boutons_deux
10-01-2012, 12:54 PM
ROMNEY: "It‘s going to be a tough winter, for two reasons. One, the price of heating oil is going to be high, and number two, we are not going to have as much natural gas as we are used to, and that‘s because of what‘s happened in the Gulf. As a result, people are going to have to turn down their thermostats, we are going to have to do a lot in terms of insulation and conservation, and we‘re going to have to also have financial support from the state government and the federal government, and we‘ve just put in place a program to put in tens of millions of dollars in support for the poor, for those who are on fixed incomes and that are poor.
Ultimately, however, we have got to learn to use a lot less oil in this country, and that‘s efficiency. That‘s conservation, that‘s automobiles that use less energy. I proposed a plan that says…
But, ultimately, our ability as a nation to have a bright economic future relates to our reducing the amount of oil we have to buy from around the world as opposed to increasing it."
Today, Romney has completely reversed course on this position — even while polls show that far more Americans support promoting renewable energy (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/09/460485/pew-poll-clean-energy-is-a-political-wedge-among-republicans/) and efficiency instead of fossil fuels.
This dramatic change is not surprising considering the amount of money Romney has taken from the fossil fuel industry. According to a New York Times analysis (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/us/politics/fossil-fuel-industry-opens-wallet-to-defeat-obama.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2), pro-fossil fuel groups have donated $13 million directly to the Romney campaign or to political action groups supporting Romney. That compares to just $78,000 for the Obama campaign.
In addition, outside interest groups have spent $153 million on campaign ads promoting oil, gas and coal while criticizing renewable energy.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/01/933021/flashback-touting-government-financial-support-in-2005-romney-called-for-using-a-lot-less-oil-in-this-country/
:lol Holy shit, what a clown. Even $250M can't by any brains or scruples or principles for this fucktard.
Ultimately, however, we have got to learn to use a lot less oil in this country, and that‘s efficiency. That‘s conservation, that‘s automobiles that use less energy. I proposed a plan that says…
But, ultimately, our ability as a nation to have a bright economic future relates to our reducing the amount of oil we have to buy from around the world as opposed to increasing it."
Today, Romney has completely reversed course on this position — even while polls show that far more Americans support promoting renewable energy (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/09/460485/pew-poll-clean-energy-is-a-political-wedge-among-republicans/) and efficiency instead of fossil fuels.
This dramatic change is not surprising considering the amount of money Romney has taken from the fossil fuel industry. According to a New York Times analysis (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/us/politics/fossil-fuel-industry-opens-wallet-to-defeat-obama.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2), pro-fossil fuel groups have donated $13 million directly to the Romney campaign or to political action groups supporting Romney. That compares to just $78,000 for the Obama campaign.
In addition, outside interest groups have spent $153 million on campaign ads promoting oil, gas and coal while criticizing renewable energy.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/01/933021/flashback-touting-government-financial-support-in-2005-romney-called-for-using-a-lot-less-oil-in-this-country/
:lol Holy shit, what a clown. Even $250M can't by any brains or scruples or principles for this fucktard.