MANCHESTER, N.H. — In the first town hall of his freshly announced presidential campaign, Mitt Romney yesterday reaffirmed his view that global warming is occurring and that humans are contributing to it, a position that has been rejected in recent years by many Republicans as the issue has taken on a greater partisan tinge.

 

 

After opening remarks in which Romney blamed President Obama’s policies for the new anemic hiring figures, the first questioner from the floor — a software developer from Hanover, N.H. — wanted to know the candidate’s position on climate change, an issue his opponents have generally avoided so far.

 

“I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course,’’ Romney said. “But I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that . . . so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.’’

 

Romney has made clear that he opposes cap-and-trade, a system that would combat climate change by limiting total emissions and forcing polluters to pay for the greenhouse gases they produce. Instead, he said yesterday, he wants to wean the country from its dependence on foreign oil by seeking alternative sources of energy, and he said Americans should do more to conserve.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2011/06/04/romney_reaffirms_stance_that_global_warming_is_real/

Will be interesting to see if he gets the nomination after taking this position and after reaffirming and defending Romneycare.

Btw, who do the conservatives around here want to see take on Obama?

I think a big difference is that the republican electorate has gotten MUCH more conservative on the global warming issue over the course of 4 to 8 years. Dont forget cap and trade was a republican idea. I think 4 years ago you could have gotten away with it. But much harder now, especially given Romney's history.

 

Do you think Paul or Johnson could beat Obama? As a dem, the only two I'm really afraid of are Romney and Huntsman, the latter of whom I think has 0% chance of getting the nomination. Pawlenty and possibly Rick Perry also concern me. Id love for Paul to be the nominee not because I think he wont beat Obama, but because Id love for the country to finally have to decide if they prefer a more libertarian approach to solving problems or liberal approach.

Pawlenty would get destroyed by Obama.

If the Republican/conservative establishment had not been (and still are) marginalizing people like Paul and Johnson, I think that they could certainly beat Obama. It's hard to defeat a member of the opposing party when much of the rejection comes within their own party. If the GOP had been willing to return to Bush's rhetoric in 2000 of speaking out against Clinton's nation-building, it would have been the right move for them right now, but instead similar rhetoric is then treated as being "isolationist" now or "letting the terrorists win."

 

I don't think the average independent voter would demand what is Johnson/Paul's more doctrinaire approach on some of the issues (drug legality for one), but does appreciate the general position on the issues. What I mean by this is that I think that Paul/Johnson (and etc.) have the winning position on almost every issue for independents, but voter's might not be willing to tolerate the doctrinaire/hardline solutions being offered. On the big issues, I speculate that independents want generally want less government, less spending, less taxes, more civil liberties, and less warmongering. I think that any platform that includes all five of those would be the most popular. The problem is that the GOP refuses to embrace anyone with the latter two positions and treats him like an outcast.

 

 

So are you saying that if the GOP didnt attack Paul and Johnson on foreign policy and civil liberties, they would be able to beat Obama? Or are you saying Paul and Johnsons "doctrinaire/hardline solutions" are too much for an indy voter, even if they agree with them on the direction? I think I would agree that whatever benefit a Paul or Johnson gets from an indy voter on the foreign policy and civil liberties front would probably be lost when issues like Medicare and social security are brought up.

 

Or are you saying that if Rick Santorum had Paul's civil liberties/social issues/foreign policy positions, he would be the most electable candidate because he leans in their direction on taxes and government spending but isnt as far right?

I think a big difference is that the republican electorate has gotten MUCH more conservative on the global warming issue over the course of 4 to 8 years. Dont forget cap and trade was a republican idea. I think 4 years ago you could have gotten away with it. But much harder now, especially given Romney's history.

 

Perhaps a greater percentage of conservatives have come to oppose alarmism (and again, they did nominate McCain and that was less than 4 years ago), but I don't think that it's become more of a priority for those people. What I mean is that the percentages might have changed but I don't think it's really foregrounded to a large degree (certainly not in comparison to something like Obamacare).

 

I agree that it's an odd position for him to take and one that won't help him, but I don't think most conservatives are really passionate about it. There are just too many other criticisms of Obama that overshadow this.

 

That's why I put the Romneycare stuff on a different sphere; health care is certainly much more of a dealbreaker issue. If he can get through that unscathed, I don't see how the global warming stuff will be what ultimately sinks him.

 

I see your point that healthcare is a bigger hurdle for him and I think if he gets past that, he gets past global warming too. Maybe the best way to see it is its just something else the anti-Romneys can attack him with. You're clearly not a big fan of his. Do you find a lot of conservatives saying no way to him, or not? I think the republican primary is going to be a debate on electability vs. core conservativism, with the establishment wanting Romney because he is the most electable.

There would be overwhelming support for the proposition that we should pump less nasty crap into the air. It is only in the face of absurd claims that people divide on the issue.