I grow weary of The Stupid. Really, I do. Presumably, Sen. Marco Rubio thinks he is made of presidential timber. I don’t know why he thinks that, but he doesn’t dissuade anyone from speculating that he will run for president, probably starting sometime next year. He told ABC News that he’s qualified to be president during a recent trip to New Hampshire, which is home to the all-important first primary in the presidential contest. His chief of staff, Cesar Conda, recently stepped down to run Rubio’s Reclaim America PAC, which Robert Costa and Ed O’Keefe interpreted as a sure sign that Rubio is planning to run. I have to assume he thinks he has a chance in hell of winning the nomination and then going on to be the 45th president of the United States. He’s young, telegenic, seemingly smart, handsome, fairly articulate, and he hails from a vital swing state and is a Cuban-American who helped pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the Senate.
It’s true that he lacks the kind of experience that you want to see in both a candidate for national office and a commander in chief, but he has all these other things working for him. So, why, Sweet Jesus, is he clinging to climate change denialism?
“I don’t agree with the notion that some are putting out there, including scientists, that somehow there are actions we can take today that would actually have an impact on what’s happening in our climate,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.” “Our climate is always changing. And what they have chosen to do is take a handful of decades of research and say that this is now evidence of a longer-term trend that’s directly and almost solely attributable to manmade activity, I do not agree with that.”
ABC’s Jonathan Karl pressed Rubio on his belief that humans don’t have anything to do with global warming.
“But let me get this straight, you do not think that human activity, its production of CO2, has caused warming to our planet?” Karl asked.
“I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it. That’s what I do not — and I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it. Except it will destroy our economy,” Rubio responded.
I didn’t see the video of these comments, but the way this comes across in print is that Rubio wants to make two distinct arguments. First, he’s expressing doubt that the near-unanimous consensus of climate scientists is correct. But he’s not really all that comfortable making that argument because he knows it makes him sound crazy. So, he makes a different argument, which is that there really isn’t anything we can do about climate change, and even if there were some things we could do, those things would destroy the economy.
The second argument is at least defensible. The first is not.
There are two possibilities here. One is that Marco Rubio is actually, despite all appearances, a complete dunce. The second possibility is that he has calculated that he needs to deny climate change and oppose all legislation aimed at mitigating it if he wants to raise the money he needs to win the Republican Party’s nomination. And he thinks the nomination would be a prize worth having even with him on the record as being a complete dunce.
I don’t know what I find more depressing: the fact that the Republican Party is in such a state of disrepair that Rubio could come to these conclusions, or the prospect that Rubio may be right, and this is the strategy that will put him in the Oval Office.
I don’t think his “stupid” is an act…he seems truly sincere in his ignorance…
If it talks like a dunce…..Acts like a dunce….
Conservatives seem to be employing the “4 stage strategy” on global warming.
In stage one, say nothing is going to happen.
Stage two, say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Stage three, say that maybe we should do something about it, but there’s nothing we can do.
Stage four, say maybe there was something we could have done, but it’s too late now.
Stage five, blame ObamaCare when the oceans rise and the crops die.
“What can be worse than to sell your soul and find it not valuable enough to get anything for it?”
— Garry Wills, “What Romney Lost”
Beware, Marco. You’re not the first to go down that path, and it didn’t lead to the White House.
I am so flatout weary of Rep’s stand-alone opinions where their sentence just stops after the “I don’t believe…” portion and never offers up a policy that they would promote. It can’t be said enough that policies that consist of “We’re going to repeal Obamacare” are simply empty. I’d suspect that if the Country lost its mind and elected Marco Rubio that his presidency would follow an early Bush model and do nothing but proclaim how busy it was fixing what Obama did with nary a moment spent on actual policies that grew this Country nor could he resist his serial flip flopping.
Note to Marco Boobio–our scientists (at NASA and elsewhere) have examined a wide variety of climate data from over 700,000 years ago, so speaking of “a handful of decades of research” is cretinous. There is actually nothing more to “research” as to the cause, nor is there any possible alternate explanation. As for our climate “always changing”, we had been in an interglacial period of essentially unchanging stable climate for over 11,000 years until the uncontrolled burning of fossil fuels ushered in the new man-made climate. You don’t know the difference between weather and climate.
But climate denialism has obviously become the litmus test of True Conservatism. If a candidate doesn’t deny, he isn’t “conservative”. There are two prongs to this pose. First is the institutional corruption angle—Rubio and his Repubs basically uniformly do the bidding of the nation’s fossil fuel/oil oligarchs, because they have been openly bribed by industry “campaign contributions”. As you say, the Repub prez hopeful certainly wants and needs BigOil money to get into the WH.
