Perry rejects global warming, debt-ceiling compromise

posted at 12:45 pm on August 17, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Rick Perry continues his campaigning in New Hampshire today, where Mitt Romney is expected to perform strongly in the first primary of the nomination process (Iowa is a caucus, of course).  The Texas governor and new frontrunner — at least in one poll — campaigned strongly to the right, rejecting both the notion of anthropogenic global warming and the debt-ceiling compromise approved by Congress earlier this month:

Rick Perry says he does not believe in global warming. The newest Republican presidential candidate also says he would not have signed the debt-ceiling compromise brokered by Republicans and Democrats. …

The Republican also said the debt-ceiling compromise, which helped avoid a national default, sent the wrong message by spending money the nation doesn’t have.

National Journal has more of the actual quotes, in which Perry sounds more like a skeptic than an outright disbeliever:

“I do believe that the issue of global warming has been politicized,” Perry answered. “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. I think we’re seeing it almost weekly or even daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change. Yes, our climates change. They’ve been changing ever since the earth was formed.”

Pegging the global cost of implementing “anti-carbon programs” in the billions or trillions of dollars, Perry said, “I don’t think from my perspective that I want America to be engaged in spending that much money on [what is] still a scientific theory that has not been proven, and from my perspective, is more and more being put into question.”

His position on AGW hardly comes as a surprise, but it does draw a big contrast with Romney.  Romney angered conservatives in June by declaring his belief in AGW, and then refusing to repudiate it a few days later.  His promise not to push any policies addressing it didn’t exactly fill the Right with confidence, either.

Romney did oppose the debt ceiling deal, but only did so rather late in the game.  Perry had insisted on the Cut Cap and Balance Act at the same time, well before announcing his presidential bid.  The contrast here relates more to leadership than policy.  However, given the dynamics of the GOP race, this looks more like a move to co-opt Michele Bachmann’s supporters and present himself as the conservative answer to the more establishment Romney.  Bachmann refused to even vote for the CCB Act because it raised the debt ceiling; Perry’s statement in New Hampshire today seems to emphasize his opposition to that raise more than his support for the CCB Act, which would have raised the ceiling, at least as the AP reports the remarks.

If so, it’s a smart move within the politics of the race.  On policy, though, that leaves Perry in a similar position to Bachmann on Sunday, when Jake Tapper asked her to identify the spending she’d have to cut to stop borrowing money in the short term.  It’s a tough question, because there isn’t enough discretionary spending to cut to meet that target.  That’s why the “10-to-1 cuts to revenue” question in the debate is really a non-sequitur.  If the deficit problem was in discretionary spending, a 10-1 package would be a great deal.  The problem is in entitlements, though, which neither tax hikes nor discretionary spending cuts will solve.  The right answer to that question is that we need entitlement reform first, then tax reform, instead of gimmicky deals that don’t address the problem.

Michelle Malkin has problems with another answer Perry gave this week on the Gardasil issue:

I’m far less aggravated by Gov. Perry’s injudicious toss-off remarks than I am by his profoundly troubling, liberty-curtailing actions in office and his fresh batch of specious rationalizations for them. My syndicated column today dissects Perry’s recent, so-called “walk backs” of his odious Gardasil vaccine mandate for children. I’ve written and reported on vaccine bullies in the schools and on informed parental authority over vaccines previously. But as you’ll see from my column below, Perry defenders who dismiss critics as “single-issue” activists are willfully blind to the Gardasil disgrace’s multiple layers of rottenness. Related must-reads on Perry and Gardasil: Tom BevanRhymes with Right, and BA Cyclone at RedState. (See also this flashback on Hillary, Merck money, and Gardasil.)

While Perry and his campaign staff have now paid lip service to making a “mistake” in shoving the executive order down families’ throats, they remain defiant in defending the decree and Perry’s zealous, big government overreaching. From the latest story on Perry’s “reversal” in the Washington Post“Perry campaign spokesman Mark Miner dismissed the criticism. Governor Perry has always stood on the side of protecting life, and that is what this issue was about…”

Oh, no it wasn’t. Please read this, get informed, pass it on, and make sure that you don’t fall for a purported cure to our political ills that’s worse than the power-grabbing disease in the current White House.

