Will Romney hire Obama’s climate-change guru Holdren?

posted at 9:47 am on October 15, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Conservatives know well that Mitt Romney has so far refused to back away from his contention that anthropogenic global warming is real, and yet the former Massachusetts governor continues to lead the Republican race for the presidential nomination.  In seven debates, none  of Romney’s competitors have challenged him on this position.  This week, however, the blog Moonbattery found a very interesting memo from Romney’s office in 2005 announcing tough new regulations on emissions — and noting a partnership with a familiar conservative bête noire in this administration (via Sundries Shack):

Governor Mitt Romney today announced that Massachusetts will take another major step in meeting its commitment to protecting air quality when strict state limitations on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants take effect on January 1, 2006. …

Massachusetts is the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants. The limits, which target the six largest and oldest power plants in the state, are the toughest in the nation…

In addition to reaffirming existing stringent CO2 limits, the draft regulations announced today, which will be filed next week, contain protections against excessive price increases for businesses and consumers. They allow power generation companies to implement CO2 reductions at their own facilities or fund other reduction projects off-site through a greenhouse gas offset and credits program.

In other words, the Romney administration in 2005 essentially did what Barack Obama’s EPA wants to do now.  He imposed CO2 emission caps — the “toughest in the nation” — in an effort to curtail traditional energy production.  Not only did Romney impose these costly new regulations, he then imposed price caps to keep power companies from passing the cost along to the consumer.  As we have seen in RomneyCare, regulation and price controls eventually drive businesses into bankruptcy or relocation.

So what has happened to Massachusetts’ electrical production since signing these regulations into law?  According to the EIA, whose latest data is for 2009, it dropped 18% in four years, from over 46 billion megawatt hours to 38 billion.  International imports, however, went from 697 million megawatt hours in 2006 to 4.177 billion megawatt hours two years later, and to almost 5 billion megawatt hours in 2009, more than twice the amount imported in any of the previous twenty years.

And who advised Romney on these regulations?  Why, none other than Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren:

In the development of greenhouse gas policy, Romney Administration officials have elicited input from environmental and economic policy experts. These include John Holden [sic], professor of environmental policy at Harvard University and chair of the National Commission on Energy Policy and Billy Pizer, and economist at Resources for the Future, an environmental policy think-tank based in Washington DC.

“Holden” here is Holdren, who co-chaired the NCEP in 2005.  This is the same John Holdren who wrote in favor of coercive government population-control policies in the 1970s, and who in 2007 suggested government-imposed redistribution as a cure for American exceptionalism.  The other adviser mentioned in this paragraph comes from a group which has among its top five donors in 2009 a familiar name — the George Kaiser Foundation.  Kaiser, one will recall, is a big Obama bundler — and the main investor in an outfit called Solyndra.

If we’re looking for an alternative to the current administration’s partnerships with people like Holdren and Kaiser, shouldn’t we find a nominee that didn’t partner with either on energy policy?

Update: Here’s the memo:

Romney Announces Strict New Clean Air Regulations to Take Effect January 1

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 4 5 6

Wildcat only in the sense that we have his record and advisors as governor and his promises as POTUS are diametrically opposed. What’s missing is his “come to Jesus moment” that shows we can believe him to go in a conservative direction and abandon his old and erroneous ideas of governing. Part of that would entail denouncing Holdren and Duncan.

AH_C on October 16, 2011 at 2:07 PM

What about denouncing RomneyCare as a failure and mistake? The problem is that it is too late for him to make such denunciations. They are too late to be believed as anything other that pure political expedience.

besser tot als rot on October 16, 2011 at 2:10 PM

But I will vote for the lesser of two evils because I have no hunger to watch the country burn because my candidate didn’t win the nomination. You and your ilk relish the thought of watching the country burn to exorcise your failures.

csdeven on October 16, 2011 at 12:33 PM

If you want to see the country burn then just stay on the path your on and give one of the two big-government progressive factions total control of the government, maybe even filibuster proof.

I want less fire, I want to start climbing out of the hole, not continue digging it deeper.

FloatingRock on October 16, 2011 at 2:11 PM

They are too late to be believed as anything other that pure political expedience.

besser tot als rot on October 16, 2011 at 2:10 PM

If you blatantly LIE about SS to the senior citizens, exactly like Obama, for sheer political expediency, then you can NOT be trusted on anything. Period.

That is on video, forever.

He threw his integrity and his party under the bus for his own political gain. That is not a correct man, not a mensch of integrity. It speaks volumes.

Schadenfreude on October 16, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Some perspective:

Context and timing really are important here:
While “Mr. Romney made it clear he believed in human-caused global warming and wanted a policy response,” there are two salient caveats worth voicing. The first is pointed out by the WSJ, “At the time, many conservatives were open to a cap-and-trade system, seeing it as a market-driven solution to limiting emissions.” The second is that all of this took place before global warming skepticism had even crossed the public radar. As a marker that folks who have been following the climate change controversy might appreciate, Watt’s Up With That only opened its doors — as a self-described “useful trivia” blog! — in November 2006, a mere 6 weeks before Romney left office.”

Buy Danish on October 16, 2011 at 2:15 PM

Wasn’t there some talk back when Palin’s emails were released that Mitt’s administration destroyed their emails upon leaving office? If not perhaps we could have a look at all his old emails during office to see if there are any more gems like this memo. I am sure the MSM will get right on that.

txmomof6 on October 16, 2011 at 2:17 PM

You and your ilk relish the thought of watching the country burn to exorcise your failures.

csdeven on October 16, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Fine, vote for the “lessor of two evils”, now that you have thrown Mitt under the bus.
The fact is, there are better more conservative players avaliable to us…we don’t have to accept “lessor”, I want better.
Under Mitt the country will just burn a little slower…but it will still burn the same.
Time to make a bold change…time to look at solutions, rather than to hope to slow the process down.
The difference between you and I, you will accept the path we are taking…I don’t accept, I think we can change it, and it is pretty obvious Mitt won’t change it.
Here is my suggestion to all (you won’t take it), let’s look at a new way of leading our country, let’s move away from these thoroughbred politicians, and choose a leader, and worry about “politics” later.

right2bright on October 16, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Electing Romney would have about the same effect as returning control of Congress back to the Democrats: RomBamaCare, CO2 emissions caps, a “path to citizenship” for illegal aliens”. God knows what else…

New boss, old boss. SSDD.

Looks like Cain’s my guy.

DrDeano on October 16, 2011 at 2:20 PM

If you blatantly LIE about SS to the senior citizens, exactly like Obama, for sheer political expediency, then you can NOT be trusted on anything. Period.

Schadenfreude on October 16, 2011 at 2:14 PM

I agree. That is the point at which I decided that I would not vote for Romney under any circumstance.

besser tot als rot on October 16, 2011 at 2:24 PM

The POINT ddrintn is that he can’t be hoodwinked by other politicians

But he can apparently be hoodwinked by “experts”

Sgt_H on October 16, 2011 at 2:25 PM

“At the time, many conservatives were open to a cap-and-trade system, seeing it as a market-driven solution to limiting emissions.” The second is that all of this took place before global warming skepticism had even crossed the public radar. As a marker that folks who have been following the climate change controversy might appreciate, Watt’s Up With That only opened its doors — as a self-described “useful trivia” blog! — in November 2006, a mere 6 weeks before Romney left office.”

Buy Danish on October 16, 2011 at 2:15 PM

1. I have never been on board cap-and-trade. Why was Romney? Because he just sticks his finger in the air and goes whichever direction he thinks the wind is blowing? And I don’t care what “establishment conservatives” used to think before they realized that their position is a kiss of death with their voters because it is not a conservative position.

2. The data has always been questionable about man-made global warming. And, worse, there has never been any serious assertion that cap-and-trade would do anything to combat it even if it did exist.

besser tot als rot on October 16, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Fine, vote for the “lessor of two evils”, now that you have thrown Mitt under the bus.

right2bright on October 16, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Obama is the lesser of two evils if we have a GOP congress. Look at the crap the GOP congress passed under Bush. They never would have voted for half of that crap if it had been Clinton (or some other Democrat).

besser tot als rot on October 16, 2011 at 2:30 PM

But I will vote for the lesser of two evils because I have no hunger to watch the country burn because my candidate didn’t win the nomination. You and your ilk relish the thought of watching the country burn to exorcise your failures.

csdeven on October 16, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Mitt Romney is the greater of two evils. Imagine if Obama actually called himself a Conservative when he ran in 2008, up until this very day … while governing in the same manner he has.

Conservatism would be getting the blame for this sh**hole we find ourselves in now.

