Saturday, June 4, 2011

Science And The GOP

I have a question. If Mitt Romney were to make a public statement where he affirmed the existence of gravity, would he receive a scolding review from Red State? Have we come to a place now where a major Presidential candidate is not allowed to repeat a consensus view among scientists without being viewed as a liberal? Are scientists now elite liberals?

It's not like Mitt Romney has come out in support of cap and trade. Apparently belief in global warming itself is big government. I am not sure which is scarier -- that Mitt Romney will be viewed as "brave" and "serious" for admitting a widely-held scientific belief or that he might lose votes for doing so.

38 comments:

Machtyn said...

Well, I actually signed up at RedState so that I could respond to some of the comments. But there are two things about it. First you have to wait some period of time before your first post. Second, it appears the poster has to approve the comment before it appears. This is bogus as they can be as slanted as they want.

So, out of frustration, I post my reply here so that you can see the idiocy of the questions and the brilliance of my answers. (If you know me, you know that's tongue-in-cheek.)

Q) Which Republican is in the best position to hurt his country?
Before he dropped out, Trump. But I'd have to say Ron Paul, even though I like him and many of his ideas (not all)

Q) Which GOP Pres2012 candidate has an ego most comparable to Obama?
Trump, but he's out now. I don't think any GOP candidate now running has an ego most comparable to Obama, if I had to answer, Gingrich or Guliani.

Q) Least likely to win General 2012 after winning primary?
ALL OF THEM. Although, I'd say Romney has the best chance of winning because he appeals to the most people, Republicans, Independents, and conservative Democrats.

Q) Least likely to attempt to turn the car before it flys off of the cliff?
Have you even listened to Romney? He's laid out his plans better than anyone else. He knows what has to be done to get America moving in the right direction.

Q) Most cynical GOP candidate for Pres2012?
Have you even listened to Romney? He has argued for America's greatness ever since Obama's worldwide apology tour. That has been his central theme, that other Republicans have picked up on, for the past 3 years. Most cynical? probably Gingrich.

We can see evidence that there is global warming. Most of us disagree with the scientists that humans have a lot of effect on it. However, even though we don't effect it much, making sure our waste emissions and garbage are reduced is not a bad thing. I don't want government mandating my lightbulbs and toilets (which they are), but I don't mind individual choice / personal responsibility in the matter.

Anonymous said...

Pablo, I respect that you have strong opinions and are willing to fight for them but the problem, in this scenario, is that other people have strong opinions as well.

I tend to probably agree more with Mitt in this scenario...that some global warming(if there is a such a thing) is probably, partially, caused by human activity BUT other people do not believe that. There are scientists who claim it and their rationale/evidence is very tempting but there are also scientists who have more than enough evidence to question their claims.

So where does that leave Governor Romney? For some reason he has decided that instead of being Mr. Conservative this time around, he is going to be Mr. Moderate. I assume he thinks he can follow the McCain path to victory. Unfortunately, the only reason the McCain path to victory even worked last time was because Rudy ran a horrible campaign and the Republican electorate didn't want Romney, due to his inauthenticity

I'm not sure why he thinks another about face, with his identity, will work this time when it hasn't worked once since his gubernatorial election? Romney is probably TOO analytical for his own good.

With every passing day, I am more convinced that there is almost nothing Romney won't say to get elected. I don't question his love for this country or his devotion to public life, I question his inability to hold true to his core beliefs...whatever they might be?

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

Jersey, so was Romney pandering when he was Mr. Conservative, or now when he is Mr. Moderate? Ha ha. You can't have it both ways.

Have you read his book? If you did, you would find out he's on the same page as you on GW--skeptical, yet admits there is probably a human component to the warming.

There's no pander at all. Honestly, your last paragraph has no basis at all.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

Martha, if anyone knew what his honest positions were, this wouldn't be a concurring problem for him. The pandering to both sides are his problem. I know you know everything about Romney, so maybe you also know what is in his heart...unfortunately for the rest of us, we can only go by what he says. He might even stay true to some of his specific positions and maybe that's his problem...maybe he is a centrist? Either way it will not help him in a Republican primary.

jerseyrepublican

Ellie said...