As for the ridiculous idea that scrutinizing Perry’s much-bragged-out gubernatorial record is tantamount to “smearing” him, toughen up, buttercups. This is just the beginning of 2012 campaign heat. Limited government activists already know Perry’s ready, willing, and able to dish it out against them. If Perry can’t take it from supposed allies and friends on his own side of the aisle, why should he be trusted as the GOP contender against our Democratic enemies?

The Gardasil issue is absolutely fair game, although it cuts a number of ways.  I’m mostly concerned with Perry’s reach to an executive order to install the mandate, which is primarily what he walked back this week.  If he wanted to impose a mandate, he should have proposed it to the friendly legislature he had at the time, and made clear what the pressing public-health issues were that needed such intervention, and why parental choice couldn’t be trusted. Given the limited nature of the transmission path, the need for an executive-order mandate is certainly at least questionable.  There were other ways to address this, including subsidized voluntary vaccinations, that Perry apparently didn’t attempt at all.

Michelle took some heat on Twitter for her tough criticism, but it’s hardly out of bounds.  This is also one incident in an eleven year record, which is important but hardly the only consideration in play, either.  Even if one thinks that Perry made a big mistake — and that’s debatable — it’s also not a disqualification, either, especially when the other alternatives thus far is the governor who imposed a state-wide health-insurance mandate, and House members who never got asked to make tough executive decisions at all.  It’s not nothing, but it’s also not everything, and perhaps that kind of perspective should be kept in mind.

Update: Michelle passes along this article from 2007 in which the chair of the CDC’s immunization panel advised against making Gardasil a mandatory vaccine regimen for students:

The chairman of the federal panel that recommended the new cervical-cancer vaccine for pre-teen girls says lawmakers should not make the inoculation mandatory, as the District and more than 20 states, including Virginia, are considering.

Dr. Jon Abramson, chairman of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s advisory committee on immunization practices (ACIP), also said he and panel members told Merck & Co., the drug Gardasil’s maker, not to lobby state lawmakers to require the vaccine for school attendance.

“I told Merck my personal opinion that it shouldn’t be mandated,” Dr. Abramson told The Washington Times. “And they heard it from other committee members.”

Dr. Abramson said he opposes mandating Gardasil, which prevents the cervical-cancer-causing human papillomavirus (HPV), because the sexually transmitted HPV is not a contagious disease like measles and he is not sure states can afford to inoculate all students.

“The vaccines out there now are for very communicable diseases. A child in school is not at an increased risk for HPV like he is measles,” Dr. Abramson said.

So far, not one state has mandated the Gardasil vaccination.  Parents can choose to have their daughters vaccinated with or without the mandate, at their own expense, but it’s the most expensive vaccination regimen at $360 for the entire series.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

This kind of stuff is mind boggling. Until Perry announced the DREAM Act or any similar legislation was verboten. Now, people are rationalizing why it’s ok.
darwin on August 17, 2011 at 1:45 PM

It’s “OK” to pay people to be criminals?

Count to 10 on August 17, 2011 at 1:49 PM

It’s “OK” to pay people to be criminals?

Count to 10 on August 17, 2011 at 1:49 PM

Evidently, if it comes from the mouth of a handsome man with nice hair – yes.

Rebar on August 17, 2011 at 1:50 PM

disagree. The numbers indicate that, except for Ron Paul, any GOP candidate will beat 0bama in a landslide.

Rebar on August 17, 2011 at 1:47 PM

yeah but that is before the MSM and the DNC gets their swings in. Basically the Palin and to a certain extent the bachmann numbers show where the GOP nominee will be agains tObama after the Media is done. Which points to the fact that we need the most vetted candidate so we limit the impact that the media will have.

Of course the more combative the primary the more vetted the nominee will end up being and the less power the meida will have for an oct surprise.

So thse wishing to shut up people digging into the gop candidates records like Malkin should be thankinng them instead.

unseen on August 17, 2011 at 1:51 PM

OT…………

Maxine Waters just slammed King Barry’s bus tour and his so called “jobs program”.

Oh Brother!!!!

Knucklehead on August 17, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Ok, lets take it all at face value. Who, Michelle, passes muster?

