July 30, 2014

Advertise with Stand Firm

October 16, 2011


OFF-TOPIC & POLITICAL:  Did You Know Romney Was A Global Warming Advocate?

The 2012 elections are a year away.  While the media and the establishment have made clear who they want to be the republican nominee, America might want to do their own investigation into who should carry that mantle. 

In other words, the Romney administration in 2005 essentially did what Barack Obama’s EPA wants to do now.  He imposed CO2 emission caps — the “toughest in the nation” — in an effort to curtail traditional energy production.  Not only did Romney impose these costly new regulations, he then imposed price caps to keep power companies from passing the cost along to the consumer.  As we have seen in RomneyCare, regulation and price controls eventually drive businesses into bankruptcy or relocation.

So what has happened to Massachusetts’ electrical production since signing these regulations into law?  According to the EIA, whose latest data is for 2009, it dropped 18% in four years, from over 46 billion megawatt hours to 38 billion.  International imports, however, went from 697 million megawatt hours in 2006 to 4.177 billion megawatt hours two years later, and to almost 5 billion megawatt hours in 2009, more than twice the amount imported in any of the previous twenty years.

And who advised Romney on these regulations?  Why, none other than Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren:

The entire article is available here. 


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

48 comments

Yes, I did know that.  One of my big beefs with him.

[1] Posted by Florida Anglican [Support Israel] on 10-16-2011 at 08:52 PM · [top]

This is why I like Herman Cain.

[2] Posted by The Little Myrmidon on 10-16-2011 at 09:27 PM · [top]

[3] Posted by J Eppinga on 10-16-2011 at 09:38 PM · [top]

No, I didn’t know that. But I do know that Romney has switched positions on some things, and I don’t fully trust him.

[4] Posted by Nellie on 10-16-2011 at 09:43 PM · [top]

Yes.

We don’t need a RINO.

[5] Posted by robroy on 10-17-2011 at 01:26 AM · [top]

[6] Posted by Marie Blocher on 10-17-2011 at 01:57 AM · [top]

AHHHHHHHH…..Herman Cain has some “evil” rich people giving him money.  AHHHHHHHHHHHHH…...Is “Americans for Prosperity” nearly as despicable as the Obama targeted “Chamber of Commerce?”  Another shadowy organization as questionable as the Bilderburgers and the Bohemian Grove.  Throw in the Trilateral Commission and the CFR and you’ve got a full house.

[7] Posted by Bill2 on 10-17-2011 at 06:15 AM · [top]

Romney is the Republican Establishments choice. They are going to push him and bring pressure to bear. I’ve been posting to Rience Prebus’s page on facebook that if they run Romney they will be handing the election to Obama because they will loose most of their base. We don’t want another wishy washy like McCain again.

[8] Posted by Marlin on 10-17-2011 at 06:16 AM · [top]

Romney is nothing more than a RINO, an Obama lite.  Romney is going the same direction as Obama just more slowly.  No reason the Mainstream Media like him.  If the Republicans are dumb enough to nominate him a lot of people simply will not vote.  For me the 2012 election is all about restoring Constitutional government, not electing a Republican.

[9] Posted by Br. Michael on 10-17-2011 at 06:18 AM · [top]

Romney’s a chameleon.  Not to be trusted.  Someone who says pretty much anything to get elected is something we DON’T need right now.  My Welsh Corgi could beat Obama right now. 

This reminds of McCain.  How the heck did the Republicans nominate someone who is openly antagonistic to conservative positions as their candidate?  Is this the country club wing flexing their blue-blood old-money muscles?

In one respect I like Herman Cain, but the 9-9-9 plan, although I agree with it the goals of broadening the tax base, dumping exemptions, and lower rates, getting the 47% of households who pay no net income tax (yes, I know they pay SS and medicare) to agree to pay 9% ain’t gonna fly.

[10] Posted by Bill2 on 10-17-2011 at 06:24 AM · [top]

I’m one of the poor folks, and the nine percent income tax ain’t so scary to me (its only a point and half more than the socialist insecurity taxes are now..) - but I do worry about a tax on foodstuffs, medicines, and the already taxed gasoline I use to get to work, buy groceries and visit the doctor…

Still a Cain support at this point….

[11] Posted by Bo on 10-17-2011 at 06:39 AM · [top]

Cain’s 999 plan seems to put a heavier burden on the poor and middle classes.  I’d rather see a 3-6-9 or even a 3-7-11 plan than Cain’s 999.

