drive a hybrid, use CF bulbs, etc., for an entirely different set of reasons from those you’ll hear on the Left. I tell people I’m doing everything Gore wants me to do except buying his B.S.

DrSteve on August 7, 2007 at 9:22 AM

Newt is a traitor; Newt places his perceived selfish intellect over the party. I’ve never seen the intellect many of you see in him. Conservatism without morality is the same to me as the Democrats. He needs to shut up unless he’s running. I wouldn’t be surprised if he wouldn’t be offered a Cabinet postion by Hillary. He’s doing his best to help her win.

apostle53 on August 7, 2007 at 9:24 AM

What? We don’t want dirty water, carbon in the air, clear-cut forests, dammed up streams, species extinction, pollutants, mass starvation because of climate change, total destruction of society because of global warming…man he is taking all of the fun out of being a conservative. Without those monikers (and the starving, no medical for the elderly) the left would be speechless, what would they whine about?

right2bright on August 7, 2007 at 9:27 AM

apostle53 on August 7, 2007 at 9:24 AM

You could probably be right. But Newt is still brilliant. I don’t think that he is so smart as to pull one over on us. Maybe he is. Let him get his ideas out, then we can observe, over time, what his true motivations are; whether ulterior or expressed.

captivated_dem on August 7, 2007 at 9:41 AM

I immediately recoil whenever I see or hear anything with the label “green” or “going green” in front of it because I associate it with, as Allah so eloquently described it, “the loathsome Hollywood faddishness and unserious hippie subculture that too often surrounds the issue.”

So this leaves us with another “right vs. left” argument that will never be resolved, especially by politicians. But conservatism isn’t primarily about politics, it’s about culture and individualism. Which leads me to prefer the label “Crunch Con.”

A Crunchy Con Manifesto
By Rod Dreher

1. We are conservatives who stand outside the conservative mainstream; therefore, we can see things that matter more clearly.

2. Modern conservatism has become too focused on money, power, and the accumulation of stuff, and insufficiently concerned with the content of our individual and social character.

3. Big business deserves as much skepticism as big government.

4. Culture is more important than politics and economics.

5. A conservatism that does not practice restraint, humility, and good stewardship—especially of the natural world—is not fundamentally conservative.

6. Small, Local, Old, and Particular are almost always better than Big, Global, New, and Abstract.

7. Beauty is more important than efficiency.

8. The relentlessness of media-driven pop culture deadens our senses to authentic truth, beauty, and wisdom.

9. We share Russell Kirk’s conviction that “the institution most essential to conserve is the family.”

10. Politics and economics won’t save us; if our culture is to be saved at all, it will be by faithfully living by the Permanent Things, conserving these ancient moral truths in the choices we make in our everyday lives.

Brat on August 7, 2007 at 9:58 AM

apostle53 on August 7, 2007 at 9:24 AM

Telling it like it is, telling the truth is not running to the other side. Hillary is going to win unless we get our act together, and even then it may be too late.

Newt makes some good points, we let the left kidnap the environment. That was the point he was making.

You are saying he is wrong, that we are the ones who have taken the lead on the environment? Show me where anyone thinks we are the “green” party.

And your argument is that if someone has moral problems, then he cannot be a conservative? So we have one conservative…Jesus?

And he is a traitor, a traitor to whom?

Lots of allegations, but no substance.

right2bright on August 7, 2007 at 10:01 AM

Newt talks around it, but misses the central point:

Leftist “environmentalism” is built upon PAGAN philosophy: the idea that “nature” is supreme and man is a mere annoyance.

Christianity and most other religions adopt the contrary philosophy that the earth and all that is within it is for the enjoyment and betterment of man.

So the leftists work toward a world which is WORSE for mankind, while the rest of us work toward a world which will be BETTER for mankind.

Which is the better legacy for our children? (Hint: if you are a leftist, you DON’T CARE)!!

landlines on August 7, 2007 at 10:13 AM

I will listen to Owlgore when he starts ranting against the pollution China and India pump out. In April of last year, a cloud of polluants was seen drifting across Seoul and heading towards the US. California, Oregon and Washington are already seeing particles from China.

It would also help to move the weather monitoring devices that measure temperatures in this country away from parking lot, fire barrels and a/c units.

On top of all this, now there’s some nut in England saying that walking to the store damages the planet more than by taking a car. Next, someone will be saying that we all need to stop breathing.

moonsbreath on August 7, 2007 at 10:46 AM

Hmmmm… I don’t know… this would mean we would have to “play the game” and pretend that global warming wasn’t a giant fraud. Could be a very dangerous play. But out-greening them, but in a different direction is worth some thought.

Maxx on August 7, 2007 at 12:06 AM

Right on Maxx, if you can’t beat em….Newter em!

soulsirkus on August 7, 2007 at 11:31 AM

And he is a traitor, a traitor to whom?

