Aieee! Politics

My man Gingrich speaking the truth yet again. Ah, I long for the golden age when I actually used to like republicans. Although the following are two examples of Republicans that please me.

Gingrich vs. Kerry: Shoot-out at the climate change corral

CNN's story highlights:
• Gingrich says incentives should be used to reduce carbon emissions
• Kerry: Waiting on market like saying 'Enron, you take over the pensions' for U.S.
• Gingrich, Kerry exchanged words at climate change debate in Washington

The best portion of this article:
"Gingrich said he accepts there is a general consensus among scientists that Earth has gotten warmer over the last century and that humans have contributed to that problem, conceding that his views might not find favor with some of his fellow conservatives.
But the former GOP speaker said he believes the best way to solve the problem is to unleash the spirit of American entrepreneurship, not the power of government. That means using tax credits and other incentives to encourage the development of technology to reduce carbon emissions, rather than capping them by government decree. "

And additionally in the lime light due to this topic of climate change, the governator himself:

Schwarzenegger pumps up green movement

CNN's story highlights:

• Schwarzenegger says environmental movement needs image polished
• He backs cars that run on biofuel and hydrogen fuel
• He warns politicians to follow his lead or watch votes melt like polar ice caps

And my favorite part of this story:
He issued a warning to other politicians who don't follow his lead.
"Your political base will melt away as surely as the polar ice caps -- I can guarantee you of that," Schwarzenegger said. "You will become a political penguin on a smaller and smaller ice floe, drifting out to sea. Goodbye, my little friend."

I think Gingrich has a point about encouraging entrepreneurship, however I don't believe it is enough on its own. There have to be stricter regulations, because we know big business is not responsible enough to do it on its own.

People talk a lot about "tough decisions" and how they often are the right ones. Tough decisions are very much a part of the Bush administration's lexicon, however they fail to get tough on the environment favoring business instead. The real irony is that independence from oil will only bolster the American economy, and its security. At first there will be some sacrifices, and some people will suffer but this has to be done. It is the responsible thing. If you can't embrace it for environmental reasons, I think an even more important reason is for national security and global stability. We must stop pumping money into regions of the world that have a growing base of people that want us destroyed. It is common sense!

This time article claims this to be a surprise, but I'm not surprised at all:

Poll: A Surprising G.O.P. Edge for '08

People know that the left can't lead on the economy, and as far as corruption goes... while the Bush administration and his style of republican (Delay, Lott, and Hastert amongst others) set new standards for the GOP, in the past the Democrats were very much in the mud, and very connected so we say. The Democrats have always traditionally been very much aligned with the mob, Unions... many which are essentially a socially accepted contingency of the mob, and have a long history of un-kept promises and political maneuvering that makes Karl Rove look like an amateur. (The dems continue to look golden because they cover their backs rather than scoff at "the people" openly) Unions are a necessary evil, something well intended that turned into a monstrosity. I often wonder if in today's world if there wouldn't be better ways to enable, or give individuals power to exercise their rights as employees. Anyhow I digress....

The problem with the polls that are cited in the Time article are: Neither John McCain or Giuliani will win the primary. As the article says, "They aren't traditional republicans". I'm not certain I'd go as far to say that, what I would say is they deviate from today's status quo for Republicans. They don't cater to the religious right (A relatively new power force in the GOP). Nixon and Reagan both were less "socially conservative" than Bush and many of his loyalists. Unfortunately for people who count themselves as fiscal conservatives and support less government oversight and the free market: Because the south is a stronghold for the social conservatives, and because the electoral college is tipped in their favor, it is more probable, that Romney (despite his John Kerry like behavior) will be the nominee, or someone else entirely. Romney might have a chance against Hillary, but for anyone else it will an uphill battle.

I'm almost tempted to register as a Republican so I can vote in the primary, because it will be more important than the final vote. The results of the primary, may be decisive enough to let one easily predict the outcome of the presidential election.

Lastly the latest oops:

White House: Millions of e-mails may be missing

I know its a bit of a diversion, but I'd like to know how the Clinton Administration handled their email so we can better understand if this is legitimately an unprecedented cover up action or simple neglect. Of the five million, do they include emails only from questionable times? Or does this encompass the entire period W has been in office? This unfortunately will have to be investigated, and it is almost irritating enough to warrant punishment even if this wasn't a specific "cover-up" attempt of the administrations actions. Handling of this information should have been treated with great importance and that it wasn't shows incompetence and disregard for the law. This will cost the U.S. tax payers millions of dollars and divert the attention of our legislative branch from areas of greater importance. Some one's head should roll.