An early statement by Newt: The essence of science that distinguishes it from politics is that the argument over fact and truth is very, very important.
Is that Newt admitting that in his view, the argument over fact and truth is unimportant for politics?
Please share widely!
Stephen Colbert seemed like more of a match for Kerry than Newt. If ever it was thought that Stephen were sincere about his conservatism, he’d probably be beating Mitt in the polls too.
Uh, Joel, would that be the same John Kerry who’s FAMILY owns SUV’s?
<
p>
“The Kerry family, it now comes out, has not one, but FIVE SUVs: a 1995 Chevrolet Suburban, a 1993 Land Rover Defender, a 1989 Jeep Cherokee, a 1994 Jeep Grand Cherokee and a 2001 Audi Allroad.”
<
p>
http://www.ethicssco…
<
p>
Best,
Chuck
so what?
<
p>
Kerry’s personal activities have no bearing on the reality of global warming. Furthermore, the miles of usage is far more relevant than the number of vehicles. Further still, nobody is arguing to eliminate SUVs entirely — after all, they have some really good uses like, for example, transporting your windsurfing gear to and from the water, something Kerry presumably does.
I caught the end of this debate on C-Span over the weekend and really enjoyed hearing the thoughts of both these men. I couldn’t help thinking how good it would for our nation (and for political junkies) to have debates of this nature more often, that is debates that aren’t centered around a presidential campaign.
<
p>
I hope the sponsors of this event plan more on different topics.
I had caught this one on TV, and glad I did because I missed Newt’s debate with Mario Cuomo from February. It reminded me that Republicans be reasonable, rational, but wrong people who really know what they’re talking about. Newt was clearly the better debator, especially for that kind of discussion. I had meant to ask Markey about it last Friday because he covered a lot of similar areas. Now newt Gingrich and Ed Markey talking solutions to global climate change, that would be excellent.