It will help him, because reasonable folks will vote for him. I lived in LA in the 70's smog heyday. Man made? Youbetcha. It hurt everything, inculding lungs. Because we humans recognized the errors, and took steps to reduce the smog, LA has become better environment. Not perfect, still have smog issues. But not like it was in the 70's when the schools would not allow play outside during 'smog alerts'.

Ohio JOE said...

"Apparently belief in global warming itself is big government." Once upon a time, the majority of Scientists believed that the earth was flat. Perhaps the earth is warming a bit here and there, but just because we are in the month June does not mean the earth is warming per se. Try telling the Southern hemisphere that the earth is warming. My memory is not quite what it used to be, but I remember seeing snow this winter.

Perhaps you should come away from Mexico and visit northern states where they even play Curling as well as Hockey.

Ohio JOE said...

"Jersey, so was Romney pandering when he was Mr. Conservative, or now when he is Mr. Moderate? Ha ha. You can't have it both ways." Well, Martha, you seem to want it both ways.

Anonymous said...

Jersey, I'm sorry but that's hogwash. Romney is no more or less a panderer than any other politician. It's false meme that is convenient, but has little relationship with the truth.

Romney's position on GW is exactly the same as Palins. Are you going to call her a panderer? After all, she did flip on 'the ethanol' subsidies.

-Martha

Joe said...

Mitt said he personally believes warming of the earth is a cycle and humans may contribute to it to some degree He did not say he supports Cap and Trade He said read his book No Apologies for his thoughts and ideas not enough time in a few minute answer. The media made a lot of assumptions about his answer to a very lengthy several page statement read by someone at the Town Hall Meeting this morning in NH. My friend got this from a person in attendance of the Townhall meeting...Our friend actually....and she posted this...It is apparant that THE BOSTON GLOBE is repeating their attacks on Mitt Romney in order for ensuring his defeat again in the NH primary. They have turned their best attack personnel MOONEY and Wasserman to take him out of context.

Anonymous said...

Ellie, I agree. If people were to read what Romney has written about this in his book, they would have nothing to criticize him for. We area all pretty much on the same page.

We want a clean environment, so some government intervention is acceptable. But we don't want measures that are extreme (lightbulbs, cap and trade) and we don't want any solution that hurts our economy.

Who could possibly disagree with that? No one, really. They're just looking for anything with which to smear Romney. It's to be expected.

-Martha

Noelle said...

JerseyRepublican, many people, myself included, do know Romney's honest positions. You could read Romney's book No Apology, and you could know them too. Feel free.

Personally I don't think man has much if any influence on the climate, and in that I somewhat disagree with Romney. His view on what action we should take I do agree with. We should use wise judgment in our stewardship over this earth. We should do what we can as individuals and citizens to take care of this earth. We should NOT do anything that will put our country at a disadvantage as we work with other countries to keep our environment clean and healthy.

Romney's honest position is that he puts America and her interests, and the interests of her citizens FIRST!

Anonymous said...

Joe, exactly. Anyone who reads this section of the book knows that he has been taken out of context.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

Noelle, well said.

-Martha

Ohio JOE said...

"They're just looking for anything with which to smear Romney." Ding ding ding. We have a winner; the same lady who smeared Mrs. Palin yesterday even after a fellow Romneyite already dealt with the issue in the chat box.

Anonymous said...

OJ, A smear, as I understand it, is to lie about someone. I didn't lie about Palin. I said she looked drunk and that the video was funny. I admit I was not very nice. But then, neither was Palin when she crashed Romney's party.

-Martha

Ohio JOE said...

You cannot have it both ways. It was your own friends in the media who covered Mrs. Palin instead of your guy. We warned you, but like the swells, you did not listen.

