Who wrote this:
“. . . farmers are also digging and planting corn and other crops that will be turned into ethanol that can replace gasoline in our cars. Most cars in America can’t run on ethanol, however, so who is going to install ethanol pumps at the gas station without the cars to run on it? At this point I would say to all of my hard-core conservative friends: Hold on to your hats.
“What we need is a government mandate! We need to mandate that all cars sold in the United States, starting with the 2010 model year, be ‘flex-fuel vehicles’ – that is, they should be able to run on a blend that is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline (the so-called E85 blend), or even a coal-derived methanol/gas mixture. This mandate would cost a fraction of the new fuel economy standard with the added benefit of saving barrels more oil.”
For the answer, we go to the name under the title of the piece:
So, he’s for “smart” mandates–of course. He’s just against health insurance mandates, especially if they’re mandated in Massachusetts and if Romney’s behind them. Or Obama.
HT Andrew Kacsyinski at BuzzFeed.
Interesting article by David Pimentel of Florida Coastal School of Law on overprotective parenting, the resulting laws, and the implications for so-called free-range parents (I’m probably one). From the abstract:
In the last generation, American parenting norms have shifted
strongly in favor of Intensive Parenting, placing particular emphasis
on protecting children from risks of harm. Recently, a backlash to
this trend has emerged. “Free Range” parenting is based on the
concern that coddling children through overprotection inhibits the
development of their independence and responsibility. Indeed, a
growing body of literature suggests that parental overreaction to
remote and even illusory risks of physical harm is exposing children to
far more serious risks to their well-being and development. But the
powerful influence of media has sensationalized the risks to children,
skewing popular perceptions of the genuine risks children face and of
what constitutes a reasonable or appropriate response to such risks.
Consequently, individuals who do not buy into Intensive Parenting
norms, including those from different cultural and socio-economic
backgrounds, may be subjecting themselves to criminal prosecution
for child neglect and endangerment.
It appears that I’m on the anti-nanny-state warpath this morning, what with my Tweet about Santorum’s take on gambling.
I support Romney. To me, he’s far and away the most competent and experienced person to run for President in, like, forever. I won’t review his resume here in detail–2001 Olympics, Governor, Bain, etc.–but it is impressive, especially when punctuated by his $250 million net worth. Likewise, Reagan was competent and experienced. He was president of SAG. He did the lecture series for GE. He was governor of California. He had run for president once before. The guy had experience in spades.
Now contrast R & R with the others running for office. Santorum has 12 years in the Senate and a few years in the House. That’s nothing to sneeze at, but where’s the executive experience? Gingrich was Speaker of the House, where he had a successful run until it was no longer so successful. Since then he has headed a bunch of pompous sounding organizations, set up, I gather, to advance his ideas. Oh, and then there was that lobbying, er, historian stint with Fannie Mae. Paul? Enough said.
So where do their supporters retreat? To the Garden of Eden of Reagan conservatism. And Romney–to them–doesn’t measure up. To what? To Reagan’s conservative credentials? Okay. Romney is not as conservative as Reagan–or Santorum or Gingrich (balderdash on that one). But he matches and even exceeds Reagan as an executive and as a fixer. Add 2 (executive experience) + 1.5 (conservative credentials) and you get 3.5, which is at least .5 points more than I would give Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul. At least that’s what I think.
It took me awhile, but I came around. I admit I bit into the Establishment-is-out-to-get-us apple, but I’ve had my fill. The claim no longer makes sense to me. Besides, many of its messengers come off as what you might call a New Establishment or the Tea Party Establishment, pushing candidates so flawed as to be unelectable. Newt Gingrich, for example. Sarah, Rush, Sean, and the like are all behind him, pushing for all they’re worth. The Establishment is out to get him? Please. I’m a sometimes blogger, more often Facebook poster, who lost his taste for Gingrich histrionics long ago. His full-throated debate attacks on the MSM became the new Race Card in my eyes, a card he played so often and so transparently that I began to mouth Reagan every time he laid the card on the table, “There he goes again.” I’m no Establishment guy, but I’ll do everything in my power to prevent Mr. Gingrich from earning the Republican nomination.
As for Sarah Palin, the little Nash Rambler from up north: Where are your scruples young lady? Since when did the Tea Party decide to support a twice divorced, thrice married womanizer? A candidate with so much obvious baggage and so little discipline? And why, if you dislike Romney so much, are you not pushing Santorum, the one candidate with real Conservative bona fides? (I’m a Romney supporter, by the way.) No, Sarah, yours is a call I won’t respond to.
Romney had to stare down Gingrich in the last Florida debate, and he did a wonderful job of it. Very strong debate for him tonight. Santorum was even stronger, but unfortunately for him, he’s too far behind in Florida for it to matter (or is he? Remember Iowa). The three most recent polls (Thursday, January 26) out of Florida give Romney a lead over Gingrich of an average +7.67 points. His lead over Santorum averages out at +29. Doubtful he can make that ground up.