Myths and falsehoods about oil policies
In reporting on high gas prices and initiatives that have been proposed to address the issue, the media have repeated or failed to challenge several myths, falsehoods, and claims contradicted by government agencies. Many of the media-advanced myths and falsehoods have promoted the notion that lifting the current moratorium on offshore drilling and expanding domestic drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) will have an immediate impact on rising gas prices.
1. Opening additional acres for offshore drilling will lower today's oil and gasoline prices
After successive speeches from Sen. John McCain and President Bush in which they both called for an increase in offshore oil drilling, many major news outlets have uncritically reported the suggestion by drilling proponents that lifting the federal moratorium will have an immediate effect on fuel prices, without noting that, in its Annual Energy Outlook 2007, the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimated the effects of allowing the moratorium to expire in 2012 and said that "access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017." June 23 articles in The Washington Post and New York Times, as well as July 15 articles in the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post, reporting on suggestions that offshore drilling would lower oil and gas prices, made no mention of the EIA's findings. By contrast, a July 14 Post article did note the EIA's conclusions, although that article appeared on the front page under a headline -- "Offshore Drilling Backed as Remedy for Oil Prices" -- whose suggestion of short-term effects was contradicted by the article itself.
2. Opening ANWR to drilling will impact today's oil and gasoline prices
Suggestions that opening federally protected ANWR to drilling will help lower today's gas prices also frequently go unchallenged by news media outlets. For instance, while discussing Bush's trip to the U.S.-European Union summit on MSNBC Live, anchor Contessa Brewer said Bush "will push for help from our European partners on the oil front" and aired a video clip of Bush saying, "The United States has an opportunity to help increase the supply of oil on the market, therefore taking pressure off gasoline for our hard-working Americans, and that I've proposed to the Congress that they open up ANWR, and open up the continental shelf, and give this country a chance to help us through this difficult period."
But in its May 2008 "Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," the EIA concluded that oil drilling in ANWR would not impact the U.S. oil supply for at least a decade: "The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018" [emphasis added]. Further, the report says: "This analysis assumes that enactment of the legislation in 2008 would result in first production from the ANWR area in 10 years, i.e., 2018." Further, based on its Annual Energy Outlook 2008 report, EIA estimated that the opening of ANWR would reduce the price of imported low-sulfur, light crude oil by $0.75 per barrel in 2025 (in the "mean oil resource case"), from a predicted reference case price of $64.49. As of the close of trading on August 13, the price of oil settled at $116 per barrel.
3. No oil was spilled offshore as a result of Hurricane Katrina
Proponents of lifting the moratorium on certain offshore drilling have on several occasions falsely claimed that no oil was spilled offshore during Hurricane Katrina -- with no challenge from cable news anchors; at least one Fox News contributor has also made this false claim. In fact, as Media Matters has noted, a 2007 report prepared for the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) by the international consulting firm Det Norske Veritas found that damage related to Hurricane Katrina resulted in 70 spills from outer continental shelf structures with a total volume spilled of approximately 5,552 barrels of petroleum products. The study specifically identified damage from Katrina to 27 platforms and rigs that resulted in approximately 2,843 barrels of spilled petroleum products. The combined impacts of hurricanes Katrina and Rita on outer continental shelf structures in the Gulf of Mexico, according to the report, were "124 spills ... with a total volume of roughly 17,700 barrels of total petroleum products."
On Fox News' Fox & Friends, former Republican presidential candidate and Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee falsely asserted, "When Katrina, a Cat-5 hurricane, hit the Gulf Coast, not one drop of oil was spilled off of those rigs out in the Gulf of Mexico." The claim has also been promulgated on MSNBC. NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell has twice allowed guests to claim that Hurricane Katrina did not result in any oil spills. On the June 24 edition of MSNBC Live, Mitchell did not challenge Sen. Richard Burr's (R-NC) false assertion that "there wasn't a drop" of oil spilled in the Gulf of Mexico due to a Category 5 hurricane. And during a July 15 interview on MSNBC Live, Mitchell did not challenge energy lobbyist and former Sen. Trent Lott's (R-MS) false claim that "[w]e didn't have one drop of oil spilt when we had the biggest hurricane in, you know, recent history, Hurricane Katrina."
However, on the July 17 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor David Shuster did confront McCain senior policy adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer about her past use of the false claim on MSNBC. Shuster said: "Earlier this week on this program, though, you defended offshore drilling and said, quote, 'We withstood Hurricanes Rita and Katrina and did not spill a drop.' In fact, the U.S. Mineral Management Service said that Katrina and Rita caused 124 offshore spills for a total of more than 743,000 gallons of oil and refined products spilled. So, Nancy, do you want to take back what you said?" Pfotenhauer replied: "Right. Well, I actually do. I was misinformed, and my embarrassment aside, the point is still that we had a remarkable performance."
4. "Natural seepage" of oil into the ocean means oil spills have insignificant environmental impact
Some in the media have cited reports finding that more oil leaks into the water from "natural seepage" than from oil tanker and offshore drilling accidents to suggest that the damage caused by spills is comparatively insignificant. But a report by the County of Santa Barbara discussing the effects of natural seepage and oil spills, including a 1969 oil spill off the Santa Barbara coast that released an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 barrels of oil, stated that "major spills can have far greater" environmental impact than seeps have, as the blog Think Progress noted.
In a July 12 Wall Street Journal op-ed, Manchester Union Leader editorial page editor Andrew Cline wrote that a "joint study by NASA and the Smithsonian Institution, examining several decades' worth of data, found that more oil seeps into the ocean naturally than from accidents involving tankers and offshore drilling. Natural seepage from underwater oil deposits leaks an average of 62 million gallons a year; offshore drilling, on the other hand, accounted for only 15 million gallons, the smallest source of oil leaking into the oceans." Likewise, during the July 15 edition of Fox News' Special Report, correspondent William La Jeunesse stated: "Almost 40 years later [after the Santa Barbara spill], the National Academy of Sciences says mother nature spills more oil into the environment than Exxon, Shell, B.P., and Chevron combined -- 63 percent of all oil in U.S. coastal waters comes from natural seepage from cracks in the earth; 32 percent from consumers in their boats and runoff from cities; 4 percent from oil tankers; and just 1 percent from offshore platforms."
However, in a 2002 report, the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Energy Division stated that a "comparison of the impacts of seeps and spills based solely on volume would be misleading. The evidence is clear that, far from being invisible against a background of seeps, major spills can have far greater and qualitatively different impacts on the environment than do seeps."
From the report:
A comparison of the impacts of natural oil seeps versus oil spills involves much more than determining the volume of oil released. Natural oil seeps in the Santa Barbara Channel introduce substantial volumes of hydrocarbons into the marine environment. Seepage rates may be on the order of 100 barrels of oil per day. Most spills associated with oil production offshore of Santa Barbara County have been small during the years since the catastrophic 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill. The Minerals Management Service estimates that total combined spill volume for the 841 reported spills between 1970 and 1999 was about 830 barrels. However, a comparison of the impacts of seeps and spills based solely on volume would be misleading. The evidence is clear that, far from being invisible against a background of seeps, major spills can have far greater and qualitatively different impacts on the environment than do seeps.
The county concluded: "Natural seeps and spills differ in that seep rates do not, on average, exceed the marine environment's capacity to digest the oil, whereas spills may exceed its capacity. Major spills overwhelm nature's mechanisms for processing the oil, in the short term. The consequences include severe oiling of shorelines and mortality to organisms that are ill-prepared to live in an oil-soaked environment."
5. China is drilling for oil 60 miles off the coast of Florida
In the June 5 edition of The Washington Post column, columnist George Will falsely asserted, "Drilling is underway 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than U.S. companies are." Vice President Dick Cheney made a similar claim -- citing Will's column-- about China drilling off the coast of Florida in a June 11 speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, but according to an Associated Press article the following day, Cheney's office issued a statement saying he was mistaken. The AP reported that the statement said: "It is our understanding that, although Cuba has leased out exploration blocks 60 miles off the coast of southern Florida, which is closer than American firms are allowed to operate in that area, no Chinese firm is drilling there." The article stated that "Jorge Pinon, a senior energy fellow at the University of Miami specializing in Latin America, said Cuba has awarded offshore oil leases, or concessionary blocs, in its offshore waters to six oil companies -- none of them Chinese -- and soon may announce an agreement with Brazil's state oil company, Petrobras." It further reported that Pinon said, "But no one is currently drilling in any of those concessions." Will issued a correction to his claim in a June 17 column.
Despite the statement from Cheney's office, Fox News' Sean Hannity claimed on the June 16 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program: "[W]e've got China, you know, joining with Cuba, they're drilling 60 miles off our shores of Florida."
6. Obama's energy strategy consists only of keeping tires properly inflated
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."
But as Media Matters has noted, 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.
7. Oil companies reinvest all their profits into finding more oil
During the June 26 edition of NBC's Today, correspondent Janet Shamlian -- reporting from a Chevron Corp. oil and gas platform -- said: "Each barrel [of oil] yields about 26 gallons of gas. Criticized for record profits, companies like Chevron say every dollar coming out is going right back in to the quest for more." But Shamlian did not note that according to Chevron's 2007 annual report and a press release about its earnings for the first quarter of 2008, both of which were available before her report, a portion of Chevron's earnings goes into stock buybacks and dividend payments.
Indeed, in its first-quarter 2008 earnings press release, issued May 2, Chevron "announced a 12 percent increase in its quarterly dividend on common stock" and reported spending approximately $2 billion to buy back shares of its own stock during the quarter. In its 2007 annual report, released on February 28, the company stated that it had raised its dividend by 11.5 percent to 58 cents a share, and had bought back approximately $7 billion of its stock.
The Associated Press reported in a July 22 article: "The [oil] companies insist they're trying to find new oil that might help bring down gas prices, but the money they spend on exploration is nothing compared with what they spend on stock buybacks and dividends." The AP further reported: "The five biggest international oil companies plowed about 55 percent of the cash they made from their businesses into stock buybacks and dividends last year ... according to Rice University's James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy." Chevron is one of the "so-called Big Five" international oil companies, according to the Baker Institute report cited in the article. The AP reported that "[i]n the first quarter of this year, Exxon, ConocoPhillips and Chevron were all among the top 10 companies for share buybacks in the S&P 500." The article also stated that "[s]tock buybacks are common throughout corporate America, not just for Big Oil. They shrink the amount of stock on the open market, essentially increasing its value and giving individual shareholders a bigger stake in the company."
From the July 15 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
HUME: President Bush's move to lift the executive ban on offshore oil drilling has many environmentalists concerned about the potential for destructive oil spills.
But would you believe that the greatest source of oil spills in the world's oceans is not the drilling industry, but something far more difficult to regulate. Correspondent William La Jeunesse explains.
[begin video clip]
LA JEUNESSE: 1969 -- an oil spill off Santa Barbara prompts Congress to put a stop to offshore drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
Almost 40 years later, the National Academy of Sciences says mother nature spills more oil into the environment than Exxon, Shell, B.P., and Chevron combined -- 63 percent of all oil in U.S. coastal waters comes from natural seepage from cracks in the earth; 32 percent from consumers in their boats and runoff from cities; 4 percent from oil tankers; and just 1 percent from offshore platforms.
DANIEL KISH (Institute for Energy Research senior vice president): The truth is that two-thirds of all the oil that comes on the beaches of the United States is natural seepage.
LA JEUNESSE: Yet many politicians and green groups say the environmental damage of another serious accident, such as the Alaska Exxon Valdez tanker spill, is not worth the risk.
DAVE DAVIS (Community Environmental Council executive director): The environment of the Valdez Sound never recovered. The economic effects are still being felt today, right? Is that worth 25 cents in your tank?
LA JEUNESSE: All energy production carries an environmental cost, but offshore oil production is radically different from what it was decades ago.
From the July 12 Wall Street Journal op-ed:
On the morning of Jan. 28, 1969, a Union Oil drilling site six miles off the coast of Santa Barbara, Calif., sprang a leak. The ensuing spill stretched for miles, killed thousands of birds, and gave America the image of wildlife and shorelines covered in black crude. That spill is widely considered to have conceived the modern environmental movement. A year later, the first Earth Day was held, followed by passage of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.
After the spill, Santa Barbara residents formed an environmental group called GOO! (Get Oil Out!), one of the first community groups to oppose offshore oil drilling. Thirty-nine years later, GOO! is still around. But this April the group did something astonishing. It publicly supported an oil company's proposal to drill off the coast of Santa Barbara.
Houston-based Plains Exploration and Production Company proposed drilling 22 wells from a platform 4.7 miles from land. It made numerous concessions to the local environmental groups that would curtail drilling in about a decade -- and in the end even the adamantly "no-drilling" crowd agreed that the deal was beneficial for everyone. The Environmental Defense Center, a nonprofit environmental law firm, endorsed the plan. Abe Powell, president of GOO!, told the Los Angeles Times it was "good for the community." Terry Leftgoff, a former GOO! executive director, wrote in the Santa Barbara Independent the deal was "a brilliant proposal that finally gives the public something back: the certain removal of four offshore oil platforms, the decommissioning of a notorious industrial plant, and the reversion of rural land subjugated into oil development back into the public trust as parkland."
When an environmental group formed for the sole purpose of opposing offshore oil drilling warmly embraces a plan to drill off its own coast, you know something important has changed in our culture: Americans have recognized that offshore oil drilling is largely safe.
Since 1975, drilling in the Exclusive Economic Zone (within 200 miles of the U.S. coast) has had a 99.999% safety record, according to the Energy Information Administration, which reports that "only .001 percent of the oil produced has been spilled."
Thanks to technological advances, large spills are rare. Most spills are tiny, only a few feet in diameter. Large tanker spills, such as the Exxon Valdez in 1989, are so infrequent they account for a very small fraction of the oil that winds up in the sea.
A joint study by NASA and the Smithsonian Institution, examining several decades' worth of data, found that more oil seeps into the ocean naturally than from accidents involving tankers and offshore drilling. Natural seepage from underwater oil deposits leaks an average of 62 million gallons a year; offshore drilling, on the other hand, accounted for only 15 million gallons, the smallest source of oil leaking into the oceans.
The vast majority of the oil that finds its way into the sea comes from dry land, NASA found. Runoff from cities, roads, industrial sites and garages deposits 363 million gallons into the sea, making runoff by far the single largest source of oil pollution in the oceans. "Every year oily road runoff from a city of 5 million could contain as much oil as one large tanker spill," notes the Smithsonian exhibit, "Ocean Planet."
The second-largest source of ocean oil pollution was routine ship maintenance, accountable for 137 million gallons a year, NASA found -- more than 2.5 times the amount that comes from tanker spills and offshore drilling combined. But no one is proposing that we ban cargo and cruise ships.
Another thing the media frequently fails to note is that Bush was opposed to offshore drilling until about 2 months ago. The same goes for McCain if I'm not mistaken. Yet it is somehow now the Democratic congresses fault that gas prices are high because they won't bend over for Bush now that he's flip-flopped.
I also never hear any mention of the impact 2 wars that we started in the middle east and the resulting instability have had on gas prices.
I will admit that it is possible that just allowing for the potential of offshore drilling could cause a slight dip in gas prices. But isn't it also a possibility that the oil companies will pass on the not insignificant expense of getting all these new sites up and running on to the consumer long before any oil is actually produced?
Yawn... left wing smear machine at work...
And while we're on the subject of oil and gas prices, wasn't it the same crowd that was crying for $6/gal about 5 years ago that's crying the loudest over $4/gal being too expensive?
You want a feasible answer? Drill drill drill. It'll increase the supply of oil, therefore lowering the demand, reduce the taxes levied upon oil companies (Aren't their profit margins barely keeping them afloat?), reduce the restrictions and regulations placed upon them, and watch them drill and refine oil at a significantly increased rate as they try to cash in on a very lucrative business opportunity, and have our economy booming once more. Ladies and gentlemen, CHEAP GAS IS BACK!!!
"It'll increase the supply of oil, therefore lowering the demand."
With each passing moment you reveal more of your own stupidity. Demand is not a function ofSupply, moron. Supply and Demand are independant from each other and are functions of price. Try taking an economics course before you make such stupid statements.
Who and or what did MMFA smear in this article? I'm sure since you wrote that this was some sort of left wing smear job in progress, you can provide examples correct? Oh, wait, you can't. Never mind.
Also, just about every reliable study will, or does show that the amount of oil that's actually out there would make very little difference in the overall global oil market, and "might" have an effect of dropping prices maybe cents, not dollars, but cents, to the barrel. Drilling won't lead us to energy independence either. Oil is a finite source of energy, and needs to be replaced. If we don't start working on alternatives NOW, in the following decades, we'll be at the same place we are now. Talking about drilling somewhere else, and putting off until tomorrow what we should have done yesterday.
It's a worldwide commodity market. Just do the math, it doesn't work.
http://greytheory.blogspot.com/2008/08/american-oil-wont-lower-prices.html
Yawn... left wing smear machine at work...
Yawn ... right-wing doofus at work (whether he says he's right-wing or not, he sure acts right-wing) .....
Dawuss...yawn...
....yeah, that's the ticket, let's just be the big, all-consuming super power who consumes 25% of the planets oil reserves & we only have 3% at our desposal AND in the process really not start to develop a alternative energy policy(you & I will be long gone when we run out) but what do you care??? Drill--Drill--Drill !!!
I'm sure the same brainiacs said(Trees, trees, trees) just cut down all the trees to make fire & heat---who needs gas---or, horses horses horses---who needs autmobiles/they'll never work---
Dawuss--you and the kind that think like you(morons)need a attitude adjustment
Dawuss...
