Markey: Romney’s an “empty chair” on climate change
posted at 4:41 pm on September 6, 2012 by Erika Johnsen
Oh really, Rep. Markey? Tell me more:
Markey jabbed Romney by recalling Clint Eastwood’s rambling speech at last week’s Republican convention, where Eastwood used an empty chair to have an imaginary chat with President Obama.
“[Romney] actually used to talk about climate change when he was the governor of Massachusetts and not make jokes about it,” Markey said at a Thursday event hosted by The Hill.
“But talking to that Governor Romney today would be like talking to an empty chair. There is no conversation you can have with him,” the Massachusetts Democrat added at the event on the sidelines of the Democratic National Convention.
One step at a time here. First of all, Mitt Romney does and will engage on the issue of climate change. The eco-trendy crowd was up in arms over this money line from Romney’s RNC speech last week: “President Obama promised to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family,” pointing to it as in indicator that all of us toothless, science-hating, fundamentalist Republicans are dismissive and even scornful of the very idea of environmental stewardship. Hogwash. Just because Mitt Romney’s plan doesn’t include bankrupting us with more taxpayer-funded “investments” in renewable energy ventures and costly, arbitrary emissions standards, doesn’t mean that he’s being totally blasé about the possibilities of climate change.
Has anybody stopped to notice that all of the Obama administration’s piddling clean-energy projects have either failed on the business end or done jack squat to actually combat global warming on a large scale and in the long run? The best new technology that actually has helped us reduce our carbon emissions was born entirely of free enterprise and is one of the biggest things environmentalists and regulators have been fighting tooth-and-nail to thwart: Natural gas. Bam. Greenies really need to wake the heck up and realize the wealthier societies are healthier societies. Not only do wealthier people have the luxury to devote some of their time and resources to environmental awareness (or, in other words, a society’s environmental concerns tend to wane in the face of economic downturns), but a robust and prosperous society is what’s going to produce the efficiencies and innovations that will bring about real environmental progress.
Secondly, the Obama camp has been gettin’ awfully quiet-like about climate change, an issue that Barack Obama championed in 2008 and toward the beginning of his presidency. Not so much, these days. And for such an ostensibly “urgent” matter, the Democrats are certainly giving the matter pretty short shrift…
Though the 2012 Democratic Party platform declares that the “national security threat from climate change is real, urgent, and severe,” it is apparently not urgent and severe enough to merit mention by speakers at the Democratic National Convention during the past two days.
The Daily Caller reviewed the speech transcripts of the over 80 speakers who took the stage at the Time Warner Cable Arena here in Charlotte on Tuesday and Wednesday, and only one mentioned climate change — and even he only mentioned it in passing.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air

Gosnell attorney: Maybe a 16-week deadline for abortion and more regulation would be better

Holder reveals: U.S. has killed four American citizens in drone strikes

Cruz: No, “I don’t trust the Republicans” with the debt ceiling






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: « Previous 1 2
Sweet. How sweet it is.
Finally, Obama’s chikkinzzz are coming home to roost.
petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:22 PM
This.
When you have to plead incompetence to defend against charges of malfeasance, you know you might be in trouble.
petefrt on May 19, 2013 at 8:36 PM
ear relevant…
driguana on May 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM
Flush this lying tudd down the drain with the rest of the Obamacrap.
kemojr on May 19, 2013 at 9:34 PM
This was Dan Pfeiffer’s week in the barrel, like Susan Rice he was given the White House talking points and sent on a mission. He really needs to get copies of these tapes and watch them and see how foolish and unbelievable he looked and sounded. The White House is losing the little credibility it still had by sending these shills out every week trying to do damage control. Community organizers make poor leaders.
savage24 on May 19, 2013 at 9:42 PM
Pfeiffer’s statement that the law is irrelevant because the IRS conduct was “outrageous” and “inexcusable”, tells us all we need to know about this administration.
However, the follow-up should have been, “On what standard do you judge their conduct to be outrageous and inexcusable since the law is apparently not an appropriate standard?” (At least in Pfeiffer’s mind.)
What this comes down to is this: “if the Administrative deems something “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such. As we have seen in so many other areas, if the Administrative deems something to not be “outrageous” and “inexcusable,” then it is declared such.
In their mind, the law is – in fact – irrelevant. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous.
It’s not socialism. It’s worse.
EdmundBurke247 on May 19, 2013 at 10:36 PM
Irrelevant = “What Difference Does It Make?”
jaydee_007 on May 19, 2013 at 10:41 PM
A fitting capstone to Ed’s story about loss-prevention (aka employee theft) and management’s “permission structure” in this post.
(Not to mention the jaw-dropping statements of Eleanor Clift in this one.)
AesopFan on May 19, 2013 at 11:40 PM
I enjoy popcorn and hope it is a long week.
Drill and Fill on May 20, 2013 at 12:41 AM
Hey give Barky a break. He had to get his sorry ass out to Vegas.
tbear44 on May 20, 2013 at 4:49 AM
Of course they sent Pfeiffer out to do the Sunday shows. He was the most senior expendable staff member they had . . .
BigAlSouth on May 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM
Pfeiffer… The guy with the red shirt in the landing party…
Boudica on May 20, 2013 at 5:53 AM
Perfect!
lea on May 20, 2013 at 7:11 AM
Does anybody else remember the campaign in 2008 when Obama defended his lack of administrative experience by saying he was just so smart and tuned in that his instincts were better than experience. Someone needs to dredge up these sound bites and play then with the current line about the government being too large to control and that the White House only knows what it reads in the newspaper.
bartbeast on May 20, 2013 at 8:43 AM
If where the president was during the Benghazi crisis is “irrelevant”, then he wasn’t where one would expect the Commander-in-Chief to be. So, where was he? Was he watching a movie in the residence? Was he bowling? Or was he having a bi-curious outing with his good buddy Reggie Love? If Obama was AWOL, as I suspect he was, it is he who is irrelevant. This entire stinkin’ criminal Obama Regime must go and now!
SpiderMike on May 20, 2013 at 9:31 AM
If this continues all week, it will be ‘O’ himself doing the rounds on the Sunday talk shows – except for Fox, of course. (‘O’ can do everything better than everyone else as he has been known to say.)
He then gets the extra benefit that no one will challenge him like they have begun to do with his minions.
Carnac on May 20, 2013 at 11:00 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2