The Pelosi-Gingrich Ad – My Response to Your Comments

I have read your thoughtful comments to my blog post from last week and hope this more thorough response answers some of your questions.

Entering the Arena:
Why Conservatives Must Engage in the Environment-Energy Policy Debate

Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican and a conservationist, once said “It’s not the critic who counts [but] the man who is actually in the arena;” the man who “knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions” and “shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”

For over 30 years, when it comes to the environment, most conservatives have been critics; we’ve been missing from the arena, and we’re paying the price.

It’s long been clear that we’re paying the price politically. Anti-environment conservatism can’t win elections in the northeast or on the coasts.

And now it’s clear we’re paying the price in terms of one of the most consequential public policy challenges we face: Energy independence. A conservatism that refuses to intellectually engage on the environment can not win arguments over energy.

The reason? Because moderate Republicans, independents, and moderate Democrats have come to see conservative Republicans as unreachable and unreliable on the environment. As a consequence, they have come to view all their energy proposals with skepticism and even hostility.

Nuclear power is a major component of any environmental strategy and yet its advocates have not had the standing to be heard.

Clean coal is an essential American resource (and a huge Chinese and Indian resource) and will have to be developed and yet its advocates have no environmental standing.

What passes for a conservative strategy on the environment has been to yell “No!” at any new initiative or even serious debate. The time has come to end the strategy of standing on the sidelines yelling “No!”

What conservatives too often narrowly – and mistakenly – dismiss as “environmentalism” really encompasses four very real, parallel challenges:

1. How do we develop the energy independence necessary to be able to ignore dictators and others who would exploit our energy dependence to the detriment of our national security?

2. How do we meet the challenge of a healthy environment in an age of rapid human economic development on a global basis?

3. How do we meet those two goals while maintaining the most productive and most prosperous economy in the world in competition with China and India?

4. How can we design policies for energy and the environment which increase freedom and give citizens more choices of higher quality at greater convenience and lower cost rather than accepting the left’s passion for policies which strengthen politicians, bureaucrats and trial lawyers but shrink the role of citizens and the freedom of entrepreneurs?

In answer to these questions, the Left wants to impose a new Washington-based, bureaucratic, high cost, high tax, command and control system on the entire country.

With the Warner-Lieberman carbon tax and trade bill [Senate Bill 2191] set to be voted on by the Senate in early June, America is on the edge of the most important debate about our future since Lyndon Johnson created his Great Society, big government, big welfare system in 1965. The Warner-Lieberman bill sets an overall limit on the amount of carbon that can be emitted in the United States and establishes an elaborate regulatory system to ensure compliance.

The Warner-Lieberman bill is a fitting example of this kind of big government, big bureaucracy, high cost, politician dominated system. A better name for it would be the “China and India Full Employment Act”.

Warner-Lieberman’s impact on the American economy will be dramatically higher costs for consumers and employers. It will make it much less likely that investors would want to build future plants and create future jobs in the United States.

I disagree with leftwing solutions like Warner-Lieberman, which ignore the economic and national security implications of their attempts to protect the environment.

And I also disagree with those conservatives who believe Americans don’t care about the environment and who advocate ignoring environmental issues and concerns.

The fact is Americans want all four goals met. They want their environment, their energy independence, their national security and their economy all strengthened and protected.

Polling done by American Solutions shows that 95% of Americans agree that we have an obligation to be good stewards of God’s creation for future generations. And what’s more, Americans believe that this stewardship should be based on innovation, entrepreneurialism and incentives, not government, bureaucracy and regulations. By a margin of 79 to 15, Americans think we can solve our environmental problems faster and cheaper with innovation and new technology than with more litigation and more government regulation.

Americans also understand – by a margin of 78 to 18 – that our energy dependence on foreign oil makes us vulnerable to some of the world’s most dangerous dictatorships. That’s why 65% of us support building more nuclear power plants to cut carbon emissions and building more oil refineries to lower the cost of gas and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. (77 to 19).

Taken together, these data mean that a whopping average of 77% of Americans believe in an incentivized, entrepreneurial, science and technology based approach to energy and the environment.

Put simply, three-quarters of the American people support conservative values when it comes to being good stewards of the earth. But when is the last time you saw a conservative campaign with a pro-environmental ad?

When was the last time you saw a conservative candidate campaign enthusiastically for a better environmental future with greater biodiversity and a better outdoors?

Conservatives haven’t, and it’s costing us. Jack Kemp taught me a long time ago that “people have to know that you care before they care that you know.” The fact is, the environment matters to most Americans. If we want their support to build a governing majority we have to prove to them that the environment matters to us too.

That’s one of the reasons I co-authored Contract with the Earth last year with Terry Maple. Contract With the Earth begins to outline the contours of what I call Green Conservatism. Green Conservatism is science and technology focused, fact based, market oriented, incentive led, entrepreneurial environmentalism. By contrast, leftwing environmentalism is symbolic, emotionally defined, regulation and litigation oriented, punishment and cost increase led, bureaucratic environmentalism.

But does being a Green Conservatives mean we buy into the left’s current crisis mentality on climate change, global warming, and carbon loading of the atmosphere? No, but it doesn’t mean we can continue to ignore these issues.

Let me be clear where I stand:

First, the climate is always changing and has changed throughout the earth’s history. But the fact is that there are now billions of people on the planet and collectively we can have an enormous impact. We have a moral obligation to be prudent stewards of the earth. Paying attention to the climate is a legitimate concern for conservatives, as is concern for biodiversity, for clean air, for adequate water supplies and a host of other concerns.

Second, I do not know if the climate is warming or not. There is some evidence the larger impact of the sun may be about to send us into a long cooling period.

One of my hobbies has been paleontology. It is a fact that 11,000 years ago the Gulf Stream stopped for reasons we cannot explain. Europe immediately plunged into a little Ice Age. Some 600 years later the Gulf Stream started up again for reasons we do not know and the little Ice Age ended.

And as an amateur paleontologist I am very skeptical of the popular vote model of climatology the United Nations is currently passing off as science. Science is the search for truth by the use of facts and arguments – not the lockstep voting of a politicized herd.

That said, I am convinced that humans are increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. I am also convinced that with China and India becoming more prosperous the amount of carbon loading will increase substantially.

As a conservative I believe that conservation and caution are key components of our outlook. So if I can find a strategy which will reduce carbon loading without hurting the American economy I am in favor of it. And if I can find a strategy which also reduces our dependence on foreign sources of energy and liberates us from the threat of dictators cutting us off or blackmailing us, then I am for it.

For example, if America produced as large a share of its electricity from nuclear power as France we would take 2,200,000,000 metric tons of carbon out of the atmosphere every year.

Let me repeat this because it is so profound: By itself, a robust modern nuclear power industry in the United States would produce a 15% more positive environmental impact than the failed Kyoto Treaty.

Second strategic example: America is to coal what Saudi Arabia is to oil. If we can build a next generation clean coal generating plant which recaptures the carbon it emits we can liberate the use of America’s largest energy source.

China and India are going to continue expanding their coal plant investment. And interestingly, despite all the talk about the European commitment to carbon tax and trade and the European commitment to Kyoto, the Europeans are dramatically expanding their coal plant generating system as well.

