Gingrich repeatedly mischaracterized Obama's energy policy
SUMMARY: On Hannity & Colmes, Newt Gingrich ridiculed Sen. Barack Obama for encouraging people to properly inflate their tires and falsely suggested that that constituted Obama's only "energy strategy." In fact, Obama has proposed a "Plan for a Clean Energy Future," which includes proposals to "invest $150 billion over 10 years in clean energy," "improve energy efficiency 50 percent by 2030," "support next generation biofuels," and "double fuel economy standards within 18 years." And, Gingrich's ridicule aside, the Department of Energy and the EPA, as well as Republican governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Charlie Crist, have all referred to the fuel economy benefits of properly inflated tires.
During the July 31 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Fox News contributor and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) repeatedly mischaracterized Sen. Barack Obama's energy policy, falsely suggesting that Obama's only "energy strategy" was to encourage people to keep the tires on their vehicles properly inflated and asserting that Obama "suggested if we all inflated our tires, that we would solve the problem." He said to guest co-host Kirsten Powers, "[D]o you really think that inflating your tires is a rational energy strategy?" Later in the show, Gingrich also suggested that Obama's energy policy was limited to "inflate here, inflate now, avoid reality" and "inflate here, inflate now, pretend it doesn't exist," a takeoff on a petition called "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" promoted by American Solutions for Winning the Future, a group for which Gingrich serves as chairman.
In fact, during the July 30 campaign event in which he told the audience that "there are things you can do individually to save energy" such as "making sure your tires are properly inflated," Obama also mentioned proposals such as "help[ing] incentivize consumers" to transition to more fuel-efficient cars, developing new technologies, "work[ing] with the auto industry in developing some of these new technologies and plug-in hybrids," and "put[ting] people back to work building windmills and setting up wind turbines." Moreover, Obama's "Plan for a Clean Energy Future" on his campaign's website includes proposals to "invest $150 billion over 10 years in clean energy," "improve energy efficiency 50 percent by 2030," "support next generation biofuels," "double fuel economy standards within 18 years," "investigate market manipulation in oil futures," and enact a windfall profits tax on oil companies, the revenue from which "will be invested in a number of measures to reduce the burden of rising prices on families."
Gingrich's ridicule of Obama's suggestion aside, fueleconomy.gov, a website maintained jointly by the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy, states: "You can improve your gas mileage by around 3.3 percent by keeping your tires inflated to the proper pressure. Under-inflated tires can lower gas mileage by 0.4 percent for every 1 psi drop in pressure of all four tires." It further calculated a fuel economy benefit of 3 percent, or a savings of up to 12 cents per gallon, with properly inflated tires.
Moreover, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) and Gov. Charlie Crist (R-FL), supporters of presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain, reportedly encouraged citizens to properly inflate their tires. The Los Angeles Times reported on June 26: "Both governors appealed to those with the real power to make change -- average citizens -- to drive slower, keep engines tuned and tires properly inflated, to buy hybrids and lower overall consumption."
From the July 31 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
GINGRICH: See, here's a simple proposal: Senator McCain ought to challenge Senator Obama to a debate in the next two weeks on energy. Senator Obama's profoundly wrong on energy. He has a position that's anti-drilling. He has a position that is frankly ludicrous. If you saw him yesterday, he suggested if we all inflated our tires, that we would solve the problem. Think about it. You ought to take that clip. I think that clip is far more devastating than today because it's looney tunes.
[...]
GINGRICH: Let me ask you a question -- let me ask you a question, Kirsten.
POWERS: OK.
GINGRICH: Since you're a devout defender of the one for whom we've all been waiting, I just have to ask you: Do you really think that inflating your tires is a rational energy strategy? I mean, I just want to --
POWERS: I don't -- you know, I think you know that that's not his entire energy strategy, for -- with all due respect.
GINGRICH: Didn't you think -- I mean, didn't you flinch --
POWERS: Yeah.
GINGRICH: As a real professional, didn't you flinch when you saw that coming across?
POWERS: Well, you know, it's not -- like I said, if I thought it was his entire energy strategy, yeah, it would be a problem. But we can pick this up after the break.
[...]
GINGRICH: Well, I -- look, I think a couple things. First of all, I think going to Germany and declaring yourself a citizen of the world is a pretty bad way to run for president. I think, second, that this statement he made yesterday about inflating your tires and, you know, having your car checked up -- first of all, we don't build cars the way they did 50 years ago, and the idea that the answer to America's energy policy is, you know, "inflate here, inflate now, avoid reality," probably strikes -- you know, I mean, we have a -- you know, we have petition drive called "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" at American Solutions.
But it -- but maybe MoveOn.org should put up, you know, "inflate here, inflate now, pretend it doesn't exist," because that segment yesterday looked like somebody who would be a terrific professor at the University of Chicago but make no sense running for president.
POWERS: Right. But you know that's not his entire energy policy. I mean, do you really think that John McCain's energy policy is superior? I mean, to be completely honest about it. I mean, I don't -- I don't think either of them really have that great of plans --
GINGRICH: Kirsten --
POWERS: -- to tell you the truth.
GINGRICH: Kirsten, drilling now, which McCain said in his Saturday radio address, versus don't drill at all --
POWERS: But that's --
GINGRICH: -- nuclear power versus nothing. Do I think that McCain has a much better -- yeah, there are places that I'm critical of John McCain. On energy, he is about, oh, a dollar-and-a-half gallon better.
"See, here's a simple proposal: Senator McCain ought to challenge Senator Obama to a debate in the next two weeks on energy."
That would be frickin' awesome.
"First of all, I think going to Germany and declaring yourself a citizen of the world is a pretty bad way to run for president."
Uh, but it's apparently a great thing to do when you actually are president (see: Reagan, Ronald)?
". . . the one for whom we've all been waiting . . .": McCain's surrogates are starting to paint Obama as the Antichrist. See "The One" video on McCain's website. This will make the swift boat campaign look petty.
Lets not let them get away with this.
Yeah, I posted about the latest ad in another thread. It's an utterly stupid attack on all levels. They're essentially mocking Obama for inspiring hope. And they seem ignorant of the fact that the "We're the ones..." line is a reference to the equally inspiring Alice Walker book of the same name. It's typical conservative anti-hope, anti-intellectualism. Next they'll be attacking Obama for reading books.
And McBush inspires what? Stupidity. And what exact do you inspire? Wisdom...no, let us take any stab at it....Intelligence...no, last try, NOTHING....I think I win the prize. My very own McCain=Bush bumper sticker. And the bonus prize, Newts' new book, "Condemn Adulters While Being An Adulterer, My Sleazy Life".
Another hidden reference by Knute concerning the Chosen One. Do you think that Obama is the Chosen One?
Be careful the middle of your sign-in name gives you away SS981
We know what the SS did to people and 9+8+1=18 which is 6+6+6.
Done playing, later..
Inspires fear?
Only to you bedwetters.
Abortion on demand
A majority supports this.
higher taxes
A majority supports this if it is imposed on the rich.
free health care for illegal immigrants
He wants free health care for all which a majority supports.
open borders
That's not his position
sex education for 5 year olds
I think a majority would support it if they knew he wanted five years to learn about inappropriate touching.
giving terrorists the same rights as US citizens,
The Constitution gives alleged terrorists rights.
a huge increase in spending that will add to the deficit
Nah. He's going to tax the rich.
opposition to drilling and nuclear power plants, etc.
He has shifted.
higher taxes
A majority supports this if it is imposed on the rich
No they dont. The majority supports lower taxes, regardless who it effects.
free health care for illegal immigrants
He wants free health care for all which a majority supports.
Again, no they dont. They want health care provided for those who cannot afford it, not those who have broken the immigration laws and don't pay federal taxes.
sex education for 5 year olds
I think a majority would support it if they knew he wanted five years to learn about inappropriate touching.
No they don't. Not sure where you get your info, but the majority does not support sex education in elementary school, much less for 5 yr olds.
giving terrorists the same rights as US citizens,
The Constitution gives alleged terrorists rights.
No, the Constitution relfects rights on US Citizens. Else, everyone in the world, regardless of country, could site US rights.
a huge increase in spending that will add to the deficit
Nah. He's going to tax the rich.
And some small businesses, and capital gains. Again, people, regardless of wealth, want lower taxation.
opposition to drilling and nuclear power plants, etc.
He has shifted
Correction, he has flip flopped (again) so his views reflect that of 75% of Americans.
No they dont. The majority supports lower taxes, regardless who it effects.
They support increasing taxes on the rich.
