Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Romney on climate change

There was an interesting story in the LA Times today about how Mitt Romney seemed to sincerely believe in doing something to address climate change while he was governor of Massachusetts. He kept talking about how the US had the resources to help fix this problem, while poor countries like Bangladesh were going to suffer the most if we didn't. One of the people who attended meetings with Governor Romney on this subject is quoted as saying it was like a mantra with him. "He was the radical in the room."

Now that Romney has adopted the current GOP mantra on climate change--that we should ignore science and pretend climate change isn't happening--this evidence that Romney at one time favored strong action against climate change, makes people wonder how Mitt Romney would deal with this problem if he were president, with conservatives recognizing they would have to keep pressure on him so he would not "weaken" on this issue, and environmentalists hoping Romney's true colors might come out.  But stories like these should also make us concerned about the extent to which Romney's campaign is built on lies. We are used to politicians making the promises they feel they need to make to get elected, then falling short. But Romney's campaign takes this practice to a whole new level. Romney is continually making promises that seem to contradict his own core beliefs, and repeating statements that he knows are lies.

You have to wonder how Romney deals with these contradictions as a moral issue. I'm sure Romney thinks of himself as a person with good values. And anyone who thinks (or used to think) about the impacts of global climate change on poor countries, and the responsibility of rich countries to fix the problem, understands the moral dimensions of that environmental problem. Yet candidate Romney mostly stays silent about environmental concerns, and makes the necessary noises about building pipelines and increasing energy production, in order to appease Republican supporters.

You also have to wonder what parts of the Romney program are NOT built on lies. We already know that the Romney health care platform is built on a gigantic lie. Romney used to say that his Massachusetts plan could serve as a model for the nation, but when President Obama basically adopted that model, he now says we should repeal it and instead advocates a bunch of gimmicks that he previously rejected as governor of Massachusetts.

We know that the Romney economic program is built on lies. Romney has acknowledged understanding that if we cut government spending back too severely, that will damage economic growth. And he knows that his economic performance as governor was weak, because he hardly ever talks about it. He has no serious program to reduce unemployment, because he only talks about creating jobs in vague generalities.

We also know that Romney's foreign policy proposals are built on lies, because he blatantly misrepresents the Obama administration's actions, or attacks them for not doing things that they are in fact doing.

And now we know that Romney's energy and environmental policies are built on lies, on positions that go against the candidate's own core beliefs. It's sad, really. And not just because voters can have no confidence of whom they are electing if they support Romney. But also because the extent of Romney's mendacity reveals a campaign that is rotten to the core.


8 comments:

  1. I have always loved the pics you choose for the blog. The best by far of all blogs I visit.

    In the picture on top the woman appears to be vibrating. I am calmed by the fact that others behind her have some self control. Vibrating is not healthy when it comes to decision making.

    "Infatuation is the state of being completely carried away by unreasoned passion or love: 'expresses the headlong libidinal attraction' of addictive love".

    Good thing she is biting her tongue because the secret service was about to separate the two of them before she licked the President :-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Kevin, glad you like the picture selection. I should give credit for most of the Obama pictures to the Obama Diary, which does a fantastic job of finding just about all the pictures you could want of the president and his family. All I do is blow them up and crop them to make them look more panoramic. That particular picture can be found here: http://theobamadiary.com/2012/06/12/philadelphia-updating/

    which is important to note for future reference since it won't be my banner much longer. I also find pictures on the White House site and sometimes on daylife or the LA Times or other media websites.

    That woman does look like she's vibrating, doesn't she? It's amazing the effect the president can have on women. Babies and children also seem to respond positively to him.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Romney cared about climate change while governor of MA? There's a laugh. By the time the Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative was set up, Romney decided to opt out. He was already planning on running for higher office, for Pete's sake. Romney isn't rotten to the core; he has no core. He's such a liar, I'm not even completely sure his promise to cut his own taxes is sincere.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There's the problem with Romney in a nutshell. You try to say something positive about him, even when we're talking about his record as governor years ago, and somebody comes along and points out the inconvenient facts.

    I wonder where the LA Times found people who claimed that back then, Romney was a climate change hawk.

    Anyway, call me naive, but I also believe he sincerely would like to cut his own taxes.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is this information or disinformation, GI Joe?

    ReplyDelete
  6. No disinformation on my site. Snark, sometimes. Mistakes, once in a while. But never do I deliberately put out false information. I am only interested in spreading truth.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Not reporting the whole story is disinformation; or, is a result of being uniformed.

    The deep deep economic trouble here we experiencing today, and that in the eurozone, has it roots in 1998 when Robert Rubin (the driver of the repeal of Glass-Steagall), his man Summers, Greenspan, Graham and Clinton put us on a very danerous path. It wasn't Dems or Repubs; it was the lack of morality in both parties in Washington that is still present today.

    To blame or credit Dems or Repubs, Clinton or Bush or Obama is to gloss over the larger picture. We must break up the big six.

    If you understand the problems that we are facing as a result of the '98 Rubin/Greenspan fiasco, and understand these issues have little to do with Presidents or idelogy; more stupidity and greed from both sides; then your posts are disappointiung at best.

    I understand ideology. And that you are not a wonk. You dig Obama. But to insinuate I am crazy for saying what you will not? It's disinformation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It might surprise you to learn that I am not a big proponent of breaking up the big banks. I am in favor of more stringent regulation, but I don't automatically think that smaller is better. In some cases I think that smaller carries more risk.

    Also did you know that the U.S. has only one or two banks among the top ten banks in the world? If you are worried about the competitiveness of our country's financial system, it would seem that you would want US banks to be among the biggest and strongest in the world. Otherwise the people who need financing for the really big projects will be forced to go to Deutche Bank or the Bank of China or Bank of Tokyo. They are not going to go to some rinky-dink community bank in the US, as small banks cannot assume the risk of big loans.

    ReplyDelete