One thing that all conservatives know is that their worst enemy is that Romney and his people like barnacle will be working against them like barnacle is on this thread.
This isn't a Mark Sanford thread, this is a Mitt Romney thread.
Posted on 03/21/2009 1:06:51 PM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
For the last twenty years of my life, I have seen the ever-so-gradual effects of rising ocean levels at our farm in Beaufort County. In some cases, it's been watching pine trees die in that fragile zone between uplands and salt marsh; in other cases it's meant finding roots in areas that would never grow a tree, given the current salt water levels. While I understand very clearly the debate on whether or not these events come as a result of man's activity -- or just the effects of nature taking its course - I've had other personal experiences that strongly suggest to me that man is having an impact on the environment. The last time I was in Beijing on a trade trip, we happened to be there on a bad smog day. When I went outside I could see no more than a quarter of a mile and my eyes watered.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
After Fred pulled out (and with apologies to Duncan Hunter, who was a good man, but he had Defense Secretary written all over him (not a bad thing, because he had a serious role he could fill)) there was nobody in the race with any credibility. I called it a Fellinesque midget sideshow. First time since I was eligible to cast a vote that I didn't vote in the GOP primary because Fred was gone. We needed giants, not liberal RINO egotists.
GlobalWarming.org
Yes, Even Sanford
by Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
October 07, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
You’ve got to wonder if there’s any room for climate sanity left in governance and politics if a man recognized as one of the most conservative governors in America has bought into global warming alarmism.
That’s what has happened with Gov. Mark Sanford in South Carolina, who last year created the Climate, Energy, and Commerce Advisory Committee to gin up some plans (extracted from the ideas of the Center for Climate Strategies) to cut down on carbon emissions in the state.
You might think that Sanford did so as a political nod to the environmentalists in his state, but his executive order (PDF) that created CECAC reflected a passionate tone:
For the last twenty years of my life, I have seen the ever-so-gradual effects of rising ocean levels at our farm in Beaufort County.
In some cases, it’s been watching pine trees die in that fragile zone between uplands and salt marsh; in other cases it’s meant finding roots in areas that would never grow a tree, given the current salt water levels.
While I understand very clearly the debate on whether or not these events come as a result of man’s activity — or just the effects of nature taking its course - I’ve had other personal experiences that strongly suggest to me that man is having an impact on the environment. The last time I was in Beijing on a trade trip, we happened to be there on a bad smog day.
When I went outside I could see no more than a quarter of a mile and my eyes watered.
Man is quite clearly having an impact in that part of the world, and while it’s been my longtime belief as a conservative that I should exercise as many rights and freedoms as possible, those rights and freedoms end when they begin to infringe upon the rights of others.
Fast-forward to a couple of weeks ago when CECAC released its final report, which included 51 policy recommendations to reduce greenhouse gases in South Carolina. Here’s what Sanford had to say:
“Some of these recommendations will make a whole lot of sense for South Carolina and others won’t. But we believe this report is an excellent place to begin the conversation and debate - and it is our sincere hope that many of these findings will be implemented in South Carolina.”
The governor’s press release added that with the CECAC process he hoped South Carolina “could begin to act on those issues on its own, before being saddled with costly future mandates from Washington, D.C.” — as if any state could avoid that burden.
As for CCS/CECAC’s assertions about its final recommendations, they claim to have done an economic analysis of 33 of its 51 proposals and found that if implemented they would cost approximately $1.6 billion by the year 2020.
This is a big change from the kinds of economic claims CCS used to make with commissions in other states, when they would boast that their ideas would produce net gains in state economies (billions of dollars) and net increases in jobs (hundreds of thousands). They don’t do that so much any more.
As for the other 18 recommendations they don’t quantify, well, I guess they don’t want to make it appear the state will be that bad off because of carbon mitigation measures.
Still, it appears that even those numbers in the Palmetto State are short in their estimations, and thank God for the South Carolina Policy Council and the Beacon Hill Institute for bringing some reality to the discussion. The upshot:
Economic analysis of the Climate, Energy and Commerce Advisory Committee (CECAC) report would cost taxpayers billions of dollars while offering a negligible environmental benefit, according to the Policy Council study performed by economists at the Beacon Hill Institute.
The Center for Climate Strategies, authors of the CECAC report, propose tax increases and heavier regulations on businesses.
Findings from the study:
-CECAC recommendations would cost South Carolina taxpayers $11.9 billion between 2008 and 2020.
-In 2009 the recommendations would cost the state 13,542 jobs.
-In 2009 private investment would drop by $204 million
-In 2009 the average South Carolina family would incur a direct cost of $1,836.
-Projected global emissions for 2025 would be reduced just 0.012 percent.
And Gov. Sanford thinks this “is an excellent place to begin the conversation and debate?”
Quoted statement? He created a new government bureaucracy to study the effects of global warming in SC.
The Executive Order...
http://www.scclimatechange.us/ewebeditpro/items/O60F19050.pdf
Try again.
An even better question is this: What is worse - Mark Sanford saying that there may be climate change going on, while not definitely attributing it to man's action, or Mitt Romney's liberal record on all kinds of stuff from guns to abortion to state-run health care?
See #43
Oh big whoop, he established a committed of 30 or less appointed officials to “assess” the extent of the threat, if any, from climate change. He even directly states that he supports market-based responses to any threat.
Try again, Romneybot.
"Begin the conversation and debate" probably means just that. Anything read into it further by yourself is just that - imagination on your part.
Now I don't like this, but this is much different than carbon taxes, CAFE bills, and the like.
President Obama
Let me get this straight
You want congress to implement a new tax revenue system based on CO2 called a CO2 Cap and trade program.
As a consumer, which pays for all taxes and fees for the exchange of goods and services, I will not support a new tax system, tax, hidden tax or fees based on CO2 regulations.
Starting today I am going to cut my spending by 15 percent.
I will never purchase a new automobile.
Lost of revenue to the Auto, Finance and Insurance industries.
I will not travel outside my city on vacation for next several years.
Lost of revenue to the Travel Agents, Airlines, Hotels and Vacation Destinations industries.
I will reduce my utility consumption.
Lost of revenue to the Electric, Natural Gas and City Water, Sewer industries.
I will reduce my entertainment
Lost of revenue to the Hollywood, Restaurant, Concert and Sports industries.
I’m going to ask 10 of my friends to reduce their spending by 15 percent and encourage them to ask 10 of their friends to do the same.
I’m neither a register Republic, Democrat or Independent.
I am a register VOTER and a member of the Tea Party
I will work toward unseating any politicians regardless of party affiliation who votes for any type of CO2 regulation.
Stephen Beery
One thing that all conservatives know is that their worst enemy is that Romney and his people like barnacle will be working against them like barnacle is on this thread.
This isn't a Mark Sanford thread, this is a Mitt Romney thread.
SC Gov. Sanford says state should take steps to cut carbon emissions, not wait for Washington
Jim Davenport
September 22, 2008 - 3:17 p.m.COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford said Monday the state needs to tackle carbon dioxide and global warming issues before the federal government reacts.
“If you’ve been around governments, you should know that there are a zillion committees there that do nothing besides talk”
They are not just talking..
“On Monday, the Republican governor formally received a 653-page report from his Climate, Energy, and Commerce Advisory Committee”
“The report offers 51 policy initiatives to cut emissions by 55 million metric tons by 2020 and leave the state emitting 5 percent less carbon dioxide than in 1990, Hagood said.”
“Sanford praised elements of the report, saying he favors ideas such as utilities allowing net metering, which lets consumers transmit surplus electricity they generate from things such as solar or wind power and receive credits on their bills. He’s also backing plans to use special lanes on congested interstate highways to encourage carpooling.”
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/market_news/article.jsp?content=D93BV08G1
You expect anything different fron the Romneyslugs? Hell they joyfully and gleefully degraded Reagan trying to pimp their guy.
I expect it to get much worse over the next couple of years. Bad enough that somethin’ goin’ done have to git did as they say in my neck o’ the woods...
BINGO!!!!
We have a winnah!!!
He wants America to succeed. He opposes Obama’s polices so he he obviously doesn’t want them to succeed.
I don’t a small government man would support statist measures even if he’s fallen for the climate change mythology.
“If” he does, yes that’s no good. But does he, I doubt it.
http://www.chuckdevore.com/blog/tag/mark-sanford/
“As to global warming and laws to combat it by limiting greenhouse gas emissions, Sanford said, “I’m a Teddy Roosevelt conservative” (presumably, in T.R.’s interest in the environment, not in his progressive big-government Republicanism). But Sanford cautioned that most cap-and-trade measures amount to “unilateral disarmament” with other nations such as China and India being unhindered while America has to take the brunt of the economic cost in reducing emissions.”
Teddy R turned full tilt socialist Mark. But the quote signifies opposition to cap and trade.
Fred getting in too late is what his problem was. He went on Leno in June 07 but didn’t announce and mulled it over a couple more months. That killed his momentum.
It’s absurd the first primary is in January and even more absurd that McCain started running in April 07 and Romney in FEBRUARY 07 almost a year before Iowa and New Hampshire. (Bush announced in June 1999, of course Al Gore began running on a Wednesday in November 1996).
If that's true, then why didn't he say that? Instead, Mark Hussein Sanford said "I WANT OBAMA TO SUCCEED" and "ANYBODY WHO WANTS OBAMA TO FAIL IS AN IDIOT".
If Mark Hussein Sanford meant what you say he meant, then why didn't Sanford say what you said instead of what he said? (Twice)
Of course, BC has little room for criticising Sanford about this since, in 2004, Mitt Romney, while saying he personally is "agnostic" about the causes of climate change, basically signed off on the Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan at the behest of radical environmentalists. Apparently, Gov. Romney is willing to sign off on stuff he doesn't even necessarily believe in.
Talk about not having any principles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.