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

I was skeptical about AGW from the first mention. I recognized its potential to attract green activists, and Al Gore didn’t disappoint. I’m suspicious of claims made on the basis of computer models when the models themselves can’t be verified. Perhaps in another century we’ll have some confirmation on the models being used by advocates of AGW, but until then, I see no reason to collapse our economy to head it off.

Romney has said in the past several months that he’s not sure, but he thinks the globe is warming and he’s not sure how much is being caused by humans, but he’s unwilling to cripple the economy in order to head it off. His economic plan includes making America energy independent, including rolling back regulations and red tape for drilling permits, developing more shale oil and gas, and continuing research into alternative forms of energy.

It sounds to me as though he was more convinced in the past than he is now. He’s been criticized for not being supportive on measures the greens are demanding. 6 or 7 years ago the case for AGW seemed a lot stronger than it does now. You’ll recall that Pawlenty supported a cap and trade scheme which he’s renounced now. This piece in the WaPo cites a Gallup poll in March showing that 32% of Republicans believe that we’re already seeing the effects of global warming. The only ones who are positive that it isn’t happening are the hard right. I have strong doubts about it, because the “science” has been politicized, but I don’t dismiss it entirely, because it hasn’t been disproved either.

From the first link comes this:

“I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans,” Romney continued. “What I’m not willing to do is spend trillions of dollars on something I don’t know the answer to.”

Of course, we all know which politicians IS willing to spend trillions of dollars on it. Wait until his second term.

flataffect on October 17, 2011 at 12:47 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

What? you are incoherent here duuuuude. I hate to break it to you, but you can’t accuse someone of “cherry picking issues” when I didn’t name a single specific issue. Do you know what cherry picking means? I said that not everything Reagan did was conservative and thus saying “romney has the same position as Reagan did” on issue “a” – doesn’t make Romney’s position conservative. Conservative thought has evolved. Also, what’s possible to accomplish has evolved. Romney is not conservative by current standards. If he were running in 1980 (using his alleged positions of today – not his positions of 1994 or 1998), he would likely have been considered conservative by that era’s standards. Just like JFK running today as a democrat would lose in a primary. So your constant statements about reagan (which you do in every argument – never anything new to add) are meaningless.

So, it is unclear what you believe your point here is. Romney is not conservative. I have no specific candidate that I love so stop throwing that nonsense out there. i would support Perry if he could get his act together and like Cain but don’t think he can go the distance. I just don’t like Romney because I think he’ll be a disaster for America long-term. The biggest problem right now is that there does not seem to be a viable alternative, leaving conservatives out in the cold again.

Also, you can throw out the “let your country burn” nonsense and whatever non-sequitor straw-men arguments you want – it doesn’t make your position correct or your “arguments” coherent – dude.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 12:48 PM

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

g2825m on October 17, 2011 at 12:44 PM

lol…most are embittered St Palin the Victimized supporters. And many of them have turned on her! rotflmmfao!

csdeven on October 17, 2011 at 12:48 PM

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.

g2825m

I remember Obama being touted the same way in 2008…just sayin’

in_awe on October 17, 2011 at 12:49 PM

I think if Reagan were president and we are where we are today, there would be complaints about spending. But there were complaints about spending during his time and the same thing being done today was the same thing that happened then. Empty promises. Why are we dealing in hypotheticals, y’all don’t have enough real live bull sh!t to contend with?

Cindy Munford on October 17, 2011 at 12:50 PM

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

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

SauerKraut537, meet SauerKraut537. You two have a lot to talk about.

Daemonocracy on October 17, 2011 at 12:52 PM

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 12:36 PM

So in other words…you have no example of trans-mutations, just that humans adapt and look different after a few thousand years, that dogs look different after a few thousand years…
So where is the “we all came from a single cell” theory? Wouldn’t at some time a whale became a reptile, that became a bird?
Evolution, is trans-mutation, you can’t have evolution without it…so you are now saying it doesn’t exist.
We have bones and examples for millions of years…so you have one example, one don’t you?
Of the thousands of species, you have one example of trans-mutations, right? Just one, I mean we have millions of years of documentation of many species, so you have the ability to track those changes…we have thousands, millions of years of ape bones, we have the line that moved over to man, right?
NO, of course we don’t, because it doesn’t exist…why doesn’t it exist? Because trans-mutation is a “current theory” (as your link pointed out) and it is not provable.
But hey, we have adaptations.

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 12:53 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

It is entirely possible that Reagan would not be considered conservative by today’s standards. If there had been a Reagan-like president in 1980 and Reagan was running today on deficit spending, illegal immigrant amnesty and other non-conservative things – he would not win a primary.

But, your argument is silly. Conservatism has evolved. We are not stagnant in 1980. If we were, there would be no point. Arguing that Reagan would have a hard time winning the primary today does not prove that Romney is conservative or would be a good president.

Hell, if I knew then what I know now about W, I probably would have supported someone else in the primary.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Conservative thought has evolved.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 12:48 PM

You didn’t have to name specific issues because I just showed how Reagan did not support many of the conservative issues of his day just as Romney is doing. And Romney is supporting some conservative issues and many moderate positions. That alone makes him better than Obama and not as good as Reagan. If our Reagan shows up and is electable, he gets my vote over Romney. Until then, I vote GOP nominee and not 3rd party, stay home, or vote for Obama.

So stop the disingenuous attacks on Romney for not being like Reagan.

csdeven on October 17, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Why not just go straight to the swimsuit competition?

Yeah, if Palin was running and we’ve got Bachmann. Looks Sounds good to me.

Mirimichi on October 17, 2011 at 12:57 PM

So stop the disingenuous attacks on Romney for not being like Reagan.

csdeven on October 17, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Good lord – does LDS let you be this dishonest? You brought up Reagan – I simply responded. I said Romney is like Reagan from 1980 but that is not good enough for conservatism today. You are either an idiot or so dishonest as to be frightening. Do you even remember what you wrote 5 minutes ago?

I have never argued “this candidate” or “that candidate” is not like Reagan so I am not going to vote for him. Such arguments are idiotic (again, you brought up Reagan in an attempt to “prove” Romney is conservative).

My point is that times change and what we accept in a candidate changes, so your constantly claiming “romeny is just like Reagan” doesn’t prove what you think it proves.

And it matters what the issues are that the candidate deviates on. You can’t simply say Reagan had some moderate positions and so does Romney, therefore they are the same. There wasn’t a big conservative bloc in the GOP when Reagan was president either, so that also affected things. Romney’s deviations are too much and on the wrong issues. He’s unacceptable.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 1:00 PM

csdeven on October 17, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Proving there’s WiFi at the OWS clusterfrak.

Akzed on October 17, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Until then, I vote GOP nominee and not 3rd party, stay home, or vote for Obama.

csdeven on October 17, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Congratulations and good for you. That’s your right.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 1:02 PM

lol…most are embittered St Palin the Victimized supporters. And many of them have turned on her! rotflmmfao!

csdeven on October 17, 2011 at 12:48 PM

*yawn*

You need some new material, bro…

Midas on October 17, 2011 at 1:02 PM

You didn’t have to name specific issues because…

csdeven on October 17, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Um, if no issues were mentioned, where do you get off accusing someone of “cherry-picking issues”?

Seriously, and with all due respect, you might want to back off a bit and chill rather than resort to leftist debate tactics including making stuff up out of whole cloth.

Midas on October 17, 2011 at 1:06 PM

You didn’t have to name specific issues because I just showed how Reagan did not support many of the conservative issues of his day just as Romney is doing. And Romney is supporting some conservative issues and many moderate positions. That alone makes him better than Obama and not as good as Reagan. If our Reagan shows up and is electable, he gets my vote over Romney. Until then, I vote GOP nominee and not 3rd party, stay home, or vote for Obama.

So stop the disingenuous attacks on Romney for not being like Reagan.

csdeven on October 17, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Core Conservative issues of Reagans day were Anti-Communism, Taxes, Growth of Government since FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society.

Reagan:

1) Ended the policy of detente, engaged the “Evil Empire” directly and ultimately won the Cold War in a time when unilateral disarmament was all the rage. He took a bold stance and stuck his neck out politically since day one for his beliefs.

2) He cut taxes drastically with the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 and boldly reformed and simplified the tax code with the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which also instituted a top flat rate of 28% (which Bush 41 later repealed). The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was the last time the Tax Code was reformed and exactly what we need today now that Congress has reinstated the loopholes Reagan removed. Once again Reagan stuck his neck out and shaped public opinion on this issue while Romney plays it safe.

3) Reagan’s deregulation is well known and reversed the public’s opinion on the role of government that years later Bill Clinton, a Democrat, declared “the era of big government” as “over”.

Those were the big issues of Reagan’s time and he was out in front since the beginning and delivered on every one of them. Don’t compare Romney to Reagan because whatever faults Reagan has, Romney has a million more.

Daemonocracy on October 17, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Good lord – does LDS let you be this dishonest?

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 1:00 PM

What does the LDS have to do with me?

csdeven on October 17, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Core Conservative issues of Reagans day were Anti-Communism, Taxes, Growth of Government since FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society.

Daemonocracy on October 17, 2011 at 1:08 PM

That were SOME of the issues. The other issues were the ones I mentioned.

csdeven on October 17, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Mitt Romney – he will be Scott Brown on steroids, a super RINO.

The Mittbots here are trying to get us to settle for Romney. “He has changed” – they tell us. They are the same people that tell us to excuse Scott Brown when he votes in lockstep with Reid and the Dems because – he is a Mass. Republican.

Should Romney win the GOP nomination and then go on to beat Obama (I doubt he will), how long do you all think it will take Romney to backtrack on his current promises on:

- Obamacare
- Appointing conservative judges
- Border fence/Illegal immigration
- Cap and trade
etc…

Romney, as President, will focus on being bipartisan in a way that will win applause from the DC crowd, do nothing to slow Govt. growth, and set up an opening for a President Cuomo to take over after Romney and move us back into another Big Govt. hyperdrive.

And just imagine the stalwart conservatives we will have in Congress to move a liberal Romney to the right: Boehner and McConnell. /sarc

TheRightMan on October 17, 2011 at 10:21 AM

I think the fly in the vinegar bottle applies here. The reason NE Republicans think the solution is moderate tweaking is because they simply don’t know any better. Their whole life experience have been under liberal/rockerfellerian systems.

Candidates from the Mid-west & South have to varying degrees lived in freer States, ie no income tax, right to work etc. All of this goes to informing their world-view. That’s why Mitt can declare that he supports the 2nd and at the same time try to out-do the federal law on “assault” weapons. Or why before the take over of the dem party by move-on, communists etc, dems like Zell Miller, Gramm, Nunn, Scoop Jackson, even Monihan etc could be more conservative than the liberal/moderate RINOs either fiscally and/or socially.

While Mittens may have been the better candidate over McVain in 08, that was before Oboobi did his slash & burn. Where a conservative would bulldoze pointless regulations out of the way of recovery, Mittens is likely to moderate, thus slowing the recovery – ie allow some, but not all drilling, continue pumping subsidies to alternative energy like ethanol, windmills etc. After all, even Oboobi has waived some regs to no avail. And you can be sure that Oboobi will be ready to point out the regs that he has dumped when campaigning against Romney and at the same time point out the preponderance of common cause with Mitt.

AH_C on October 17, 2011 at 1:25 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

No he wouldn’t have. There is no fixing a deflationary depression. There is only getting through it as quickly as possible with the least amount of pain.

Bill C on October 17, 2011 at 1:50 PM

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 12:53 PM

I find it hilarious that you do everything you can to look past these adaptations that you accept as happening, and act like they aren’t the driving force over millions of years that make one species adapt enough that they evolve into another species.

Filipchenko coining the phrase macro and microevolution is what screws up people like you. You accept microevolution but denounce macro when there is no real difference between the two.

All the fossils we have in our inventory today are examples of “macro” evolved species. They are the intermediaries between species. We have hundreds of examples of species that show the progression to humans as we know them today.

You’re so disengenuous, quit deluding yourself will you?