[12] Posted by St. Nikao on 10-17-2011 at 07:50 AM · [top]

Romney is well-spoken, handsome and has done well in the debates.  However, honestly that doesn’t matter - check out his record and you will see he is a RINO at best, who is just a little to the right of Obama (just barely)!  He implemented Obamacare in his home state along with Cap-N-Trade.  Why would any Rebublican want him for President?

[13] Posted by B. Hunter on 10-17-2011 at 08:24 AM · [top]

From Hotair:

On Saturday, I noted Mitt Romney’s partnership with Obama science adviser and long-time Malthusian crank John Holdren in creating the “toughest” CO2 emissions limitations in the nation, and the resultant need for Massachusetts to import more of their energy in the years that followed.  However, Holdren wasn’t Romney’s most significant appointment for environmental issues.  Douglas Foy served as Secretary of Commonwealth Development in Romney’s cabinet for most of his term, and demonstrates Romney’s complicated — and contradictory — record on climate change.

[14] Posted by robroy on 10-17-2011 at 08:41 AM · [top]

>> Why would any Republican want him for President?
Because he would not be BHO in two important ways.  First, Mormons tend to think highly of the US and middle class values.  The same can’t be said for the incumbent, and most any Liberal.  Second, he is an excellent administrator with a primary background in the financial community.  He has shown he can take disasters, such as the SLC Olympics, and turn them into successes.  The president is the exact opposite.
That is not to say he is my ideal candidate.  None of the plausible candidates are.  Most, like Cain whose views I most strongly support, would make great VPs or cabinet heads.  However, warts and all from a Conservative standpoint, he appears to be the most electable, and has shown he can “shrink in office.”  “Growing in office” is often said with approval when a Conservative does something a Liberal likes.

[15] Posted by APB on 10-17-2011 at 08:53 AM · [top]

St. Niko,
The ‘largess of the state’ will still be disproportionately spent on the poor and so-called middle classes.  The ‘neat bit’ of the ‘everyone pays the same’ is that everyone has an equal stake in where the largess goes…..

[16] Posted by Bo on 10-17-2011 at 09:32 AM · [top]

If the Republicans run Romney they stand to loose a big part of their conservative base. We just don’t want Obama-light.

[17] Posted by Marlin on 10-17-2011 at 09:47 AM · [top]

There’s a lot more to Mitt that will become apparent if he wins the nomination. And it will make McCain look good.

[18] Posted by Festivus on 10-17-2011 at 09:58 AM · [top]

I read the posts to this article in total amazement.  First does this subject even belong in this publication?  I frankly question it.  In full disclosure I did some volunteer work for Romney when he was running against McCain 4 years ago.  At that point he was the conservative as opposed to the moderate McCain.  What has changed?  Frankly my interest is first and foremost the defeat of Obama.  Running against a billion dollar smear campaign by Obama we need the best opportunity we can get to achieve this result.  It certainly does no good to blast the very candidate that every poll shows has the best opportunity to defeat Obama.  Is Romney perfect? Obviously he is not.  However, with that said how many Republicans have won in the NE?  Despite all the criticisms was he still a governor of one of the most liberal states in the US.  When on this one article I see posts that call him a Rino, Obama Lite, Chameleon, Antagonistic to Republican positions, just a LITTLE to the right of Obama, and the question of why should any Republican support him for President, I find it a more than a little distasteful.  I would suggest to those of you just blindly jumping on the bandwagon and yelling 9-9-9 have you really investigated that entire plan beyond the fact it is slick marketing?  There are more questions all the time that are unanswered and those questions are not even from the Democrats. 

Unlike the marketing package of some others you read a synopsis of the Romney plan at the following address.  It is short and I would suggest you ask yourself what in this synopsis sounds like the descriptions in the response to this article.

http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/09/believe-america-day-one-job-one

For those of you that really do try to be informed beyond the veneer of fancy packaging the entire 156 page plan can be read at this address.

http://mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf

I will say perhaps I might not find Romney perfect and in a perfect world I might support someone else if my primary objective of the defeat of Obama was achieved.  However this race is what it is and I firmly believe Romney is our best shot at defeating Obama is with Romney.  I also think he would make a good president and a breath of fresh air after the socialistic stench on the past 3 years.  I also firmly believe another 4 years of Obama will change the very foundation of America forever.  That is a lot more important than smearing those of your own party that wish to achieve the same objective.

I believe I set out some questions and did not smear anyone.

[19] Posted by tom3111 on 10-17-2011 at 10:36 AM · [top]

I would like every one to go to Wallmart and get the DVD The Undefeated. It will show you some of the corruption in both the Democrat and Republican Party and how the GOP Establishment is running things now. Romney is their choice not the main bulk of the Republican base.  The GOP doesn’t like Sarah Palin because she took out the head of the Republican Party when she was Governor of Alaska for corruption. The GOP shuns her now for that reason. It’s a good movie and will educate you about what politics is all about now and how we have drifted far from what the government should be. The politicians should be our servants, not our masters.

[20] Posted by Marlin on 10-17-2011 at 11:11 AM · [top]

Tom3111
Get over the distaste, and tell me why he isn’t a bit-to-the-right-of-Obama RINO.

Romney’s tax ‘plan’ envisions ‘...In the long run, Mitt Romney will pursue a conservative overhaul of the tax system that includes lower and flatter rates on a broader tax base…’ well you don’t get much broader nor more flat than a straight 9% do you? 

And yeah, it sounds like you’re trying to smear Cain, calling his ‘simple plan’ a ‘Veneer of fancy packaging’.  I’m among those with questions about the sales taxes, but even with those bits left ‘vague’, Cain’s much more ‘upfront’ with his suggestions than Mitt.

[21] Posted by Bo on 10-17-2011 at 11:13 AM · [top]

Herman Cain has repeatedly supported TARP, doing so from its very beginning. He is (at least somewhat) a conservative socialist! He has continued to support it even in recent months.

He also thinks there is nothing wrong with the Federal Reserve System, which has been conclusively shown to produce both steady devaluation of the currency via artificially depressed interest rates (held down by regular increases in the money supply) and to produce the typical business cycle (e.g., the “boom and bust” cycle which we have repeatedly experienced since 1913 when the Fed was first established.

Finally, he thinks that running a business which operates on the principle of maximizing profits gives him the necessary understanding of how to manage a bureaucracy that produces no tangible economic good. He thereby demonstrates his abysmal ignorance of the nature of the beast which he promises to control—government.

The man is well-intentioned and sincere, but sadly he is, to put it bluntly, thoroughly unqualified to accomplish the reform of government without which the United States will find itself on the trash heap of history within a very, very few generations. Ronald Reagan understood the nature of the problem and even he was unable to cage the beast. How is someone who doesn’t actually understand the nature of the problem going to succeed. If Ron Paul is not the GOP candidate, I will consider a vote for Santorum if he is the GOP candidate. Absent either of those two, I won’t likely vote for the candidate of either major party.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
_____________________

– There are broadly three varieties of socialism:

(1) Soviet socialism, characterized by state ownership and control of the means of production;

(2) Social-democratic socialism, characterized by the presence of at least some private ownership of the means of production mixed with strict state control over what is produced in what quantities; and,

(3) Conservative socialism, characterized by generally common private ownership of the means of production with controls over production limited to such mechanisms as wage and price controls and other forms of regulation (laws favoring labor unions and guilds, to cite but one example.

None of these is a free market operating under the strict Rule of Law and the strict enforcement of property rights, in which ownership of any resource is limited to either original appropriation or free contractual exchange.

[22] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 10-17-2011 at 11:19 AM · [top]

Can’t do the Paul thing - citizenship is a birthright, and that’s non-negotiable for me.  I could vote for Santorum (or even Romney).

I’m with you in opposing the ‘bail-out’ - but a good bit of that money has ‘come back in’ already - and much of it went out as something of a counterbalance to the ills that befell those who were infected with Freddy&Fanny; Assets…

[23] Posted by Bo on 10-17-2011 at 11:35 AM · [top]

[24] Posted by J Eppinga on 10-17-2011 at 11:43 AM · [top]

Hi Tom3111, we’ve been posting on 1) politics, 2) culture, 3) music and the arts, 4) movies, 5) the academy, and 6) business for literally years now.  We try to clearly label all of those as “off-topics” and we further label anyones about politics as “political” so that the delicately minded and fragile may avoid those like the plague.

So it’s hard for me to believe that anyone who has been reading SF could be surprised that Jackie has posted on a political topic.

Further, Romney simply isn’t a conservative and I think anyone who has politically informed themselves recognizes that.  He loves central planning and believes in it, as a look at even his “reform policy” ideas demonstrates.  The only question is will it be a sufficient goal for conservatives to pursue “the defeat of Obama.” 

That’s certainly not my goal—otherwise I would have voted for McCain!  Heck—if that were my goal I’d vote for Hillary, who is definitely “less liberal” than Obama. 

But that’s not my goal.  My goal is conservative reform and voting for an electable candidate who is committed to the Constitution, individual liberty, the free market, private property, and limited government.  Otherwise, it’s just more of the same, only slightly less, or slightly more, or a whole lot more, and then slightly less again, in the coming decades, and I’m just no longer interested in any of those options as “the goal.”

I personally don’t think that most conservatives are interested in those options either, so I’m guessing we’ll have a McCain redux if Romney is the nominee.  As I pointed out continuously three years ago [and was loudly castigated for it too], and as was demonstrated by the demographic research post-election, a non-conservative Republican nominee would simply mean that masses of conservatives would not show up to vote—and indeed, this was shown in a look at the numbers of conservatives who had voted for Bush—certainly not a conservative—but didn’t bother to show up to vote for McCain.

If the Republican party wants to “play this game again” then so be it.  Their choice, of course.

[25] Posted by Sarah on 10-17-2011 at 11:51 AM · [top]

We must elect conservatives to Congress and the Presidency in 2012.  If we don’t and continue on the present course (with Dems or RINOs in charge - not that much difference) we will finally go over the economic cliff and drag the entire world with us.  We MUST reform Medicare, Medicaid and Socical Security, we MUST repeal Obamacare and we MUST pass a Constitutional Amendment to Balance the Budget, limiting the Federal Government to 15% of GDP.  Failure to do this means leaving our country and possibly the world to our children in self-destruct mode.

[26] Posted by B. Hunter on 10-17-2011 at 12:23 PM · [top]

To show my disgust at the GOP choices I’m going to write in Sarah Palin. She would be the best thing that could happen for this country. If you know her history and what she did for Alaska you can see this. She was the only reason I voted for McCain. Detested him and Romney would be worse. What they have done in the past is what they will do if elected.

[27] Posted by Marlin on 10-17-2011 at 12:25 PM · [top]

Marlin:  Well I will start with just 4 Executive orders on day 1 outlined in his job plan.  You can find the detail on either of the links in the original post.

1.  Pave the way for the end to Obamacare.  Yes I am cognizant of Massachusetts healthcare.  I do not approve of it.  I also do not live in Massachusetts. However that was a state issue not a national issue.  I do not know how much more clearly he can be on the repeal of Obamacare.
2.  Eliminate the impediments to drilling permits.  Owning property in Oklahoma and realizing the inherent problems created by Obama this is a real hot button issue to me.
3.  Reverse executive orders that tilt playing field in favor of organized labor. I could use adjectives that would get me kicked off this site to describe the importance of reversing the damage of this issue.
4.  Immediately initiate the elimination of Obama era regulations that unduly burden job creation.

As far as the smear Cain comment.  I fail to see how questioning the depth of a plan makes it a smear.  I meant exactly what I said about these trendy slogans as opposed to detailed (and at times admittedly boring) plan. I do not care if it is Cain or anyone else.  9-9-9 is a slogan not a plan and only addresses tax rates and we have a lot more to consider than one issue.

[28] Posted by tom3111 on 10-17-2011 at 12:34 PM · [top]

So far I’m for “none of the above.”
But they’ve got a year to convince me otherwise. LOL

Marie

[29] Posted by Marie Blocher on 10-17-2011 at 12:49 PM · [top]

You will never convince me Romney wouldn’t be a worse RINO than McCain. I have investigated his past. Romneycare is just one and he has openly stated he is pro-choice. He has been constantly on the liberal side and even bucked Reagan. But the Republican Establishment didn’t like Reagan either. You wouldn’t happen to be working for the establishment would you? If not you are surly sucked in by them. It is these clowns that Sarah Palin is butting heads with. And don’t count her out yet.

[30] Posted by Marlin on 10-17-2011 at 12:58 PM · [top]

Sarah, if was not my intention to disparage the content of SF.  I have probably been a consistent reader for a number of years.  I guess it was not the politics that surprised me but rather the individually directed article on a site that I normally agree with a very high percentage of the time. 

On a humorous note you mentioned you would have voted for Hillary.  Well, I currently live in TN and during the primary season I followed the Rush chaos idea.  The GOP race was totally irrelevant by the time TN voted.  It was also obvious Mc Cain probably would not win.  For the first time in my life I picked up a Democrat ballot and did vote for Hillary in the primary (at that point the Dem primary was still open) because I saw Obama for what people are now just discovering.  That was not a vote for Hillary by any concept.  It was my feeling about what Obama policies would be.

