The Gingrich-Pelosi Climate Change Ad: Why I Took Part

Newt didn't take a seat at the barganing table as he wanted, by making that commercial and being part of the message it brought, the table that he is sitting at is the "how much taxes are we going to raise" and "how much bigger is government going to get" table. The commercials clearly give the idea that the "debate is over" and now it's all about the cost to "fix the problem".

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.

I don't think scare mongering is ever a good thing even if your defense is 'good intentions' or you believed it to be a noble cause. Thats always the liberal excuse when they botch things. "Not my fault because I was the one with the good intentions". Blah. You may impose your will in the short term but you just destroy your credibility in the long term when you actually need it. He comes across as an alarmist in the ad and siding with the shrillest alarmists.

It sounds like he got busted for going off the conservative reservation and is now trying to make amends.

Newt is positioning himself, in much the same as Bush did with immigration.

Newt realizes that if he "goes along" he will get on TV show circuit and such and be very popular and possibly erase some of his negative image the press gave him during the Clinton years as an obstructionist.

Al Gore has already scared a good chunk of people with his chicken little immitation and the band wagon isn't waiting for people to jump on.

Have somebody like Inhofe at the table with the leftist nutcases regarding this, he is more than well informed on all of this too, Newt is a disappointment to me, has been for a long time, when he debated Kerry on C-SPAN on this subject we all cried here that were watching this live and commenting here at the time, he hasn't changed a lick, he has run over conservatives more times than I can count over the years....and no I don't have links, but my memory is fine.

I for one am sick and tired of middle of the roaders in politics...they end up hurting conservatives and solving real problems by joining with the leftists.

I wished he would stick to teaching history, that his is good at.

Just my two cents. 

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

Newt could have made his own ad stating his position without joining the likes of Algore and Pelosi.

"My message, I think, is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move toward the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere," 

He changed his tune last year in his debate with Scary Kerry

I feel betrayed

I understand Gingrich's point but he's walking a fine line. Giving aid and comfort to one's political enemies is very risky. It creates the impression that Gingrich is offering a wholesale endorsement of Gore's program. Newt can explain away and rationalize to his heart's content, but when people watch the ad they will --without even realizing it-- begin to associate him with Gore's supposed solution to the supposed problem of global warming. This helps Gore and enhances his credibility, which as a rule isn't something conservatives should be doing. Does it stand to reason that conservatives should never embrace a good idea that happens to originate from the other side? No, not necessarily, but they have to consider that their (opportunistic?) endorsement may later come back to haunt them and undermine their own policy objectives. Media Matters and its ilk won't hesitate to cry "hypocrite!" if conservatives later try to distance themselves from an ill-considered endorsement.

—Matthew Vadum is Editor of Organization Trends and Foundation Watch, two monthly newsletters published by Capital Research Center

I agree with Newt only to the extent that unlike some Republicans who cave to the liberals, we need to get in control of this issue and not pander to them. If we want a cleaner source of energy we need to work with what we have and start licensing and building nuclear power plants again, and until a new source of fuel is developed to power our cars we should start exploring and drilling for our own oil reserves in ANWR, in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of California as well  as the recently discovered oil fields in North Dakota, Montana and Idaho and build new and upgrade our refineries.

If we want to be energy independent this is how it needs to be done, we can either help ourselves and succeed or be slaves to our dependence on foreign oil and pay through the nose for it, the choice is ours.

Just for the record I don't believe any of this crap about manmade global warming and I'm especially not going to take the word of a nitwit like algore 

I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts. Abraham Lincoln
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)

I think it's important to be on the stage, to engage in the debate, and to communicate our position clearly

I completely disagree, you don't validate the hoax in order to control the con artist's reach into the mark's pocket.  You expose the hoax like Senator Inhofe does and you keep pounding on them with the facts and figures to counter the so called scientific flim-flam.  And you use parlimentary procedure to block every attempt to impose nonsensical PC solutions to a non problem.  It is better to be called a denier and obstructionist instead of having to face public calls for your hanging because you visibly helped/collaborated to jack up people's expenses and lower their standard of living.

More importantly you focus on the logical means to a justified end by reframing the argument to national security, petrodollar terrorism, and balance of trade.  Then you say the answer is nuclear power and more coal plants.  Sit back and let the libs howl and shriek showing the public how nuts the libs really are.

