« Bearly Surviving Amid the Ebbs and Floes | Main | Give Peeps a Chance »
Live-blogging the Kerry-Gingrich debate today
John Kerry and Newt Gingrich are debating the government's role in dealing with global climate change this morning at 10 am EDT, and enviromentally-minded netizens will be blogging about it in real time.
The debate, hosted by New York University’s John Brademas Center for the Study of Congress, will take place in the Russell Senate Office Building and will be broadcast live by C-Span and simultaneously webcast at http://c-span.org.
As TheHill.com notes, this event ought to be a thinking-man's matchup well worth watching:
Kerry, who bowed out of the 2008 presidential race earlier this year, has been dubbed an “environmental champion” by the non-partisan League of Conservation Voters. His website touts a long record of fighting for the environment. He and his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry also recently wrote This Moment on Earth, which addresses climate change and preserving the environment.
"Newt’s a guy who has spent a lot of time wrestling with climate change and the environment. He reads about it, he teaches about it, he writes about it,” Kerry said Thursday. “We don’t see eye to eye about everything, obviously, but that’s what makes for a good debate.
“As a father, when someone tells me that within the next decade, if we don't deal with global warming, our children and grandchildren may deal with global catastrophe, that tells me I damn well better do whatever I can to help make Washington deal with this responsibly,” Kerry added. “We need these good old-fashioned debates and forums and discussions to get everyone thinking creatively on both sides of the aisle.”
[snip]
“America should focus its energy policy in four areas,” Gingrich writes on his website. “Basic research for a new energy system, incentives for conservation, more renewable resources, and environmentally sound development of fossil fuels.
“The lengthy process of environmental planning must be made more efficient and cost effective,” he adds.
Kerry also noted he hopes this debate will keep climate change in the forefront of Americans’ minds.
“This is an issue of incredible importance to everyone’s lives, and we need to do big and small things every day to draw attention to the problem as well as the solutions. Al Gore has done a phenomenal job with his movie,” he added. “You do what you can to build the dialogue.”
Various progressive political posters will be giving the play-by-play and commenting on what they see and hear from Kerry and Gingrich on Kerry's blog this morning.
The more voices and the more different points of view that are represented in live-blogging discussions of this sort, the better the quality of the resulting discourse.
So stop by the Kerry blog and join the live-blogging thread there, and/or add your own live-blogging comments to this DCP blog thread during the debate as well.
It's scheduled to run from 10 am through 12 noon EDT, and there may be Q&A sessions afterwards, so there'll be plenty of time to put your two cents in at both locations.
DB just left for a breakfast meeting, looking natty and he will catch up with the debate at 10. Last night's topic of enviro conversation: ground water depletion. OY.
Water or oil? Coal or nuclear? Which will be the (pardon the pun) HOT topics of the next few years?
The tensions are growing among the denial levels of so many, the growing awareness of the scope and depth of the problems we have created, the ability to politicize everything and the resultant cynicism by others. We have a huge mess on our hands and our children are not prepared to fix it.
We are going to have to change. NOW.
Hopefully Richard will inject some thoughts here once he is in the room.
I had the incredible misfortune of catching about 60 seconds of Glenn Beck on the FOX wannabe network, and he was absolutely vile in a segment ripping Al Gore and the global warming crowd to pieces, with nauseating attempts at sarcasm along the way.
He also had some supposed expert on who kept repeating that the earth hasn't warmed in 9 years. Then good ol Glenn went on to repeat that "the earth hasn't warmed in 9 years, folks", a la Rush Limpaw, about 5 times.
He then went on to say what a farce Al Gore is, how he's "no longer a rock star and he didn't win anything for his movie" (????)...
The point was, he went way out of his way to say basically say that global warming is a myth.
p.s. Glenn Beck is one helluva piece a shit... and thats my freedom of expression talkin.
Luck is with me. I got into the irc again.
Anyone want to chat during the debate, come join me and whoever else shows up.
p.s.s. Does Don Imus own a mirror... or scissors?
I only remember Imus from how he bashed Clinton relentlessly. But then in 04 he was ticked at Kerry's people for missing his stop where he and those kids were waiting. That was a major mix up that Imus didn't hesistate to continually kick Kerry about.
I have no clue why he's popular. I found him to be wierd and boring.
Is it time for civil disobedience???
Posted by: Ralpheh at April 9, 2007 10:11 PM
Actually, it's WAY past time for the US military personnel to follow Lt. Ehren Watada's example and refuse to participate in Bu$hCo's war crimes. If the oil corporations want the Iraqi oil so danged bad, they can pay for Blackwater and Halliburton mercenaries out of their record-setting profits since Bu$hCo's war crime (invasion & occupation) began.
Relevant to this thread (my two cents' worth of opinion):
It's WAY past time for us common schmucks to wake up and learn how to conserve energy, develop alternative energy sources, and figure out how we're going to exist in a world without oil as an energy source, learn how to think efficiently and only drive when it's absolutely necessary. Peak oil has been reached, it's WAY past time for conservation efforts. What kind of a world will our grandchildren and great-grandchildren inherit if we don't lay the groundwork for existing in a world without oil as one energy source...? Are we so selfish we will leave future generations nothing? Will future generations have to go back to living as our colonial ancestors did? How far will humanity regress in the future?
Seems to me the neoCons want us all myopically wrapped up in selfishness and shopping and having our attention spans shortened to paying attention to celebrities, rather than what we leave for future generations.
FWIW, I thought Newtie dropped off the face of the earth a long time ago. I don't understand why the hypocritical adulterer is "debating" global warming or the environment. I wasn't aware he had any expertise in this area.
As with Georgie's illegal war and a lot of other things that have been going on since 2000, all talk and no action means no progress is made in any way whatsoever. The corporate profiteers are the only ones with money and they aim to keep it, so they are not spending anything for research and development - lots of wasted ads on TV, which only spreads the money to other corporations to keep the sheeple brainwashed, especially about big gas hog vehicles, but nothing PRACTICAL is being done otherwise in the corporate world.
What about things like going back to natural fibers for clothing? Polyester may be great for no iron clothing, but to make it requires petroleum. What about things like going back to no-scent personal products that don't use chemicals that destroy the environment, especially ground water? What about stopping embalming which uses formaldehyde (a carcinogen) which will affect the ground water as decomposition eventually sets in? What about using natural woods without formaldehyde and other chemicals that concentrate in small spaces without ventilation (like mobil homes with lots of plyboard, or plywood furniture which uses formaldehyde) which then causes asthma attacks? What about quitting making or using carpeting made from artificial fibers which use petroleum as the base? What about pushing for more recycling?
There are all kinds of "small" steps that can be done to eliminate the necessity for petroleum and other chemicals that damage the environment, which, in turn, will also clean up our water and our air and our soil... and make things better for future generations.
One of the things that will make this debate interesting is that Gingrich has always been viewed by the hard-core conservative (and especially the neoconservative) portion of the Republican party as being too green and tree-huggery for their tastes. So it wouldn't surprise me if we find ourselves nodding our heads and going "Hmm.... yeah" from time to time while he's speaking his piece during this morning's debate.
Posted by: Otter at April 10, 2007 09:40 AM
Ah, so it's a setup of sorts, the introduction of the right tacking hard to the left in advance of oh-ate general election on one of top 3 perceived voter hot-button issues...
Sin, Sinner, Cynic
3x fast
Monkey
Who is Glenn Beck? LOL Seriously, I've heard the name and seen it in print but have no idea what the guy looks or sounds like or where to find out and don't want to try.
I almost with Gingrich were a bad debater and ignorant on the environment but he's not, really. It'll be an interesting and probably fair debate and maybe Newt is positioning for a run.
Those who disparage Gore and Kerry for their work on the environment are flying in the face of scientific fact and climate change and the other environmental conditions they talk about are no longer theoretical.
So it is rather embarrassing that this Glenn Beck and his ilk are beating a dead horse - in public.
WAXMAN WANTS RICE TO TESTIFY ABOUT "16 WORDS/ NIGER URANIUM" CLAIMS
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041007L.shtml
Waxman Still Wants Rice to Answer Question on Niger Uranium Claims
The Politico
Monday 09 April 2007
After receiving what he deemed an insufficient response from the State Department, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) is reiterating his request for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to appear before the panel on April 18 to answer questions about administration claims that Iraq tried to buy enriched uranium from Niger.
Waxman wants Rice to answer questions about what she knew about the assertion that Iraq tried to buy uranium before the U.S. invasion, according to a letter the chairman sent Rice on Monday.
The claims, which have since been proved false, were the basis for a now notorious line in President Bush's State of the Union in 2003 address to justify the invasion of Iraq. That claim eventually led to the outing of Valerie Plame, a covert CIA agent, who has already testified before Waxman's committee.
In his most recent letter to Rice, Waxman lays out the four questions he would like Rice to answer:
Whether she knew if Bush "cited forged evidence about Iraq's efforts to procure uranium from Niger in the State of the Union Address";
Whether she was aware of doubts raised by CIA and State Department officials questioning the veracity of those claims before Bush delivered his speech;
GOODLING'S LAW SCHOOL (REGENT): RIGHT-WING, RELIGIOUS, AND LOW-RANKING
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041007N.shtml
snip
The Regent law school was founded in 1986, when Oral Roberts University shut down its ailing law school and sent its library to Robertson's Bible-based college in Virginia. It was initially called "CBN University School of Law" after the televangelist's Christian Broadcasting Network, whose studios share the campus and
snip
In a recent Regent law school newsletter, a 2004 graduate described being interviewed for a job as a trial attorney at the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in October 2003. Asked to name the Supreme Court decision from the past 20 years with which he most disagreed, he cited Lawrence v. Texas, the ruling striking down a law against sodomy because it violated gay people's civil rights.
"When one of the interviewers agreed and said that decision in Lawrence was 'maddening,' I knew I correctly answered the question," wrote the Regent graduate. The administration hired him for the Civil Rights Division's housing section - the only employment offer he received after graduation, he said.
The graduate from Regent - which is ranked a "tier four" school by US News & World Report, the lowest score and essentially a tie for 136th place - was not the only lawyer with modest credentials to be hired by the Civil Rights Division after the administration imposed greater political control over career hiring.
The changes resulted in a sometimes dramatic alteration to the profile of new hires beginning in 2003, as the Globe reported last year after obtaining resumes from 2001-2006 to three sections in the civil rights division. Conservative credentials rose, while prior experience in civil rights law and the average ranking of the law school attended by the applicant dropped.
As the dean of a lower-ranked law school that benefited from the Bush administration's hiring practices, Jeffrey Brauch of Regent made no apologies in a recent interview for training students to understand what the law is today, and also to understand how legal rules should be changed to better reflect "eternal principles of justice," from divorce laws to abortion rights.
"We anticipate
OK off to Johnkerry.com to read more about the debate. Thanks again, Rick! Stuck at work but will look forward to a link for catching the debate - perhaps C-span. All the better if Gingrich isn't a complete ignoramus on the subject, as then it may be a real debate, something we don't see often in the political realm. I must admit Kerry wiped the floor with Bush 3x in 2004. Bush used to be a better debater earlier in his career, as against Anne Richards. Then something gradually happened, as Fallows wrote about in Atlantic Monthly, as his intellectual and verbal capacities didn't seem to be up to what they once were. Kerry, on the other hand, was a good debater early on (& you can see him go against O'Neill back in the Vietnam era) and this has served him well. I enjoyed seeing him make mincemeat of Sam Fox recently in the Senate hearings!
I don't understand why the hypocritical adulterer is "debating" global warming or the environment. I wasn't aware he had any expertise in this area.
Posted by: NonnyO at April 10, 2007 09:15 AM
Without watching or listening to the said-egomaniac, it's pretty obvious that if he had a functioning brain-cell, it would be a lonely one. Only someone totally ignorant could make such claims. There are always people who just love to support the most outrageously bad - well, we have evidence in the leaders chosen for both our countries.
Ignoring those, gives us time to concentrate on our task. We have a planet to save.
Posted by: monkey at April 10, 2007 08:31 AM
My right wing aunt (the one who is coming around a little) mentioned "Mr. Opinion" one day, and I told her that I had heard a rumor that he was a hired r.w. shill and knew he was coming to his current news network four months before he came. I told her that I don't care for him, because, IMHO, all he does is give his opinion of everything, unlike Anderson Cooper, who presents both sides of issues and lets the viewer draw his own conclusion. She then said "Oh. Well, I don't watch him very often."
He makes me want to projectile vomit, so I don't even sniff the air if my remote accidentally takes me there.
Yes, we have a planet to save, but, remember, this issue of changing to other forms of energy so we are not so reliant on foreign oil comes around every single election cycle, then we don't hear about it again until the next one.
It's big business, baby. I can do my part by not using aerosol products, recycling my plastic, etc. We can each do something to help. But can we lick it without world scale big business changing in big ways? I don't think so.