Meet another Romney climate-change advisor: Douglas Foy

posted at 9:25 am on October 17, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

On Saturday, I noted Mitt Romney’s partnership with Obama science adviser and long-time Malthusian crank John Holdren in creating the “toughest” CO2 emissions limitations in the nation, and the resultant need for Massachusetts to import more of their energy in the years that followed.  However, Holdren wasn’t Romney’s most significant appointment for environmental issues.  Douglas Foy served as Secretary of Commonwealth Development in Romney’s cabinet for most of his term, and demonstrates Romney’s complicated — and contradictory — record on climate change.

Foy came to the Romney administration in Massachusetts with a solid record on environmental activism as head of the Conservation Law Foundation for the previous 25 years.  Under his direction, the CLF used the courts to block the building of the Seabrook 2 nuclear plant and stop off-shore drilling in the Georges Bank region.  Romney picked him in 2003 with this record in order to bridge the gap between environmentalists and Republicans and to craft a reasonable approach to environmental issues.

How did that work out?  Foy’s name doesn’t get a mention in the 2005 memo that praises Holdren as a partner in the CO2 regulations, although it’s hard to imagine that Foy didn’t take part in the regulatory effort.  Foy did produce, along with Romney, the “Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan” of 2004, which proposed a regional cap-and-trade carbon-trading system as well as an interstate “CO2 Registry” partnership that would have pressured businesses to “disclose their greenhouse gas emissions inventories and reduction programs.”  Was that voluntary?  Well, read this and determine for yourself just how voluntary it sounded:

By recording emissions and reductions in a consistent format, the registry will ensure that Massachusetts’ sources receive all appropriate consideration for verified emissions reductions under any existing or future greenhouse gas regulatory regime[.]

Basically, Foy wanted to tell businesses that by self-reporting immediately ahead of the coming cap-and-trade system, they could establish a more reasonable baseline for reduction targets.  A rush to compliance would have given Romney’s team some political cover on the imposition of a cap-and-trade system by saying that the early participation showed that the business sector was on board the plan.

How did that work out?  In the end, Romney ended up reneging on his 2004 plan and hanging Foy out to dry about the same time Romney started thinking about a presidential run, as the Observer related in 2006:

Take the case of Douglas Foy, a former president of the Conservation Law Foundation. Mr. Romney, upon winning the governorship in 2002, deputized Mr. Foy to develop an environmentally friendly “smart growth” blueprint for the commonwealth.

It seemed a perfect illustration of why the state’s independent suburbanites had flocked to Mr. Romney: A machine Democrat would have made a patronage pick, while a right-winger would have sought out a James Inhofe clone.

Mr. Foy didn’t disappoint, promptly teaming with counterparts throughout the Northeast to create the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a miniature Kyoto Accord aimed at stemming carbon-dioxide emissions.

Then Mr. Romney made up his mind to go national—and suddenly, Mr. Foy’s work reeked of Al Gore–ism. So the governor, unlike his five fellow governors, refused to sign onto the agreement and pushed Mr. Foy out.

The Boston Globe also noted Romney’s reversal:

Then, in December, Romney decided not to partake in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a first-in-the-nation plan to limit carbon dioxide emissions from Northeast power plants. Despite Foy orchestrating last minute negotiations and concessions, Romney still rejected it.

Yesterday, Foy said he was still proud of his effort with the pact and expects Massachusetts to embrace it one day. Romney, meanwhile, has proposed a far weaker program to limit carbon dioxide at the state’s dirtiest power plants.

Romney has been a staunch opponent of the proposed wind farm in Nantucket Sound, while Foy backed the idea.

In 2011, Romney’s plan calls for drilling for oil in the US and building nuclear plants.  In 2003, Romney appointed a man to his Cabinet who had successfully blocked both, and Romney abandoned Foy’s cap-and-trade regime in 2006 after backing it publicly slightly less than two years earlier.  The question that arises from these memos, proposals, and regulations is which Mitt Romney we’re seeing right now, and which we’ll get if he wins the nomination and the election.

Updates: I’d like to answer a couple of points from the comments.  First, there seems to be confusion between the cap-and-trade proposal and the CO2 emission regulations in the first post.  Those regs did go into effect, as Romney’s 2005 memo made clear; Romney backed away from the regional cap-and-trade system.

Next, a few Romney defenders claim that it’s unfair to criticize Romney on these because either (a) it was only a state issue, or (b) Romney eventually rejected some of these proposals.  Both are absurd.  Governors run on their records, and if Romney appointed people as Governor who are Malthusian cranks and lawsuit-happy enviros that kill nuclear power and oil drilling projects, then that’s absolutely germane to both his judgment and his policy leanings.  Furthermore, as the Observer pointed out, the retreat on Foy’s proposal came curiously close to the time when it appears Romney began thinking about a run at the Presidency in 2008.  That goes to credibility.

Finally, for those who gripe that I’m doing Obama’s work for him … please.  We’re not supposed to vet our primary candidates, especially on their records?  Why not just go straight to the swimsuit competition?

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 3

Romney if elected last time would have fixed America’s crisis and we would not be in the mess we are in today.

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Well, we would have done the same thing with TARP, and he would have bailed out the banks…and when asked if he would do the same in Europe or Greece, he refused to answer…
So, how do you know he would have “fixed” the crisis, when his policies would have been the same.

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Romney was fine for Rush, Coulter, Steyn, Levin, DeMint, Heritage Foundation, National Review, etc etc last time and NOTHING has changed in Romney’s stances …

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 10:57 AM

You conveniently left out that Romney was to the right of McCain when those you mentioned gave that support.

That is not the case this time.

cozmo on October 17, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Just so HA knows there are those of us that are strong and adamant conservatives AND we still like Romney because he is not the boogeyman you make him out to be.

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 10:30 AM

You have been assimilated.

Mittbots and Eeyores (in a droning voice): Get ready to be assimilated… resistance is futile… Romney is inevitable.

Me (screaming and running away): Never… I say never!

TheRightMan on October 17, 2011 at 11:05 AM

The issue is not whether or not he instituted the policy – it is that he hand-picked liberals to develop the policy in the first place.

Monkeytoe,
You couldn’t swing a cat and not pick a liberal in MA. He chose who those that were in and out of his circle as governor.

As far as all your questions, I have answered in the past and do not need to rehash everything BUT Romney is a conservative. Again I have NO ISSUES at looking at Romney, I just think it is typical that Ed is doing what the MSM does against our side all the time. Throw something out there that is already known YET continue to push the Romney is bad string…even though he REJECTED it.

I want a good executive as my President as it shows he looks at all sides of an issue and surrounds himself with knowledgeable people and then makes a decision which based on facts, knowledge, and overall what is best for America’s interest.

btw:
Reduce corporate tax burden, streamline business regulation.
Implement trade agreements with Columbia, Panama, South Korea.
Issue waivers to states from health reforms approved under President Obama.
Initiate energy resources exploration leases, implement drilling in pre-approved areas.
Cut discretionary federal spending.
Sanction China for unfair trade.
Modernize national defense, oppose military cuts.
Revitalize relationships with allies, especially bolstering Israel; improve America’s standing in foreign policy.

Immigration:
Vetoed in-state tuition; turn off the magnet. (Sep 2011)
Of course a border fence; of course no free tuition. (Sep 2011)
Build 2,600-mile fence with enough guards to secure it. (Sep 2011)
Turn off the magnet that attracts immigrants. (Sep 2011)
I like legal immigration; let business determine visas. (Aug 2011)
GovWatch: 2005: Called comprehensive reform “reasonable”. (Feb 2008)
Deport illegal immigrants in 90 days under the ideal setting. (Jan 2008)
Found Z-visa & McCain-Kennedy bill to be offensive. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, his ads DID accuse McCain of “amnesty”. (Jan 2008)

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Why not just go straight to the swimsuit competition?

Huntsman wins with a beautiful two piece from Vera Wang.

portlandon on October 17, 2011 at 11:09 AM

Now conservatives, in their animosity towards Romney, don’t even believe in absolute truth anymore. Relativism is a foundation of neo-marxist thought.

Science is what we understand using the scientific method. It evolves. Truth, as most Christians and conservatives understand it, is absolute. There is right and there is wrong.

Self-destructive Romney hate knows no bounds.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 10:49 AM

I don’t know how or where you got the idea that I have Romney hate, I’m all for him and think he’s the best candidate to remove Obama come 2012.

As for absolute truths… There are none.

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 11:10 AM

the retreat on Foy’s proposal came curiously close to the time when it appears Romney began thinking about a run at the Presidency in 2008. That goes to credibility.

Wow, that is quite an assumption to leap to with absolutely no evidence to back it up. It’s sad that Hot Air’s credibility has sunk so far that you’re now on par with the NYT.

JA on October 17, 2011 at 11:10 AM

portlandon on October 17, 2011 at 11:09 AM

Stop that! The nutballs haven’t read that part and are continuing on.

cozmo on October 17, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Romney was fine for Rush, Coulter, Steyn, Levin, DeMint, Heritage Foundation, National Review, etc etc last time and NOTHING has changed in Romney’s stances and now you all cannot stand the guy. Great! Continue to think that way and we WILL have another four years of Obama.

So, if those people are for someone, we should be too? Which is it – we have to do what they say, or we ignore what they say NOW and obey what they said THEN?

The point is that Romney was the best choice of a bad lot last time around. And, circumstances were vastly different last time around. I supported Romney over McCain last time around b/c I thought between the 2 of them, Romney was more conservative or at least less of a “maverick”.

Circumstances have changed dramatically and conservatism has also changed. Our focus, perceptions and issues have changed. There are a number of issues driving conservative thought with regard to Romney:

1) there is a better chance to elect someone much more conservative in the general election than was likely possible in 2008;

2) Obamacare. Most of us have no faith that Romney would repeal Obamacare. I can elaborate on this if necessary.

3) We need serious entitlement and spending reform. Romney has never shown a willingness to rock the boat. Even his campaigns demonstrate that he is a “don’t rock the boat” guy. So we have no faith he will do anything remotely different regarding these issues.

4) AGW. This is a bigger issue now than it was then. The continued push for more regulation the EPA’s recent regs, etc., make this a more pressing issue.

5) A lot of us don’t think Romney can beat Obama.

Your insistence that because Romney was acceptable in 2008 makes him acceptable now is the flawed premise. We are focusing on different issues and looking at different things. It would be like running McCain again or Bob Dole. Just b/c they were the nominee in past years, doesn’t mean they would be acceptable this year. Things change. Circumstances change. Our perceptions of people change. The issues we focus on change.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Finally, for those who gripe that I’m doing Obama’s work for him … please. We’re not supposed to vet our primary candidates, especially on their records? Why not just go straight to the swimsuit competition?

Exactly. I would like a chance to consider this information NOW, instead of Oct. 2012.

Mutnodjmet on October 17, 2011 at 11:12 AM

cozmo on October 17, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Conveniently…right. Many of those endorsed Romney while Huckabee, Guliani and others were still in the race. ROmney has NOT changed any of his stances since his last run. He is still against illegal immigration and voted that way as a Governor, marriage is between a man and a woman, cut taxes, grow the military, expand Gitmo, voted for TARP as did Cain, Paul Ryan, and many other conservatives and just did not like the way the Gov’t went about implementing it. Romney came out early for the Cut, Cap, and Balance despite the tripe you all continue to spout.
He also has helped elect MORE conservatives with through his PAC over the last four years than ANY other conservative that is running for office. They ALL have publicly and privately thanked him while many of you ask where he has been?

You all need to get off the Kool-Aid many on our own side have been supplying you. I imagine the Libs are loving watching us attack each other.

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 11:13 AM

Wow, that is quite an assumption to leap to with absolutely no evidence to back it up. It’s sad that Hot Air’s credibility has sunk so far that you’re now on par with the NYT.

JA on October 17, 2011 at 11:10 AM

It occurred about the same time as Romney’s position on abortion evolved. I think you are niaive if you don’t think Romney was eying the white house even before being inaugurated in MA. Regardless, that is my belief, based on all of Romney’s actions and the perception he creates about himself. I’m sorry that my opinion based on analysis is so troubling to you. Perhaps if Romney did not act the way he does, change positions the way he does, adopt liberalism and then reject it the way he does, I wouldn’t come to teh conclusions I do.

Sorry your argumentation is about as proficient as a liberal’s.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Wow, that is quite an assumption to leap to with absolutely no evidence to back it up. It’s sad that Hot Air’s credibility has sunk so far that you’re now on par with the NYT.

JA on October 17, 2011 at 11:10 AM

No wow about it. That is speculation made by the original articles about a candidate that has shown a propensity to change positions. Its no secret, and one of Romney’s flaws. Just as the other candidates must deal with their flaws, Romney must deal with his.

Do you deny that Romney has backtracked on positions?

cozmo on October 17, 2011 at 11:16 AM

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 10:32 AM

If I let my crazy conspiracy theory mind run wild, I could say if Mitt Romney is as smart as his supporters like to think he is, he would chose to run in MA for just this reason. He runs in a radically liberal state, knowing that his ‘conservative’ agenda will be shot down. Then, when he runs for the GOP nomination, he can do what he does best: blame the liberal court or the liberal legislature for all the policies he enacts that conservatives despise. Then, if conservatives buy it, he can destroy the ‘conservative’ party forever. It would be genius really…

The thing is, it would take a lot of prior planning to pull that off, and if he had done that, he is scarier than I think. Rather, this is just a happy coincidence for ol Mitt. He has an ‘epiphany’ around 05 when he’s considering a future run for higher office. He knows it isn’t going to hurt anything. He can vocally ‘oppose’ abortion and still have it paid for in his healthcare bill. The courts will bail him out. The evil court made me do it! He doesn’t really have to worry about holding up ‘gay marriage’, because he knows he can vocally ‘oppose’ it and it will still go through. The evil court made me do it!!

I won’t say what I really think about Mitt when I let the conspiracy theories go wild, but it is no conspiracy theory that Mitt is no conservative, and he is clever, even if not an evil genius. That’s scary enough for me to never vote for him. Ever…

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 10:49 AM

Um…SauerKraut sounds like he’s for Romney, or at least he was being positive towards him in his initial post, claiming Romney is a conservative. Aside from that, everything about moral relativism and truth in your post is spot on.

pannw on October 17, 2011 at 11:16 AM

The Climate Science Isn’t Settled


Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.

by Dick Lindzen

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

Its about degrees, remedies, and the unknown.

Its not about asserting that all AGW is a hoax and always has been a hoax. This is the type of nonsense that makes conservatives look dumb.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 11:18 AM


Lindzen’s message in these tutorials — that man-caused global warming was real, but would hardly cause any change at all

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/07/06/06climatewire-a-climate-change-dissenter-who-has-left-his-76048.html?pagewanted=all

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 11:18 AM

Finally, for those who gripe that I’m doing Obama’s work for him … please. We’re not supposed to vet our primary candidates, especially on their records? Why not just go straight to the swimsuit competition?

Thanks Ed, good work. To me, this is an absolute deal-breaker. I was aghast the other night to see HA commenters actually talking up Newt Gingrich, but I guess things are that bad now. Cain is still my first choice, but only because I don’t believe his national sales tax would ever pass the House.

stefanite on October 17, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Monkeytoe,
You couldn’t swing a cat and not pick a liberal in MA. He chose who those that were in and out of his circle as governor.

So, a “conservative” appoints all liberals while Governor b/c that’s the only people he knows? That’s your argument.

And stop quoting me what Romney is saying NOW. I know what he claims right now. I don’t buy it. He said something different when running in 2008 and said and acted different than that as Governor and different than that campaigning for Governor and different than that campaigning for Senate.

You are not a conservative if you created Romneycare. You are not a conservative if you appointed liberals as your policy advisers.

You want it both ways. You want us to ignore everything he said and did as governor but take everything he says now as fact. Sure, he rejected what his self-appointed liberal policy adviser suggested. The fact that he appointed a liberal to that position says enough that it does not matter what Romney did. The fact that he created and continues to defend Romneycare enough about him.

As to his other positions – he has said the opposite to most of them in the past. I can’t take anything the guy says as true and have no faith he’ll do anything he claims.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 11:19 AM

*Cough* Can anyone explain the discrepancy between two conflicting paragraphs in this story, which I cited earlier? Or will this be another day where I hear crickets singing?

Ed blames Mitt for higher energy rates, but the program blamed for higher rates never went into effect. I betcha that energy rates have gone up all around the country, not just in Massachusetts. I live in the red state of Georgia and while my natural gas rates have declined, my electricity rates have skyrocketed. I blame Mitt Romney!/

Buy Danish on October 17, 2011 at 11:22 AM

he retreat on Foy’s proposal came curiously close to the time when it appears Romney began thinking about a run at the Presidency in 2008. That goes to credibility.

Wow, that is quite an assumption to leap to with absolutely no evidence to back it up. It’s sad that Hot Air’s credibility has sunk so far that you’re now on par with the NYT.

JA on October 17, 2011 at 11:10 AM

Agreed! Again HA with a hit job on Romney because heaven forbid that he jump out to a bigger lead with all the heavy hitters now lining up to support him we NEED to smear him!

Monkeytoe and others, also I am pointing out that in the past other conservatives supported his candidacy with the same information and history and NOW this time around these are problems? To me that is a flip-flop. He has only increased in to being a better candidate and will be able to take care of Obama in the debates better than the others currently running.

One other reason why Romney is the best candidate besides what I and others have already posted…
When it comes to states like PA, OH, MI, WI, MN, WV, IN, NH, CT, MA, etc who puts those into play better than Romney out of all our candidates and we will actually have some States come into play this time around with Romney. However, the other candidates, who I would vote for any one of them, others in those States above may not and make the race closer than we’d like if not lose in a tight one.

One other thought here…what if Obama dropped Biden as VP and had Hillary join his ticket? Now the dynamics have just changed dramatically and the only one who could compete in those States would be Romney. I would not put this past Obama at all…

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 11:22 AM

…right. Many of those endorsed Romney while Huckabee, Guliani and others were still in the race.
g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 11:13 AM

So, look back, Guliani was to the left of Romney and McCain, Huckabee wasn’t going anywhere and Limbaugh doesn’t endorse until the nominee is selected.

You all need to get off the Kool-Aid many on our own side have been supplying you. I imagine the Libs are loving watching us attack each other.

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 11:13 AM

The only Kool-aide drinkers I see here are those defending every Romney position at all costs. Okay, there are a couple of nutballs who stated they wouldn’t vote if Romney was the nominee. Most others have real problems with Romney, and are being open about that.

cozmo on October 17, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Its not about asserting that all AGW is a hoax and always has been a hoax. This is the type of nonsense that makes conservatives look dumb.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 11:18 AM

That’s idiotic. AGW has a very definite meaning – that man is causing global warming to such an extent that the glaciers are going to melt and devastate the earth and we need to do something drastic now.

Lindzen rejects that. So do conservatives. If you want to play semantics and say AGW is that man’s existence an activities have some negligible effect on climate that cannot even be measured and pretend that is what we are talking about, you are being dishonest.

No conservative would claim that man has absolutely no effect on climate. Just that such effect is negligible and AGW – as it is defined by the left and alarmists – is a hoax based on fraudulent science.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Its not about asserting that all AGW is a hoax and always has been a hoax. This is the type of nonsense that makes conservatives look dumb.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 11:18 AM

Nice try in backpedeling…Lindzen states it is a political hoax, always has been, always will be. The amount of change from humans’ is hardly measurable…and pal, all things are about “how much”…that’s like some one is a socialist because they support public streets. The matter of “degree” is what separates intelligent people from alarmists…you are an alarmist and have been taken in by them.

That said, the main greenhouse substances in the earth’s atmosphere are water vapor and high clouds. Let’s refer to these as major greenhouse substances to distinguish them from the anthropogenic minor substances. Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%. This is essentially what is called “climate forcing.”

There is general agreement on the above findings. At this point there is no basis for alarm regardless of whether any relation between the observed warming and the observed increase in minor greenhouse gases can be established.

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 11:25 AM

pannw on October 17, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Use Occam’s Razor when you start delving into conspiracy theories because the more complicated a conspiracy theory the less likely it is to be true. The simplest explanation is often the most correct one.

As for your thought that swamp yankee was spot on on the relativism and truth claims…

Think about this. At several points throughout history, we had absolute truths that have been shown to not be truth. The world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth instead of the other way around, disease was caused by demons.

Everything is relative and the truth you know today can be shown to be not so true in the future.

There ARE no absolute truths.

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 11:26 AM

What the hell, this guy has MY last name. How dare he. He lives in the state just North of me too, I really hope we’re not related.

Daemonocracy on October 17, 2011 at 11:26 AM

The thing is, it would take a lot of prior planning to pull that off, and if he had done that, he is scarier than I think. Rather, this is just a happy coincidence for ol Mitt. He has an ‘epiphany’ around 05 when he’s considering a future run for higher office. He knows it isn’t going to hurt anything. He can vocally ‘oppose’ abortion and still have it paid for in his healthcare bill. The courts will bail him out. The evil court made me do it! He doesn’t really have to worry about holding up ‘gay marriage’, because he knows he can vocally ‘oppose’ it and it will still go through. The evil court made me do it!!

I don’t think he is evil or some kind of manchurian candidate. I just don’t think Romney has any solid governing principals. He’ll go where the wind is blowing. For the republican primaries he needed to move right, so he did.

I think he is a manager and technocrat by nature. As long as there is a solid GOP majority in both houses and they are sticking mostly with conservative principals, so will Romney. But he won’t tackles controversial and difficult issues like entitlement reform. He’ll go along.

If the GOP loses either house though, Mitt will be more than willing to make deals and move leftward.

And, as far as things like Obamacare – it is not going to be a picnic getting it repealed. It is going to take a lot of effort and leadership by the president. And I just don’t think Romney will want to do that. I think he’ll be much more likely to try and “fix” Obamacare and we’ll end up with Obamacare as the status quo – just like we always do with new liberal programs. That is the biggest reason I’m against Romney. I don’t see him as a strong leader pushing conservative policies. He will react and will try to tinker with things and will try to remain noncontroversial.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 11:29 AM

Just so HA knows there are those of us that are strong and adamant conservatives AND we still like Romney because he is not the boogeyman you make him out to be.

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Eventually you’ll find out Santa Clause doesn’t exist. It’s a process.

Daemonocracy on October 17, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Why does Hot Air attract the nut jobs who either want to watch the USA burn to the ground by voting third party, or guaranteed a St Palin the Victimized candidacy when it was clear to the rest of us she was never going to run?

We all know those types are the smallest miniscule of the tiniest minority and their non votes wont be missed….is there a advertisement out there for Hot Air that says “Moonbat ideologues welcomed!”?

csdeven on October 17, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Monkeytoe and others sure do insinuate A LOT about what you THINK Romney did or did not do because that is what you read. Romney is a conservative and YES he lived and worked in MA a LIBERAL state so it is not shcoking to me that when he is having to try to get policies approved that he is going to have to work with liberals unlike UT, TX, AZ, WY, etc where Repubs are in super majorities and governing there looks easy. Romney came in his first year and CUT taxes and turned around MA debt and left four years later with a 2Billion fund. He vetoed over 800! bills and most were overridden by his Lib Congress, including many provisions on the MA Healthcare WHICH again was only targeting the 8% without insurance not the 100% Obama is aiming for…Romney did not get into your back account like Obama does, he did not cause you to drop your private insurance LIKE Obama’s plan WILL do, Romney is against abortion except in the case of the life of the mother, rape or incest, marriage is between man and a woman and he even believed that in 1994. Many of you do not understand how Mormons believe and they are against abortions (even Harry Reid is personally) and also believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I know Romney has been for civil unions.
Romney also helped pull Staples, Domino’s, Sports Authority, Olympics, etc etc out of the hole and very profitable!!! That is conservative and what we many of us believe in.

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 11:35 AM

Think about this. At several points throughout history, we had absolute truths that have been shown to not be truth. The world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth instead of the other way around, disease was caused by demons.

Everything is relative and the truth you know today can be shown to be not so true in the future.

There ARE no absolute truths.

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 11:26 AM

No, we don’t necessarily know absolute truths, but they exist. In other words, we now know that the Earth revolves around the sun. That is an absolute truth. The difference between the absolute truths you pointed to before and ones we currently hold today are that those previous truths (flat earth) were not really arrived at through scientific principal – instead they came about simply through anecdotal observation. I.e., the earth looks flat to me from here – therefore it must be flat.

The problem is with asserting things are absolute truths that we have not proven. For instance, one cannot say that the theory of evolution is an absolute truth, b/c it has not been proven through science.

But there are also absolute truths in morality. It is wrong to kill someone for personal gain is an absolute truth, for instance.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Ed blames Mitt for higher energy rates, but the program blamed for higher rates never went into effect. I betcha that energy rates have gone up all around the country, not just in Massachusetts. I live in the red state of Georgia and while my natural gas rates have declined, my electricity rates have skyrocketed. I blame Mitt Romney!/

Buy Danish on October 17, 2011 at 11:22 AM

the best thing about you is that you’re so clueless that you make Romney look even worse.

The Carbon Caps Romney DID pass are what drove up the energy rates. Looks like he was set to go all in with Cap an Trade just before he ran for President.

Daemonocracy on October 17, 2011 at 11:37 AM

Think about this. At several points throughout history, we had absolute truths that have been shown to not be truth. The world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth instead of the other way around, disease was caused by demons.

Everything is relative and the truth you know today can be shown to be not so true in the future.

There ARE no absolute truths.

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 11:26 AM

those were never absolute truths. You don’t know what absolute truths are do you?

As for the “everything is relative” comment, spoken like a true liberal. No wonder you support Romney.

Daemonocracy on October 17, 2011 at 11:39 AM

There

are absolute truths that we have not proven

like Romney will be the next President of the United States and will run and govern as a conservative SHOCKING all the HA posters!

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Many of you do not understand how Mormons believe and they are against abortions (even Harry Reid is personally) and also believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I know Romney has been for civil unions.
Romney also helped pull Staples, Domino’s, Sports Authority, Olympics, etc etc out of the hole and very profitable!!! That is conservative and what we many of us believe in.

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 11:35 AM

You cannot be “personally” for or against something an “publicly” the opposite. That is just dishonest.
Don’t use his religion to claim he is conservative unless you want to have a debate about the religion. Romney’s religion cannot both be a sword and a shield. I don’t care that he is a Mormon (and I do know a lot about LDS) – plenty of self-proclaimed Catholics go against church tenets as well. What “Mormons believe” is irrelevant to me in looking at Romney.

I base my opinions of Romney on what he has said and done in the past. Your excuse is “well it as a liberal state”. So, no matter how liberal his positions or policies or people he appointed, it should all just be excused and we must accept on faith that Romney is really, really, really this time a conservative?

That is just silly.

Also, I never said everything Romney did as Governor of MA was liberal, or even that he was a bad governor for MA. Probably about as conservative as you can get for MA.

I said that he is not conservative based on things he has said and done (for instance, his stating that he was not a conservative in a 1994 debate or stating he did not support Reagan). Anyone who can create and endorse Romneycare is not a conservative. Anyone who appoints ultra-liberals as his policy advisers is not a conservative.

You can keep saying “Massachusetts” til you are blue in the face, it does not change what Romney did or said in the past. Perhaps he really is a conservative who simply did all those things b/c otherwise he could not get elected or govern in MA. But you are asking us to take that on faith, not on evidence. Based on the evidence he is not conservative.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 11:43 AM

For instance, one cannot say that the theory of evolution is an absolute truth, b/c it has not been proven through science.

But there are also absolute truths in morality. It is wrong to kill someone for personal gain is an absolute truth, for instance.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 11:36 AM

The Theory of Evolution IS true, the theory is the basis of all the medical advances we’ve had in the last few hundred years monkeytoe. If it WASN’T true then we wouldn’t have all these advances now would we? It’s been proven time and time again through science and one main way we can discern whether it’s true is through the use of vaccinations. Every year you need to have newer different vaccinations, why?!! Because the virus and bacteria who survived the previous years onslaught of medicines we designed to fight them have EVOLVED to be immune to older vaccinations and inoculations.

So it’s an absolute truth to not kill anyone else, except when your god tells you you can or the government you live under says you can? Doesn’t sound like much of a truth to me.

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Why not just go straight to the swimsuit competition?

Thanks for that one, Ed. First chuckle of the day.

Romney supporters can complain all they want. His record is his record, and we should be examining it. Their real problem isn’t that we are examining his record, it is that the examination leads to the conclusion that Romney’s guiding principle appears to be political expediency.

Within a fairly broad range of options, Romney’s positions and policies are flexible, and trend toward what he thinks is the most common denominator. That is his record, so get over it.

novaculus on October 17, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Rommey stuff to catch up on…and the flip/flops are not that obvious.

Schadenfreude on October 17, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution – Theodosius Dobzhansky

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 11:47 AM

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 11:44 AM

If it was proven, then it would be a scientific law and not a theory.

Clearly you are just trolling with these comments and not being serious.

Daemonocracy on October 17, 2011 at 11:48 AM

.is there a advertisement out there for Hot Air that says “Moonbat ideologues welcomed!”?

csdeven on October 17, 2011 at 11:34 AM

I wonder what it would take for a die-hard, obsessed Mitt supporter to change their mind…I’ll ask, What does it take?

A change in his abortion stand? Belief in the fairy tale of AGW? Not being able to answer questions regarding foreign economics? Support of TARP? Supporting the EPA and their regulations? Stating he is not a conservative?
Good grief…like a battered woman, they keep going back to their “man”…

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 11:48 AM

He vetoed over 800! bills and most were overridden by his Lib Congress,

States don’t have “congresses” they have legislatures.

And I have no doubt that Romney was to the right of the MA legislature. that does not make him conservative. I think Romney is slightly right-of-center. He is a pretty typical northeastern republican.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 11:48 AM

The Preeminent global warming skeptic in his own words.

Beginning at 1:20. The question of AGW is how much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu9fprxnkEI

A smart, rational, nuanced intellectual… like Romney.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 11:49 AM

The Theory of Evolution IS true, the theory is the basis of all the medical advances we’ve had in the last few hundred years monkeytoe. If it WASN’T true then we wouldn’t have all these advances now would we? It’s been proven time and time again through science and one main way we can discern whether it’s true is through the use of vaccinations. Every year you need to have newer different vaccinations, why?!! Because the virus and bacteria who survived the previous years onslaught of medicines we designed to fight them have EVOLVED to be immune to older vaccinations and inoculations.

So it’s an absolute truth to not kill anyone else, except when your god tells you you can or the government you live under says you can? Doesn’t sound like much of a truth to me.

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 11:44 AM

You are obviously not serious or else you are a complete loon.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 11:51 AM

The Theory of Evolution IS true, the theory is the basis of all the medical advances we’ve had in the last few hundred years monkeytoe.
SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Now that is a link I would like to see…I have a feeling you didn’t actually mean those two sentences…just a little hyper venting.
We will let you back away from those, and it will help you save face…or you can provide the links.

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 11:51 AM

If it was proven, then it would be a scientific law and not a theory.

Clearly you are just trolling with these comments and not being serious.

Daemonocracy on October 17, 2011 at 11:48 AM

You betray your ignorance of what a law and a theory mean in science when you say this…

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 11:52 AM

Pretty simple here … Mitt Romney flips and flop so much – what can we possibly believe about him?

Well – you CAN BELIEVE his record as governor – because, unlike the words in his cake hole – which keep changing every day – that record sticks out like a liberal sore thumb.

That’s what you judge Mitt Romney by. You judge him by his record of producing ROMNEYCARE – a Socialist Health Care system which is destroying the economy of the state of Massachusetts.

You judge him by the greenhouse gas regulations he implemented when he was Governor.

You judge him by the people he appointed to advise him when he was a Governor.

You judge him by his record of job creation as Governor – which was one of the worst in the nation.

That’s how you judge Mitt Romney – not on his words – but on his actions.

There is NOTHING remotely Conservative about his record. Nothing.

HondaV65 on October 17, 2011 at 11:53 AM

You betray your ignorance of what a law and a theory mean in science when you say this…

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 11:52 AM

Yeah definite troll.

Daemonocracy on October 17, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 11:43 AM

Monkeytoe,
I have to get off soon and get to my hooch (bed) here in AFG but you can be for/against something personally and in public be against it. Think of Doctors who may be against abortion personally but because of their oath they took and the service they provide will still provide a service even though they may not agree with it. The clerk who sells cigarettes or alcohol at the store even though they personally do not believe in it.
Elected officials vote on bills all the time they may not personally believe in but because other items are attached to them of more importance they may have to vote for or against it.

I brought up his religion ONLY to point out that ACTIVE LDS members ALL believe in a certain way and many of these are against liberal thinking.

Romney governed as a conservative voting many times for PRO-LIFE bills, vetoing others that were pro-choice, relaxed strict guns laws in the state gaining the praise of the NRA in MA, pro military, cut taxes causing the Boston Globe to complain about him, and on and on…so yes, he is a conservative and these are based on his ACTUAL record not what some say here because they heard he was a flip flopper!

Again what is the point of this story, as this information was ALL known 4 years ago when he ran, except to try to smear/lie about Romney which should not be a tactic of our side.

Bottom line:
He asked some liberal advisors to look into Emission/GW reduction and then rejected their proposals.

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 11:58 AM

A smart, rational, nuanced intellectual… like Romney.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Hardly, a pre-eminent scientist, and a flip flopping politician are not in the same class.
As I stated (any your back pedaling was noted), even the breathing contributes something, and as Lindzen states, the flutter of a butterfly wing contributes…but realistically, and that is what we need to deal with, not how many angels fit on the head of a pin, but realistically, man contributes nothing of substance to the changing of the temperatures of the world.
He held that view in 2010, when that interview was given, and he stated it again in the link I gave from an essay in Jan. of 2011, he has been consistent.
Man contributes, as does animals, birds, frogs, but it is insignificant compared to water vapor and other natural occurring events.
Each of you links, just proves our point…Mitt Romney is out of step with science…but in step with the liberal mind set that humans are evil and cause all problems, including the weather. And you have bought into it, even to the point of quoting someone who disagrees with you…although you are back tracking quickly, which is a good sign.

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Romney is no doubt a great guy, but why vote for a liberal Republican when you can vote for the real thing?

pedestrian on October 17, 2011 at 12:00 PM

The issue is not whether Romney is a conservative–(He isn’t but he is not a redistributionist liberal either.)The issue is whether any of the other candidates running that are conservatives would be likely to beat Obama. This remains to be seen and people should not close off any options at this point. A few credible polls showing Herman Cain beating Obama would help Cain immensely and could push him into an even postion with Romney for the nomination, but it does not seem he is there yet. Nevertheless, as his name recognition is still relatively low, that could develop down the road or it could go the other way as well. We do not have to firmly take sides right now.

KW64 on October 17, 2011 at 12:00 PM

@ Daemonocracy

I’m not going to recreate the wheel so I’ll copy and paste from the Evolution is NOT just a theory webpage…

You’ve been told that “evolution is just a theory“, a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You’ve been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you’ll know that you’ve been misinformed. We’re not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that “it’s just a theory” is not a valid argument.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. That’s right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn’t believe in evolution because it was “just a theory”, they’d probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It’s a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It’s as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it’s proven, it becomes a law. That’s not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don’t promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There’s a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it’ll fall. It doesn’t say why. Then there’s the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton’s Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein’s Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can’t be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it’s called a theory of gravity, doesn’t mean that it’s just a guess. It’s been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we’ve tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it’s real doesn’t mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There’s the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations)3 happens, just like gravity does. Don’t take my word for it.4 Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that’s not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it’s just something someone guessed at, remember that they’re using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.5

Evolution is not just a theory, it’s triumphantly a theory!

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 12:00 PM

You betray your ignorance of what a law and a theory mean in science when you say this…

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 11:52 AM

So where are the links proving evolution is fact.

There ARE no absolute truths.

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Well there is one…you seem a little nutty…
There are absolute truths…you just can’t see them.
Most people can…just because you can’t see them, don’t assume they don’t exist.
You are like the witch doctor, when the sun goes behind the moon, you dance in fear because you don’t understand, you don’t “see” the reason.

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 12:05 PM

Yeah definite troll.

Daemonocracy on October 17, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Keep your head in the sand all you like Daemonocracy. It bothers me that you would do that but other than that I can’t do anything to help you if you don’t want to help yourself.

The evidence is out there, but YOU have to do the hard work to understand it.

Evolution is the ONLY game in town when it comes to biology and the origins of our species and others.

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 12:07 PM

You get upset because a Governor asks some people on his staff (from a liberal state) to look into some GW and emission reductions, as ANY great knowledgeable executive would, and after reviewing everything REJECTED the proposals!! And you all are upset??!!? I see who is now voting in our party and wonder why we are in the mess we are in today.

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Romney was picking far left people to ask.

MeatHeadinCA on October 17, 2011 at 12:09 PM

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Laughable. Good tactic though. Accuse your opponent of your flaws.

Romney haters get all hyesterical because he once said AGW is real. He also repeatedly states the science is unsettles.

But clowns take these talking points to claim he “is just like Obama” on global warming.

Go through my entire thread. Havent backtracked once. Other people, desperate to support a desperate candidate, are all over the place. Throwing mud at Romney and hoping something sticks.

Romney’s nuanced position is closer to the truth and Lindzen, than many yahoos with their hysterical talking points from a radio hosts.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 12:09 PM

Romney if elected last time would have fixed America’s crisis and we would not be in the mess we are in today.

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 10:57 AM

How exactly would he have fixed the crisis?

MeatHeadinCA on October 17, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Schadenfreude on October 17, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Thanks, Schade
Good post. Much of this article I believe many of us would agree with, however, we also seeing through some of the writers premise or prejudices where he is not quoting Romney directly…

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 12:12 PM

What does it take?

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 11:48 AM

An electable conservative. We don’t have one yet. Probably because they are unfairly viewed to be as ideological as your types are. You would reject Reagan.

csdeven on October 17, 2011 at 12:13 PM

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 12:00 PM

This may be confusing to you….but….
A copy and paste that some anonymous poster pasted on a website called “not just a theory.com”…that is your link? That is your provable link? HAHAHAHAHA!
Here is their definition…notice the word “current”…

Simply, the word theory refers to the current explanation for some natural phenomenon.

By your theory, one cell was created and from that cell everything is related…so you would be related to a banana…hey, it’s starting to make sense now…

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 12:13 PM

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Can you give us an example of “evolution” or trans-mutation…surely in the history of earth, where we find dinosaur bones, you have one trans-mutation…

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 12:15 PM

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 12:13 PM

You’re on the right path with that last sentence Not2bright.

We are all related to each other through inheritance and all descended from the same single celled organisms that formed on this planet over 3.75 to 4 billion years ago.

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 12:15 PM

States don’t have “congresses” they have legislatures.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 11:48 AM

You knew what I meant…

M-Toe, you come pull 15 hour days – 7 days a week in a war zone and see how alert your mind and typing is…

Good nite all! Thanks for the conversation!

Let’s get the current occupant out of OUR house in 2012.

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Next, a few Romney defenders claim that it’s unfair to criticize Romney on these because either (a) it was only a state issue, or (b) Romney eventually rejected some of these proposals. Both are absurd.

Whats absurd is this wasnt an issue in 2008 when this website and others were pointing to Romney as the conservative choice. Whats absurd is the trickling out of these stories day by day to increase anti Romney sentiment and thereby encouraging people if hes the nominee to stay home. Whats absurd is the utter lack of scrutiny of Perrys Super Highway and other issues which not only are eminent domain issues, but are border security issues. This is what is absurd. If you were giving Perry a 10th of the scrutiny you were giving Romney this wouldnt bother me at all, but you arent, not even close.

nswider on October 17, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Reposted from the Holdren thread:

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

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

These Malthusian hoaxers have been around since… Thomas Malthus wrote the book and re-propagated by Margaret Sanger, Shaw etc.

AH_C on October 17, 2011 at 12:19 PM

@Not2bright

Go look up the Flavobacterium that EVOLVED to be able to eat Nylonase by products exclusively and shed the ability to eat other “food”… That’s a perfect example of evolution in action because prior to the 1930′s there was no Nylon in earths history.

So in a few short decades we see proof that life evolves to survive in the environment that it finds itself in, ie bacteria evolving the ability to digest Nylon.

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Wow, that is quite an assumption to leap to with absolutely no evidence to back it up. It’s sad that Hot Air’s credibility has sunk so far that you’re now on par with the NYT.

JA on October 17, 2011 at 11:10 AM

Kind of like that “commercial” you keep posting and claiming it’s Herman Cain’s voice with no evidence whatsoever to back it up?

Pot meet kettle.

Knucklehead on October 17, 2011 at 12:20 PM

You would reject Reagan.

csdeven on October 17, 2011 at 12:13 PM

That’s your projection, I think Perry is closest to Reagan in this election…actually I liked, and worked with, Reagan’s amnesty program…until the dems destroyed it. I think an amnesty program is mandatory.
I don’t like EPA, Romney does, as Reagan said “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
Well Romney states…I am from the government and I’m here to help…
BTW, remember, it was Romney who stated he was not a Reagan Conservative when questioned by Kennedy…not anyone else but him. Those are his words, spoken when pressed…

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Can I say that I am absolutely goofing on the Romney supporters accusing Ed/AP/HotAir of being in the tank for “fill in the blank”. I don’t think I expected this much entertainment from the primaries.

Cindy Munford on October 17, 2011 at 12:22 PM

hahaha….

I love how the St Palin the Victimized loons try to prove Palin’s fitness for POTUS by pointing out that both her and Reagan were vilified by conservatives. I promise you they will stop making that comparison when Romney is being vilified by conservatives. Oh wait a minute, he already is.

HA! Romney must be the next Reagan? He supported a woman’s right to choose. So did Reagan. He supported gun control. Reagan supported the Brady Bill. Reagan increased federal employee ranks.

OH MY! Reagan must be a RINO scum according to you ideologues!

There is no perfect candidate….only the lesser evil. In 2012 our choices will be Obama or the GOP nominee. In other words, Obama or our days version of RR.

csdeven on October 17, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Monkeytoe,
I have to get off soon and get to my hooch (bed) here in AFG but you can be for/against something personally and in public be against it. Think of Doctors who may be against abortion personally but because of their oath they took and the service they provide will still provide a service even though they may not agree with it. The clerk who sells cigarettes or alcohol at the store even though they personally do not believe in it.
Elected officials vote on bills all the time they may not personally believe in but because other items are attached to them of more importance they may have to vote for or against it.

I brought up his religion ONLY to point out that ACTIVE LDS members ALL believe in a certain way and many of these are against liberal thinking.

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 11:58 AM

there’s a big difference between being against drinking and selling alcohol and being against abortion and voting to make it legal. Once cannot be both and be honest. Regardless, you are trying to use LDS as both a sword and a shield. don’t complain when people say that LDS is not truly a christian religion and therefore they won’t vote for Romney – b/c you are attempting to use his being a mormon as “evidence” that he is conservative. That makes the religion itself fair game.

regardless, you know no better than I do whether Romney believes the LDS church’s position on any specific issue. So your pointing to it is as ineffective as someone pointing to a candidate’s Catholicism or evangelicalism.

As far as Romney’s acts as Governor of MA – he created Romneycare and appointed liberals as his advisers. Thus, ipso facto, he is not a conservative. A conservative would never have done either thing. You continue to argue “so what, he didn’t do what the adviser said” as a defense. Executives generally appoint people who have the same philosophical position as themselves as advisers, etc. There are sometimes some deviations for political expediency, but Romney’s record in this regard is pretty bad.

If you surround yourself with liberals, it is most likely that you are not a conservative. Your evidence that Romney is conservative is all weak tea at best. The evidence against him being conservative is very compelling. Now, that doesn’t mean he is a liberal. I think he is just a “moderate” that will go wherever the wind is blowing.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 12:25 PM

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Well, seems you are a little confused about adaptation and trans-mutation…
Show me where a dog became a baboon, or the reverse…or a snake became a bird…or reverse.
Adaption happens all the time, hence black and white people…or birds that don’t fly…good grief, that’s what you have? That proves the theory of evolution? A contaminate bacteria found in soil?

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 12:25 PM

I love how the St Palin the Victimized loons try to prove Palin’s fitness for POTUS by pointing out that both her and Reagan were vilified by conservatives

I was never a big Palin pusher – I always thought she wouldn’t run. But the argument was never that conservatives tore her and Reagan down, it was that establishment republicans did. In this case the exact opposite is happening. Establishment republicans are lining up behind Romney and conservatives are pointing out that he is not conservative.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 12:26 PM

I think Perry is closest to Reagan in this election…

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 12:20 PM

You’re probably right and I was looking forward to supporting him until it became painfully clear that he could not defeat Obama in a debate. Now Cain is my hope, but he has some other agenda in mind and I’m not sure what it is because he is completely disinterested in Iowa or NH. He is starting to remind me of ?fred? and Rudy.

csdeven on October 17, 2011 at 12:27 PM

Establishment republicans are lining up behind Romney and conservatives are pointing out that he is not conservative.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 12:26 PM

You better go check his endorsements again. There are lots of conservatives on the list.

csdeven on October 17, 2011 at 12:28 PM

Just so HA knows there are those of us that are strong and adamant conservatives AND we still like Romney because he is not the boogeyman you make him out to be.