That’s MITT ROMNEY.

No thanks. If the choice comes down to two lousy pilots = both of whom are going to crash the plane – I’ll take the one that, once he crashes it – Socialism will be laid to blame for it. As it should be.

John Kerry is more mentally stabile than Mitt Romney. I believe Al Gore is too – and both Gore and Kerry are deeply mentally ill.

HondaV65 on October 16, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Obama is the lesser of two evils if we have a GOP congress. Look at the crap the GOP congress passed under Bush. They never would have voted for half of that crap if it had been Clinton (or some other Democrat).

besser tot als rot on October 16, 2011 at 2:30 PM

Spot on … we can’t save this nation until we have at least one party that GETS IT.

Mitt Romney, as POTUS – would turn the GOP into the British Conservative Party – and you can kiss Reagan / Goldwater goodbye forever – GOP will be a big government party FOREVER.

Look at who’s endorsed the guy. Most of them are “big government” types. Chris Christie – who wants government deciding what firearms you are allowed to own. David Brooks and David Frum – need any more names be thrown out besides those two?

Oh – wait – also Megan McCain – that stalwart conservative beauty. ////

Ann Coulter’s endo of Romney was pathetic – “You gotta go with what you got.” LOL … that’s an endorsement?

HondaV65 on October 16, 2011 at 2:37 PM

Look at who’s endorsed the guy.

HondaV65 on October 16, 2011 at 2:37 PM

The entire Wall Street. They buy their harlots, early, no matter the side they come from.

Schadenfreude on October 16, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Ann Coulter’s endo of Romney was pathetic – “You gotta go with what you got.” LOL … that’s an endorsement?

HondaV65 on October 16, 2011 at 2:37 PM

I’m very confused by what is going on in Coulter’s head lately. Think of Perry what you will on immigration, but he’s no worse than Christie. But Perry’s immigration positions are disqualifying, while Christie is emphatically endorsed? Not sure that makes much sense.

besser tot als rot on October 16, 2011 at 2:54 PM

besser tot als rot on October 16, 2011 at 2:27 PM


It’s not just Romney
. Neither Newt, Christie, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Huntsman, or even Palin, could meet the typical Hot Air commenters strict demands for perfection – made with the luxury of hindsight. All except Newt were governors. As I’ve repeatedly said, it’s a lot easier to be a pundit or talk show host than a governor.

Buy Danish on October 16, 2011 at 2:54 PM

If Romney gets the GOP nod and IF (big IF if our candidate is the hollow kerry-faced/Romney) and Romney takes the pres office we are screwed. Romney at best will be another Bush Jr strong on National Security but a big gov conserve style on the domestic. He will delegitimize the new class of rock rib conservatives we have got in by forcing them to sign off on big gov legislation (for the party) break the conservative sides moral and either split the party or take it back to 06′-08′ were conservatives basically said f*ck-it.

Romney will be ANOTHER weak kneed foundation-less Repub leader that will talk the talk without insulting anyone and continue to just slow the socialist slide that has been going on since the 60′s with only a few holding actions and no counter offensives that garnered any real results.

Its time to not just hold but take the initiative and counter attack and make some real hard ROLL-BACKS. Cain is talking first day demanding 10% cuts of all gov groups and elimination of redundant or non-essential except SS/Medicare (which he says he will hit in year two). Oh and he followed that with the 10% cut will be voluntary if they cannot achieve that he will assign auditors that will. That is what we need REAL ACTION not swaying lip service.

If Romney is the best we can do I say let “O” hold the pres (god save our allies) and concentrate on the house/senate and states. Get more rock ribs throw Boehner to the bench and work our ideology from the bottom up until 2016. It would be better to force a isolated “O” to veto budget after budget and cuts after cuts rather than have a Romney who will demand concession and compromise which only comes from the conservative side in a defensive position to boot so you end up with a continued slow creep of socialism.

C-Low on October 16, 2011 at 3:02 PM

Agonizing, but if the election becomes Obama v Romney, my ballot will be counted as an undervote. I cannot vote for RINO Mitt. If the country goes under, then let the Dems own it.

Establishment Republicans beware. There is NO enthusiasm for your preferred, bought man.

Cain is not bought and will not be bought. Deal with it.

Cronyism sucks.

exdeadhead on October 16, 2011 at 3:21 PM

I give up on Hot Air, you are determined that Romney not be the Nominee. Fine. Enjoy Mr. Obama for 4 more years. Perry, Bachman, Cain, and the rest are not bad people, in fact certainly better than we have but they cannot pull the Independents and moderate Dems which we need. If every Evangical that hates Mormons or just hates Romney for no particular reason other than he is capable of becoming Pro Life, he was always personally pro-life but the libertarian in him thought maybe people should be free to decide for themselves. As far a pro gay, yes, he thinks they should be treated as all other citizens other than santioning gay marriage. He tried to stop it in Mass.I will not argue with any of you and if he gets the nomination, don’t vote, vote for Obama. I am sure there will be 10 Independents and Moderate Dems from Blue States to replace each of these. If you want to go back to 2006, generally everybody except a few believed the Scientist making the claim since then, they have been debunked in many areas. Romney is capable of getting new info and changing his mind just like everyone else. Scary would be the man who would not change his mind after finding out new information.

opionated lady on October 16, 2011 at 3:34 PM

When what seems like a majority at H/A say that they would vote for Obama under any circumstances it is time to go.

I’ll may be back when Mitt is the nominee to gloat (schadenfreude ain’t just for Schadenfreude) because quite frankly I’m disgusted and have better things to do than read this dribble.

And no, I won’t let it hit me on the ass on the way out.

MJBrutus on October 16, 2011 at 3:36 PM

MJBrutus on October 16, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Still making up garbage about Hot Air posters, I see. We don’t want Obama…or your newest favorite candidate, Obama-lite. Don’t go away mad…just go away.

kingsjester on October 16, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Buy Danish on October 16, 2011 at 2:15 PM

Cap and Trade is NOT a market driven solution, it creates an artificial market run by big government and the big business who can profit off it. It needs the government in order to exist – it is NOT market driven and no free market advocate would support it. Some people make mistakes, but carbon caps is yet another strike against Romney as a big government liberal. It’s not about perfection, it’s that Romney truly is a progressive.

Romney could have a collection of aborted fetuses in a jar and you would still find a way to make an excuse for him.

Daemonocracy on October 16, 2011 at 4:29 PM

He’s in the race. Problem is he’s too bland for many who call him “milquetoast.” And he earns from his mistakes and adapts to changing circumstances, IOW he flips flops on some things. He’s not ideologically dogmatic which means he can’t be a “true conservative.” Oh, there are so many, many problems with being real among the “base.”

MJBrutus on October 16, 2011 at 1:27 PM

No, that guy you are talking about can’t describe his outlook on life, isn’t steadfast in adhering to honor, has no constant start to guide him but only opportunism, he can’t admit to being wrong, and because of that can’t learn from his mistakes thus ends up defending them.

You are thinking of Lex Luthor. With a wig and a smile.

ajacksonian on October 16, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Daemonocracy on October 16, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Let me know when you see me defending cap and trade. Okey dokey? My point is that it was embraced by many so-called conservatives at one time or another. Perry, Bachmann and Cain are the only one’s who (ttbomk) have not, but Cain has never held public office so he has no record to compare. That leaves Perry and Bachmann. You are free to vote for them if this if this the issue that’s the most important to you. Just spare me the dramatic hyperbole about fetuses in jars.

Buy Danish on October 16, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Romney will destroy the GOP, just like Obama has destroyed the DNC.

Romney must be stopped.

portlandon on October 16, 2011 at 4:57 PM

And no, I won’t let it hit me on the ass on the way out.

MJBrutus on October 16, 2011 at 3:36 PM

bye-bye…now if only Mitt would do the same…

right2bright on October 16, 2011 at 5:06 PM

Kingsjester, someone sounds like the neighborhood bully to me.

mobydutch on October 16, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Next time, Romneybots, it might be wiser to not to spend months calling the supporters of rival candidates fools, idiots and lunatics. Just a thought.

SurferDoc on October 16, 2011 at 5:11 PM

Cap and Trade is NOT a market driven solution, it creates an artificial market run by big government and the big business who can profit off it. It needs the government in order to exist – it is NOT market driven and no free market advocate would support it. Some people make mistakes, but carbon caps is yet another strike against Romney as a big government liberal. It’s not about perfection, it’s that Romney truly is a progressive.

