Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 04/29/2008 4:39:08 PM PDT by vietvet67
Last week, NewsBusters reported the peculiar occurrence of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appearing alongside current Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a global warming ad funded by Nobel Laureate Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection.
Included in this piece was an explanation the former Speaker offered at his website regarding this matter which sparked largely uncomplimentary reactions in the rightosphere as well as from conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
Two days later, Gingrich appeared on Fox News's "O'Reilly Factor," and answered Rush (video embedded right):
I disagree fundamentally with Rush on this question because I believe we have a good case to make. We made it last year in contract with the earth. I'm going to keep making it. We, for example, let's invest in the clean coal plant in Illinois and prove you can use America's natural resources without damaging the environment.
Gingrich answered some of his other critics as well; what follows is a partial transcript of this segment.
O'REILLY: Continuing now with former Speaker of the House and current FOX News analyst Newt Gingrich
You may have noticed there are a series of television commercials running, pairing unlikely people like Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson there. The commercials are produced by Al Gore's company, and are designed to bring awareness to environmental concern s. Now, we got a kick out of seeing the latest one. Nancy Pelosi and Mr. Gingrich. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NANCY PELOSI: Hi, I'm Nancy Pelosi, lifelong Democrat and speaker of the house.
NEWT GINGRICH: Hi, I'm Newt Gingrich, lifelong Republican and I used to be speaker. PELOSI: We don't always see eye to eye, do we, Newt?
GINGRICH: No,, but we do agree our country must take action to address climate change.
PELOSI: We need cleaner forms of energy and we need them fast.
GINGRICH: If enough of us demand action from our leaders, we can spark the innovation we need.
PELOSI: Go to wecansolveit.org. Together we can do this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: You know, she's looking rather adoringly at you. You know, it's kind of like Hansel and Gretel there. You know? You guys should have been in leder hosen. I -- she really looks like she likes you.
GINGRICH: What a way to spend a Friday evening getting you raking me over the coals.
O'REILLY: Tell me about Nancy Pelosi. She won't talk to me. In fact, she tried to get me fired because I made a joke out of San Francisco. They didn't want the military. The next time, there was a terror attack around their own. But tell me about Nancy Pelosi? Do you like her? Do you have a cordial relationship with her?
GINGRICH: She is -- look, she is a very tough, very professional, very wealthy, liberal woman who earned becoming speaker. She -- I knew Nancy back when she was the national committee woman before she came to Congress. She worked very hard as a liberal Democrat. She is about 70 miles to the left of me. And she's a tough professional. We're not personal friends but I respect that she managed to get to be Speaker of the House.
O'REILLY: Honest woman?
GINGRICH: But I want to say something, Bill, that's going to surprise you maybe. I believe conservatives have got to get in the habit of being right on the same stage and being prepared to debate what are the right things to do about the environment. And I don't think standing offstage and yelling no is a strategy.
O'REILLY: Well, that's what you write in your "Real Change." And that's why, you know, I think the book's a bestseller, because we have to engage the issue of, you know, the environment. It's an important I ssue. And everybody should want a cleaner planet.
Now whether God is causing global warming or it's the carbons, nobody knows, but I agree with you.
But let's get back to Pelosi for a moment. She is a very, very left- wing woman, but she represents the most radical part of the country. Do her -- does she really believe in income redistribution and a soft approach to terrorism and all these other things? Does she believe that?
GINGRICH: I suspect she does. There was a terrific book in 2004 by two economist reporters called "The Right Country" in which they explain America. And they compared Speaker Pelosi's district and speaker Hastert's district. And they pointed out that San Francisco is different from almost anywhere else in America.
So, I mean, here's a person who goes back home, all of her major donors are on the left, all of her social activities on the left, all of her conversations are on the left. I suspect, you know, I mean, I happen to think that a lot of that stuff is nuts, but I think that probably she sincerely now is so surrounded by that, that she believes it. I don't think she's insincere.
O'REILLY: But here's - you know, if I could interview her, I would say look, you were very nice to the pope, Mrs. Speaker. And you're a Roman Catholic. You were raised that way. You still go to church.
And now you're the biggest pro-abortion person in the country. I mean, how do you -- what is that? You know, those are the kinds of things with Nancy Pelosi that I'm like I don't get it. I don't understand it at all. Can you reconcile that?
GINGRICH: No, there's not a question of reconciling. There's a whole generation of liberals who made a series of decisions that their secular values were more important than their religious values. And that's where they are. That's who they are.
I mean, I can - I actually respect the integrity of her position, because she would say bluntly that she disagrees with the pope. Now I'll let you get involved in what that means from a Catholic hierarchical perspective. But I think that she is an honest, hardline left wing to the left of normal liberalism. And I think that that is an accurate reflection of the district that she represents. It's very dangerous for the Democratic party because it means that their national leader is probably 40 points to the left of the country.
O'REILLY: All right. But she did like you. I just noticed that on the couch. She had that look. Limbaugh says you were wrong to do this. Gave you jazz and said you're playing into the hands of what Limbaugh considers the enemy. 30 seconds.
