Gingrich to release climate change book in 2013?

Since the recent Gingrich surge, I’ve been skeptical. Skeptical because I have a hard time believing someone who preached the virtues of climate change legislation for more than ten years and even wrote a book on the subject (published in 2007) could so quickly denounce these views as a “mistake.” Then I saw this article from the LA Times. Needless to say, the following certainly doesn’t allay any of my initial concerns, if anything it solidifies them:

Gingrich and Terry L. Maple have something of a sequel in the works to their 2007 book, “A Contract with The Earth,” tentatively titled “Environmental Entrepreneurs.”

The duo’s first book called on policymakers and businesspeople on the right to show they had better ideas for protecting the environment and creating jobs than government did. The new book is a collection of essays by various businesspeople and scientists to be edited and stitched together by Gingrich and, mostly, Maple, a former chief executive of the Palm Beach Zoo.

The author of a chapter on climate change is Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech whose work focuses on assessing the impact of climate change and communicating it to broader audiences, including those traditionally dubious of global warming, like Christian colleges.

The book “requires a good opening chapter that lays out the facts on global climate change, but I would like this chapter to be framed with optimism, not gloom and doom,” Maple said in an email to Hayhoe in October 2007. “All that is needed from you is to provide a sense of what needs to happen. What is the window of opportunity and what does the science tell us about our chances for remediation?”

Like most climatologists, Hayhoe accepts the broad scientific consensus that the climate is changing and that humanity’s combustion of fossil fuels is the main reason for it.

While Gingrich has not run away from “A Contract with the Earth,” he has been hedging on some past stances, especially regarding climate change. He recently told Fox News host Bill O’Reilly that he never supported a “cap-and-trade” system for limiting greenhouse has emissions, when in 2007 he said he would back such a scheme if it had tax incentives.

Gingrich also renounced the television ad he did three years ago with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in which he called for action on global warming.

“Well, I’ve said it’s one of the dumbest things I’ve done in recent years — it was an effort on my part to say that conservatives are concerned about the environment — we have better solutions,” Gingrich said of the television ad to O’Reilly.

Gingrich went on to say that evidence of man-made climate change “is not complete and I think that we’re a long way from being able to translate a computer program into actual science.” (Climate scientists point out that computer modeling of climate is complex and has successfully predicted many of the trends the world is now experiencing.)

Hayhoe submitted her climate science chapter in mid-2009 but never heard back from the authors. Maple said the book has been delayed because he has been too busy to focus on it. He said Gingrich is still interested in doing the book and has not asked him to slow walk it. The Gingrich campaign did not answer emails seeking comment about the project.

At this pace, Maple said, his new book with Gingrich would probably be out in 2013, after the presidential election.

Mistake or conviction? Hard to tell these days.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

139 thoughts on “Gingrich to release climate change book in 2013?

  1. Hey Newt, your mask is slipping.

    It was Agatha Christie’s fictional detective, Hercules Poirot, who said that if you can induce people to talk to you long enough, on any subject, sooner or later they will tell you what you want to know.

  2. Maybe you should look at his testimony before Congress where he exposed all the fraudulent lies in Gores testimony and Gores movie. I think it’s on C-Span. He’s against Cap and Trade and although he won’t call it a hoax it seems certain it’s not something he wants the government to take sides on. He’s also opposes and wants to abolish the EPA and states unequivocally that no government agency can try to make or enforce laws that were never passed by Congress. That’s good enough for me at this point because if we take back the Senate the truth of the abuse, payoffs and absurdity of Global warming will come to the fore and that will be the end of government involvement. YES I WANT HIM TO SAY GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX but as long as he’s not going along with it that will do for now.

    I’m actually a little more worried about the things I know he has conservative plans for and will try to fix than I am about him not calling Global warming a hoax. Energy, Iran, Pakistan, Israel, the economy, taxes, getting rid of Obamacare, fixing medicare and social security.

    By testifying against Gore (conservative) but not calling it a hoax, he’s appealing to Independents, Moderates and disaffected Democrats, Oh I already said Independents, I think it’s a good strategy.

  3. Does he support Cap and Trade? Thinking there is climate change and supporting a government solution are two different things.

    That being said, Newt needs to brush up on Climategate 1 and Climategate 2.

    Global warming/climate change are a scam, and their intent is to scare people into allowing the government to have more control over our lives. Like a watermelon, green on the outside, red on the inside.

  4. A man can’t run away from his past, but he can create a smokescreen to keep others from seeing it. Newt is very vulnerable when it comes to Inconvenient Truths.

  5. I don’t get it, almost every Conservative says Michelle Bachman is the only real Conservative that has proven herself and then they say, oh but she can’t win.

    I think GB us right when he says, we can’t rely on gov’t so we have to make gov’t obsolete!

    1. I was for Bachmann until she raised her ugly politics as usual head with her attacks on Pawlenty and then on Perry. Had she stayed on message and not veered off of her message her political capital would have soared.

      But she chose to follow her advisers lead and go down that old political path of slash and burn.

      Haven’t we sent a clear message to these politicians telling them that we want representatives with ideas that reflect our positions? Haven’t we made ourselves clear on how we want our politicians to conduct themselves while campaigning for office?

      I care little for who supports Bachmann or what her message is. I observe her behavior and her behavior screams, “Please don’t vote for me.”

      How can I support someone who espouses all of the lofty goals of conservatism and then launches personal attacks?

      I fully expect one of her future moves will be calling Rick Perry and Tim Pawlenty her “good friends” in typical hypocritical political fashion.

