Speaking at the Rappaport Center for Law and Public Service at Suffolk University Law School on Thursday February 5th, Charlie was snowing the crowd under with his intellectual firepower. An admiring Globe scribe remarked on Baker’s “somewhat apologetic tutorial on energy pricing” and told how he “talked at length about regulatory overhaul, duplicative bureaucracy, and the esprit de corps he experienced at a once-foundering health plan.” He practically sounded professorial! But then Charlie faced a question about global warming: “I don’t think whether I believe that or not matters in this conversation,” Baker said. He added, ” I can get eight professors from MIT on both sides of this issue and no one in this room will walk away understanding what they said about climate change.” http://www.boston.com/news/loc… That global warming stuff is way too complicated for anyone to understand, especially Charlie Baker. It’s a good thing he’s willing to settle for something easy like being Governor of Massachusetts.
In case we thought that Charlie had mispoken, we soon learned that he was crystal clear in his incoherence. In a tidbit buried deep within the paper in a sort of news digest, the Globe told how Baker had enlightened the paper the next day.
“”I’m not saying I believe in it. I’m not saying I don’t,” he told the Globe on Friday, a day after dodging the question at a public forum on Thursday. “You’re asking me to take a position on something I don’t know enough about.”” Baker took a refreshingly self-effacing position-he claims he’s not smart enough to have a position: “He added, “I absolutely am not smart enough to believe I know the answer to that question.” http://www.boston.com/news/loc… If so, what else is he not smart enough to know or to do properly?
So, we are left to wonder:
Is Baker actually as ignorant as he claims to be?
Is he really not “smart enough?”
Or, has he simply decided that it’s good politics to pretend to be stupid? (If Baker took truth serum before he answered the Globe does anyone honestly believe that he would maintain this pretense that he does not believe in global warming? Yes-it’s sad but true that some, though not all Republicans (witness the exceptions like Lindsay Graham) have decided it’s good fun to reject science, but Baker headed an organization vitally dependent on the scientific progress.
So which is it: not smart enough or intellectually dishonest? Could someone explain why either quality would make him well-suited to be governor?
A brief note to all you deniers out there who clog up blog comments with your flat-earth conspiracy theories:
Yeah, I know it’s winter now and I’ve spent many thousands of hours in the bitterest New England cold running and skiing in winter, but we’re talking here about climate, not weather.