"Will all the RINOs who will betray the GOP and America, please raise your hands, now"
Posted on 12/13/2007 4:41:58 AM PST by NavVet
Well, fun was had by all yesterday covering the stultifying Schoolmarm and the GOP candidates in Iowa. Fred Thompson earned his gold medal for refusing to follow Schoolmarm’s order for a show of hands on an inane global warming question. Now, let’s dig a little deeper.
As I noted yesterday, the rest of the leading GOP candidates’ responses to Schoolmarm’s global warming query demonstrate a rather disturbing greening of the party. And not just mild green. But bright, neon, Gore green. Total enviro-nitwit-ization. Can these guys really belong to the same party as stalwart, anti-fearmonger Sen. Jim Inhofe? Have they not been briefed on NASA’s shenanigans? Like John Stossel says: “What you think you know may not be so.”
Look at the screenshot Allah captured of the exact moment Schoolmarm asked the candidates to raise their hands if they “believe global climate change is a serious threat and caused by human activity.” I lightened, annotated, and labeled the pic for ease of scrutiny:
Faster than Al Gore’s Gulfstream, the hands of Giuliani, Huckabee, and McCain shot straight up in agreement with the First Commandment of Global Warming: Thou Shalt Blame Man. What about Romney? As Allah sharply noted (he’s also got video), Mitt’s mitt waffled at “half-hearted half-mast”–before he sheepishly turned it into a clap for Thompson.
(Excerpt) Read more at michellemalkin.com ...
Check out the picture on Michelle Malkin's website. This was a screen shot taken just before Thompson smacked down the moderator. It shows the RINO's all raising their hands in response to the question, "Who believes that global warming is a serious problem and that it is caused by human activity."
Why does it not surprise me that the Huckster is taking the official left wing media position on this.
Probably because you have a modicum of common sense, are a conservative, and have a brain that warns you when you are in close proximity of an enemy camp.
"Will all the RINOs who will betray the GOP and America, please raise your hands, now"
Kudos to Fred but I also see that as a lawyer he instantly recognized the tactic behind the question: ask the witness a question with a yes / no trap. Great job of recognizing it and throwing it right back at the moderator and the other candidates.
Free of energy consumption? OMG, he wants to turn us into the Amish!!!
Since the question WAS asked as a yes or no question, it's clear that Fred has a much more nuanced stance on the issue than to say "no, man is not causing global warming".
IN case you think I'm making this up, here is what Fred says about it on his web site:
And while we don’t know for certain how or why climate change is occurring, it makes sense to take reasonable steps to reduce CO2 emissions without harming our economy. Overall, I am committed to:
- A balanced approach to energy security that increases domestic supplies, reduces demand for oil and gas, and promotes alternative fuels and other diverse energy sources.
- Investing in renewable and alternative fuels to promote greater energy independence and a cleaner environment.
- An energy policy that invests in the advanced technologies of tomorrow and places more emphasis on conservation and energy efficiency.
- Conducting research and development into technologies that improve the environment, especially the reduction of CO2 emissions.
Gingrich has bought into global warming. I've been very skeptical, but I don't think I could simply answer "no" to that question -- it seems unlikely that man is a major factor, and whether man is an overal positive or negative is yet to be seen.
But SOME of what we would do to combate "global warming" I think are simply smart conservative things to do (in this sense, I tend to agree with Gingrich, even though I think his premise is wrong). We should conserve energy by more efficient use. We should find better ways to package goods so there is less waste. We should find manufacturing methods that reduce pollution, reduce byproducts, and reduce energy use.
We should find ways to cut our gasoline consumption. We should switch to nuclear electricity which is much better for the environment. We should encourage developers to leave the trees. We should try to minimize the mass of land that is paved over. We should leave wetlands and growth areas to protect runoff into our streams, rivers, and lakes.
We should find ways to reduce the chemicals needed to grow crops, and to protect them from disease and insects (OK, some of this is not global warming anymore, but simple environmentalism). genetic engineering should be encouraged to make plants more resistant.
But we should also realise that the planet's climate has been swinging back and forth since way before we developed "carbon footprints", and therefore we should do long-term planning for how we as a nation will survive and flourish if another ice age hits, or if the ocean level rises a foot or more. Be Prepared.
Frankly, I worry both about those who immediately answered yes, AND those who were firmly answering no. Fred was RIGHT that the question was not a yes-or-no question, that there is something to say about the topic.
I'm glad Fred spoke out.
No show of hands, no missed opportunity to explain them selves. They all said Yes, and they all shared their plan to reverse it. She asked the same question to the Dems, but the only difference is the solutions were more extreme.
This is a deal breaker for me. If we nominate someone who won’t take a principled stand on this “manmade global warming BS”, they will get no support from me.
I’ve never been one who thought we might need time wandering in the wilderness before emerging stronger but if these guys can’t even stand and deny the premise of this socialist hoax, then I am probably going to become one of those people.
Fred is showing courage and leadership! Go Fred Go!!
Dear Fred08,
Please put together a 30 sec. spot regarding this Global Warming question and highlight these idiots responses. Show the hands in the air. Let the folks hear their words. State your case.
Unless I’m retarded (and that’s out there), Republican’s have NOT fallen for the Gore Prophecy because the science does not back it up. Gosh, I hope that’s the case anyway.
What a joke this process has become. I know you all agree...
Sen Inhofe has endorsed Thompson. No doubtthey have discussed what’s really going on with “global warming”
Great idea. Fred could make a commercial showing the photo in post #4. And replay comments made by all of these guys on Global Warming.
I just quoted from his web site. I don’t think Thompson is lying about his beliefs on his own website, so I would take him at his word, rather than speculate on what Inhofe’s endorsement means regarding Fred’s view of global warming.
Fred says he’s not sure what causes it, but wants to reduce C02 emissions anyway. I’m fine with that.
Yes, another reason Fred’s move was a good one for all republicans.
Thompson’s response was an outside the box thinking we actually need.
The four handraisers showed they are the same as democrats.
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.