He went on to revert to Hillary's questionable talking point about adding "green jobs," so one wonders if it was candor or he misspoke. Of course, he was right the first time. Democratic solutions to greenhouse gas problems almost certainly would slow down the economy, a point which they conveniently ignore in favor of fluffy rhetoric about saving the earth.In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."
At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? "Slow down our economy"?
I don't really think there's much debate that, at least initially, a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy….So was this a moment of candor?
That's what I appreciated about Mitt Romney's and Huckabee's answers on greenhouse gases in the debate last night. Republicans have to have a position on global warming. Pretending it doesn't exist, period, is a losing battle. We can dispute the science and tie environmentalism to security through energy independence, but we can't ignore that many, many voters care about leaving a cleaner earth. We have to find the right way to address that, and schooling Democrats about the economic consequences of their plans is a good place to start.