Another Problem for Romney: Climate Change
Here's another way that Romney will be called a RINO.
Via PostPolitics: Romney draws early fire from conservatives over views on climate change.
When asked about the topic:
the former Massachusetts governor stuck to the position he has held for many years — that he believes the world is getting warmer and that humans are contributing to that pattern.
This will be yet another strike against Romney with many in the GOP base:
So far, Romney’s reviews from the right are not positive. His views about climate change in particular put him at odds with many in his party’s base.
“Bye-bye, nomination,” Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday on his radio talk show after playing a clip of Romney’s climate remark. “Another one down. We’re in the midst here of discovering that this is all a hoax. The last year has established that the whole premise of man-made global warming is a hoax, and we still have presidential candidates that want to buy into it.”
Then came the Club for Growth, which issued a white paper criticizing Romney. “Governor Romney’s regulatory record as governor contains some flaws,” the report said, “including a significant one — his support of ‘global warming’ policies.”
And Conservatives4Palin.com, a blog run by some of former Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s more active supporters, posted an item charging that Romney is “simpatico” with President Obama after he “totally bought into the man-made global warming hoax.”
Yes, Romney is the poll leader at the moment, but things like this (and add in RomneyCare, the change of position on abortion, and even the religious question) and one does wonder how he is going to fair in actual contests with the Tea Party/populist wing of the party that seems more energized at the moment.
Further, it is important to remember that the Republican nomination process will function under different rules in 2012 than it has in the past. I have not looked at the changes in detail, but my basic understanding is that more delegates will be allocated by more proportional rules than has been the case in the past (when they were allocated by a plurality winner take-all process, on balance).* This rules change is likely to disrupt the past GOP pattern, wherein the candidates whose alleged “turn” it is wins the nomination. At a minimum, it will create a more competitive field of candidates in the early going.
Regardless, Romney is clearly the most mainstream of the candidates with any numbers at the moment, but one does wonder if mainstream has a real chance for the nomination in this cycle.
—-
*As I understand it, the early primaries will use more proportional rules, while the later ones will be allowed to use winner-take-all rules. No doubt I will comment more on this topic later.
Frankly, I’m astounded (and a little impressed) that he hasn’t been forced to walk that back yet. He said it on a Friday, IIRC, and I would’ve given even odds it would be recanted by Monday, but nobody’s really busted his chops about it, sounds like.
Re: The new rules, see “GOP Tries To Reshuffle 2012 Primary Schedule.”
It’s an attempt to avoid a race to the front rather than to change the process to make it more representative.
I hope Romney sticks with this position rather than weaseling it back. Republicans can and possibly should differ with Democrats on what policies we should adopt to deal with a changing climate. Republicans should not, however, have different science.
@James:
Those changes in the rules, however, should end up having an effect on the process in terms of who stays in v. drops out early, especially since it will effect the March contests.
And indeed:
he’s probably getting away with it to now because first paul revere and then weiner have taken all the oxygen out of the room.
interesting what if…what if romney gets the nomination and subsequently loses to obama? remember – dole was way ahead of clinton at this point leading up to the nov. ’96 election. even rasmussen – the outlier of outliers – has obama and romney neck and neck. more reasonable polls have obama ahead at this point. so if romney loses, do the so-called republicans veer even further to the so-called right because the moderate lost? is that even possible? and if so can they even be considered relevant at that point?
i mean…at that point
If you believe in
man made global warmingclimate change, I have a Russian weather machine for sale. For those who are interested Call 1-555-yda-kook.American Theocracy again.
Climate change is contrary to young earth creationism, and that is the root problem.
I think Romeny’s biggest problem is that most American’s see him as a shameless weasel.
The Republican fringe right making him do their spastic idiot dance will just reinforce tat impression.
“…Republicans can and possibly should differ with Democrats on what policies we should adopt to deal with a changing climate. Republicans should not, however, have different science…”
EXACTLY
Dude the freaking sun heats the earth, how hard is it to understand. Think…
Mitt is trying to throw this nomination away.
As Jesus spake while riding on the back of his favorite dinosaur steed, Gipper (Muttonhead 3:16)
Why force Romney to back off now? If he does, the issue is forgotten before the end of summer, and he continues as the frontrunner, now a bit wiser as to what positions are acceptable in his party.
Far better for his opponents to let him become deeply identified with the warming position, and then they will be able to beat him up over it throughout the primary season.
“Republicans can and possibly should differ with Democrats on what policies we should adopt to deal with a changing climate. Republicans should not, however, have different science.”
The word “should” does lots of work there. Too bad reality is otherwise.
Obviously the recent poll showing Romney ahead of Obama has spooked the Internet left into fearing a Romney candidacy. So this point is not at all surprising.
Regarding the primary, the left here is barking up the wrong tree. Romney could join the Sierra Club, commence driving a Volt and then fly off with Al Gore in a lear jet to carbon footprint conventions and still it wouldn’t be all that major of an issue. McCain after all also had bought into the climate change mythology (and supported amnesty for illegals to boot) yet easily won the nomination.
The real issue for Romney in the primary is the fact that he’s a Mormon. Religion runs deep in GOP primaries; deeper than tangential policy points.
And given the “science” has been exposed so often as outright fabrications, why shouldn’t they?
