Red Mitt, Blue Mitt, Old Mitt, New Mitt
Mitt was once the governor of a Blue state. Now he’s appealing to voters in Red states. Perhaps it’s no surprise that New Mitt’s views are the opposite of Old Mitt’s views.
A NY Times editorial this morning highlights Romney’s changes of position and just how far right he has moved on environment and energy issues:
The man who once worried about climate-driven sea-level rise in poor countries like Bangladesh now says things like “My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet,” as if mainstream science were wrong and humans had nothing to do with it.
On coal, the governor who once stood in front of a Massachusetts coal-fired power plant and said, “that plant kills people,” recently whirled through Craig, Colo., talking up coal and accusing President Obama of making it “harder to get coal out of the ground.”
Romney makes very little pretense that reflection or new information have changed his mind. Rather, he seems genuinely lacking any core convictions. Maybe that makes him the ideal politician.
Reader Comments
14 Replies to “Red Mitt, Blue Mitt, Old Mitt, New Mitt”
Comments are closed.
About Dan
Dan Farber has written and taught on environmental and constitutional law as well as about contracts, jurisprudence and legislation. Currently at Berkeley Law, he has al…
READ more
It’s really frustrating that our political system seems to reward politicians who don’t have any convictions. Or at least, who hide their real convictions for the sake of political gain.
It’s really frustrating that our political system seems to reward politicians who don’t have any convictions. Or at least, who hide their real convictions for the sake of political gain.
Dear Dan,
With respect to environmental policy why should Obama be re-elected? How is Obama better than Romney on environmental issues? What would be the difference if Romney wins?
Dear bqrq – The differences are pretty clearcut, though the two of us might disagree about which side is better. But this deserves a full blog post rather than just adding to the comment thread.
Dear Dan,
With respect to environmental policy why should Obama be re-elected? How is Obama better than Romney on environmental issues? What would be the difference if Romney wins?
Dear bqrq – The differences are pretty clearcut, though the two of us might disagree about which side is better. But this deserves a full blog post rather than just adding to the comment thread.
I once thought that Romney would make a better president, only until he was in Massachusetts. All these politicians are the same, all they need is our votes and they will go to any lengths to achieve their own personal goals.
I once thought that Romney would make a better president, only until he was in Massachusetts. All these politicians are the same, all they need is our votes and they will go to any lengths to achieve their own personal goals.
Dan,
When we direct our attention to the pertinant issue of actually modulating the average global atmospheric temperature, I fail to see any relevant difference between Obama and Romney. I am doubtful that a full blog post could change this disturbing reality.
Dear bqrq — I’m puzzled. I thought you didn’t believe in the need to modulate global temperature?
Dan,
When we direct our attention to the pertinant issue of actually modulating the average global atmospheric temperature, I fail to see any relevant difference between Obama and Romney. I am doubtful that a full blog post could change this disturbing reality.
Dear bqrq — I’m puzzled. I thought you didn’t believe in the need to modulate global temperature?
Dan,
I believe that humanity has no feasible means of actually modulating global atmospheric temperature. Carbon dioxide emission controls such as carbon credits, taxes, permits, sequestration, renewable energy, etc. are not effective because such control stragegies have no measurable result in reducing global atmospheric temperature and cannot be made to have any measurable result. There are no feasible means to effectively control and modulate carbon dioxide level in the thermodynamic “open” system of the global atmosphere. The same is true with water vapor which is a far more potent greenhouse gas. This false solution illustrates the failure of so-called climate “science” to drive public policy.
Dan,
I believe that humanity has no feasible means of actually modulating global atmospheric temperature. Carbon dioxide emission controls such as carbon credits, taxes, permits, sequestration, renewable energy, etc. are not effective because such control stragegies have no measurable result in reducing global atmospheric temperature and cannot be made to have any measurable result. There are no feasible means to effectively control and modulate carbon dioxide level in the thermodynamic “open” system of the global atmosphere. The same is true with water vapor which is a far more potent greenhouse gas. This false solution illustrates the failure of so-called climate “science” to drive public policy.