Digging deeper: The enviro-nitwit-ization of the GOP

MichelleMalkin.com ^ | December 13, 2007 | Michelle Malkin

[JohnnyZ]

I know some people want him to be a clear “NO” on the question, but he’s not.

Mitt had his hand in the air.

He's a clear yes liberal.

Your attempt to equate the two is pitiful.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Mitt gave an answer in the debate. We can discuss what he actually said, or you can keep assuming that a hand-wave means an unequivical yes, when as Fred Thompson pointed out you can’t answer the question yes or no.

Anyway, for most people global warming is not a matter of “conservative” or “liberal”, it’s a matter of being right or wrong. There’s nothing “conservative” about NOT “believing in global warming”.

We need to stop politicizing science. The left has done that. We need to be open to serious scientific inquiry, and let the chips fall where they may when the truth is known. Trying to tie your political beliefs to one side or another is a liberal thing to do — I prefer to “believe” whatever the science actually says.

If they find clear evidence that something man is doing is harming the environment, I don’t expect to be called a liberal for “believing” it. I’m a conservative because the conservative philosophy is the right philosophy, leading to positive outcomes for our nation and it’s people.

As Rush says “conservatism has worked whereever it is tried”. If conservatism FAILED, I wouldn’t be one. I think though some people here would still be, because they are “conservatives” before they are thinkers.

I’m not afraid of smart people, because the smart choice is conservatism. Smart thinking people turn from liberalism to conservatism, not the other way around.

[JohnnyZ]

You’re the perfect Mitt-worshiper, spouting liberal platitudes ad infinitum!

[CharlesWayneCT]

I doubt most conservatives would consider the search for truth a “liberal platitude”. liberals tend to not want to search for truth.

[dennisw]

bttt

[steelyourfaith]

~~Anthropogenic Global Warming ™ ping~~