Romney could have a collection of aborted fetuses in a jar and you would still find a way to make an excuse for him.
Daemonocracy on October 16, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Exactly. Maybe people weren’t paying attention back when cap n trade first reared its head. I remember reading wired, pop science etc back in the mid 90s with frequent articles about carbon sequestration and trading carbon credits and think “What!!!” The only way it could work was if it was mandated globally, because the free market wasn’t gonna go there. Let alone in a vacuum where third worlders will do whatever it takes to get ahead at the expense of the environment. Then came Al Gore in 2000 and it was full steam ahead with AGW as the boogey man. 2006 is just when critical mass was achieved with the skeptics, believe you me when I say the skeptics have always been around, just that thanks to the interwebs, we have blogger, WordPress etc to allow the skeptics to reach a broader audience.

AH_C on October 16, 2011 at 5:56 PM

I’ll may be back when Mitt is the nominee to gloat (schadenfreude ain’t just for Schadenfreude) because quite frankly I’m disgusted and have better things to do than read this dribble.

MJBrutus on October 16, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Gloat? There aren’t many here who would be shocked if Romney’s the nominee. Some of us have been calling it for quite a while.

ddrintn on October 16, 2011 at 6:51 PM

The country burns regardless.

ddrintn on October 16, 2011 at 12:47 PM

You can’t wait to watch it burn.

csdeven on October 16, 2011 at 6:54 PM

If you want to see the country burn then just stay on the path your on…

FloatingRock on October 16, 2011 at 2:11 PM

I have no desire to watch it burn….only the psychotic pyromaniacs want to watch the country burn as hot as possible. It’s pathetic to watch recalcitrant whiners claim to be conservative yet act like progressives. It’s clear why they are unhappy here at Hot Air…..they will be more at home at huffpo or one of the other progressive sites.

csdeven on October 16, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Here is my suggestion to all (you won’t take it), let’s look at a new way of leading our country, let’s move away from these thoroughbred politicians, and choose a leader, and worry about “politics” later.

right2bright on October 16, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Your narcissism knows no boundaries does it? When the day comes to pick between Obama and whomever is the GOP nominee, I will vote for the GOP nominee whereas you will vote for Obama, stay home, or vote third party just so you can watch the country burn to the ground because the rest of the country isn’t wise and enlightened and you are.

That oh Obtuse One, is how progressives think. Time for you to move over to huffpo et al.

csdeven on October 16, 2011 at 7:03 PM

As I’ve repeatedly said, it’s a lot easier to be a pundit or talk show host than a governor.

Buy Danish on October 16, 2011 at 2:54 PM

And as they have exhibited all summer (and continue to do now) it is easier for the Palin lunatics to imagine what St Palin the Victimized was going to do than it is to accept that they were wrong and change the way they process facts.

Seriously, when it comes to heeding opinions, why would I heed the words of these disaffected Palin lunatics, who have been 100% wrong all summer long, when the opinions of those who have been correct all summer long are available?

csdeven on October 16, 2011 at 7:09 PM

Your narcissism knows no boundaries does it? When the day comes to pick between Obama and whomever is the GOP nominee, I will vote for the GOP nominee whereas you will vote for Obama, stay home, or vote third party just so you can watch the country burn to the ground because the rest of the country isn’t wise and enlightened and you are.

That oh Obtuse One, is how progressives think. Time for you to move over to huffpo et al.

csdeven on October 16, 2011 at 7:03 PM

Meh. Sounds more like you CINOs are scared that with Mittness as the nominee, this election will be like 1860 all over again with the gop pushed out of the way to make room for the conservative party. In a three way run, the conservative only needs 40% to win. Oboobi has his 30 hard left. Mittness has his 30% loyal tops and the 40% fed up with both parties go the third route. Will it happen? We’ll see what America wants when offered two progs and one conservative. I’m willing to take that chance and break the backs of both parties.

AH_C on October 16, 2011 at 7:28 PM

AH_C on October 16, 2011 at 7:28 PM

Nice try. The people who are complaining about Romney would have rejected Reagan. They are basically just spoiled children who are threatening to hold their breath if they don’t get their way.

csdeven on October 16, 2011 at 7:47 PM

The nastiness from Romney supporters is striking. Almost like O supporters.

Sgt_H on October 16, 2011 at 8:04 PM

The Romneybots are trying to find the right combination of insults and ad hominems to persuade the rest of us to vote for their guy.