One of the key differences between the regulatory approach and the innovative, entrepreneurial approach is our recognition that without a low cost breakthrough in clean energy development, China and India will simply not participate in any global climate change coordination plan. Therefore, any realistic environmental strategy on a global basis has to emphasize science, technology, innovation and cost reduction.

These are just two examples of ways we can advocate conservative approaches in a robust – and winnable – debate over the future of the earth. But in the end, Americans don’t see this as a partisan issue. They’re tired of the red versus blue mentality that pits group against group. Most Americans believe there is a lot more that brings us together then drives us apart. They want a red, white and blue future.

That’s why I am prepared to work with Vice President Al Gore in raising awareness but I am also willing to debate Vice President Gore and Speaker Nancy Pelosi over which philosophy leads to solutions that best protect both the economy and our environment.

Our future in energy, the environment, the economy and national security is important enough that we as conservatives should be prepared to have a dialogue about it with fellow Americans whose concern is real but whose proposed solutions would be destructive.

One thing I am sure of: If we don’t engage in this debate, we are sure to lose it. I hope more of my fellow conservatives will join me.

TagTag | Email Email | Print Print |
By Anonymous @ Monday, April 20, 2009 1:25 PM
Your analysis is on target. This is the type of fresh analysis that will win elections. I read nothing in your column that would turn off the Republican base, but much that would expand that base. Global warming is not the issue. The issue is wise use of our natural resources, and leaving our environment in better shape for our children.

Kudos, Newt.

By Anonymous @ Sunday, March 15, 2009 2:52 PM
Thank you very much for the information I really appreciate it!!

Kamagra discount
Buy kamagra

By Anonymous @ Sunday, March 15, 2009 11:05 AM
Thank you very much for the information I really appreciate it!!
Cure Herpes Simplex
Cure Herpes

By Anonymous @ Wednesday, December 10, 2008 4:40 PM
There is no such thing as human-caused global warming. If there were, the only cure would be to switch over completely to clean, safe, efficient nuclear power.

So, let's just decide to agree with the idiots who believe humans have caused a global warming crisis, if they'll agree to replace our fossil-fueled plants with nuclear powered plants. It's a win-win situation.

A carbon-credit system will destroy the economy of the United States.

By Anonymous @ Sunday, October 05, 2008 10:05 PM
If a politician says anything less then, "Global Warming is a total crock of sh*t," I will not vote for that politician. You Global Warmists are more dangerous then Communists.

Chuck Baldwin 2008.

By Anonymous @ Thursday, September 04, 2008 4:32 PM
You Neo-Republicans don't deserve to be in the grand old party!

Subsidizing windmills and solar panels won't effect oil imports one cent. Totally converting all COAL power plants and all NUCLEAR power plants and all HYDRO power plants and all GAS power plants won't effect oil imports one cent.

You are making the American people stupid with your energy propaganda.

By Anonymous @ Wednesday, August 06, 2008 10:04 PM
OK. You did it for the money. How much did you get?

By Anonymous @ Friday, August 01, 2008 6:28 PM
I'm a lifelong Independent who's voting Republican this election. I've also been pro-environment since the early 70's, and have striven to do what I could to help us have a healthier environment since then. Green conservatism is one of the main reasons I'm supporting Republican candidates. The Democrats are a mess. Here I see hope.

Beaurocracies, what aggravation! We do not want the dang government running every step of our transition into the new era of energy!!!

While there have to be laws to protect against abuse and willful destruction, basic common sense stuff, beyond that we need a free moving "system" to help us create our own energy future.

Stay the course, Mr. Speaker.

By Anonymous @ Thursday, June 12, 2008 12:43 PM
It is unfortunate that you have chosen t go over to the "dark side" (much like our "Governator"). I agree that the environment is important, but collusion with the enemy is not the way to forward your ideas. She is the most predominant example in Washington that Communism/Socialism is alive and well in that town. Nothing at all should be done to legitimize her and her ilk in any form. I am very disappointed in your actions in this case. Hopefully you will return “back to the light” soon.

By Anonymous @ Tuesday, May 27, 2008 8:01 AM
Clean Coal is not a failure of the Department of Energy, it is a failure of politicians who don't understand basic science. It is a failure because Clean Coal isn't as profitable as just burning coal to drive a turbine, and pumping a bajillion cubic meters of carbon dioxide into the ground takes a bajillion joules of energy and therefore it is unprofitable.

And neither is the failure of NASA to put a man on Mars. Space exploration is a failure because propulsion technology is still stuck in World War 2, Werner Von Braun technology. Burning hydrogen and oxygen in a big heavy metal bell shaped container. Chemical rockets ain't getting humanity anywhere, and giving people false hope is just plain evil.

Stop making promises you can't deliver on politicians. You can't break the laws of physics with votes and concensus.

By Anonymous @ Friday, May 23, 2008 8:25 AM
Newt--your book, Window of Opportunity in 1982, was my conservative awakening. I'm reading your "Day of Infamy" now. I've considered you the conservative standard bearer in US politics for many years.

But when you decided to do the GW add with Pelosi, you completely lost it. None of your explanations come close to addressing the point that the ad makes clear that you believe in the hoax. You want to win the debate with facts? Well, with that appearance you concede the debate before it even starts. Game, set, match...let's move on to the policy prescriptions that will gut our free market economy, destroy our way of life, so we can fix the terrible problem with which you just agreed. Nancy Pelosi, of all people--she's made you a fool.

Surely, Newt, you can see the parallel of this to Barack Obama's insistence that the President is foolish not to meet and negotiate in good faith with our enemies. You've thrown in your lot with dangerously ignorant, pandering fools.

Have they really broken you, Newt? Say it aint so!

By Anonymous @ Wednesday, May 21, 2008 6:41 AM
"Energy independence" is protectionist talk.

A big free-trader (NAFTA/WTO/China/guestworkers/immigration) guy like you should be bashing Ross Perot or Pat Buchanan instead of talking about "energy independence."

What's the deal, don't like foreign countries controlling your destiny? I thought Saudi Arabia has a comparative advantage in crude oil.

By Anonymous @ Tuesday, May 20, 2008 1:13 PM
You want energy independance and you intend to get there by agreeing with the people that won't allow nuclear power plants? won't allow coal plants? won't allow us to drill oil off our own coast while china sucks it dry? Are you really this confused or do you think the climate is poll driven?

You need to seperate yourself from that ad fast. It was a big mistake and it's time to admit it. CO2 is not a primary temperature driver. It had a very small effect. Yet that ad made it clear to me that you believe it is. Now my question is: was that a scientific decision or a political science decision?

We should be building nuclear power plants. Converting to coal. Using shale oil. Using the oil that is in open territory and that others will use as a minimum, and we should be drilling our own here in the US.

And you wonder why people like me can hardly see enough of a difference between the two parties to bother to vote. Let the DEmocrats win then at least the screw ups can't be blamed on my vote.

By Anonymous @ Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:21 AM
You want to manipulate the domestic energy market with subsidies and regulation, but you won't do anything about the falling dollar or OPEC.

Typical free trader. You guys are doing the exact opposite of what will work. You are suppose to:

-Engage in trade aggression to break OPEC up, starting with Venezuela. That means slapping tariffs on everything Venezuela exports to the US, except OIL, until they leave OPEC. When Venezuela leaves OPEC, then you move onto the next OPEC country.

-Stop the massive trade deficit which is devaluing the international dollar, which in turn makes OIL imports more expensive.

