I'm surrounded by Republicans. My parents are Republicans, my partners at work, many of my neighbors, they're all GOP voters. I live in a red state - they're everywhere. GOoPers all around me.
So I know from experience that not all Republicans are stark raving mad. They're often misinformed. But they're not all Cheney and Malkin and Limbaugh.
Every now and then I'm pleasantly surprised to hear a Republican say something I agree with.
Cliff May is a conservative pundit most of us know from his appearances in CNN, where he's often seen speaking in support of Bush's invasion of Iraq, the war on terror, etc.
I think the overwhelming majority of Kossacks disagree with May's stances on Iraq. But I think many liberals will find things in May's latest Scripps Howard column they can agree with.
I think this is a good thing, for two reasons. First, it's nice to see a conservative actually worried about energy. I tend to think of them all as money-grubbing oilmen. Second, the energy problems we face require bipartisan solutions.
More below
I think solving the energy problems our country faces will require input and work from ALL parts of the political spectrum. "Tree huggers" and environmentalists can't do it alone. We're gonna have to have the GOP - or at least a part of it - working with us, I think, simply because any legislation will need broad support to pass.
May's column...
http://www.shns.com/...
...surprised me. He calls for something I never thought I'd hear a conservative call for - a break on big oil's monopoly.
May writes:
"...In Brazil today, automobiles are running on alcohol made from sugar cane. Consider how many Third World countries might produce similar fuels if they could sell them to eager consumers in the United States. Saudi Arabia's loss could be Haiti's gain...There are other technologies we can and should _ in the interest of national security _ give a boost. Hybrid cars that utilize batteries for short trips are selling well...Let a hundred flowers _ and grasses and weeds _ bloom; make them into fuels that can compete with _ not replace but compete with _ gasoline. ..Who would oppose such progress? An army of special interests that benefit from the status quo. These groups will fight like ferrets to preserve petroleum's market share and to preserve the tax and tariff advantages they now enjoy. Is it too much to ask that a critical mass of politicians from both sides of the aisle stand up to them, break oil's monopoly, reduce America's dependence on foreign energy and allow us to stop funding both sides in the War Against Terrorism?"
He advocates things some will disagree with. But my take is that those sort of dsiagreements are minor. The big question - is there an energy problem or not? - May has answered in the affirmative. I think that's an important first step.
Now, the other day when Pelosi said that 'you can't fix the gas crisis if you're a Republican', I found myself agreeing with her. Clearly part of our problem stems from GOP ties with big oil. It's obvious.
But I've also heard Al Gore say that we must have Republican help to solve issues like global warming and the energy crunch. And evangelicals have been making noises lately about global warming...so maybe there ARE people on both sides who see the problem, and see the need for bipartisanship.
Anyway, I was happy to read May's column. At least there are some on the conservative side who are worried, too.