In many ways though, it's worth noting that this is consistent with conservative philosophies in the purest sense of the term (e.g., anti-change).  The Economist used to often write about how the definitions of liberal and conservative tended to be opposite on different sides of the Atlantic, with Europe favoring the more traditional definitions of the term.  This was in the late 80s/early 90s, when "liberal" in the US was the leading edge of political correctness (contrary to free speech) and "conservative" was the leading edge of airline/gas deregulation (contrary to the status quo).  I'm grossly oversimplifying, but whether or not one agrees with their position 15 years ago, it's clear that the definition of conservative in this country has shifted well back towards the traditional, "european" definition.  (And I've not seen the Economist make those assertions since GW took office.)

So Gingrich's positioning isn't so much refuting the basis of his party as much as it is an acknowledgement that the party has abandoned their libertarian supporters.  What is frustrating of course is that they still cloak their positions in the language of libertarianism, and kudos to you for pointing this out wherever you can.  It is certainly disingenuous.  

At the same time, the Ds have not exactly rushed in to fill that void, which has made the Gingrichian position easier to sustain, since the  assertion that the Ds don't support a reduction in the scope of gov't isn't false.  What is false is to suggest that this implies that the Rs do.  

The GOP is in danger of becoming nothing but a party representing a coalition of big business, neo-con international crusaders, anti-Left cultural warriors, and mystics.  Gingrich is the wordsmith trying to hold it all together and sell this brave new political world to those few of us who once saw something else in the Republican Party.  To wit, a [principled commitment to individual and economic liberty.  Well, as you say, those days are for the most part past.

Since libertarianism has a fairly small constituency and very few electoral prospects, it seems that you folks are going to have to choose the lesser of two evils. Typically you've chosen Republicans, for the (rather wistful) reasons you cite, but as you say, what libertarian instincts there are left in the Republican party seem purely vestigial and not long for this world.

So what's the latest thinking among your colleagues as to which evil is less evil these days?

grist.org

"LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES WILL FIND COMMON GROUND on the environment in a century where everyone is a mainstream environmentalist." Gingrich in the Sierra interview

I am skeptical that liberals and conservatives will find common ground on defining exactly what is mainstream.  And I am skeptical that any mainstream they can agree on in Washington is where we need to be.  We need to be finding all kinds of eddies, large and small, to exit the mainstream, 'cause it is going down.  

small eddy ecodiversivist

It would be pathetic, JustLou, if today's "liberals" and "conservatives" find "common ground," along the lines that you suspect Gingrich envisions.

What we can hope for, better, in the future, is a clearer distinction between anthropocentrism and animal-rightsist biocentrism.  Presumably all of today's "conservatives" would go for anthropocentrism, but so would very many "liberals."

I would love to talk with Newt about the biodiversity crisis.  He surely knows a fair amount about the subject; and from his interest in evolutionary biology, he presumably looks on the issue with great concern.  Back in the mid-1990s, when I was volunteering in the vertebrate paleontology halls of the American Museum of Natural History, I recall the excitement on the occasion of Newt's special evening visit, with a tour conducted by the curators.

Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.

I am sure Gingrich would be quite happy to view scenes of biodiversity ... in museums and zoos.  Gingrich should have fit in well with all the old shit, I mean bones, in there.

The statement "tax incentives will work better than tax penalties" shouldn't go unchallenged. Constructing tax incentives requires that we make bets on what we think the likely winners are. If we look at existing examples what do we get? Corn Ethanol!

A carbon tax would likely be an effective strategy because it puts everyone in the position of paying more for fossil-fuel energy. This will stimulate demand for solutions across the population and will leave the door open for flexible, true free market solutions. (You'd think Newt would like that...)

I'm actually of the opinion that there is a substantial middle ground, but only because I (optimistically) believe that the Republican party is changing.  The libertarian elements of the party are a natural spot for compromise, and it is not particularly partisan for any politician to stand up and say "I demand progress on AGW and want all interested parties at the table.  But the ground rules are that (a) if you insist there isn't a problem worth dealing with, you're not welcome at the table, (b) if you insist that the economy must suffer, you're not welcome at the table, and (c) if you insist that the profits earned by current businesses are more important than the long-term growth of the economy, you're not welcome at the table."  

That invitation could come from Clinton/Obama just as much as it could come from McCain (but admittedly, not many others in the R field).  I completely agree with Jerry that the Rs have become a "coalition of big business, neo-con international crusaders, anti-Left cultural warriors, and mystics".  But it was not ever thus, and we shouldn't presume it will always be.  A proper trouncing of the lunatic fringe in this electoral cycle (Huckabee, Tancredo, Romney) would force the Rs to re-evaluate who gets invited into their big tent, and is not out of the realm of plausibility - just as (Bill) Clinton moved to the center and built a coalition that excluded the lunatic fringe of his own party, and as the Ds progressed in the last electoral cycle by softening their stances on some of their traditional red meat issues (abortion, etc.).

Optimistic, perhaps, but not implausible.

Well, anybody who "insists" on anything is perhaps not to be welcomed to any discussion table on any subject anywhere.

But as for the economy "suffering," that can mean all kinds of things.  Forthright recommendations that we shift certain of our patterns of consumption definitely deserve to be considered, even though they may be perceived in some quarters to be "insisting that the economy suffer."

Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.

Nunyerbus,
I'm with you on the Carbon Tax, but I think it's important about how we talk about it.  It's not that we should have a Carbon Tax, but that of the taxes we do have, taxing Carbon is one of taxes that has benefits along with the revenue we want to pay for government services.

The reason I think it is important to discuss it that way is because lets say that states decided to eliminate the state Sales taxes which brings in about 400 billion dollars a year and replaced it with a Carbon Tax.   All kinds of people will be telling us how terrible it is, we now are taxing 400 billion, it will destroy our economy, etc..   But we are already taxing Sales taxes at 400 billion.   If we switch the tax from Sales to Carbon we can go along way to helping reduce greenhouse gases from our country, but still have the same tax level.

That's why it's important to not just talk about a Carbon tax, but make sure that people realize that they get other tax reductions with the Carbon tax.   It's just like when people called the estate tax the death tax, more people were against it.