« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Romney: First it was RomneyCare, now we’ve got WarmingMitts.

By: mbecker908 (Diary)  |  June 3rd, 2011 at 04:10 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Reuters has the story today.

(Reuters) – Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney broke with Republican orthodoxy on Friday by saying he believes that humans are responsible, at least to some extent, for climate change.

“I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that,” he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire.

“It’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.”

This is just another pebble on the pile for Mitt as far as I’m concerned. The guy was very good in private industry. He was a big government, give the Democrats what they want but do it cheaper, when he was Governor of Massachusetts and he’s yet to find a problem that government can’t solve.

I’ll vote for Ron Paul or Sarah Palin before I vote in the primary for Mitt Romney.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • redwood

    He raises my temperature, for sure.

  • aesthete

    to tick off every conservative constituency group imaginable? People said things about Daniel’s ability to annoy, but gods is Romney outpacing Daniels by a landslide. Exactly who is it that Romney is appealing to, besides establishment centrists like D Brooks/D Frum?

    • YnotNOW

      in that almost everything he does seems to be to appeal to the “independent” middle-ground voter, rather than conservatives.
      I mean, he is generally considered the front-runner, but making that assumption on the nomination when he stands around 20% in the polls is just a little presumptious….

  • Finrod

    My other choices were McCain or Huckabee. That was a very sad day.

    • acat

      And the good news is we can…

      And the *better* news is it’s the squishes who are dropping out!

      Romney’s got the advantages of big money and his staff never really stopped campaigning after 2008 … so he *looks* like the front runner.

      I cannot believe, though, that he’ll do well in the primaries. I just don’t see him actually *connecting* with people. (I also think good polling data is going to be harder to find this go’round, more people will be self-opting-out via caller ID or via dropping land lines – pollsters can’t call the cell-phone-only crowd…)

      Mew

      • izoneguy

        Be the white version of Obama?

        • acat

          Just as we’ve done every election since 1984.

          “Vote for the lesser of two evils!”
          “He’s a crap sandwich, but he’s *our* crap sandwich!”

          Romney seems to be trying to be the “centrist” .. and either he or his campaign staff are completely out of touch if they think it’s a good way to win the nom.

          Mew

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908
        • lineholder

          He’s a big-government politician who would be more than happy for the government to regulate citizens’ lives at whim and believes that government is the solution to the problem rather than being a big part of the problem.

    • YnotNOW

      I voted for Romney in 2008 primaries also, because he was the most conservative of the candidates left standing – and it was indeed a pretty sad choice. Especially when complicated by the fact that it was shaping up to be a Democrat sweep in the general (which ended up being true).

      This year, we have some much better choices, if we play our cards right and weed out the lesser choices. And the overall sentiment of the country is much more in our favor.

      So we should be VERY happy.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    You insincere, ambitious, rino, disingenuous hump.

  • mikefrey

    If Romney is the Answer, the question could be one of the following:
    Q) Which Republican is in the best position to hurt his country?
    Q) Which GOP Pres2012 candidate has an ego most comparable to Obama?
    Q) Least likely to win General 2012 after winning primary?
    Q) Least likely to attempt to turn the car before it flys off of the cliff?
    Q) Most cynical GOP candidate for Pres2012?

    etc.

    Open comment to Mitt: if you stay in you just prove that it is all about you, and not about the health of USA. You know that your policies are unhealthy.

    • Ann_W

      But I have to admit he’s looking worse and worse with each new policy position.

      • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908
        • Ann_W

          Let’s number this guy’s questions
          1. Trump–he’s clearly a populist with not many conservative impulses, or maybe Mitch McConnell. The best Republican to hurt this country– do you really think Mitt rises to this level?
          2. I have no idea, but Mitt doesn’t seem very egotistical to me. I would be willing to guess that Palin, Bachmann, Gingrich, Perry think pretty highly of themselves. So he keeps his hair combed, shoot him.
          3. Gingrich, Palin, Bachmann, polling doesn’t back up this assertion.
          4. Not sure, this may be accurate, but there are other candidates who aren’t really up to this challenge either.
          5. Also, Gingrich, what has Romney done that qualifies as cynical.

          Romney isn’t my first (or second or third) choice for the primary, but we don’t need to horriblize him. What if he ends up to be the candidate? He definitely would be better than four more years of Obama.

  • http://redmerrimack.blogspot.com/ charliebravoNH

    to carry the day for him here. Since NH is the first primary,nearly all the declared candidates are still in the race. Conservatives are split in their support for more conservative candidates. This is the cynical game McCain played in 2000 and 2008 to win here.

  • kripto

    Our country is in peril, and all you guys do is attack the most qualified person to fix our problems, shame on you.

    If you got the perfect candidate, trout them out. They do not exist. You guys sound like the same kind of guys who attacked Reagan as not being conservative enough before he got elected. Get off it and think of the peril this nation is in. We need someone who can fix our problems, not just a bunch of complainers.

    Sarah Palin is not the answer. Obama would win in a landslide
    Tim Pawlenty record on things like cap and trade is bad.
    Gingrich, give me a break.
    Herman Cain, not a chance.
    Gary Johnson, no way.
    Ron Paul, next great depression.
    Rick Santorum, couldn’t even win his own senate seat.
    Michele Bachuman, no experience
    Rudi Guiliania, in Drag, no thanks,
    Jon Huntsman, might as well reelect Obama.

    • mikefrey

      especially as you have framed it, “to fix our problems.”

      Even if you believe that he could get elected (I don’t believe he can win in the general election), what problems do you think he would fix?

      Can we agree that there is no way that Romney will have the political will to repeal ObaminableCare? He has said as much.

      Can we agree that he will AT MOST move the deck chairs around in the Federal Budget? I can’t see that he would reduce spending. Possibly the rate of increase of spending. At best.

      Medicare? SS? Fighting wars without the political will to win them? Being willing to put America (freedom, self-reliance, etc) ahead of his own power? I don’t see it.

      I do see multiple names that I believe could be positive for the USA. Romney is not one of them.

      • kripto

        Romney has yet to find a problem he can’t solve given the chance.

        • gekster

          global warming is man made, how will he solve that problem.

        • aesthete

          We already have a man in office who believes that anything his government sets his mind to do will get done. I don’t see how the white bread version will be any better.

    • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

      – for which, by the way, he has since apologized and admitted his error on. (http://spectator.org/blog/2011/02/11/pawlenty-on-past-support-for-c) …

      But don’t mind ignoring RomneyCare, which Mitt still doesn’t see as a problem?

      (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/06/02/giuliani-slams-romneys-massachusetts-health-care-law/)

  • papabear

    If you closely examine the data, humans are the root cause of SOME of the warming that has occurred. However, there are 3 root causes of warming:

    1.) fudging of the temperature record. The boys and girls that are getting the government funding have been playing with the historical records. They have applied a positive “adjustment” in the last 20 years and a negative adjustment to the early part of the 20th century. This has the net affect of making the temperature seem to increase faster than it actually has.

    2.) natural warming. The earth has been recovering from a cold period since well before the mass industrialization of the late 20th century. That trend has been about .5 degrees Celsius per century.

    3.) Man. In the last half of the 20th century, the rate of warming has increased a little from what it was before mass industrialization. If you go through the math ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/02/earth-itself-is-telling-us-there%E2%80%99s-nothing-to-worry-about-in-doubled-or-even-quadrupled-atmospheric-co2/#more-40931 ), it turns out that man is probably responsible for about 0.15 degrees Celsius warming. If we continue on our existing trend and quadruple CO2 by 2100, mankind would only cause another .42 degrees Celsius of warming.

    If Romney is going to acknowledge our minute contribution to global warming, he is duty bound to immediately follow it with the explanation of why it is NOT worth ruining our economy in an effort to stop it. Even if the U.S. immediately went back to the stone age and stopped all “greenhouse gas” emissions, we would only be able to reduce the temperature change by about .05 degrees Celsius.

    That doesn’t even amount to rounding error!!

    • papabear

      There is something we should do about global warming:

      Accept that it is going to occur and deal with both the positive and negative effects:

      1.) More food production – colder areas warm more than warm areas. The world will have more arable land. The advantages are projected to be between $10-20 Billion PER DECADE by the end of this century!!

      2.) Less energy used for keeping people warm during winter. There is no reliable analysis of the costs because energy costs are too unpredictable.

      3.) Minor coastal water protection for areas that are marginal now. According to responsible analysis, the total WORLDWIDE costs to protect against a much greater amount of warming than that mentioned above will be on the order of $50 billion for the ENTIRE 21st CENTURY!!

      Bottom line, the minor amount of warming we are likely to see if natural warming does not reverse will be beneficial.

  • silentcal2012

    The argument against cap and trade is that we don’t know enough, and that we don’t know if and how much AGW is involved. People who state assertively that there is no man made global warming as fact look just as dumb as those who say it is true. Its all a matter of degrees and remedies. Most of the leading scientist who oppose climate alarmism think there is a degree of man made global warming, and these are the scientist on our side. Richard Lindzen is our number one solider on this issue, and he thinks there is some man made global warming.

    • aesthete

      is Romney asserting a government role before we know enough? If the evidence for or against global warming is murky, then surely we shouldn’t be looking to shipwreck our economy!

      • silentcal2012

        Where is he asserting a government role?

    • conservativecurmudgeon

      …not least because, since 1998, there has actually been slight global COOLING. The earth’s temperature goes up, then it goes down. Dust Bowl, anyone?