Well, we did not lie about Mr. Romney. You on the other hand accused Mrs. Palin of not being sober simply because she used a figure of speech and took poetic license.

Anonymous said...

OJ, no. None of my comments were about the content of what Palin said. I'll leave that for the others to sort out. I said she sounded and looked drunk, and had her usual articulation problem. Look at the video again, OJ, and find some time to laugh a little. It was really funny.

And yes, Romney was smeared/accused of pandering AND of being a liberal on GW. How those can both be true, I have no idea.

Like I said, read the book.


-Martha

craigs said...

If anybody thinks humans don't have anything to do with " some " global warming, go suck the tail pipe on your car for a half hour or so and see what happens. Then, multiply how you feel by a couple of billion tail pipes and give a guess at the result

CraigS

GetReal said...

"I'm not sure why he thinks another about face, with his identity, will work this time when it hasn't worked once since his gubernatorial election?"

JR, how is this an about face? Does anyone remember in the debates last time out when he said it was global warming, not "America warming?" This isn't something he has reversed on, he always had this stance - and as long as his policy position on it also stays the same, I'm perfectly fine with it. Its not even a change in tone, this was a response to someone directly asking him about it, its not like he brought it up of his own accord in a speech.

Anonymous said...

GR, the about face I was referring to had nothing to do with his specific stance on global warming as much as it had to do with his overall move to the center since his failed 2008 bid for the nomination.

Romney supporters can point to specifics all they want and they can tell me and every other non-believer to go to this page and this verse of No Apologies and they may be proved correct but the theme surrounding Romney's advance and retreat, to and from conservative positions cannot be denied.

jerseyrepublican

GetReal said...

Huh?

He's focusing his campaign on the economy at this point but I don't see him advancing and retreating to and from conservative positions vis a vis his last run.

Ohio JOE said...

Well, GetReal, he may not be both advancing and retreating at the same time, but a whole lot of us see some retreating.

Anonymous said...

Jersey and OJ. Name a way Romney has moved to the middle. I'd sure like to see some proof.

-Martha

GetReal said...

Concrete examples would make it easier to understand what you guys are getting at.

Anonymous said...

There is no way during 2008 that Romney would have admitted that he believes humans have caused global warming...or at least have a part in it.

What Romney did, which I give him credit for...because it was rather brilliant. He wrote a policy book that he inundated with his own, Romney 3.0 ideological beliefs. Some are more conservative than others. This time around he doesn't want to get caught with his pants down regarding flip flopping...so as long as he sticks to everything he wrote about in the good book...he feels he shoudn't have a problem.

He hopes people will forget about his run to the right in 2008 by providing political cover, via No Apologies...as he runs to the center this go around.

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

Martha, almost every pundit has referred to him as a centrist...or taking the moderate, indie route this time around. C'mon now...

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

Martha, I have no problem with moderates...I am one...as long as they realize that they are part of a bigger picture and that bigger picture is Republican Conservatism. In some ways I wish Romney would just be who he is or who he was before 2007 or 2002 or back in '94. Every election we see a new version of a "new and improved" Romney, it is now getting to the point that I don't even know if he knows who he is any more...and that will be his problem with this election.

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

Martha, as always you feel the need to bring up Palin when we're not talking about her but I'll take the bait. You know, as well as I do, that she had to take the pro-ethanol subsidy stance when she was on McCain's ticket but whatever...I guess you can call her a flip-flopper if you want but you cannot compare it to Romney's past flirtation with the beach footwear.

As far as global warming, I never said I disagreed with Romney's point of view, or Palin's...the difference is Palin never tried to back away from her stances or talk her way out of them.

Again...it's not about his specific stance on this specific issue...it's about the overall theme.

jerseyrepublican

GetReal said...

"Alaska's climate is warming. While there have been warming and cooling trends before, climatologists tell us that the current rate of warming is unprecedented within the time of human civilization. Many experts predict that Alaska, along with our northern latitude neighbors, will warm at a faster pace than any other areas, and the warming will continue for decades."

