Gingrich on the Pelosi ad: Conservatives need to be part of this debate
posted at 6:30 pm on April 23, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Via Newsbusters. Conservatives demand an explanation, and an explanation they shall have:
I completely understand why many of you would have questions about this, so I want to take this opportunity to explain my reasons. First of all, I want to be clear: I don’t think that we have conclusive proof of global warming. And I don’t think we have conclusive proof that humans are at the center of it.
But here’s what we do know. There is an important debate going on right now over the right energy policy, the right environmental policy, and making sure we do the right things for our future and the future of our children and grandchildren. Conservatives are missing from this debate, and I think that’s a mistake. When it comes to preserving our environment for future generations, we can’t have a slogan of “Just yell no!”
I think it’s important to be on the stage, to engage in the debate, and to communicate our position clearly. There is a big difference between left-wing environmentalism that wants higher taxes, bigger government., more bureaucracy, more regulation, more red tape, and more litigation and a Green Conservatism that wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes to find a way to creatively invent the kind of environmental future we all want to live in. Unless we start making the case for the latter, we’re going to get the former. That’s why I took part in the ad.
As I’ve said before, this is just the sort of logic lefty environmentalists should be encouraging. But, er, isn’t he being disingenuous in saying the jury’s out on man-made global warming when he called for “urgent” steps to reduce carbon emissions in his debate with Kerry last year? The two positions aren’t contradictory — he may simply be taking a “better safe than sorry” approach — but doubtless many of the people e-mailing him are global warming skeptics and he’s leading them to think he himself is more skeptical than he probably is.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
F.U. Newt ..can’t have it both ways.
redrock on April 23, 2008 at 6:33 PM
This is one of the reasons why I laughed when everyone was encouraging him to run for President.
bj1126 on April 23, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Prsident of the Sierra Club ?
redrock on April 23, 2008 at 6:36 PM
100% pure unadulterated bullshit.
lowandslow on April 23, 2008 at 6:37 PM
I think he’s wrong, but I still hope that he didn’t get any Botox on him while doing that ad.
ReubenJCogburn on April 23, 2008 at 6:40 PM
We’re not missing, which is why there IS a debate nowadays.
SouthernGent on April 23, 2008 at 6:40 PM
He is clear as mud the way he questions the premise, then he goes on and on to demonstrate that, in fact, he does not reject the premise. Goebbels Warming is propaganda and a profiteering scam. Its premises and proponents are not to be “debated”; they are to be DEFEATED.
RushBaby on April 23, 2008 at 6:40 PM
His strategery may be correct, but by his choice of words and his own notoriety in the conservative movement, Gingrich moves the goalposts away from those who have reasonable skepticism about man-made effects on global warming. Where people like Gore see only black and white when it comes to the issue and demand action based on claims ranging from questionable to fraudulent, Newt can expect his nuance on the issue to be ignores and to have his key words thrown back at those opposing massive government interference in the economy to combat the alleged global warming threat.
jon1979 on April 23, 2008 at 6:40 PM
Nicholson in “As Good as it Gets”: “Is there any other way to see it?”
ShoreMark on April 23, 2008 at 6:41 PM
He left out the much-desired leftie global tax. That’s their ultimate goal, one way or another.
Entelechy on April 23, 2008 at 6:42 PM
Me too. He has certainly “grown” hasn’t he?
Valiant on April 23, 2008 at 6:43 PM
These people want to raise energy prices on the back of the average American, all the while they not worrying about their “carbon footprint” because they buy fraudulent carbon credits to assuage their stupid little guilty hearts.
I thought someone like Newt would believe in technology and American exceptionalism that would allow the markets to help out with global warming…or cooling. Whichever you believe is happening.
Haunchie on April 23, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Newt is an idiot. ’nuff said.
Onager on April 23, 2008 at 6:46 PM
To quote a put upon leader of a country, ” You are either with us, or against us.” Newt needs to reread the Heidelberg Appeal. Why is it, a poor, dumb little schmuck like me knows that one can never find common ground with the likes of Pelosi or Reid….NEVER. Their idea of coming to the middle is a conservative moving left of center to meet them. Darn it, I want a conservative leader who won’t kowtow and won’t negotiate failure.
MNDavenotPC on April 23, 2008 at 6:46 PM
LOL.
freevillage on April 23, 2008 at 6:47 PM
Newt’s Quisling Ad and and the entire campaign are 100% debate free. There is as much debate there as in a Michael Moore film.
tmitsss on April 23, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Have you seen the one with Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton? This is B.S. Conservatives care about the environment, but they are not going to put it ahead of national security.
Connie on April 23, 2008 at 6:51 PM
It’d almost be worth it to have some type of Kyoto regime forced on us just to see the ourage from liberals when they find out it’s the evil corporations that are raking in the dough. GE anyone?
VolMagic on April 23, 2008 at 6:54 PM
And the logical connection between acknowledging the existence of global warming and surrender to islamofascism is well established.
freevillage on April 23, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Reaching across the aisle rears it’s ugly head, yet again. Yielding any logic in this argument is lunacy. Concessions lead us to eventually accepting the position. Hiding behind our kids and cloaking it with pseudo-environmental-religiosity is ham fisted at best. Either global warming is an issue or it isn’t, we can’t concede to morons. Hope you love your new girlfriend Newt.
Cold Steel on April 23, 2008 at 6:57 PM
Newt is masterfull at disguising himself as a conservative. His loyalties are strictly with the GOP, however. That is the moderate GOP of McCain and George W. Bush. Make no mistake about it. We can’t count on Newt to help us in our efforts to move the GOP rightward. He’s a good man but he’s on the side of those that are resistant to change, though he likes to wear the mask of the opposite. I have to admit that he had me fooled for some time. DD
Darvin Dowdy on April 23, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Newt is a nitwit! A true conservative has no business associating with these idiot, conspiracy nuts. Global warming is a hoax and the joker got a Nobel prize.
flytier on April 23, 2008 at 7:01 PM
Darvin Dowdy on April 23, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Agreed. Newt is all about Newt. I’ve stated before: he pimps his platform, whatever the planks may be at that time. Today it’s Global Climate Change. Tomorrow it’ll be bailing out home loans. Every time that joker is on any news show, the host has to plug Newt’s newsletter. It’s almost like it’s an appearance fee for the show. Newt…. we get it, you have an opinion and a newsletter.
Cold Steel on April 23, 2008 at 7:08 PM
Newt Gingrich, Global Warming, Al Gore, all are irrelevant to me, they are like the cheerleaders in a baseball game.
Indy Conservative on April 23, 2008 at 7:10 PM
He’s speaking out of both sides of his mouth…. telling everyone what they want to hear…
If you don’t stand up for your principals, you don’t stand for anything…
Romeo13 on April 23, 2008 at 7:12 PM
Two questions:
1. How is it not being part of the debate for one to say that he/she does not believe Global Warming is primarily man-made, and that the whole thing is a political scam. I think that’s a valid debating position, no?
2. How can one participate in the debate, as Mr. Gingrich suggests, if the above debate position is censored, ridiculed and compared to nazism? The only way to “participate” in the debate is to accept the assumptions dictated to us by Al Gore, in which case it is not a debate, but a “debate”.
Blaise on April 23, 2008 at 7:13 PM
Wow. Somewhat surprised at the string of comments thus far. Not offended or disappointed, but just…surprised. Newt has been one of the harshest critics of the incompetency of the GOP to lead, and has staked out conservative positions throughout his career. Thus, I don’t see why someone would question his desire to push for conservative ideals.
Regarding the “green” debate, I would put forth that his proactive approach is strategically much better than both (1) the regulatory/tax swamp pushed by the Dems, and (2) any plan thus far from conservatives.
His idea of pushing for tech solutions to environmental issues, having the innovation take place here in the US and then allowing these companies to market this tech to the world sounds like a great way to ride the “green wave” to the bank. Additionally, why wouldn’t we want to offer a tax-free $1 billion (that’s a “b”) prize to the company who can first produce a durable hydrogen car which meets all safety standards, gets 100+ miles per gallon and costs less than $25,000?
This is really a national security issue. Why wouldn’t the conservatives want to take back the “green wave” and use it to rid ourselves of the nuts who sit on top of the crude oil?
Tokyo Times on April 23, 2008 at 7:13 PM
flytier on April 23, 2008 at 7:01 PM
Global warming is political steroids. Marginalized political weaklings who are routinely housed resort to the juice. Newt’s tired of getting laughed at in the political sandbox, so now he’s taking a little taste.
Cold Steel on April 23, 2008 at 7:14 PM
No, we are not missing from this debate. In fact, we raise valid questions that remain unanswered. And, those on the left insist that questioning global warming is analogous to questioning whether we actually walked on the moon. It’s the left that doesn’t want to properly debate this issue.
Rick on April 23, 2008 at 7:15 PM
When it comes to preserving our environment for future generations, we can’t have a slogan of “Just yell no!
Who’s just yelling no?? Could someone please show me who is just yelling “No??” Somebody,, please!??
So,, is there a stage somewhere that we are not on?? Is there some grand auditorium where all the laws are made that conservatives have said they do not want to enter?? This grand stage where the global warming debate is going on that conservatives have said they want no part of??
What kind of talk is that??
I thought congress was where the laws were made?? Are there not conservatives and Republicans there that can stand up and open their mouths and debate??? What does it take to open your mouth at the podium and say the truth??! Talk about global cooling,, the hypocrisy of the left, the dangers of giving up our freedom and liberty for a hoax,, ?? Is it that hard??
Is the only place he can find to be a part of this “debate” is on the couch with the enemy??
I can imagine Churchill and Hitler sitting on some couch on a beach in a commercial “We disagree in a lot of areas,, but we can both agree that God has a master plan for the Jewish people!”
Yeah,, whatever.
Well, OK Newt,, I am yelling No!!
No! to laws that tax us to death!
No! to laws that steal our property under the lies of eminent domain!
No! to laws that mandate we stuff our food supply into our gas tanks while refusing to drill for billions of barrels of our own unused oil!
No! to laws that indoctrinate our children with every conceivable perversion known to man!
No! to laws that want to take over our health care!’
No! to all these laws and all the rest of the idiotic nonsense that comes out of congress and the courts under the name of “For our own good!”
There are lots of things to shout “No!” about! God help us!!
If only there were more men and women who had the courage to shout No!
JellyToast on April 23, 2008 at 7:18 PM
Regardless of how stupid leftists are with their global warming pseudo-science… pollution is still bad, is it not?
Our views on issues like pollution should not be defined purely in terms of opposition to the left.
sandberg on April 23, 2008 at 7:20 PM
I think there is something you are forgetting. The whole point of the Dems. environmental policy is to tax, regulate, and increase their power. And let me tell you, they are never going to give that up for any “third-way” on energy policy. And concerning the whole notion of riding the green wave all the way to the bank, just ask yourself if the very same Democrat party that is currently and vocally demonizing the idea of “profits” will allow for any one to ride anything to the bank, other than the federal government itself.
Weight of Glory on April 23, 2008 at 7:22 PM
I’m jelling no too. Jell no.
BJ* on April 23, 2008 at 7:22 PM
“Any plan”? Conservatism means to restrain, not meddle. It’s not government’s job to involve themselves in this non-issue. Regulating and legislating environmentally misguided policies forces us into begging for ME oil. We have all the oil we need here in the states: ie. ANWR, ND/SD/MT, WY.
Cold Steel on April 23, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Its pretty simple… if you acknowledge their position, then you CAN’T drill for oil in America, because OIL IS EVIL!!!
We could be self sufficient in oil IF we used (not exploited) our already known existing resources… but as long as the CO2 meme is generaly accepted then the pols won’t let us drill.
This whole thing is ruining our economy. Food prices are up. Gas prices are up. EVERY thing is going up because of transportation costs are up. Deisal is now at $4.00 a gallon, and is going to continue to rise…
But Newt by buying into the future technology meme, looks like he’s doing somthing, while NOT solving our problems.
Romeo13 on April 23, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Tokyo Times: I’m just as surprised as you. I don’t drink the AGW juice yet because we need more information, but Republicans need to be careful about where they go with these issues in the future. I think it’s a travesty the way that the modern conservative movement has allowed leftist whackos to hijack the conservation movement, hence squandering the legacy of Roosevelt and Nixon and the political landscape that they carved. Being an ardent conservationist and a free market advocate in a land where being such makes me and those like me political orphans on either side of the isle, form a rather large segment of the young-ish voter bloc.