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 1:50 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

There are three types of Mittbots on the forum:

1) The first batch pushes the Anybody but Obama mantra – trying to encourage conservatives to settle for Romney.

2) The second pushes the meme that Perry is every bit a RINO as Romney is and every bit an Esatblishment-type that Romney is.

3) Depending on the issue (it was last seen with Social Security), the third batch pushes the meme that Perry is a far-right wingnut that wants to take Social Security away and is “unelectable” in the general because of his strong conservative positions.

TheRightMan on September 30, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Bill C on October 17, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Or why before the take over of the dem party by move-on, communists etc, dems like Zell Miller, Gramm, Nunn, Scoop Jackson, even Monihan etc could be more conservative than the liberal/moderate RINOs either fiscally and/or socially.

AH_C on October 17, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Which is why the charge that Perry used to be a Democrat is so ridiculous.

Bill C on October 17, 2011 at 1:55 PM

I will NEVER vote for Romney, period. This is just one more reason not to.

Dominion on October 17, 2011 at 1:59 PM

lol…most are embittered St Palin the Victimized supporters. And many of them have turned on her! rotflmmfao!

csdeven on October 17, 2011 at 12:48 PM

That has to be among the top five most stupid comments I’ve ever read on HotAir. Kudos!

Lmao@U

Solaratov on October 17, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Ummmm NO. Some of us are not naive and easily led.

flyfisher on October 17, 2011 at 9:45 AM

Then you’re an idiot. The science have evolved so much over the last ten years, only a blockhead would think its “principled” to hold the same position on air pollution for decades.

swamp_yankee on October 17, 2011 at 9:54 AM

Both of you are partially right. When “global warming from carbon dioxide” theory first came out, promoted ironically by conservative icon and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, scientists could get away with making simplistic statements like “carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation and traps heat” and point to the rise in both CO2 levels and average global temperatures between 1975 and 1998 as evidence. Non-scientists who hadn’t really studied the problem could be easily misled, as well as people who might admit “it might be possible”.

But the “global warming” alarmists overplayed their hand, by assuming that the dependence of temperatures on CO2 levels from 1975 to 1998 (which was really only a coincidence) could be blamed on CO2 ONLY and developing mathematical models based ONLY on that trend, to “predict” the future. They also relied on a spurious equation first postulated by Svante Arrhenius in…1906, which is not based on any laws of physics, which would lead to the absurd conclusion that the atmosphere would become INFINITELY COLD if all CO2 was removed, regardless of solar heating and infrared absorption by other gases, including water vapor. If this equation leads to ridiculous results if extrapolated in one direction, why should we believe what it says in the other direction?

Over time, real scientists with a real knowledge of infrared absorption physics started asking the question: “Yes, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation, but HOW MUCH and at what wavelengths?” Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared strongly in two narrow bands of wavelength, and is transparent elsewhere in the spectrum. Only a relatively small amount of energy is available to be absorbed by CO2, and nearly all that energy is ALREADY absorbed at current CO2 concentrations, so that even unlimited amounts of additional CO2 could only absorb a tiny amount of additional energy, equivalent to a MAXIMUM of a few tenths of a degree in air temperature.

It has taken some time for knowledgeable scientists to realize that the increase in temperatures from 1975 to 1998 was mostly due to NATURAL causes, and temperatures since 1998 have been slowly declining, despite the continued increase in CO2 concentrations. Computer climate models calibrated on the 1975-1998 period have failed to predict the temperature trends from 1999 through 2010. If a climate model can’t predict the PAST, how can we believe its predictions for the future?

There are many fluctuating natural forces beyond our control which influence the climate in both directions, whose effects are MUCH stronger than carbon dioxide. We need to think of the natural forces as a group of elephants in a tug of war pulling in various unpredictable directions, and carbon dioxide as a fly pulling in one direction. We can spend trillions of dollars on a golden sledgehammer to kill the fly, but the elephants will still do whatever they please, and we would be much wiser to spend our money adapting to whatever they do.

Steve Z on October 17, 2011 at 2:01 PM

All the fossils we have in our inventory today are examples of “macro” evolved species. They are the intermediaries between species. We have hundreds of examples of species that show the progression to humans as we know them today.