...your attempt at humor is in lockstep with your energy views....try opening up that narroew mind of yours & understand that in order for us to be competitive globally again is to develop transportation & energy that will ensure our continued existence on this planet for eons to come.
In 2006 the republicans, while still in control, passed the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. This act opened up several million acres for drilling off the continental shelf. This area is said to contain 40 billion barrels of oil - twice as much as the east and west coast combined. When that land was released to the oil companies, oil was $60 a barrel. Today, oil is what again? C'mon, you can say it, That's right, $120 a barrel.
This year Saudi Arabia announced they will increase daily production by 500,000 barrels a day. Oil went from $120 a barrel to $140 a barrel.
So now we have two instances where supply was increased, yet contrary to your claims the price of oil continued to rise. Your claims don't jive with the facts, DW.
So now we have two instances where supply was increased, yet contrary to your claims the price of oil continued to rise. Your claims don't jive with the facts, DW.
What we have is proof of the fact that Da Wuss doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
Hilarious. Exxon just made ANOTHER record profit this quarter at $12 billion. The biggest quarterly profit recorded in history.
Goodfella57 said: "MMfA puts out this kind of propaganda but doesn't propose any workable solutions."
ANWR has approximately 350 days worth of oil. The OCS has approximately 8 years supply of oil, at our current consumption. I enjoy a good debate about policy, but let's not pretend that drilling the OCS is some magic elixir.
Goodfella57 said: "Wind farms are 'quaint' but cannot begin to supply the energy needs at the scale necessary to actually do any good."
Actually, they can provide it on that scale.
Goodfella57 said: "which is always a possibility, would lead to $5, $6 or even $10-per-gallon gas, which according to some on the left, is a good idea."
For global warming, it's absolutely a good idea. For the engine of the economy, not so much.
If we don't reorganize ourselves to use much less energy per person, the price will do it for us. In some parts of the world gas is much higher and life goes on, just differently (mass transit, different urban arrangements etc). Of course we like our big personal vehicles. As dick Chaney says, our way of life is not negotiable. Nope, instead it will be priced beyond the average persons means. Such transitions can either be organized, fair, participatory and practical or they can be chaotic, elitist and destructive.
This is where the wacky right wing echo chamber needs to be addressed. These issues are fundamental and complex. Hannity, rush and the like are not interested in educating the public to make informed decisions. Their role is to get rich entertaining us on how their absolutely fool proof perfectly conservative "market knows best" philosophy will solve all our problems. Hannity in particular thinks that handcuffing environmentalism and processing oil shale will do the trick. Some conservatives even believe in abiotic oil theories which state that their are oceans of petrol deep underground just because we want it to be there. Science be damned, the market is calling for oil! If only those evil liberals would get out of the way
"Dawuss said: "oil companies (Aren't their profit margins barely keeping them afloat?)"
Hilarious. Exxon just made ANOTHER record profit this quarter at $12 billion. The biggest quarterly profit recorded in history."
There's a difference between the two
I bet those oil tycoons are in the same boat as me. Boy, I bet they really lose sleep worrying how they would provide for their family if they lost their job. I bet they're really scared that their severance package won't cover the bills for more than a month if they lose their job.
But if the oil companies are barely scraping by, just imagine if the market truly were free. Just imagine if they had to pay for security for their tankers, or the monthly bill in Iraq. What if those guys had to operate without subsidies.
If that were the case, I might even be able to muster a little sympathy for the bastards.
Ladies and gentlemen, CHEAP GAS IS BACK!!!
Did Da Wuss just fart? :-)
I'm inclined to think he just admitted he believes that the gas fairies will magically lower gas prices if we simply click our heels and drill.
Good post.
If we don't get seismic and exploration going now and drill where we know to now the same Pelosi Dems who claimed they wanted lower gas prices 2 years ago when they were $2/gal but really wanted $6/gal becasue of Gore Global warming have given us this now. By the way, carbon emission are going up, but slower than predicted, and temperatures are REVERSE of what Gore said they would be - they have been going down the last few years. Looks like the 30,000 scientist that have petitioned against the global warming bs have the FACTS and are indeed correct.
Further reading for those interested in energy issues, anything by howard kunstler
Warning, foul language about a foul world!
May I also recommend "the oil drum" http://www.theoildrum.com/ if you are interested in understanding the energy issue.
Basically we were warned back in the bell bottom big hair days that a petrol based modern society can not last forever. the conservative fantasy is that with the market's blessing, we can drill our way out of the problem. Liberals often fail to grasp how difficult it will be to create an alternative system and want to believe that going after a few bad guys (speculators/big oil) will solve the problem. This is a problem that will only be solved by deeply restructuring our modern way life. Our politics and especially our media discourse does nothing to prepare us for this.
I like Kunstlers graphic description for the pickle we are in.
MMfA puts out this kind of propaganda but doesn't propose any workable solutions. Obama's energy suggestions are good and we should strive for more fuel efficient cars and new technology for clean energy. But in the mean time...we need to get off of foreign oil. No matter what, this country needs oil. No amount of wishful thinking or unproven technology will change that. Except for Nuclear Energy of course, but I'm sure that's not a viable solution for the left either.
Wind farms are 'quaint' but cannot begin to supply the energy needs at the scale necessary to actually do any good. I guess we could fill the northern Midwest with windmills as has been proposed - only those Midwesterners would be affected, but who cares about them, right?
Any interruption in supply right now, which is always a possibility, would lead to $5, $6 or even $10-per-gallon gas, which according to some on the left, is a good idea. But you know who gets hurt the most in that scenario? The poor; who can't afford the gas and can't afford a Prius.
I don't think you've thought this through.
"MMFA is not in the business of providing solutions. Should we put up the mission statement again? It's called exposing conservative misinformation, which is what they did with this article, and about the lies we keep hearing about how drilling everything in sight will of course lower our gas prices by tomorrow, which is of course, not true."- magnolialover
Yes, I've seen the mmfa mission, and I think its disingenuous at best. It should be: 'MMfA is dedicated to exposing its complete and utter intolerance to opinions and viewpoints it does not agree with' . But that's another story.