While you're doing that you pull the wool from the public's eyes by showing the consequences of their agenda.  When the public is faced with the potential of $10/gal gas by 2025 or a five fold increase in electric rates or mass starvation of the world's poor, you counter any emotional flim-flam of the left with their own flippant callousness.  It's one thing to say for 5 cents a gallon we can mitigate the problem, it's quite another thing when you're told you have to pay five fold for everything on the same salary and be forced into a reduction in your living standard based on a computer model.

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

Seems to be looking for a spot on the Sunday afternoon yak-yak shows. OR.. maybe we could get him a spot on The View..? I'd pay money to see him, Whoopi, and Joy Blowhard do just one episode of that TV farce.

Well I agree with his premise, I think Newt is getting snookered. He basically said the same thing in a debate with John Kerry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY2Uh6TKqnk 

It’s scary on how much the two seem to agree. There’s plenty of room for debate within the halls of congress. The ad directs you to wecansolveit.org, a project of an organization founded by Al Gore. Any large organization eventually gets hijacked by the left wing. Two minutes on this site is enough to make any climate realist hurl.

Especially when you realize that the neo-Chicken-Littles are warning about the Ice Age to come.

"While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."  - Genesis 8:22

I sent the following to Newt:

I was very disappointed to see you in that climate change ad with Nancy Pelosi, and your "explanation" doesn't explain it at all. You say that you want conservatives to be involved in the debate "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." However, in order to identify what those right policies are, it is important that we have a clear conception of the challenges ahead of us and their causes. As you stated, we do not have conclusive proof that humans are driving global warming. Yet, by participating in this ad, and by associating climate change with the need for cleaner burning fuels, you have conceded this point. Thus, I can only conclude that you have waved the white flag in the attempt to find the right policies, and are moving on to negotiate what we should give up in the surrender. If this is your approach, then conservatives do not need you at the table.

as much sense as going out and picking up a hooker to get an STD so you can join the fight against STD's...

BS on this one!

Hmmm. I feel reassured.

"Our Country must take action to address climate change"

does NOT equate to "engage in the important debate going on right now over the right energy policy, the right environmental policy, and making sure we do the right things"

Let's review

Words != Actions

Climate Change != Right Environmental Policy

Sorry Newt, if you'd actually said the latter IN the commercial, you might have an excuse.  This falls flat on its face.

Sorry, Noel, I just can't agree with you on this one. You don't get a "seat at the table" by conceding the argument. At this point, the "table" IS the argument as to whether AGW is real or not. I consider Newt to be one of the smartest conservatives today. I usually value his opinion, but he's dead wrong this time. I suppose some would expect a lot of conservatives to join in, now that he's tacitly endorsed AGW. Those who think we all march in lock-step anyway.

I'm glad to see that virtually all of those posting here aren't buying into it either. We do think for ourselves, and we're not easily snookered. I think he sold out, for what I don't know. His explanation is pure political bull-s**ttery.

has this syndrome pegged.  Once you accept the premises of the left, you have lost.  That's it.  Using the excuse that we need to "get on the stage" and so forth is just another ruse.  As someone pointed out, what nuance or conservative approach to climate change did Newt get across in those thorty seconds?  Answer: there is a climate crisis and we need to work together (we who? government congress-types WE, that's who) to solve it.  Q.E.D.

Newt has been and always will be an intellectual big-goverment-solutions guy.  He is an ideas guy.  But ideas are not enough, so legislation is created to implement the ideas.  He is the classic big gov conservative that paved the way for the destruction of the "fiscally responsible" reputation of the Republicans. 

He is a publicity whore also, who in a very shrewd move, titled a book in an election year "Real Change", then went on the conservative talk circuit to plug the book with his "I told you so" smugness.

Take a look back at the Contract with America.  At the time, it felt good because congress was getting things done, conservative things!  In retrospect, it is still legislative activism--that constant yearning for better and more laws on the books to solve all our problems.  I see the folly in it now.

Hey Newt...

Why don't you create your own commercial indicating AGW is a farce and let's see if you can get Al Gore to appear in it. 

 I don't think Al would accept your offer.  That's why I think your view doesn't hold much water because you won't be anymore engaged in the debate than before.  Why is it the conservative has to compromise for nothing in return?