Skip to main content

View Diary: The hottest month on record underscores the danger of Mitt Romney and the Republicans (129 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  ryan (17+ / 0-)

    plays the game of saying we need to discuss the science honestly, while dishonetly ignoring the science and smearing the scientists.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 10:14:09 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Ryan is just as dishonest as Romney, maybe even (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laurence Lewis

      worse, because unlike Romney, who I'm increasingly convinced is an empty vessel and largely clueless, Ryan is clearly not dumb, and when he spews forth the garbage that has become the lingua franca of the Romney campaign, he has to know that he is repeating lie after lie.

      Just listen to the speech he gave yesterday after idiot Romney introduced him as "the next president (sic) of the United States" -- attacking Obama with blatant lie after blatant lie, e.g. Obama is the guy who's trying to destroy Medicare because he cut $500 billion in health care for seniors.

      I am going to need lots of anti-nausea medicine to get me thru this campaign.

      "But there is so much more to do." - Barack Obama, Nov. 4, 2008

      by flitedocnm on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 11:50:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Several things ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laurence Lewis

      First, I think that you should consider adding in Ryan's addition to the ticket more directly to the diary.

      Second, shouldn't there be a far more direct call on the Obama-Biden 2012 campaign, the DNC, the DSCC, the DCCC to take on climate change very directly as an electoral issue?  More directly than the link to my discussion of the President's statement in his Rolling Stone article that the campaign would do so?  (PS: Thank you.)

      Third, I think that the Administration gets off too easy here -- with the mention of renewable energy action but without mentioning 'all of the above' promotion of natural gas / oil and the allergic-like avoidance of discussion of climate change issues.

      And, finally, excellent piece -- appreciate you (as frontpager) writing such fact-filled material on this issue.

      Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

      by A Siegel on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 01:19:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  your first point... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        A Siegel, ivote2004, mightymouse

        his statements are so convoluted that i would need an entire post to explain what's wrong with them. i was hoping someone else would do it, so i could just provide a link.

        your second point... i did it a couple months back:

        on the third, i've been very critical on those points- at least he isn't still touting "clean" coal and nukes, but this was about the very clear contrast that was highlighted by their recent comments and actions on alternative energy.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 02:33:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  you know my thoughts about this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        his job is to get re-elected.  I don't care what he says to do that.  His actions, as far as he can make them, have been the right ones, and that's all that counts in the end.  If trumpets need to be blown, there are other people who aren't facing re-election who can blow them.

        •  Why not take (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ivote2004, cordgrass, mightymouse

          a look at analysis that shows this is a political issue that works to Obama-Biden advantage to talk about, seriously:  here

          The prevailing wisdom is that neither candidate could benefit politically from addressing global warming; Obama and Romney probably won’t talk about it much at all until or unless they’re explicitly asked. But that conventional wisdom is challenged in a new study by Stanford University professors and the polling director at The Washington Post. It finds that a presidential candidate could benefit politically benefit by talking about the issue. The study, conducted in part by Stanford social psychology professor Jon Krosnick, finds that Obama in particular could gain by touting his position on global warming.

          The research finds that about 15 percent of the country is engaged on climate change and that most of that group supports action to solve the problem. “In this election, most likely the president stands to gain,” Krosnick said. “The more explicitly green he is, the better off he is.” If Romney had not equivocated on his positions, Krosnick said, he “could have nullified the advantage that it looks like Obama has at this point.”

          Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

          by A Siegel on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 08:29:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They weren't asking the right questions (0+ / 0-)

            Of course lots of people want to fight global warming, I would hope a majority.  But Romney has already painted himself in a corner with that one.  Everyone knows he will try to dismantle even the paltry efforts made so far.  In other words, President Obama already has the advantage when it comes to people like me who are single issue green voters.

            All President Obama has to do is sprinkle some green dog whistle language in his speeches and we'll be fine (polar bear whistle?)  The real problem is that the Koch brothers and their Big Oil ilk have spent a ton of money on propaganda targeting the Republican base to scare the crap out of them about anything involving a real effort to fight global warming.  Agenda 21, New World Order, they are genuinely scared, and it will act as an incentive to get the wingnuts off their recliners and into the voting booths.  Which we don't want.  So if President Obama makes an environmental speech with his hair on fire, they will get all ruffled up.  He hits on green things often enough to keep treehuggers like me happy, especially combined with his real action like how he's pushing green technology in the military.

          •  Here, read this (0+ / 0-)


            It better explains what I'm trying to say.

            •  Suggestion of distance between us ... (0+ / 0-)

              The Zeller piece is rather disgusting, with false strawmen and other serious challenges. Your comment is a nudge toward the response that I was already contemplating.

              n terms of Zeller's piece, so much of it is shallow and misleading.  I love this version of Krupp:

              Still, there are signs that enlightened minds are looking to move forward. One came in the form of an editorial from Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, published in The Wall Street Journal on Monday. Skeptics need to stop denying the clear science, Krupp wrote, and supporters of climate action need to recognize that no policy solution can ignore the economic and market consequences that might come with it.
              Fred Krupp is the "enlightened mind". That is a serious issue, in itself, but let's move beyond that.  Most importantly is this false dichotomy.  I am a pretty damn strong one of those "supporters of climate action".  I dare anyone to look at what I've written/advocated (or what Joe or what most on this list have written) to suggest that we "ignore the economic and market consequences".  I truly didn't like Krupp's paragraph on this in the original WSJ piece but Zeller's shorthand of it worsens it.

              Another example of Zeller idiocy.

              Of course, almost no one identified in the meeting program that was leaked online has agreed to speak publicly about the gathering. Until they feel safe doing so -- and until the price for reasonableness and appearing to compromise is eliminated -- we'll likely stay stuck.
              This is the end of Zeller's piece -- and an example of the shallowness and cheap shot of the attack.  Those "not willing to talk about it" are being ethical -- they made an agreement to have a 'Chatham House Rules' discussion, off-the-record.  Not speaking publicly about an event like this can have many reasons -- such as wanting to be trusted to be invited to meetings again, seeing value in the private sessions, respecting their own commitments as having value, and so on without it having anything to do with their courage or lack of it.

              Zeller takes cheap shots at scientists (and Hansen) without, for example, talking about the perversion of the American political discourse by Faux News.  

              Zeller ... really?

              Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

              by A Siegel on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 03:51:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Ryan and Willard do that on many topics.. (0+ / 0-)

      They claim to be devout followers of Jesus who ignore his words when it comes to profits and thier own urges... They claim to care about other humans even while they are cheerfully talking about them dying so that the rich can get richer.

      As for science they have no idea what it is... They just make up stuff and string ideas together without any data at all based simply on whether they would lose thier freedom to kill us all for thier egos and thier wealth. They feel superior because of thier callous attitudes about how one human can use all other life to aggrandize themeselves and the ability to kill others who lack thier predatory natures.

      How can you tell when Rmoney is lying? His lips are moving. Fear is the Mind Killer

      by boophus on Sun Aug 12, 2012 at 01:59:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site