Christine O’Donnell on Mitt Romney
Feb 17th, 2012 by Tennessee Walker
Christine O’Donnnell has taken some hits from some former supporters and Tea Party activists for her support of and endorsement of Mitt Romney. In this link Christine outlines her preference for Mitt over Rick.
Christine states that ”
Former Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell told The Daily Caller that former Sen. Rick Santorum’s “fiscal record is more liberal” than Gov. Mitt Romney’s “social record”.
While the wording is a little clumsy, Christine has a point. Anyone who has explored the Romney total record as Governor will find a Conservative Governor who did battle every day with Liberal Democrats. Since I have friends and relatives who live in Massachusetts, I have been privy to some of the attitudes of Conservative Republicans in that state. (Yeah, I know both of them 
)
Romney vetoed over 800 pieces of legislation. Many times the laws were passed over Romney’s veto. Some of the criticism of Romney involves laws passed over his original veto.
Christine also makes it clear that she considers Romney’s early support of her in 2010 to be part of her belief that Romney holds Conservative Views.
She States.
“He was the first one in in my race. I’m talking about, you know, CPAC 2010. Gov. Romney was there with me when so many conservative leaders were still sitting on the fence.”
“They [tea party] would support him more if they recognized that Sen. Santorum’s fiscal record is more liberal than Gov. Romney’s social record.”
O’Donnell encouraged tea party members to stop listening to the sound bites saying that Romney is the establishment candidate “because he’s not.” She said Romney “has a record of going against the establishment.”
I agree that Santorum’s record is shockingly progressive, in terms of role of government, growth of government, federal spending, raising the debt limit, etc. Somehow, he’s managed to portray himself as a small-government candidate, and a lot of people are falling for it. But Santorum and Romney aren’t the only candidates in the race; Santorum’s flaws shouldn’t automatically push us to Romney. Paul and Gingrich are no less deserving of our consideration.
What bothers social conservatives the most about O’Donnell’s endorsement of Romney, I think, is that abortion was a central issue in her campaign against Castle. She and her supporters criticized Castle’s pro-choice record relentlessly. So it’s not surprising that her Facebook posts in support of Romney are now filled with critical comments from former supporters who felt betrayed by her endorsement of the Mike Castle of Massachusetts.
Who cares what COD thinks?
Fair Critique Chris. As one who was on the ground from 2007 till 2010, i think Castle beat himself with his votes against the Bush surge in Iraq and his vote for Cap and Trade in 2009.
For the record I like Rick Santorum and I think he is in the long run a much better candidate than Newt. However in my view the setting up of a meme where Mitt Romney is the whack job liberal and someone else is the true conservative plays into the hands of the liberals. Anyone who takes a whole look of the entire record of all of the candidates cannot come to the conclusion that there is a significant difference between the frontrunning candidates.
Christine O’Donnell makes a very good case for her support of Romney. I think people should actually watch the video before commenting. I certainly welcome posts that are responses to her actual statements. That she is being criticized for endorsing Romney says more about the critics than her.
For the record Romney says he is pro life.
“Castle beat himself.” –Comment 3 Oh my. May I suggest a better wording?
Can’t you do better than a severely truncated version of a comment?
kavips do you actually have a comment based on the COD interview that I have linked. If you don’t have a comment I consider appropiate I will delete your comments. I gave eveyone fair warnig in my initial post.
“Christine also makes it clear that she considers Romney’s early support of her in 2010 to be part of her belief that Romney holds Conservative Views. ”
Of course at that time Romney knew he would be running for president again, and would have to start laying the groundwork to curry favor with tea party conservatives to avoid having them come back and bite him in the soft parts.
Think about it. This is the guy that John McCain beat. Has he somehow gotten better by doing nothing but sitting around and waiting to run again (aside from collecting dividends and interest).
“He was the first one in in my race. I’m talking about, you know, CPAC 2010. Gov. Romney was there with me when so many conservative leaders were still sitting on the fence.”
Does anyone really believe that Mitt Romney was in the O’Donnell camp in February 2010, before the state convention and before the primary? Romney was not “with” O’Donnell before the primary, he was solidly in the Castle camp, just like he was solidly in the Rollins camp in 2010 until after the primary.