GINGRICH: I disagree fundamentally with Rush on this question because I believe we have a good case to make. We made it last year in contract with the earth. I'm going to keep making it. We, for example, let's invest in the clean coal plant in Illinois and prove you can use America's natural resources without damaging the environment.
O'REILLY: All right, Mr. Speaker. "Real Change", "Day of Infamy" coming out. Thanks very much.
—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Contract with the Earth- Did the Earth sign did it give power of attorney to Al Gore?
Newt - you could have been something great, but for a skirt and loss of reason.
I can see Newt’s lips moving but I can’t hear him anymore.
You’re a useful fool, Newt.
How many millions or billions will Algore make on this fraud?
More proof the GOP is merging with the socialist Democrats.
Newt who? /sarcasm
before I read it let me say this, go away Newt, you have SOLD us out you POS.
Now after I read it lets see if I change my mind and have to eat crow.
“but we do agree our country must take action to address climate change”
Note that the Newt is using the new buzz words too, “Climate Change”.
And he is right, if the climate changes to rain get a raincoat.
This man carries absolutely no credibility with me. Frankly the man creeps me out.
Actually, did you notice that Newt plays so nice to Nancy, compliments her, etc, and then slips the knife in?
I think Newt is wrong on warming but at least he doesn’t have the point of view to fix it we have to destroy our evil corporations.
I was interested in this line -”In fact, she tried to get me fired because I made a joke out of San Francisco.” O’Reilly slipped that in as an offside. But I’d like to know more about that.
Yeah, what is the deal with climate change vs global warming anyway? (Maybe its a dumb question, but I just have to ask).
Yeah, what is the deal with climate change vs global warming anyway? (Maybe its a dumb question, but I just have to ask).
Is it just me, or is O’Reilly about the worst interviewer on the planet?
Well waht he said was still the same ol’ BS.
I turn any show he is on off. I refuse to give him my time.
IMHO he has violated he right to have me listen to what he has to say.
One day he is against Global Warming then BANG, the sky is falling.
And I believed this about Newt before I heard Rush, but Rush is right, Newt gacve up to the Liberals position.
You’re right. He’s all hand motions and no brains..
I should have guessed. I have asked my brother who is a good little socialist, if it is indeed warming what is bad about it? He could not answer me.
“Yeah, what is the deal with climate change vs global warming anyway?”
They knew they have lost the argument concerning golbal warming, because it just isn’t true.
Soooooooooo, they changed it to “Climate Change”. Becasue you cannot argue that the climate isn’t changing, today the sun is out, tomorrow it rains, “Climate Change”.
And Newt is right there changing the term right along with his new found friends, IMHO he is a new RINO.
I guess Newt thinks his case is so good he does not need to mention it.
The deal is that since the last 10 years have seen level temperatures rather than tracking the alarmist hockey stick, the environmentalists know that the gig is up if they keep complaining about “warming”. Instead, they are trying to shift the focus to “climate change”. If they are successful they have won the game and essentially all economic decisions will flow through them, because, after all, “climate is always changing”.
I see that Newt has the DC infection. Symptoms involve agreements with liberals and defense of politics previously opposed. Terminal effects are vigorous defense of liberals while attacking conservative Republicans. McLame already suffers the final stages of DCitis.
He gets a very controversial former Speaker of the House in for an interview and asks him a lousy six questions about nothing of import, but spends half a show conducting an exhaustive discussion with blogger Mary Katherine Ham about MILFs and their impact on our culture.
Srsly, WTF?
The government has become leviathan and, obviously, is totally unaffected by newts.
The best thing to do with Newt these days is ignore him. He doesn’t bring anything of value to the table.
He's "Comfortably Numb" ?
A few years ago, the libs were screaming and moaning about global cooling. It’s always gloom and doom for them.
More than I will make trying to make things better for my fellow citizens at my little nuke plant. I'm not jealous mind you. I just cannot believe so many of our citizens fall for this nonsense. Ready to throw away their freedom for this "cause".
Money talks.. Wonder how much it promised Newt for signing on??
Yawn...
Newty has always been a third wave kind of guy. Folks often mistake him for a conservative, but he’s a disciple of Alvin Toffler from way back. His ‘reaching out’ to the communist 5th columnists in this country aren’t suprising since they’ll only advance more government - not liberty - Newt’s desire is just to make it more efficient.
In fact, I was watching a news report the other night, (darn I can’t remember which network it was on) and they had a report on this 15 year old British girl who traveled to the North Pole to make this long walk across it to see for herself how “global warming” is affecting the polar icecap. Her father went along with her as he had made this same walk 10 years ago. Their claim is that since the time he made the same trek that there is now less ice and more water where there used to be ice.
My question is: What was the temperature when Dad made the walk 10 years ago and what was the temperature when they made the recent walk? Had it gotten above the freezing mark? That would be the only way to explain all the melted ice. If the temperatures were still way below freezing, (and I suspect they were) then they were obviously in a different area, or there never was frozen water there in the first place. Or they lied! (No, couldn’t be).
Another question, what time of year did they both make their walks? That was never addressed in the news piece. Even the North Pole has summers. It is possible that Dad went one time of year, and daughter went during the summer when the temperatures can go as high as the low 40s.
It’s a shame that this is presented as fact without knowing all the details of the story.
O'Reilly is the dumbest of the triumvirate which includes Russert, and Matthews. Russert and Matthews are Holy Cross men, O'Reilly went to the Catholic equivalent of Southwest Mississippi State Agricultural and Welding Institute.. and barely got out.
All three are hardened Democrats, who would risk 10 million years in Purgatory before they even considered a vote for any Republican candidate for anything. They belong to a peculiar Catholic breed who think that Pius IX and Leo XIII ordered all Catholics to be European Christian Democratic Socialists or American Democrats for all eternity.
As Catholics, with working class roots, they are automatically and roundly despised by the far left Democrats who run the party. But they insist on trying to worm their way into the good graces of these toads. Russert and O'Reilly, being basically Americans, should know better. Matthews would sell nukes to Iran to get a luncheon invitation from Nancy Pelosi.
Newt Gingrich has made a basic marketing error. His money could be made by standing up and delivering the straight scientific scoop on climate change. Instead, he has opted to trade this opportunity for condescending pats on the head from the enviro-nazis of the Far Left, who for psycho-sexual reasons known to no one, wish to either destroy this country, or deliver it into the hands of our enemies, who as any fool can see, are far worse polluters than we.
In this groveling and fawning approach toward gaining approval from the Far Left, Newt, O'Reilly, Russert, and above all, Matthews are birds of a feather. I, like the far left, despise them.
Gimme a break Newt. How about standing ONSTAGE and yelling no? Kind of like the late great William Buckley did.
So true , it would be nice to see the newt and the buffoon go at it.
Yes, we can make the case for taking care of the planet, but we have to do it OUTSIDE of the Church of Environmentalism, and their Global Warming mantras.
Global warming would actually be better for humans, because you can grow crops in more places when the climate is warmer. When it cools, the arable places will dwindle, and there will be the same amount of people (at first) chasing ever smaller amounts of food. It will also cause folks to have to use more fossil fuels, or wood, for heating, for longer periods of the year.
Newt Gingrich is simply despicable.
Al Gore is more dangerous to the USA than Al Qaeda. By promoting his hysterical fantasy that carbon dioxide is dangerous, Al has deterred needed investments in domestic energy sources, such as coal. The USA has enormous reserves of coal, and all we need to do is make the necessary investments to burn coal cleanly, and we will be energy independent once again. But who wants to invest billions in an enterprise that Al Gore says is destroying the Earth? Al’s lying fantasies have now caused an economic crisis. Could anyone please have Mr. Gore committed to a mental asylum where he truly belongs?
I would have to laugh if it wasn't for the fact of the matter he believes in this man made "climate change" B.S.
O’Reilly went to Marist. I went the equivalent to SWMSA&WI.
Charlie: Oh I had some bets down for you. You saw some money.
Terry: You don't understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it. It was you, Charley.
That is such bombastic rhetoric it makes me want to rip my ears off for hearing it!
How can he not realize that when he joins the environmental crusade with the ultra radical left. He paints every Conservative or Republican as a disingenuous destroyer of the environment at best?
For a Historian of such prominence, he appears to ignore the cyclic nature of change. Humanity can not affect the Global Climate any more than Keynesian Economics can control the Global Free Market. Any attempt at intervention will always have unintended and/or negative consequences.
My former Congressman may see with perfect 20/20 hindsight, all of the possible cascading events that could have occurred at any major crux in history, yet does not realize the fallacy of attempting to manipulate our Global Climate. He is what those with mother wit once called an educated fool.
I believe it was his young new wife. He suddenly turned to save harmony in the home. She drank the kool-aid and offered him a sip.
Did you major in MIG or TIG? Marist? Isn't that where you go when Iona throws you out? Ah well, he is an attorney, you know, as is Russert.
O'Reilly has made a fortune off this good-guy "objectivity" scam, and a blatant appeal to working class conservatives.
But he is a hardened, partisan, yellow-dog Democrat. When he says he's an "independent," it means he doesn't know which Democrat to vote for in a primary until he sees the check. His job is to hold white conservatives in the "right" or "American," or "heterosexual, non-communist" or "non-loony left" or "non-affirmative action" wing of the Democrat Party. Hannity's people.
He's not bad at it.
Yellow-Dog democrat: If the Republicans were to run one of the Apostles for office, and the Democrats were to run a Yellow Dog against him, O'Reilly would not hesitate to back the pooch.
Exactly. They assume everything they hear is fact and do nothing to disprove it. A few years ago it was the fear of global cooling. I’m sure there IS climate change. We can all see that, but why? Could it be cyclical? Is it God trying to do something? Nobody really knows. I don’t intend to make MY carbon footprint any smaller if I can avoid it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.