Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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-)

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site