Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay
Global warming is man made and the Libyan-American war for starters. There have been some others, but they did not make nearly the news. Further, for the duration of the Bush administration he was seen to be very close to the likes of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. I do not see him as being quite as reliable as he seems.
|
Thanks for your response. I do enjoy reading someone's opposing views.
I don't have as much of a problem with the Global Warming issue. Before the IPCC emails were hacked into and released in 2009, there was large support that Global Warming was happening. I thought that we contributed to some degree.
“First of all, I did the commercial with Pelosi to make a case that conservatives ought to be prepared to stand in the arena and debate."
This really allows you to fully understand Newt Gingrich, IMO. He has always had a quest to fashion solutions and that is how he came up with Contract for America. The problem is that the left has treated Global Warming as a political issue and that left Newt sitting on a sawed off branch. He's a brilliant man that thinks on a totally different level and, IMO, he is largely misunderstood.
Newt is on record with his testimony in Congress against Gore on the Cap and Trade. He argues that he has always defended a "free market" approach. You can view that here Brilliant rebuttal!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzDutBRMsXw
Gingrich's earlier program on cap and trade (2007) was in regard to "sulfur", which is a real pollutant. That isn't related to the Global Warming issue though. In 2007 he introduced a measure to regulate CO2 "if" free markets were involved. Politifact even had this to say, "But we found solid evidence he did, with the condition that carbon caps be combined with tax incentives to encourage energy companies to innovate."
He always argues the side of "free market" and "tax incentive" solutions. Gingrich always explained that his idea and the left's idea of cap and trade showed two fundamentally different approaches. He was never in favor of allowing the government , but the markets, to be the mechanism to enforce it.
On Libya, He said that the two statements were not contradictory as he was speaking of what "he would have liked to have done" (prior to March 3) as opposed to what "he would have to do" considering Obama's actions. He interviewed with Greta Van Susteren on March 7, so I would expect him to have a different plan of action after Obama declared that Gadhafi had to go. It just makes sense that he would, IMO. It looks like media hype to me.
Quote:
|
I once heard my father compare him to Perot, and I have come to agree with that idea. If he had not stayed in, we might not be looking at another candidate with liberal leanings running against Obama.
|
I know we say that a third party pulls votes away, but from my perspective of the campaign in 1992, I knew that Clinton was going to win. You could tell he was engaging the people and they wanted him. I could feel that Bush knew it as well and didn't seem to fight as hard in that campaign. Or, it could have been a deal struck between the two parties that I was feeling. I don't know. Either way, I knew Clinton was going to win. I don't really believe Perot had a thing to do with that. That is just my observation.
And I don't think you can blame Gingrich for Romney. He has only received 42% of the vote, showing that 60% of the people don't want him. That his own problem to deal with. It has nothing to do with Gingrich or Santorum.
Linear Mode
