Skip to comments.Gingrich Explains Why He Did Global Warming Ad With Pelosi
Posted on 11/16/2008 3:05:24 PM PST by neverdem
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich recently did a global warming ad with Nancy Pelosi that was sponsored by Nobel Laureate Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection (embedded right).
Obviously, he has taken a lot of heat -- no pun intended -- from conservatives for not only staking out a seemingly unconservative position on this controversial issue, but doing so in such a high-profile way with the likes of Pelosi and Gore.
Update: Sheppard responds to his critics at end of post.
With that in mind, Gingrich posted the following explanation  at his blog (emphasis added, h/t Terra Rossa ):
The Gingrich-Pelosi Climate Change Ad: Why I Took Part
Many of you have written to me to ask why I recently taped an advertisement with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for The Alliance for Climate Protection, a group founded by former Vice President Al Gore.
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 have a different view. 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.
Frankly, I think this makes a lot of sense. After all, if conservatives aren't at this environmental bargaining table, our views will not be represented, and the left likely will be able to ram through any legislative proposals they want.
To prevent this, we've got to be involved, or we shouldn't be surprised with what results come from all this global warming hysteria.
In the end, having a brilliant mind like Gingrich's at that table appears well worth this instance of strange bedfellows.
This ad is the reason Gingrich should never run for President. He is not true to Conservative values. I won't vote for him.
Why don’t the conservatives formulate an energy policy based upon the facts not speculation by environmental anarchists? I stand in awe as we let the other take center stage on all the issues putting us in the response mode.
Anyone doing an ad with Pelosi can have no explanation that would satisfy me — no Conservative should give that leftist any credibility.
Well, that explanation makes sense, but you’d never guess that’s what he believes by watching that ad. That ad makes him look like he’s just another politician trying to be everything to everybody. He’d be better off finding another way to express his concerns over the environment. IMO
Dear Newt: mission NOT accomplished.
Newt seems to be saying the same thing.
Didn’t he “debate” Bore on this and agree with everything Bore said?
Newt, you sold your soul
BS. Jaw-jaw has gotten us where we are-are. It gives their premises the aura of legitimacy.
Allow me to cry BS! Gingrich is trying to play both ends agaist the middle and it ain’t flying with this conservative.
Just asking...is “green conservatism” related to or comparable to “compassionate conservatism?” I thought by now that conservatives had learned to be suspicous of anyone who feels the need to add some modifier to conservatism to make it more acceptable to lefties.
I didn’t see any debate!
But Newt, you caved on the key debate i.e. whether or not global warming is occurring and what is the cause.....you bought into anthropogenic global warming when the evidence indicates that global warming is caused by natural forces. This is not conservatism it is simply moonbattery. And profiting off the sale of a solution(s) to a non-existent problem is simply wrong and is on par with selling band instruments and uniforms to parents to keep their kid from playing pool. Snake oil snake oil snake oil. You should be ashamed of yourself Newt for doing the idiotic ad with comrade Nancy and even more ashamed of yourself for this ridiculous explanation.
I don’t disagree with what newt said but it doesn’t explain doing ads WITH the dems. Why not separate ads showing the contrast.
How about conservatives stating they are for reducing pollutants harmful to humans and stating that CO2 is not one if them as technology improvements allow it? These idiots are focusing on the wrong compounds and wanting to waste precious resources reducing CO2 which nature loves.
Don’t plan on reading it, there is not enough wild turkey made to get me drunk enough to make a commercial with that Nancy. So newt had a brain stroke, I hope he gets well and does ok in his remaining retirement years.
I don’t think it was a debate Newt.
Thank you. Very timely.
I am not into the Eco-wackO agenda but Newt was trying to make a general comment on the enviroment.
Pat Robinson did the same type of commercial with Al Sharpton. Not a fan or Pat Robinson but don’t think it makes him a Marxist.
Now the real Global Warmer kool aid drinker is Bob Barr.
Don’t see any venting from the third party loons about one of their own.
Reminds me of urban Jews who handed over other Jews. That’s basically the GOP/RINO mentality. Go along, accept the outcome, but try to get a window boxcar.
His “explanation” makes no sense. I don’t believe in it but I made a commercial stating it was a global crisis?? Typical Republican “logic”. Publically agree with your enemy to get a seat at the table. He sold out his beliefs and his party’s to gain the approval of those who hate him. That’s worse than being a useful idiot.
Mr. Gingrich, please tell us how agreeing with the ideas that we know are wrong engages the debate or "..communicate(s) our position clearly"?
Thanks...and his argument makes sense.
Not to anyone who knows global warming is the biggest hoax of the 21st century.
I reject the premise of the debate.
Look...I don’t buy into global warming either but I DO like the idea of being good stewards of the rich resources God has given us. To that end, it makes sense to dialogue. This does NOT mean abandoning principles. It is a smart way to derail the communistic environmentalism so rampant today.
No doubt, but Newt’s ad was about global warming.
That is what this thread is about
Thanks for the link, but I couldn’t get it to work.
Fine. Now please have him explain why he supported Bush’s amnesty in a letter to the WSJ with all the open border advocates.
Also, in 1998, the Georgia delegation to congress wrote a letter and demanded of the Clinton Adm to stop workplace enforcement of illegal aliens. Did he sign it?
"Us. Us. Us. Us."
I think he was totally wrong. The ad gave the impression he agreed with Pelosi. If the conservatives want to promote “green conservatism” then the RNC or some other groups should do some PSA’s and educate the public on the science that’s out there, on the alternatives to Al Bore and is ilk. The GOP/conservatives need to realize that most people are NOT going to seek out information. So there should always be an ongoing PSA-type campaign covering various conservative issues. Only that way will the GOP and conservatives get people to start linking certain ideas with the GOP. There need to be regular doses of TV ads, print ads, web ads, news feeds, podcasts, etc etc to get our ideas across to the public. If we don’t, we will never be able to compete with the indoctrination going on in schools and colleges, and the ongoing ad campaigns that the Dems are running.
What a bunch of hogwash. This isn’t just getting a seat at the table it is endorsing AlGorian myth, IMO. Newt says it is about looking for energy alternatives—so the end justifies the means. He might as well also admit that it is about building new international government and regulatory bodies envisioned by the globalists, something he and his cohorts are surreptitiously advancing through misguided policies.
The ad is dishonest in it’s objectives.
Newt: “We do agree—our country must take action to address climate change.”
Newt: “If enough of us demand action from our leaders, we can spark the innovation we need.”
As usual, Newt is engaging in revisionist history. In his "debate" with Kerry Newt said that global warming was real, man was the princpal cause, and it was urgent that we do something about it. Newt is a fraud.
Oh...I thought it was about his reasoning that affected the decision to do it.
Hansen has to swallow his words. Data showed October was
one of the COLDEST on record.
If this global warming hoax is exposed after we have
bankrupted nations & companies, then what???
That, plus being poorly informed about the nonsense of global warming or maybe he was trying to earn “brownie points” with the Democrats. RINO’s will do almost anything that puts them in the news.
His reasoning does not negate the fact he did it....
I wonder is there a part of a conservatives base that actually wants (even in a minor way) to be part or supportive of developing green technology? And if so. Why? These are some of the things we as conservatives need to grapple over (as a group and some individually).
I personally do not think that humans are responsible for global warming and honestly I am not wholly sure there is such an establishment that global warming exists. Maybe it has been proven or shown, but I guess I am not really paying attention here as I am more distracted by the insanity of the left and their made up world of global 'bore'ning.
I do know though that since I received a brainwashing by libs in high school--LOL I think--I have been interested in solar energy, wind energy. Since I grew up in a small community that had sidewalks to walk everywhere and later a city that had lots of citywide bike paths, I love the idea of cycle and walking options in addition to car streets.
I like ease of gas, but I also like the idea of new companies or even old companies coming out with cars and trucks that offer other options. ( I hate that we are dependent on terrorist and their countries for oil. I feel it is a security issue for our country. ) Alternate fueled cars and trucks though have to be something consumers will respond to. They have to meet the needs of the consumer and also their tastes--Prius--NOT!!! Butt Ugly. Stupid. Small. Give me a break! Whoever wants that great. Don't force that nasty little thing on me though!
I have never liked pollution or toxins and love the world God has given me and want to see its beauty upheld. I hate toxins in my meat or steroids. Depending on what it is, I think green technology and at times green city planning as being a positive direction from MY perspective. However! Green and green planning needs to be defined. Is worth it and why? I do not support more regulation, more government, forcing my reality on others that see no reason for it. Or taking away people's cars because I like walking or riding a bike or the idea of solar panels or wind mills.
I think green housing and technology can be innovative and a capitalist function, not a forced issue. Heck it is expensive to do some of this stuff and it should be people that are interested in giving it a try, but great let the market dictate need. Don't shove it down our throats or even shun those who do not agree on it. In southern California I can see where the backups on freeways and roadways impact capitalism. Keeping it from functioning more efficiently.
This is where I am at today. Taking a view away from a defensive stand against liberal but offensively where are we with green stuff? The environment? What the heck does 'green' really mean to a conservative? It means grass to me :-). It means riding my bike to work or walking to work, but having the option to also drive my car and ultimately not being dependent on arabs for oil. It means a thriving innovative capitalism that is answering the needs of consumers and keeping government out! How do we interact with any of this from a conservative perspective as Newt talked about? Is there even anything to discuss except stop these yahoos doing any damage (the whacked out environmental fascists.)?
Thanks for those that read thus far. I am just working through some of this out loud and am curious what other's thoughts are. Please not to many flames. I really am just brainstorming and writing as if I am thinking to in hopes others will share too.
Did you read his reasoning? I agree with him 100%. All we have done is say “no” without getting our hands dirty and demanding scientific proof!
I don’t believe in the global warming crap.
But for some to vent on Newt when some of their own
such as Bob Barr are actually into the Gloal Warming
agenda is disingenuous.
Good point. This is also what I wonder as well. I want to get to the bottom of this. Is this just as you say or is there a real there there that will promote conservatism and keep us going forward with out being impacted by liberal's manipulation and intimidation.
The only one thing that stands out is the security issue regarding getting oil from the middle east and coming up with new options.
I think we need to be wary of what you have asked.
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.