This article discusses the global-warming debate this past Tuesday between Newt Gingrich and John Kerry. It was expected to be a "smack-down and a prize fight" but Gingrich surprisingly positioned himself on Kerry's side. Gingrich even presented former negative remarks made by Kerry regarding Gingrich's environmental position while Speaker of the House. By the end of the debate, "for a brief but terrifying moment, they appeared to be on the verge of a hug."
It is very obvious the Gingrich is widening and changing his political positions due to his presidential campaign. "When Kerry was running for president in 2004, Gingrich said the senator "thrashed and smeared and lied about U.S. soldiers" and was guilty of "consistent distortion over and over and over again on every front."" I think it is really ridiculous the way politicians will change their stance on such crucial issue just for the votes. I realize that is how you get elected in the country but it really makes you wonder why people pursue political positions. Is it for the chance to change or improve a situation that you truely care about or is it soley about the title?
This is a class blog for the students of POLSCI 426: Congressional Politics at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(218)
-
▼
April
(58)
- Republicans go negative -- on one another
- Law and Order's Other 2008 Presidential Character:...
- Murtha: Four Ways to Influence a President. One i...
- Bush Tells Immigrant Graduates to Solve Immigratio...
- The Gift That Keeps on Giving
- House panel votes to subpoena Rice on Iraq
- I Learn From Mistakes
- Pelosi Won't Attend Briefing on Iraq
- Bridging a Divide -- and Crossing an Ocean
- Kohl amendment extending SeniorCare likely to be v...
- Doyle lobbies for more UW funds
- here's the mccain article
- Sen. McCain gets tough on global warming & foreign...
- Bill Clinton: World Ambassador
- Senate Majority Leader says War Withdrawl Bill to ...
- Boris Yeltsin, RIP
- Lobbyists Profit From Power Shift In Congress
- House Approves A Full D.C. Seat
- Expectant House Member Is a Congressional Rarity
- Congress Skeptical of Warhead Plan
- Renzi Resigns from Intelligence Chair
- MCs from Both Sides Dip Into Taxes for Vacations
- "Obscure Procedural Fights" Does it Get Any Better?
- Mazel Tov Tommy
- Will Virginia shootings spur Congress to Act?
- Liberals to Pelosi: Hey! We're Still Here!
- Guard, Reserve leaders speak before Senate
- Is it Political?
- GOP presidential candidates distance themselves fr...
- Betwen Obama and Clinton for the Dems
- Romney, Giuliani Have Money to Burn
- Gonzales: I have nothing to hide
- Cheny thinks Democrats will Drop Timetables
- House Hesitates on Ethics Changes
- NASA Causes Turnabout on Fiscal Responsibility
- Amendment to FISA Proposed
- Kerry and Gingrich Hugging Trees -- and (Almost) E...
- congress and morals???
- Bush vs. Congress: The Looming Battle Over Executi...
- Romney targets Pelosi in foreign-policy speech
- Obama Challenges McCain on Iraq Stroll
- House committee to hold Tillman hearings
- Details of GOP's Immigration Bill Strategy
- Wisconsin Might Just Hang Up on "Robo-Calls"
- Flaws in W2
- Stem cell vote set for Congress this week
- kerry v gingrich...debate on climate change
- Fundraising numbers shake up White House race
- Will Dems get Gonzales through Monica Goodling?
- Who Cares About the Next American President When W...
- lets see how we rate...taxpayers
- Feingold and Reid Propose Funding Cut for Troops
- Bush berates Dems over Iraq war funding
- Pelosi is welcomed in Syria
- The Decoy Effect, or How to Win an Election
- Former Wis. Governor Enters Race for Nomination
- Senate Democrats Vow to Push Withdrawal
- White House criticizes Pelosi's planned Syria visit
-
▼
April
(58)
4 comments:
Yeah I agree....Personally I like Gingrich and think he is a brilliant man. As for '08 I think that its just past his time. Had he decided to do this years earlier..perhaps..but i dont think it will happen for him. I was disappointed to see such a smart man change or widen his stance on this issue. Stick to what you mean, We dont need any more phony politicians
Great post. I just saw this and was about to post it, but you beat me to it. Anyway, I just don't think it's possible today to pigeon-hole yourself into one position or another. Everything is so complicated that it can't be seen as black or white. This is particularly true of the environment. Besides, John Kerry and Newt Gingrich didn't get to be a presidential nominee or speaker of the house without being strategic politicians. You live, you learn, and possibly that eventually means rethinking your own policy stances for something more.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a kickback for Newt on how many copies of Kerry’s book were sold at the debate site that day. Many people will change their position on an issue if it makes them enough money. Anyway, this might be an instance in which Gingrich’s preference on how to handle global warming has changed over the years. Although the median voter theorem states that preferences are fixed, that assumption relies on the assumption that the vote occurs during a relatively short period that would preclude a measurable shift in individual preference. A more realistic analysis holds that Gingrich and Kerry consider global warming policy from a multidimensional paradigm, with energy costs and subsequent effects on labor and the economy being bundled with the singular dimension of emissions restrictions as well as with the numerous dimensions of particulate-specific restrictions. This multidimensionality allows for a greater number of potential preference overlaps than a simpler model permits. Gingrich and Kerry very well may have agreed upon a moderate crackdown on the general industrial emission level while each made concessions both ways on specific emissions such as mercury, sulfur, and phosphates. There’s an axiom that goes, “A good compromise leaves both sides disappointed.” I like it!
So much media attention and new information has come out about global warming that a lot of people have changed their minds about it, politicians or not. I think that it is a good sign when a person can change their mind about something. It shows they are listening to both sides of the argument, something that doesn't always happen in Washington.
Post a Comment