Limerick on August 17, 2011 at 12:52 PM

That was my first question as well.

I don’t like the Gardasil thing or Perry’s immigration issues. But they pale in comparison to Romneycare. And at least Perry makes strong arguments and isn’t afraid to take or back down from “controversial” positions, unlike Romney.

Heaven help us, we need a fighter next year and I don’t know who else is in the race that can do it.

Missy on August 17, 2011 at 1:53 PM

It’s “OK” to pay people to be criminals?

Count to 10 on August 17, 2011 at 1:49 PM

These people now eligible for in-state tutition are now also eligible for state tutition assistance. Plus, not only are these “students” illegal, their parents are as well.

If this had been any other candidate people would be screaming at the top of their lungs.

darwin on August 17, 2011 at 1:54 PM

Even though I completely agree that AGW is a bogus theory, one area where I do not consider Perry to be any kind of authority is in the field of science. His creationist support in TX is a genuine concern of mine. I hope that he can demonstrate that he is capable of making other good decisions related to science (by selecting and heeding good advisers) and doesn’t allow his creationist side to win the day.

MJBrutus on August 17, 2011 at 1:54 PM

Rebar on August 17, 2011 at 1:47 PM

I know that generic Republican can beat B. Hussein Obama, but it gets harder when there is a real name. The LSM will go all out to stop anybody trying to remove the Manchurian Dingbat from the White House. This will be like a war. Any female canidate will receive 100 times the scrutiny of a man.

Really Right on August 17, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Now, people are rationalizing explaining why it’s ok politically advantageous.

darwin on August 17, 2011 at 1:45 PM

John the Libertarian on August 17, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Bachmann and Palin are both not electable. If either of them were in the White House I would be happy, but they cannot get there. Both have big problems. No can do.

Really Right on August 17, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Bachmann polls the same against Obama as Perry.

Jon0815 on August 17, 2011 at 1:56 PM

These people now eligible for in-state tutition are now also eligible for state tutition assistance. Plus, not only are these “students” illegal, their parents are as well.
If this had been any other candidate people would be screaming at the top of their lungs.
darwin on August 17, 2011 at 1:54 PM

The mind boggles. They are explicitly giving money to people they should be arresting and turning over to immigration.

Count to 10 on August 17, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Bachmann polls the same against Obama as Perry.

Jon0815 on August 17, 2011 at 1:56 PM

As of when? Perry’s only been in the race a couple of days.

Missy on August 17, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Now, people are rationalizing explaining why it’s ok politically advantageous.

darwin on August 17, 2011 at 1:45 PM

John the Libertarian on August 17, 2011 at 1:55 PM

I understand that. But I want principles, not pandering. Plus all it does is encourage more illegals. The “student” doesn’t have to have parents … they can have guardians. That means anyone can come across the border, have a guardian, get a cheap education and become an American citizen … bypassing everyone else.

No penalties, no consequences … just rewards for breaking our laws.

darwin on August 17, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Even though I completely agree that AGW is a bogus theory, one area where I do not consider Perry to be any kind of authority is in the field of science. His creationist support in TX is a genuine concern of mine. I hope that he can demonstrate that he is capable of making other good decisions related to science (by selecting and heeding good advisers) and doesn’t allow his creationist side to win the day.
MJBrutus on August 17, 2011 at 1:54 PM

On that general topic, did you notice that he used the word “formed” instead of “created” with respect to the origin of Earth?

Count to 10 on August 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Ok, lets take it all at face value. Who, Michelle, passes muster?

Limerick on August 17, 2011 at 12:52 PM

I’m not ready to settle for the best of the two evils yet. there is still plenty of time to get a better candidate.

unseen on August 17, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Bachmann polls the same against Obama as Perry.

Jon0815 on August 17, 2011 at 1:56 PM

I like her a lot. But her husband was trying to get gays to change sides? And he is not the most masculine sounding guy out there. MB and hubby will be savaged for this.

Really Right on August 17, 2011 at 2:04 PM

As of when? Perry’s only been in the race a couple of days.

Missy on August 17, 2011 at 1:58 PM

That just makes my point stronger. Bachmann has been subjected to media scrutiny and attacks for months, but she still polls the same against Obama as Perry, who has only just begun to be scrutinized.

Jon0815 on August 17, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Count to 10 on August 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM

No, I didn’t pick up on that. Do you suppose there was a subtle message in that? If so, what do you think?

MJBrutus on August 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM

OT…………

Maxine Waters just slammed King Barry’s bus tour and his so called “jobs program”.

Oh Brother!!!!

Knucklehead on August 17, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Any racist comments about him being ‘half-white’?

slickwillie2001 on August 17, 2011 at 2:08 PM

That just makes my point stronger. Bachmann has been subjected to media scrutiny and attacks for months, but she still polls the same against Obama as Perry, who has only just begun to be scrutinized.

Jon0815 on August 17, 2011 at 2:05 PM

No accurate polling can be done on non-candidates. Give it a month and if Bachmann’s still polling as well or better than Perry against Obama, I’ll concede.

However, I doubt it will even take that long for Perry to pull ahead.

Missy on August 17, 2011 at 2:10 PM

MJBrutus on August 17, 2011 at 1:54 PM

You watch too much network news.

There is only one area that Perry can likely be lambasted for in science, and that is embryonic stem cell research. But that one is incredibly easy to win. Articulating a clear respect for life and then pointing out that zero (that’s right, zero!) therapies have been developed from embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells, 100′s. Embryonic? Waste of money and effort.

And personally I support teaching creationism in schools. Not because I believe it (although God certainly created the physical laws of the universe), but because it highlights the fact that the theory of evolution has become a religion itself. But evolution is still only theory the last time I looked.

NotCoach on August 17, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Seventeen (17) things that critics are saying about Rick Perry
Posted on July 19, 2011 by garnet92

1. Gardasil
Governor Perry issued an Executive Order (EO) (RP#65, February, 2007) which mandated that all Texas girls be vaccinated prior to their admission to the sixth grade. Parents were allowed to opt out of the mandate by filling out an affidavit.

Perry was rebuked by both houses of the Texas legislature which overturned his EO by a veto-proof margin. Seeing the writing on the wall, Perry did not sign the law. He subsequently rescinded RP#65 with another EO (RP#74) and the issue is now dead in Texas.

Gov. Perry has explained his reasons for issuing this order, Merck’s involvement and the risk of this virus based on not only Merck’s info but the FDA (2006) recommendation.

I wish that Michelle M. would have included the following link that has much more info on this and other issues regarding Gov. Perry. For those that care enough to find out the truth of these matters, please read:

http://peskytruth.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/rick-perrys-negatives/

bluefox on August 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM

OT…………

Maxine Waters just slammed King Barry’s bus tour and his so called “jobs program”.

Oh Brother!!!!

Knucklehead on August 17, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Don’t just sit there, send a link. That has to be priceless!
Everybody’s hatin’ on Barry.
“gigggles”

katy the mean old lady on August 17, 2011 at 2:17 PM

NotCoach on August 17, 2011 at 2:13 PM

I won’t weigh in on the truth or falsehood of either theory. I will simply say that evolution is a scientific theory and creationism is not. That is why evolution alone belongs in science class rooms.

I am rooting for both Perry and Romney to show themselves worthy at this point. As I see it, one or the other will be our nominee. I’m leaning towards Perry, but at this point would not be too disappointed with Romney either.

MJBrutus on August 17, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Count to 10 on August 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM
No, I didn’t pick up on that. Do you suppose there was a subtle message in that? If so, what do you think?
MJBrutus on August 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM

I have no idea, but it seems to me that a hard line creationist wouldn’t have phrased it that way.

Count to 10 on August 17, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Count to 10 on August 17, 2011 at 2:21 PM

I was going to say that perhaps he was being PC, but a man who called the Fed Head “treasonous” yesterday probably isn’t one to beat around the bush :-)

MJBrutus on August 17, 2011 at 2:23 PM

NotCoach on August 17, 2011 at 2:13 PM

There really isn’t any science to teach about creation myths. I mean, I wouldn’t object at all to a literature class focusing on the bible, but you might as well call Newtonian Physics “just a theory”.