You’re so disengenuous, quit deluding yourself will you?

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 1:50 PM

I guess I could accept what you say if you linked to any specific expert, rather than some blog with an anonymous poster.
If what you say is true, than it is well documented, show me the link to that documentation.
You are confused by adaptation and trans-mutation, trans has never been proven, never, not one instance…if it has, than please give us the link….a link from a noted expert that states such.
It has never been “discovered”, it has been discussed, and adaptations that you point to have been show it is “possible”, but it has never been proven, even a little bit.
No expert has stated such, which is why the controversy rages on…if not, show us a multicell trans-mutation, in fact show us a single cell to a multi-cell, that had to happen millions of time and fairly quickly.
You have to start with a single cell (let’s not go further back that will really confuse you), and it has to have trans-mutated to a multi-cell. They have never been able to do that in the lab, and have never found that in fossils…the simplest of all, and it still can’t be explained…

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 2:02 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

I just think you’re ignorant and gullible people who like to play it safe.

The same people who told us Bush 41, Dole, Bush 43 and McCain were really conservatives.

I saved a copy of a National Review article (featured on the cover) “My Pit Bull, George” about what an awesome GHW Bush was.

The synopsis eerily states “George Bush has been maliciously tagged a wimp, a preppie, a loser and a moderate. The truth is he is thoughtful, articulate, conservative – and a winner. It’s time movement conservatives rallied to Bush’s side.”

History has shown that GHWB was a wimp, a preppie, a loser and a moderate. In 2007 National Review now wants “movement conservatives” to rally to Romney’s side.

Here’s a hint… Romney is a wimp, a preppie, a loser and a moderate.

mankai on October 17, 2011 at 2:04 PM

There are maybe, I dont know, six of us commentators who like Romney on here? Why that drives people to such madness as to call us Mittbots and want to attack us personally is beyond me. If any of your candidates are so great they will win and we will lose and the difference between us and the rest of you is we will say, ok, good job to whoever won and jump on board to defeat Obama. We dont whine and pout that if our guy loses we will stay home, we dont call you people cainiacs or Perrybots or whatever. We have a difference of opinion. We know these are all fundamentally good people and all better then Obama. You guys make it personal when its not and try to destroy anyone who comes on here in favor of Romney, which is sad frankly.

nswider on October 17, 2011 at 2:11 PM

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Pubmed is a great one stop shop for understanding the truth of evolution my friend…

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

Go forth and educate yourself.

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 2:15 PM

mankai on October 17, 2011 at 2:04 PM

That’s great that you saved that. What issue (Date) was that?

Bill C on October 17, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Bill C on October 17, 2011 at 2:21 PM

“My Pit Bull, George” November 6, 1987 edition of National Review.

The commentary was something I wrote at my Townhall blog in 2007.

mankai on October 17, 2011 at 2:28 PM

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.

The word to describe Romney’s record is neither “complicated” nor “contradictory”: it’s “UNPRINCIPLED“!!!

landlines on October 17, 2011 at 2:29 PM

mankai on October 17, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Thanks. I will be using that. :)

Bill C on October 17, 2011 at 2:53 PM

You. Are. An. Idiot.

Knucklehead on October 17, 2011 at 12:29 PM

How so? Why the name calling?

I also don’t agree with those who say they will vote for Oboobi if Mittwit is the nominee. But rather than call them names, I try to persuade them of the futility in that course of action because it bolsters the “mandate” in a second term to continue his slash and burn policies. They have a vote and they should use it as an expression of their desires. That said, if Mittness is unacceptable, then they should vote a conservative 3rd party or write-in, but never just toss their valuable vote at the enemy.

