Posted on 11/18/2011 11:34:33 AM PST by NormsRevenge
Mitt Romney may be the GOP presidential candidate that is most often criticized for flip-flopping , but as Newt Gingrich rises to challenge him at the top of the polls, the former House speaker may also be giving him a run for his money on that label of inconsistency.
When it comes to global warming, Gingrich’s position seems to have changed faster than the climate.
...
In the more than 30 years since Gingrich was first elected to the House, he has said there is both sufficient evidence to prove the climate is changing and also that there is no conclusive proof. He supported a cap-and-trade program to limit carbon emissions and then later testified against it before a Congressional committee.
And while in the House he co-sponsored a bill that said climate change was “resulting from human activities,” but he later said he did not know if humans were to blame.
“There is no compelling evidence on either side to either rule it out or rule in it,” Gingrich’s spokesman R.C. Hammond said of the candidate’s position on global warming and the impact of man-made pollution. “But at the end of the day he’s somebody who does care about the environment.”
DiPeso said the Republican “orthodox” position on climate change is that “you can’t deal with this issue because it will kill the economy.”
“It’s politically dangerous for prominent Republicans to acknowledge climate change is real and that human activity plays a prominent role,” he said. ”It could be that Gingrich is just trying to play a political game and stick with the political orthodoxy to keep himself from being vulnerable to attacks.”
DiPeso added: “It’s not the first time he’s done that and it’s probably not going to be the last.”
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
...he has said there is...sufficient evidence to prove the climate is changing and also that (but) there is no conclusive proof.He supported a cap-and-trade program to limit carbon emissions and then...testified against it before a Congressional committee.
And while in the House he co-sponsored a bill that said climate change was “resulting from human activities,” but he later said he did not know if humans were to blame.
Oh man Mitt, make up your mind! Oops, this is Newt.
“There is no compelling evidence on either side to either rule it out or rule in it,”BS, there is plenty of proof that man isn't responsible for Global Warming (which they call climate change these days)
As Bobby Zimmerman once said, "The answer my (politician) friend, is blowing in the wind."
Keep holding your finger up Newt, say what we want to hear.
Excruciating!
Right, after all Obama got elected because of his shining "ability".
New tag line.
I want to know where these candidates stand. I want to know where they stood last week, last year and stuff too. I want to discuss their record.
It is part of the process of vetting a candidate.
It’s not childish and pathetic to debates and argue over which candidate best represents our (my) views.
I want to know if a candidate is an insider. I want to know if a candidate thinks Freddie Mac is a “model agency” and lobbied to defend it from more oversight. I want to know if a candidate thought we should do something to stop AGW. I want to know if he endorsed and campaigned a leftist like Scozzafava over a conserevative. I want to know if he supported TARP and bailouts or is pro-illegal alien or favors an individual healthcare mandate.
These issues matter. They matter a lot. It is not childish to question their record.
It is stupid and childish to declare a candidacy over because he forgot a word or paused to collect his thoughts. It is stupid to call people names and say they hate your guy because of his religion when it’s not even an issue.
Of course people should argue for the candidate they think is better. That is sort of the whole point of this website, which one better represents us (or Jim Robinson :p)
You calling other FReepers "trolls" is one of the most blatant examples of projection I have ever seen on FR.
You want to neuter conservatism...
Vote for the Newter!
All that means naught.
Obama HAS to go.
A flip-floppin', backstabbin' R is still better than Obama on any given day.
Republicans piss on your leg and tell you it’s raining.....at least with Obama, the enemy is in plain sight.
The battered wife eventually walks away or is beaten to death.
SEE?!!further proof of man-made climate change!!!
Obama is like cancer, it kills the host. The worst Republican is like herpes, it's a pain in the @ss but we can still live with it.
Still not voting for Romney.
You will vote for Romney. If you don't, you'll end up with Occupy people in your house eating your food and stealing your internetz. Lol
Well good luck with all that but someone has to actually take a stand. John McCain was the last chance for the RINOs and I’m done.
I still have a senate race to look forward to but anything less than a solid conservative is going to lead to an Obama reelection.
I'm not sold on that idea. I still think there are plenty of people that can still fog a mirror that are fed up with Obama.
Do you think it's possible that maybe it's Mark Levin that didn't think this through far enough?
A few million dollars spent on the government study would be very well spent, if it proves that there is not an AGW / man-made global warming, or that the study may be "inconclusive" on AGW but proves conclusively that it will not be harmful even if there is a potential negligible effect of human activity (aka "living") on "global climate change," and that the hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars spent on "fighting" AGW is a huge waste of money and will do nothing but cause considerable financial pain and reduced standard of living, particularly for those who can least afford it, the lowest financial strata of the population (minorities, young people, students, women and children etc.)?
Then you could easily argue that affordable and sustainable "green energy" would mean nuclear (80% of electricity in France comes from nukes), natural gas, clean coal, and better oil exploration methods, rather than unsustainable, capital-expensive, hard and expensive to maintain, taxpayer-subsidized wind and solar forms of energy with a huge "environmental footprint"?
That "study" would essentially defund and defeat entire "climate change" movement in a flash - that's what Newt's "climate debate" with John F. Kerry was about, and that's what his "sitting on the couch with Nancy" was all about - not that he can really admit to trying to subvert, co-opt and hijack the "green movement" from under the nose of "progressives."
He may be hoping we can be a little smarter and look a little further than simply trying to get through to "occupiers" class with logic and science. How well did that head-to-head, "my scientist vs your scientists" approach work for conservatives so far? He is trying a more subtle, better approach than the ones that haven't worked for conservatives in decades.
Remember the Medicare... will wither on the vine" ads against Newt when he was trying to defund Medicare Finance Authority, for which he caught so much grief from liberals because he was open about it? Maybe it's time to use "progressive" / Alinsky's methods against liberals?
Scozzafava notwithstanding, ya think?
>> is be surly with a liberal media debate moderator and too many conservatives ...
Never a good idea to get surly with too many conservatives.
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.