Regarding gas prices, a few weeks ago Bush lifted the executive ban on off-shore drilling and in the following weeks, the price of a barrel of oil dropped almost $40! I'm not naive enough to think there wern't other factors involved, but at some level, you must agree or at least acknowledge that even the HINT that the US might start looking to use some of our own oil resources caused a ripple in the oil market. Can you imagine if congress actually votes to lift the ban, as well?
I don't claim to know for sure, but logic tells me that we need ALL of it, domestic gas and oil exploration, new clean technolgies, nuclear energy, conservation; those things will bring us true energy independence and security.
Simply proof that the prime factor in the Oil Bubble is speculation. Thank you Mr. Reagan.
http://greytheory.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-investment-bubbles-reagans-tax.html
"Yes, I've seen the mmfa mission, and I think its disingenuous at best. It should be: 'MMfA is dedicated to exposing its complete and utter intolerance to opinions and viewpoints it does not agree with' . But that's another story."-goodfella57
You nailed it!
But better yet, just knowing you pissed off every loonie leftie here is:
Priceless.
Perhaps if MMFA separated their threads between "Verifiable Conservative Falsehoods", and "Conservative Opinion Only", it would help all the confused souls.
:)
This is how conservatives mix facts in with lies, making it very hard to pull them apart. The first part of the sentence is true...you do post a lot....but I end the sentence with an opinion (that you're a cocksucker).
You will have a hard time arguing against the "factual" basis of my post...but it is misinformation....a smear masquerading as an informed opinion. This is of course very simplistic compared to the arguments out there and how they are presented. The average American needs a little help in mounting a defense against this kind of sophisticated smearing. Thanks MMFA.
Or pretend to be laughing. The "lol"s are bad enough as an echo of the phony laughter used by Rush & Hannity to cover up their own clownishness, now we get the cartoon laughing smiley faces.
I do think it's cute when wingnuts imagine they're pissing off "loony lefties" by exposing what gullible dittoheads they are. Boy, am I angry. Really, stop it, I get so furious at your confusion.
Does someone need a pick me up? ;)
Monday, August 11, 2008
POWER HOUSE
Super lobbyist, McCain donor and loathsome GOP figure Ed Rogers decided to talk to the Washington Post about Barack Obama last week:
At least he was able to refrain from mentioning Obama's middle name while calling him "glitzy."
In other news, NBC has just completed the pilot for their new show, POWER HOUSE. In the first episode, we get to see how Ed Rogers and his wife live in their "Republican Shangri-La" -- an 18-thousand square foot estate in McLean, VA.
Looks just like my livingroom. We must have the same architect.
The genuine cowhide toilet-seat cover really says "I shit you not" with class. The golden studs around it aren't the least bit ostentatious.
And finally, we get to see why the lobbyists and hedonists with whom McCain has surrounded himself have proclaimed Americans to be a bunch of whiners:
That's right. She's standing in front of rows of her designer shoes cutting up sheets of freshly printed U.S. dollar bills with a pair of scissors so she can use them as wrapping paper.
Yeah, speaking of intolerance go post liberal ideas, as a liberal, at freepersissies, or most any wingnut blog and see how tolerant those punks are. See how quickly your posting privileges are revoked. Then come here, don't use foul or abusive language and post your Republican opinions. You will not be banned for it. So just stop your whining.
"See how quickly your posting privileges are revoked. Then come here, don't use foul or abusive language and post your Republican opinions. You will not be banned for it. So just stop your whining". ROUNDHOUSE
Was I whining? Really?
Look...I DO appreciate that I don't get banned for expressing my opinion here. If they do it on the mainstream right-wing sites, I think it's wrong. I don't post on any of them because its boring when everyone agrees with you.
Taz -
Do you honestly believe that his post "pissed off" a single liberal on this site? I hardly gave his post a second thought and I doubt if many others did either. I'm sure any anger never came into our reactions.
Are you simply projecting how you respond to criticism?
Yeah, you're right. We should just give up. I mean technology moves so slow anyway. We could never, in a million years, move green energy ahead to greater efficiency and affordability. Never.
Just look at your computer, it's not like it was ever the size of a warehouse and if it ever was, there's no way such a machine could be shrunken down to fit on your lap.
Let's just give up, like the nation of quitters who gave up on space race. Let's be a nation of quitters so we can satisfy the status quo.
"No amount of wishful thinking or unproven technology will change that" Me
"Yeah, you're right. We should just give up. I mean technology moves so slow anyway. We could never, in a million years, move green energy ahead to greater efficiency and affordability. Never." Roundhouse
Uh...I never said we should 'just give up' on anything. In fact, what I said was we need it ALL: Domestic oil, renewables, nuclear, conservation. The sooner the better.
Not intolerance, if you can prove it wrong. Just because it is someone's opinion, doesn't make it right, or correct. See, here's the difference, they combat misinformation, from the conservative side, and combat it with documented facts, not opinions. Sorry, but you're just plain old wrong.
And you also asked why don't they provide solutions? Not their job, that's not why MMFA is here.
“But in the mean time...we need to get off of foreign oil.”
Don’t try to package the push for ANWR and the continental shelf as a cut-and-dry choice between domestic and foreign oil. The right wing is propagating this false and dishonest notion that all we have to do start drilling more domestically and presto! Energy independence!! The right wing will cut ties with Arab monarchs, pull our troops out of Middle East nations, withdraw the carrier battle groups from the Persian Gulf, and stop awarding their buddies at Halliburton, et. al. with billions in taxpayer windfalls for Middle East operations.
There is simply too much oil in the Middle East and too much money to be made by maintaining the right wing’s cozy relationship with Arab monarchs, regardless of how much oil we get domestically.
But in the mean time...we need to get off of foreign oil (Goofella)
You've got a big gap in your logic here. You need to provide something showing that enacting policies for more drilling today will get us off of foreign oil "in the meantime".
