Like the chairman of the Democratic Governor’s Association, Montana’s Brian Schweitzer, Republican Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty now says he thinks cap-and-trade is a bad idea. In an interview Wednesday night with New Hampshire Watchdog reporter Grant Bosse, Pawlenty said the scheme was harmful to the economy and jobs, but he still holds to the idea that carbon dioxide is “pollution:”
Pawlenty, who until recently was a cheerleader for state- and regional-level greenhouse gas limitations, unfortunately is like Montana’s Schweitzer in another way. While they both have spoken against cap-and-trade, they are each keeping their respective states as participants in such agreements on a regional scale. Montana is part of the Western Climate Initiative, which is run by the Western Governors Association, yet Schweitzer’s made no move to match his actions with his rhetoric.
Pawlenty, who as chairman of the Midwestern Governors Association enthusiastically led an agenda to fight global warming, entered his state into the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord — and it remains there. The goals of the accord are:
If that doesn’t sound like the economy- and jobs-killer that likely presidential candidate Pawlenty says he now opposes, I don’t know what does. So when will he withdraw Minnesota from this commitment?
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?