Watching the debate tonight, I kept listening for some hint of the discussion of the “climate crisis”.
Why? Because the League of Conservation Voters put out a broad petition campaign to influence moderator Jim Lehrer:
But it didn’t work, not a single mention was made of, as they put it, “…the greatest challenge of our generation — climate change.”
The closest it got was when when Romney talked about the need for energy for a strong economy:
“I LIKE COAL.”
He also talked about making the XL pipeline a reality. But the real zinger was when he talked about Obama’s choices on backing green energy companies like Solyndra:
“You put $90 billion – like 50 years worth of breaks to Solyndra … I have a friend who said, ‘you don’t just the pick the winners and losers – you pick the losers,’”Romney said.
As Sheldon Cooper would say. Bazinga !
Stevie Welles,
Romney is the fixer. That is how he became so successful. He has a real talent for understanding the problem and seeing the remedy.
This country has major problems. If they are not fixed we will go over a fiscal cliff and everyone’s standard of living will take a major hit. If we remain on the present course of money printing and indebting the population to provide loot for favored special interests, it won’t be long before the hard-bitten middle class runs out of money. Then what? Print more? Borrow more? How long can that go on without destroying the economy??
This country desperately needs an adult in charge to fix things. Obama is a total incompetent who has never accomplished anything worthwhile in his life. He never worked for anything; everything has been given to him. The Empty Chair has failed upward into the presidency. Now we must terminate his employment.
This country needs a fixer who knows how to put the economy back on the track of economic growth, high employment., and low gasoline prices. With pro-growth policies those goals can easily be accomplished. It is clear that Obama cannot do it. He has had four years, and he has totally failed. Time for a change, no?
Absolutely it’s time for a change. I just find it funny that people still think the Republican party represents a real change or that Romney’s business experience means jack when it comes to being the freaking president. If you think Romney is going to stop printing and borrowing, you must be in the infant stage of understanding the way presidential politics works in this country.
Also, your ridiculous gas price argument is pure nincompoopery. Gas prices were $1.40 when Bush took office and they tripled while he was in office. The only reason they were so low when Obama took office was a little something called the greatest economic collapse in world history since the 30’s. I suppose if you think the president has some magical sway over the price of oil, you’ll believe anything Rmoney tells you.
Both of these guys are crooks and liars. Until the American people start realizing that, get ready for more of the same.
TonyG said
“I have come to the conclusion that I am likely to see the end of the United States in my life. I only hope it happens soon enough that I still have the strength to try to rebuild something so my kids can live in a decent place.”
There seems a certain inevitability about the decline of the US to a middle ranking nation unless they rapidly get to grips with a debt crisis of staggering proportions. I do hope politicians and the public are more aware of the dangers-and are more willing to do something about it- than you seem to imply.
I suspect that finding a cheap and renewable source of energy would be a game changer-fracking fills the former requirement but not the latter.
tonyb
Stevie Welles says:
October 5, 2012 at 5:58 am
Absolutely it’s time for a change. [ . . . ]
– – – – – – –
Stevie Welles,
I disagree temporally with you but not ultimately over longer times. Business prosperity depends on some level of confidence in predictability. We need to stop Obama-like advances in authoritarian intervention in economic arena. But, for a few years with him removed/neutered I recommend we first just do nothing in the legislative arena; for a while no drastic change to regain a certain degree of business confidence in some level of predictability. Then slowly reverse Obama-like policies while reintroducing the policies that created the original wealth of the great free societies . . . . non-authoritative economics . . . . private market dominated with very very trivial government intervention . . . . zero authoritarian intervention being the long term target.
John
I suspect your right, his performance in the second debate and the near term response to this debate should confirm that if correct.
Your quote above reminded me of a webpage known as Eject Eject Eject.
Under that title it had:
Out of airspeed, out of altitude, out of ideas! — Eject Eject Eject
Two possibilities here, one is that you are correct and his internal polling is telling him it is a very long shot that he will win, and he is worn down by the pressures of the President.
Or a face saving maneuver, they figure so much damage has been done to the countries economy and so many economic booby traps set, that the next President is likely to be in a no win situation, and the country will go into a flat spin and crash regardless of who is at the helm.
If true, than the best strategic move for the Democrats is to bail out and let the other party take the fall for the failures to come. I hope we have not reached that point of no return and are still inside the performance envelope of our economy, but we might be in a fragile enough state that one or two outside inputs beyond our control could make the wings come off.
Larry
The topic did not come up because neither of them would have addressed it, just run out the clock instead. It is a lose-lose proposition because they will alienate some voter group no matter where they come down, so it is a waste of time to ask them.