SurferDoc on October 16, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Nice try. The people who are complaining about Romney would have rejected Reagan. They are basically just spoiled children who are threatening to hold their breath if they don’t get their way.

csdeven on October 16, 2011 at 7:47

not hardly. I don’t care so much for myself as I do my kids future. Progressism in HD or lite form is counter to the potential that America has been blessed with. I played ball with pappy bush, voted Perot twice, came back for Dubya twice and at the very last moment voted absentee for McVain. No mas. From now on, it will always be a conservative for me, whether gop, third party or even a write in. I don’t care about the obsessive need to be a winnah with the gop, regardless of the standardbearer. Better a no-chance conservative than an electable rino. Don’t like it? Too bad, don’t offer me a rino. Come to think of it, I am an independent!!! I just happen to be to the right of the gop establishment. If they want my vote, they need to meet me 80% of the way.

In the long run, you hardcore conservative Goppers will see things my way, as for the rest of you CINO goppers, you’ll never get it unless you’ve been personally mugged by the reality of a Mittness admin.

AH_C on October 16, 2011 at 8:38 PM

The Romneybots are trying to find the right combination of insults and ad hominems to persuade the rest of us to vote for their guy.

SurferDoc on October 16, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Which is why I’m half convinced that they are actually Obama supporters. The only thing is that they parrot Romney’s lines – problem is that Romney’s lines sound a lot like Obama’s lines (e.g., vis-a-vis SS, Medicare, Cap-and-Tax, ObamneyCare, etc.), so it is a bit difficult to really differentiate based on that.

besser tot als rot on October 16, 2011 at 9:00 PM

I don’t care so much for myself as I do my kids future.

AH_C on October 16, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Exactly. I have 6 kids and they will start graduating college in about 14 years (they are all under 9) – need to get this ship turned around by then, so that they can find jobs and have a chance at the American dream.

besser tot als rot on October 16, 2011 at 9:03 PM

No mas.

In the long run, you hardcore conservative Goppers will see things my way, as for the rest of you CINO goppers, you’ll never get it unless you’ve been personally mugged by the reality of a Mittness admin.

AH_C on October 16, 2011 at 8:38 PM

That’s it. No mas.

A good summation of the disgust and resolve out there. As said, Romney supporters can’t, will not get this. In general it’s a kind knowledge always unavailable to the old orthodoxy. They consider it an outrage we all don’t fall in line like good children (as we always have in the past).

What is their compelling argument, their great inspiring message to win over the rest of us? I never hear it. It’s always the same thing. Settle for this, the alternative is horrifying. Surrender to the inevitable. Be good children. Take your medicine. Fear losing.

Not good enough. No mas. No Romney.

rrpjr on October 16, 2011 at 9:15 PM

Exactly. I have 6 kids and they will start graduating college in about 14 years (they are all under 9) – need to get this ship turned around by then, so that they can find jobs and have a chance at the American dream.

besser tot als rot on October 16, 2011 at 9:03 PM

I’ve got five and the oldest is four years out from college. Ive started telling them to forget about college unless it’s a profession and get some scholarship. A better investment for me is to invest in some business startup of their own. I’ve even talked down the military since at this point it’s so PC, it ain’t worth the hassle. If we get the ship turned around, ill reevaluate.

AH_C on October 16, 2011 at 9:20 PM

Still making up garbage about Hot Air posters, I see. We don’t want Obama…or your newest favorite candidate, Obama-lite. Don’t go away mad…just go away.

kingsjester on October 16, 2011 at 3:46 PM
Hey, kingsjester, I hope you did not think that I was referring to you as the neighborhood bully. It was Mr. Brutus.

mobydutch on October 16, 2011 at 10:46 PM

Hmmmm. This must be the first mittens thread to go over a few hundred. And to think that it’s based on the fact that mittwit based his policy on the advice of some hyper immoral folks. Rather than address this problem head on, mittbots either excuse it as a case of forgivable ignorance (nevermind that Holdren was set in his perversion since the seventies. That means Mittness didn’t vet him and or found common cause. When the mittbots can’t deal with that, they either change the subject or go on an ad hominen rant.

Very interesting. Moreso, when most of the same characters use the same to disparage Perry, Cain or SP. No serious discussion of policy, just willful twisting of facts and abuse.