      Obama is right! It isn’t his or any other elected official’s fault! We empower these self-serving polyticks by putting them into office. As the true political power in this country it is our collective fault for gracing them with our responsibility and authority. The buck stops with us.

  6. The bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks. His answer “because that’s where the money is.”.
    if you ask a politician why he believes in global client change. His answer “because that’s where the money is.”. If he say’s anything else then he’s more Eric Holder than Willie Sutton.


    I have thought to put this remark / question after a few (or several) comments on here, but have, in the interest of civility, chosen not to do it each time.

    What is the possibility of having the “Unlike” button next to the “Like” button next to comments?

    Is it difficult? Is it available? Will my subscription amount go up?

    There are times when I am just as vehemently opposed to comments made as I am other times passionately in support of the views expressed by people who post on here, but being the sweet old geezer I am (in the eyes of young attractive available women and wealthy widows alike), I refrain for the sake, as I said above, for the sake of civility. Usually I am not willing to waste my time on trying to change the mind of some ignoramus who probably would not “get it” anyway. But I will probably take the time to click a dislike button.

    Thank you for providing this forum. And I will continue to try to remember to “Like” the items I enjoy.


    1. That question was asked before, and RS replied that if you vehemently disagree, that is what the REPLY is for. Go for it!

    2. The ability to “unlike” or “down ding” comments is the online equivalent of shouting someone down. It creates the ability to gang up on someone, and attracts people who have a negative attitude to the page, just to join in the piling on. It’s an ugly thing, and really shouldn’t be supported. Let the moderators do their job, and ignore the annoying folks who skate by within the rules. Like me!

      It’s also not how reality works most of the time. When you vote in November, there’s no process for “unliking” candidates. You just select who you want. Same with grocery shopping and moving to a new state.

  8. This thing is not over yet folks. We have seen Gingrich throw up on himself before. I am telling you that Santorum and Bachman are not finished yet. He surged after Cain left because nobody wants Romney and rightfully so. I would love to stick it to the RNC establishment and FORCE those bastards to accept Rick or Michelle!

    1. Can anyone tell me how many votes have been cast for each candidate so far? In the primaries or the general? Zero? That’s what I thought. Let’s let it play out and make sure EVERYONE votes.

    2. Heard somewhere that if Rick was given a chance, he would possibly have Michelle as his VP! Not a bad idea!

  9. The whole climate change scam is bigger than the challenges of Islamic take-over. It is a key factor in the establishment of the NWO. In 1994, author Griffin published a book entitled “The Creature from Jekyll Island” that focused on the birth and evils of the Federal Reserve. It was seriously endorsed by Ron Paul, which says a lot right there. However, there was a small part at the end of this book (an excellent historical perspective incidentally) about the environment that has never left me. Griffin stated that in the future, there will need to be something so globally horrific that it will instill fear into the hearts of everyone for generations and make them look to the government to solve the problem. The “horror” he referred to will likely stem from “environmental issues.”

    Having been in this industry for many years, I know first hand what has evolved. First, no one in their right mind is opposed to clean air and water. However, man-made CO2 is more than a joke. Carbon credit trading is a massive transfer of wealth to the elites (youtube: Maurice Strong, Edmund Rothchild, and their kissing cousin Al Gore to name a few, to hear in their own words what has been in the works since the 50s) while being an economic control mechanism for industry in developed and developing countries alike — which is designed to level the economic playing field (otherwise the NWO would have no hope).

    With Gingrich being the history prof that he is, there is NO WAY he is unaware of this diabolical plot. And Newt is not the only one supporting the goals of the CFR.

  10. Newt is convinced he’s invincible so he’s going to let lose with his wild ideas. “Certainly people will see how brilliant they are once I explain them.” I give Newt a few months before people start to abandon him.

  11. A lot of the so-called science has now been exposed as fraud. Personally, I don’t blame anyone who was on the fence or even over the fence before, but now that they have been exposed as frauds we should only hold politicians accountable for what they are saying currently.

    I am not a big Newt supporter, but I believe that not giving people credit when they rethink poor positions is not helpful to the cause.

    1. The whole thing was a scam from the start.

      Also, how did Newt rethink this? In 2007 in he said he’d do cap and tax! No he says he won’t. But now there’s global warming book coming out in 2013!

      I’m having a hard time keeping up with all the flip flops!

      If he’s waffling on this, will he keep waffling on the individual mandate (that he supported in May 2011)?

  12. I never did like this fat,bloated “Bag of wind”. I just can’t trust him….nor mittens. I believe they would both carry on the obomunnation to our naton. Palin/West is my wish for America.

        1. Sarah has been and always will be my 1st choice…i would die to get her in the White House…there is always hope…but the light is getting dim….

          1. “but the light is getting dim”…

            Not so, my friend. it has been shown (on Fox just the other night) that a candidate coming in around mid Feb. still grabs most of the large voting blocks to be nominated. And we all know that Sarah loves to be unconventional (or go rogue, as it were).

            1. I am praying that a renewed Sarah will return and do some damage to the damage that the community organizer is causing.

              1. You’d have to think that if Sarah is as frustrated as us with the current frontrunners than she’d have to reconsider right?

          2. It really is a great thought. I’ve been a sarah supporter since day 1. She has the best record, the principles, and the courage.

  13. OK, so now not only is Newt being vilified for things he’s said and done in the past we have to worry about some book he might be connected with in the future.

    Great. Um, where are all those Cain supporters willing to overlook blatant lies from his own mouth? Oh, never mind.

    1. YOu’re deflecting. The issue is Newt wavering on core conservative issues. Can he be trusted??

      He’s waflling on global, will he keep waffling on the individual mandate?

  14. One thing we have to realize about global climate change is that there are two parts to it. One is natural climate change and the other is man-made climate change. Many like to muddy up the discussion by confusing the two. Yes, there is climate change going on all around us. Yes, man contributes to climate change. The question is what portion of the the overall change is due to us alone. Mother Earth is a living entity. It has tremendous ability to heal itself from any outside influences – asteroids, solar flares, you name it. The question is are we more powerful than her?

    Man does pollute the environment. It is mostly localized. I would never throw my garbage out my back door ’cause it would ruin my back yard. However, does it ruin the back yard of someone in Paris? Nah. We need to be smart and minimize the pollution output that we produce. If I choose to ride a bicycle to work rather than drive, I have reduced the carbon emissions of my car, BUT increased the CO2 output of my breathing during the trip there. It actually increases the CO2 produced (not that THAT is necesarily a bad thing).

    The argument goes on, but I don’t think we can even compete with the massive output of the hydrocarbon vents in the ocean depths and the volcano outpouring around the world. We do need to be conscientious tenents of this wonderful planet, but we don’t need to live in caves to do it.

    1. The contributions of man to climate have yet to be proven. The sad thing about the AGW clowns is how they go out of their way to subtract the biggest influence on the entire solar system from their calculations.

      1. It’s been shown that the average temp of the Earth has risen 0.7 degree in the last decade. It also has been shown that the average temp of Mars over the last decade has risen 0.7 degree. Coincidence. Damn, those pesky Martian SUVs.

  15. Kinda hard to denounce man-made global warming as “unproven” while you back a book to combat it, isn’t it Newt? I don’t want any President that entertains the idea of fighting something we have nothing to do with. Unless you get the sun to sign contracts I think you’re nothing but hot air if you think you can solve this. Newt pretends that he just had a moment in the sun with Nancy Pelosi but that’s bull. He has invested very heavily into the idea of man-made global warming. Nope, not my candidate.

  16. The Newtster knows that too many people now believe in big government. And he views himself as the one with the correct ideas to run it and, of course, our lives. His cornucopia of ways to save civilization rejects the foundation of our constitution, which is that the role of government is to protect the freedom of the ultimate minority, the individual. It is almost as though we would hope for someone with no ideas other than the acknowledgement that a society of free people will achieve more than any group of self agrandizing genius politicians ever will.

  17. After reading this I am still leaning towards Newt…I need to vote some one in there who will 1st stop the Communist take over of our country.. 2nd will reduce the over all size of government…3rd restore the rule of law… 4th stop the moral decay of our society by stopping the Black Robe corruption of our court system. Leftist have taken over our courts and are in the process(and have been for many years) of turning us into a 21st century Sodom and Gomorra and all you have to do is watch the news to see how that is working out…and I have watch almost all the Debates and see Newt as that person…even with all his “BAGGAGE” ( preconceived ideas: ideas, beliefs, or practices retained from somebody’s previous life experiences, especially insofar as they affect a new situation in which they may be no longer relevant or appropriate (informal)
    emotional baggage) You see I want to save the country and by allowing the Soviet Style Propaganda Machine to make me focus or should I say TRY TO MAKE ME focus on ALL the bad things our candidates have done they’re actually picking our next leader.


    Will everyone or can everyone look at the candidates this way…I hope so. However, we are being deluged by a tsunami of negative slime about our candidates…I ask how can anyone make a good choice with this bombardment of crap coming our way…sorry but no one ever said it would be easy saving our country…but we must all step back and look at every candidate with out the crap the MSM is throwing at them. Also the Republics the Establishment REPUBLICS who still like the current system are pulling out all the stops to get their man in place. Status Quo…it is going to be tough to clean all the crap off out candidates and look at them in a new way…but we have to…we have no choise…….

    1. The problem is that the fictitious global warming crisis has been one of the chief tools used by Progressives/Dems/Marxists/etc. to gain and maintain power, money, and control. Little children have been so indoctrinated with false results of bogus “climate science” that a knowledgeable science teacher who offers them other perspectives is viewed by them as a criminal idiot. All a Dem has to do to launder some $$$ to his or her pals is invoke “climate science,” Solyndra being only one of many examples. Electric cars, ethanol, buying oil from Islamic countries to prevent drilling in the U.S. or even purchasing oil and natural gas from Canada–these are all Progressive scams dragging down our economy and our national security.

      1. i agree it is a scam of the left to gain more power over the people and must be stopped but to put all your eggs in one basket and say that is the only issue that matters in the general election is nearsighted and can lead to the wrong person being elected…i look at the big picture and still say Newt is most likely to change the things that can and should be changed…the rest we will have to let our local congress men voice our opinion on and get him to change his thinking on…its going to be a long drawn out process but we have to do it to save our country…look at this an say we are not at the very edge of a tyrannical government:

        1. Dan,

          Does the part where Red mentions in 2007 that Newt said he would’ve supported Cap and Tax if there were tax incentives concern you?

          Cap and Tax would cripple our economy.

          If Newt’s waffling on global warming, would he continue to waffle on the individual mandate that he supported in May 2011?

            1. What are you asking Dan?

              If Newt said he’d support cap and tax before Climategate? I believe it was before as Climategate was after Maobama got elected.

