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 [1] at his blog (emphasis added, h/t Terra Rossa [2]):
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.
“Green Conservatism”
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.
Prizes?!?!?
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.
Fuzzy thinking.
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.
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.