In the case of AGW, I think he was agreeing w/ the Dem.’s, not pandering to. When he did that ad w/ Nancy, many Republicans agreed w/ AGW as it was widely (not universally) accepted as science. He has since admitted the science was faulty while saying there is still dispute as to man’s role. That’s a whole lot different than saying man IS responsible.
He has also said he would drastically reform the DOE. He knows more about education than anyone else in the field & has stated his disgust w/ it’s current state.
As a CANDIDATE, I like what he has said about the areas that concern you. His views while sitting on the couch w/ Nancy were not recent, nor as a candidate.
What will he do now? I believe good things. BTW, who is your dog in the race? How does he hold up to your scrutiny?
Disagree totally!
This ad was in 2008, for Pete's sake, and it was for the purpose of promoting DEMOCRAT LEGISLATION, to wit, a national energy tax if not cap and trade.
As Krauthammer says:
“What he’s saying now is, unlike then when he thought global warming was real, he now is an agnostic,” Krauthammer said. “And he would not, obviously, have the government spend trillions on it, as he appeared to be advocating in the past.”
When asked where he stands on the issue of global warming, Gingrich admitted that he does not know if global warming is occurring. Science, he added, is also inconclusive on the issue.
By 2008, the vast majority of Republicans, including all of talk radio, had been raising vehement objections to the conclusions on AGW. Anyone who was the least tuned in to the conservative zeitgeist in America would have known that there was deep skepticism, if not outright ridicule of the theories of AGW by 2008 -- and that that skepticism was about to lead to a complete rejection of the AGW agenda, including epic failure of the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change summit and total conservative revolt against Cap and Trade.
Even in Europe, which was behind Americans in coming to reject AGW, by 2008 the signs were everywhere that the "science" was likely fraudulent and, in any regard, had not convinced anyone of the need, as Gingrich advocated, to spend TRILLIONS on addressing climate change.
For example:
2008: The Year Man-made Global Warming Was Disproved.
To the extent Rush is an indicator of what's being discussed among conservatives, Limbaugh had been bashing AGW since around 2006. In Feb. 2008, before Gingrich made his ad with Pelosi, Rush stated: The manmade global warming hoax thrives on faith, not facts.
And I don't buy any distinction between what Gingrich says as "not a candidate" and as a "candidate."
First of all, there should be no difference!
Secondly, someone like Gingrich knows he's always open to run for political office if the opportunity presents -- he's a politician!
So, whether he's a candidate or not, what he says and does matters because he means it or matters because it shows what types of things he'll pander to.
And, oh btw, the Al Sharpton tour was in 2009!!
Cain, I'll have to see how he responds to this recent rough patch. I'm very concerned about his lack of knowledge on a lot of subjects, but I think his conservative instincts are much better than Newt's. If Newt even has conservative instincts (as opposed to being only an "intellectual conservative") -- that's an open question, in my view.
I think Santorum has a lot to offer, except he has trouble making that connection with people and, unfortunately, that is a big part of what the country needs now. (I think that's part of Newt's problem, too -- sure, conservatives are a-twitter now because Newt is whupping up on people and they are getting a big kick out of it, but Newt has never had any sustained likeability over the years. So when Attack Newt has to go away, as he would if Gingrich becomes President, people should wonder what they'll be left with.)
I'd have no problem voting for Perry if he somehow became the nominee. His record has some horrible spots, too. And, really, since he sank so fast, his record has never really gotten the scrutiny that Newt's, as the frontrunner, is going to get. So, I reserve that caveat.
The others -- let's just hope we don't go there.
But why are you implying that it's pure bias, not the facts, that are driving my evaluation of Newt's or any other candidate's record?
That is not the case. Moreover, that's often just an excuse to justify blowing off an evaluation of the facts that one disagrees with.
You have finally answered my question and said that, in your opinion, Gingrich AGREED with the Democrats on global warming and on the need for legislation to address it.
I mostly agree with you. (I do think there is the chance that Gingrich was pandering and trying to up his "bipartisan" Democrat street-cred prior to a presidential run.)
And in my view, that was NOT a conservative position in 2008, and it shows a stunning lack of understanding of where conservatives were on the issue in 2008, and it demonstrates a lack of conservative political instincts.
Again, this is a gut problem for Newt. He certainly is an "intellectual conservative," but, imo, that is not enough to keep Bad Newt at bay.