The second prong is that lib’ruls care about this issue and nothing is more crucial to the Right than to make sure lib’ruls are defeated, even if one suffers catastrophe as a result. One simply could not win the Repub endorsement with an active, vigorous display of imbecilic denialism. A party of imbeciles demands an imbecile to lead them, after all…
We have one major party that would enact and sign legislation that addresses climate change (Pelosi’s House did so and Obama would clearly have signed it), and one major party that denies both the need and the ability to address this existential matter. This can be added as another massive irrefutable difference between the parties.
Oops—“WITHOUT an active, vigorous display…”
Goddammit.
The only reason Republicans have denied climate change is because, up until recently, they could. More and more though, they just appear stupid and backwards when they talk about it.
Basically they’re arguing for pollution.
They’re not arguing for pollution. Half of them aren’t arguing at all – they’re putting their hands over their ears and shouting LA-LA-LA-LA-LA at the nasty, nasty libruls.
The rest of them are arguing for civilization collapse – the wealthy, because they mistakenly think their wealth will insulate them, and the yahoos, because they think their piety will insulate them, either here on Earth or after the Rapture. Pollution is just the means to the end, not to mention a sign of God’s greatness.
“Except it will destroy our economy,” Rubio responded.
This habit of words together as if in gag reflex is really getting old. Little does the audience know, but they all have draw strings behind their backs:
“There’s a snake in my boot!” Sheriff Woody
http://youtu.be/wlMuBSkVuzE
Any questions?
They don’t believe global warming is real or if it is real, that it has anthropogenic causes.
A representative person of this ilk usually has libertarian-ish views and is in econ or an econ-related field.
I am quite sure George Will is no dunce either, and there is no reason to doubt his skepticism.
People see what they want to see.
That said, I have no way of knowing what Rubio really believes either.
Dunce, not a dunce, I don’t think it’s that complicated. In order to have a hope of winning the GOP nomination, any candidate would have to deny climate change. Period.
The essence of the modern Republican – rather than cite any sources or experts, it’s all about what they believe. Rubio is fluent in that language.
“I believe …” out of the mouth of any candidate for public office should disqualify the candidate. It’s the words they use to forestall and delay what needs to be done at the public policy level and stroke the small-minded bigots who can’t deal with facts and/or change.
The numbers of politicians that didn’t say for over a decade that “I believe marriage is between one man and one woman” could probably fit into a phone booth. Over a decade (and counting in some states) squandered on denying certain adults equality, innumerable ballot efforts (including all the money and advertising that went into them) to deny or grant such rights, and significant numbers of legal suits to achieve equal rights. All because the so-called political leaders in this country lack courage and are allowed to hide behind “I believe …” without the honesty to say, “I believe it’s right to discriminate against some people and only my kind of people deserves certain rights.”
Me too.
Barack Obama, 11/01/08
Double talk.
1/20/2008:
And the most damning “I believes” as far as I am concerned…the one where the threw the truth-telling Rev. Wright under the campaign bus to assure his election. A sign of of the neo-Obama to come.
5/29/2008:
There are 30 more “I believes” on that Wikiquotes page linked above.
That 2008 time period was a heavy “believing” year for candidate Obama, wasn’t it?
‘Cuz’ he “believed” that he knew how to win the election.
And he was right.
Tell the people what they wanted to hear.
These “I believes” remind of an old Southern Baptist story.
So was Obama. Drowning us in platitudes.
Whatever works.
Here’s another favorite “I believe” of Obama’s from the same link:
All’s I have to say to that is:
The caption to that image?
“us-drone-strikes-kill-18-in-north-waziristan”
Multiplied how many times? And for what, really? For what? Innocents are most certainly dying in these strikes. “Blind Justice” might be a better name than “Predator” for these killing machines.
I got yer standards. Right there!!!
“It’s only collateral damage?”
The current state of the U.S. is collateral damage enough!!!
AG
Whatever makes you think that I didn’t and don’t know exactly what I said in my comment? I prefer not to be pedantic for a variety of reasons but mostly because it pisses off everyone, those that get it and those that don’t.
this John Oliver segment is pretty [tragically] funny and gives a more realistic picture
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/john-oliver-bill-nye-climate-change
The man made part of climate change points a boney finger at the heroes of the Rep capitalism framework. Rather than being a party of denial whilst Mother Nature is getting louder and louder, the Rep would be better served politically to show the leadership of their owners by developing solutions or get out ahead of the impending crash.
Clinging to the fossil capitalists must seem to them much like hearing that your father is an alcoholic or your mother a Kathleen Turner ‘Serial Mom’; your whole world falls apart when you realize the ones you look to for leadership have duped you.
Yes, talk about a bunch of dunces. If our benevolent overlords the Job Creators were really as smart as they’re supposed to be, they would realize that they can make just as much money by saving the planet as they can by destroying it. Smart capitalists would figure out a way to control the clean energy market so they can start gouging us on our solar rates.