Again, no they dont. They want health care provided for those who cannot afford it, not those who have broken the immigration laws and don't pay federal taxes.
They support a national health care system.
sex education for 5 year olds
No they don't. Not sure where you get your info, but the majority does not support sex education in elementary school, much less for 5 yr olds.
I haven't seen a poll on it but I think they would.
No, the Constitution relfects rights on US Citizens. Else, everyone in the world, regardless of country, could site US rights.
The Constitution gives rights to persons within the U.S. not just citizens.
And some small businesses, and capital gains. Again, people, regardless of wealth, want lower taxation.
They support taxation of the rich.
Correction, he has flip flopped (again) so his views reflect that of 75% of Americans.
Shifted, flip-flopped; call it whatever you want to.
Did you just write the exact same thing over again?
Basically.
Polls show that most Americans want lower taxes
I agree with that. And they also support raising the taxes of rich people.
less spending rather than more government services.
No. They will not support the curtailing of government services.
And it doesn't matter who is being taxed.
Of course it does. That's why republicans are trying to portray Obama's tax policy as raising taxes on the middle class as opposed to raising taxes on the rich. It does matter.
Most people want the government to pay for the health care of those who can't afford it, but not people who have broken our laws and are here illegally.
They want a national health care system which will cover everyone. I'm not sure if this extends to illegal immigrants though (excluding cases of emergency) but it should. Illegal immigrants pay a lot of taxes. They pay federal taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes (which they won't benefit from), sales tax and property taxes when they pay rent.
Illegals do benefit from those services which you said they do not. And no, they do not pay for federal taxes and SS. Unless, that is, they are using a fake SS number because they are breaking another law.
Care to try again?
Illegals do benefit from those services which you said they do not.
How do they benefit from Social Security and Medicare?
And no, they do not pay for federal taxes and SS. Unless, that is, they are using a fake SS number because they are breaking another law.
You hit the nail right on the head.
Grampy's desperate. Just look at all the odd attack ads. Obama can't be prez because he's popular? Who buys that crap.
I heard a good point on c-span today about polling. I understand that they poll only those with land-line phones. Well given that the majority of the people who have land-lines tend to be older, they would likely skew Republican. (I haven't had a land-line in years). So the opinion that Gramps is closing on Obama is probably a myth.
Whatever. Classic wingnut skulduggery here. Garnering pity from the electorate by pouncing on Obama for the "mistakes" or "jokes" from the McCain camp. Cons are masters at positioning themselves as the aggrieved and acting wounded in order to grow resentments in voters.
It's pathological, but effective.
You all predicted that Bush had close to a 0% chance of winning re-election, so I don't put much faith in your predictions.
This is a complete lie.
Appears that Obama has come away from the dark side...just today he said:
"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."
No, but she shut down Congress and left the leeches/cockroach Repubulicans who are in the pocket of the OIL scurring in the dark. BEAUTIFUL....this is what Repubs did to Dems for the past 12 years and now they cry like babies. Sort of like your post.
I hope the Speaker of the House got on her BIG jet and landed at HER private airport and was sipping martinis before the leeches stopped begging their OIL masters for more money.
And what about NEWT? Do you trust this man? He did what Clinton did? Newt is the topic...you'll have plenty of time to whack the Madame Speaker...about 8-16 more years. Save it for later and go inflate your tires. All three or are we now using training wheels?
I hope the Speaker of the House got on her BIG jet and landed at HER private airport and was sipping martinis before the leeches stopped begging their OIL masters for more money.
So you mean her "I'm trying to save the planet" line was all BS like we thought it was?
"I hope the Speaker of the House got on her BIG jet and landed at HER private airport and was sipping martinis before the leeches stopped begging their OIL masters for more money."
And all the while polluting the air with more greenhouse gases. Yeah, she really lives what she preaches.
And the load of crap that comes out of Pelosi's mouth...
Talk about loads of crap.
Perhaps this 54 page PDF disclosing the goods on a mere 25 of the most corrupt officials in the Bush administration will amuse you for a while. This, of course, is only the tip of the iceberg. Icebergs, of course, may soon become anachronisms. Not according to Sciencetroll of course.
Oh and while we are at it let us not forget Gingrich's knack for violating ethics rules.
Icebergs, of course, may soon become anachronisms. Not according to Sciencetroll of course.
Ah yes, that natural climate shift. Its got to be someones fault!
Yawn. And you are?
Just because you declare the suppossed efficiency of sometime in the future clean energy doesn't make it happen. Scientists have attempted to do energy alchemy for that last 40 years. Windmills? Don't put them in the Kennedy's backyard, or where they might affect the migration habits of yellow-bellyed sap sucker! Natural gas is there for the taking but the envionmental whack jobs fight us harnessing that too. Look at North Carolina and how they have stopped America from getting a clean energy now. This is about keeping their econut base in line.
If he wants to put people back to work, I'm sure the teamsters would love a crack at the work that could be done in Alaska and offshore right now!
Pelosi's politburo has left town avoiding a drilling measure that she knew she would lose in an up or down vote. But it is only temporary, Congress will have to approve for another year, the restriction for drilling in ANWR in September. She and dirty harry reid will try to attach it in another bill but I'm sure the fireworks will make it testy for their campaigns in October!
Versus being beholden to Big Oil and having no energy policy besides draining all of our existing natural resources? I'll take my chances with the advancing technology and somebody that is forward thinking versus an old ghost that might not last past the election..............
Maybe McCain will reach out the Dick Cheney for advice and use VP Cheneys' energy plan. Maybe he can enlist the help of the top energy people in the country...Bush Sr., Kenny Enron(dead or alive somebody took notes) and whomever else did or did not show up at the last meeting.
Obama should push for full discovery of that meeting so that he can enlist their help.YUK YUK. That would put McCain on his heels especially if Obama asked McCain to join him with his request.
Pelosi's politburo has left town avoiding a drilling measure that she knew she would lose in an up or down vote - POV
Well, guess what - the Republicans had full control for 6 years. They could have probably forced through drilling anywhere and everywhere. They didn't. So they're crying about it now just sounds like collective whining. The Democrats are driving the bus now.
Blah, blah, blah. Blather on, PC, because earlier this week there really was an up or down vote on drilling, and guess what? It was your moronic right wingers with Boner in the lead who struck it down just so they could play theatrics on friday. What a sap you are for defending someone who only uses you for a sock puppet.
“Bring the Congress back. Let’s have a real up or down vote,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) proclaimed. In fact, there was a real up or down vote on gas prices just two days before. And Boehner is well aware of it because he was responsible for ensuring it didn’t pass. Dan Weiss explains on the Wonk Room what occurred this week:
PCs gibberish is just today's Rush Limbaugh translated into Gullible-Retardese.
Tom Hartmann made a pretty good point on his show today, that the Dems probably rolled over on the wrong issue (FISA), when they could have taken a dive on drilling, leaving it up to the states.
The issue of gas prices is tailor-made for the Republican base. An emotional trigger dressed up as a nuts & bolts economic issue, like catnip for even center-leaning conservatives. The GOP is offering fictional fast-fix solutions, and that's all the below-average American suffering from our current economy is looking for. Many of them won't realize they're buying the promises of the same gangsters who got us here to get us out of here.
I could be wrong, but if the GOP is successful at depicting the Dems as having no solution to high gas prices, they're going to fool a good number of voters who are willing to believe the GOPs lies that they have a solution.
Colonel, Everyone is regarding the Repubs too highly on this subject. While I do believe that drilling may be appealing to the uninformed, It cannot jusitify how the Independents looking for a President will somehow fall for this ConJob.
I personally believe that the Obama campaign has laid the traps for Sen. McCain for the debates which McCain seems to want. Really, how confident is this guy. McCain will use the Rovian tactic of sticking to three subjects just like Bush..even though three was a lot for George. They will probably be Drilling, Security and Taxes. The Obama people have this figured out and will not be defensive concerning these 3 (if correct) items. I have confidence that Obama will add in the Economy, the Corporate greed and his trump card, GEORGE BUSH. He has been silent on George. But as always, McCain=Bush..and there is no way around that slogan...McCain=Bush.
It is August 2 and the Liars are running out of material. And to use drilling as one of the major points is a stretch.
The issue of gas prices is tailor-made for the Republican base
That's because its simplistic and based on the false premise that more drilling will reduce gas prices right away.
Simply having Bush lift the executive ban on offshore oil drilling brought the price of oil down over $20 a barrel over 2 weeks
False cause and effect unless you can prove it. It was probably more of a market correction or even a market reaction to reduced demand (something around 10% less than last year). But you continue to believe in the delusion that all our Fearless Leader has to do is wield his magic pen and the price of oil suddenly drops. Again, very simplistic and very Republican thinking.