-Stop exporting jobs to 3rd world dictatorships and Communist countries. This will reduce demand since their economies are artificially propped up by free trade.

-Remove subsidies and regulation on the domestic energy market, nuclear will eventually come out on top since it is the least subsidized.

"Clean coal", gawd. I can't imagine a dumber way to generate electricity. You know how much energy it takes to compress carbon dioxide and pump it into the ground? Is there any power generation left after that? How insane.

By Anonymous @ Tuesday, May 20, 2008 12:15 AM
Newt's intentions may be good, but his desire to not take on the AGW hype machine hammer and tong is bad strategy and not the Newt of old. Newt, you of all people should know that you can NEVER make a good policy decision based on flawed assumptions!

The Gore claim that AGW is a crisis is a very flawed assumption!

Al Gore is a globaloney FEARMONGER. For newt to say that he will dialog with Al Gore without refuting the alarmist excesses and false claims of Al Gore is a huge huge mistake. If Al Gore were right about CO2, that we'd have 20 feet of sea level rise, yes, it might require banning coal plants or other extreme measures right now.

But Al Gore is wrong. His claim of ice sheet melting is unscientific fearmongering hogwash. The models the IPCC used to predict the impact of CO2 dont predict the extremes Al Gore does, and even those models are proving to be exaggerations of the actual temperature changes.

We have had no real warming for 10 years globally. In 2008, USA had temperatures lower than 1988 and 1934. No warming! Why Newt wont you mention that? or the fact that the 'hockey stick' by Mann etal. that Gore used in his movie was debunked (See "climate Audit" blog), and despite Gore's phony claim about recent cyclone, new studies are showing no link from warming to hurricanes. Data on cloud and water feedbacks is showing that the climate is not as sensitive to CO2 as Gore and NASA's Hansen claim.

Sea level rises in millimeters and a 1.2C rise from doubling CO2 in 100 years is what is likely effect of man-made Co2 impact; not a crisis. AGW is not a crisis, but a moderate and manageable trend.

Newt, we can still actnowledge some CO2 influence, while pointing out Gore is a fearmonger *and* looking towards the technology and market solutions, including nuclear power that you tout, and which I agree with 100%.

If we build 20 nuclear power plants/year for the next 40 years, then by 2050, and with the adoption of widespread plug-in electric and hybrid cars, we could have displaced 2/3rds of Co2 emissions in USA.

Solving the issue of CO2 emissions is very easy if was accept and adopt more nuclear power.

By John Ashman @ Monday, May 19, 2008 1:21 PM
Charkins, well put.

If Republicans jump on the 'global warming' bandwagon, they look like latecomers and have to bend to whatever the left wants or look foolish. IF, however, they shift the focus to energy independence as the goal, they can get far more people on their side and have more control over the debate.

As in "We don't know enough about global warming to know that this should be a goal in and of itself, but we do know that we need to get off of foreign oil and this alone will help the environment, lower carbon emissions, control energy costs, help control terrorism, fuel the economy and *possibly* help with global warming all at the same time". Keep the focus on ALL of the benefits associated with energy independence, not cede it to the 'Earth first' crowd by even appearing to agree that it's all about global warming. It isn't. Otherwise, we might as well just join the Green Party now and be done with it.

By John Ashman @ Monday, May 19, 2008 1:00 PM
Let me give you an example. I don't drive automatic vehicles because it's a waste of power and fuel. I've taught 6 other people who never drove a manual how to drive them, now they all drive manuals. I needed a big car, but managed to find a car that's bigger on the inside than most SUVs, but gets 26mpg in the city, up to 30mpg on the highway. I would have bought the 46mpg diesel version had it been available. I ride a motorcycle that gets 60mpg. My constantly needed work pickup truck, despite having a V6 manual, still only gets about 18mpg, so I moved my store so that it is 1 mile from my home instead of a 'whopping' 5 miles and can easily bicycle or even walk there when I don't need the pickup.

Are there any other "conservatives" willing to ignore the global warming debate and just do their part to simply conserve energy so we can get off foreign oil, regardless of the reason?

By Anonymous @ Monday, May 19, 2008 11:22 AM
To heck with debates, arguments, name calling. Call it global warming, call it energy independence, call it tired of expensive gas. What is each one of you willing to give up or do? 12 mpg SUVs? Solar panels on your roof? Have a diesel vehicle? A motorcycle? That's the question.

By Anonymous @ Sunday, May 18, 2008 1:24 PM
Fine let's "engage in a debate."

Ethanol is a failure, biodiesel is a failure, you can't break the conservation of energy, nuclear power doesn't produce hydrocarbons, the Earth's temperature is self regulating (strong-Gaia), solar and wind are expensive as hell, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, ANWR is a tundra wasteland, a Honda Civic made in 1973 got 35 MPG, a Honda Civic made in 2007 got 35 MPG, OPEC is a monopoly, and Ross Perot was right about NAFTA and illegal immigration.

I studied physics for 4 years and I say environmentalists are scientific heretics.

By Anonymous @ Sunday, May 18, 2008 1:17 PM
Nuclear power produces voltage, oil wells produce Hydrocarbons (hydrogen atoms and carbon atoms). What the hell does one have to do with another?

As a free-trader you should recognize Saudi Arabia's "Comparative Advantage" in crude oil. This is what you free-traders wanted is it not? Suck it up and pay through the nose, we dumb protectionists are laughing.

By Anonymous @ Saturday, May 17, 2008 11:29 PM
So, like, in order to be in the arena, you have to accept the hoax? I will never get over Ronald Reagan but I am so over you and the GOP. Don't send me any more fundraising stuff.

By charkins @ Saturday, May 17, 2008 2:36 PM
Promoting a National Plan for Energy Independence is absolutely the way to reengage the conservatives and begin to redefine the discussion away from global warming to a more solution-oriented approach. We can't engage with the left on their terms, however conservatives have a long way to go to even be heard on the subject, so baby steps are in order. Using global warming lingo doesn't mean we agree with their ideas but it does make them listen. It doesn't matter how loud you yell if no one is listening. If you disengage entirely you have simply handed the microphone to the left and they will use their surrogates in the media and on college campuses to render you irrelevant. Newt's move to engage with Pelosi is not only brilliant strategy, but also necessary in order to enter the arena of ideas where he can begin to redirect the discussions towards meaningful solutions and away from the standard bureaucratic, Big Government morass.

By Anonymous @ Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:24 PM
As a conservative, I have given up on the Republican Party. I say, F*** 'em all! F*** the Dems for holding to their flawed and misguided principles. F*** the Republicans for not holding to the Conservative principles which have proven to be winners by Reagan et. al.

By Anonymous @ Wednesday, May 14, 2008 12:29 AM
Mr. Speaker,
As I sit here and watch this country go down the tubes all due to the lack of resolve of so called conservatives, and their inability to push through an energy bill that would drill, build refineries and nuclear plants.
I am disgusted that Pres. Bush went to Saudi Arabia to beg them to increase oil production.
John Mccain will impose a cap and trade on carbon emissions,and destroy this nation.
What choice do I have ? I will not vote for him or anyone that can not see the writing on the wall.
I admire your attempt to get on the Global warming band wagon, but the truth is this hoax is nothing more than wealth redistribution.
Fight this fight with facts, fight this fight from the position of the right, don't fight this on their terms, don't use their terminology, use your God given right to resist these socialists and show them that conservatives and capitalism in a free market will free us from mideast and chavez oil,and that the Sun is what governs climate change.
PS: the Sun is made of incandescent gas,so does that mean Gov. Shwartzenegger will Ban It?