      This whole issue needs to be framed for what it really is: An attempt by the global governing and crony business elites to choke off energy supplies for developed and developing countries, and transfer it to third-world kleptocracies where they skim this wealth off for their own purposes.

      It is the UN’s “Oil for Fraud” program, writ mammoth across the world, and it involves some of our largest banks and commodities trading firms (GE Capital primary among them). This is why Romney is comfortable supporting it.

      If Romney is a small-government Constitutional Conservative, I’ll eat my hat. And, it’s made out of polyester.

      • rbdwiggins

        and the now defunct Chicago Climate Exchange, but that’s when the Alarmists realized an estimated $10 Trillion in potential revenue from Cap and Tax. The redistributionists will not give up that revenue stream voluntarily.

        • conservativecurmudgeon

          Well Said….

          • YnotNOW

            The international market in carbon credits has suffered an almost total collapse, with only $1.5bn (?916m) of credits traded last year – the lowest since the market opened in 2005, according to a report from the World Bank.
            The future of the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS) is also in doubt, according to leaked documents. If the EU meets its target of improving energy efficiency by 20% by 2020, then the price of carbon permits under its trading system is likely to fall dramatically. This will in turn make it less financially attractive for companies to invest in low-carbon technologies.
            http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/01/world-bank-failing-carbon-markets
            —————-
            (the rest of us just laugh at their ridiculous games)

          • acat

            If so, I think I just figured out how I’m going to keep paying my mortgage…

            Mew

          • YnotNOW
          • rbdwiggins

            Big Corn Going on Offense…

            Fears public exposure…

        • glaucon

          Romney has revealed himself to be a tool for Wall St. They don’t care about global warming or cooling. It’s about the trillions of dollars that stand to be made from controlling and trading Carbon Credits. Bain Capital indeed. Romney would be more than comfortable sharing a few laughs over this in a back room with Obama, Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein…

  • aesthete

    “It?s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.”

    That would seem to be the royal government “us”, unless you have a better explanation.

    • aesthete
    • silentcal2012

      How about the people “us”. Politicians, teachers, parents tell kids all the time that it is important for “us” to recycle, throw away our trash, clean up our garbage at the beach, put out our fires at the campsite…. Obviously, you have some sort of deep hatred for the man, so you can make that leap to justify your ends. But its plain english. He’s opposed to a cap and trade system. There is nothing there that infers anything mandatory or complusory.

      • aesthete

        When a politician uses the royal “we” in the context of a political speech outlining policy, he usually means government (i.e., “we” have to redistribute the wealth, “we” must care for our environment, “we” shouldn’t do drugs, etc). That holds true for all politicians, not just Romney: the royal “we” is a great way to traipse around the ugly fact that whatever “we” are doing will be the result of “him” (or “her”, depending on the pol’s gender) pointing the rifles at us. Romney might not support C&T, but there are several ways that government can be used to achieve the desired effect of reducing emissions. If you can provide context that clearly shows that he meant voluntary actions, I’ll hold my fire on this issue, but I very much doubt you’ll be able to find such context.

        My like or dislike of Romney is irrelevant: whether I have a tattoo of my boy Romney on my bicep or a frothing hatred of the man that keeps me awake at night, factual description is what is important. It’s pretty clear after spending even a bit of time in politics that the royal “we” is almost always in reference to government unless otherwise explicitly clarified.

        • donnybrooke
        • silentcal2012

          Did you watch the whole video or read a comprehensive article, probably not. Because right after he said that, he explained himself and talked about the need to get off foreign oil and develop nuclear, coal, wind and solar, which is, umm, the position of every candidate.

          • aesthete

            Glad to hear that Romney is at least as idiotic and utopian as every other candidate who pretends that energy independence is either possible or desirable.

            However, he is either contradicting himself if he wants both domestic drilling, coal, etc and reduced greenhouse gases/emissions, or he’s lying about the priority of one of those two goals. Increased domestic drilling and coal, the fall in the cost of energy that results, *will* necessarily lead to an increase in the use of those two commodities (per the substitution effect), and thus an increase in greenhouse gases/emissions.

  • renny

    Mitt is TOO gov’t.

    Next.

  • msctex

    He’s the Media’s and Democratic Party’s (if the distinction still needs to be made) choice to face whmoever they end up running.

    Fool me once, shame on you. . .

  • dajeeps

    I don’t know what he thinks he’s doing. Maybe he figures he can throw out all the stuff he wants just to see what sticks to the wall, and then he can disavow anything else he’s ever said. And why not? He’s done that with some pretty big issues – voted for it before he voted against it – and gets away with it.

    If being a pro-abort statist while he was governor isn’t enough for people, and RomneyCare isn’t a deal-breaker, I don’t know what else they need to get a clue that he’s a fancied up Obama and shop elsewhere.

  • Vegas_Rick

    he probably doesn’t have an opinion one way or the other, he’s simply ppandering to the enlightened beltway bunch. Putz.