              Even so isn’t it pretty bad for Newt to possibly have this global warming book come out right after the election? Sounds like the same old Newt, say one thing to get in office, then do something else one he’s in.

              1. If memory serves, Newt did say he hadn’t made up his mind yet about whether or not warming is man made … and this was when he said it was a mistake to sit so close to Nancy.

      2. Agreed. Gingrich said he’s against picking winners and losers such as Solyndra, but when Beck pointed out that Gingrich supported doing the same thing with ethanol Gingrich changed his answer to (paraphrase) “I support doing it to ideas that work”. Uh, sneaky withdrawal. That’s still picking winners and losers, and Newt would do the same thing as Obama, it’s just that he thinks he could pick the right winners.

        Just to touch up on ethanol….since when does it work? That’s not a viable solution for alternate energy, either. So much for his better ideas.

        1. Ethanol is wrong on many levels. Instead of using corn for food, we’re using it for fuel.

          Ethanol is more expensive and less efficient. I heard it can even cause some damage to some engines.

          1. I don’t use any form of what I call “watered down” fuel…at least to the extent I have a choice. I think ethanol is a joke, and it causes food shortages and high food prices. We could turn every last acre of U.S. soil, and not just farm acres, into growing corn for ethanol and it wouldn’t be enough to convert everything over. It also makes your gas mileage go down, so how is that helping? For instance, if you get 20 mpg without it and 16 to 18 with it, you burn more fuel which will make up the difference in using less oil (petroleum) per gallon. I’m just a nobody, but I don’t comprehend any gains there.

    2. How can you properly choose a candidate without vetting them first? You don’t do that just by looking at the positives. We have to get all the positives and negatives out in the open and weigh them against each other. I think the claim that the media is choosing our candidates for us is a bunch of hogwash. They are doing us a favor by dragging things out in the open that the candidates would rather us not know about. Don’t you wish they would have done the same to Obama? Maybe that misfit imposter wouldn’t have been elected. The problem is that they DIDN’T, and he skated in on slogans.

      1. I agree. However,we are swayed by the polls that continually come out, while we should be the ones driving the polls. We need to get all the facts that we can from all the candidates and everybody, I mean everybody, vote. Wouldn’t that be wonderful.

        1. Yes, that would be great. But there are probably going to be a lot of protest no-votes. I don’t believe in that. Sure, if the candidate I decide to get behind loses the primaries, I might be disappointed. However, when it comes to the general I’m voting for whoever conservatives have put forward.

          1. Me too. But too many people are putting the cart before the horse. Everyone needs to push strongly for their own personal favorite and we deal with the general when it gets here. Too many are fighting the general battle long before the primary season has even started.

            1. Maybe, but to some extent I believe that has to be done. For instance, I was a Cain supporter but became very concerned about the last accusation made against him when he acknowledged 13 years of giving her money without his wife knowing about it. Guilt or innocence didn’t really matter, because those things have a tendency to come back and destroy a candidate. That was smoke, and the last thing I want to happen is to get him into the general on faith and then the whole thing catches fire. There was smoke with John Edwards, too, and the left ignored it. Not only did that catch fire it was a freaking inferno. Point is, I’m not going to trust a guy after he acknowledges some form of relationship with that woman when there’s so much riding on this election. I know it’s not fair, but this isn’t just his future…it’s ours.

              1. You make an excellent point at the same time of proving what I’m trying to say. There is nothing wrong with changing your opinion due to the facts. But, if he had dropped out due to a lack of money, for example, regardless of what the polls say, you would be within your rights to write-in vote for him because you believe in his principles. And that could very well be enough to elect him as the nominee.

                As with Cain, I, too, changed my opinion of him, not because of the allegations but because of the way that he handled it. Not quite what I would want in MY president. We already have a teleprompter-addicted man in there now.

                1. I still feel really bad for Cain. He could be completely innocent of any wrong-doing and it most likely is just wrongful persecution by the leftist media. Thing is, with Clinton the evidence was very, very strong that he was a liar so it was an easy call. Not so easy with Cain. I was hoping for something more concrete to come out (for the truth in either direction) before we made our choice for our nominee so he wouldn’t be destroyed on a false accusation. He stepped out before we got that chance, and I don’t blame him. The leftist media would have kept trying to destroy him and he has more concern for what it’s doing to his family. I still respect Cain a lot.

    1. Newt is not a solid Conservative, but he is Conservative enough with huge Conservative accomplishments.

      Romney is indeed McCain and will get his clock cleaned against obama, not only because of his checkered record, but because no one will come out to vote for him.

      1. Newt:

        supported individual mandate in May 2011
        Waffling on global warming, said he’d do cap and tax in 2011.
        Supported Medicare Part D
        Toured with Al SHarpton and Arne Duncan for obamas education reform
        Supported Scozzafava
        Waffled on TARP

        Doesn’t sound too conservative in the last 10 years.

        1. Do you want to have the Romney debate with me?

          Supports TARP
          Author of Romney care and Obama Care
          Raised Taxes (fees)
          Supports Gay civil unions and domestic partnerships
          Anti Gun
          Pro Abortion
          Dodges questions on faith

          With Romney he didn’t have the Contract with America, reforming welfare, etc. Romney is a phony puke, will will tell you whatever it takes to get elected and then do whatever liberal plan he has when he gets in office. Romney not only will lose to obama, but IF, IF he managed to get through would fracture the GOP and is just another big government Re-PUBIC-ican

          1. I agree with everything you said about Romney. I can’t stand Cupcake Mitt or Beltway Newt.

            I’m uring all good conservatives to pick between Bachmann or Santorum of which I’m trying to decide right now.

              1. First it won’t come down to that for me, being in NH.

                Secondly, it’d be a tough choice between Newt and Romeny… I’m waffling on it just like the two of them like to do!

                WHo’s your first choice?

                1. Full disclosure: I’m a Perry guy until he drops out.

                  That being said if it is a choice between Romney and Newt, there is no question I will vote for Newt. Why? I have to look at the record and the accomplishments.

                  Romney has a history of saying what he needs to, to get elected, and not following through. He has no Conservative accomplishments to speak of, and does not know how to attack the Left and obama. I worked in Chicago campaigns during the midterms and know how brutal their campaigns get. Romney can’t even attack Newt effectively.

                  By contrast, Newt has baggage, yes, but he had a religious experience and changed his life. I don’t care about anything he did prior to becoming Catholic. He has had SOLID CONSERVATIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS, hes an even better debater than Romney (not that it matters to me, but he is) and has guts and heart.

                  That’s someone who will win. He offers the best contrast to obama.

                2. That does bother me, however, Perry went on to state that policy is for TX and not something he would do nationally. Given his very strong 10th Amendment record, I do believe him on that.

                  Remember, no candidate is perfect, but they have to have integrity and they have to have a record of accomplishments.

                3. Wow, that’s the same excuse Romney has for Romneycare.

                  Yes no one is perfect, but illegal immigration is a core issue. If we can’t control our borders we have no country.

      2. Mr. Gingrich possesses the most knowledge of military and history of anyone running in either party. His knowledge of the military far surpasses that even of Mr. McCain. (Having served as a pilot and P.O.W. does not make one knowlegeable about the military or the history of it).

        If I cannot vote for a Vet, I can at least for a brat. LOL


        1. Brats are good, unless they are in the mall. 🙂

          And lets not forgot Romney RAN FROM MILITARY SERVICE.

          1. I had a brat at Oktoberfest in LaCrosse WI that was great!

            Of course the beers I had with it did nothing to ruin that day.


      1. are you saying he had access to the info others didn’t?
        what mann et al have done has really screwed this country up.
        I have a hard time blaming people who fell for it, but I DO blame newt for sitting on a couch with pelosi to make political hay out of it.

        fwiw I will probably write in cains name, not a huge newt supporter.

        1. I’m saying that Newt based his decision on “science” of consensus. I would expect a conservative to base his decisions on the science of facts, he didn’t. I never believed in global warming and I never thought that the fixes liberals had to protecting us from were anything more than higher taxes for redistribution from us to them.

          My peanut brain told me that they were pulling a fast one on us, but Newt is a genious, supposedly. What exactly was the “one of the dumbest things I’ve done” that he talking about? Was it getting caught sitting with Pelousy in what was eventually proven to be a lie? Or was it in joining the democrats in trying to sell a scam on the American people?

          This is bad for a potential POTUS.

          1. ok, I see what you mean and cannot disagree.
            I didn’t fall for it but some friends did believe the “science” being tossed out…initially. they are red faced now 🙂

          1. I dare Mark Levin to tell me to vote for someone I don’t feel deserves my vote.
            I have said it before here, I vote my principles and values and not for someone elses strategy.

      2. I can totally cut Newt slack for being part of the crowd who were bamboozled by the lying SOB’s running “climate science” back then. After all it was “science!” because few of us on the right were on to the scam. A lot of serious scientists were scared to death of losing their jobs if they spoke out against the fraud (until the climategate documents were exposed). So academic guys like Newt thought they were supporting something real.

        But this is 2011, not 2000. ALGORE has been shown to be a bloated, carbon-generating, snake-oil salesman of the worst sort, and the IPCC has been shown to be a laughingstock. Thousands of scientists have been freed from enforced silence due to the shame of the fraud exposed in the “Climategate” emails., and they’ve come forward with real science that shows the AGW claims are manufactured.

        Newt has been more like Romney in his failure to repudiate that mistake. He needs to drop the tepid responses and come out and declare AGW to be a scam of the highest order. It’s what’s been driving the push for ethanol subsidies, and he still supports those.

  18. Best idea for Newt’s new title “Hold up Your Finger and Test the Wind”.

    As Glen Beck said this week, Newt is a progressive and denying Teddy Roosevelt’s bad tenates still makes you a Progressive. Newt hides it well ’cause he’s a teacher but he’s still a progressive.

    America, particularly those that wopuld call themselves conservative, do you really want another progressive as President after the horrors of the last 110 years?

    I know for me absolutely no and if given the choice between one douchebag another with brown skin, I’ll stay home the first Tuesday on November 2012 and stock up on staples and load my amunition clips.

  19. If Bachmann and Santorum stick to their games, they can emerge from the fallout with strong candidacies.

    Repetition, repetition, repetition
    Exposure, exposure, exposure

    1. Money….money….money will be the X-factor imo. Yes I’d love to see either one surge, but w/o any cash to fuel the surge they’ll probably fizzle out of contention.

      1. Yes, I’m supporting both. Good investment? Without a doubt!

        It costs at least $25.00 for an evening out; why not invest it in a campaign donation instead?

        (Might make donations to their campaigns in the names of my family members, a most meaningful gift).

  20. I’m sorry, but I just don’t understand the people jumping on the Gringrich train – especially Governor Palin supporters. Gingrich does not posess one value or principle that Sarah Palin has expressed as being needed for the next President. He is an Establishment, PPC, crony capitalist, lifetime politician who is also a Progressive (and has been for years) – which is anthema to Convervatives, Independent and Moderates. This guy is a very very good con man and boy, are you dupes getting conned. He says exactly what you what to hear but will do exactly the opposite.

    1. Neuter would be more dangerous than Obama….sorry…I had to say it…they both support the same things…however, Neuter would have both the R’s and D’s pushing for Progressive legislation.

    2. Ahem! susiep, Mr. Gingrich possesses the most important “value or principle,” and that is to make the current occupant of my white house a one term (or even less) resident thereof.


    1. Thank you for posting that url. I quit reading Mrs. Noonan a few months ago when I thought she had pulled the pin on her own grenade, but that article, which I had seen reference to on wsj was not on my radar screen until I took your advice.


    2. Generally I don’t like Peggy Noonan, but I liked that article especially this part, “They are not looking to like their president or admire him, they just want someone to fix the crisis. The last time helpful things happened in Washington, he (Gingrich) was a big part of it. So they may hire him again. Are they put off by his scandals? No. They think all politicians are scandalous.

  21. “Well, I’ve said it’s one of the dumbest things I’ve done in recent years — it was an effort on my part to say that conservatives are concerned about the environment — we have better solutions,” Gingrich said of the television ad to O’Reilly.

    When Gingrich and Pelosi schmoozed on the love seat many conservatives were trying to initiate a debate about global warming. The left was attacking anyone who questioned the facts about global warming, calling them deniers who wanted to kill children. The left defended themselves by saying that there was a consensus among scientists. But rarely if ever, did the media report any opposition to it. Like John Coleman, Founder of the Weather Channel:

    Gingrich is being disingenuous in his remarks because he did not represent the conservative concerns about the environment, he pig piled with the democrats and dumped on the conservatives.

    Consensus is not scientific its political. They scared enough people into believing there is a tragedy about to happen and called it science to give it validation. And where was Gingrich?

    1. If we’re smart, from this point on we call those alarmists what they are, advocates for Marxism. It really sticks in their claws being associated with Marx.

  22. I would love to see our side score a touchdown from where we are.

    That would be my fav winning the nominee of course. If not, I would be happy with a field goal should it be any of the other GOP. ABO


      1. I am voting Santorum too!
        I know he is not that charismatic (we already have one for that!) but his heart is in the right place!

        1. I saw a video on Hotair of a pastor giving his reasoning behind his Santorum pick. He (Santorum) indicated that he would want Bachmann to be part of his team.

  23. Great post, Red. I have been suspicious of Newt myself, for many reasons. This makes the “mistake” he made with Pelosi far more substantial than he would like us to believe.

    I’ve also thought that Newt knows DC and is so very glib and intelligent that he could likely pull plenty of fast ones on us (and on Congress).

    I don’t want us to elect someone in desperation and keep praying that the candidates with principles will surge to the top. That being said, I will vote for anyone but Obama.

    1. If the election is between the tyrant who takes up space in the white house and Gingrich, Gingrich will get my vote. But I hope it will not come to that.

    2. Many Conservatives have a knee-jerk reaction to environmental issues because we understand that the Left is using these issues like a religion to attempt to take power.

      But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that we don’t have environmental problems that absolutely require that we take action.

      Tampa Bay was a filthy, polluted body of water not too many years back, but it’s been cleaned up – with much effort – and has made a strong comeback. I live near the Chesapeake Bay – and it’s so disgusting, you wouldn’t want to eat crabs taken from there.

      There’s nothing more important than clean air and water – so, instead of knee-jerk responses – let’s be thoughtful about how we sometimes abuse our own environment.

      1. Environmental issues are huge for Independents. And they should be. We need to craft a better message on this issue than our current denial.

        1. BS!!

          The whole thing is a giant hoax.

          If it’s real, why not stop all pro sports? Why have rich athletes flying first class playing 162 baseball games a year??? Surely that has much more impact than us little peons living our mundane lives!

        2. Of course there are enviromental issues. That’s not the argument. The argument is whether capitalism is causing these environment problems. It is my personal belief that properly regulated capitalism is the best solution to environmental problems. This is particularly true in cases of depletion of resources. Supply and demand says that as a resource approaches depletion (supply decreases) that prices will go up resulting in a decrease of demand creating a new equalibrium and eventually giving way to a supplementry product of more abundance or more efficiency. The problem arises when elitist politicians who think that they know everything start tampering with things creating false markets and killing real markets is a system that is too complex and with too many variables for anybody to be able to account for unintended consequences. The more they try to fix it the more broken it becomes.

      2. I don’t think anyone contests clean air and water. We conservatives have always been good stewards of our land and resources. But what the EPA is trying to enforce now serves no purpose. It does not quantifiably advance the purity of either air or water but it is prohibitively expensive – just what our economy needs in these perilous times. It encourages further job loss overseas and leaves us in a weaker condition altogether with less domestic manufacturing, fewer jobs and at the mercy of other regimes for our fuel.

        It does not help families with affordable housing when we protect sand chiggers and such, it merely drives up the cost of available land and the permits required to build.

        In other words, environmentalists have become environazis in my book. And that, in my opinion, is the goal. Totalitarian control of the very air that we breathe.

        (It is especially galling to me that we cannot drill offshore but who will pay the costs when all the less experienced and cautious countries fail to oversee their operations and our own shores are awash in crude from the Mexican, Brazilian, Cuban, Chinese, Venezuelan rigs? Not to mention all the thousands of U.S. jobs lost to them.)