Lots of allegations, but no substance.

right2bright on August 7, 2007 at 10:01 AM

In the past few months, Newt has agreed with Al Gore on GW, dissed all Republican Candidates for POTUS,continualy dissed and undermined the current Republican President and his policies and made kind declarations to the candidacy of Hillery Clinton. I don’t view him as a loyal Republican.

apostle53 on August 7, 2007 at 11:34 AM

apostle53 on August 7, 2007 at 11:34 AM

Once again, just allegations and no facts. Here is some substance for you.

http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=2649

I think this will answer some of your accusations. After reading this (rather than the bumper stickers) you will have a better idea of the direction Newt wants to take.
He has not agreed on Gore about GW, what he wants is more global study. If global warming will continue (no matter the reason) than it will have global economic impact. There will be a migration of people, how will that effect the world economy? Cutting carbon pollution should be a goal, it does not mean it is the cause of global warming, but it ain’t healthy, why not move in that direction. If we would have pursued Atomic energy, like we should have, our carbon output would be much less than the foolish Kyoto treaty or what Calif wants to impose. He made that quite clear the other day on a HA blog.
He has not “dissed” the candidates, if you are referring to his “pygmy” comment, take some time and read what he said. His reference was to DeGaul and the size of the French government making the politions look like pygmy’s. His reference is almost always with historical base (being a history academic), so you must read the content…once again not the bumper stickers.
After reading the above reference to one of his writings, I think you will come away with a different belief. He certainly answers all of your accusations.

BTW, saying Hillary is a great campainer and a formible candidate is not supporting her, it is a fact. A force to be reckoned with. And his suggestion is the Republicans better get serious with serious candidates that attack the important issues. You deny that?

right2bright on August 7, 2007 at 12:31 PM

I don’t how many times you guys are going to make me repeat myself. Newt’s “baggage” is irrelevant. The question is do YOU like him? Would YOU vote for him? The mainstream media will villify whomever is the Republican candidate whether their “baggage” is real or imagined. Also, I have yet to hear anyone outside of my conservative friends say Newt is “unelectable”. Funny that they say this at the same time they say that they think he is great and they would vote for him… Makes no sense to me.

RobertCSampson on August 7, 2007 at 2:16 PM

RobertCSampson on August 7, 2007 at 2:16 PM

I agree, how many “unelectable” people have we elected?

He would be the choice if they had real debates, and we knew that he would have a real debate with the Dems choice. But we know if he is in the mix, they would run and hide behind some organized, planned debate with a boring stupid tv journalist (there are a bunch of redunancy in that sentence).
Like Newt said, in history some of the presidential debates were two to three hours of pounding…he would win everyone of those against the weak, but well managed and marketed, dems.

right2bright on August 7, 2007 at 2:23 PM

That first sentence should read: He would be the choice of candidates if they had real debates. But we know…

right2bright on August 7, 2007 at 2:25 PM

Also, I have yet to hear anyone outside of my conservative friends say Newt is “unelectable”. Funny that they say this at the same time they say that they think he is great and they would vote for him… Makes no sense to me.

RobertCSampson on August 7, 2007 at 2:16 PM

There are many others the same could be said of, and for the same reasons- there’s fact to back it up. I’m firmly opposed to McCain, Rudy or Mitt becoming the nominee, but I’d have no qualms about voting for Hunter. However, his inability to gain support suggests a lack of electability.

Ditto for Newt; his disapproval rating stands at 54%; we’re not just making up this electability problem. You and I would vote for him were he the nominee, but we’d almost certainly be in the minority nationally.

Hollowpoint on August 7, 2007 at 6:34 PM

Cutting carbon pollution should be a goal, it does not mean it is the cause of global warming, but it ain’t healthy, why not move in that direction.

right2bright on August 7, 2007 at 12:31 PM

right2bright do you realize that you exhale carbon dioxide and that plants need carbon dioxide in order to grow ? And in turn plant-life creates the oxygen that you breath ? For heaven sake… not even Al Gore has had the nerve to label carbon dioxide “unhealthy.” Its a building block of life. Do you know what you get if you take too much carbon dioxide out of the air? You get a DEAD world… now THAT is unhealthy !!

More CO2 causes plants to grow faster, thus more food for a hungry world. That’s why your plants like you to “talk” to them, they don’t care what you are saying… but they sure do like those puffs of CO2 being delivered to them. Please understand that CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing…. and not the least bit harmful in any way whatsoever.

Al Gore goes after CO2 because that’s were the money is. Anything that involves any form of combustion gives off CO2. Al want to be able to tax all combustion… which is just about all human activity…. that’s why he doesn’t go after water vapor which is a thousand time more significant than CO2 as a “green house gas”. But you can’t tax water vapor, because after all, there is rain and evaporation and every type of natural process that puts water vapor into the air. Al can’t get away with taxing the rain… but he thinks he can get away with taxing the air we breath. Please don’t give into this nonsense… its a scam to take every liberty that we have.

The US alone is spending four billion dollars a year in global warming research… and while the budget has gotten larger over the years, this has been going on since the early 1990′s. Think of all the money wasted…. for an absolute fraud. We should be outraged and Al Gore should be arrested.

Maxx on August 8, 2007 at 12:27 AM

Newt’s brain is a conservative treasure. I hope the next GOP Prez finds a way to use it/him fully.

petefrt on August 18, 2007 at 8:55 PM