By John Ashman @ Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:13 PM
Personally, I don't care why we strive for energy independence as long as we do. If saying that global warming exists allows us to build nuclear power plants, then it's worth it. If it allows Republicans to take over the issue by offering government backed loans for solar panel acquisition or allows us to build algae factories in the desert, it's worth it.

My only suggestion to Republicans is that it should be framed as "energy independence" first and foremost. Lower CO2 emissions is a nice benefit, just in case we're influencing global warming. I think we should shoot for 100% energy independence by 2020. That seems doable to me if we can bring enough clean coal plants, nuclear plants, ANWAR and bio-diesel factories online. But we need to start NOW, not tomorrow.

By Anonymous @ Tuesday, May 13, 2008 12:58 PM
The problem with your position on global warming is that you are accepting the premise that man is resposible by putting CO2 into the atmosphere. First of all many scientists say that CO2 is not responsible for global warming or of little significance, it is water vapor that has the most effect on the earth's warming. Secondly, man's effect on the environment is so miniscule compared to other natural phenomenon that we couldn't change the climate no matter what we did. This is the argument we should bring to the debate. It's all based on bogus science.

By Anonymous @ Tuesday, May 13, 2008 12:23 PM
Mr. Speaker,

You're right that we must engage in the debate and that we must offer a positive, conservative alternative to the environmentalist wackos.

But words and images mean things. We are validating the other side, to a great degree when we use their language and accept their presuppositions. The Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John McCain side of the chasm assumes the validity of global warming, the inherent evil of the use of fossil fuels, and the culpability of mankind (especially America). The Al Gore version is nothing short of a pantheistic eco-religion. Fighting on their terms and on their turf cedes them legitimacy...and victory.

By rogerroney @ Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:44 AM
You're correct that conservatives must engage on the environment in order to gain credibility on energy, so here is my solution to that requirement.
Long term the solution is an Apollo-style program to get America on Nuclear power. To sell the idea for the long term we market the concept that to be for fossil fuels even reduced consumption of fossil fuels is to be in favor of more greenhouse gases.
Short term, we do 2 things simultaneously -- we open the Strategic Reserve to open market sales at a fixed price of $50 per barrel, AND we announce the new Strategic Reserve will be developed in a place called ANWR.
The net effect of this short term fix will be to drive market prices of oil down significantly, and create a threat vis a vis ANWR that we can do it again if prices get out of control. This will help the Republican Brand in the Fall when consumers will vote their pocket books. And Democrats will be forced to go along with a Republican initiative in order to avoid looking like they are against the "Little Guy".

By Anonymous @ Monday, May 12, 2008 11:28 PM
I do not want to be led by the Northeast and West Coast (and Midwest) liberals who drove our policy to corn based ethanol which is now creating food shortages, harming the environment, and increasing energy costs - all while having a worse carbon impact than oil. Republican failure to articulate an aggressive energy policy, like drilling for oil, at a time when gas prices are going up with no end in sight will cause them to lose in a huge way this year. And they deserve to lose.

By Anonymous @ Monday, May 12, 2008 11:00 PM
Conservatives don't need to be in the debate, or at least there needs to be a debate to begin with. Everyone, and by that I mean politicians, has immediately decided that the debate should end or that there was already a debate that ended.
If we look back in history, we see there was call for immediate change, apparently global cooling was on our heels.
Then before that there was global warming.
And now we have global warming, but according to NASA the water has stayed the same temperature for the past 5 years and other scientists are arguing that since January 2007 and January 2008 the temperature has dropped .07 Celsius.
Want a debate? Look at the facts.
I do have tremendous respect for you, but with all due respect, you need to look at this as a debate, not a one sided argument.
And please, do not lecture us that the reason the Republicans lost was because politicians didn't argue for conservation. You want to know why Republicans lost? Easy, it's very easy. The politicians, I won't say we as Republicans because, well, it's a problem the politicians brought on themselves, failed because, well, you failed. You grew the government to an even larger size than LBJ's, you spent money to solve every single problem that the government didn't need to be involved with, you hurt the economy, Ben Bernanke and his ridiculous policy of raising interest rates so fast, and the failure of the politicians to get us oil, ANWR, California, and Florida. You want to know why you failed? You sold your soul for political office. Good riddance to all the politicians that brought this on themselves, good riddance to them all. Too bad their only replacements are democrats.

By Anonymous @ Monday, May 12, 2008 9:21 PM
Oh, Newt. Why did you sit there with Pelosi in that ad and publicly accept the socialist-environmentalist bunk about "climate change? Why?

We conservatives are not interested in polluting. But we are also not interested in ANY way supporting the leftist "climate change" agenda of that is going to make all Americans continue to pay, and pay, and pay, and pay, and pay for boondoggle public policy based on specious science as well as for the neo-collectivist movement toward social control that's hitching its wagon to that "science".

Before saying one more public word about climate change or taking one more step toward a policy that will be a disaster for America and that will most certainly NOT "Win the Future," please contact a reputable objector to climate change, such as M.I.T. professor Richard Lindzen. I implore you to reconsider how we Americans are being sold a giant, disastrous bill of goods about the fairytale of _MAN-MADE_ global warming.

Al Gore and his zealots merely want to dictate to you, me, and everyone how we are supposed to crimp our lifestyles and abridge our liberty when we ordinary Americans have done absolutely nothing wrong! Don't let 'em get away with it, Newt! God Save America!

By John Ashman @ Monday, May 12, 2008 11:43 AM
While I don't agree with the below POV, it does reinforce why we need to focus on the goal of energy independence and all of the wonderful benefits it brings, rather than climate change. If we do everything we can on energy independence, we will reduce emissions, lower energy usage, lower total energy costs, improve the economy, less the need for military expenditures and we can simply ignore Hugo Chavez while freeing us up to do whatever needs to happen in Iran without destroying our economy.

John McCain said that fighting terrorism was THE transcendent goal of out time, but the more I thought about it, energy independence *should be* the transcendent goal as a victory in this would help create our biggest victory in the war on terrorism. Aside from this, the 'war on terrorism' is wearing us all out. We need a positive goal that has positive results that we can see in our day to day lives and gives us hope, like putting a man on the moon. We can achieve energy independence, we can never totally stop terrorism. We can never stop drug use. We can never stop prostitution. Energy independence is something we can do.

By Anonymous @ Monday, May 12, 2008 8:28 AM
Newt, I am pleased that you are concerned about our polluting the air, land, and water, but I must again tell you that puny man is unable to adjust or change the climate that God created for Himself and for the human race to live under.

Yes, there has been climate change for about 6000 years, ever since God created the heaven and the earth. He established the "seasons" for days, and years. (Read Genesis 1:1-31. That which God created for Himself and for man to live under cannot be changed by the selfish works of mankind. God replenishes His earth for His own glory and not for man's destructive ways.

Yes, emphasize our need to stop polluting the air, land, and waters, but don't try to get into powers that only God has and can execute. All of your words and all of Al Gore's words cannot and does not change the climate of the earth. There are still only four seasons of the year and these seasons haven't changed for the 6000 years of the earth's existence. We still have summer, fall, winter, and spring. Some seasons are more predominant in one year than they are in other years. There is only ONE Who is able to destroy this earth, and He and He alone shall destroy the earth in the resurrection.