  24. Let’s vote our values folks. I don’t care who you back, just back who best represents your values PLEASE. Let’s not buy into the dogfood the RNC is feeding us “who can beat Obama?”. That is not the right tact. Vote your values. Obama and team will spend millions to systematically tear apart whoever it is that wins the Primary.

    1. I agree. We should vote our personal values. If we go on the assumption that ALL our candidates could beat Obama IF WE TURN OUT, then we will have no problem. Let’s use the primaries to get the best man (or woman) as a candidate and then MAKE SURE we get out there in the general and vote. It’s always a lack of voting that is the problem. Our voting turnout is the laughingstock of the world. Be proud to be an American and all do their civic duty. /Rant over. 🙂

        1. Then we will see that in the primaries and it should be obvious to all. Until then, it’s only opinions, which everyone is entitled to. (Even the Ron Paul supporters, bless their hearts). 🙂

          1. Lets hope so, because they aren’t coming out for the general, but it doesn’t matter.

            Romney will get his ass handed to him by obama.

            1. Well, right now, you can not tell me what percentage of voters will turn out in Nov. 2012. Nor can I. Let’s get them fired up and see what erupts, eh?

      1. In modern history, every single time Republican’s nominated the “so called, most electable” moderate candidate ~ they lost. Every time Republican’s nominated the “so called, NON-electable” concervative ~ they won. Wake up American and quit believing the lies.

        1. That’s not really true. Starting in the 60s Nixon the moderate beat conservative democrat Geo Wallace (Running as an independent). Nixon went on to sign the legislation that created the EPA as well the clean air/water acts.Jimmy Carter slid over to the center and won election over slightly more conservative Gerald Ford in ’76. Reagan did win two terms but he used to be a democrat, was divorced, was a labor-leader, and gave amnesty to illegal aliens. (He really was only conservative on national defense and security, and taxes). Geo H W. Bush was considered a liberal and won a term in 1988. Bill Clinton was pretty moderate as dems go and won in 92 and re-election in 96. Geo W Bush has been bashed repeatedly as a liberal sell-out who wasn’t conservative enough yet he won in 2000 and won re-election in 2004. Barack Obama had a record as the most liberal (actually socialist) member of the US Senate but he ran as a moderate-centrist (he isn’t either) and won in 2008 against a ticket of slightly more conservative McCain and Ultra-Conservative Sarah Palin. So where are all those conservative victories again? And where are the moderate/liberal losses?

          1. SineWaveII, re-read what I wrote, then re-read what you wrote and prepared to be embarrassed. Perhaps I spoke too fast…. I said in my first sentence; “In modern history, every single time Republican’s N-0-M-I-N-A-T-E-D. Opps… I probably said it too fast again…. let me slow down the key word for you so you can understand…. NNNN-0OOO-MMMM-IIII-NNNN-AAAA-TTTT-EEEE-DDDD…

            The last time I checked, Democrats like George Wallace, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton have never ran in a REPUBLICAN primary. Or am I mistaken????

            Now let me repeat:

            In modern history, every single time Republican’s nominated the “so called, most electable” moderate candidate ~ they lost. Every time Republican’s nominated the “so called, NON-electable” concervative ~ they won. Wake up American and quit believing the lies.

            1. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, George HW Bush, Bob Dole, Geo. W Bush, McCain.
              Ok dude there’s the list of Republican Nominees.
              Other than Reagan (who was only conservative on defense and taxes) where are the conservatives?
              Take a closer look. There are only 3 losers on this list. Ford, Dole and McCain. And in each case each one was beaten by someone more liberal than they were;
              Carter, Clinton and Obama. So again I ask…where are the conservative winners? And where are the liberal losers?

              1. You really have trouble with very simple concepts and arguments, don’t you SineWaveII?

                I really doubt this will help you, but I’ll give it a try… First it is NOT who in the end is or was a true conservative, but who was perceived to be the most conservative during the primaries. The subject is about who the media is telling us is the most electable and who is not, and they always tell us the more moderate candidate is the most electable, but in the end, it is the moderates who always lose.

                Now let us deal with the first name that should jump off the page at you. Gerald Ford, can you think of any reason as to why his name is completely irrelevant in regards to this discussion??? I’ll give you a few moments…. waiting… waiting…. still can’t think of it? If you truly don’t know why Gerald Ford can not be included in this discussion then you have NO idea of the subject we are discussing.

                Have you thought of it yet? Ok… here it is…. Gerald Ford was NEVER in a Presidential primary where he had to compete with other candidates! He took office after Nixon resigned. Duh!!!

                As far as Nixon goes, I really don’t know who he ran against in the primaries, but that was WAY before the media started talking about our subject of how the media picks winners and losers, attempting to influence the outcome by telling the public who is “electable” and who is not.

                We were told over and over and over by the media that Ronald Reagan was not electable. After all he was just an actor, according to libs, dems and media. But he was perceived to be the most conservative and he won….
                (1 point for Chuck, 0 for Sine)

                George H W Bush is another name that has to be removed from our discussion… can you think of why? waiting…. waiting…. can’t think of it?

                George H W Bush was Reagan’s VP… silly…. so as with all VP’s who then run for President he was not challenged in the primaries… Of course, he wasn’t much of a conservative and lost his bid for re-election….
                (2 points for Chuck, 0 for Sine)

                Bob Dole was a moderate and lost, which supports what I have been saying… every time we nominate a moderate we lose.
                (3 points for Chuck, 0 for Sine)

                George W. Bush, while I agree he turned out to not be a conservative that was NOT the perception at the time. The public believed he was a strong conservative and as a result he won, but just barely if you remember. Perhaps you remember the FLA recount… etc… He won, but just barely….
                (4 points for Chuck, 0 for Sine)

                McCain is big-government progressive, and yet the media told us non-stop thru the primaries he was our best candidate, the most electable, the one Republican the Dems were afraid of… LOL… what a joke… He trailed in the polls until a true conservative became his running mate, Sarah Palin. Then he jumped out in front of Obama in the polls as a result and because of Sarah had a good chance of winning until the financial melt-down. But once again the republican candidate who the media said had the best chance of winning lost….
                (5 points for Chuck, 0 for Sine)

                There I went through each one of them… But somehow I doubt it will help you. Peoples brains just seem to shut-down when they get all emotional about politics.

                1. OK I’ll take your argument apart point by point since that’s what you want.

                  1 Nixon was challenged by Geo Wallace who was more conservative than he was. By your logic Geo Wallace should have won. He didn’t Nixon did twice. The second time by one of the largest landslides in history. Nixon was no conservative. Nixon won two elections the second by a landslide (that’s one point against your theory that non-conservatives don’t win).

                  2 Gerald Ford ran against Ronald Reagan for the Republican nomination in 1976. Reagan was more conservative (on national defense and taxes) but lost to Gerald Ford. Ford was then defeated by Jimmy Carter in the general election that year. (I’ll concede that Reagan might have beaten Carter in 76 had he been the nominee but there were a lot of issues that year not the least of which was Watergate so it’s possible that Reagan would have lost)

                  3 Reagan beat Carter in 1980 mostly on the economy and national security issues. (I’ve already conceded this point twice but I’ll concede it again).

                  4. Geo HW Bush beat conservatives like Pat Robertson in 1988 to take the nomination and beat Michael Dukakis in the general. GHW Bush was no conservative. (By your logic he should have lost but he didn’t)

                  5. I’ll concede again that Bob Dole was a lousy candidate that no one wanted. Clinton has a strong economy behind him so beating Dole was easy. (That had nothing to do with Dole not being conservative enough. He just wasn’t a good candidate). “It’s the economy stupid”

                  6. Geo W Bush-not a conservative, yet he won election twice (By your logic he should have lost, but he didn’t)

                  7. John McCain again I’ll concede that he was no conservative and was beaten by ultra liberal Obama. Obama shouldn’t have been able to win but he did.

                  Ok so once again I’m going to try to pound this into your head, Chuck.

                  According you, moderate repubs never win once they are nominated and conservative repubs always do.

                  BUT Nixon won twice and he was no conservative he was moderate to liberal except on defense.

                  BUT Reagan won twice and he’s not as conservative as you think (He’s more like Newt Gingrich than not like him) and apparently you don’t remember the Reagan democrats.

                  BUT GHW Bush beat other more conservative candidates for the nomination and WON. He should have lost according to you.

                  BUT Geo W Bush beat other more conservative candidates like Pat Buchanan and then WON TWICE he should have lost according to you..he didn’t

                  John McCain had Ultra Conservative Sarah Palin on his ticket and lost to Ultra Liberal Obama. According to you Palin’s presence should have helped and Obama shouldn’t have been able to win since he was so liberal.

                  Now for the other side of your theory the democrats.
                  If what you believe is true then the opposite must also be true. Because if only conservative repubs win then that must mean that the public prefers conservatives and will vote conservative in the general election. If that is so then liberals should never be able to win. but …

                  Geo Wallace is one of the most conservative politicians there ever was. He lost the Dem Nomination to Hubert Humphey. He ran as an independent against Nixon and was beaten by the moderate Nixon. Then he ran for the Dem nomination against Jimmy Carter in 76 and lost to the more liberal Carter. (The same year that more-conservative Reagan as unable to beat less conservative Ford)

                  Jimmy Carter the liberal beat the more conservative (compared to himself) Gerald Ford. (The public should have preferred Ford but they didn’t)

                  Reagan did win two respectable victories but that was because the country was sick of Carter and wanted rid of him, then rejected Carter-II (Walter Mondale Carter’s VP) because they were still sick of Carter. It had little to do with Reagan’s “conservatism”.

                  in 1992 Bill Clinton (Liberal) defeated GHW Bush (Reagan’s VP) even though Bush was more conservative than Clinton (Clinton shouldn’t have been able to win)

                  and finally ultra ultra liberal junior senator with no practical experience Obama
                  beat slightly more conservative McCain with idiot liberal Biden in tow. That in spite of Ultra Conservative Palin as McCain’s VP.

                  So what is the lesson here? That’s it’s not true that conservatives always beat liberals. And it’s not true that true-blue conservative nominees always win or that moderate repub nominees never win. It’s also not true that liberals can never win either. Which was the point of my original post and that once and finally proves your theory wrong. I hate to be the one to burst your bubble pal, but those are the facts and they can’t be denied.

                2. Somebody please explain to Sine what the subject is…. he just doesn’t think before he opens his mouth…. Amazing…. I give up… just like I said… it really doesn’t help when people shut-down their brains…. Talking to these NON-thinkers is a waste of time….

                3. That’s an interesting concept. Who’s the liberal in this discussion? You? Because it’s not me. I’m a Reagan style conservative ( I believe in strong national security and defense, low taxes, cheap government and keeping the government out of people’s lives as much as possible. I don’t care about any of the other issues). So I guess the liberal must be you. So why are you putting yourself down?

Comments are closed.