AH_C on October 16, 2011 at 11:42 PM

That oh Obtuse One, is how progressives think. Time for you to move over to huffpo et al.

csdeven on October 16, 2011 at 7:03 PM

So if you don’t support Mitt, than one must be a liberal? Really, you have to control your obsession with Mitt.
I bet you have a “Mitt wall” with burning candles, his photos, flowers altar, incense…
You are the one who for the past couple of years have harassed anyone who does not worship your Mitt-God…you may have to wait a few years, maybe he will have his own world and you can be part of that, that is much better than just being president.
Meanwhile live with the fact, you honey is a liberal Republican, closer to Huffpo than most anyone on this site will ever be…he is reaching out to some of the most liberal thinkers to advise him, and that is what this post is about…so live with that, Mitt is a liberal in a conservative suit.

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 1:38 AM

I guess there is a litmus test.
1. global warming supporters – not rational – not conservative
2. amnesty supporters – not rational – not conservative
3. government healthcare supporters – not rational – not conservative

Has anyone asked Romney about illegal immigration? I assume his position is no better than Rick Perry’s, which bought him instant disqualification.

With the economy in the tank we can’t afford to further indulge eco-lunacy. Nor can we afford to pay for everyone’s healthcare.

Those who think this is all fine are not viable candidates.

virgo on October 17, 2011 at 2:21 AM

mobydutch on October 16, 2011 at 10:46 PM

I know. Mitt Romney was interviewed shortly after Gen. Colin Powell endorsed Obama for president in 2008. The McCain/Palin ticket had already labelled Obama as a socialist. According to an article posted October 20, 2008, on boston.com, “Mittens” was asked if he believed that Obama was a socialist. Romney replied:

I’d say he’s a real liberal. He’s not in the mainstream of the Democratic Party. I think he’s more liberal than that. I don’t think mainstream Democrats like Hillary Clinton, would be excited about the proposals he’s made. And I think his comment about redistributing income is one which would certainly scare a lot of people. Certainly scare away a lot of jobs, hurt the creation of small businesses, which is of course, been the source of job growth in our country. So, I think he’s off of the left wing of the party. And after all, that’s how his votes have also lined up.

How…brave.

kingsjester on October 17, 2011 at 6:16 AM

Buy Danish on October 16, 2011 at 4:46 PM

It’s not hyperbole because with every new issue that comes up, you have an excuse or rationalization in defense of Romney. That is my point: where as the other candidates have weaknesses on the issues, with some weaknesses glaring in nature, Romney is weak down the list of everything Conservatives and even Republicans hold dear. So it is not this “one” issue, it as a perpetual list with this guy with you refusing to connect the dots.

Daemonocracy on October 17, 2011 at 6:22 AM

1. global warming supporters – not rational – not conservative

I don’t support global warming. Wish it weren’t true. Unfortunately, it seems very much to be.

Global warming denialists – not conservative, not rational

oakland on October 17, 2011 at 6:35 AM

Global warming denialists – not conservative, not rational

oakland on October 17, 2011 at 6:35 AM

If the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period weren’t the result of industrial activity then why should we believe that any current warming that might be measured is the result of human activity?

sharrukin on October 17, 2011 at 6:46 AM

For the record, I voted for Romney in the ’08 primaries. I did it for one reason, and one reason only, and that was because at that point it was either him or McCain. But unlike the Romneyphiles in this thread, I didn’t lie to myself about who the man was while I did it.

If given that choice again, I would do the same thing today. But as I said before, we are not there yet. We still have time to pick someone better.

The Romney boosters now sound exactly like the McCain boosters did then, in fact I’ll bet most of them are the same people too. “He’s electable”, “he’s the only one who can win”, “everyone else will turn off the cherished ‘independents’”, etc. etc. etc. History, and recent history at that, strongly suggests otherwise.

As I’ve already said, I will vote for Romney over Obama if it comes down to that. And I expect the majority of people here would do the same. But now, here’s my wager. If it does come down to that, if Romney gets the nomination, I predict he will lose. Because there are too many issues where Obama can kneecap him and blur the distinction between them.