Look, Gang.. If Romeny belives this nonsense, he’s a bigger idiot than I took him for.
IN any event he is certainly no conservative, and RINO is an accurate description.
Eric has it nailed.
Conservatives are people who rely on reason, logic and real science, not the hysterical mob mentality found in liberals. If Mitt thought that throwing a bone to the left wing media was a good idea by embracing AGW, he’s sorely mistaken.
@jwest: Does “real science” have something to do with Saul Alinksy? How does it differ from the science taught in American universities and espoused by Nobel laureates in the sciences?
If there was ever any doubt….
haahhaahhahahaheehehheeehehehehhee gasp…gasp…. stop it! You’re killing me! Gasp…gasp…
Ooops, wait a minute, jwest said “conservatives”… I thought he meant “Republicans” or maybe he meant “people who vote for Republicans”?
Hahaahhaahahaahheeeheheheeheheh gasp gasp gasp hahahahahaheehhehheeheheee gasp….
Aaaccckkkk… I think I’m having a heart attack!
Just another reason why Mitt Romney is tied with President Obama and has the best chance, of the announced candidates, for a GOP victory in November. Voters would do well to remember Haley Barbour’s comments about ideological purity.
James,
Real science relies on facts that aren’t hidden or manipulated.
Real scientists release their base data for review by peers and don’t fight or ignore Freedom of Information Act requests.
AGW is much more political science than real science.
@Tal: Indeed.
@James: Don’t forget, jwest is a noted expert in a variety of fields, so beware.
Steven,
Not a noted expert, but at least not totally ignorant.
ponce, your are another simple creature that has no Idea about creation science.
he has the logic of what makes up science down.
lol I got a headache just from seeing the name ponce….
@GA
“ponce, your are another simple creature that has no Idea about creation science.
@jwest:
Tsk, tsk. Don’t sell yourself short. You have already proven your overwhelming knowledge of the discipline of political science. Now you have shown your expertise on climate science. Who knows what other wonder await us?
I, for one, am hoping for cold fusion.
That’s the seductive thing about being a wingnut: Everybody’s an expert on everything.
Just ask John McCain’s campaign manager, “Joe” the “Plummer.”
Steven,
Considering political science is your chosen field, your lack of knowledge on Alinsky and the Second Amendment should be sufficiently embarrassing without adding climate science to the list.
@jwest,
Indeed, your knowledge of polisci is pretty overwhelming.
taylor, you call political science science? Let see you take a set of circumstances and reproduce the results over and over agaiin. Not science, guess work. If you were scientiists you would know socialism as espoused by Marx does not and can not work.
If there is science behind AGW, and they make predictions. What happens to the science when the predictions do not come true. Lots of tax dollars were spent creating computer models to inidcate Kilamanjaro’s glaciers would be gone and the oceans would not be swallowing seaside communities. Islands were supposed to disappear by now.
Looks like Jwest has you pegged. But then that is why you are so well read. Political scientists are nothing but focused historians who either failed to or did not enter the law profession.
@Wiley:
Perhaps you could disaggregate your rants into discrete units. I see at least three, perhaps four in there, but they are all rather jumbled.
A real man. To reject stupidity (stupidity being the closest thing to actual evil as it is conceptualized) is the best way to serve the species and your nation.
“Kilamanjaro’s glaciers would be gone and the oceans would not be swallowing seaside communities. Islands were supposed to disappear by now.”
I read Nature and Science faithfully for many years. I dont remember anyone credibly making those claims happening “by now”. Who made those claims?
Steve
@Tsar
It’s nice to see someone on the right admit that tribal identity is far more important to most Republican voters than silly little tangential policy points.
That’s the seductive thing about being a wingnut: Everybody’s an expert on everything
This is key. There seems to be an innate dislike, even hatred and contempt, for expertise on the radical right. Jwest, JKB and their ilk appear to believe they are just as competent to issue opinions as someone who has spent thirty years working in a given field, even though neither of them have made even the slightest effort to understand the basics.
Steven… perhaps its time to concede that jwest has done doctoral level work in “buying into Glenn Beck craziness”.
Jwest’s accomplishments in the field of ignorance are certainly of an elite level. The onto question is did he get there with natural ability, hard work, or a combination of the two?
Nobel? Is this the same priaze they awarded Obama for… um what was it again?
What has Nobel awarded in the last 20 years to avowed leftists, versus the rest of us?
@Eric
Just out of curiosity, what is that vow that you say leftists take? I’d like to have it memorized for when I’m admitted to the club.
Florack,
I note how you dodge the gist of the challange by trying to slime Nobel recipients.
For the record….the Nobel Peace prize is awarded by a committee appointed by the Norwegian legislature.
The science prizes are awarded by the Swedish Academy of Science.
I know it is not your style, but why not try to get serious about this issue. The rantings of wingnut bloggers, Fox newspeople, and Republican candidates does not trump the opinions of the overwhelming majority of the scientists who work in the field. You are going to need some better arguments against AGW than the fact that Obama got a Peace prize, therefore we should ignore the perspective of scientists.
Or whatever your point was…
It’s more basic than that. Only “real Americans” understand “real science”.
Spoken like a man who has lived a life devoid of distinction.