When Mitt Romney mocked President Obama's promise to confront global warming, and all of its consequences, including the rise of sea level, last night at the RNC convention, he probably didn't realize what a hornet's nest of backlash he would be receiving from those concerned about the devastating consequences of global warming. Romney's key red-meat line drew much laughter and applause:
"President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans, (Pause of applause), and to heal the planet. My promise ... is to help you and your family."
But, now in the sober, light of day, Joanna Zelmart, of Huffington Post, reports on the backlash, in
Mitt Romney Slams Obama On Climate Change In Convention Speech suggesting that you probably think it would obvious that if you care about your family, you would care about the future your children will inhabit, but you would be wrong, when it comes to Mitt Romney.
Back in 2008, Obama remarked in his nomination acceptance speech that if willing to work for it, "We will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment ... when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
Yet many were infuriated Thursday night by Romney's seeming indifference to -- or mocking of -- efforts to combat climate change and alleviate growing pressure on the planet's resources.
Critics took to Twitter to voice their outrage, among them former State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley, who tweeted: "So I guess we won't worry about #climate change in a #Romney administration." Climate scientist Michael Mann tweeted, "Romney's cynical denial of climate change is the real threat to our families, to our children & grandchildren's future."
On air, MSNBC's Chris Matthews charged, "How narrow-minded, how small and insular and piggish can you be about this country, to say, 'We don't care about the planet we live on,' which is getting hotter, climate change has manifested all over the world ... and he's mocking it."
Romney's habit of sacrificing his own longer-term advantage for dubious, short-term gain is rising to the level of such a consistent pattern-of-behavior, that it illustrates his lack of judgement, and qualifications to be be President of the United States, totally apart from the more obvious anti-science zealotry.
More below the squiggle.
Zelmont notes the irony of Mitt traveling "to Louisiana to survey damage from Hurricane Issac," as a recent analysis suggests that accelerated global warming may increase sea levels by 29 feet in the next few centuries.
Will the tepid traditional media reporters demonstrate any responsibility by challenging Mitt Romney and his anti-science zealotry? How is destroying the global environment consistent with any even remotely plausible sense of family values. Even prior to the evidence in the last year that global warming is occurring faster than our previous worst case scenarios, studies last year already predicted we will see more than 350 million environmental refugees by 2050. So, I guess basic safety and security are not values Romney shares for these families.
Here we see Mitt Romney, and Paul Ryan, firmly standing against the overwhelming scientific, and policy consensus of the world community, in what constitutes another flip-flop from Romney. I don't believe he has lost access to his post-graduate level education, and intellect -- he knows the science. What we see here, once again, is his willingness to look us in the eys, and engage in pure Machiavellian demogoguery for short-term political expedience, at the expense of truth, and his long-term domestic and global credibility.
I agree with Chris Matthews, but think Mitt Romney's behavior is even worse. But, at least, Chris Matthews is moving in the right direction. The rest of traditional media needs to take their collective heads out of the sands, and start covering these issues, with the seriousness that they deserve.
1:42 PM PT: