It’s been fascinating to watch the GOP candidates recently. It still mystifies my how a governor who threatened to secede from the union now wants to become president of that same union. And Gov. Rick Perry has the gall to call Ben Bernanke treasonous! If threatening to secede from the union isn’t treason, I’m not sure what is. And let’s not kid ourselves – this wasn’t some “youthful indiscretion.” This was 2010, when Perry was already a long-serving governor.
Put another way, could you imagine what would have happened if then-Sen. Barack Obama had uttered sentiments similar to Perry’s? Let’s just say this: President McCain.
But really – what matters most to me is how the GOP is lining up on climate change and energy issues. There's a good chance that the name across from Barack Obama on the 2012 ballot for president will be the name of a person who does not believe in human-caused climate change. We might as well have a president that disregards
science altogether.
Given the floods, fires, wind storms, hurricanes and tornadoes that the United States witnessed in just
the last year, it seems there could be no worse time to be ignoring the science.
If it matters to you where the Republican presidential nominees stand on energy issues, climate and the environment (including cap-and-trade,
a brainchild of the Republican party), here’s my breakdown of the candidates’ positions, ranked from worst to best.
I do have one serious question, though: why does "Farm subsidies are bad." factor into Ron Paul's environmental stance?
Is the writer thinking about ethanol instead? I sure hope not, and it's worth noting that most farm subsidies are paid to large farms despite their intended target being smaller ones. (Oh, and said subsidies are paid regardless of economic need.)