We’ve talked in this thread about Dan Crenshaw. I see this 27 minute interview with him on the Daily Show, and he certainly sounds like a reasonable guy I disagree with about policy, and sounds like a sane Republican. He also repeats a lot of what my brother says about CRT, cancel culture, climate change, and just like him, sounding pretty reasonable about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJ8nBgEA2Q
Not going to watch, but had to ask, what’s reasonable sounding about what he said about climate change?
He agrees that it’s a problem, but he disagrees that the solution is all wind and solar. He talked about Nuclear, he talked about expanding gas, which is responsible for the U.S. going back to 1992 level of emissions he said. He claims if we could convince China to give up on all their coal plants and import Natural Gas from the US, it would result in 18% emissions reduction world wide, and other stuff.
But I like it when the conversation starts with: I agree it’s a problem, here’s an alternate solution. Then at least you can poke holes at that solution. Like what kind of magical thinking is it that China’s going to import gas from us and give up all their coal? You can’t control what they do, but we can control what we do, etc.
That’s all well and good, but I sometimes feel like the function of GOP lawmakers offering ‘reasonable’ differences like this on climate is just to slow things down and gum up the works. I think if he really cared about climate he might vote with Dems on climate*, and then push for adjustments/iterations moving forward. If Congress gets back in GOP hands he knows as well as anyone else that climate policy will quickly be, at best, Diddly + Squat, and at worst “deregulate deregulate deregulate.”
*Of course, because of filibuster/reconciliation issues etc., climate can’t be separated from everything else, which provides cover for GOP to vote against omnibus bills on any grounds they want.
Anyway, we talk and we dither and we blame China, and another irreplaceable 4 years trickle by.
I have no problem with nuclear being a part of any effort to maintain energy levels while reducing carbon emissions, though. One hopes it could be a bridge technology to get us to fusion or superior solar or something. One hopes…
jpinard
11937
And then our heating and electrical costs would sky rocket into the stratosphere.
ShivaX
11938
The number of unAmerican things Crenshaw has supported or openly said (or did) discounts him as being reasonable.
Like others, I’ve seen enough of Crenshaw to know that he’s a nut and a grifter like the rest of them. He’s not a full-on moron like e.g. Louis Gohmert, but politically he’s in the exact same place.
This is just a step in the normal right-wing climate change denial dance: first it isn’t happening; then it is happening but people have nothing to do with it; then people are causing it but there’s nothing we can do about it now; then maybe we can do something about it but not those things, those things are bad and will hurt the economy more than climate change; then oh no it’s too late for those things to help; then back to what are you talking about climate change is a hoax! Repeat as necessary.
This, plus make sure that any government action doesn’t harm their fossil fuel-dependent constituents or maybe even actually funnels money to them, e.g. funding for ‘clean coal’.
Crenshaw is an enigma. I think any fair mind person watching this interview would conclude that Crenshaw, is a smart guy, with a good grasp of the issues. He understand nuance and he Trevor came to if not agreement at least understanding of each other’s position.
There are few jobs, where I give folks the benefit of the doubt on being a good person, Astronaut, Dr for Doctors without Borders, and Navy SEAl. So in theory he is Republican we could work with.
In practice, he is no better than any of the other spineless Republican’s who know that Trump and Trumpism are wrong, but never vote against. So just once, I really wish he’d vote for impeachment, the Jan 6 commission, the infrastructure bill, do the right thing damn it!
On the hand, if we learned nothing this last week, is that Democrat’s hold on power is very precarious, so it is foolish to piss off potential allies.
Timex
11941
Crenshaw has the advantage of absolutely no principles at all. He is able to shift his messaging, and even the underlying message, at will depending on who he’s talking to.
What is the issue in which Crenshaw is a potential ally for Democrats?
Strollen
11943
Pretty much anything that was talked about in the interview, from climate change, to racial inequality, to combating the great lie. Now if ever backs up his rhetoric with action is an open question.
It’s not like he hasn’t already had multiple opportunities to do it. I wouldn’t hold my breath.
tomchick
11945
The best thing you can say about Crenshaw is that he can calm down long enough for a Trevor Noah interview. Otherwise, he’s a garden-variety Republican. And as far as I can tell, his only policy accomplishment is shaming a member of the Saturday Night Live cast into an apology.
-Tom
MrGrumpy
11946
The time for natural gas being a bridge fuel is past. It’s like someone who eats too much chocolate but wants to lose weight and starts eating dark chocolate instead (yet ends up eating more than they did before! No that’s not oddly specific. At all. )
jpinard
11948
Jokes on him. Most people at NASA are Democrats and would never work for the Confederate States.
Yet another grifter operation launches.
The pursuit of truthiness.
If you want to be faithful to the founding of the country*, that would be “purfuit of truthineff”.
* /s
Thrag
11953
So, did everyone here fill in “with blackjack and hookers” in their mind after seeing this frame?