To wit in 2008 we had the following tally:
Candidate (Party) Votes
Barack Obama (D) 69,498,215
John McCain (R) 59,948,240
Ralph Nader (I) 738,720
Bob Barr (L) 523,713
Chuck Baldwin (C) 199,437
Other – - – - – - – 349,003
Total – - – - – 131,257,328

Contrast with 1992:
Bill Clinton (D) 44,909,806
George Bush (T)- 39,104,550
Ross Perot (I) – 19,743,821
Other- – - – - – - -665,746
Total- – - – - -104,423,923

Again, contrast with 2010 mid-terms
Republican Party 44,593,666
Democratic Party 38,854,459
Libertarian Party 1,002,511
Independent − − − − 519,043
Green Party − − − − 230,764
Constitution Party −123,841
Independence Party −121,515
Reform Party − − − − -9,333
Other Parties − − − 708,135
Scatter/Write-Ins − 621,690
Totals – - – - – 86,784,957

Extrapolating trends, we can suppose that the GOP & Dems each have about 65 million (including indies that lean to one or the other) likely to vote them and perhaps 5 million real indies that go for an alternative. Notice that 600K wrote-in in 2010.

It’s been said that about 3-5 million conservatives sat out the 08 election and another couple million GOPs (RINOs) voted Obama. Well, what if 5 million conservatives sat out 2012, could Mittens win? Yes

But what if 2012 is as bad as 1992 and instead, 20 million withheld their vote from Mittens? If Oboobi only attracts the hardcore and/or clueless, he’d probably get just 40 million or so, where does the rest of his 30 million from 2008 go? Probably to Mittens – since a real conservative would scare most of the moderates, or they are depressed and stay home.

So again he could beat Oboobi … say 50 to 30 million with the rest going to all the other alternatives including staying home.

I’d rather conservatives vote the alternative, so that both the GOP & Dems can see that 20 million voted, but not for either of them. This way, we can get a more accurate pulse on voters and plan accordingly in 2016. Bottomline, if the # bailing on the GOP is high, the GOP is on deathwatch. If low, they will continue the status quo, safe in the knowledge that the conservatives will kvetch, but dutifully line up like good members.

If you disagree with the 3rd party route, then kindly explain why it behooves us to support any candidate with the (R) and I’ll reconsider. If really convincing, I could even conclude Dede Scuzzyfava was actually good for the Rs, instead of that interloper Doug.

AH_C on October 17, 2011 at 3:38 PM

Every single issue has this with Romney – liberal positions and now alleged conservative positions. So, in the last 10 years he’s had a complete conversion? Was he just an idiot 10 years ago but smart now? dishonest 10 years ago but honest now?

the guy is not conservative. I’ve always believed he was at least slightly right of center, but now I’m starting to question even that. I don’t think he actually has any principals outside of the desire to be elected. That’s not good enough.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 10:05 AM

THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well Said

karenhasfreedom on October 17, 2011 at 3:48 PM

If you disagree with the 3rd party route, then kindly explain why it behooves us to support any candidate with the (R) and I’ll reconsider. If really convincing, I could even conclude Dede Scuzzyfava was actually good for the Rs, instead of that interloper Doug.

AH_C on October 17, 2011 at 3:38 PM

the argument is always the same (having made it myself many times) – if you don’t vote for the “R” the “D” wins and the nation will explode! Or, in the alternative, it is better to have a president who agrees with you 60% of the time than one who agrees with you 0% of the time. Also of course “supreme court”!. And, to some extent, those argument are correct.

Of course, this discounts that if Romney governs as I believe he will, he will essentially give the failed liberalism of the last 4 years bi-partisan cover making it much more likely that we will reverse course or implement conservative policies any time soon and making it more likely for liberals/democrats to regain majorities or even the WH much sooner than would otherwise occur. To me, faced with that 4 more years of liberal failure under Obama may be better for the long-term interests of the U.S. than an “R” victory that merely adopts the current status quo and tinkers around the edges.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 3:51 PM

To me, faced with that 4 more years of liberal failure under Obama may be better for the long-term interests of the U.S. than an “R” victory that merely adopts the current status quo and tinkers around the edges.

Monkeytoe on October 17, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Exactly. But don’t tell me he really is conservative when he is maybe 50% in agreement with us. Mittness just wants to get along, regardless of beliefs & principles. Unacceptable.

AH_C on October 17, 2011 at 4:01 PM

So, Romney is even more of an enviro whack job than I knew; I already don’t trust him on Obamacare; now I don’t trust him on drilling and modernizing our power infrastructure (new power plants rather than this solar panel/windmill green bullsh*t). I didn’t like the guy in 2008; I can’t believe he’s a serious contender with this bad of a record.
I can’t support this. I won’t. I know what’s at stake but this guy can’t be trusted based on his own governing record. And no, I don’t give a flying **** what he is SAYING now; I am looking at what he DID in office. Obama-lite. No thank you.

austinnelly on October 17, 2011 at 4:25 PM

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?

HaHa, nice one Ed.

Sgt_H on October 17, 2011 at 4:34 PM

The Dems want the R’s to nominate Paul and Perry so we can clearly see what government the American people want.

Don’t donate any money either just write hateful letters to the editor and etc.

IlikedAUH2O on October 17, 2011 at 4:50 PM

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 2:15 PM

Other-words, you don’t have a link, just a link to a biology site with 21 million citations…and not one that states that they have proof that a trans-mutation is possible…
Thanks for clarifying it…you don’t have a link to back up your premise.
21 million citations, and you can’t find one to support your theory…kinda had a tough run at the ol debate class thing huh?

right2bright on October 17, 2011 at 4:53 PM

@right2bright…

Why don’t you get more up to date with your evolutionary knowledge first?

Transmutation is a Lamarckian notion of evolution from the early 1800′s.

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Still waiting for info on carbon caps actually passed in Mass during Romney’s tenure…

Buy Danish on October 17, 2011 at 5:22 PM

All the global warming proponents should buy as much cheap land as possible in Canada.

haner on October 17, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Not to completely defend Romney but this thread missed the forest for the trees in two ways:

In 2004, Cap and Trade was considered a very sensible alternative to the Al Gore Tax and Ride a Bike plans out there. The biggest business group pushing cap and trade was the US Chamber of Commerce, a group sufficiently conservative and pro-business enough to be singled out for one of Obama’s Alinkyite attacks. I was at the meeting they had in 2009 where they told their members that Cap and Trade (in the form of Warner-Lieberman) was by far the best out of a very bad lot. They made a forceful argument for “better the devil you know” that floored a lot of people in the room when they announced it.

Also in terms of guys like Holdren, he has some very wacky ideas but in Mass all roads lead back to Harvard. All sage advice is tied to Harvard and the average Faculty member there is like Elizabeth Warren of “those are our roads buster” fame. Holdren is an absolute moderate on the Harvard campus and by extension, the Massachusetts landscape.

Kaisersoze on October 17, 2011 at 5:46 PM

to continue… Right2bright, you’re guilty of something that a lot of anti evolution debaters do, and that is to use outdated and antiquated notions in regards to the theory.

If you’re going to debate the Theory of Evolution, PLEASE use current understandings of it and quit quoting and using scientists from back in its infancy like Lemarck, Pasteur, etc…

SauerKraut537 on October 17, 2011 at 5:53 PM

Mitt right now on Reno talk show – main topic about primary scheduling. Host is pretty gentle on him.

I would LOVE to hear his answers to that summary video of his changing positions.

fred5678 on October 17, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Obamney.

Key West Reader on October 17, 2011 at 7:42 PM

If you want my position on global warming from 2003-7, you can find it here. Hint: It hasn’t changed to match the fashion, unlike a couple of politicians running for President.

Ed Morrissey on October 17, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Thank you Ed. If it wasn’t for you, there is a lot that we wouldn’t know. This information is very important. Would like for Romney’s 25% to have it also:-) That 25% may just be his backers and the Establishment.

bluefox on October 17, 2011 at 10:17 PM

.
.
.

“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?”

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaajhahahhhahhahhhahahahahahahahaha
aahahahahhahahahhahhahhahahahhhhahaaaaaaaaa! ! ! ! !

Ed, I’m here every day and night and sometimes you get me in one of the best laughs I can use. This one is The Numero Ono of them all! Bbaaaahahahahaa
ahahahahahahhahhahhahahhahahhahahhaahahahaaaaaa.

YOU. Da. Man!

auspatriotman on October 23, 2011 at 1:14 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3