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 10:30 AM

In his best Inigo Montoya voice:

“You keep using that word; I dunna think it means what you think it means…”

Midas on October 17, 2011 at 12:28 PM

I’ll vote for Obama before I vote for Romney…I’m done with a Republican party that keeps coming up with McCains and Romneys!

Karmi on October 17, 2011 at 9:41 AM

You. Are. An. Idiot.

Knucklehead on October 17, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Cindy Munford on October 17, 2011 at 12:22 PM

I noticed that also. It’s hilarious that no candidate can be vetted without those accusations flying.

csdeven on October 17, 2011 at 12:29 PM

HA! Romney must be the next Reagan? He supported a woman’s right to choose. So did Reagan. He supported gun control. Reagan supported the Brady Bill. Reagan increased federal employee ranks.

OH MY! Reagan must be a RINO scum according to you ideologues!

There is no perfect candidate….only the lesser evil. In 2012 our choices will be Obama or the GOP nominee. In other words, Obama or our days version of RR.

csdeven on October 17, 2011 at 12:24 PM

So, everything Reagan did is a conservative principal as of today? We should follow everything he did?

Your arguments are silly. The world has changed. Conservative thought has changed. What was possible for Reagan in 1980 and what is possible for a conservative today is enormously different.

And, it is frankly insulting to Reagan to compare him to Romney. Reagan did deviate from even what was conservative back then to some degree, but he had a long history of conservative thought and speeches and writing. He had fought conservative battles. Romney has done none of that. Yes, if Romney were running in 1980 he would probably seem pretty conservative. And if Reagan were running today, he’d probably be much farther to the right than he was then, because times and possibilities are different.

We don’t love Reagan b/c everything he did was perfect. We love him b/c he was able to effectively communicate conservatism to the masses and was able to turn this country’s trajectory.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Man, I can’t wait till Romney is our candidate! I always wanted to support every democrat position. I just simply was too lazy to change my party affiliation. It’s gonna be sweet!

lorien1973 on October 17, 2011 at 12:32 PM

You better go check his endorsements again. There are lots of conservatives on the list.

csdeven on October 17, 2011 at 12:28 PM

I don’t care. And it disproves your original point anyway, if you had one.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Bingo!

29Victor on October 17, 2011 at 12:32 PM

There is no perfect candidate….only the lesser evil. In 2012 our choices will be Obama or the GOP nominee. In other words, Obama or our days version of RR.

csdeven on October 17, 2011 at 12:24 PM

The big difference is that Reagan was resolute and consistent in his policies…you cannot say for certain what Romney believes in, he has been on both sides of most issues.
But one issue is absolute…he has never garnered enough votes to get him into the national spotlight…even after record spending in the last election cycle, he couldn’t buy the support.
It doesn’t really matter his stances…he is not accepted, because, he just isn’t…it may not make sense, but it is fact. People don’t like him…basically you have 96% of a certain group that supports him whole heartily, with all their will and finesse…you are one of them, but God bless them, they end up being a small majority.
Without his religion, and the faithfulness they give him, his numbers would be dismal…and the activity to support him would be all but maybe one or two supporters.
But you need more than a “group” of people to support you, you need the “people” and he has never been able to capture them…except for the liberal in Mass.

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 12:33 PM

I’ll vote for Obama before I vote for Romney…I’m done with a Republican party that keeps coming up with McCains and Romneys!

Karmi on October 17, 2011 at 9:41 AM

You. Are. An. Idiot.

Knucklehead on October 17, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Hey. Something we can all (hopefully) agree on.

29Victor on October 17, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Keep your head in the sand all you like Daemonocracy. It bothers me that you would do that but other than that I can’t do anything to help you if you don’t want to help yourself.

The evidence is out there, but YOU have to do the hard work to understand it.

Evolution is the ONLY game in town when it comes to biology and the origins of our species and others.

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 12:07 PM

You have no idea what an absolute truth is as demonstrated in your previous post. Monkey was obviously referring to common ancestry when he brought up the Theory of Evolution and you brought up the mutations of simple organisms as proof. It’s not. There is no question a change in allele frequencies takes place over time, but when people bring up evolutionary theory, you know damn well what they are referring to – common ancestry and the origin of man. I do not reject the Theory of Evolution, but you are erratic with your use of the words “absolute truth” and “proven”.

Daemonocracy on October 17, 2011 at 12:34 PM

and I’m not sure what it is because he is completely disinterested in Iowa or NH. He is starting to remind me of ?fred? and Rudy.

csdeven on October 17, 2011 at 12:27 PM

I think Cain drives a red truck…don’t go bonkers on his like the other day…you had us worried, did you ever talk to a professional or did you just refill your prescription…

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 12:36 PM

I do not reject the Theory of Evolution, but you are erratic with your use of the words “absolute truth” and “proven”.

Daemonocracy on October 17, 2011 at 12:34 PM

and this concerns me because the idea of a scientific theory is being exploited by AGW alarmists for political purposes.

Daemonocracy on October 17, 2011 at 12:36 PM

The Carbon Caps Romney DID pass are what drove up the energy rates. Looks like he was set to go all in with Cap an Trade just before he ran for President.
Daemonocracy on October 17, 2011 at 11:37 AM

What carbon caps passed in Massachusetts? All we have seen are stories about a proposal which never happened. Can you provide a definitive link please? Here is the synopsis of the RGGI which never happened in Mass under Romney:

In 2003 George Pataki, then Governor of New York, sent a letter to the governors of Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states seeking “to develop a strategy that will help the region lead the nation in the effort to fight global climate change.”[11]

In August 2005, the RGGI staff working group proposed an emissions reduction program that would start in 2009 and lead to a stabilization of emissions at current levels (an average of 2002-2004 levels) by 2015. This would be followed by a 10% reduction in emissions between 2015 and 2020. The proposal would also allow participants to purchase offsets to meet 50% of their emission reductions.

As of December 20, 2005, seven Northeastern US states were involved in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Massachusetts and Rhode Island dropped out at the last minute; Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney objected to a lack of opt-out provisions if energy prices exceeded a certain threshold.[12]. He went on to attack Senator John McCain for his positive position on cap-and-trade during the 2008 presidential election.[13] The seven states still involved (Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine) signed a “Memorandum of Understanding” committing themselves to move forward with the program. Special provisions were made in that document for Massachusetts and Rhode Island to join the effort at any time prior to January 1, 2008 [14].

Massachusetts rejoined on January 18, 2007, on the order of newly elected Governor Deval Patrick.[15]

Rhode Island rejoined on January 30, 2007. Governor Donald L. Carcieri used his State of the State address to make the announcement. “I have been assured that those costs can be offset by credits we will receive from other states,” he said.[16]

On April 20, 2007, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley signed an agreement to join[17].

New Hampshire joined on June 12, 2008, when Gov. John Lynch signed a law implementing RGGI.[18]

On December 30, 2009, the governors of the participating states and Pennsylvania signed a “Memorandum of Understanding” to “work to develop a low-carbon fuel standard to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks despite objections from the oil industry.” [19] The accord establishes “an early 2011 deadline for a proposed framework to be completed” and mirrors plans in California “to reduce the carbon footprint of transportation fuels.” [19]

On May 26, 2011 New Jersey Governor Chris Christie announced that his state would pull out of the program by the end of the year [20]

Buy Danish on October 17, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Well, seems you are a little confused about adaptation and trans-mutation…
Show me where a dog became a baboon, or the reverse…or a snake became a bird…or reverse.
Adaption happens all the time, hence black and white people…or birds that don’t fly…good grief, that’s what you have? That proves the theory of evolution? A contaminate bacteria found in soil?

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 12:25 PM

A common claim of those who don’t understand Evolution is for the proponents of it to show where a dog produced something other than a dog. That’s nothing but an example of profound ignorance of how it works.

You WON’T see a dog create anything other than a dog, why?! Because when you’re talking about evolution you’re talking about thousands to millions of generations of change over time. You will NEVER see a dog create anything other than a dog, or a cat bringing forth anything other than a cat.

When trying to see evolution in action you need to go small. You have to look at organisms that live very short lives, and bacteria live very short lives (usually less than a day or two).

The point of the Flavobacterium example Not2Bright is that here we have an example of proven evolution that you can see (which you asked for). Nylon was first created in a lab in the 1930′s… These Nylonase eating bacteria were found in the late 1970′s (a difference of 40 years or so). So in 40 years, these Flavobacterium EVOLVED the ability to digest Nylonase by products and LOST their ability to eat anything else.

To wit, 40 years of change for a bacteria is literally millions of generations of growth and change.

THAT is what is needed to understand evolution Not2bright. Millions of generations.

In several tens of thousand of years, humans as we know them today will no longer be recognizable to what we are in that future time, and we’ll no longer be homosapiens, we’ll be a new classification of sapiens. We will have evolved.

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Midas on October 17, 2011 at 12:28 PM

haha that was funny…Great movie!

but yes, I am very conservative! Gun toting, military serving, SUV driving, get the gov’t off my back, taxed enough already, pro-life, pro-Israel, cut my taxes, drill baby drill, conservative AND a Romney supporter.

Good nite!

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 12:38 PM

I’ll vote for Obama before I vote for Romney…I’m done with a Republican party that keeps coming up with McCains and Romneys!

Karmi on October 17, 2011 at 9:41 AM

I’d never vote for Obama.

But I’m not voting for Romney, either. Don’t ask me to; it’s like asking me to choose between Obama and Clinton – screw that.

Of course, I realize I have the luxury of doing so since I live in Texas, which will go for the Republican whether I vote or not. And I’m pissed off as well that as a Texan I don’t have a say in who my GOP candidate is going to be anyway – a handful of squishy teeny states are going to make that choice for the rest of us before the Texas primary ever happens anyway.

*shrug*

Midas on October 17, 2011 at 12:38 PM

We don’t love Reagan b/c everything he did was perfect. We love him b/c he was able to effectively communicate conservatism to the masses and was able to turn this country’s trajectory.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 12:31 PM

You are cherry picking your issues. The Brady bill was decidedly NOT conservative. Neither was amnesty and abortion. Growing the government, increasing the debt, raising taxes and Sandra Day O’Conner were not in line with the conservative thinking at the time. He kept the dept of education and energy and added the dept of veteran affairs.

Reagan is still the greatest POTUS of modern times, but spare us the nonsense dude. You WANT the country to burn because your guy/gal didn’t/isn’t going to be the nominee.

csdeven on October 17, 2011 at 12:38 PM

… oh, and it’s not that I wont vote, I’ll vote for down-ballot actual conservatives. ;)

Midas on October 17, 2011 at 12:39 PM

Whats absurd is this wasnt an issue in 2008 when this website and others were pointing to Romney as the conservative choice. Whats absurd is the trickling out of these stories day by day to increase anti Romney sentiment and thereby encouraging people if hes the nominee to stay home. Whats absurd is the utter lack of scrutiny of Perrys Super Highway and other issues which not only are eminent domain issues, but are border security issues. This is what is absurd. If you were giving Perry a 10th of the scrutiny you were giving Romney this wouldnt bother me at all, but you arent, not even close.

nswider on October 17, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Again, times, circumstance, perceptions and focus changes. What was acceptable in 2008 may not be acceptable today. What was not considered in 2008 may be a big deal today. Someone claiming – you didn’t care about this in 2008 – is not an argument. By your logic we shouldn’t even evaluate Romney today b/c he came in 2nd in 2008. If an issue wasn’t raised in 2008, it is somehow illegitimate to raise it now? Not sure what the point is, exactly.

Perry isn’t getting as much vetting b/c he is right now about 4th in the polls. But, interestingly, most people know about the superhighway and his lousy immigration position – the examples you use. But, there are reasons to think he is still preferable to Romney.

Interestingly, it is probably Romney himself that is preventing the vetting of either Perry or Cain. Most of these items about Rommey likely come from oppo research that candidates do on each other and than put out to various outlets. Romney does not want either Perry or Cain to go down in the polls, b/c he needs both splitting the conservative vote to win the nomination. If, for instance, all of Perry’s support suddenly switched to Cain, Romney would be in trouble. So, he is probably not putting out any oppo research on either guy.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Midas on October 17, 2011 at 12:28 PM
haha that was funny…Great movie!

but yes, I am very conservative! Gun toting, military serving, SUV driving, get the gov’t off my back, taxed enough already, pro-life, pro-Israel, cut my taxes, drill baby drill, conservative AND a Romney supporter.

Good nite!

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Well, God bless ya, and thank you deeply for your service.

And what the blazes are you thinking bing a Romney supporter? LOL Seriously, from here your post is like a fine patriotic anthem playing with a big record scratch right at the end… *zqaasodirubasdrRRRRAPPPPP* ;)

G’nite!

Midas on October 17, 2011 at 12:42 PM

The big difference is that Reagan was resolute and consistent in his policies…

WRONG! See my 12:38 comment for examples.

csdeven on October 17, 2011 at 12:42 PM

What carbon caps passed in Massachusetts? All we have seen are stories about a proposal which never happened. Can you provide a definitive link please? Here is the synopsis of the RGGI which never happened in Mass under Romney:

Wake Up. You posted in the very thread which discussed the memo revealing the carbon caps and resulting adverse effect on domestic energy:

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/15/will-romney-hire-obamas-climate-change-guru-holdren/

Daemonocracy on October 17, 2011 at 12:43 PM

last post…haha

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Unlike Reagan, Governor Romney never signed into law the most liberal abortion law in the nation, he didn’t pass No-Fault Divorce, or raise taxes 11 times,–he didn’t hike a mega national debt & expand the size of the federal government brokering deals with Tip O’Neill,–he didn’t pass Federal mandated “Emergency Treatment Act” Healthcare, or sign into law the Mulford Act or the Brady Gun Act–he didn’t create market based Cap & Trade,–or grant amnesy to 3 million illegals transforming the once “Golden State” of Reagan/Wilson budget surpluses into a Pelosi California bankrupt.
Republicans forever give slack to conservative icon Reagan for having had to deal with the Red leaning California of the 1960s–ditto as president, a Democrat congress for 8 years. Zero slack is afforded Romney for having to broker deals in Ted Kennedy’s far-left Massachusetts.
Romney balanced his Massachusetts fiscal budget with a 2 billion rainy day fund to spare. Reagan failed in that Federal government feat.
Reagan vetoed his Tip O’Neill congress 78 times in 8 years.
Romney vetoed his Massachusetts legislature over 800 times in 4 years. Virtually all were overridden–including the entirety of his 8 “Romneycare” vetoes.

Do not mistake this post as I rank Reagan as one of our greatest presidents, in my opinion and choosing with Jefferson and Washington.

I think what Romney supporters are displaying is that Reagan would have been raked over the coals by TP’ers today and ridiculed for his governing stances. I believe that is what Michael Reagan has mentioned several times lately.

Some of you are cutting your nose off to spite your face!

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 12:44 PM

I think what Romney supporters are displaying is that Reagan would have been raked over the coals by TP’ers today and ridiculed for his governing stances. I believe that is what Michael Reagan has mentioned several times lately.

Some of you are cutting your nose off to spite your face!

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Wrong. Romney is Gerald Ford and nothing close to a Reagan. Conservatives are absolutely frustrated they don’t have their “Reagan candidate” and it is something we all need to get over, but to bring up Romney in the same breath as Reagan is pretty lame. Romney is much worse than “not a pure conservative”, he is not a conservative at all.

Daemonocracy on October 17, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3