So the question is: is there room for conservation ideals in the conservative movement? There better be. Newt is shrewd.
INFDL on April 23, 2008 at 7:26 PM
So, in other words, it doesn’t matter if it’s a scam – let’s just profit off it anyway?
Rick on April 23, 2008 at 7:26 PM
Astute observation. This will run the course of the “war on poverty” which can never be won because of human nature.
Valiant on April 23, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Romeo13 on April 23, 2008 at 7:24 PM
The future technology meme is the biggest pork of all. The government will undoubtedly subsidize this and the non-evil corporations like GE and other DU favorites will sop up the government waste. Government coddling promotes inefficiency. The unfettered market is much better equipped to drive innovation.
Cold Steel on April 23, 2008 at 7:28 PM
By “engaging” in a dialogue with proponents of a massive fraud like “manmade Global Warming”, fools like Gingrich and, now, unfortunately like our Republican President, only muddies the waters, confers legitimacy upon our enemies, and denies conservatives a defensible postion in fighting this seditious multitrillion dollar power-grab by the enviromentalists and their pimps.
TexasJew on April 23, 2008 at 7:28 PM
And what Newt is doing here is really frustrating, he even admits that he doesn’t accept the premise, or is at least skeptical, but then encourages us to offer solutions for that problem that he is skeptical of. That is not being part of the debate, that’s giving up on the first, most critical part of the debate (whether the problem exists and whether we are causing the problem) and moving to the more ancillary part of the debate, namely “what are we going to do about it.” This is below Newt, it really is.
Weight of Glory on April 23, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Good point. And the word “quisling”, a perfect descriptive of Newt. Or as Pelosi calls him now “Neut”. His malkins have been removed.
JonRoss on April 23, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Sell out
GogglesPisano on April 23, 2008 at 7:30 PM
These aren’t mutually exclusive positions, but unless you’re willing to let the free-market delineate lands to conserve or not, it is slightly hypocritical.
VolMagic on April 23, 2008 at 7:30 PM
INFDL on April 23, 2008 at 7:26 PM
Yeah conservatism and conservation have nothing in common whatsoever. Hardworking, god-fearing, law-abiding conservatives love to unwind by dumping oil in lakes, torching forests, and bombing panda bear exhibits.
Cold Steel on April 23, 2008 at 7:32 PM
People, there is vast economic value in conservation. Look at it like compounding interest. That “lucrative” extractive industry job pales in comparison to the economic value of thousands of years of recreational use. Another point: the longer we hold out on extinguishing the resources in our homeland, the more valuable those resources will be. Why sell our oil when it’s only worth $115 per barrel? And if you think we can “get off” of resouces form the ME, then you don’t understand the words “global market”.
INFDL on April 23, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Cold Steel on April 23, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Exactly. There was a great series of Uncommon Knowledge over on NRO with a libertarin mogul from silicon valley, his name escapes me, but he made the point that the Govt. shouldn’t subsidize any energy platform because when they do they have to subsidize all of them.
Watch and be calmed that men such as this exist.
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=MmQzN2U4ZDRmNzRhYWRiZGRiNTM3MTE1ZGUyOWVlY2Y=
VolMagic on April 23, 2008 at 7:34 PM
Hmm, would the “global market” necessitate that the ME import crude oil from us? If it doesn’t then your point is false.
VolMagic on April 23, 2008 at 7:36 PM
It seemed pretty obvious to me that he was talking about the debate about which policy to enact for the future, not the debate on the veracity of the subject.
Nonfactor on April 23, 2008 at 7:36 PM
VolMagic on April 23, 2008 at 7:34 PM
I heard someone read about him on the radio. It illustrates the point. Give individuals credit. Many times their ideas are more fine tuned than a committee’s mediocre consensus.
Cold Steel on April 23, 2008 at 7:37 PM
VolMagic on April 23, 2008 at 7:36 PM
They love importing democracy and Christianity so much. They’ll just love them some Texas Crude.
Cold Steel on April 23, 2008 at 7:38 PM
Reduction on foreign oil dependence does NOT equal reducing carbon emissions!!!
blink on April 23, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Care to explain what that means? How does the free market deliniate lands to conserve in your mind? Is there a place for holding lands in public trust or do we start an auction tomorrow? I’m not asking to be sarcastic because these are questions that need to be asked. Public lands in America are a very unique situation. Not quite the same as the socialistic power grab that it gets portrayed to be by some conservatives. The West is a massive welfare case. The costs involved with the creation of the Colorado River drainage system alone involve MASSIVE federal subsidies.
INFDL on April 23, 2008 at 7:40 PM
We should say NO NO NO!! Again and again, bcause this thing is going to blow sky-high when the final bill is presented to American taxpayers.
And we should spend millions educating the American taxpayers how many trillions this rotten scam will cost them. We should name names and investigate the crooked connections between our politicians, Agribusiness and the environmental scumbags. It is a huge scandal and a gigantic kickback scheme. There’s no “dialogue” when it comes to political corruption.
What conservatives need to do is to shitcan Gingrich, tell him to shove his newsletter up his arse (I just did) and to stop being fooled by verbose pseudoconservatives.
Think Bahr, Lindsay Graham and others who get power and then turn against us.
TexasJew on April 23, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Well I’d love to be part of this debate, but they told me the debate was already over. A scientific consensus has already been established, and all that…
Riposte on April 23, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Y tu, Newt? Global warming is perhaps the best litmus test yet to detect ignorance and liberal fascism.
+
I hear McCain, and even Romney seem to cave, and can only hope that their statements about tying limitations on CO2 regulation to having the whole world sign on as the escape clause; that they’re realized that so many people are so stupid that this is the only way to neutralize the issue and move on.
+
But I wonder…
ParisParamus on April 23, 2008 at 7:42 PM
So what other non-issues should we debate? Since we’re all into debating future policies based on junk science, what else can we waste time with? How about UFO’s? The moon’s cheese quotient? The birds and the bees? Deal with the real issues: redistributing wealth and redefining governance and culture.
Cold Steel on April 23, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Let me hold your hand here, sandberg.
Yes, “pollution is still bad.”
No, CO2 is NOT pollution.
blink on April 23, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Also, and I think ColdSteel touched on this, the problem with the GOP today is that they have lost the ability to know how the Fed. Gov. is to be limited. They spend all their time trying to figure out “conservative” solutions to problems rather than determining if they should be offering “solutions” at the federal level at all. This is why the base is pissed. There is no longer a party that is for a Constitutionally limited federal government. C’mon, GOP, buy some of these, and lets get back to our roots.
Weight of Glory on April 23, 2008 at 7:44 PM
INFDL on April 23, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Sure. If you want land to be conserved, and hold to free market principles, then you would have to take the govt out of it and leave it to individuals or groups to buy they land they want to conserve and run it as a conservation unit.
Same with historical building and sites. If you are a free-marketer and want to conserve them, you have to buy them on the free market and then let them stand as they are and not develope/redevelope them.
Otherwise you are not holding to free-market principles.
VolMagic on April 23, 2008 at 7:45 PM
That’s what doesn’t make any sense – how can you have a debate about enacting these green policies, when we don’t know the truth behind the allegations being made in support of pushing those policies on us? If my tax dollars are going into something, I want to know all the facts.
Rick on April 23, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Newt is an example of what plagues the GOP.
Message to Newt “screw you buddy, hope the media elites can fill that huge need you have to be in the spotlight”… POS
Keemo on April 23, 2008 at 7:48 PM
This is the same mush mouth boiler plate he gave all us stupid peons on his list-serv.
Newt has his own definitions of elitism and none of them are his own.
His Corp. pockets define him in one direction, useful idiots define him in another and he let Pelosi define him in another beneath any and all respectable way.
Its pathetic and cowardly.
When he has stones enough to stand up and speak the truth he can be great, the rest of the time its mush mouth brown nose.
Speakup on April 23, 2008 at 7:48 PM
Another point: the longer we hold out on extinguishing the resources in our homeland, the more valuable those resources will be. Why sell our oil when it’s only worth $115 per barrel? And if you think we can “get off” of resouces form the ME, then you don’t understand the words “global market”.
INFDL on April 23, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Incredibly stupid argument, if you are serious. If Clinton had let us drill ANWR in 1996, our national oil production would be 30% more than it is now. That’s about 80 billion dollars that would not be shipped offshore right now, every year.