Count to 10 on August 17, 2011 at 2:29 PM

I was going to say that perhaps he was being PC, but a man who called the Fed Head “treasonous” yesterday probably isn’t one to beat around the bush :-)
MJBrutus on August 17, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Yeah, I don’t see him doing that either.

Count to 10 on August 17, 2011 at 2:31 PM

There really isn’t any science to teach about creation myths. I mean, I wouldn’t object at all to a literature class focusing on the bible, but you might as well call Newtonian Physics “just a theory”.

Count to 10 on August 17, 2011 at 2:29 PM

In science there are laws and there are theories. What typically separates the two is whether the theory can be proven to be ubiquitous through experiment and/or observation or not. Evolution is not a law because it falls far short of meeting these criteria. Newton has a handful of laws to his credit.

Unfortunately though too many treat any challenge to evolution as something on the level of whether God exists or not. I don’t have a problem with the theory itself. I have a problem with people treating it like a gospel.

NotCoach on August 17, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Just out of curiosity, would you mind creationism being taught in a philosophy class?

Scott H on August 17, 2011 at 2:52 PM

NotCoach on August 17, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Not quite.

- A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has passed sufficient experimental tests for it to be broadly accepted.
- A scientific law is an observation. It is not theoretical, but purely a summation or description of experimental observation.

The ToE has made a great many predictions that have been verified by experiment. In fact, as we have learned more about biology (DNA, etc) we have been able to make ever more predictions based on the ToE and they have never falsified the theory. As Stephen J. Gould once stated (paraphrasing) that while all scientific knowledge is conditional, at some point it becomes perverse to withhold one’s provisional assent from a theory.

MJBrutus on August 17, 2011 at 2:57 PM

I think the mandate was a mistake and Perry is right to walk it back, but I think Michelle’s attack on Perry is hyperbolic and I am not keen to see conservatives jump in on the anti-vaccine side of any debate let alone support misguided “vaccine choice” parental policies. HPV isn’t contagious like other communicable diseases and thus a mandate is heavy-handed, but childhood vaccines are essential to warding off the horrible communicable diseases that have plagued mankind until only recently. And anti-science scares about vaccine links to autisim and other bogus anti-science has lead many parents astray.

Conservatives are not anti-science. We should support vaccinations of children in order to ward off horrible diseases. This isn’t a matter of choice, as un-vaccinated people who get communicable diseases can spread that disease beyond themselves. You shouldn’t get to “choose” to put your community in mortal danger on the basis of misplaced and ignorant fears. What’s more, such a position would undermine our credibility on other scientific issues where there actually is a political agenda being foisted on us as ‘science’ (a.k.a. AGW).

Michelle is well within her purview to criticize Perry for his misguided mandate, but let’s not go overboard here. D.GOOCH

DGOOCH on August 17, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Scott H on August 17, 2011 at 2:52 PM

I wouldn’t mind, provided other traditional creation myths were also taught for comparison. I say that because I do not think that it would be proper to favor one religion over any others.

MJBrutus on August 17, 2011 at 2:59 PM

blink on August 17, 2011 at 3:01 PM

I agree. I think that it’s important for kids to learn what we know but also what the limits of our knowledge are. Also they should learn that scientific knowledge is conditional, as Gould said, and is subject to revision as we learn and observe more. That’s a critical feature of the scientific process.

MJBrutus on August 17, 2011 at 3:04 PM

Keep it up, Hot Air. You are doing a great job promoting your neocon candidate.

Ron Paul or Bust.

iamse7en on August 17, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Well, as a believer in the empirical evidence supporting global warning, and as someone who wants a Republican to win the next election, I am disappointed in Perry’s remarks. It may win him points with conservative leaders who close their eyes to the possibility that human activities are at least a portion of the global warming effects that have been occurring, but the public would have appreciated a more compromising position. At least he said he would spend money to study the issue further: hopefully it won’t be akin to tobacco industry studies of the effects of smoking.

greenLibertarian on August 17, 2011 at 3:14 PM

greenLibertarian on August 17, 2011 at 3:14 PM

What empirical evidence? Please provide me with a prediction that the AGW has made that has be verified by experiment. I know of none.

MJBrutus on August 17, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Well, as a believer in the empirical evidence supporting global warning…

Yes, the planet gets warmer and cooler. We agree.