Cylor on October 17, 2011 at 6:56 AM

It’s not hyperbole because with every new issue that comes up, you have an excuse or rationalization in defense of Romney. That is my point: where as the other candidates have weaknesses on the issues, with some weaknesses glaring in nature, Romney is weak down the list of everything Conservatives and even Republicans hold dear. So it is not this “one” issue, it as a perpetual list with this guy with you refusing to connect the dots.
Daemonocracy on October 17, 2011 at 6:22 AM

I connect dots, but unlike many here, I also put things in context instead of just jumping at every opportunity to destroy the best candidate we have to trounce Obama. Some of the dots you think are important I see as imaginary blips on the radar. I point out when I disagree with Romney. I’m not like a Palinista who refuses to admit a single flaw on the part of Palin. Certainly nothing deserves a vile, hyperbolic comment about fetuses in jars.

The fact is that all the candidates have weaknesses, and in addition to cap and trade and global warming, even Newt supported a federal health care insurance mandate. Yet I get to hear from Rush Limbaugh (who I love, but who is going off the deep end lately) and Hot Air commenters how Newt’s conservative but Mitt isn’t.

We are destroying ourselves from within, and if you think, say, Cain (who is a lovely, accomplished man) is a better candidate, you’re dreaming. Day after day there’s another facepalm moment from him (electrifying the fence is the most recent example).

Buy Danish on October 17, 2011 at 8:20 AM

Well said Buy Danish.

Virtually all the commenters here are guilty of the “No True Scotsmen” fallacy on nearly a daily basis.

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 9:20 AM

Buy Danish on October 17, 2011 at 8:20 AM

As I said, every candidate has their weaknesses and some are quite glaring, but Romney has the list that keeps on growing. Name me one key Conservative principle he has taken a stand on and/or did not play both sides throughout his career.

You like Romney because you see him as the most electable, yet you continue to excuse his record in every thread on every issue that pops up. You routinely lecture those in said threads about how they are making a big deal about the “one issue”; it is as if you don’t think people read all the other threads where you use this same “one issue” excuse. Those “one” issues add up and continue to do so. The man has the makings of a fraud.

Having said that, I will support him in the General against Obama simply because I believe the GOP and Tea Party Conservatives will hold the House and take the Senate and I believe Romney is enough of an opportunist that he will play ball with the base on certain key reforms.

But quit with the constant excuses for Romney’s liberal record and just stick with the electability argument because that is all you have.

I mean seriously:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAGpLOKtQDA

Set aside that this is yet another slippery answer where he tries to appeal to both sides, the key words here are that he would support cap and trade on “a global basis”. He throws in a qualifier that America shouldn’t be the only one implementing the policy, but this just proves his liberalism. He should not be supportive of Cap and Trade on any basis; his answer means that if all the countries in the world did decide to adopt Cap and Trade globally then he would support it. A massive globalized effort to regulate all markets and business in the name of global warming is something “Conservative” President Romney would support. This does not bother you? Unreal.

Daemonocracy on October 17, 2011 at 11:07 AM

Virtually all the commenters here are guilty of the “No True Scotsmen” fallacy on nearly a daily basis.

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 9:20 AM

Maybe you should do less selective reading?

It is not a quest for “the true Scotsmen”, it’s a specific suspicion about Romney that is reflected in every poll since the primary began. People don’t trust him and for good reasons.

Daemonocracy on October 17, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Great points made here about Romney apologist excuse-making. Who will buy a bumper sticker for someone so ambiguously supportable?

Does anyone here really know what “electability” is?
Who would have thought a smooth-talking street-hustler with no experience could have been president? I suggest he was an expression of the views of a majority of the country at the time.

I’ve yet to hear why Romney wants to be president – he reminds me of George Bush senior, just expecting to be elected for no other reason than his being there. What he plans to do?… well, you have to have a plan, but it doesn’t matter much what it is.

Inevitability means not looking at his record, intentions and instincts. All of these have major caveats for Romney.

virgo on October 17, 2011 at 11:27 AM

This does not bother you? Unreal.
Daemonocracy on October 17, 2011 at 11:07 AM

He doesn’t support it. He will not do anything to ask for legislation to promote it. He will not as agencies like the EPA to go around Congress and regulate it. It will not happen under any circumstances. So no, it doesn’t bother me.

Buy Danish on October 17, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Did you watch the video?

Sgt_H on October 17, 2011 at 3:19 PM

He doesn’t support it. He will not do anything to ask for legislation to promote it. He will not as agencies like the EPA to go around Congress and regulate it. It will not happen under any circumstances. So no, it doesn’t bother me.

Buy Danish on October 17, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Apprently “I support it on a global scale” means something different to you.

Daemonocracy on October 17, 2011 at 8:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6