blogger journalist at the WaPo in Mitt’s hip pocket points out Newt’s problems on Cap-n-Trade. And I’ll grant everyone, there’s a there there. But it’s not like the Most Favored Candidate is pristine.
Consider this from the WaPo itself (the other part of the paper not the Mitt 2012 Cheerleading section) about Mitt and global warming, “The fact that he doesn’t change his position . . . that’s the upside for us,” said one Romney adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on behalf of the campaign. “He’s not going to change his mind on these issues to put his finger in the wind for what scores points with these parts of the party.”
So, like Obamacare, Mitt’s sticking with his principles…of manmade global warming.
And there’s this:
2005: Romney Endorsed Regional Cap And Trade System, Saying “This Is A Great Thing For The Commonwealth … We Can Effectively Create Incentives To Help Stimulate A Sector Of The Economy And At The Same Time Not Kill Jobs. … I’m Convinced It Is Good Business.” “Governor Mitt Romney signaled his support yesterday for a regional agreement among Northeastern states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, despite opposition from power companies and other business interests that have been lobbying the administration against the plan. In opening remarks to a clean-energy conference in Boston, Romney said the first-of-its-kind agreement, under which Massachusetts and eight other states could be required to cut power plant emissions by 2020, will not hurt the economy, as some have charged. He argued that it would spur businesses to develop clean — and renewable-energy technology to market worldwide. ‘This is a great thing for the Commonwealth,’ Romney said, his strongest endorsement of the pact to date. ‘We can effectively create incentives to help stimulate a sector of the economy and at the same time not kill jobs.’… Romney said yesterday that he had some concerns about the agreement, known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, but he endorsed this and other clean-energy initiatives by saying they would stimulate the development of technology that Massachusetts companies could sell to other states and countries, as the emphasis on climate change grows. ‘I’m convinced it is good business,’ Romney said.” [Boston Globe, 11/8/05>]
Everyone knows that Newt and Mitt bought the leftist clap-trap about the man-made part of what is also known as normal climate changes. And had Mitt gone the Pawlenty route and said, “You know what? I screwed up.” Well, I wouldn’t like it, but I would forgive it. I did Pawlenty, anyway. (What I couldn’t forgive was Pawlenty not taking Mitt out on Obamacare when he had the chance. Come. On!)
And the reason why buying this junk science was and is such a big deal is that all sorts of policy “solutions” to non-existent “problems” would cost taxpayers a lot of money. And even still, it is anyway.
We have stupid light bulbs foisted on us by stupid government regulations. We have stupid EPA regulations that are killing all sorts of potential jobs.
And the Obama administration is making it worse with folks who worked for Romney.
So, yes, Newt has a problem and so does Mitt.
Are we to pretend that these guys won’t be swayed by every wind of leftist doctrine? They’ve been swayed too much.
Donald Douglas has an excellent take-down of the LA Time’s perspective on the Contract FROM America verses Newt Gingrich’s Contract For America back in 1994. Go read the whole thing.
It is clear to me that Newt very badly wants to harness the energy of the Tea Party movement but be let off the hook for his calls for bi-partisanship and his endorsement of DeDe Scozzafava. Not going to happen.
It’s also not going to go over well that he’s trying to co-opt a document put forth by the American people. And what is the not-so-subtle diminishing of the document that has been a work in progress? Is the openly transparent steps going to be held against people? A rough draft of a document is rough because it has flaws to fix. This process has been open to the people every step of the way.
Donald Douglas says of the LA Times and Newt:
See how clever that is? Dick Armey was House Majority Leader under the Newt Gingrich speakership. Since Armey has indeed been one of the original backers of the tea party movement, the Times can piggyback Gingrich into the story to make this link between the GOP takeover in 1994 and the tea parties today. Problem is, the “Contract with America” was a campaign vehicle rather than a real reform manifesto with teeth. By 2000, according to Edward Crane at Cato, “the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%. ” And Crane adds something important: “For all of his talent in generating the “revolution,” Newt was never the conservative ideologue the media painted him to be.”
Remember last October and Newt’s endorsement of Dede Scozzafava over Doug Hoffman in NY-23? See Michelle’s piece on that, “An ACORN-Friendly, Big Labor-Backing, Tax-and-Spend Radical in GOP Clothing.”
Some “establishment” guys, like Dick Armey, have proven themselves to be able servants along side the grassroots. They haven’t taken over, they’ve facilitated.
Some other politicians establishment or newbie seem to want to use the Tea Party movement for personal gain. The problem is that the Tea Party participants know who was there from the beginning. They know who tried to take over. They know who has their best interests at heart.
Newt is making things worse for himself. He needs to stop.