Morris: It's Going to be Trump, Gingrich, Huckabee, or Bachmann in 2012

Reaganite Republican ^ | April 27, 2011 | Reaganite Republican

[RockinRight]

Do you think Obama releasing the “real” BC hurts Trump?

[nathanbedford]

If I wanted to play games, I would counter with: why should I defend against an attack that has not been made? After all, is it not your job to make your case before it becomes my job to oppose it? But we are not here to score debating points, we are here to identify the best conservative candidate who has a chance to win the election.

Before referring you to a sound conservative source, American Thinker, I would like to make the point that science is not the province of political ideology. In other words, we are either descended from the apes or we are not, the world is round or it is flat, but the scientific truth of those propositions is not amenable to a political analysis. In other words, a conservative is entitled to believe in evolution or peak oil as examples and he is entitled to believe in anthropomorphic global warming, or climate change, and remain a legitimate conservative.

For the record I do not believe in the scientific validity of anthropomorphic climate change but that is not because I am not a scientist but only because I have weighed the evidence and conclude that the best odds are that the science is unclear, perhaps fraudulent, probably exaggerated, and the remedy unlikely to fix anything. But this conclusion is tentative. It is subject to further instruction and further proof. If I change my mind and become one who believes in anthropomorphic global climate change, it will not make me less of a conservative.

In this context please note the history of the time in which Gingrich accepted the "science" of global warming. This was long before the e-mails were released. Even after the release of e-mails, it is still not politically correct to deny climate change. Consider this analogy: George Bush got a very important fact very wrong-there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq-but that did not mean that Bush lied, it meant that he made a mistake of fact. Gingrich deserves the same rights to make a plausible mistake of science.

But if I choose nonconservative solutions to climate change, then I am open to the charge of failing a legitimate conservative test. It is upon this line that I base my defense of Gingrich, and it is upon this line of reasoning that Gingrich himself defends his position.

Gingrich says:

"I want to suggest that we need a new science- and technology-based, entrepreneurial, market-oriented and locally led environmentalism."

[A concept Gingrich would essentially reiterate a year later when he speaks in the Gore-mercial of ] "spark[ing] the technology we need," not raising taxes or other big-government solutions."

I cite you an article from April 2008 in the American Thinker which is not favorable to Gingrich and his position on climate change. I put it forth because, on balance, I think his is a reasonable position to take and one which does not compromise a claim to legitimate conservatism. If you accept the premise, that one can believe in climate change and still be a conservative because it is a scientific and not a political question, then one must judge Gingrich on the quality or this conservative content of the solutions he espouses to anthropomorphic global climate change. I believe those solutions are conservative. The article provides contrary arguments ready made for you.

Here is the citation:

Newt's Global Warming Surprise

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/newts_global_warming_surprise.html

[nathanbedford]

Thanks for the complement. The truth is I use the avatar partially for that very reason.

[Lakeshark]

I do not believe Newt is our best candidate, and his global warming capitulation is one of many reasons. It's not the main reason I don't have faith in his candidacy, but it does show off one of his deep weaknesses.

The capitulation on global warming (aka climate change) was never a reasonable position for a conservative, if he had said we didn't know the gravity of the situation, that might have been different. Now as the evidence piles up that AGW is a poorly conceived, little understood scientific theory with no data to back it up, it makes his leap to embrace the theory as true seem even worse.

[nathanbedford]

I appreciate your reservations and to some degree I share them. Gingrich is not without flaws but I keep returning to my initial proposition: if not Gingrich who?

If we keep playing whack a mole with every Republican candidate who is in some way flawed, we will bash them all senseless. The whole point of the primary process, I suppose, is to temper the steel and reveal the best candidate. I assume the process will do so this time even though it failed in 96 and in 08.

But until that process changes known facts, Gingrich remains the best choice of the lot and if Freepers wish to disagree with that assessment I think they have the obligation to at least come forward with another name and defend their choice.

[Lakeshark]

The most important thing in 2012 is Bambi losing in his reelection efforts. I have a list of preferred candidates depending on who runs (Gingrich is not one at this point, but we'll see once the campaign starts in earnest), but I will press for the candidate that wins the nomination. If that's Gingrich, I'll support him whole heartedly.

Bambi has to go, priority #1. If he wins again I fear we won't have much of a country left by the end of his second term.

[11th Commandment]

I wish someone would post a photo of Ronald Reagan smiling and shaking hands with Tip O'Neill.

I read the Reagan Diaries. In the early entries, President Reagan liked Tip personally and they got along. Reagan evolved and began to detest Tip when Tip started making politics personal and agreeing to things, but saying another thing.

The reason Tip started to make politics personal is that Reagan was kicking his butt. Reagan was reaching into the Democratic caucus and pulling votes he needed. Tip was pissed! One entry of Reagan's stated it was easier getting Democrats on the economic agenda than Republicans!!

My theory is that Democratic leaders are taught to make it personal and nasty to keep the caucus in line, because on the issues, progressives lose 9 times out of 10 and twice on Sunday! Newt should know this and should have never brought legitimacy to the Democrats and their Global Warming agenda.

[reasonisfaith]

Palin’s base is the strongest of all on the list, even after the media has thrown everything including the kitchen sink at her. The media has beaten Palin up so much they have nothing left on her.

It’s really the ideal position to be in, right before a campaign starts.

[nickcarraway]

And assures 4 more years of Obama.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Morris: It's Going to be Trump, Gingrich, Huckabee, or Bachmann in 2012

No, No, Hell No and Hmmm...

[Politicalmom]

Huckabee released his SC staff to find jobs with other campaigns. That indicates to me that he isn’t running.

[nickcarraway]

Morris also added that Pawlenty and Santorum really don't have a prayer (ironic for an evangelical lol)

Neither Morris, nor Pawlenty, nor Santorum is an evangelical. So what does this mean?