The Rush Limbaugh LIVE Radio Show Thread

Look, I was a big fan of Newt's back in the day. We all know Newt is a great rhetorician. So, rhetoric aside, let be perfectly clear.

Since Newt left the Speakership in 1999, he has carved out a nice life for himself and his political punditry on Fox has been interesting at times. On some major issues, however, Newt has been way off the conservative reservation.

For the most part, in the last 12 years Newt's done jacksquat -— nada, nothing, zero, zilch, zippo —— to help advance or to promote conservatism.... as in, Reagan conservatism.

Even Newt's rhetoric at times has gotten him in serious trouble. His appearance on Sunday's Meet the Press was not only strange, but severely damaged his credibility and any chance he had at winning the GOP nomination.

Reagan had very little baggage when he ran for President in 1980. He had been married for 28 years to Nancy. Frankly, Newt's private life has been an embarrassment.

You still have not answered me.

Sorry, I was busy doing things I had to do.

So why then desire to put a shiny new conservative face on progressive ideas which are based on a false premise?

He didn't accept the liberal premise, but he did have an answer for people (particularly young students who have been brainwashed into believing the cult of man-made global warming). It's quite useless trying to convince these people (just like "truthers" and other cultists) that the "science" of man-made / Anthropogenic Global Warming is flawed, you are not going to win them on arguing "science," especially in a limited amount of time. They "know" that AGW is "scientifically proven" and a "settled science" and they keep seeing it every day in their classes, on TV shows, news, and newspapers. You can waste a lot of time arguing with them about "science" and go nowhere.

It's far better to realize that AGW hoax and faux-"environmentalism" are only means to an end of more extensive government control and higher taxes on energy production. As such, for those young skulls full of mush who believe the AGW "science", it's far better to concentrate on their understanding of the consequences of the proposed "solutions" by Gore / Kerry etc. and contrast them with the conservative free-market "solutions" that also advance generation of "clean," cheaper, abundant energy (e.g., such as more nuclear plants, clean coal and advanced "safer" oil drilling and fracking).

All Gore, Kerry et al have as the "solution" to the "Global Warming" / "Climate Change" and "energy independence problem" is the end-game of higher taxes on energy, energy "conservation" (i.e., government limits on energy consumption) expensive electric or hybrid vehicles, expensive light rail, expensive maintenance of wind turbine generation etc. etc.

In other words, let people choose between the pain of Gore / Kerry / "environmentalists"-imposed "solutions" of less energy, more expensive energy and government-imposed restrictions on their mobility and way of life... and the alternative of cheaper, more abundant cleaner "greener" energy, with choices of transportation methods and energy consumption.

Best part - they won't have to abandon their belief immediately to easily choose the second option and abandon support of Big Government "solutions". You get their supporters and make them your own. That's the way you "deprogram" the cultists and turn them against the cult. That's also the easy way to defeat the entire point of AGW premise. Once AGW is no longer a means to an end of Big Government control and selling "clean" wind and solar energy and electric vehicles, it will lose its appeal and will wither on the vine" (to use the old "Medicare" metaphor).

It's not putting "a shiny new face on progressive ideas which are based on a false premise" - it's transparently replacing the economic and political pain of Big Government "solutions" in the skulls full of mush with the end-user solutions based on more free-market ideas - the solution of prosperity.

It's quite useless trying to convince these people (just like "truthers" and other cultists) that the "science" of man-made / Anthropogenic Global Warming is flawed, you are not going to win them on arguing "science

we're just gonna have to agree to disagree. The arguments that I have made to AGW folks have turned many of them around. Sitting on a couch with NANCY PELOSI and doing a Climate Change ad is a little more than providing a "conservative spin" on a progressive/al gore pushed topic.

That's the way you "deprogram" the cultists and turn them against the cult.

Kinda like Bush tried with "No Child Left Behind"? That was Bush's attempt at putting a "conservative spin" on a progressive topic. Don't see many that were deprogrammed with that one.

In other words, let people choose between the pain of Gore / Kerry / "environmentalists"-imposed "solutions" of less energy, more expensive energy and government-imposed restrictions on their mobility and way of life... and the alternative of cheaper, more abundant cleaner "greener" energy, with choices of transportation methods and energy consumption.

My point is that the people ALREADY WANT to abandon the AGW type legislation. They have been shouting loudly since Pelosi turned out the lights and went home back in 2005. Many polls show the percent of Americans believing in AGW hovering around 25-30%. We have already won the battle. Do not sit on a couch with Pelosi!!! Listen, you like Gingrich. I get it. I have already said that I respect the man for the good that he accomplished in the past, his amazing understanding of American History, and his love for this country. I simply do not agree with his tactics over the past five or so years.

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.