I’m disappointed (and, really, can only blame myself).
I spent 3 hours researching, verifying sources, and phrasing a single question for her… And she acted as predicted – blocked it. Well done, Ernst.
Despite her “trajectory” being started by the Koch network and her having not seen “proven proof” of human induced climate change… She got around the issue of her “IDK” stance on climate change. Slipped through our fingers.
Yesterday, I tried to video her response, but my cameras memory filled up (shutting off the video) about half way through my intro… I’m bummed I didn’t get it.
At any rate, I asked Senator Ernst,
“Can you speak to the relationship between your position of having ‘not seen… proof’ of climate change and the fact that your campaign was bankrolled by the nations leading climate change deniers?”
She combatted the question by stating something along the lines of…
“Bankrolled is a really a strong word… I’ve received a lot of national contributions from a lot of people… The climate has always been changing: we’ve had ice-ages, [blah, blah, blah]…. Can we all agree that the earth’s climate has changed in the past? What changed the climate before humans were around? It’s a cycle on Earth.”
Did I mention she mentioned she drives a Prius? God damnit.
Ernst +1, Me +0.
I take it as a learning opportunity: She was smart and articulate, and much more capable of an “escape” than I accredited. I underestimated her, and (perhaps) therefore suffered the consequences.
Whatever the case, I learned some things from the interaction: yes, politicians act like politicians; yes, she employed the “the climate has always been changing” tactic, which, apparently, is a “legitimate” argument (for the uneducated, though); and, she was prepared and skirted around the actual argument – she wasn’t naive.
Based on her tone, I really do think she believes what she said – “I don’t know the science.”
Now, forgetting that that’s a ridiculous argument and downright inexcusable – saying “I haven’t seen the data” – we all know she could find the proof, but she doesn’t want to. Why? She said she drives a Prius, and, therefore, must have some environmental conscience, right? So where’s the disconnect? Why doesn’t “she know”?
I think it’s one (or two or three) of three reasons:
1. She’s loyal to the Koch Network/Republican party – and lied to me.
2. She doesn’t want to know (Doesn’t care?).
3. She’s loyal to the beliefs of her home community/family (which, in Iowa, could very well be anti-global warming) – i.e. a product of her environment.
I’ve heard from other legislators that it’s very difficult being a politician that doesn’t buy into either the Democratic or Republican party – you’re ostracized from both parties, giving little room for “moderate” perspectives. So it’s possible she’s scared of saying anything that doesn’t fit in line with the mainstream Republican archetype. But I don’t think so… I think she doesn’t care to research it and she’s a product of her environment, making it doubly possible for her to have “never seen proof” – she doesn’t want to because she has little incentive to research it (beyond truth, but who gives a shit about that).
Lets give her incentive.
Lets tell her of the problems climate change is causing on Iowan agriculture! I’m sure she cares about that, because everyone from Iowa cares about agriculture – it’s the fucking backbone to this state. And, today we suffer real consequences to agricultural production because of climate change. We know this. She should, too.
So… Any thoughts? Am I drawing too many lines? Too little?
Let me know.