I don't care for Gingrich at all, certainly not as the GOP nominee, but one has to admit, he knows his stuff.
To Obama's boast that America is producing more oil today than any time in the last 8 years, Gingrich noted that the North Dakota boom was on private land. He reported in his earlier speech that "Under President Obama because he is so anti-American energy, we have actually had a 40% reduction in development of oil offshore, and we have had a 40% reduction in the development of oil on federal lands." In his San Francisco speech, Gingrich added: "So in the area he controls, production is down and the area that is hard at the free enterprise stuff where people get rich, production is up. So he is now claiming credit for the area he can't control in order to have us think he is actually for what he opposes."The entire article is pretty much about the Bakken. I think you will enjoy it.
I have to thank a reader from Bismarck for sending me this article. It really is very, very good. If you don't like the players in the article (Obama vs Gingrich), replace the names with those of people you like.
Dear President, Barack Obama:
ReplyDelete“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”
Yours Truly,
Abraham Lincoln
Excerpts from the WSJ’s POTOMAC WATCH 3/01/12
Gingrich's Energy Charge The candidate has recast an old debate in a way that the GOP can use to great effect against Obama. By Kimberley A. Strassell
… whether Super Tuesday proves the speaker's comeback or his swan song, Mr. Gingrich is nonetheless bequeathing something to his party: ENERGY. . . .
While the headlines have focused on his silly promise of $2.50-a-gallon gas (no president can guarantee a world price), the speaker's bigger contribution has come in his crystallization of two key arguments for the fall campaign. The first is his point that this is not the usual, boring energy debate.
For decades the nation has deadlocked over America's supposedly limited natural resources, fighting over whether high gas prices made it worth touching, say, the supposedly pristine Alaskan wilderness. It's been a debate in the context of scarcity.
Mr. Gingrich's savvy has been to grasp that this is over, done, passé. America is embarking on a seismic energy shift. A decade of technological advances—from 3-D mapping, to fracking, to horizontal drilling—has turned this country into a resources monster in oil and gas and coal.
The old, tired GOP argument is that we need to drill for energy security. The new, rebooted argument is that America is primed to become the largest energy producer in the world, with all the money, jobs and benefits that come with it.
In the context of abundance, energy development is political gold for the GOP. As Mr. Gingrich notes: It is a winning economic argument, a shift that could create "more than a million new jobs."
It is a winning deficit argument, since royalties and profits become a new cash stream to the government. It is a winning little-guy argument, since the beneficiaries of fracking are "people who own the property," like "farmers."
Energy also becomes, and this is the speaker's second point, one of the strongest contrasts with Mr. Obama. That is, if Republicans get it right.
The temptation is going to be to hit Mr. Obama on gas prices, accuse him of not doing enough exploration. But if gas prices fall, that argument loses its punch.
And Mr. Obama is already shamelessly taking credit for a production uptick on private lands. The trick, which is what Mr. Gingrich is doing, is to instead cast energy policy as emblematic of the administration's entire broken philosophy, the "fantasy world" where "everything that is good is done by the government."
Yet what is unique about energy is that it has already provided clear proof of failure, via Solyndra, EPA rules, the Keystone XL pipeline and more. A presidential mindset that believes government exists to remake the energy sector with high-cost green failures results in the exact opposite of the Gingrich proposition: fewer jobs, a higher deficit, calls for greater taxes, and declining manufacturing.
This is a contrast that has been gift-wrapped for the GOP, even if Mr. Gingrich isn't necessarily the best messenger. The ethanol king feels even in these speeches the need to keep plugging an "all of the above" policy that presumably throws more dollars at renewables. But in the way Mr. Gingrich occasionally can, he's outlining rich political arguments for his party.
See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203986604577255761338883798.html#printMode and,
WSJ’s REVIEW & OUTLOOK 2/ 28/12 Obama's Keystone Jujitsu - He Now Supports and Opposes the Pipeline.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/obamas-war-on-energy.php
Bruce, how about adding - 2012 Energy Debate - as a sidebar Topic right under Your Gasoline Demand Topic.
In fact, I do have a topic along that line linked in the sidebar:
Deletehttp://milliondollarway.blogspot.com/2011/09/spaceholder-for-future-post.html
On the sidebar, near the bottom: ObamaNation_2012
It is hard to find, yes, but it will be re-named and will be given a more prominent position on the blog once the GOP nominee is named.
Incredible rebuttal of the administration's position on energy. Got to give Gingrich credit for knowing the subject and being able to articulate it in a understandable way. It exposes their duplicity and dishonesty that is a threat to our economy, our energy security and national security.
ReplyDeleteEvil exposed, that is the progressive liberal way.
It looks like Santorum's visit to Tioga, North Dakota has moved energy policy to the front burner as a issue where it should be.
Yes, I wish GOP nominee -- whoever ends up getting it -- could articulate about three points day in/day out, and stay away from liberal baiting. Energy, jobs, taxes, would just about be enough to keep them busy enough without wading into things that Congress will handle anyway.
DeleteI am waiting to hear the GOP start discussing phasing out ethanol.
ReplyDeleteUntil I hear a proposal to stop ethanol, then all the GOP energy talk (drilling, permitting, keystone (which is a complete diversion because the "veto" was a manufacturered political event)) is just so much hot air. Gingrich is a genius in his own mind (see lunar colony and other off the cuff hare brained schemes). He is a Johnny come lately opportunist who had ZERO interest in energy until it appeared that he could use energy as an issue to advance his personal goals. This theme appears over and over in gingrich's " career".
I agree with you on ethanol. But ethanol is a rounding error in the big scheme of things, and to talk about it before November 7 (or whenever the election is) will cost the nominee votes from the Midwest. All I need to know: who the nominee names to advise him/her. I have an idea where Harold Hamm stands on ethanol, specifically, and on energy, in general. My hunch is that Harold Hamm does not see a big future in algae any time soon.
Delete