What business is it of Romney's what the climate is like in Alaska?

Oh, wait, those were Sarah Palin's words.

GetReal said...

Romney had the same acknowledge it as likely but government hands off stance on climate change in 2008 as he does now. Its not a change in theme. Global warming isn't part of his theme, he was asked about it and gave his opinion.

Anonymous said...

Jersey, There is not one issue in which Romney has changed since the last election. Not one. Everything he wrote in the book is the same policy he had when he ran in 08.

Everything in the book is the same policy he has now.

Please provide some proof for your assertions on ONE ISSUE. I don't believe you can, because it doesn't exist. Of course people are going top accuse Romney of changing positions, but the truth is that he hasn't.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

Jersey, and yes, he did say the same thing about climate change in 08 that he is saying now. I remember it in at least one of the debates.

-Martha

Anonymous said...

Once again...I believe you Martha...how many times do I have to tell you? The truth is he has decided to take a more moderate strategy toward the nomination...every pundit has seen this and has written about this. You don't think that has the possibility of hurting him? You don't think that the MSM will pick apart his flips and flops and say it's the same old Mitt? You guys are about to see a fraction of what Palin had to endure.

GetReal said...

We had to see it last time, JR. He and Rudy were the only ones that got any vetting by the media in the 08 primary, at least until after Iowa voted. He made a negative ad on Huckabee because none of Huck's negatives were being reported, just the "Cinderella story" of his rising poll numbers with so little money.

Also, his strategy may be more focused, but what's so moderate about it? He's focusing on the economy because that happens to be the major issue right now. If in the debates, or when asked, he hedges on other issues he was conservative on before, I'll agree with your comments on his strategy. Until then, I don't see any basis to your comment.

Revolution 2012 said...

Why would RED STATE let a little thing like common sense and facts skew their already skewed views.

Anonymous said...

I look at 3 basic things, that unless addressed totally sinks America. Deficit Spending, The Economy and Loss of Jobs. If this does not change and drastically, America is done..Period. What is lost on People is that Mitt Romney Governed a state with a 85% liberal legislature. He took over a state 50th in unemployment. In his one term it ended up 11th. How do you over look that? He also balanced a 3 billion dollar spending deficit by cutting 341 social programs. That is downsizing Government. He also created 60 thousand jobs just out of bringing in new Companies to the state, and more were created by his business friendly policies. Why do people overlook this? Its stupid on their part.

~Dennis

Anonymous said...

Mitt Speaks common sense. Here is what he said in 2008 which is no different than now...here 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X2O7oqQR4A&feature=share

In his book he says the same thing. What seems to be lost is he states he doesnt pretend to know how much man has to do with anything so he is not projecting a significant percentage.

“I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control. I do not support radical feel-good policies like a unilateral U.S. cap-and-trade mandate. Such policies would have little effect on climate but could cripple economic growth with devastating results for people across the planet.” -- Mitt Romney No Apology, p. 227

Summary: Mitt Romney on Cap and Trade/Global Warming

*Cap and Trade legislation would be disastrous for our economy.

*The earth’s climate has been constantly changing throughout its history.

*We should not take extreme measures when we are unsure of human role in global warming.

“In 2004, Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg gathered ten of the world’s leading economists, including three Nobel laureates, in what he called the Copenhagen Consensus. He asked them prioritize the greatest problems faced by humankind. They w...ere not asked to determine which problems were the most severe, but rather to rank the most severe global challenges according to the coast and benefit of overcoming them… Astonishingly, spending money to prevent global warming came in last. Why? To reduce global temperature even by a very small amount requires enormous investment. Achieving the Kyoto objectives, they reasoned, would cost $150 billion a year and only delay the global temperature that would otherwise have been reached in the year 2100 by six years.” -- No Apology, p. 228-229

Dennis

GetReal said...

Nice work, Dennis. Somebody should work up a FPP around those quotes.