Gingrich Explains Why He Did Global Warming Ad With Pelosi

NewsBusters.org ^ | 2008-04-23 | Noel Sheppard

[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.

[org.whodat]

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.

[rjones42]

I don’t think it was a debate Newt.

[econjack]

Good idea, Newt...but the wrong approach. Doing ANYTHING with Pelosi is a slap in the face to a conservative simply because what she stands for is anathema to conservative principles. If you want to get your message out, doing it with Pelosi is the wrong way to do it because virtually everyone will see it a tacit approval of Pelosi’s message. I rarely disagree with you, Newt, but this time you're wrong.

[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.

[JaneNC]

Makes sense?

Not to anyone who knows global warming is the biggest hoax of the 21st century.

[Crazieman]

I reject the premise of the debate.

[SumProVita]

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.

[JaneNC]

No doubt, but Newt’s ad was about global warming.

That is what this thread is about

[neverdem]

Thanks for the link, but I couldn’t get it to work.

[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?

[Diogenesis]

"Us. Us. Us. Us."

[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.”