Until you get that data posted, the rest of your comment is drivel.
I'm not sure it IS worth trying. The right has been lying for quite a while now, and that's resulted in Bush and distorted views on reality. Continued tries will likely result in just more Bushes and more distortions.
Ever considered that maybe a change in philosophy is finally in order?
No, it's not worth trying.
In fact, it's counterproductive. Drilling for more oil, and racing to use up our finite resources as quickly as we can, when the price wouldn't significantly change, does no good, and depletes that finite resource and does nothing to encourage the other steps that need to be taken.
Doing the wrong thing, in this case, as in most cases, is not innocuous.
For any of you who haven't been checking out the RW media, they've got another bit of self-hypnosis taking effect. The recent strawman was that those who don't worship Big Oil, or who understand we need to get to work on alternative sources, are presumed to "hate oil".
Over the last few days on am radio and Fox, I've heard discussions where the word "oil" was barely mentioned, but replaced with "energy", as in "that's American energy off the coast of Florida".
It's like they get fooled by their own strawmen, and think some doubletalk is going to change reality.
Yes, exactly.
That was the very heart of Rush's argument that I debunked the other day!
Rush's comment?
But why in the world this abject hatred for a commodity? I mean, I can understand if you're a little kid and you don't like peas or broccoli. But an entire political party and an ideological movement has now targeted oil as -- as big a threat to this country as conservative Republicans are. It's hard to get your arms around it.
My reaction?
Boy, Limbaugh sure is good at knocking down those strawman arguments, isn't he?
There is disgust with the people who think that oil exploration and drilling come at no potential risk to the environment.
There is fear with the false meme that we don't have to do anything about global climate change, much of which is clearly caused by the burning of fossil fuels, much of that gas and oil, gets any credibility. It deserves none.
There is disappointment that the facts, like that simply having everyone in America keep their tires inflated to a proper level would save us as much gas as we'll find from new drilling, get downplayed for the false talking points of the right. The ridicule of real ideas and the promotion of the nonsensical is upsetting to us all.
We're targeting lies, and distortions, and rejection of factual information and expert testimony and short-sighted carelessness and disregard for our children's future.
It's not that we hate a commodity at all. We had the people that try to manipulate that commodity and our use of that commodity. What a piece of work!
Hmmm....
" 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."
So if I inflate my tires I save 12 cents a gallon, but a federal gas tax holiday that saves 18 cents a gallon was insignificant and so small as to not matter.
Once again MMFA exposed as a bunch of lying, hypocritical creeps and left-wing political hacks.
Actually you have it backwards. Since I'm keeping my own money I'm not relying on the gov't to do anything for me.
And the larger point is that 12 cents a gallon is less than 18 and yet is put out as some big savings. It's LIBERAL HYPOCRISY at its best.
Is it becasue the idea on tire inflation came from the lips of St. Barack??
And then you hit a pothole that wasn't fixed because of the lack of road repair funds and your alignment is knocked out of whack to the tune of a few hundred dollars.
Now how do you feel about that gas tax holiday.
Actually the best way to reduce dependancy on oil is to cut consumption. Most new oil discoveries represent a few months to a year of global output. Globally new oil field discoveries peaked in the 60s. Now the problem is that we are close to a global production peak. Lots more oil is left but it will be expensive and difficult produce at a rate that will maintian our current rate of consumption. The cheap easy stuff already went into your SUV. We use around 80 million barrels per day as a planet and the US per capita consumes way more than other developed countries.
The problem for conservatives is that cutting consumption just isn't glamorous or congruent to their market dominated world view. Such things as planned development, mass transit, and carbon taxes our beyond their scope because problems that the market can't solve by definition do not exist.
Other countries use less per person and thus are less dependent on foreign oil. I believe gas is around 7 or 8 bucks per gallon in parts of Europe.
Actually you have it backwards. Since I'm keeping my own money I'm not relying on the gov't to do anything for me. (Noleft)
No, I had it right, you're backwards. The money you make at your job (assuming you're not a trust fund baby) is actually your boss's money.He just disperses it to you in your paycheck based on an agreement you have-- you do some work, he gives you some money.
We have an agreement, as citizens, with our country.I realize you're stuck in that childlike conservative rut, that the money your boss gives you is "your money", and you don't feel any obligation towards your country beyond putting a Chinese-made flag on your car. The reast of us- the "Real Americans"- understand the duty we have to our country.
We would choose to inflate our tires properly, and continue to let that gas tax go to the maintenance of our roads. You irresponsible freeloaders would rather raid the commons of an already debt-ridden treasury to save you the labor of being accountable, and rely on the rest of us to carry your sorry lazy ass.
We're tired of it. Step up, and pitch in.You have to grow up some day.I live in a very Blue state, and we've been supporting your whiny red state carcasses for too long.If you can't get off food stamps or move out of your mom's house, it's not everybody else's problem. If you think every cent you get is "your money" , you're obviously on an allowance or trust fund. Join the real world, you house poodle.
While I agree that properly inflated tires can save some energy, that is a public service announcement, not a policy.
I believe that's why it's being jabbed at in good natured fashion.
It was much more than that.
Drilling for oil in currently-restricted areas has been aired as a short-term help to gas prices because it's going to increase our supply of oil.
It's not going to increase our supply of oil in the near term, and the amount of oil that will be produced in the long term won't affect prices very much at all.
Ensuring proper tire inflation will save consumers money today, and tomorrow, and forever, and will save more oil than what is available in the restricted areas.
If it's not much, that admission by you that it's not much is further evidence of how inadequate the argument is that we should drill for that oil and risk our environment and use up a finite resource as soon as possible.
The holiday would be temporary. Making it permanent would mean a big reduction in road surface maintenance, creating more wear on your car and tires, meaning more frequent repair and tire replacement costs, which would quickly eat up your 18 cents/gallon.
Now, I realize that it's typical conservative philosophy to not conserve what you can afford to replace, but really.... how dumb does a person have to be to think that a gas tax holiday is preferable to normal vehicle maintenance?
What you forgot, is that there are 4 tires on the car. If each tire is low to the tune of 5 psi (which according to my garage manager friend) which is not uncommon, you know have a drop of 20 psi altogether, and using your own numbers you provided us, we see a percentage decrease of: 8 percent.
Also, you're equating gas mileage with gas pricing, it's not the same. For example, my car normally gets about 32 miles per gallon. If I had my tires underinflated, and inflated them properly, I could expect an 8% increase in my gas mileage, which would be: 2.56 miles, for a total of 34.56 miles per gallon.
Again, you're comparing gas mileage versus cost in gas, and it's not the same.
So you admit to not thinking then eh?
Quick. What's 8 percent of say, 3.60 that I paid for gas this morning? That's more like $0.30 / gallon, which is a lot more than say, the 0.12 that you quoted, they didn't take into account all 4 tires, and the relative low pressures that some people drive around on. But hey, keep trying. What can you control? Your tire pressure, or the federal gas tax? I'm sure that you'd like to keep your federal roads (Interstates), and bridges, and you know, infrastructure intact right?
Better yet, want to really save some gas money, stop driving. I ride my bike to work every day. I haven't filled my tank in almost 1.5 months.
First, the effect of saving gas forever is bigger than saving gas taxes for 3 months.
Second, no one said it was going to make a huge difference. That's our big argument against drilling - all the oil that could be added to our supply is less than the amount of oil that will be saved by proper tire inflation! Did you lose your mind? Why are you defeating your side's own argument that it's vitally important for us to add that amount of oil to our supply???
Lastly, there's a very good chance that if the gas tax were temporarily removed, demand would go up, and the price could be raised by suppliers both as a result of increased demand and also simple greed, and so there's serious doubts that there'd be much saving for consumers. It would hurt funding our highway projects whether or not the end price for consumers changed - that tax revenue would be gone.
Your argument falls flat on its face once again.
Might be slightly of topic but and intresting article posted in the canadian paper National Post regarding American oil supply.
Oil imports are destroying the U. S., say a rising tide of alarmists in the U. S., chief among them T. Boone Pickens, the legendary oil man turned wind power developer. "It is a clear and growing threat to our national security, and our national economy," he testified to the U. S. Senate. "It has to be stopped. We are on the verge of losing our Super Power status."To hear it from Pickens, who is mounting a national ad campaign to promote his wind power investments, it's even worse than that -- the U. S. is aiding and abetting its enemies."We don't buy all of our oil from our enemies. We do have some friends -- Canada and a few others. But most of the money that the world pays for oil goes into the hands of countries that are not our reliable allies. And some of that money is used right back against us in the war on terror. And so, we are funding the people who are trying to wreak havoc on this country."Pickens is outrageously misleading. True, the U. S. does import most of its oil, but barely -- only 56.5% of net U. S. oil needs are now met from exports according to the most recent figures from the U. S. Energy Information Administration, not the 70% that Pickens' ads claim. Moreover, this "oil dependency," as it's called, is diminishing, not increasing, as Pickens claims, and precious little of it comes from countries that can be thought of as enemies of the U. S.Neither is the U. S. dependent on any one country for an outsized amount of oil -- the U. S. imports oil from some 69 nations, most of it from friends and allies and precious little from hostile states, including from newly hostile Russia, which meets less than 2% of U. S. needs.America's single largest supplier of oil is America, which meets almost half of its own needs. America's single largest external supplier is Canada, which meets some 12% of U. S. needs. Add in Mexico, another large and reliable supplier of oil, and the U. S. meets about 62% of its needs from North American sources.Add in other friendly countries in the Americas, such as Brazil, Columbia and Argentina, and the U. S. meets more than two-thirds of its needs from this hemisphere.The U. S. imports oil from only one country in the Americas that can be considered hostile -- Venezuela, which meets 6% of U. S. demand. To eliminate that 6% -- and Russia's 2%, too -- the U. S. would only need to develop a fraction of its offshore oil resources.Much is made of America's dependence on the Middle East for its oil imports. In fact, the entire Persian Gulf meets only 12% of U. S. needs, and that 12% comes overwhelmingly from allies. Saudi Arabia, America's largest supplier in the Gulf, meets 8% of U. S. needs and Iraq, the second largest supplier and a fast growing one, meets 3%. Kuwait, the country the U.S. rescued in the first Gulf War, is next, at just over 1%. America's true enemies in the Gulf -- Iran and Syria--account for virtually 0%.Should America forsake trade with its friends and allies in the Gulf region? Or in Africa, where 16 countries -- most of them very poor and small -- are oil suppliers? Or in Asia, which all told meets less than 2% of U. S. needs? Or European suppliers such as Norway? Every country that sells the U. S. oil in return buys U. S. food, machinery and other U. S. exports.America should not fear trade, and it should not feel trapped. Its oil suppliers are highly diverse, from around the world. Moreover, because high prices have transformed the economics of developing North American energy resources, the bulk of U. S. oil needs -- now and into the foreseeable future -- is likely to come from the continent. Canada, which is rapidly developing its tar sands, is soon expected to double its exports to the U. S., with another doubling to follow.More to the point, with the U. S. public now overwhelmingly in favour of exploiting America's vast on-and offshore resources, the U. S. is likely to ramp up its own production and -- if it ever wanted to -- could well displace all of its non-North American oil imports.But why would it want to?http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=718939One of the biggest myths is that gasoline is overpriced at $4.00/gallon. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the high prices, but if we look back to the early 70s when gasoline was around $.40/gallon (in most places) and compare that to the price of other things vs today, $4.00 is not all that out of line. Cars were around $2000, rent around $150, a meal at the Golden Arches around $1.00 (burger, shake, fries), US Federal budget $300+ Billion. Now, cars $20,000 (but they are more reliable and get better mileage), rent/mortgage $1500, a meal at the Golden Arches $10.00, US Federal Budget $3+Trillion.
Cut the Corps profits in half, how much would we save at the pump, a dime? a quarter?
Oil is also embedded further in our lives than gas and diesel, therefore it will play a big part of our lives for the next several decades (more than 5).
Alternatives are ok, and knowing the ingenuity of the technical minds in this country (those few that are left), the economic drive to incorporate these technologies could well be bigger and last longer than the dot con fiasco of the late 90s. We need to realize however we will never get all our electricity, for example, from wind & solar, we have to mix those in with Hydro, nuclear, fossil fuel (coal, oil, natural gas), and perhaps some as of yet undiscovered sources to continue to grow our economy over the long haul.
by jupiter, you are all right. i have finally come to my senses. no offshore drilling, no more offshore production. no onshore drilling, no onshore production. stop it all. stop it everywhere.
no coal. no nuclear. no natural gas. stop it, you mad world. we are destroying the planet by living.
no more inhaling, no more exhaling. you fools, by your very living you are making our planet inhabitable.
stop it you are the enemies of the planet on which we live.
Media Matters (for very little) has yet to face the reality of our need for energy as soon as possible.
If we don't drill now, how will we maintain any growth in our economy in the next few years? The amount of oil used in our daily lives, beyond powering our cars, is still about 35% of what we consume.
Will the left ever allow us to use 'cleaner' fuels? Try exploring or drilling for natural gas, the environmental whackos that fund leftist candidates won't permit obtaining this resource without filing a mountain-load of suits to slow down or better yet, stop getting natural gas.
When people complain that windmills give them headaches, the noise is unbearable or environmental extremists worry about the interruption of the mating practices of some type of sap sucker the chances of T. Boone Pickens' plans to line windmills from Texas to Canada has about as much of chance of happening as Pelosi giving her employees the opportunity to join a union. If the Kennedy's aren't going to allow these unsightly things in their backyard, why should anyone else?
Nuclear power? Get real......
Hyro power? The lawyers will be the only one tapping into that resource.
Oil is the safest way to bring inexpensive energy into our economy. Once a well is drilled, fractured and brought on line, the vast majority of the infrastructure lies underground. Coal mining sites can be repaired but continue to visibly and physically impact the environment, but windmills and solar panels can't be easily hidden to the degree needed to even come close to meeting our country's needs.
Fact is that MM(fvl) is hoping that it can stop what Americans recognize all to easily, we need to drill now and drill here. The amount of oil lost into the Gulf was about .000000006% of the amount of water found there. That's far less than the amount of earthworm found in some vegan tofu dish.
The sooner the Republicans make this the center of their campaign platform the better.
Prowedconn, that was a dopey post, even for you.
If we don't drill now, how will we maintain any growth in our economy in the next few years?
Drilling now won't produce any growth in our economy now. that's an expense.
The amount of oil used in our daily lives, beyond powering our cars, is still about 35% of what we consume.
Are you saying that 65% of the oil we consume is through our cars? Sorry, i you're not very clear. Are you arguing for more efficient cars, or alternative energy sources?
Or was your entire post just affirming what everybody knows, that if the GOP can dumb it down enough, they have a chance?
You should really try to make more sense in your posts. This isn't FreeRepublic.
I really hate long-winded posts on MMfA, so ... here's mine! (apologies and thanks for reading if you care to):
Just heard Levin (on the go-home drive-time) ranting and shouting about the "marxist environmentalist leftists" who don't understand the importance of the US cultivating our stock of domestic oil, so everyone should vote for McDrill. I had to turn Levin off toot sweet, his shouting was souring my going-home mood. Good god, some of these pundints love to get shouty.
I thought about it and recalled that in the '80s, one US uranium company with which I was loosely connected closed all of its domestic uranium mines, after deciding that their ongoing contracts to supply uranium to US users (presumably the govt and nukular power operations) could be satisfied by purchasing U from Australia. They put over 3000 miners out of work, because they found out they could purchase U for abt $50/lb (as I recall, it was a long time ago) but producing it in domestic mines cost over $100/lb -- Their profit line was at $150, meaning they could have profited by keeping the mines open, but profited more by closing the mines. These were go-go Reagan times. The costs of doing business domestically were due to union wages, complying with enviroregs and performing enviro cleanups -- this outfit had had a big-ass nasty radioactive spill and it cost mucho buckos to clean it up -- Of course, Hannity and Limbaugh would claim it didn't need to be cleaned up (WWRD?), and the extra costs of cleanup were just due to enviro wackjobs insisting on keeping nature pristine ... rather than the truth, which is that industrial wackjobs in the US were insisting on imposing all environmental costs of doing business sloppily on the American taxpayer (and some native Americans living in the area, but, hey). Presumably, the Australians know how to mine U without releasing mega-high doses of radiation on unsuspecting roos, now why is it that we Americans can't get that done?
The Aussie U might have been nearer to surface, thus easier to mine, or it might have been the US$/Aus$ conversion made it cheaper -- I don't recall the details.
And I recall, that's about the same the the US oil companies decided to purchase oil from the ME rather than go to all the trouble of producing it here. Same argument, satisfying contracts, but different energy supply (for which I have no direct knowledge or info -- maybe someone here can fill in the blank?)
What I'm getting at, is that it is obvious that BigOil made a decision to purchase foreign oil (and clean up 2 decades-worth of oil-spills, and this is as serious as death to you if your community uses groundwater as a drinking water supply) rather than pumping their profits into domestic development or building refineries. BigOil got us into this energy-crisis mess, and once firmly established as a big mess, their paid apologists (Levin, Hannity, and Limbaugh) blame the enviros for getting us into this energy-crisis mess.
See? MMfA missed this point in their otherwise "pretty good" expose of Gingrich's manufactured-energy-crisis talking points. Gingrich intends the talking point to lead to republican victories in the upcoming general election. MMfA hopes to refute Gingrich's talking points, that are being heard in the heartland. Some of us remember the truth (we oldtimers don't all have Alzheimer's yet), and we recognize the enormous depth of the lies that have been told by the Right for decades now.
Thanks for taking the time to read this.