When you said you did not vote for Mc Cain I sure hope you were referring to the primary in you state and not in the general election.  I cannot imagine anyone with what I understand of your beliefs voting for Obama for any reason.

As far as Romney in the primary I guess we will just have to disagree.  Overall I do think he is fundamentally an economic conservative as I am also.  It does absolutely no good to nominate a non electable candidate. I really feel there is sufficient danger to America as we know it to preclude the reelection of Obama regardless of some of the differences we may have with individual candidates.  As for me I will vote for any of the GOP candidates and with enthusiasm do volunteer work to assure the defeat of Obama.  I hope others feel the same way.

Sarah, BTW, I do like SF and in normally agree with your posts.  I am one of those stubborn conservative traditional Anglo-Catholic Episcopalians (about the only one in W TN I would add) that still refuses to be driven out of the church by KJS and her gang.  So there grin

[31] Posted by tom3111 on 10-17-2011 at 01:01 PM · [top]

I would suggest to those of you just blindly jumping on the bandwagon and yelling 9-9-9 have you really investigated that entire plan beyond the fact it is slick marketing?

Yes. Down to financial assumptions and projections. I am VERY comfortable that not only does it work, but it eliminates the deficit in its entirety. Slick marketing? Hardly. But kind of what we conservatives have come to expect… folks resort to name calling and labels when facts escape their grasp.

[32] Posted by Festivus on 10-17-2011 at 01:19 PM · [top]

It is not safe to automatically assume that “Hillary!” is any less liberal than Obama. It is probably safe to assume that she would be more competent, but that wouldn’t make us better off. Also, given Romney’s past implementation of:
-State Managed Health care (Obama’s plan was based largely on Romney’s)
-Cap and trade ( Mass. under Romney imposed a plan that is eviscerating the commonwealth’s power generation industry)
- Stated belief in Anthropogenic Global Warming (while there may be a “scientific consensus”, whatever that is, there is little verifiable evidence for it.)
There is little to suggest that Romney is a conservative, (sentenced edited by administration)

We emphatically do not need another wishy-washy Rockefeller republican to get us out of the mess we are in. We need Ronald Reagan, but this time with a conservative congress. In this election cycle we may yet get one, but Romney is not it.

[33] Posted by Creedal Episcopalian on 10-17-2011 at 01:21 PM · [top]

I also learned from the Bible, 1 Samuel 8 to be specific, it’s not best to vote a certain way because you see someone as your “best opportunity” for success.

[34] Posted by Festivus on 10-17-2011 at 01:24 PM · [top]

Creedal Episcopalian

I respect the arguments of disagreement whether or not I agree.  However the following comment makes me as an Episcopalian embarrassed.  There was neither reason or justification for the snarky back sided inexcusable comment about the fact he is a Mormon.  [comment edited to remove reference to edited comment].  I only hope those that are so critical of Romney on this site do not have a deep seeded resentment or opposition to religion he practices. 

[deleted reference to edited comment].

Disagreements about policy, economics, foreign policy etc. are one thing.  Resorting to religious bigotry is quite another.

[35] Posted by tom3111 on 10-17-2011 at 02:05 PM · [top]

Administration:

Thank you.  Enough said

[36] Posted by tom3111 on 10-17-2011 at 02:22 PM · [top]

Creedal Episcopalian - I have to agree with tom3111 on the comment.  Although I do not believe you said it in malice, I edited that sentence to avoid the appearance.

tom3111 - I agree with you about the impropriety of the remark and have edited your comment to delete the reference although, as I said, I truly do not think that CE made the comment in malice. 

I would point out that I often post political articles.  If you read frequently, you will see that I have posted pro and con on both sides. 

As to Sarah, voting for Hilliary, I think you might want to read that comment again.  raspberry

[37] Posted by Jackie on 10-17-2011 at 02:23 PM · [top]

My abject apologies. I wasn’t trying to disparage Mr. Romney’s faith, just pointing out in an excessively flip manner that Mormons are often considered to be quite conservative, and that we cannot automatically assume that a professed faith tradition implies a political reliability. Sometimes I get carried away.

[38] Posted by Creedal Episcopalian on 10-17-2011 at 02:40 PM · [top]

CE - I never thought otherwise. 
As someone who is wired to respond with satire first, I completely understand.  Installing that governor has been tough - and it doesn’t always work.  raspberry

[39] Posted by Jackie on 10-17-2011 at 03:40 PM · [top]

Jackie,
  I appreciate your forbearance. I certainly don’t want to start arbitrarily ridiculing anybody for reasons of aspects of their faith traditions that may seem , mmmm, unusual to the non-cognoscenti. I mean, I’m still an Episcopalian! Hello? Pot? Kettle? Not sure I like where that leads…... oh oh

[40] Posted by Creedal Episcopalian on 10-17-2011 at 03:47 PM · [top]

Been doing some research on Cain’s ‘No’ on point #4 of the Susan B Anthony “pledge” list for pro-life activities.  Apparently, his ‘no’ is motivated by the constitutionality issue.  He feels that he as president cannot ‘advance’ such a law, but he said that he would in fact, sign it into law.  IOW, he feels the legislative branch should well, legislate and the executive, do their own thing. 

I think he could sign that in good conscience.  After all, one definition of the word, ‘advance’ is to ‘aid in the progress of,’ something.  If he claims ahead of time that he will vote for such a bill, then he is in a sense, already advancing it, right? 

But, I appreciate his integrity on the matter.  He doesn’t want to look slippery, so good for him.  Hope the Public sees it the same way. 

Have to look more closely on the other part of the pledge.  He’s all for the Defense of Marriage Act, but not hot on anything else.  Could be another false dilemma.

[41] Posted by J Eppinga on 10-17-2011 at 04:09 PM · [top]

Moot,
I rather like the ‘no’ on Constitutional Amendment and ‘Yes’ on DOMA.  He seems to be of the ‘let the states do as they wish, but the federal system isn’t playing along’ mind-set….

Consistent, understandable, and reasonable.
Much better than the other ‘top tier’ candidates….

[42] Posted by Bo on 10-17-2011 at 11:02 PM · [top]

This 72 year old , life long Republican will not vote for the Romulan.  I will write in Mickey Mouse on my ballot first.  Do this country go down the tube with great dispatch under Obama or more slowly under a Rino.  What makes the difference?  I am so damn tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.

[43] Posted by Old Soldier on 10-18-2011 at 08:15 PM · [top]

Rather than Mickey Mouse write in Sarah Palin. She is what the country needs right now.

[44] Posted by Marlin on 10-19-2011 at 06:03 AM · [top]

Sarah Palin????? You have to be kidding.

Read the detailed and specific plan of the only candidate who actually understands the problem and has thought through solutions that are able to achieve the desired results. Then come back and tell us what you think is wrong with it, and state those principles you hold that cause you to reject the part(s) you think are wrong.

I will tell you in advance that, insofar as I have been able to determine, no other candidate is even hinting that the Federal bureaucracy might need to be shrunk, let alone listing the departments to be eliminated. If you think another candidate has a better solution, provide a specific link.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[45] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 10-19-2011 at 11:08 AM · [top]

No I’m not. But before you say any more go to Wallmart and get the DVD “The Undefeated”, watch it and after learning something other than what you get from the media, you can comment on Sarah Palin.

[46] Posted by Marlin on 10-19-2011 at 11:19 AM · [top]

Marlin,

That is not “from the media!” I don’t rely on the media for information because they are almost to a person (reporter or editor), either biased, ignorant, misinformed, stupid, malevolent or (more typically) some combination of the aforementioned. That document is directly from the candidate’s campaign office. I don’t need a professionally produced DVD. I am fortunate to be of sufficient age that I was educated by the public educational system of my then home state when that institution still provided some measurable degree of actual education, including the ability to read and understand the written word.

I will, however, be happy to read her detailed plan of how she intends to address undoing the abysmal mess that the RINOs and Democrats (+plus the duty socialist from VT) have made of our nation’s government, legal system and economy over the past (at least) 79+ years. Perhaps you could provide a link to her campaign (or campaign committee’s) website, where I presume she would have her plan posted (always assuming that she has actually drafted one). I seen not to be able to locate it via Google searches, and it appears from an Oct 6, 2011, Reuters article online that she has no intention of running.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[47] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 10-19-2011 at 11:35 AM · [top]

Buy the movie. Watch it and you will have your answers. It’s all in the movie even why the GOP won’t have anything to do with her. She challenged the head of the Republican Party in Alaska and for corruption and won. It covers form her two terms as Mayor of Wasilla to her running for VP. It is a good and enlightening movie.

[48] Posted by Marlin on 10-19-2011 at 11:55 AM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.