“Does anyone really believe that Mitt Romney was in the O’Donnell camp in February 2010″
Lol. Of course he was. He’s the only real conservative in the race. He has a solid Christian background and would never sign a law requiring insurers to cover contraception for employees of religious institutions. Well, except for the one be signed into law in Massachusetts, but as he explains that was totally different from, uh, something. And, as pointed out in the OP, anything good that happened in MA when he was governor was something he did. Anything bad that happened in MA is someone else’s fault.
And, look, he saved the Olympics. By lobbying Congress successfully to fork over 1.8 billion dollars on things like improving ski resorts in Utah, we all got to see Chinese and European athletes show us how great it is to have socialism and world peace.
“Some of the criticism of Romney involves laws passed over his original veto. ”
How about an example. Name just one.
Identify a SINGLE bill over which:
(a) he has been criticized, and
(b) was passed over his veto.
Just one. I’ll go fix a sandwich and come back.
Does the COD endorsement actually mean anything? Is there really anyone whose vote would be swayed by such an endorsement? Finally, I would suspect that the primary reason for the endorsement is that it could conceivably translate to an appointment in a Romney administration. After all there are 3,000 plus jobs at stake. It cost nothing to endorse, with the prospect of future employment.
Anonymous I don’t recall any statement made by Romney supporting either Castle or O’Donnell. It is Christine who says that Romney supported her as early as the CPAC convention of 2010.
As for Michelle Rollins, she was an early supporter of Romney in 2008 when the so called establishment was behind John McCain. Michelle Rollins held a fund raiser for Mitt Romney at her home in 2008. The fact that Romney would support Rollins in 2010 after her financial and personal support in 2008 is hardly a stretch.
O’Donnell says a lot of things, like she won 2 out of 3 counties against Biden in 2008 and that Sean Hannity is going to come to Delaware and raise money for the GOP.
If Romney supported her in February 2010, why didn’t she ever mention it? Not at the Convention when she addressed the regions, not during the primary ever, and not after Romney endorsed her after the primary? It’s BS, but it does make Romney look good.
I don’t think that the post was meant to be about such things as whether or not voters should follow Christine’s advice, but whether it is CORRECT that conservative Republicans should get behind Mitt Romney for the reasons Christine advances. (Not because Christine said it, but considering WHAT she said.)
Far from defending Christine’s endorsement at the time, I argued that it seemed premature, and that other candidates might still offer better leadership. I did not want to disparage Romney, but wasn’t ready to abandon other candidates just yet.
But this is now 3 months later. Has the time come when Christine’s argument, whether wisely prescient or premature in mid December, becomes the most persuasive argument? I am — reluctantly — persuaded.
The reality is that none of the candidates are perfect and supporters of every candidate can find something to criticize about all the others. But we’re not choosing a Greek demi-god, but simply an ordinary man (sadly not a woman) to do a job. If there had not been just so darn many candidates, long ago one would probably have emerged more strongly and much earlier. And then everyone would be looking at the glass being half full instead of half empty. Instead of looking for faults in all the other candidates, we would now be busy defending one as our guy. The faults that now loom so large in the “other” guy we would be busily arguing aren’t all that bad.
As I interpret what Christine said in December, Christine was arguing if we are going to end up at that point sooner or later, can we just skip ahead over all the acrimony and pain and divisiveness and just get there “right now” (in December)? (Many times before, Christine has been right when I was wrong, long before I could recognize it, just as surely as sometimes I have been right when she hasn’t see it yet.)
I do think that Christine’s team (and presumably Romney’s) could have prepared the ground better. When her endorsement surprised her supporters, it upset people (like Evan Q. most notably).
“It cost nothing to endorse, with the prospect of future employment.”
Employment? Are you crazy? This is Christine O’Donnell we’re talking about.
Okay stop the bus! I have to get off because no one told me this bus was headed to bizarreville. T W is quoting Christine O’Donnell to make a point? Really? The same T W who was one of the most outspoken critics of Ms. O’Donnell? The same T W who made the case that she couldn’t be trusted, that she was not fit for office? But now she agrees with him so now she is some sort of sage? Come on T W you are better than that, don’t take the easy road, stick to your guns, hold to your principles.
Look I supported Ms. O’Donnell, but I was outspoken against Mitt Romney, I see nothing new about him to change my mind, not even an endorsement from Ms. O’Donnell, which I must say smells a little of political payback, or one might even say, “Lords of the backroom”. I still believe Ms. O’Donnell would have been a better choice than Mike Castle and certainly better than Chris Coons, but this endorsement I do not understand.
“Okay stop the bus! I have to get off because no one told me this bus was headed to bizarreville.”
Headed to? Frank, it’s been stuck dead smack in the center of that town with four flat tires and a broken transmission for a while now.
And, here you go….. Mitt Romney got $1.8 billion – with a “b” – in federal earmarks so he could “save the Olympics”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY29UIpGhAs
TW. responding to comments 4 & 5… Sorry about the terseness of my comment 3. Actually I was concerned about the language so was tactfully giving a heads up over a piece that could have been profanely interpreted….. I was expecting it to be edited and then to have my comment deleted since is served no other purpose….
I’m sorry I didn’t respond or see you comments until now. I was watching the video of O’Donnell at CPAC and that guy standing beside the reporter holding his phone, recording all the conversation….. I then left the thread so missed your queries…
Bottom line is: Christine O’Donnell has every right to chose and support whomever she wants… She made a good case for Romney, although I am now interested in the question of how many vetoed bills actually were passed….. Does anyone know? It sounds plausible that 700 bills would be passed over a Republican governor’s veto…. after all, it is MASSACHUSETTS!!!! …
From the video it is apparent that Christine’s choice is because of her past experience with Romney. She has had no contact with Santorum, nor any contact with Gingrich. Were I in her shoes, I would too, go with the one who had once talked to me personally……
All should remember this. The whole idea of a primary is to figure out which candidate can garner the most support from your party. There should be arguments back and forth. That is what a primary is… But.. arguing about people other than those actually running, is probably not only a waste of time, but also, counter productive…..
Kavips, when Christine first endorsed Romney, she explained that she did reach out to all the candidates, in the current context not just in the past, and she was impressed that Mitt Romney answered all her questions and concerns. She implied that the other candidates DID NOT communicate with her. LESSON: Romney ran a better campaign. His people actually answered the phone, actually got back to people, and actually discussed and answered a potential endorser’s questions. I.e., Romney’s team did a better job in campaigning and *earned* people’s endorsements. And one can extrapolate that a campaign that never gets around to returning phone calls is more disorganized and has less chance of beating Obama. Now, I think Christne put too much emphasis on what Romeny SAID. But when a candidate is organized and effective in the primary, to another candidate that looks impressive. The average conservative is not looking at organizational ability when considering the candidates. I don’t think Christine put herself in the shoes of the average conservative, to realize that she needed to explain more fully what an important role organizational competence played for her in evaluating the candidates. For example, NONE of my 1st, 2nd, or 3rd favorite candidates reached out to obvious, well-known conservatives in Virginia to collect petition signatures for the ballot all Summer long. Lack of preparation and organization really hurts. I was disappointed that candidates I would prefer over Romney just never got their act together.
I know Nan was going to put together a week training program by having a conservative organization come in to Delaware and run a customized version of their “Campaign Managment School” in Delaware. Maybe she did already. But it would be good to support efforts like hers.
Ok I actually agree with Jonathan Moseley in comment 20. For some reason certain Conservatives have a problem with simple competence which the Romney Campaign displayed with COD.
I know it’s early. I know that in ’10, the GOP enjoyed the biggest gains in decades. I know Omaba is an unmitigated disaster.
I also know I have a bad feeling about this election.
Rick, I have a bad feeling about Republicans (or anyone else) who think that success is automatic if they just pick the right candidate, or who think for any other reason that the whole thing just falls into place.
You can have the best football team in the world show up on the field, but they still have to IMPLEMENT a good game. They still have to come up with a good game strategy and good individual plays. They have to function as a team. They have to be “UP” and have their heads in the game. They have to put the team first, and not their individual feelings or egos. They have to “leave it all on the field.” A great team doesn’t win simply by showing up. Walking out on the field is the beginning, not the end.
However, if gas prices start hitting $5 a gallon in isolated places — I think I saw $4.90 something in some place like Los Angeles on a website — we could be heading for a Republican landslide. I have an apolitical friend who understands politics better than most politicos. She jokes that if gas hits $5 a gallon the rednecks (Southern Virginia) are going to go get their guns.
That’s right, Jon. Just keep hoping for economic conditions to head downward. Cross your fingers and hope that truckers can’t make a living, and the cost of everything shoots up. Pray that it gets especially bad for poor white folks in Appalachia.
He’s right, Rick. With the right luck things wil really go badly for a lot more people.
The US exported, that’s right, exported a record amount of gasoline last year. Just forget about the cartel that primarily controls the supply and price of oil. Just ignore the fact that petroleum products from the US are sold on the global market to the highest bidder – who is not us.
If enough people have their lives ruined in the next couple of months, they won’t care whom they vote for!
#25 Nitpicker “The US exported, that’s right, exported a record amount of gasoline last year.”
That’s correct. While we import oil, what a lot of folks do not realize (or choose to ignore, take your pick) we are exporting gasoline. Refineries are running at capacity and we produce more than we use. Any idea why gasoline prices are high? If we get a Republican President, will that cause some of that gasoline supply to not be exported? Will the new President twist the arms of the gasoline produces to sell gas cheaper here in the states when they can get more money by exporting? I’d certainly love to hear the theories on how a change in administration is going cause gasoline prices to decrease!
Nitpicker, for one aiming to pick nits, you are leaping into oceans of assumptions carelessly.
I am hoping for prosperity. Republicans told Democrats and the country why their policies would lead to this, and Democrats chose not to listen. When people are warned, but insist on self-destructive behavior, what can you do? The Democrats ignored the warnings, and now they must pay the price.
First, it is a disease in our political culture that to observe a fact is confused with ADVOCATING for the outcome. If we are driving along and I observe that the bridge on this road has collapsed according to the newspaper, someone in the political realm would accuse me of being in favor of bridge collapses. No, just reporting a fact. In fact, pointing out that we can’t keep traveling this road because the bridge has collapsed reflects my general opposition to collapsed bridges and my desire to avoid them at all costs by taking a different road. Yet, pointing out a fact is demagogues into ADVOCACY. There is a hurricane coming, you should prepare. “Oh, say, you are in favor of hurricanes causing death and destruction? That’s terrible.” Better to PRETEND that there isn’t a hurricane coming?
If gas hits $4.50 much less $5.00 a gallon, it will clearly be Obama’s fault. Not only have Democrats pursued policies driving up the price of oil — including bungling the “Arab Spring” and causing more instability and danger in the Middle East — but Republican warnings for the last several years have been loud, consistent, conspicuous, and persistent. So the voters know who is responsible, because it has been repeated very loudly.
A generation or two ago, there was an angry debate “HOW LOST CHINA?” How did the West fail to prevent the communist take-over of China by an illegitimate government (I refuse to recognize the illegal government, not that any one cares what I think on the subject). There were recriminations and anguished debates about the West’s foreign policy failures.
Yet Obama’s failure to restrain, or even lift a finger to try to restrain, a nuclear powered Iran, and his seeming encouragement of the Jihad-determined Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Libya, etc., goes almost unnoticed. The world instability driving up the price of crude oil has no greater cause than Barack Obama, at least by Obama’s total inactivity, inattention, and neglect of playing a positive role in these crises.
Okay, lesson: Don’t post before having coffee. It is “WHO LOST CHINA?” obviously. And I meant to write: There is a hurricane coming, you should prepare. “Oh, so, you are in favor of hurricanes causing death and destruction? That’s terrible.”
I still have morbid curiousity about how the brain can type words that sound similar but look completely different, because the fingers type very differently to type the wrong words. It seems that sounds dominate over finger movements in the brain.
So, the point is that we should have supported Khadafi and other dictators in the ME to keep gas prices low, because those countries would never dream of limiting production in order to control the price, their populations be damned.
Then you agree that if we hadn’t supported Israel, the 1972 Arab oil embargo, during which we saw gas rationing for the first time, was the result of failure to keep Arab dictators happy?
As Dave points out, the simple fact is that our refineries produce more gasoline than we consume, and we are an exporter of gasoline. Can you explain what that has to do with the Arab spring?
It doesn’t matter how much ‘gasoline’ we produce- it’s how much oil we import.
It is possible that $5 gas could derail Omaba- very possible.
Look for BO to announce (around July) that he’s ready to re-think the pipeline deal- to ‘save the American people from Big Oil’s excessive profiteering,’ of course.
“Look for BO to announce (around July) that he’s ready to re-think the pipeline deal- to ‘save the American people from Big Oil’s excessive profiteering,’ of course.”
I’ll file this prediction right next to the one about President Perry.
The pipeline has no ability to affect the price of oil until it has been completed.
The pipeline has no ability to affect the price of oil until it has been completed.
So what? ‘Hope and change’ was bulls#!t, too, but enough suckers fell for it to put BO in the White House.
I agree. But I’m not the one who claimed Obama would respond to higher gas prices by approving a proposal that wouldn’t do anything to bring them down, unless you think that it will just be a BS job.
Nitpicker asks in #29: “As Dave points out, the simple fact is that our refineries produce more gasoline than we consume, and we are an exporter of gasoline. Can you explain what that has to do with the Arab spring?”
(1) Because the refineries have to BUY crude oil at world prices in order to crack the crude oil into gasoline. So the price of gasoline at the pump is based on the world price for crude oil.
(2) Because we have a world market price for both crude and refined gasoline, it is irrelevant how much gasoline the USA imports or exports. Crude oil and gasoline are FUNGIBLE products. So the price is global. World supply and demand determines the prices — not whether gasoline is imported or exported from the USA>
For Nitpicker in #29: SURE, we should handle complex and volatile problems in foreign policy by swinging from one extreme to the other. Uh-huh. Is there nothing in between?
Remember that Barack Obama sold us on his greater ability to handle foreign policy because he had lived overseas, he had grown up in a Muslim country, he understood global sensibilities, and he was not doctrinaire, ability to deal in subtleties and nuances that escape conservative “cretins.”
Oil prices are soaring on UNCERTAINTY & RISK, not mainly oil output. That fear is a reflection of Obama’s failure to manage and influence the volatile developments.
The problem is Obama encouraging and supporting bad groups in Egypt and Libya. Of course, we wanted to get rid of Khadafi… but by replacing him with someone better, instead of someone worse. Obama’s open support for the very worst influences in the region has made things worse.
Obama’s goal should have been to influence the transition of these countries from something bad to something better, instead of BAD TO WORSE.
For Nitpicker
Romney was roundly criticized for two changes to Romney Care. One provided free care to low income wage earners. The other provided free dental care to those same wage earners. Romney vetoed both, stating the financial viability of the program was based upon everyone paying something. ThenLegislature overrode both vetoes.
“Obama’s goal should have been to influence the transition of these countries from something bad to something better, instead of BAD TO WORSE.”
So am I to assume that you’re OK with foreign governments trying to influence Americans when they choose their representatives? Or is it something that only the US is allowed to do?
But I’m not the one who claimed Obama would respond to higher gas prices by approving a proposal that wouldn’t do anything to bring them down, unless you think that it will just be a BS job.
I absolutely think that he’ll ‘re-open’ the Keystone deal. He has to, to make it seem like he cares about gas prices. Of course, he actually <i.wants high gas prices- he has stated as much- but not during election season (of course, with BO, it’s always ‘election season’).
No, the pipeline won’t immediately lower gas prices. But, I thought Omaba’s ‘first priority’ was jobs- the pipeline will immediately create jobs.
For thirty years, the Socialist-Democrat left has been scuttling new oil exploration, always saying ‘it will take years to have an impact.’ It also takes years to build a dam. So what?
Rick Santorum (2005). It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good. Intercollegiate Studies Institute. ISBN 1-932236-29-5.
—
There you go. Rick Santorum published through those women-haters at ISI who fired COD.
“the pipeline will immediately create jobs.”
About 6,000 of them. Big whoop. Not worth the environmental risk, IMHO. If they want to ship to the US, let them bring it to Lake Superior and ship it the rest of the way.
“For thirty years, the Socialist-Democrat left has been scuttling new oil exploration, always saying ‘it will take years to have an impact.’”
Well, it will take years to have an impact. And then when the impact occurs, it won’t be what you expect. The only way greater American supply would lower oil prices is if OPEC fails to cut production accordingly. And they may not even have to do that; demand in Brazil-China-India is rising and will continue to do so.
American oil is not owned by the country; it’s owned by the private oil companies that lease the land (or sea) it’s under. Oil companies currently hold leases on thousands of offshore parcels that they are NOT drilling on, because there is no reason for them to do so. Oil companies are valued not so much for the revenue they produce but the value of their existing reserves. They want more leases not so they can turn them into productive wells but so they can claim larger reserves, which will be reflected in rising stock prices.
The one place environmentalists have successfully kept from oil exploration is ANWAR. But I’d hardly blame that on the Democrats, whether socialistic or not. One of ANWAR’s staunchest champions was Sen. Bill Roth — not exactly a raging liberal, or even a moderate.
You can’t solve the problem if you don’t understand it.
The ANWR was established under republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
anon, what percentage of ANWR would be involved in drilling for oil, if drilling were allowed?
While our chances of getting an answer (willingness to answer) are slim to none, it would be very instructive. I’ll bet that anon, like most liberals, thinks that the ENTIRE ANWR would be covered in oil rigs.
The truth is, if you were given a helicopter and asked to fly around the ANWR searching for the part where the oil drilling is — if you didn’t know where it is — you could spend MANY YEARS flying around ANWR unable to find the oil drilling. If you didn’t know where to look, you could spend years hunting for it all around the ANWR territory and never find it.
So Eisenhower created ANWR. So what? ANWR has a different purpose from the tiny, tiny little speck where the drilling would be.
And Geezer, how do you figure there would be environmental risk from a pipeline? Oil moved by ship or boat — including from Canada to China — is vastly more dangerous than oil moved through a pipeline. Pipelines do not collide with other ships, bridges or objects. Pipelines do not sink. Pipelines do not founder in storms. Pipelines do not go off course. There are many pipelines in the United States that you don’t even know about, because nothing ever happens with them.
There is far greater risk from disposing of batteries from electric cars than there is from a pipeline.
anon, what percentage of ANWR would be involved in drilling for oil, if drilling were allowed?
While our chances of getting an answer (willingness to answer) are slim to none, it would be very instructive. I’ll bet that anon, like most liberals, thinks that the ENTIRE ANWR would be covered in oil rigs.
Eisenhower was a WWII General. He understood the strategic importance of oil to our country and specifically our national defense. He still established the ANWR.
The ANWR is 19 million acres and 1.5 million acres of that would be opened for drilling and exploration, which is roughly 8%. That’s not an insignificant percentage or a “tiny speck.”
To illustrate in a way that you can understand, let’s take Christine O’Donnell’s face and cover 8% of it in black oozing warts. How significant would that be?
“Eisenhower was a WWII General. He understood the strategic importance of oil to our country and specifically our national defense. He still established the ANWR.”
Actually, the agreement that secured the ANWR opened up most of Alaska to economic development. Prior to Alaskan statehood in 1959, virtually all of Alaska was Federal lands and closed to Economic Development. Combined with agreements allowing the State of Alaska to benefit from certain Economic Development Projects the ANWR was a political compromise to allow the moving forward of Alaskan Statehood.
The insane thing about the opposition to exploration of the small percentage that has been already designated for exploration is that 93% of ANWR is not impacted by this at all. anon takes the approach that President Eisenhower understood the need for oil. I agree and as a soldier with deep roots in Texas, I believe that Eisenhower would have approved of exploration in the 1.5 million acres that HE decided should be open for exploration.
anon like a typical environmental whacko can only endlessly recite talking points from his environmental whacko friends with an occasional visit to wikipedia.
By the way why did not all of the caribou in Alaska die due to the Trans Alaskan Pipeline of the 70′s. After all that was the reason the liberals tried to stop the pipeline.
anon, Eisenhower was indeed a WWII General.
But ANWR was created having nothing to do with oil. The creation of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) was *BEFORE* any idea that there was oil there, when Lyndon Johnson was President:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/anwr.htm
But — as a question of political technique — you always need to CHECK any of the facts or premises asserted by liberals, moderates, and the news media.
According to the website: www ANWR (org)
(emphasis added):
So if you were given a helicopter, a map of the borders of ANWR, but had no idea where the oil drilling was taking place, you had have to fly around for YEARS to find the < 1/2 % where the oil drilling is occurring. You would have to search for only 2,000 acres out of 1.5 million acres.
That is, more than 99.5% of ANWR would be totally unaffected.
So, to update your analogy, if Christine O'Donnell is a really nice person 99.5% of the time but < 1/2 % of the time can be grouchy or prickly, would we say that that describes a nice person?
I agree and as a soldier with deep roots in Texas, I believe that Eisenhower would have approved of exploration in the 1.5 million acres that HE decided should be open for exploration.
It was legislation from 1980 that set aside the 1.5 million acres of federal land for a future decision on how to manage its resources. George Bush had 4 years with a republican house and senate and that 1.5 million acres wasn’t opened for drilling.
John Popoff posted the following on Facebook
Andrew Breitbart, speaking at CPAC on February 12, 2012:
~ Andrew Breitbart, Conservative Warrior and Game-Changer (1969-2012)