[neverdem]

It's a little old, but I thought Newt's explanation should be posted.

[Hostage]

Thank you. Very timely.

[SoCalPol]

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.

[Leisler]

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.

[Hacklehead]

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.

[Mojave]

Straddling that fence explains his current lack of balls.

[TomGuy]

Conservatives are missing from this debate, and I think that's a mistake.

Conservatives are missing from the debate because those holding the debate have one only question: How much money does the government put in?

They have made no room for true discussion or debate. They have already concluded (which is itself unscientific) that glo-bull warming is real and that the government must pay. That leaves no room for debate. They even shut down those scientists who oppose them.

[Roccus]

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

Mr. Gingrich, please tell us how agreeing with the ideas that we know are wrong engages the debate or "..communicate(s) our position clearly"?

[SumProVita]

Thanks...and his argument makes sense.

[Crazieman]

I reject the premise of the debate.

[AuntB]

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?

[visualops]

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.

[calcowgirl]

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154

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.”

[kabar]

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. .

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.

[GOP Poet]

Thanks for posting this. I think Newt makes a good point. However I do wonder why would conservatives want green technology? It is a foundational question behind what Newt is saying. I think it is a good start for him to say we don't need to be missed or passed over from this discussion. However to decide to come to the table to be part of the debate is a good foundational reason and should be honored and stated, but is it enough when many of us do not even agree with the whole premise of the gathering? It is difficult to sustain anything especially when people have no deeper reason for being there then defensively. Is Newt's reason a true reason why we should come to the wacko table or could there be more with deeper roots in even our own histories.

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.

[clintonh8r]

Newt you did a stupid thing. Here’s what to do: “I made a mistake. I renounce the positions espoused in that stupid ad, and I will never be in agreement with Nancy Pelosi again.”

[Ingtar]

Except his presence in the ad shows support for the bunk. This explanation is what’s wrong with Republicans. By negotiating on these things, you accept their premise and you are already lost. Any compromise with evil can only be less evil, never good.

[Miss Behave]

I don't even want to hear it. Talk to the hand, Newt.

[o2bfree]

I thought the earlier reason he had was better: Newt is a limp wristed pansy.

[BfloGuy]

Sorry if I'm repeating some of the previous 60 replies, but I'm so annoyed by Gingrich that I can't wait. He is the personification of inside-the-beltway ambition. While Newt is undoubtedly intelligent, he is just like John McCain in his willingness to go along with whatever pollster's whim that catches his eye.

When he first made known that he was up for the job of RNC chairman, i gave it a moment of thought. But I lied down for a minute and got over it.

[dfwgator]

Newt’s just another typical “go along to get along” Republican that’s been killing this party.