Meh, not really.
Clean energy, such as through solar, wind, etc, would eventually drive down prices. It’s inherently renewable, and people are pretty good at deconstructing technology and rebuilding it cheaply and more efficiently at a fraction of the cost.
Fossil reserves are inherently limited and require a lot of infrastructure to start and end a market-cycle for a particular gallon of fuel, ton of coal, etc. Hence, easier to control and manipulate.
Not to mention, but when you’ve been wrong and wrong and wrong and wrong, the last thing you want to do if you want to keep your job is to admit it. Instead, you double-down and keep lying until it’s no longer possible, because it means more money and power in your own pocket, whatever happens.
When Republicans find themselves in a hole, they have to keep digging, else the potential mob standing at the top of the hole might not take too kindly to them.
I guess it’s just too much for some intrepid journalist to ask Rubio this question.
I get so damn tired that our “journalists” allow people off the hook when it comes to explaining their “beliefs”. Why are there no Jeremy Paxman’s on this side of the pond, willing to demand that people just answer the damn question.
Or like this:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yTXYlJNZ7tU
I believe these days such journalists find their access to primary, secondary and tertiary sources dried up, making them relatively useless to their employers.
Or, the inverse, when you consider access = power = money = inclusion into the club.
Such journalists find their access to primary, secondary and tertiary sources flush, making them relatively priceless to their employers.
I wouldn’t even ask him for research and documentation, because that just lets him point to some garbage like the NIPCC report. If he doesn’t buy “the way these scientists are portraying it,” he should have specific objections.
Or more to the point, to be worth paying attention to he would have to demonstrate that he understands the science he’s rejecting. Of course, to hold him to that the journalist would have to understand the science too, which is another serious deficiency.
I should have added “peer reviewed within the scientific community”.
Yes, the whole purpose of a direct question is to force a demonstration that he has at least an understanding of the science involved. Somehow the whole idea of “belief” has become sanctified in our political culture, and to force it to be subject to the rigors of scientific and rational analysis based on evidence has become completely objectionable. To thinking human beings who value thoughtful discourse and policy, this is simply maddening.
When you use the word “belief” or “believe”, it is a dogwhistle to your fellow tribe members that they too, should believe this way.
Hell, it’s an opportunity to tell your fellow tribe members that you’re one of them, and they are one of you, and to act accordingly.
Pointing to actual evidence implies that you are more thoughtful and possibly intelligent than the listener who likely doesn’t have that evidence.
Hence the faux anti-elite and anti-intellectual strain of conservatism since before recorded history.
Holy crap!! Someone actually asked Marco Rubio my question!!!
And as expected, he came up with nothing.
Rubio is a fucking idiot.
That’s why it’s a waste of time bashing journalists for any dissembling on their subject’s part.
Having been interviewed 100’s of times over my career, I can tell you there is an art to giving the answer to some other question, not the one asked, and attorneys like Rubio are especially skilled at it. He’s actually not a “fucking idiot” but he plays one on TV.
it’s possible he went to NH because there’s still lots of water there.
That second part is not substantially different from
irresponsible hack Robert Samuelson’s latest.
Credit-where-due, Samuelson does express support for the obvious, first, necessary-but-insufficient no-brainer that is a carbon tax. Though how this reconciles with his repeated statements that “there is no solution” (then why do it???) is left rather, erm, unclear.
Rubio knows he can’t win the GOTP primaries because of his attempted leadership on immigration reform. IMO he’s running for VP right out the gate and he knows nobody who can win their nomination will be supporting climate activism of any sort.
That being said, the entire GOTP, not just the narcissistic grifters like Rubio, has given up on even the appearance of modern credibility.
From Quayle to Palin to Mitt “Etch-A-Sketch” Romney, they do not think their rhetoric matters or that the government can do anything except enrich them and their cronies.
They’ve turned what’s supposed to be “public service” into a money-grubbing game in which the winner gets the most religious dupes and racists to vote for them while pocketing as much corrupt oligarch cash as they can. None of them seem to have any interest in policies other than deregulation, voter suppression, and forced pregnancy. Just like all the rest of them, Rubio’s all about Rubio.
Rubio may not be the most intelligent guy in America, but he is exceptionally skilled at getting people with money to give him money. That is what makes a great Republican candidate in the modern Republican party.
The VP gets to be the wild card in Presidential elections. Rubio, in supporting immigration reform, has no chance of winning the GOTP nomination, but yeah, lookie there, a latino name and a Republican R at the end of it. Whoopee!
At this point, I think we’re seeing the end of the modern Republican party. I think what is going to be left are the true believers who are clearly deranged, and the grifters who pretty much know better, but know the correct words to get idiots to part with their money and respect.