You guys just can't stop perpetuating that lie that oil drops when bush opens his yap. Sorry to break it to you - AGAIN - but oil dropped because the fed said that very day, just before the START OF THE DROP, that high prices caused a reduction in oil needs for the US. Supply and demand, remember?
Oh, there was also an announcement that same week that the feds filed charges against one of the largest oil speculation companies for trying to illegally inflate the price of oil.
So sorry, bush's statement was nothing more than a blip on the real picture. Nice try though.
He didn't convince his Saudi butt buddies to release more oil or drop prices, so what makes these wingnuts believe George is anything more than a useful idiot to his oil masters?
They would speculate that supply would start going up and they would start selling
In case you didn't know, the U.S. only has about 3% of the known oil reserves in the world. So if you went out back looking for some food and up from the ground came a bubblin' crude, that would have just as much effect on oil prices as unlimited drilling offshore on in ANWR.
So you theory about speculators is basically all wet.
RINO you idiot,
How much oil do you think the US has and hoiw much do you think the Middle East has? (BTW, you can't count Shale oil because that can't be converted to gasoline.)
No Rino,
It won't. The cost to process shale oil is too expensive to make it worthwhile for diesel and jet fuel.
Also, the deposits in the US will never be used. They are on Federally protected land, so it is stupid to count that as reserves as Science's report states.
BTW, you can't count Shale oil because that can't be converted to gasoline
LOL - yes it can, we've already done it.
LOL Science,
No they haven't. You are really too stupid to bother with!
I would highly suggest you read this report:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33359.pdf
you mean the part right in the beginning where it says oil shale has not proven to be "economically recoverable"? here's a hint. don't post things that prove the opposite of what you're claiming.
How so?
I was under the impression that shale oil is not a feasible alternative and that's why the oil companies are not pursuing it.
Rino,
It's also an unprofitable business. Do you know what it takes to process shale oil? How about you Science? Ever been to a refinery?
Then shut up!
Science,
Then show us an up to date report! Oh, there isn't one, because it still isn't viable and will never happen.
I agree. Drilling became the GOOP main talking point and all the "pundints" started up with it simultaneously. Blaming current misery at the pump on the democrats, however nonsensical, is an obvious attempt to induce amnesia in voters before Nov.
The irony is, the republicans are responsible for the high cost of gasoline. It goes hand in hand with global dollar devaluation, which they have to own: Bush's Fed, Bush's Deficit, Bush's failure at oversight, GOP overturning banking regulation in the '90s ... and so on.
As a political tactic, however, the drilling mantra works. (I like the idea of developing nukular power, personally). Newt doesn't really care about America's energy independence, or he'd have done something tangible about it when he was the leader of the US Congress.
The irony is, the republicans are responsible for the high cost of gasoline.
Thats funny. The price of gasoline has increased almost double under the Pelosi/Reid Congress than it did under the Republican Congress.
I believe it increased from about $1.50 to $2.10 during the Republican Congress, then $2.10 to $4.10+ in the Pelosi/Reid Congress. Guess we can attribute that to the Pelosi Common Sense Plan.
Use your head for once. "The Fearless Leader" would not have to veto a bill if it was so horrible. But the problem is that Pelosi cares more about the planet then the americans that cannot afford these gas prices.... Its hard to have simpathy with democrates when they complain about gas prices when they are the root of the problem.
You do realize that people drive more in the summer than they do in the fall, don't you?
You do realize that people drive more in the summer than they do in the fall, don't you?
I posted this a couple of weeks ago while arguing with science101, Wesley or some other conservative. They tried to claim the high gas prices were the result of the Dem Congress when we all know that gas prices tend to go up in the summer (because people drive more) and likewise home heating oil prices tend to go up in the winter (because people are in there house more).
Science,
What do you think Congress has done to allow/cause prices to rise? Please be specific!
Block legislation and blame Dems for the lack of progress. Simple, cheap and typical Republican crap.
Science,
So when you said the compared the Repub Congress to the Dem Congress, you really didn't have a point.
How foolish of me to think yo uhad an actuall example of something to base your opinion on. What's wrong Rush or Hannity didn't tell you what to say about that?