Santorum goes after Romney on energy, climate change

It would behoove Romney to start talking tough about EPA, climate etc.

The Hill reports:

Rick Santorum took aim at Mitt Romney for the former governor’s position on climate change Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

“Who would be the better person to go after the Obama administration on trying to control the energy and manufacturing sector of our economy and trying to dictate to you what lights to turn on and what car to drive?” Santorum said during his speech at the conference.

“Would it be someone who bought into man-made global warming and imposed the first carbon cap in the state of Massachusetts, the first state to do so in the country?”…

Santorum called man-made global warming a “façade” during his speech Friday, lamenting what he called the “politicization of science.”

Plans by the Obama administration to regulate climate change at the Environmental Protection Agency “will destroy the very foundation of prosperity in our country,” Santorum said.

He also took aim at critics of the drilling method known as hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” in which sand, water and chemicals are injected into the ground to gain access to valuable natural gas supplies. Natural gas drilling is a major industry in Pennsylvania, Santorum’s home state.

“Now that we’re doing hydro-fracking near the population centers, the bogeyman comes out. ‘Wooo, look at what it’s going to do to you,’” Santorum said.

“They scare you and they intimidate you to trust them to give them more power.”

Read the entire report.

9 thoughts on “Santorum goes after Romney on energy, climate change”

  1. Garry, you have to realize that the Bushes–ALL Bushes, so far, imo, have been Globalists, and it is as a Globalist, that Bush signed those stupid laws, and on those laws he WAS a Constitutional turn-coat,–imo,a TRAITOR. I personally feel he should be impeached, even now, so that his presidential Retirement can be stripped from him, but it won’t happen. I think its a GIVEN, we don’t want an Nobama, but it’s TRUE, we also don’t want another Bush. The next Bush, Jeb, pretended to defend that poor woman, who he could have released to the care of her parents, because the Husband was ANXIOUS to kill her–she could be alive today, taken-care of by her parents/family. Jeb, the murderous BUM, imo, allowed the husband who might have been the one to PUT her in her mentally deficient state, but who still responded to her mother on visits…Jeb played politics, and allowed a spouse to GAIN in$urance monie$ by killing his wife, and for that, Jeb Bush must never be “trusted” with Governance, because he won’t do what’s right–but what’s expedient and anti-family. Recent research has shown that several patients have come back from similar states, where they DID hear and DID hope their nutrition would not be with-held as it brutally was, in the Schiavo case, a case of Bushian TORTURE to DEATH, outside of Iraq. So, I use this as a yardstick–would Romney do similar? I don’t know Santorum? Maybe not, as he’s “Pro-life.” Ron Paul? I don’t think Paul would mind the parents taking a child home, that a husband had BROKEN his Marriage-from, by shacking-up with another while still married, plus, killing his wounded wife would allow him to enrich himself…and his new wife, with an insurance settlement, that should constitute Fraud against the Insurer, and its investors, because the payment resulted from a CHOICE on the part of the husband, NOT fate/chance, like in most life policies. The Bushes had spoken of a New World Order, and backed that up by allowing bailouts, TARP, signing Treaties that weren’t ratified (–and shouldn’t be, imo), and WERE Un-Constitutional, because trade authority was given-over to an international body, and took that power away from Congress where it SHOULD reside. Those pols supportive of the Corrupt, U.N., are nearly always Globalist, and as such are EXPECTED to be Nobama-lite, and for the salvation of this country, worthless. I hope this helps. PS. Globalists are often Green, and Communist. Groups like the Bilderbergers are Globalist, and it was the Bilderbergers that had told Nobama & Hellery, to USE, imo, the EPA to crash the Economy, which WOULD have already crashed, but for the un-foreseeable fracking of Canadian and other gas, flowing South in smaller pipelines than the Keystone which was aborted, until AFTER the Election. The CFR are Globalist in intent, and have thousands of members in the bureaus. The Tri-laterals are also Globalist. Bill Clinton is all three: CFR, Tri-lat, and Bilderberger. Bill Clinton owns/influences all/part of the Spanish Vote-Tabulating firm, that is supposed to count all of the votes of 2012. That should be changed, because if it isn’t, Jesus Christ could run against Nobama, and LOSE to Nobama, imo.

  2. George W. Bush – and not Obama – signed the federal laws mandating light bulb technology, toilet tank size, and low flow shower heads. You can go to Home Depot this afternoon and see the actual and observable handiwork of a Republican turncoat on environmental issues.

    Not to mention the Congressional Republicans who voted for these laws.

  3. It is amazing that any city would build a trolley transportation system in this day and age. Phoenix recently did so and it, as I understand, has been a night mare because it has to use the same intersections that traffic does; so, where is the benefit as far as transporting people safely and quickly. Seattle recently opened its link from the airport to downtown and where it is elevated above the roadways & it is great but then it takes to the surface and must compete with the normal traffic, until it goes under ground where it is efficient at moving people. Why must the US be so backward?

    Those that have to been to Singapore know how an efficient and safe system should be built. Bangkok has an elevated Sky train as well as Kuala Lumpur, China builds more elevated trains and subways systems and now in the US they are building trolleys that no one wants or needs.

  4. Unbiased research has demonstrated that change to the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide has had no significant influence on average global temperature. Google ‘sunspot “time integral”’ and follow the links to discover what has and why warming stopped.

    Average global temperatures have been flat for a decade while, since 2001, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 24% of the increase from 1800 to 2001.

  5. Right Old Forester, Mitt and others MUST REVERSE themselves on: global warming(–doesn’t exist), Cap & Tax (–SHOULDN’T exist, because you’re adding artificial value to something that’s free, another scam). Mitt MUST change his mind on Coal,–at least shipping it to China, if he won’t use it here, so we GET something for it. Mitt can point-out that many were as wrong as he was…IF… he’ll reverse, but if he doesn’t reverse, how is HIS EPA going to be different? You can SAY…you’re going to do this…and follow, with SAYING… you’ll do that…but if the EPA hasn’t been severely pared-down, NOTHING will get done. Mitt’s “passive-obstructionism” of an un-repentant EPA, could have the same RESULT…of Nobama’s active, in-your-face, shut-downs of his EPA. Nobama’s given us three years of style, but NO substance. With NO FIRE IN THE BELLY, and NO PROMISES to de-fund the EPA (–yes, the states could do the “clean-water-job” very well–you don’t need the Feds), HOW…will Romney be BETTER than Nobama? When Romney was so ably helming Bain Capital, you had to have the client REALIZE, that their “internal-EPA” had DESTROYED their business, and MUST be cut-off, so that ALL assets would not be lost. I suspect Mitt still has some Globalist, Commu-fascist Greens scurrying around in his campaign, like the “rats” they are. They can be ignored to no harm, because even students are going to be angry at their “Prostitute-Professors”,—Ivey-League Plutocrats trying to destroy the work/liveli-hoods of their families with their EVIL, WRONG, RANTINGS from the “science” of Socialist-Despotism! Mitt should just come out and SAY, “It was futile, to attempt to Micro-manage industrial emissions, when that’s not the problem, anyway.”

  6. Inspite of the vitriol from the alarmists and the claim that any credible scientist agrees with AGW is not talking science, but consensus, i.e. politics. This is not a vote of how many scientists believe or not believe. It is following the scientific method. The alarmist findings to make such a claim have not been established. Complex climate models do not mimic the myriad variables that make up our dynamic climate.

  7. The Obama administration has hundreds of billions of dollars to spend between now and November 1 to create new employment. In Atlanta we are going to build a trolley line for $94 million that will provide employment for several hundred. We tore up the trolley lines fifty years ago and are now going to rebuild them. They will be torn up in thirty years.

    Multiply this waste of money by thousands and you have new employment for millions until after the election. Thus unemployment will be below 7.5 percent by the time the end of September numbers come out. Obama is going to win the economic issue of employment because he can increase the deficit by trillions and get a way with it.

    The only way to defeat Obama this fall is on the energy policy issue. His policies are simple—stop use of coal, natural gas, and oil in that order and replace them with solar, wind, and biofuels. This will leave the United States poverty stricken except for the few wealthy who can get by like the patricians did thousand of years ago.

    The Republicans have been dodging this issue in all the debates the past six months. Now candidate Santorum is bringing up this issue and pointing out problems candidates Gingrich and Romney have had in supporting the thesis catastrophic global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels. In addition, these candidates have identified renewable energy sources are necessary in our energy supply that can only exist with government subsidies and mandates for their use. This is no different than what President Obama is proposing–so how can candidates Gingrich and Romney beat Obama when they are like him.

    The Republicans better wise up on the energy issue or lose the election. If this happens, being beat by the most destructive president in U. S. history, the Republcans need to disappear and be replaced by a new, sensible political party.

  8. AGW, cap and trade, and Romney’s effort to shut down the coal fired power plants while in charge of Massachusetts is Mitt’s achilles heel. If Santorum get’s himself thoroughly educated on the skeptical side of this topic and hammers Mitt and Obama repeatedly with it he will dispense of Romney once and for (or force Romney to reverse his leftist stance on American coal) all while at the same time bringing in independents and moderates. Only the far left wants what Obama, Mitt (currently), and the EPA are offering. Unfortunately, most of the population is clueless that the EPA is in the process of destroying our economy and standard of living, thus it is imperative that the Republican nominee hammer this topic over and over again so it get maximum coverage in the MSM.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.