I’m sure you’ll all be shocked to hear that Mitt Romney has been caught completely reversing his previous position on an issue yet again, this time on energy consumption and support for conservation and alternatives to fossil fuels. Here he is in a 2005 interview with Chris Matthews:
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.
Conservation? Reducing our use of fossil fuels? Federal programs to help the poor? That’s great when you’re running for governor of Massachusetts, but it’s the kiss of death if you’re running for president as a Republican. So he did what he’s always done, changed his mind, without explanation:
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, 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.
And so, Romney has tailored his message accordingly, now saying that more oil production is the answer: “The best thing we can do to get the price of gas to be more moderate and not have to be dependent upon the cartel is: drill in the gulf, drill in the outer continent shelf, drill in ANWR, drill in North Dakota, South Dakota, drill in Oklahoma and Texas,” he continuesrepeating.
Round up the usual suspects.
12 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
slc1
October 4, 2012 at 12:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It should be noted that his comment about a shortage of natural is been overtaken by technology as, today, there is a surplus of natural gas as virtually all storage facilities are now full. The current Romney position on energy is to increase coal production, which, given the current supply situation of natural gas is ludicrous. It should be obvious that Romney doesn’t have a clue about energy production.
sqlrob
October 4, 2012 at 12:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@slc1:
You sure your conclusion isn’t three words too long?
Aratina Cage
October 4, 2012 at 1:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That was another part of the debate I thought Obama could have grabbed ahold of because he has been giving these oil companies much greater access to natural resources than I think he should have. By no means has he been hard on oil companies.
wpjoe
October 4, 2012 at 1:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That was a part of the debate where you could see Romney is in the pocket of big oil. Obama pointed out twice that it is time to end the federal subsidies for big oil. Romney wouldn’t say anything about that. He tried to make it sound like the billions given to oil companies are too small to matter.
However, the 450 million the feds use for public broadcasting apparently does matter. He is willing to take out Big Bird and everything good public broadcasting does to save that amount (and use for increasing military spending and tax breaks for the rich). What a fool.
Phillip IV
October 4, 2012 at 1:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If Dr. Heisenberg is right, we might simply not be able to pinpoint Mitt Romney’s position on anything because we look so closely at the speed with which he changes it.
slc1
October 4, 2012 at 1:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Phillip IV @ #4 wins the thread.
jakc
October 4, 2012 at 2:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And so, Romney has tailored his message accordingly, now saying that more oil production is the answer: “The best thing we can do to get the price of gas to be more moderate and not have to be dependent upon the cartel is: drill in the gulf, drill in the outer continent shelf, drill in ANWR, drill in North Dakota, South Dakota, drill in Oklahoma and Texas,” he continues repeating.
Only a small portion of the Williston Basin reaches into South Dakota. About 98% of the oil produced out of the basin is from North Dakota and Montana. Is it too much to ask an advocate of “drill baby drill” to at least know where the oil is?
And even some of the Republican ranchers in the part of SD where the oil is being produced are getting irritated with the impact of oil trucks on county/ranch roads (especially as the rancher might not own the mineral rights).
and Philip IV wins the thread! Perhaps someday he will formulate the “Romney Uncertainty Principle”
d.c.wilson
October 4, 2012 at 2:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If only we could harness the energy of Mitt’s flip-flops.
iknklast
October 4, 2012 at 3:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s really just the standard Republican plan – Drill, baby, drill. Of course, Obama has been increasing drilling, too. No one wants to say conserve.
Ichthyic
October 5, 2012 at 6:13 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
you know what really fucks up fuel efficiency?
tying your dog to the roof of your car.
eric
October 5, 2012 at 7:31 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think he has a clue and is just blatantly lying. Consider his (rhetorical) push for “energy independence” in the debate. You’ll never get the lowest prices by restricting who you use as suppliers. Want low gas prices? Then you can’t not import. Heck, if you want low anything prices, you can’t not import. Romney has to know this. He has to know that he is simultaneously advocating two contradictory policy positions – i.e., he will lower prices, he will and make us energy independent.
So, lying.
Ichthyic
October 5, 2012 at 3:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think he has a clue and is just blatantly lying.
no question really; this IS the case.