Strange bedfellows, indeed

John Broder, Nicholas Confessore, and Jackie Calmes have an article in The New York Times about those running for President:

During nearly two hours of intense debate on Wednesday night, the Republican presidential candidates did not shy away from exchanging blows with each other. But some of the toughest criticism— and some of the most factually problematic— was reserved for the policies, programs, and principles traditionally associated with Democrats, from tackling climate change to broadening access to health care to providing retirement insurance for the elderly.
Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, assailed the federal government in general and President Obama in particular for what he said were overbearing regulations on oil drilling, coal mining, and nuclear energy. “We are an energy-rich nation and we’re living like an energy-poor nation,” he said, asserting that Obama had halted offshore drilling, blocked construction of new coal plants, slowed development of nuclear plants, and failed to develop natural gas trapped in shale formations. But those claims are largely untrue. While Obama declared a moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP spill in 2010, the government began granting permits again earlier this year and activity is approaching pre-spill levels. The administration recently announced a major lease sale in the western Gulf of Mexico and gave provisional approval to a Shell project in the Arctic off the coast of Alaska. While a number of utilities have canceled plans to build new coal plants, that is largely because demand for electricity has slowed, not because of new federal regulations.
The science of climate change, a topic of skepticism among many conservatives, also came up during the debate. Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the former Utah governor, said that 98 percent of scientists believe that the climate is growing warmer and human activity is at least partly responsible, while Governor Rick Perry of Texas repeated his claim that “the science is not settled”. Representative Michele Bachmann, who has previously asserted that global warming is “manufactured science” and a hoax, again questioned whether human activity was affecting the global climate. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that global warming is occurring and that human activity— chiefly the burning of fossil fuels and cutting down of tropical forests— is likely to blame.
Some of the sharpest language of the night came when Perry laid into Social Security, saying, “You cannot keep the status quo in place and call it anything other than a Ponzi scheme.” But that metaphor is misleading. Government projections have Social Security exhausting its reserves by 2037, absent any changes, but show that the payroll tax revenues coming in would cover more than three-quarters of benefits to recipients then.
Criticizing Obama’s health care law, Bachmann said the measure was eliminating jobs, citing a study from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. But the claim, which Bachmann made in more specific terms at the last Republican debate, overstates the conclusions of the study, which said the law would have a “small” impact on the overall labor force because it might cause some workers to reduce their hours or retire earlier.
Perry noted that Texas had created a million jobs in the last decade, which is true. Perry also contrasted his job-creation record with that of Romney, saying: “We created more jobs in the last three months in Texas than he created in four years in Massachusetts.” Assuming Perry meant May, June, and July of 2011, that part is correct: Texas added 63,200 jobs during those months, while Massachusetts added only 45,800 during Romney's four years in office.
But, as Romney pointed out in reply, Texas is not only far larger than Massachusetts, it also has a very different economy, one in which growth has been aided by a rising population and an oil and gas boom.
Representative Ron Paul criticized Perry for once writing what he described as “a really fancy letter supporting Hillarycare”, referring to the health care legislation that was the top domestic priority of the Clinton administration and Hillary Rodham Clinton when she and Bill Clinton arrived in Washington in 1993. Perry did write to Mrs. Clinton, who then led the administration’s task force on overhauling health care, in April of 1993. But Paul’s characterization exaggerates what Perry said and wrongly implies that Perry, then the agricultural commissioner of Texas, supported the particulars of a health care proposal that did not emerge in full until months later. Perry wrote in the letter: “I think your efforts in trying to reform the nation’s health care system are most commendable.” But his main purpose in writing was to ask Clinton and the task force to consider the needs “of the nation’s farmers, ranchers, agriculture workers, and other members of rural communities”. Such communities, Perry wrote, “have a high proportion of uninsured people, rising health care costs, and often experience lack of services.” He closed by describing Clinton’s efforts as “worthy” and encouraging her to contact him. But Perry did not recommend or endorse any particular proposal.

Rico says that this is, as usual, much to-do about nothing...