This morning on “Meet the Press,” former Speaker Newt Gingrich repeatedly insisted that he and the other candidates should be evaluated based upon their respective records. Fair enough. As it happens, Gingrich may be the only nominee who actively sabotaged an important conservative reform effort. Even though the protection of property rights was a plank in the Contract with America, and the enthusiasm of the property rights movement had been important in the GOP takeover of Congress, Gingrich personally prevented property-rights-protective reforms of the Endangered Species Act from passing the House and then gave one of the most liberal members of the Republican caucus and environmental activist groups a de facto veto over environmental legislation. These machinations were documented in an article in The Environmental Forum, a magazine published by the Environmental Law Institute — an article Gingrich cited favorably in his own book on environmental policy. Does Gingrich still believe he made the right choice? What should conservatives make of this part of his record? Are there any other candidates who betrayed conservative principles so directly and with equivalent results? I’m still waiting for the former Speaker to address this part of his record (if he has, I have not seen it).
Thanks for this informative post Jonathan, which shows further how hypocritical and buffoonish Gingrich is.
In fact, a good rule of thumb is to take whatever Gingrich says he supports (or opposes) and know that his record is the exact opposite.
Just like when Gingrich says he opposes amnesty, while he still supports it and has by far the worst record on illegal immigration than any other GOP candidate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't know the specifics of this case, but 'conservatives' should be the ones protecting i.e. conserving land, water, species for future generations. It actually is a Republican tradition, beginning with Teddy Roosevelt and the National Parks.
Todays Republican Party (at least on the national level) would not pass the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, create the EPA, or do any of the 'good' things that made our nation a whole lot cleaner than it was in my youth of the '60's and 70's.
Even major businesses and associated groups fell in line.
So, if Gingrich (most certainly not my guy) saved things for the nation above individual property rights (which are to be compensated) then as TR would say "Bully!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst, Teddy was a Progressive. (Also, if you want to be taken seriously, don't conflate Republicans and conservatives automatically.)
Second, private property rights generally *increase* environmental protections.
Third, the EPA is one of the most abusive agencies of the federal government. Regardless of any good they did in the past, the harm they do now far outweighs it. The same goes for the Clean whatever Acts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, seeing as how Teddy was a *Republican* when he created the National Park System, I consider him a Republican. It's nice that he became the Bull Moose, and too bad he didn't win the election.
Today, Progressive is not a party --- one can be 'progressive' in what ever party they want to be in. And there can be 'regressives' as we see today with the no-science, no-thinking wing of the Republican party.
And no where did I conflate 'conservative' and 'republican' in the post. Of course, I believe everyone should be a conservationist, and what is a problem today is that a great number of Republicans, and conservatives deny the benefits of conservation practices. hmmm..note 'conserve' is the base of both of those words!!
So GWB, I take myself seriously, and I think others do, too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere is where you conflate 'conservative' and 'Republican':
"but 'conservatives' should be the ones protecting"
"It actually is a Republican tradition"
I pointed out Teddy being a progressive because you seem to think conservatives should want to follow his lead. Sorry, but "conservative" and "progressive" are a bit like oil and water.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt's record of self interest has been taking everyone downward for most of his career.
Gingrich's record as the entrenched Beltway Insider, grafting 1.8 Million via Fannie and Freddie, is simply ugly.
Newt has again lowered the reputations of many, amazing to consider he was mistakenly being hyped as an ideal just a short time ago.
Gingrich belongs on a couch with Nancy Pelosi...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt isn't actually a conservative "principle" that property rights always trump environmental protections.
No matter what an anti-environmental extremist like Mr. Adler says.
I have friends who are conservatives. A lot of them strongly believe in the necessity of protecting the environment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I have friends who are conservatives."
That is very amusing, very amusing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I have friends who are conservatives. A lot of them strongly believe in the necessity of protecting the environment."
I've never met Mr. Welker. Had we met, and if we were friends, he'd have one more friend who is a conservative and who believes in protecting the environment. That said, as a conservative, I believe that necessary actions to protect the environment should be paid for by the government and not by private property owners.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo balancing property rights against environmental protection is anti-environmental extremism? Your 'always trump' premise is created from whole cloth and is akin to Obama's straw man tropes contrasting his level of regulation against the never-argued no regulation at all. Using your own (il)logic the mirror argument to yours paints you as an anti-property-rights extremist.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSuch disingenuousness rightly consigned the global warming alarmists to fringe status.
Would it be so bad if Property rights DID always trump environmental concerns?
All that would really mean is that owners would need to be compensated for the taking of their right to us what belongs to them. In the case of a truly obstinate owner, you might have to go so far as to invoke eminent domain. But the owner would be compensated.
The current system seems designed to make those who own property pay for the protections that others want to impose.
This isn't to say that we should not be protecting the environment more, less or the same as we are. That is an entirely different discussion. But should we be forcing the costs of this onto a small group of owners rather than shouldering it collectively?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't sweat it OBQ. This is David Welker's standard M.O. Label your opponent an inflexible extremist, then proceed to knock the stuffing out of a strawman.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVoters who want wars, torture, assassinations, "humanitarian" bombings in oil rich countries, indefinite detentions, drone attacks that kill the innocent, erosion of civil liberties, domestic war on the people (drug war), out-of-control debt and spending, graft and greed, crony capitalism, pandering to special interests, bailouts, more of the same, must NOT vote for Ron Paul.
Voters who want peace, a humane foreign policy, restoration of civil liberties, an end to the war on drugs, sound money, balanced budgets, honesty, integrity and transparency in government, and a President wholly committed to Constitutional government can vote for Ron Paul.
Ain't that difficult a choice.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLook, I realize we're all fighting for "our guy" and such around here. But, can the moderators please not allow through comments that are basically an advertisement that has absolutely nothing to do with the post in question?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney sabotaged four by implementing Romneycare (socialized medicine plus taxpayer-funded abortion), implementing gay marriage, and seeking to implement cap and trade.
But we're used to National Review applying standards to candidates who actually have advanced the conservative movement that you never would to those who are self-described "progressives".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomneycare was not mentioned at all in Romneycare. Decisions about what should be covered in Massachusetts healthcare is determined by an independent body--the Commonwealth Connector. It was that body, not Romney, that ruled that abortion would be covered.
The state had little choice but to cover abortion. The State Supreme Court had ruled in 1981 that the Massachusetts Constitution required payments for medically required abortions as a "fundamental right" afforded to Medicaid-eligible women. It restated in a 1997 decision that the state must pay for medically necessary abortions if it pays for all other medically necessary procedures.
(Romney vetoed embyronic stem cell research.)
Planned Parenthood was a member on the State Medical Board. According to Massachusetts Citizens For Life Ann Fox, " The Committe doesn't decide anything that has to do with abortions. It is a rate-setting thing. It was not something that right-to-lifers were concerned about at the time."
According to statistics compiled by the non partisan Guttmacher Institute, the number of abortions declined after the healthcare overhaul, from 27,250 in 2005 to 25,790 in 2007.
Ann Fox said of Romney's overall record on abortion, "We and National Right To Life are quite confortable with the fact that he took a pro-life position, that he governs with it, and will continue to have it."
Romney did not implement Cap & Trade. Governor Romney opposed Kyoto and withdrew far left state Massachusetts from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative & he has trashed government regulatory policy as bad for businesses & jobs ever since.
Romney never supported Gay marriage and opposed it becoming law in Massachusetts.
Google: "In Which I Defend Romney From The Charge" Gallagher--NRO.
Romney vetoed 8 provisions of Romneycare, including the Employer's Mandate. All 8 vetoes were easily overridden by Massachusetts far left legislature. States have the constitutally protected right to decide their own healthcare & liability mandates.
Gingrich endorsed the Individual Mandate at the federal level from 1993--May 15, 2011. Romney opposes "one size fits all" healthcare at the federal level.
By the way, no state's healthcare services or budget deficits have been bailed out more by the federal government than Sanctuary State Perry's "Texas Miracle". Perry's Texas also has the higest rate of uninsured in the nation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCorrection. "Abortion was not mentioned at all in Romneycare."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou start out well, then you just do the broad-brush thing and ruin it. This is Jonathan Adler's post, not National Review's.
Of course, you also ruin it by trying to canonize Newt. The problem with Newt has always been that he was smarter than his principles. Yes, he did some good - and he did a lot of harm, too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn approximately 2000 I heard Mr. Gingrich on the radio being asked whether a position he was taking at the moment wasn't opposite to one of the points on the Contract With America. He responded, "Oh, I never said I agreed with all of the Contract only that I would bring it to the floor of the House for debate". He was then and is now too clever by half.
Mike
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseS.E. Cupp's Newt Gingrich Natural Woman article is one of the funniest and meanest I have seen in a long time. External Link
Ouch.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse