Rick Perry Surges

                In a new poll of Republicans in the U.S Rick Perry is ahead. This isn't completely unexpected, but the margin he leads compared to the rest of the candidates is something to look at. Even before Perry was officially "in the race". He was polling considerably well for someone who wasn't running yet (13%). Now a poll has Perry at 27% of voters and Mitt Romney at 14%. All the other candidates are around 6% like Bachman, Paul and Gingrich. Sarah Palin who no one knows if she is running is in 3rd place with 10% beating more established candidates that I have just mentioned.

               This poll only deals with the nation as a whole, but that doesn't matter much. What matters is how the first four states vote. Let's look at Iowa a new poll came out a week a ago showed that Iowa is getting real tight. Perry is leading at 24%, but Bachman is at 22% and  Romney is at 19%. This means that if let's say Bachman wins Iowa then Perry is the loser no matter what the national polls say, because if you are the candidate that wins no early states you aren't seen as a viable candidate and money dry's up. So if Perry loses Iowa where can he look for a win.

              The next state is New Hampshire just after Perry became a candidate Perry got a solid second place showing with 18% and Mitt Romney the King Maker of New England is at 36% and even if Perry props his numbers a little in this state it looks like New Hampshire will be for now solid for Romney.  In Nevada another early state has no new poll that came out after Perry announcement, but I will go on the assumption that Romney is the best liked person in the state just looking back to his 2008 results.

             So it seems that Romney still for now has a hold on New Hampshire and Nevada for now. So what about South Carolina.  A new poll last week showed that Perry is at 1st place 11% ahead of Romney's 20%  and Bachman a distant 3rd with 14%.

            So Perry is leading in the polls nationally, but if he doesn't grab at least one of the early states then he isn't viable. For Now Perry is very viable with his South Carolina support and Iowa, and even if he grabs both if Romney grabs Nevada and New Hampshire then the race will be now where near over. So Perry is leading, but if he doesn't lock those early states especially Iowa then he may have a fight to the end to win.

The Republicans on the Enviorment Part 3

Now I am going to analyze the stance of the last three candidates in the GOP on the Environment. These candidates are Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania, Business person Herman Cain and from Utah John Huntsman.
                
                  Rick Santorum went on Rush Limbaugh show and called global warming "Junk Science", and he continues to say that global warming is fake. When i go on his website I don't see a plan at all for energy, but he clearly will have no interest in saving the environment or regulating companies to lower there emission, because he doesn't believe in the "junk science" that 97%-98% of climate scientist actively working in the field believe in man made science.

                  Herman Cain also doesn't believe in Climate change, but he has a Ron Paul Approach to energy. Let the market to everything. He wouldn't be for government intervention. He thinks that Americans should wait until oil becomes to expensive that companies will move to other resources of energy like wind, solar  and hydroelectric, but he has no plan to try a and push companies to move to those other resources. He wants to wait until companies extract all the resources and hurt the economy so much that they will be forced to change there energy policies. That takes way too much time the world needs renewable energy right now!

                  Then comes John Hutsman. He actually wrote on twitter "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." Finally a republican that believes in the science. Now I won't talk about evolution, but John Hutsman believes in global warming, but how much? Well he thinks that the Republicans are "the anti-science party", that Republicans "take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said" and that the Republican party is "on the wrong side of science." Isn't that a breath of fresh air, he doesn't question the science and doesn't escape it by saying he doesn't know how much man is involved, but while Hutsman supports reducing pollution he has since 2011 taken back his policy of Cap and trade. Which is a good thing Cap and trade is bad, but he has no plan on the environment.

                 Now that I am done looking up all the 8 Republican candidates policy on the environment let's see the results. 4/8 Republican candidates are fully against the science of global warming,  another 3/8 question the science and 8/8 don't have a serious plan to tackle it. The Republican party is the party of no action on Global warming.

BC votes NO on HST

In BC the results of the referendum came on Friday. 55% of BC residence voted to eliminate the young new HST while 45% wanted it to stay. That is much closer than I imagined. I knew BC would vote no on the tax thought it would be more like 67% 33%. I thought this because the people who are really against were energized to vote against the tax, but it seems the tax has been more popular over the course of time, and quite frankly I think one more year in and the HST would be popular enough to not have enough people sign a petition to vote on the tax., but the Liberal BC government has decided to move to eliminate the HST. What a shame! The HST actually helps the economy and is revenue neutral. B.C got 1.6 billion dollars for moving to the HST and is going to have to give it back now, because Harper isn't going to give BC money for doing nothing. B.C lost out on this referendum. 113,000 jobs were predicted to be created over 10 years because of the new HST, And companies would have been more competitive and have a better bottom line, and consumers would see the difference. My take BC should have kept the HST regardless of the vote. Being a leader means doing something that is right versus doing something that is popular.

The Republican and the Environment part 2

If any of you didn't look at my last post I am looking into the Republicans and there environment stance I already did Bachman now for Mitt Romney and Gingrich and Ron Paul.


                                Mitt Romney the front-runner of the Republican party has a very "Bush" and "Harper" position on Global warming. Mitt Romney said earlier in the year that he believes that the world is getting warmer. Horayyy! But he says "I don't know how much humans are contributing to that", but he still believes in reducing Co2 emissions. Then he talked about his solutions and he said use "Natural Gas." Yes Natural gas is better than Oil and I would rather have a Natural gas plant than an Oil plant, but both are non sustainable energy resources, and both still pollute the planet. Natural Gas can't be his entire solution to Global warming right? Well that all he has offered up so far. A few days ago in New Hamshire he said "What I'm not willing to do is spend trillions of dollars on something I don't know the answer to," Again the Republican party exaggeration of what needs to be done and understanding that we will all pay for global warming. This is Why Romney is a Bush and Harper guy. He kind of makes us think he believes in global warming, but offers no real solution for it, and isn't about to get serious at all about Climate change. (by the way Mitt Romney in 2007 said that he would support a global Cap and trade system)



                              Gingrich a few years back sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi asking the congress do to something about climate change now! Well today Gingrich has completely changed his opinion now he says he wants a national inquiry into climate change. Again questioning the science that has already been proven. Gingrich is going to be very slow on climate change because he refuses to look at the facts. I liked 2007 Gingrich much better than today. In 2007 Gingrich wanted action now and he even explained I think perfectly the situation. he sais that Conservatives don't move on the environment, because they think that to address the issue you are going to raise taxes and have more government, so the Republicans don't talk about Climate change.Then he goes off to say that Republicans need to have there way to reduce emission without having more government. In 2007 I would have welcomed that ,because in Gingrich said the U.S has to "Move towards most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading." So as you can see Gingrich now doesn't want to do anything right now.He went from "The Evidence is Sufficient" to "National Inquiry"


                              Ron Paul Isn't to much different. Although usually Ron Paul is the person who stands out on a issue. This time he has a very similar stance to these guys He questions the science of global warming, but really says that it doesn't matter for the federal government, because he thinks that the free market will handle everything. For example Ron Paul solution to moving to renewable energy get the government out of that . He would eliminate subsidies to fossil fuels, but would also eliminate subsidies to renewable energy. (this would be a win as fossil fuels are subsidized way more than renewable energy) The Only problem is that this won't fix the whole problem. Believing that government should not be in the solution will cause a slow reaction from the world. We need the government to give companies the push to be Eco friendly. Just waiting for it will take too much time.


Now that I am done with these guys I am going to concentrate on the last three John Huntsman, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum.

The Republicans on the Environment

I have decided to look at all the people who would like to become the President of the U.S and look at there platform. Issue by issue. Since I already talked about Rick Perry and the Environment. Let's check all the other candidates plan on the Environment today will be on Michelle Bachman. She stood in the house of representatives and said "that CO2 is a natural byproduct of nature" and therefor can't harm us. Yes CO2 is a natural substance, but what Bachman may have not been told that natural things can be toxic to ourselves. She says that CO2 is necessary for the planet to exist. Yes CO2 is necessary for the planet to exist that doesn't mean that too much of it isn't bad. Take this for example arsenic is natural yet having it can kill you! Just because something is natural doesn't mean that it can't harm you. Examples like animals or tobacco plants are natural, but a lion can kill you and so can smoking. The only thing is that the "does makes the poison" as Paracelsus would say. That means that everything can technically kill you. No matter how "natural" it may be. In fact eating too many apples or drinking too much water can kill you. Of course you have to have a lot, but it happens occasionally. So if you have enough CO2 on the planet even though CO2 is "Natural" and is important to the planet having to much of it has caused problems. Today we are currently seeing that humans are emitting an enormous amount of CO2 that is unprecedented .reducing are CO2 emissions is a good thing not to the point where there is no CO2 on the planet, but to sustainable level. The thing is that CO2 stay' in the atmosphere for 40 years that means that even if we emit zero today the effects of climate change have reached a bare minimum. People like Michelle Bachman who call CO2 "a harmless gas" make it easy to see there plan for the Environment and the future. Nothing! Next on my list Romney and Gingrich. See Bachman's entire speech on Global warming here