It may win him points with conservative leaders who close their eyes to the possibility that human activities are at least a portion of the global warming effects that have been occurring…

Oh, now this is something different. Where exactly is the empirical evidence to support this? Because that is the problem with the entire AGW crowd; their proof is lacking and often bogus. And you do the same thing they do in your comment above. You use ad hominem. There is a difference between closing one’s eyes and demanding proof or debate.

Actually that is what AGWers do all the time. They close their eyes to any science contrary to AGW and stick their fingers in their ears saying, “NAHNAHNAHNAHNAH I CAN’T HEAR YOU NAHNAHNAHNAH!!”.

NotCoach on August 17, 2011 at 3:24 PM

What empirical evidence? Please provide me with a prediction that the AGW has made that has be verified by experiment. I know of none.

MJBrutus on August 17, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Same here. What empirical evidence? Models aren’t empirical.

darwin on August 17, 2011 at 3:31 PM

It’s a tough question, because there isn’t enough discretionary spending to cut to meet that target. That’s why the “10-to-1 cuts to revenue” question in the debate is really a non-sequitur. If the deficit problem was in discretionary spending, a 10-1 package would be a great deal.

You’re half right, Ed. It’s a non-sequitur, but not because of the amount of discretionary spending. It’s a non-sequitur because, historically, the cuts never occur. Never. The taxes or new deficit spending happens immediately, while the “cuts” are spread out over several years and several Congresses, who are under no obligation to abide by the cuts. Unless the cuts all occur in the same year, it’s a lie, and everybody know it.

holygoat on August 17, 2011 at 5:08 PM

greenLibertarian on August 17, 2011 at 3:14 PM

You don’t know what empirical evidence is, do you?

Daemonocracy on August 17, 2011 at 5:10 PM

- A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has passed sufficient experimental tests for it to be broadly accepted.
- A scientific law is an observation. It is not theoretical, but purely a summation or description of experimental observation.

The ToE has made a great many predictions that have been verified by experiment. In fact, as we have learned more about biology (DNA, etc) we have been able to make ever more predictions based on the ToE and they have never falsified the theory. As Stephen J. Gould once stated (paraphrasing) that while all scientific knowledge is conditional, at some point it becomes perverse to withhold one’s provisional assent from a theory.

MJBrutus on August 17, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Well stated. This should be contrasted with the creationist mythology that claims the Earth was created about 6,000 years ago because some book who’s authorship is unauthenticated and whose characters are inexistent outside the folklore of one middle eastern group. People who truly believe such nonsense are really too gullible to hold important public office. With politicians it is difficult to tell what they really believe since no one could hope to be elected to an important office without proclaiming to accept one of the approved superstitions.

Annar on August 17, 2011 at 5:21 PM

LASue on August 17, 2011 at 12:55 PM

This isn’t the first time that Malkin has engaged in “eating our own”. She was really upset that Fred didn’t don a fireman’s hat in ’08, completely misconstrued Coulter’s “fag” remark regarding Edwards (and in fact played right into Ann’s hands, only Ann thought the LEFT would act the way Malkin did), and now this. I gave up reading Malkin years ago.

Knowing how much Malkin likes Palin, methinks there’s an agenda behind this.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on August 17, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Perry has long been known as thinking AGW was nonsense, good for him talking about it on the trail. I wonder if Rovie will be on tonight giving Perry “advice” on how it’s just not nice to doubt AGW?

Aslans Girl on August 17, 2011 at 6:27 PM

Even though I completely agree that AGW is a bogus theory, one area where I do not consider Perry to be any kind of authority is in the field of science. His creationist support in TX is a genuine concern of mine. I hope that he can demonstrate that he is capable of making other good decisions related to science (by selecting and heeding good advisers) and doesn’t allow his creationist side to win the day.

MJBrutus on August 17, 2011 at 1:54 PM

It’s difficult to conceive of an issue that makes less difference in politics than a belief in evolution or creation. Worrying that someone who believes that God created the world is somehow opposed to science is ludicrous.

didymus on August 17, 2011 at 10:24 PM

Perry and Romney look like actors a director would cast to play U.S. presidential candidates.

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 18, 2011 at 12:28 AM

Comment pages: 1 2