Or, the additional oil would have decreased the price per barrel by about 15%. Either way, we would not be in anywhere near our present position.
You obviously have never been anywhere near the energy business.
TexasJew on April 23, 2008 at 7:48 PM
I’m speaking in terms of politics. Nobody is accusing you of Pandacide. It is foolish to let a major political issue be hijacked by lunatics on the “other” side.
INFDL on April 23, 2008 at 7:48 PM
Shame on Newt….He should have said so in the ad then that the science is not yet proven and may if fact be flawed.
azcop on April 23, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Wait, is this not the exact stance that McCain has taken on this farce? Yet so many on here fly off in a rage when he is called on it? I would have thought he would be embraced on this site?
ClassicCon on April 23, 2008 at 7:54 PM
McCain/Gingrich 08!
ClassicCon on April 23, 2008 at 7:54 PM
ANWR should be tested for real world yields, and if it produces, go apeshit. But keep an eye on wildlife corridors, sideways drilling, impact minimizaiton, the whole gambit. But to argue that ANWR would have prevented our current situation is not a serious position. We will always import the bulk of our oil. Sorry.
INFDL on April 23, 2008 at 7:55 PM
If we approach it at the level that Newt is suggesting, rather than a few major steps back, then they have already hijacked the principle, the ability to set the tone, the direction, and the agenda. After that, there’s not much left to “debate.”
Weight of Glory on April 23, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Nobody is letting them hijack a political issue. The MSM and some top RINOs are GIVING it to them.
Many of us refuse to yield to the junk science.
This is important: We’re not asking them to explain small holes in their theories. We’re asking them to find ANY holes in ours.
blink on April 23, 2008 at 7:56 PM
I hope to never hear Newt bitch about Obama’s association with the loony minister or the terrorist of the weather underwear.
Wade on April 23, 2008 at 7:58 PM
So now Sir Newt says we need to stoop to the level of the dems and their global warming crap. Well as as a conservitive Republican and seeing how I’m stuck with Mccain or no choice at all, what to do, what to do!
AMartinez on April 23, 2008 at 8:00 PM
INFDL on April 23, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Yes, from sources in the Americas. Our No. 1 and 2 sources of oil are Mexico and Canada.
VolMagic on April 23, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Why can’t politicians just take all the treasure they vote up for themselves and go away when they are out? He looks foolish to Conservatives and the Progressives will hate him no matter what. The topic of global warming is one thing, but getting all “The View” with Pelosi is pathetic. He’s being used, and he doesn’t care as long as he gets some press.
Hening on April 23, 2008 at 8:03 PM
If Newt had been in Germany in the thirties would he have joined the Nazi party to try to shape it?
MB4 on April 23, 2008 at 8:05 PM
This week, we had a GOP governor tell us “it’s time to get past Reagan politics”; now we have a former leader of the GOP telling us that we need to buy into the global warming scam, rather than telling us to base our decisions on factual data.
Great, just frick-n great!
Keemo on April 23, 2008 at 8:06 PM
HEY NEWT!!!! YOU JACKASS!!!!
elraphbo on April 23, 2008 at 8:06 PM
Newt and the botox belle. Pat Robertson and the very racist Sharpton…….
I don’t disagree with the idea that the right should be engaged in the hoax and junk science that is global warming dogma but that doesn’t mean collaborating with the enemy! There’s plenty of time for that when the Quisling McCain sells the GOP out for his 30 pieces of silver and gushing admiration from people like Pelosi, Reid, and MoveOn.
highhopes on April 23, 2008 at 8:08 PM
MB4 on April 23, 2008 at 8:09 PM
Yeah the big finds in the upper Midwest are diddly too. We can drill and refine our own stuff. We can fire up nuclear reactors. We can take care of our own business. That would be too easy though. It’s much easier to rile people into a hysteria, ensuring they stay on the government’s teat.
Cold Steel on April 23, 2008 at 8:12 PM
MB4 on April 23, 2008 at 8:09 PM
As he’s sitting on the barca lounger with Goebbels.
Cold Steel on April 23, 2008 at 8:14 PM
So, what do you think will happen if the majority of the Republicans stay out of this debate? I’ll tell you:
There will be a few Republicans who side with the Democrat position, and a huge majority of the Democrats will side with the Democrat position, and the Democrat position will be put into law. With virtually no input from the Republican side.
That is why the Republicans need to be involved with this process.
exhelodrvr on April 23, 2008 at 8:15 PM
I hear you. I’m not stoked on Newt’s choice of issues, but his overall point stands: Repubs get killed on the environment. It doesn’t have to be that way.
INFDL on April 23, 2008 at 8:17 PM
exhelodrvr on April 23, 2008 at 8:15 PM
Repubs don’t have time to grow their pit hair, braid the dreads, and protest every Wal-Mart opening on the Northern Hemisphere. If through hard work, a conservative gets enough scratch to run for an office, they would do us a favor if they didn’t sell us out for cheap compromise. Don’t forget who you are.
Cold Steel on April 23, 2008 at 8:19 PM
It’s funny that he thinks we shouldn’t be left out of the debate — anytime someone challenges one of those AGW “believers”, you get called a “denier” and then they go on to tell you how “this famous actor thinks this” or “some politicians thinks that” and you’re wrong because, dog gone it, there’s a consensus out there! That’s not a debate, it wreaks of something like fascism.
whtabtbill on April 23, 2008 at 8:19 PM
B.S. By taking part in this “debate” and calling for reductions in carbon emissions, you’re accepting the assumption of anthropogenic global warming.
Me-too jockeying for bureaucratic goodies, pure and simple. So much for free-market capitalism, national sovereignty and unalienable rights.
Newt, you and Robertson are both schmucks for capitulating to the collectivists.
spmat on April 23, 2008 at 8:20 PM
exhelodrvr, why pray tell at this point in time are so many name brand Republicans jumping on the lefts bandwagon of global warming, giving illegal alieans a home here, and some gun restrictions?
AMartinez on April 23, 2008 at 8:20 PM
Hitler’s rise to power was based, among other things, in compromise.
Conservatives should not compromise!!!
elraphbo on April 23, 2008 at 8:21 PM
…and academic welfare (aka research grants).
Zorro on April 23, 2008 at 8:21 PM
INFDL on April 23, 2008 at 8:17 PM
Yeah, it’s called changing the channel. Dems start fomenting about global warming, return fire. Call it for what it is. Introduce people to personal responsibility and personal governance. Respect the individual. Isn’t that a better form of conservative conservation? They have more in common than 9 letters.
Cold Steel on April 23, 2008 at 8:21 PM
elraphbo on April 23, 2008 at 8:21 PM
He distracted the masses from his power grab. He set up a boogey man and gave them an outlet for projecting out their self-hatred. All we’re missing is green armbands and Heil Gores!
Cold Steel on April 23, 2008 at 8:25 PM
Newt needs a new party. He has turned into nothing more than a gadfly.
I sent Newt an email, said I thought the commercial was like watching “dumb and dumber” only this time they sat on a couch.
The premise is wrong, send us more taxes and we will pretend to control the sun. How dumb is that?
tarpon on April 23, 2008 at 8:28 PM
I’m with you on this one.
mikeyboss on April 23, 2008 at 8:29 PM
This is so easy.
MB4 on April 23, 2008 at 8:32 PM
At one time in my youth Americans right and left would have stood togeather and, said #1 Illegals will not be tolorated. #2Speak English and we only have one flag for this country. #3 We’ll produce our own products and oil.#4 If you don’t like America has it is go back from where you came.
AMartinez on April 23, 2008 at 8:32 PM
sorry should be (you have to go back)!
AMartinez on April 23, 2008 at 8:34 PM
I think that all good conservatives should like up and kick
Jerry FalwellNewt Gingrich [updated] in the ass.- Barry Goldwater
MB4 on April 23, 2008 at 8:35 PM
MB4 on April 23, 2008 at 8:32 PM
Amazing how history repeats itself. This is men (and Pelosi’s) grabbing power through the government and bending thought, logic, and obeisance to their will. It’s becoming our state religion.
Cold Steel on April 23, 2008 at 8:37 PM
It’s reasons like this why I shudder at Newt running for President. This isn’t 1994, and he’s becoming a sellout. People need to get over him.
Giving even an inch on this Global Warming crap is going to lead us to carbon taxes and other immoral, moronic policies.
Nate A. on April 23, 2008 at 8:38 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »