Science Chic wrote: And you're working with old information, or misrepresentation. He may agree that climate change is real (which, by the way, most of the country does so you should catch up), but his energy plans are completely contrary to doing anything to mitigate it - it's my one beef with the man. He plans to limit the EPA's regulations and charge full steam ahead drilling and mining us into oblivion.
Ladies and gentlemen, for the sake of America’s economic and national security, we must unshackle ourselves from the scourge of foreign oil. So how do we do that? There are three basic steps that need to be taken.
So number one, we must increase domestic production.
Oil is a plentiful resource across America. From the Gulf of Mexico to Alaska, our country has abundant untapped resources. My administration will stand behind the Keystone pipeline, creating more than 100,000 American jobs while reducing our dependence on overseas imports. Hydraulic fracturing is also an opportunity to expand our domestic energy production.
Coal, while viewed with hostility by some, is one of America’s most abundant energy resources and the mainstay of many communities. This summer, in fact, we will likely see blackouts as a result of the administration’s assault on coal, which will take 8% of U.S. generating capacity offline.
On my first day in office, I will take three immediate steps to launch a sea change in energy policy. I will direct my administration to clarify rules that ensure the safe and rapid expansion of offshore drilling and fracking. I will move to open our fuel distribution network to all forms of energy, biofuels, natural gas and electricity. I will systemically begin to eliminate every subsidy for energy companies, whether it be oil, natural gas, wind or solar. Under my presidency, the United States will get out of the subsidy business. And if necessary, I will use my executive authority to act unilaterally.
[youtube:3dn79yrs][/youtube:3dn79yrs]
Healthcare:
http://jon2012.com/jon
In 2008, Jon spearheaded and passed comprehensive, market-based health care reform. While other states relied on government control and individual mandates, Jon delivered reforms that give consumers freedom to choose and negotiate their own coverage in a competitive marketplace.
Though its four sections are titled Tax Reform, Regulatory Reform, Energy Independence, and Free Trade, the plan contains significant health policy reforms that would dramatically improve the (shrinking) private-sector portion of our health-care system. Most importantly, it echoes the Simpson-Bowles “Zero Plan” for tax reform, from President Obama’s deficit commission, by eliminating “all deductions and credits in favor of lower marginal [tax] rates.”
My discussion of Huntsman’s proposals would not be complete without mentioning that, yes, he favors repealing “President Obama’s unconstitutional and unaffordable health care plan.”
[youtube:3dn79yrs][/youtube:3dn79yrs]
Plus, he's anti-abortion - how exactly does that make him like a Democrat? Oh wait, he doesn't oppose gay marriage and is pro-2nd Amendment. It would behoove you to take a closer look at the man and his record - he lines up better than any other with your beliefs as well Viking, except for acknowledging that climate change is real, which you'll figure out someday yourself. If you want a real chance at beating Obama, he's the guy you should support - no Independent is going to vote for Perry, or Cain, maybe Newt, but not enough to topple an incumbent.
So you are going by his promises not his record? Got it! Seems like a lot of Americans were suckered into that in 2008 too.
Utah has created a defined-contribution health care marketplace that increases consumer information and choice, and offers Utah employers cost-effective solutions for providing health insurance to their employees through the use of the Utah Health Care Exchange. The number of employers enrolling in the Exchange is growing, and its defined-contribution approach is reaching people who were previously uninsured. Utah’s reform was accomplished without imposing government mandates on Utah’s citizens.
As responsible elected officials, we sought input from a broad range of perspectives. Governor Huntsman and dedicated legislative leaders agreed to bring all stakeholders to the reform table to ensure every relevant perspective was represented. We all were committed to changing a system we knew to be unsustainable. We listened to every voice and everything was on the table for discussion, including mandates. After considering all feasible reform options, we determined that market-based principles — not mandates — were the right choice for reforming health care.
There has been much reporting of the fact that as Governor of Utah, Jon Huntsman held a favorable view of the individual mandate, the health insurance coverage requirement that has compelled conservatives to call the president's effort unconstitutional. The bill ultimately passed in Utah did not include the provision. But it was, as The Huffington Post's Jason Cherkis reported, dropped not because Huntsman personally opposed the idea but because political realities in Utah compelled him to do so.
After speaking to a group of voters in Exeter, N. H., the Huffington Post asked Huntsman whether it was fair to make the mandate a campaign issue when he once sympathized with the idea. He acknowledged that he had, indeed, considered a mandate. "It would be a dereliction of duty not to," he said. But he insisted, as he had before, that he never explicitly pushed the provision.
"When you are deliberating something as important as health care reform you look and analyze every conceivable option," he said. "[Y]ou look at everything, you analyze every possible approach, you bring in the experts and then you make a decision. And our decision was to move forward with a market-based model. And I do believe that that's likely where this country is going longer term.
He doesn't have any voting record on energy that I can find, so of course that one has to be based on what he promises. Considering that his supposed emphasis on alternative energy is nothing but promises, why weight them more than his promises on accelerating the tapping of fossil fuel sources? He never voted for cap-and-trade, only supported it, as did your 2nd fave Newt:
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/17/32 ... anity.html
This RPS program was started in in 1999 and mandated that Texas power generators collectively generate 2,000 megawatts (MW) of additional renewable energy by 2009. This goal was met by 2005 and Governor Perry supported and signed legislation to set new goals of 5,880 MW by 2015 and 10,000 MW in 2025. Under this program and others, Texas has become the largest wind power generating state in the nation. Governor Perry signed in the increased mandate into law, and on August 1, 2005 released a statement praising the legislation.
The more we can rely on wind, water and sunlight to power our homes and businesses, the less dependent we will be on foreign oil and the better our economy will be in the long run because of greater stability. And by taking steps now to reduce pollution we can ensure that the Texas of tomorrow is one where our children are free to live safer, healthier and happier lives.
To assist in distributing this power to the state, Governor Perry organized a private-public partnership with electricity companies. Despite opposing man-made global warming, Governor Perry has not only greatly expanded the Renewable Portfolio Standard, he pledged $10 billion in funds to wind energy in 2006. He has also pushed for clean air buses and other activities to reduce pollution.
Again, people can change their minds, but has Perry changed his? Does he oppose Cap and Trade on principle, as most conservatives say they do? Apparently he does not,
according to his actions as governor
. As with Romney on healthcare, Perry is completely supportive of a policy that conservatives say they are fundamentally opposed to, as long as the evil is perpetrated by the state governments rather than the feds. The chief difference between the Cap and Trade imposed on Texans and that imposed by the federal government seems to be that Texas measures emissions limits on the whole facility while the EPA measures it on every smokestack.
So, what do conservatives really want? If these polls are any indication, they want a good-looking former governor with a suspiciously liberal background who is good at spouting hardcore conservative rhetoric and then doing exactly the opposite once he gets into office. In other words, they want Ronald Reagan, the former New Deal Democrat who suddenly became a libertarian-leaning ultra-conservative and rode that rhetoric into the White House, where he promptly doubled the size and power of the federal government, raising taxes six times and further empowering the Department of Education that he promised to abolish.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Utah has created a defined-contribution health care marketplace that increases consumer information and choice, and offers Utah employers cost-effective solutions for providing health insurance to their employees through the use of the Utah Health Care Exchange. The number of employers enrolling in the Exchange is growing, and its defined-contribution approach is reaching people who were previously uninsured. Utah’s reform was accomplished without imposing government mandates on Utah’s citizens.
As responsible elected officials, we sought input from a broad range of perspectives. Governor Huntsman and dedicated legislative leaders agreed to bring all stakeholders to the reform table to ensure every relevant perspective was represented. We all were committed to changing a system we knew to be unsustainable. We listened to every voice and everything was on the table for discussion, including mandates. After considering all feasible reform options, we determined that market-based principles — not mandates — were the right choice for reforming health care.
There has been much reporting of the fact that as Governor of Utah, Jon Huntsman held a favorable view of the individual mandate, the health insurance coverage requirement that has compelled conservatives to call the president's effort unconstitutional. The bill ultimately passed in Utah did not include the provision. But it was, as The Huffington Post's Jason Cherkis reported, dropped not because Huntsman personally opposed the idea but because political realities in Utah compelled him to do so.
After speaking to a group of voters in Exeter, N. H., the Huffington Post asked Huntsman whether it was fair to make the mandate a campaign issue when he once sympathized with the idea. He acknowledged that he had, indeed, considered a mandate. "It would be a dereliction of duty not to," he said. But he insisted, as he had before, that he never explicitly pushed the provision.
"When you are deliberating something as important as health care reform you look and analyze every conceivable option," he said. "[Y]ou look at everything, you analyze every possible approach, you bring in the experts and then you make a decision. And our decision was to move forward with a market-based model. And I do believe that that's likely where this country is going longer term.
He doesn't have any voting record on energy that I can find, so of course that one has to be based on what he promises. Considering that his supposed emphasis on alternative energy is nothing but promises, why weight them more than his promises on accelerating the tapping of fossil fuel sources? He never voted for cap-and-trade, only supported it, as did your 2nd fave Newt:
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/17/32 ... anity.html
This RPS program was started in in 1999 and mandated that Texas power generators collectively generate 2,000 megawatts (MW) of additional renewable energy by 2009. This goal was met by 2005 and Governor Perry supported and signed legislation to set new goals of 5,880 MW by 2015 and 10,000 MW in 2025. Under this program and others, Texas has become the largest wind power generating state in the nation. Governor Perry signed in the increased mandate into law, and on August 1, 2005 released a statement praising the legislation.
The more we can rely on wind, water and sunlight to power our homes and businesses, the less dependent we will be on foreign oil and the better our economy will be in the long run because of greater stability. And by taking steps now to reduce pollution we can ensure that the Texas of tomorrow is one where our children are free to live safer, healthier and happier lives.
To assist in distributing this power to the state, Governor Perry organized a private-public partnership with electricity companies. Despite opposing man-made global warming, Governor Perry has not only greatly expanded the Renewable Portfolio Standard, he pledged $10 billion in funds to wind energy in 2006. He has also pushed for clean air buses and other activities to reduce pollution.
Again, people can change their minds, but has Perry changed his? Does he oppose Cap and Trade on principle, as most conservatives say they do? Apparently he does not,
according to his actions as governor
. As with Romney on healthcare, Perry is completely supportive of a policy that conservatives say they are fundamentally opposed to, as long as the evil is perpetrated by the state governments rather than the feds. The chief difference between the Cap and Trade imposed on Texans and that imposed by the federal government seems to be that Texas measures emissions limits on the whole facility while the EPA measures it on every smokestack.
So, what do conservatives really want? If these polls are any indication, they want a good-looking former governor with a suspiciously liberal background who is good at spouting hardcore conservative rhetoric and then doing exactly the opposite once he gets into office. In other words, they want Ronald Reagan, the former New Deal Democrat who suddenly became a libertarian-leaning ultra-conservative and rode that rhetoric into the White House, where he promptly doubled the size and power of the federal government, raising taxes six times and further empowering the Department of Education that he promised to abolish.
Or this where he used the excuse 'everyone was doing it'? And on top of that he said it was many many years ago that he supported it. It was 2008 when he was on the youtube video above suppoerting it. That is 3 years. And even As governor, Huntsman signed on in 2007 to a program among Western states and Canadian provinces called the Western Climate Initiative aimed at cutting regional greenhouse gas emissions 15 percent by 2020. Now he had an epiphany because he wants conservative votes? BS!
And I am glad Perry is for alternative energy ALSO. ON TOP of opening major drilling, not INSTEAD of it. But that has nothing to do with cap and trade. So I guess he can appeal to environmentalists too. Good. More votes! Next.....
[/youtube:14x762zr] Interesting how that video cuts off just as soon as he says he supports cap and trade and doesn't let the listener find out what he might've said next. This was 2008 - before the economy hit the toilet and cap-and-trade died a quick death. He's right that he wasn't the only one looking into it, and I'd much prefer a candidate who's willing to keep an open mind and modify/adapt his policies due to changes in the world around us - policy cannot be decided in a vacuum and if you notice, I've never once ridiculed Perry for his flip-flops. nice that you can forgive/excuse his but not Huntsman's...
Or this.....
to discuss Jon Huntsman’s past
support of Cap and Trade
Aren't you the one who repeats often that Perry made mistakes supporting Al Gore and mandatory vaccination, changed his mind, so let's not hold his past against him? Why is he getting preferential treatment over Huntsman from you?[/color]
Or this where he used the excuse 'everyone was doing it'? And on top of that he said it was many many years ago that he supported it. It was 2008 when he was on the youtube video above suppoerting it. That is 3 years. And even As governor, Huntsman signed on in 2007 to a program among Western states and Canadian provinces called the Western Climate Initiative aimed at cutting regional greenhouse gas emissions 15 percent by 2020. Now he had an epiphany because he wants conservative votes? BS! Yeah, and Perry used to support Al Gore - obviously he's changed his mind too, but where's your grudge there?
Huntsman acknowledges global warming is under way but argues cap-and-trade isn’t the way to address it.
And I am glad Perry is for alternative energy ALSO. ON TOP of opening major drilling, not INSTEAD of it. But that has nothing to do with cap and trade. So I guess he can appeal to environmentalists too. Good. More votes! Next.....
Would it seriously kill you to keep an open mind and carefully consider another candidate with the same criteria that you afford your current favorite? That's all I ask. You can't see this, but you will never win if Perry is the candidate selected to beat Obama so which would you rather have: 4 more years of Obama or someone like Huntsman who's cut taxes, passed a healthcare plan that didn't include an individual mandate, voted against abortion, voted for 2nd Amendment rights, and so far kept his nose clean in terms of personal scandal and seems like a decent, moral, upstanding guy? Romney's more than demonstrated that he's got no backbone whatsoever, Newt's got too much baggage, and no one else that moderates/Independents would vote for can come out to play, thanks to Republican party politics. So with that as a hypothetical, which would you choose? I'm curious.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Huntsman just doesn't come across as strong. He will never get the -R nomination because he's perceived as weak and some of his policies are just a bit too liberal for the new conservatives. I like his policies and stands on issues, but I don't think he'd be a good leader.
Photo-fish wrote: Speaking of Perry and the environment...
[youtube:2pcp1xvy]
[/youtube:2pcp1xvy]
GOOD FOR HIM!!
Finally someone is stepping up to help America! Nevada and Yucca mountain won't help America. If this country went more nuclear like France who is run by almost 80% nuclear, we not only would have the cleanest burning fuel in the world but we could end our dependency on foreign oil and fossil fuels which environmentalists whine about but refuse to let anyone do anything about it. SO if one area in Texas will take the reponsibillity for this they could change this nation! And in the interviews several said that someone has to do it and they are for it. Perry and Texas are so damn innovative!
If you want a real chance at beating Obama, he's the guy you should support - no Independent is going to vote for Perry, or Cain, maybe Newt, but not enough to topple an incumbent.