Again, let us work to control pollutions, but let us cease the scare tactics of so-called "climate change".

By Anonymous @ Sunday, May 11, 2008 3:19 PM
As an addendum, it seems to me that some people here are quick to criticize Newt and for what reason? I can't remember a politician who was able to accomplish so much in so little time, while sacrificing his long term political viability. If every politician were willing to sacrifice their careers on principle and accomplishment as Newt has done, imagine how much better of we might be right now. Watching Newt's political career was like watching the movie 300.

By Anonymous @ Sunday, May 11, 2008 1:46 PM
It seems to me that the real problem is that Democrats are the ones saying 'no'. No to nuclear power plants, no to more refining, no to anything 'in my back yard', no to windmills that might kill a bird, no to Alaska, no to coal.

The strategy, then, needs to be taking over the argument, asserting that complete and green energy is possible within 12 years and mounting a 'man on the moon' type of effort to get use there, utilizing EVERY method available.

Putting our focus on energy independence brings along with it earth and economic friendly benefits. No money leaving the country for oil. No need to involve our selves as greatly in the Middle East. Less on military, more on economic prosperity. Hurting the power of tyrants by reducing their cash flow.

There are initiatives that can drop significantly the amount of fuel we use -

1. Smarter stoplights for better traffic flow within cities.
2. Diverting some road money towards more paths and roads for low speed vehicles such as electric cars, bicycles, mopeds.
3. Requiring all vehicles to have a no additional cost biodiesel option (keep in mind that I searched in vain for ANY compact, high mileage diesel pickup such as those in Europe/Asia and failed).
4. Requiring that all vehicles have manual, automated manual or CVT transmissions rather than lossy automatic transmissions would save nearly 10% in fuel economy alone within a few years.
5. Capping engine power output, engine size and weight of passenger vehicles would dramatically improve fuel consumption.
6. Requiring that each make has at least one product that exceeds 50mpg on the highway as part of its mix would force car companies to innovate.
7. Reclassifying SUVs as passenger vehicles, not trucks would make a huge dent in fuel consumption.
8. Lower taxes on diesel to keep it below the cost of gasoline, while slowly raising taxes on gasoline.
9. Invest heavily in algae based bio diesel.
10. Easy, low interest loans for solar investment for business and home such as in Germany

Just these things alone could dramatically improve our situation. Republicans are supportive of the war on terror, they should be able to get behind a "War for Energy Independence". The fact that these will solve many of our environmental, economic and foreign policy issues at the same time simply adds to the attractiveness of it.

I would have purchased both of my vehicles with diesel fuel engines had they been available. We need to improve our ability to choose more fuel efficient vehicles even if we have to put the force of legislating more choice. These vehicles are available everywhere but in the US where we need them most.

By Tillie @ Sunday, May 11, 2008 10:59 AM
Newt, I agree we need to be part of the debate. John McCain is O.K and realizes he needs to compromise with the Liberals to get anything done. And I think you see the problem too--the DEMS have had CONGRESS now for 2yrs and created a MESS. People find it easier to blame one person-Bush, a Republican for all the problems and the current Congress Republicans are not making it clear that they out voted by DEMS---worse, they go along for fear.
TERRIBLE situation.
Global warming? Al Gore has created a myth to make money and this TERM IS DANGEROUS. Remember in the 80s it was GLOBAL FREEZING???? And does anyone recall that.
I am glad to see you support exploration for OIL, using coal, atomic energy, and bio fuels that are non foods. The Republicans need a leader to create a platform or they are going to be picked off, one by one.
We have already lost 2 Rep. in Congress because people are excited about Obama who sings changes and means OLD SOCIALISM.

By Anonymous @ Saturday, May 10, 2008 11:53 AM
So Newt, John McCain and their ilk have hijacked the term 'conservative' and are redefining it to suit them.

Apparently, they plan to reshape the Republican party to fit their 'country club' personna and to be free of controversy by 'going along' with the dems.

Which leaves us 'Reagan Conservatives' leaderless at the moment.

The only reason I could have for forcing myself to swallow my bile and vote for John McCain is to prevent the slaughter of the Iraqi people, who have supported us.

But some 'Reagan Conservative' commentators make the case that the dems would not percipitously pull out of Iraq; that they are just saying what the left wants to hear right now. (Sort of like the RINOS telling us on the right what we want to hear).

They also make the case that it will be much better to have the dems in power screwing up our lives with idiocy for the next four years. Then they will be clearly identified as the culprits and there will be a longing for those on the right to correct the mess.

Makes sense to me. If we give the power to the RINOs, the public won't know who's to blame.

Which might explain the RINOs behavior. Maybe they don't want the public to see who's to blame!

Maybe politicians just want to be one muddy crowd these days. I'm totally convinced they are thinking first and foremost of themselves and their wealth and their power.

Unless I become convinced that McCain is the only way to prevent Iraqis from being slaughtered, I'm writing in a vote come November.

Actually, who can say that John McCain wouldn't cause the slaughter of the Iraqis?

If he felt it would win him support with the liberals and moderates, he'd do it.

That man is a loon! Who knows where that 'Maverick' is headed? He dwells in 'John McCainland'.

By Anonymous @ Friday, May 09, 2008 9:55 PM
By appearing with Pelosi on an Al Gore sponsered ad on "the environment", you have basically supported Gore's position that there is a scientific concensus - that MAN MADE global warming is a problem that will lead to catastrophic events. I thought that a conservative tenet was always to stand for principle and be true to your core values. Giving in to the global climate change hysteria (and pandering to socialist environmentalist) for the sake of getting votes is very very troubling. If you think that the MAN MADE global climate change discussion will be contained within the boundaries of the US - you are wrong. You have opened up the discussion to the international communities who view the US as the MAIN cause of the global warming problem. They will create international policy bodies which will impose restrictions, regulations, taxes, penalties and fees on the US economy - something they have wanted to do for ever. Your conversion to the MAN MADE global warming crew will only add credibility to their arguments.

By Anonymous @ Friday, May 09, 2008 9:30 PM

I’m an environmentalist and a conservative. And I don’t believe in
Gorebull Warming. Unfortunately the environmentalist Zealots are ruling the day and I think for one you should demand a debate on CO2 and AGW. Get their best scientist and we get ours and have a real debate.

The geological records show that CO2 follows temperature for the past 600,000 years not the other way around.

The IPCC says the oceans will rise about 18 inches in the next century. Al Gore says 20 feet.

Etc, ect

If they have to base their argument on lies and misrepresentations they have a problem. Let's focus on real pollution and energy production period.

Demand debate! Demand debate! Demand debate! Demand debate!

By Anonymous @ Friday, May 09, 2008 2:20 PM
Hey Thursday, May 08, 2008 6:40 PM,
Emotional responses!? Hell, we're just restating the obvious. We ain't got any leadership on our side. Everybody pretending to be in leadership is just trying to seek cover by agreeing with the other side to one degree or another. Nobody is standing up and saying anything that makes sense. "The debate is over" because we now agree with them. Look out for the socialist agenda in the name of Global Warming coming soon to your town.

By Tillie @ Friday, May 09, 2008 9:36 AM
As for energy, we need to drill for oil in the U.S--off shore, in Alaska, everywhere----NOW. Had we started 10 yrs ago, we would be energy independent. Yes, we need alternatives, but NOT CORN which is driving the price of food sky hi.
We need nuclear---hey, if the French can do it we CAN.
WE MUST use COAL. Hilter used coal for gas---that was way back. WE CAN do that now.
I don't much care to see you with Pelosi--who is so ultra liberal, she falls off the map.
SO YES REPUBICANS must stand for MORE drilling in the U.S. now. more exploratioins of other alternatives, ENcourage the oil companies rather than punish them.
NOW or else the U.S will be defeated by those OIL countries who will Own us.

By Anonymous @ Thursday, May 08, 2008 8:32 PM
Okay Senator High and Lofty, sitting up in Washington for years now, along with the likes of John McCain; the all of you--Democrats and Republicans, you've none nothing but enrich yourselves.

And you're so smart-calling conservatives 'anti-environment'; reaching across the aisle to sit in Nancy Pelosi's lap; having time to write books you'd like us all to buy...

Just one question, with all your new moderate friends--why are Republicans having such a crisis with winning elections and raising funds?

Are you sure it's because you're not doing enough to appease moderates and liberals?

Has it occurred to you at any level that they have their own party--it's called 'Democrat'? Why do they need to support Republicans?

By Anonymous @ Thursday, May 08, 2008 6:40 PM
Reading Newt's post and all the comments has left me with many impressions:

Emotional responses are not owned solely by liberals, conservatives here are caught up in emotional responses as well. Its enough to make me want to weep. (thats a joke for all you literalist)

We are all missing the big issues here. While it is indisputable that the earth is warming, the cause(s) and term remain in dispute. The argument is also irrelevant to the energy equation. Energy from the carbon cycle must be replaced.

Conservation of energy is not an option. Even if we are extremely efficient and resourseful in the use of energy the world is going to need more, a lot more. Think compound growth. For the US and the rest of the world to raise its standard of living and support increasing population we will need enormous amounts of new energy.

Use of carbon based energy is an old school solution (so 20th century). Oil and coal are limited under any scenario unless you only think in terms of a few decades into the future. Seems short sighted when I think of my grandson's children living into the next century.

We need to get closer to the source. Solar energy and storage solutions (batteries) are the only way to go. It is about as unlimited a source as we can find. There are numerous companies working on really creative solutions that could make current mega companies seem small in comparison. The cool thing is that it would or could be a distributed system that would not be vulnerable to security risks that are inherent in any large plant operation. We can eliminate the need for oil from corrupt and unseemly sources (fill in the name of your favorite company or country), it is abundant, it is as clean as possible (nothing is comletely green). It makes much more growth possible, it leaves the air cleaner (CO2 may not be a pollutant, but there are many other noxious fumes that come out of a tail pipe or smoke stack).

And best of all, it doesn't require Kyoto and possibly could renew American's momentum as a world power (pun intended).

By Anonymous @ Thursday, May 08, 2008 1:24 PM
Newt, I agree with you that we need to be in discussion. Yes, the image with you and Pelosi is enough to tune out anything you say. I hope you know what your doing.

By Anonymous @ Thursday, May 08, 2008 10:38 AM
We all obviously want clean air and water. As you well know, nowhere in the Constitution does it state that IT'S A FUNCTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO SPEND TAXPAYERS' MONEY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS. Global warming is a Liberal/Leftist hoax to which we shouldn't give any credibility.

By Anonymous @ Thursday, May 08, 2008 9:30 AM
Newt, you are correct you must join the fray to be heard and effect change. What you mustn't do is give aid to the hoax. Yes I want a clean environment but that does not mean I spread the lie about "global warming" better known as the normal tempurature fluctuations.

By Anonymous @ Thursday, May 08, 2008 8:04 AM
You say that you do not know whether the earth is warming or not, yet is it not a fact that glaciers have been steadily melting over most of the world for at least the last hundred years? I have visited Alaska and have personally seen the evidence there, and based on the scientific articles I have read it certainly appears that glacial ice has been steadily declining throughout most of the world. What would cause ice to melt on a global scale other than warming on a global scale? The conventional "conservative" response is "well, maybe the earth is warming, but man's burning of fossil fuels has such a tiny impact compared to natural sources that man could not possibly be having any impact." Well, of course man's impacts are very tiny, otherwise wouldn't global warming be occurring at a much faster pace? The very gradual increase in CO2 in the atmosphere fits the very gradual warming that is being observed. Those who argue that it is not happening need to propose an alternate scenario that fits at least as well as the greenhouse theory. If you know of one, get in the arena and explain it. But, at the very least, either admit that the evidence is clear that the earth is warming or explain why that is not the case. If so-called conservatives could propose a reasonable explanation other than the build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is well documented, then perhaps someone other so-called conservatives would be willing to listen. Is this an arena that you are willing to enter?

By Anonymous @ Thursday, May 08, 2008 3:53 AM
Talking to a liberal politician reminds me of a typical conversation with my ex:

Me: What do you mean you don't understand?

Her: It's not that I don't understand you; it's just that I choose to ignore you.

Make an agreement with them Newt. If they let you propose three objectives backed by non-subjective arguments, they you'll agree to let them explain three of their positions PROVIDED THEY DON'T TRY TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

Good luck!

By Anonymous @ Thursday, May 08, 2008 1:04 AM
John Mccain can not beat them democrats. only R.P. congressman from Texas can, and you know it.

By Anonymous @ Wednesday, May 07, 2008 3:20 PM
Just another reason why you should run for the Presidency. We need someone that can look at a problem rationally - without all the hatred and emotion. I dislike Liberals because the more liberal they are, the less freedom I have. We need new ideas that work. I hope you consider 2012....

By Anonymous @ Wednesday, May 07, 2008 2:13 PM
I was shocked to see you sitting with Pelosi! All this AGW alarmism is truly disgusting. Time will show you to be a fool on this one, although no one seems ever held accountable. Ever hear of Capitalism? Let the markets work...when gas prices go up, people will shift to more fuel efficient cars. If prices keep going up then alternative sources of fuel/energy will become more cost-effective. There is no need for government interference and political opportunism...get it? You lost a lot of credibility with me when you jumped on the Algore bandwagon.

By Anonymous @ Wednesday, May 07, 2008 1:00 PM
Given the following quote:

"It’s long been clear that we’re paying the price politically. Anti-environment conservatism can’t win elections in the northeast or on the coasts.

And now it’s clear we’re paying the price in terms of one of the most consequential public policy challenges we face: Energy independence. A conservatism that refuses to intellectually engage on the environment can not win arguments over energy.

The reason? Because moderate Republicans, independents, and moderate Democrats have come to see conservative Republicans as unreachable and unreliable on the environment. As a consequence, they have come to view all their energy proposals with skepticism and even hostility."

What percentage of contributions made to Republicans is now coming from those moderates, liberals and independents you RINOs have reached out to?

Why are Republicans in trouble with collecting contributions?

Why elect Demo-lite when they can have the real deal leftie Dems?

You might want to rethink casting conservatives as anti-environment. We're actually just anti-insanity in the name of the environment.

By Anonymous @ Wednesday, May 07, 2008 12:51 PM
I agree with your Green conservatism 100%... I still disagree with your appearance (in the format which it appeared) with the she-devil.

I think ALL the conservatives that follow you understand and to varying degrees agree with you approach. But we must make SURE that people understand the differences between what WE believe should DRIVE the environmental discussion, and what the dimwits are scaring people into thinking. This is NOT a crisis and by coming across as you see and agree with this "crisis" you not any are n the stage, but have Mrs. P up on you shoulders so even more people will listen to her and the other's lies.

Rethink your approach speaker. We can be on the stage without holding hands. We can stand as the MAIN speaker on a realistic platform with answers as the demwits scream FIRE!! or WARMING...

American, especially the TV watching crowd NEEDS to understand the lines between false claims and true issue that need REAL solutions.

We know you have great ideas and 90+% of the time we communicate them well.

This time,,,, a swing and miss....

BTW: anti-environmentalism conservative,,, really speaker?? Really??

By Anonymous @ Wednesday, May 07, 2008 11:57 AM
I sure hope you weren't calling me an 'anti-environment conservative'.

Guess I'm now a 'maverick'. If John McCain can be one and go so far; it might serve the rest of us well at this point.

Especially now, when more than ever, the party formerly known as Republicans has become Democrat-lite.

By Anonymous @ Wednesday, May 07, 2008 11:44 AM
Gosh, Newt, I'm confused. You said, "It’s long been clear that we’re paying the price politically. Anti-environment conservatism can’t win elections in the northeast or on the coasts."

Now, I don't even know what anti-environment conservatism is--sounds a lot like what the left would call us.

But if memory serves me right, conservatives turned out in to contribute and elect what we thought was a conservative candidate for president.

We came back out in 2004 with our money and our votes and gave Republicans the house, senate and presidency. All this without the northeast or the coasts.

Then we watched Republicans squander their power and slide left as quickly as possible. We were insulted multiple times by John McCain and others.

In 2006 we said, we're not happy.

In 2008, we hear that the Republicans are hurting big time for donations to the cause.

How can that be when you RINOs have worked so hard to mollify the left, while giving the boot to conservatives?

After all, you've been appealing to the northeast and the coasts?

Where are your supporters now that you need them?

Wake up and smell the coffee, Newt.

The biggest pollution in this country is all the hot air coming out of Washington.

And John McCain married well. He can pay for his own damn campaign!

By Anonymous @ Wednesday, May 07, 2008 5:27 AM
Using nuclear generated electric power is like playing Russian Roulette with more empty chambers but the same deadly bullet (nuclear waste). Leaving the risk of widespread radioactive contamination to future generations violates one of our founding principles of a legitimate government.

By Anonymous @ Wednesday, May 07, 2008 3:12 AM
You keep saying that “anti-environment conservatives” can’t win elections in the north east or on the coasts. What the heck do you mean “anti-environment conservatives?” Are you implying that some of us Conservatives want dirty air and water? Please name me one Conservative individual that wants that. Just one.
Your building this whole argument on “anti-environment conservatives” and that’s just plain wrong.
Conservatives aren’t anti environment. We want a clean environment, just like the liberals. We just don’t believe we should have to sacrifice our God-given freedoms through endless governmental regulations and mandates, in order to have that clean environment, while third world countries like China get a free pass.
You can’t prove global warming is happening Newt. Neither can the weatherman. Hell, they can’t even get a three day forecast right half of the time!
If you really want to make this your issue, and couple it with energy production, that’s your choice.
The two issues are as different as night and day, and time will prove it.
Global warming is nothing but a power grab and while your pi$$ing in the wind trying to save the planet, one of the many, more serious issues of the day will smack us all in the head.
When it does, the environment will suffer beyond your worst nightmare. And so will the United States and it‘s people.
Priorities, Newt. A real Conservatives leader would put this country first, without any exceptions.
Hyrum Laney
P.S. I’ve been involved in this environmental debate for over twenty years and the answer is still, “HELL NO!”
P.S.S. I do more for the environment on my farm, than a hundred liberals combined!
No, make that two hundred liberals, and I even manage to feed the Kings animals. For FREE!

By zlegatoz @ Wednesday, May 07, 2008 3:11 AM
Dear "Anonymous @ Tuesday, May 06, 2008 9:45 PM"

I just want to say that I think you made your point excellently.

I'm actually of the point of view that we should be involved in the debate. I also don't mind that he sat with her for the ad.

I wish it had been done without using acknowledgement of the term "climate change." That doesn't help.

Newt still has my support, though.

Ya know, I think the reason the left gets so nasty on this issue is because they know that on some level, the whole thing is a really fragile argument. Someone like Newt can make the case on a pretty objective level, and decimate their cause.

Sounds good to me.

By Wally @ Tuesday, May 06, 2008 11:52 PM
Newt - We Love You. Please Don't EVER Sit on the Couch With a Anti-American Socialists Like Pelosi. *****************

I was sitting with my mother tonight and the commercial came on the TV - my mother said she could about "puke" when she sees it. You don't know how hard it is for my mother to say such a thing. ******************
Like Other have said - let's do it on our terms. Prove tem wrong as you always do! God Bless You! What can I do to advance the cause?

By Anonymous @ Tuesday, May 06, 2008 10:33 PM
Newt - I think you have lost touch with your conservative base. READ THE COMMENTS!! We do not want you debating on their terms. Make all of those points you made in your response, convince people that you're right, and make THEM sit on the couch with YOU. The ad would have been great if Pelosi was sitting on your couch and said, "Most Americans believe in an incentivized, entrepreneurial, science and technology based approach to energy and the environment." Instead we get you making their point. Gosh darn it, Newt! Wake up!

By Anonymous @ Tuesday, May 06, 2008 9:45 PM
Ok, let's get down to it. My disappointment with Newt has nothing to do with his sitting down with Nancy Pelosi or his views on the environment. I'm not emotional nor unreasonable. My problem with Newt is this statement he made in the commercial, "...but we do agree, our country must take action to address global climate change...". Let me state, there is no global climate change about which we can do anything. Why he had to utter these words is beyond me. If those words needed to be spoken, why not graciously allow the lady, Ms. Pelosi, do it? I own a hybrid car and use the energy saving bulbs. I understand that part, part of the environmental battle is conservation and more effective, smart use of energy; however, to cave in by by discussing these issues on the left's turf is very dangerous. Let's discuss pollution and energy concerns, but let it be on OUR turf. "Alternative sources of energy", meaning drilling for the oil we have, using our coal assets, and the modern, safe use of nuclear energy. Let's put our focus on these issues without neglecting the conservation and pollution issues. I actually think Newt would agree more with me than Speaker Pelosi! Now he should show that by retracting his use of the term "global climate change" and start fighting the argument from OUR strengths, not THEIR weaknesses!

By Anonymous @ Tuesday, May 06, 2008 8:34 PM
I think you have lost your ever loving mind.

By rjbender615 @ Tuesday, May 06, 2008 7:25 PM
I have to agree with the comment that sitting with Nancy Pelosi doesn't help fuel the debate in a positive manner. Truly what is needed is for a more influential marketing campaign to let people know that there is no Global Warming. That it is environmentalists that have caused gas prices and food prices to go through the roof. This should be an easy sell. The truth is out there but no one tells it. I realize the media doesn't help to get the truth out because they have bought into the environmentalists myths. The problem we now have is that too many in Congress have bought into the Global Warming myth and now it's going to cost the taxpayers Trillions of dollars to fight something that doesn't exist.
So, let's get out there and get the drilling started, the refineries built, the nuclear plants built and yes, certainly promote Solar and Wind energy and other renewable sources. But, let's not bankrupt the American people because the liberal left is either mislead or stupid.

By Anonymous @ Tuesday, May 06, 2008 6:53 PM
Jeff, The PSA with Nancy Pelosi says to go to, not to Newt's website. The PSA website is headed by Al Gore. Hardly conservative principles. Newt might have a valid point if the PSA directed people to his website, but it doesn't. So, with Newt joining them, it looks like the liberals are beginning to win the fight for green fascism. Dom

By Anonymous @ Tuesday, May 06, 2008 6:42 PM
(at the risk of insulting people, although it's not intended...)

Perhaps the negative responses to these posts can be attributed to the short attention span of today's Americans? If Newt's proposal is read in its entirety, the conservative logic is iron clad, but it's almost 2 pages long when printed...

Can this stance be put into a 30 second sound bite? Is that even a good thing?

Take the time to digest Newt's proposals and try to get past the appearance of Pelosi. Read the book... He's as conservative and principled as ever, and the need for conservatives to join this debate is critical, should we ever hope to turn the conversation towards mature, responsible actions.


P.S. To the guy who called Newt a RINO: I laughed out loud. Totally audacious! :-)

By Anonymous @ Tuesday, May 06, 2008 5:12 PM
Newt, in the PSA you talk about global climate change, not the environment. Here you talk in length about the environment. As we all know, there has been no proven link between the two. Most of us would agree on being responsible with respect to the environment. But to concede that there is global climate change that the government can do something about makes as much sense in saying you are going to work towards adding 2 hours to the day, something the government clearly cannot do. Maybe you can slow down the rotation of the earth while you are changing the climate with Nancy? I could use a couple more hours of sleep.

By Anonymous @ Tuesday, May 06, 2008 5:04 PM
You have still lost most of your credibility with me! This is beginning to sound much like "can't we all just get along" McCain.

By zlegatoz @ Tuesday, May 06, 2008 3:36 PM
Right on "Gatorwest." Those links are compelling.

Interesting how much noise we hear about the world catching on fire, yet the news about these hydrogen cells is REALLY slow!

I guess that's the thing. If our "leaders" are always the last on board, I guess they aren't our leaders.

By Gatorwest @ Tuesday, May 06, 2008 2:57 PM
Newt, you left a major item off of your list. The new cars. The debate should be ended. It’s time to get to them.

Here is the 2008 Honda “all natural gas” Civic:

Here are the Chevy Hydrogen SUV’s driving around right now in California, DC and New York with ZERO emissions:

Here are the Ford Hydrogen busses already in use in many of our cities:

Here is the Chevy Volt all electric car slated for production in 2010:

Here is a new discovery that gets the platinum out of the fuel-cells. It should get an incentive award.

There is also a new discovery that produces hydrogen from the bio-waste of Palm Oil with a return on energy (EROEI) of 9.9. It should get an incentive award.

And, here are the issues of converting our infrastructure:


By Anonymous @ Tuesday, May 06, 2008 2:15 PM
Didn't the "Warner-Lieberman" bill used to have McCain's name on it a few months ago?

By zlegatoz @ Tuesday, May 06, 2008 1:26 PM
Dear "Anonymous @ Tuesday, May 06, 2008 7:07 AM"

I have to say that, although I agree with your statements about the actual issue of supposed climate change, I cannot imagine what possible use there is in aggressive negativity.

Screw you? Really?

I mean, I know this is the internet and all, and that lashing out is sort of the modus operandi. . . but sheesh!

I think they are missing you over at the Huffington Post.

By Anonymous @ Tuesday, May 06, 2008 12:56 PM
After reading your additional comments I feel better about your position than what the Pelosi ad tends to indicate ... and what I've seen you say out loud on the news programs.

HOWEVER, you need to start shouting from the rooftops the fact that CO2 does NOT cause global warming, and trying to "limit" CO2 emissions is just fantasy.

We need to drill for our own oil and, yes, we need to build refineries. Substituting food for gasoline is no solution!

Unfortunately, by sitting with Pelosi in that ad, you are helping to lead people to the very propaganda we conservative stewards of the planet disagree with. That's not helpful.

I hope we can count on you to espouse - out loud - the very items you mentioned here. The Republican Congressional "leadership" certainly isn't doing anything - including Senator McCain. The silence is deafening.

By Gatorwest @ Tuesday, May 06, 2008 11:20 AM

By Anonymous @ Tuesday, May 06, 2008 7:07 AM
Newt, I take exception to your leftist remarks regarding the decency of conservatives regarding common sense and the use of the environment.

That you have to defend your position as a lackey for the environmentalists by attacking conservatives who are better informed and more practical than the loons you have chosen to serve, speaks volumes of your unjustified capitulation...and your obvious discomfort with being called out for it.

It is rino's such as yourself that have, through ethical cowardice, given aid and comfort to the enemies of this nation.

America has oil.
America does not need to be dependent on it's enemies for oil.
And America could easily provide itself with what it needs to fuel it's military and it's economy through the decades it will actually take to produce and market affordable alternate fuels.

America has not ruined it's land or it's resources as communist nations have.
And traditionally, Americans have a balanced view of the use of land and resources that exceeds world standards.

What you have done is thrown in with communists who have used environmental regulation to weaken the US and keep it dependent on oil from it's enemies.
And who mean to get a strangle hold on the incomes of businesses and tax payers, through the use of taxes and the name of the environmental scam.

The intent of algore and Nasty Pelosi is not to improve any quality of life or commerce in the US...but to control the populace through the pretense of saving the earth.

It is pointless for you to continue pretend
that adding your voice to the voices of communists who are attempting to out shout reason is somehow noble, and that conservatives who demand common sense
policy are somehow less than informed.

And're not a leader.
You're an elected official.
Kept fat and well off by means of tax payer dollars that support you and your associates in a manner that exceeds any "golden parachutes" ever had by the most well paid corporate execs that your communist pals like to hate and denounce.

You live like royalty.
But you are mistaken to think you are royalty, or that you have been anointed by providence to betray the very people who put your sorry arse in office to do something conservative.

As I have said before...Screw you.

By Anonymous @ Monday, May 05, 2008 11:29 PM
Dear Senator Gingrich,

It is insulting to be told that conservatives don't care about the environment. I, for one, grew up in the woods and I deplore what happens when land gets 'developed'.

However, in 2000 and 2004 we came out in force to give Republicans the power to carry out just such changes as you outlined in your comments, along with other issues of great social importance.

Then we watched you all implode and shrink away from the opposition. You totally squandered the power given to you. So, you'll have to pardon me if I doubt that you now suddenly have discovered the courage to engage the enemy.

I don't think Nancy and Algore are going to let you have nuclear power plants or coal burning energy plants and I don't think you'll do much about it.

By Anonymous @ Monday, May 05, 2008 9:24 PM
dido zlegatoz

By zlegatoz @ Monday, May 05, 2008 8:29 PM
Ok, I'll go first.

It is time to abandon the emotional dysfunction that has kept us out of this debate up to now.

It is time to abandon the strictly emotional response of seeing Newt sit with Nancy.

It is time to get involved and win this debate on substance.

Newt and Teddy Roosevelt are right: “It’s not the critic who counts [but] the man who is actually in the arena.”

Click Here to post a comment

About Newt




Terms of Use

Powered By: Powered By iBelong Networks