Waterboarding and Climate Change

Those two terms don’t have much in common unless you’re a 2012 Republican Presidential candidate running away from your prior positions on torture and the environment.

I’m referring to former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, or T-Paw as he’s known in his home state. Via Andrew Sullivan (who is all over Dick Cheney for claiming torture helped track down Bin Laden), I see that T-Paw has had a change of heart on waterboarding. According to Politico, here’s what he said during last week’s Republican Presidential debate:

“I support the use of enhanced interrogation techniques in limited circumstances,” he said, revising his position from two years ago when he declined to endorse waterboarding, citing the “damage it causes not only to the individual but to our values more broadly.”

The torture conversion appears to be less problematic for Pawlenty than his reversal on climate change. As the NYT reports, he was taken to task by the debate moderator for his previous support of cap and trade, prompting Pawlenty to beg for forgiveness:

“I’ve said I was wrong. It was a mistake, and I’m sorry,” Mr. Pawlenty told the Fox television audience, presumably filled with potential Republican primary voters. “You’re going to have a few clunkers in your record, and we all do, and that’s one of mine. I just admit it. I don’t try to duck it, bob it, weave it, try to explain it away. I’m just telling you, I made a mistake.”

Were it that simple. As this New Hampshire political blogger notes,

Pawlenty didn’t just talk the talk when it came to climate change. He walked the walk. In 2007, T-Paw signed Minnesota’s Next Generation Act into law, requiring the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 15 percent by 2015 and 80 percent by 2050. He also was a leading proponent of the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord (MGGRA).

Consequently, Minnesota conservatives, like this one, aren’t in a forgiving mood:

Ever listen to Pawlenty talk about energy? He likes to stick to the “drill baby drill” concept when he’s on FoxNews, because that’s what the right likes to hear. But if you live in the state of Minnesota, you know good ol’ T Paw has a lot of “green” flowing through his veins. In fact, I’m pretty sure his blood is green.

It’s pretty amazing to think that only three years ago, the leading Republican Presidential candidate said this:

“Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring,” he said at a Vestas wind turbine manufacturing plant in Oregon, where the environment is a central issue for voters. “We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great.”

Here’s McCain in 2007:

It’s inconceivable that any leading Republican candidate in the 2012 Presidential race will be talking like that about climate change.

13 Responses to “Waterboarding and Climate Change”

  1. kdk33 says:

    We could discuss BHO and debt ceilings or Guantanamo Bay or military tribunals…

    Politicians bend with the breeze; that’s not news.  But this:  “It’s inconceivable that any leading Republican candidate in the 2012 Presidential race will be talking like that about climate change.” is, and of the good kind.

  2. Keith Kloor says:

    kdk33–A nice refreshing, tea party breeze? Be interesting to see how long it lasts. Independents in the general election will likely inject some reason into the new, retrograde Republican talking points.

  3. Alexander Harvey says:

    Andrew Sullivan makes the claim:

    “… when torture was widespread in every branch of the services …”

    That is not true of the US is it. Its occurrence at military controlled sites was carried out via a subversion of the chain of command made possible in certain shielded circumstances, involving relatively few military officers working to guidance not distributed through the chain of command and based on rogue legal opinion.
    I think that sort of exaggeration is very counter productive, I believe that the Military were horrified by what happened and how it was achieved particularly that certain officers were persuaded that the Uniform Code of Military Justice could be set aside at the whim of Washington by their direct on site intervention.

    On the other hand that the statement: “I support the use of enhanced interrogation techniques in limited circumstances,” could be part of a political platform is deeply disturbing. The notion that the institutionalisation of torture should be a vote winner with the implication that it enjoys popular support in the US seems bizarre and tragic. 

  4. Jeff Norris says:

    Keith
    The base provides the funds and moderates and Independents win the election.  I think you should look at the new Pew report Beyond Red  vs. Blue.  Not just the conclusions but the details. http://people-press.org/2011/05/04/section-8-domestic-issues-and-social-policy/
    It clearly shows Independents less committed to Global Warming and many other issues than most liberals.  Republicans back tracking on AGW  makes perfect sense following the trend of the past 3 years.

  5. Jonathan Gilligan says:

    Don’t forget Newt Gingrich’s 2007 remarks: “My message is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading of the atmosphere. … And do it urgently, yeah. I think there has to be, if you will, a green conservatism.”

  6. Dana says:

    It’s been a stunningly rapid decline for the Republican Party.  Not just on climate science, but in terms of an anti-science and anti-environment sentiment in general (not to mention anti-middle and lower classes).  Surely it will cost them dearly in 2012.

  7. Jeff Norris says:

    Jonathan (5)
    I see your Newt 2007 and raise you Remarks of Senator Barack Obama, 4/3/06
    http://thinkprogress.org/obama-oil-speech/
    My point is not that either one is right but that making speeches is easy governing is tough.   Compare what he said we should do versus what he has actually accomplished. 
    Although it is ironic that he promoted Chicago Climate Exchange.

  8. Jack Hughes says:

    Re: Grauniad story…
     
    Anyone who can write
    “Stronger overhead power cables to avoid wire expansion and sagging in hotter summers”
    is writing garbage.

  9. kdk33 says:

    KK: A nice refreshing, tea party breeze

    More or less

    Dean: stunningly rapid decline for the Republican Party

    I’m thinking R’s will settle for more decline like 2010 – and twice on Sunday.

    Dean: anti-science and anti-environment sentiment

    Please

  10. harrywr2 says:

    “It’s inconceivable that any leading Republican candidate in the 2012 Presidential race will be talking like that about climate change”
    I seriously doubt there will be any Democrats putting ‘Climate Change’ front and center as well.
    Some ‘Climate Change’ advocates are still struggling with the concept that there are many reasons to transition away from fossil fuels.
    Some of those reasons play much better with independents then ‘Climate Change’.
    As an example
    I’ve got a friend that works in construction. He’s got a big ass truck, which he needs on some days. He’s  wracking up 1,000 miles per week getting to job sites spending in the neighborhood of $250 a week on gas.
    He’s seriously considering buying a Chevy Volt. He doesn’t care about ‘climate change’ or ‘saving the planet’. He cares about ‘saving his wallet’.
     
     
     
     
     
     

  11. The decline in question is of course not one of political potency, but one of intellectual integrity.  Alternately it can be seen not so much as a decline but simply a return to the Bush-era view that ‘we make reality’.  Inconvenient facts about nature ‘n’ stuff can be ignored or even denied.
     
    Yeah, that’s gonna work out just *great* for the USA.
     
     
     

  12. Paul in Sweden says:

    “He’s wracking up 1,000 miles per week getting to job sites spending in the neighborhood of $250 a week on gas.
    He’s seriously considering buying a Chevy Volt. He doesn’t care about “˜climate change’ or “˜saving the planet’. He cares about “˜saving his wallet’.”

    For your friend’s sake I hope science improves on super conductors because as it stands now your friend is going to need a mighty long extension cord.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *