Gingrich Cites Big Oil And Right-Wing Intern To Claim That All Economists Support Drilling
Gingrich Cites Big Oil And Right-Wing Intern To Claim That All Economists Support Drilling
Today, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich promoted his “Drill Here, Drill Now,” dirty-energy-funded plan on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal and Fox and Friends. On both shows, he touted the work of an intern at the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, who Gingrich claimed “understands more more about economics than most of the politicians in this country.” His proof? The intern found a paper arguing that “the price of oil will drop almost immediately” if the U.S. expands domestic drilling.
The paper was rejected by the Energy Journal because the principle “is basically understood by every economist in the world,” Gingrich claimed. “Everybody who is a professional economist knows” that more drilling will make oil prices come down “immediately,” he declared. Watch a compilation of Gingrich’s appearances here:
Gingrich and his famed intern (who made his own appearance on Mike Gallagher’s radio show today) gleefully reported that the Energy Journal’s editor, James L. Smith, included a mocking shot at the Democratic Policy Committee in his rejection letter, claiming Democrats were the only ones who don’t understand the immediate benefits of drilling.
The cheap shot isn’t surprising, considering that Smith is a paid consultant for the world’s major oil companies, including ExxonMobil, British Petroleum, Conoco Philips, Marathon Oil Company, and Saudi Aramco. Last year, he was quoted in the New York Times praising ExxonMobil for being “disciplined” in its investments and fawning over the “Exxon way to approach every business prospect.”
Gingrich’s claim to have “every professional economist” on his side was too much even for Fox News’s Gretchen Carlson, who replied, “I find it interesting that more economists are not on the record saying that.” In fact, it’s much easier to find economists who say on the record that Gingrich is lying:
– “Obviously, if you do offshore drilling now it’s not going to give any short term help on the supply of oil. … That’s far away.” — Paul A. Samuelson, a professor of economics at MIT and winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize in Economics.
– “I have a problem linking the drilling to current gas prices for political reasons. The reality is there is no correlation between today’s prices and what gasoline will be discovered in the outer shelf.” — Dr. A.F. Alhaji, an associate professor of economics at Ohio Northern University
– “It won’t make any difference whatsoever [on gas prices] because new oil that could be found and produced on the new Outer-Continental Shelf won’t take place for at least eight to 10 years.” — Texas A&M Economics Professor Dr. John Moroney
– “Drilling in the Gulf starting today is not going to give us any relief this year, next year or the year after.” — Tom Oberhofer, an economist at Eckerd College in Pinellas County
– “It’s absurd to argue that ending the moratorium on drilling off parts of the U.S. coasts would quickly bring down the high price of gasoline.” — John Berry, Bloomberg columnist
– “Would starting to drill now do anything for consumers in the near future? The answer to this one…is probably not, since it’ll take so long for new oil or gas to come to market.” — Ken Green, an energy analyst with the American Enterprise Institute.
– “Opening off-shore drilling would have no impact whatsoever on gas prices today.” — Mike Rodgers, a leading oil expert with PFC Energy in Washington
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
What! He didn’t cite the Geico Gecko?
August 6th, 2008 at 4:07 pmWell My Dog says the answer to the energy crisis is to pay for dog poop.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:08 pmHow do you fight honorably against people who play by different rules?
Most people are taught to value honesty and fairness. Gingrich and his ilk use those habits against us. They can say anything they damn well please, and it does no good to point out to them their lies.
They have no tether to any solid anchor of truth or objective reality. Their only fundamental value is self-service.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:09 pmThat would certainly solve my family’s fiscal crisis.
A Surge™! A Surge™ of dog poop, I say!
August 6th, 2008 at 4:10 pmIn a related story, Gingrich cited the same intern and big oil consultant to claim that climatologists dispute global warming.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:11 pmThe media didn’t challenge Newt’s economic foundation, an unpublished study found by a Princeton third year. But since Gingrich found the golden goose, let’s see if McCain applies it to healthcare:
“Build Now, Train More, Pay Less”
August 6th, 2008 at 4:14 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
How do you fight honorably against people who play by different rules?
Most people are taught to value honesty and fairness. Gingrich and his ilk use those habits against us. They can say anything they damn well please, and it does no good to point out to them their lies.
I would rather have to argue with an evil genius than a well-meaning fool.
And I would rather have to argue with either of those than an evil fool like Newt Gingrich.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:16 pmLying seems to be in the blood of Republicans.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:17 pmMcC*nt needs the Lizard.
He needs someone who the Rightards call ’smart’ agreeing with him, or at least giving him some talking points to make him look smarter.
Trouble is, all he’ll get is Salmonella.
Newt is a reptile, slinking around in the dark & occasionally sticking his forked tongue out & making weird sounds.
Come to think of it, Newt & McC*nt are eerily similar.
VP?????
August 6th, 2008 at 4:18 pmwhere’s obamagr8?
August 6th, 2008 at 4:19 pmtearing his gretchen carlson posters from his wall now that even faux noise is debunking what he’s selling?
The Republicans are in trouble. The American public knows that:
1) We need to start working on clean renewable energy sources.
2) Oil is finite and we are on the downside of it’s production.
3) Drilling for oil off-shore now will not yield any new oil for at least 10 years.
4) The Republicans have done everything in their power to obstruct production of renewable clean energy.
and last, but certainly not least
5) The oil companies are getting rich while ripping us off.
The only people who don’t know the above five facts as the truth are the 21%’ers who will always need a father figure to tell them what to think and how to act. Sad sheeple.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:21 pmThe economic theory, according to Newt, is “future supply” has an immediate impact on present prices. Odd, as Gingrich spent considerable time talking about known supply in his hourlong C-SPAN interview this morning. If it’s known, why wouldn’t it already be factored into current prices?
August 6th, 2008 at 4:22 pmSalamander boy is using an intern at the American Enterprise Institute to try and set US energy policy ?
Will he consult with Rudy Giuliani and McStupid and fall back on his own behavior to try and talk about family values next ?
August 6th, 2008 at 4:22 pmDrink Brawndo! It’s got electrolytes!
August 6th, 2008 at 4:23 pmNewt shares the brain power of his namesake.
p.s. Ralph – will that energy Surge™ work with cat poop…? Enquiring minds want to know. ;o)
August 6th, 2008 at 4:30 pmSo, Idiot8, which of those resources is finite…?
Just asking.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:30 pmNewt has lost it (if he ever had ‘it’ to begin with). What depresses me about this story is he loves listening to NPR for news because he says that’s the only place he hears both sides.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:30 pmI agree with you 100%, it is The Big Lie when you say: “This country is floating on a virtual ocean of oil and all we need is the will to produce it.”
August 6th, 2008 at 4:30 pmhe touted the work of an intern at the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, who Gingrich claimed “understands more more about economics than most of the politicians in this country.”
His proof? The intern found a paper saying exactly what Gingrich wanted it to say.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:31 pmGingrich is a smooth-talking huckster selling snake oil for big oil. We glimpsed the real Gingrich getting his first wife to sign divorce papers while she was in the recovery room after uterine cancer surgery. An unprincipled scumbag looking to sup greedily from big oil’s teat.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:32 pmLet’s be honest here: drilling in ANWAR would be a quick fix and would solve nothing in the long run.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:34 pmOh, please don’t, Obie.
Your embarrassing performance yesterday is till fresh in the minds of most of those who witnessed it. I’m not sure there’s much to gained for anyone by you trying to reprise it.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:34 pmIt will be quicker to build massive solar and wind farms and huge electric lines to transport the power to market?
Yes. And better for the American People, and better for National Security, and better for the enviroment.
A bit of an over simplification but only the Oil Companies and Terrorists don’t benefit… and even though will be better off in the long run.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:34 pm“Gingrich Cites Big Oil To Claim That All Economists Support Drilling”
Here is another nut pandering for the big oil companies. Tough times for the GOP party when they are running on empty and making idiotic comments like this.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:35 pmIf there isn’t alot of money to be made Republicans are against it. Big Oil will start to lose those huge profit margins they have grown use to, not to mention the CEO bonuses.
Exxon Mobil Corp on Tuesday said it gave Chief Executive Rex Tillerson a cash bonus and restricted stock currently valued at close to $20 million under its short-term incentive plan for 2007.
No one is worth that much money. They are all parasites.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:36 pmcera Says: “watch what you say. pres candidate John Edwards now has his photo in the paper with his lovechild while his wife was dying of cancer.”
do tell, and which newspaper is this?
August 6th, 2008 at 4:36 pmIsn’t that in the same august publication that reported that Bush was back on the sauce?
Did you lend THAT report the same credence as this one?
August 6th, 2008 at 4:37 pmobamagr8 Says:
——————————————————————————–
The Big Lie.
This country is floating on a virtual ocean of oil and all we need is the will to produce it.
“But it will take YEARS to get this oil….”
It will be quicker to build massive solar and wind farms and huge electric lines to transport the power to market?
A bit of a simplification but the sun and wind are in the west, 60% of the country’s population live in the east.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
What does it cost for the sun to come out or the wind to blow , asshat ?
We should continue ruining the planet in order by extracting a dirty , finite substance that when used , fouls the planet further ?
You GOP/Chimpy backers are the most shallow , unthinking cretins ever hatched ; you all possess the depth of baby drool……
August 6th, 2008 at 4:37 pmCera-
August 6th, 2008 at 4:38 pmYou’re right, they won’t power gas vehicles… but they will power electric vehicles.
Why are we using petroleum to produce electricity?
Oh, Lord help us. Why do we get trolls so dim that we even have to help them explain their own talking points?
August 6th, 2008 at 4:38 pmcera Says:
——————————————————————————–
belac
solar or wind power wont power gas vehicles
August 6th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Nor will a finite source when we run out of it , Copernicus……
August 6th, 2008 at 4:39 pmWith all this new oil available, are the oil companies going to build new refineries immediately?
To hear it from the oil companies and the Department of Energy, we are already close to refining capacity at around 90%, so what good would more oil do to reduce demand – an prices – if it can’t get out of the refinery?
Remember, it’s not so much the amount of oil we have, but how we get it refined into a usable form, into the distribution stream, and into your tank. Any bottleneck or restriction on this pathway, and, well, you are just sitting there still paying nearly $4 a gallon.
This is what Lynn Westfall, Tesoro’s chief economist, said in an NPR interview on May 30, 2007:
“If you were to ask us to go build a brand new refinery anywhere in the world, I would tell you you’d be lucky to have it up and running in six or seven years,” Westfall says. “And then you’d need 10 to 15 years of today’s margins to pay it back. So building a new refinery is a 20-year bet that margins are going to remain very high.”
And, the website “Public Citizen” reported: “From 1975 to 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received only one permit request for a new refinery.” That one refinery was built in 1976 – when Gerald Ford was still President.
Why isn’t McCain taliking about increasing refining capacity? Drill now? No, build the refinery now.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:42 pmcera Says:
——————————————————————————–
watch what you say. pres candidate John Edwards now has his photo in the paper with his lovechild while his wife was dying of cancer.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
If I gave a damn what the lead story at The National Enquirer on-line was , I’d have gone there myself or asked you about it .
Seeing as how neither occurred , you should sit quietly in the corner and fist yourself……..
August 6th, 2008 at 4:42 pmI thought Batboy was John Edwards’ love child?
And McCain was seen fondling Bigfoot at a Sturgis Rally.
at least that’s what I read in the Enquirer
August 6th, 2008 at 4:45 pmcera Moans:
lets be dishonest here. Not drilling will hurt us more than drilling. We dont have any electric vehicles that go more than 50 miles that anyone can afford
Look at this, maroon.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:47 pmAll we have to do is have the vision, energy and committment to re-make our entire energy grid with this technology.
So we WILL have electric vehicles that go much more than fifty miles, if we want to.
If you don’t, enjoy paying $50.00 a gallon for your oil fired pollutercar.
Shoeless says:
I would rather have to argue with an evil genius than a well-meaning fool.
Did you steal that from me or did I, unwittingly, steal it from someone else?
Back on topic.
And why is the Reichwing in such a panic to give away leases when the free market is adjusting? It’s Econ 101.
When the price of a commodity gets too high, demand goes down. Then the price follows. I fail to see how additional mineral rights will have any effect. Even if the oil companies had expressed a willingness to make the upfront investments before world oil supply starts falling.
Did I miss one of the big oil companies announcing an investment in efficient new drilling projects and infrastructure? Because as far as I can tell, the ONLY people screaming about drilling are Republicriminal politicians and their shills.
I wold give them a lot more credence if the CEO of Exxon Mobile announced they had a few billion earmarked for development of “new” resources. But, of course, the American taxpayer will probably be called upon to subsidize the operation.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:47 pmNewt Gingrich was on CSPAN early this morning and lied like a rug.
To a Democratic caller that asked about the need to drill offshore/ANWR before their leases were used, Gingrich answered that “there’s *already* a 1-year use-it-or-lose-it” provision on those leases, and we need these additional sites because “we *know* there is oil in these sites”.
Excuse me? Not only am I *sure* the Democratic Congress did not issue 79 million acres in drilling leases in the last 12 months, I’m also certain the (imaginary) technology to *know for certain* where oil exists didn’t come into existence in the past 12 months when oil companies agreed to purchase leases where they would have *known* no oil exists.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:48 pmDamn, the link is at
August 6th, 2008 at 4:48 pm‘Major discovery’ from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution
cera Says:
——————————————————————————–
lets be honest here. Not drilling will hurt us more than drilling. We dont have any electric vehicles that go more than 50 miles that anyone can afford
August 6th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
You’re absolutely correct
Let’s be honest
You’re an imbecile
August 6th, 2008 at 4:48 pmIn 1957, we could barely get a piece of metal off the ground and into near space.
12 years later, we landed on the moon.
As RUC has said, if we have the vision, energy and committment, we can do anything we want.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:49 pmRemember folks, this is the SAME schmuck who was leading the charge for impeaching Bill Clinton for a BJ, while he himself was in an adulterous affair behind HIS wife’s back.
Have you sir, no sense of shame?
August 6th, 2008 at 4:52 pmobamagr8 Says:
“Got this from a buddy in Texas”
PSSSTTTTT a little hint for you…the only time you should ever listen to anyone from texas is if they’re running for Miss America. Otherwise, they should just keep their traps shut to avoid sounding like morons.
Then again…birds of a feather
August 6th, 2008 at 4:53 pmThe biggest lie is that world oil production is falling. The only reasons for today’s high prices are the disruptions we caused in the ME and the destruction of our credit/the dollar.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:53 pmTired; when oil companies merge, they CLOSE refineries. Not build new ones, or even maintain many of the ones they already have on-line.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:55 pmHow much did a computer cost 20 years ago? How much does it cost now?
Good thing that obamagr8 wasn’t in charge of the PR for those….
August 6th, 2008 at 4:57 pmBozo, I thought that was South Carolina?
August 6th, 2008 at 4:57 pmobamagr8 Says:
the sun and wind are in the west, 60% of the country’s population live in the east.
Today’s weather in New York City: Wind from NW at 15 mph gusting to 25 mph
August 6th, 2008 at 4:57 pmobamagr8 Says:
——————————————————————————–
Got this from a buddy in Texas:
August 6th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
You could have just written a moron like yourself …….
August 6th, 2008 at 4:58 pmheadline on the googlenews page:
All Star Panel on Candidates’ Energy Plans FOXNews
gee… i wonder what THAT conclusion will be…?
August 6th, 2008 at 4:58 pmthe truly funny thing is lil obbie seems to think we’d take anything regarding our dependency on oil from texas seriously.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:59 pmAnd, for effect, Shove this article up your gazoo, Newt
Dearth of Ships Delays Drilling of Offshore Oil
August 6th, 2008 at 5:00 pmOne energy source rarely mentioned is geothermal. If funds for development were pumped into it we’d have electricity 24X7. All that would cost would be development, deployment and maintainence. No pollution, no overhead, just maintain the system.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:02 pmImpeach Pelosi, Cheney and Bush and Save the Constitution!
30,000 years ago, slopeheads like obamagr8 wanted to keep living in caves because it was easier than going out and building a hut.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:02 pmpete Says:
——————————————————————————–
Shoeless says:
I would rather have to argue with an evil genius than a well-meaning fool.
Did you steal that from me or did I, unwittingly, steal it from someone else?
You must have gotten it elsewhere because I have heard it one more than one occasion.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:05 pmshoeless Says:
Dang! And here I thought I was clever when I must have been reading in a trance. Again.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:08 pmBoil and bubble, oil and trouble, and Tongue of Newt. Still part of the GOP witches’ brew.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:12 pmSurprising that Gretchen pushed back. Usually, she goes along with the FOX=GOP line.
She turned me into a newt. But I got better (Python, M.)
August 6th, 2008 at 5:20 pmMcCain has chosen his running mate: Exxon Mobil, says Gov. O’Malley
Staff
Gov. Martin O’Malley kicked off his new campaign at press conference in the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters. His campaign, called “Exxon-McCain ‘08,” mockingly refers to big oil companies as Senator John McCain’s (R-Az.) running mate in the 2008 presidential election, and O’Malley plans to take the campaign through cities across America.
“All of this is a bit of a tongue-in-cheek way of underscoring a very, very serious problem that is facing all of us as Americans,” O’Malley said.
[...]
http://talkradionews.com/2008/08/mccain-has-chosen-his-running-mate-exxon-mobil-says-gov-omalley/
good on o’malley!
MORE! MORE!
August 6th, 2008 at 5:29 pmWhat effing part of NATURAL GAS do you think is oil, moron>?
August 6th, 2008 at 5:29 pmFrom the NY Times article suggested by RUcerious:
This global shortage of drill-ships has created a critical bottleneck, frustrating energy company executives and constraining their ability to exploit KNOWN reserves or find new ones.
..The world’s existing drill-ships are booked solid for the next FIVE years.
It’s clear that this Republican Drill Strategy is NOT about producing more oil anytime soon. It is a Resource Grab by the Oil Companies.
From Hunter’s Diary:http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/2/13152/24931/498/560880
The oil companies can’t drill those new leases, that much is clear. There’s plenty of existing leases to drill, and they aren’t drilling those either, and there seems no particular interest in rapidly expanding capacity in order to actually drill them.
But each company can hold those leases, and borrow against the value of those leases, and trade those leases, so that’s the primary value of the new offshore plots — as tradable assets on the speculative market. If we give them the leases (that is, charge them at the usual pittance), we’re vastly increasing their available capital, vastly increasing the capital of the entire speculative market, and they don’t have to lift an actual finger to see it happen. No drilling; no additional exploration; nothing. Only the creation of new paper.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:30 pmBTW, Obama wants to drill and send Arctic Oil to the US, not to China and Japan. This would be to hold us over as we migrate to renewable energy….
August 6th, 2008 at 5:30 pm[...]
O’Malley said Barack Obama is going to use oil company funds to give people emergency energy rebates at $1000 per family and $500 per individual. McCain cannot do this because of his interest in oil companies, O’Malley said.
When the floor opened up for questions, one man asked O’Malley if the Democratic Party has received any money from oil companies. Brad Woodhouse, Communications Director for the DNC, said he did not know the answer, but would get back to the man about it.
well, of course they did… the oil cos are covering their azzez in anticipation of a dem administration and congress…
that’s been covered before…
ah well…
August 6th, 2008 at 5:33 pmpete Says:
——————————————————————————–
shoeless Says:
Dang! And here I thought I was clever when I must have been reading in a trance. Again.
Don’t feel bad Pete. Out of curiosity, I googled the entire sentence and only came up with your post from yesterday. It just sure seemed like I had heard it before. Looks like you get to claim ownership.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:45 pmA big challenge in deep-sea drilling is to stay over the same spot on the sea floor even as the vessel is buffeted by strong winds, currents and waves. Because water depths can reach up to 10,000 feet, far too deep for traditional rigs that are moored to the seafloor, ships like the West Polaris rely on high-speed computers that use global-positioning satellites to control an array of six swiveling propellers on the hull’s bottom.
Big Challange …as in HURRICANES???
August 6th, 2008 at 5:47 pmhe has nine deepwater rigs under construction, eight of which are already under contract for periods ranging from four to seven years once they leave the shipyards.
How is that going to have an “immediate” impact on gas prices? Isn’t it, in fact, confirmation of what everyone has been telling you?
August 6th, 2008 at 5:48 pmLooks like you get to claim ownership.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Woo Hoo! I always knew that Momma’s baby boy was destined for great things!
August 6th, 2008 at 5:49 pmcera Says:
——————————————————————————–
does anybody remember that the National Enquirer broke the story on Jesse Jacksons love child? I guess they broke another one
August 6th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
While you sit there breaking wind…………….
August 6th, 2008 at 5:51 pmcera Says:
——————————————————————————–
I bet Elizbeth Edwards is soooo proud of her ‘father of the yr 07? as she goes to her cancer treatments
August 6th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Speaking of cancer ………How does it feel to be talking about an unsubstantiated story on John Edwards when the thread is about Newt Imab1tch ; someone who habded his former wife divorce papers while she lay in a hospital bed , suffering from cancer……….
August 6th, 2008 at 5:55 pmOil is a “bad thing” only if you have a binary mind that is incapable of anything beyond a Manichean “good/bad” duality of thought. To grownups who are capable of recognizing degrees of value and the constraints of necessity, such concepts are commonplace.
Really, obie, you’re not helping yourself here.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:56 pmHANDED
August 6th, 2008 at 5:56 pmOffhand I personally know about 10 economists who don’t support off shore drilling.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:56 pmWhy cannot state the most important point. Just because we give the oil companies leases does not mean they will actually drill. That should be the point. Drilling will reduce their asset portfolio, reducing their stoke, and drilling will lower prices and thus revenue. Even if we gie them leases, who says they will even drill!
August 6th, 2008 at 5:58 pmmore idiocy from an idiot so dumb he doestn know hes an idiot.
the reason saudi oil is so “great” is because its sweet crude and easy to access and thus “cheap.” ignoring all the other realities of how relatively little oil there is to drill, how california still wont upon up its waters anyway and thats where the majority of oil is to be found, the lack of equipment and qualified people, and how it wont be available to the market for years, that oil is still expensive to extract and thus it wont lower any prices at all because its only financially smart to extract it when oil is high.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:58 pmGrowing corn = drilling for oil…Only in your feeble minded attempt at a comparison.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:58 pmAs we move OFF oil as our base energy and transportation source, we’ll use less and less, and those expensive drilling ships will be very useful reefmaking objects.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:59 pmcera Says:
if you dont like the price of oil, dont buy it- its that simple
August 6th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
If you don’t like the pain of thinking, don’t do it – it’s that simple.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:00 pmSo where was this “Drill NOW!” mentality when the GOP controlled both the White House and Congress?
Why wasn’t ANWR and the OCS opened up for drilling between January of 2001 and January of 2007?
In fact, in his 2006 SOTU, Bush said that America needed to rid itself of its addiction of oil.
Apparently, the way to cure an addiction is to keep feeding it?
August 6th, 2008 at 6:02 pmalso remember it was gingrich who led the “fight” along with his fellow short sighted republicans and various democrats in the pocket of our brilliant, now facing bankruptcy car companies who thought it was a great idea to not raise cafe standards back in the 90s.
why anyone would listen to this perpetually and catastrophically wrong fool is beyond me.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:04 pmobamagr8 Says:
Pete: Why should farmers in Iowa plant corn? You can’t harvest it the next day.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
But you can harvest it that same year. Was there a point you were trying to make with this one?
August 6th, 2008 at 6:04 pmYeah, I remember they broke the story of Bush falling off the wagon too.
What? You trust the reporting for one story but not the other?
August 6th, 2008 at 6:05 pmIs anyone following this troll’s train of what passes for thought?
Is it completely futile to try?
August 6th, 2008 at 6:06 pmobamagr8 Says:
——————————————————————————–
Ahh, the duality of thought. Modifying positions to meet current needs.
Otherwise known as telling the audience what they want to hear.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Yeah , they should just outright lie like you and the entire GOP ……………
August 6th, 2008 at 6:08 pmWell. Corn grows every year while oil is gone forever once it’s consumed. And we have the resources to harvest all the corn we plant, but, the resources to utilize “new” oil reserves simply don’t exist. Nor has the oil industry expressed any willingness to lay out the huge investment it would take to accelerate existing plans.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:08 pmThe race to build new sources of alternative energy from the wind is running into a formidable obstacle: not enough windmills.
The runaway success of wind energy is a sign that it is doomed to fail?
August 6th, 2008 at 6:09 pmYeah, his point was that if you reduce a reasonable argument to its most absurd extreme and then distort it some more, you can make anything sound stupid.
Of course, it helps if you are as intimately connected with “stupid” as obie.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:13 pmobamagr8 Says:
——————————————————————————–
Why should farmers in Iowa plant corn?
To sell it for ethanol production.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:17 pmUm… whose argument goes that way, exactly?
August 6th, 2008 at 6:17 pmbleac, do you mind if I…?
obie, it’s like this… a shortage of drillships tells us that not being able to drill in currently protected areas is not what is hampering domestic output.
Whereas the shortage of wind turbines is most definitely hampering output.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:20 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
——————————————————————————–
obamagr8 Says:
The argument goes, ‘We shouldn’t drill for more oil since it won’t be available to use next year.’
Um… whose argument goes that way, exactly?
The straw man.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:20 pmIt won’t help eventually. It’ll just keep the crutch under us so we don’t have to transform our energy base over to renewable resources.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:22 pmStop drilling. Get a changing.
Where the hell did I put my oil seeds? I need to plant a new cro… oh.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:23 pmNo kidding. Drilling now won’t help tomorrow or next week – but it will help eventually. Doing nothing is not the answer, especially given that it is going to take even longer to get wind and solar alternatives on line.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Then why are McSpin and the GOP LYING and saying we need to drill to relieve high gas prices?
They aren’t saying it’s a needed investment in our future. They are proposing a knee-jerk capitulation to the oil industry based on a falsehood.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:26 pmobamagr8 Says:
——————————————————————————–
The argument goes, ‘We shouldn’t drill for more oil since it won’t be available to use next year.’
No kidding. Drilling now won’t help tomorrow or next week – but it will help eventually. Doing nothing is not the answer, especially given that it is going to take even longer to get wind and solar alternatives on line.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Will it help ‘eventually’ that we will still be dependent on a finite , dirty source for fuel ?
Please explain how …………..
August 6th, 2008 at 6:27 pmYou gotta kind of admire obie for cut-and-pasting articles that do nothing for his side of the argument.
Shows he is “Fair and Balanced™”.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:30 pmWait for it…
August 6th, 2008 at 6:40 pmThanks for that capsule summary, obie. Now can you tell me who exactly made that argument as stated?
August 6th, 2008 at 6:43 pm#ralph the wonder llama Says:
Yeah, I remember they broke the story of Bush falling off the wagon too.
What? You trust the reporting for one story but not the other?
And, don’t forget their story about how Laura is going to divorce George. I actually think they may be getting that one right.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:44 pmobamagr8 is a prime example of the fact that you can’t cure stupid.
Also, everyone remember to flag the troll who is trying to derail this thread to the National Enquirer.
See you all later!
August 6th, 2008 at 6:46 pmI was expecting an attempt to explain the “logic” behind the last one. I feel cheated.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:50 pm“The Democrats insist that oil prices are not a supply issue…”
CITATION OF ANY SORT, PLEASE.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:52 pmWhat? reductio ad absurdum means “absurd straw man” now? I missed the memo.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:52 pmSo? I thought that was your specialty. It seems to be the basis for all of your arguments here.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:52 pmI’ve noticed this argument with the trolls is similar to our arguments with them over the war in Iraq. In both cases, they start with a false premise. They say we have to continue to fight in Iraq, but their arguments are all based on the false idea that invading Iraq was a good idea in the first place. It wasn’t and never was.
Similarly, here they’re starting with the false premise that drilling for oil is a good idea in the first place. It isn’t. It has drawbacks and dangers and can only be done for so long any way. Something different will have to do in the future. But they don’t care about the future (nor their children’s, nor their unborn grandchildren’s). They only care about today, and how they can make a lot of money today, so they can enjoy life today, with no thought or responsibility for tomorrow.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:59 pmUmm, Obama made it very clear why he wants to tap the Strategic Reserve, to bring prices down temporarily and provide some relief.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:01 pmWhy aren’t you listening?
When excess supply is injected into a market, prices go down. Basic economics.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:03 pmWhy does all this BS about gas prices in realtion to drilling for crude persist when it’s a proven fact that it’s the lack of refineries which bottlenecks supply and drives prices up – it’s not that there’s not enough crude around to refine, and that was in the goddamned news not too long ago. The oil companies again succeed in completely mis-directing the debate while deliberately failing to re-invest some of their pronographic profits into building some new refineries.
Nice amnesia everyone. How convenient for the oil companies that the Elmer Fudd press (and public) are busy searching the briar patch while their quarry is safely ensconced in the barn.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:04 pmha – i typed “pronographic”. you know what i meant.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:05 pmExcellent point Wayne. However, they are also presuming an ever-increasing demand for energy, especially gasoline, when facts would suggest that the whole world is reconsidering the way they burn fossil fuels. The times are changing, with us or without.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:08 pmShort of the invasion of Iran, what worse oil emergency are we predicting? What better way to kick start the economy than to lower energy costs?
August 6th, 2008 at 7:17 pmYes. In seven to ten years.
See the difference? Why do you continue to compare apples to kumquats and expect your arguments to hold water?
August 6th, 2008 at 7:18 pmobamagr8 Says:
When excess supply is injected into a market, prices go down. Basic economics.
Additional supply from ANWR and OCS would cause prices to go down.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
When?
We’re paying too much today?
I’ve noticed that you seem to be arguing against the idea of not drilling to solve our energy crisis, rather than for the idea of not relying on oil. You are arguing for the side that wants to never use non-fossil fuels for energy.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:20 pmIf you can’t understand the difference between driving down prices tomorrow, and driving them down in several years? I give up.
BTW, oil from deep water, or ANWR, is EXPENSIVE. If the price of a commodity is below the economic cost of production? They’ll cap those wells too and ship in, relatively, cheap crude from other sources.
Econ 101
August 6th, 2008 at 7:24 pmNo, no pte, you don’t understand.
Lt me explain it to you, the way I’ve learned it from obitroll: we’re sitting on a virtual ocean of oil, and the mean Democrats won’t let us drill it. The oil in the Continental shelf is practically right below the surface, and will solve all our problems. And Democrats don’t want any oil at all because it’s messy and they’re mean.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:30 pmOh, and wind is bad. For some reason.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:38 pmThanx ralph. It’s all clear to me now. Damn Libruls! They done hoodwinked me, again, with all their “facts” and “reasons”.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:42 pmAgain with the strawmen? This one doesn’t learn, nor does it answer simple questions like, “Why are McSpin and the GOP saying that drilling will reduce gas prices immediately when even our simple trolls acknowledge that it would do no such thing”? And, “why is it O.K. for them to lie”?
August 6th, 2008 at 7:52 pmWayne: Which could happen sooner?
1. Oil from ANWR flows through the Alaska Pipeline and prices drop.
2. Wind farms, solar arrays and associated power lines are installed that generate an equivalent amount of power?
#2… of course, that’s what most of your posts boil down to 0-8, #2.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:54 pmWhen all else fails? Change the subject.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:02 pmLater folks.
I’m sorry, obie. I thought that’s the way you like to play this game — make distorted and extreme claims about the other guy’s position and pretend that it’s what he believes. Isn’t that what you’ve been doing?
I’m not allowed to play that way?
August 6th, 2008 at 8:07 pmsince expanding demand exceeds declining production plus reasonable estimates of possible new sources of oil, the price of gasoline will not come down. Every economist and most lying republicans that know anything at all about economics (including gingrich) know this. Given that drastic increases in new sources of oil plus new production is not realistic, only drastic reductions in demand can change the picture, i.e., lower the consumer cost of oil-based products.
Besides, getting away from use of fossil fuels is the ONLY means of sustainable human existence on the planet.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:08 pm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy
The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively
The US currently uses 20 million bbl per day.
Thus ANWAR could be expected to meet at best 7% of US needs at current levels of consumption.
Starting in ten years.
Still think you could get the oil out of ANWAR quicker if you dug it by hand, obie?
August 6th, 2008 at 8:28 pmSimpleton “ing8t”,
Waiting for GM to solve your energy conundrum is akin to asking the Grim Reaper to underwrite a life insurance policy.
But your still on par for obfuscation.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:28 pmAllow me to be blunt:
you are such a fu(king idiot.
Who the hell ever said anything about “stopping drilling in the short term”?
Get it through your head, obie — drilling in ANWAR or drilling the OCS is NOT THE SHORT TERM.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:31 pmAlthough almost triple the cost (currently), I’d bet both testicles that this technology will lead the way in electric automobile production.
The stats blow the stupid Volt completely out of the water:
100% electric
0-69 in 3.9 seconds
220 miles in one charge.
And it looks amazing.
FCUK GM, they sank their entire fortune into big, dumb, overpriced SUV’s and for that, they will suffer greatly.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:35 pmOMG, the idiotic Volt will only go 40 miles on one charge and it will still have a small gas motor? What a fcuking joke.
Goodbye GM, it’s been not-so-nice knowing ya…
August 6th, 2008 at 8:40 pmMy friendsss, trussst me —
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/26/AR2008072601891.html
– and trust MY friendsss, the oil companiessss. SSuckersssss.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:43 pmFrom jonny’s link:
McCain enjoyed a HUGE bump in donations from the Oil industry upon announcing his desire for more offshore drilling.
“This is a case study of how a candidate can change a policy position in the interest of raising money.”
I call “B I N G O !”
August 6th, 2008 at 8:47 pmI don’t know exactly why. Perhaps you should take up that question with the Department of Energy. They’re the ones who prepared the estimate.
(Oh, and a thousand pardons for my inclusion of an extra letter in the acronym. I feel terrible for having violated the linguistic virginity of your sensibilities. Please forgive me. Your contributions to this discussion merit far more deference than my vulgar talents can deliver.)
So… any word on who mentioned “stopping drilling in the short term”?
August 6th, 2008 at 9:00 pmobie, you seem to specialize in posing links and quotes from articles that don’t prove your point in the least.
Do you just enjoy seeing your name in print? Is that it?
August 6th, 2008 at 9:02 pmWhy in the world would anyone think that oil companies operate on the supply & demand principle?
Ssuckersss, my friendsssss ….
August 6th, 2008 at 9:02 pmStill at it? And still no answers to, “why are McSpin and the GOP lying”, and, “why is it O.K. for them to lie”?
Pathetic!
August 6th, 2008 at 9:20 pmThis “drill here” bs is just a smokescreen. Last I heard, we are drilling here.
The Republicans and their masters in the oil companies aren’t interested in lowering your fuel cost. That doesn’t serve the oil companies’ bottom lines.
All this talk is intended to get hard-pressed folks to keep the White House in Republicon hands so that the billionaires can make the Bush tax cuts permanent. It’s got no other function.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:52 pmslam McCain for taking $1.3 million from oil companies while ignoring that Obama has taken millions from lawyers and investment bankers.
“So?”
Besides dimwit, the 1.3 million was in the last month.
Here’s a dime, go buy a fcuking clue dork.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:53 pmIf this particular troll went hunting with the Dick Cheney? He’d get shot in the face, three times, because he wouldn’t get the message after the first two.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:01 pmPete,
August 6th, 2008 at 10:03 pmSo true, so true.
Remember to wear dark cloths and run with the traffic flow.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:08 pmOpie,
From the EIA report
The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively. Crude oil imports are projected to decline by about one barrel for every barrel of ANWR oil production. Opening ANWR results in the lowest oil import dependency levels during the 2022 through 2026 time frame, when oil import dependency falls to the minimum values of 46 and 49 percent for the high and low oil resource cases, respectively. During that timeframe, the mean resource case and AEO2008 reference case project an average oil import dependency of 48 and 51 percent, respectively. Because ANWR oil production is declining after 2028, U.S. oil dependency rises to 51 percent in 2030 in the mean resource case, compared to 54 percent in the AEO2008 reference case. The high and low resource cases project a 2030 oil import dependency of 48 percent and 52 percent, respectively. Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR improves the U.S. balance of trade. Cumulative expenditures on foreign crude oil and liquid fuels between 2018 and 2030 are reduced by $202 billion dollars (2006 dollars) in the mean oil resource case and reduced by $135 and $327 billion dollars in the low and high oil resource cases, respectively. Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.
Something else your little brain fails to realize. Yes, it only took aproximately 8 years to build the Alaskan Pipeline, BUT IT WAS IN PLANNING FOR ALMOST 20.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:30 pmSo Newt was speaker of the House. And a poor one at that, let alone one of the most extreme partisan ones that didn’t seem to care for at least half of America.
But he was speaker so long ago and left the position in the same cloud of suspicion as as Patrick Fitsgerald said about Cheney in the Scooter libby trial. That, ” a cloud of suspicion remains of the Vice President”.
So why does this guy get so much air time. Is the GOP paying him and his air time to spew the rediculous?
August 6th, 2008 at 10:39 pmShould read 10 ARCO engineers were already drawing up plans while they were propecting Prudhoe bay. They recieved titles as early as 1964.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:41 pmMaybe it’s also important to note the distinct differences in money taken from lobbyists:
McCain: $936,000
Obama: $202,000
OUCH! That’s a lot of credibility lost on the old coot, eh?
August 6th, 2008 at 10:46 pmIs the GOP paying him and his air time to spew the rediculous?
No, but Rupert Murdoch is.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:47 pmobamagr8 Says:
I’m going out for a run. I’ll catch up with the mea culpas when I get back.
You can start with the crappy paste job in post 172:
“Obama released a TV spot saying McCain’s campaign got $2 million from “Big Oil” while McCain proposed “another $4 billion in tax breaks” for the industry.
The truth is that McCain’s campaign has received $1.33 million from individuals employed in the oil and gas industry, not $2 million. Obama himself has received nearly $400,000, according to the most authoritative figures available. We find the $2 million figure is based on a mistaken calculation.
Furthermore, McCain is not proposing new tax breaks specifically targeted to the oil industry. He’s proposing a general reduction in the corporate income tax rate, which Democrats figure would benefit the five largest oil and gas companies by $3.8 billion.”
That’s from Factcheck.org. It looks like you’ve plagiarized it, with no italics, no link, and no citation.
Or did you think we were too lazy to check?
August 6th, 2008 at 10:57 pmLiar. I never made such a statement as “Why are McSpin and the GOP saying that drilling will reduce gas prices immediately”
So… any word on who said anything about “stopping drilling in the short term”? Still waiting on that one.
And what have we told you about linking to your sources?
I think you’ll need some time to catch up on all the mea culpas. You’ve got quite a few to write.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:05 pmyou’ve plagiarized it,
B U S T E D.
What a stupid, punk-a$$ b*tch.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:12 pmShould we tell Brooks Jackson that his work is being stolen without attribution? It matches the e-mail I got from FactCheck.org word for word.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:50 pmAnd he posted it twice, once italicized. He forgot to include the boldface version.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:51 pmSo obamagr8:
August 7th, 2008 at 12:47 amDo you need me to tell you where those unused leases are or are we set on that now?
Read-em and weep ngr8t. You should find better sources for your plagiarism, stupid fcuk.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?cycle=2008
August 7th, 2008 at 1:02 amGot a link for that one? The New York Times had different figures:
Boy that’s a rich one coming from the plagiarist idiot who rarely links to it’s “sources”.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:04 amSo far, Mr. McCain, who has locked up the Republican presidential nomination, has received more than $181,600 from lobbyists and trade groups, while Mr. Obama has received just over $6,000. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who ended her bid for the presidency in June, got more than $87,000.
Open secrets says Hillary got 936 thousand, and the nyt says $87,000?
Quite a discrepancy.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:07 amcera Says:
Honestly, you should just quit trying…
August 7th, 2008 at 1:11 amYes, please provide an itemized list. You don’t need to give us all 68 million acres, just the top 10.
For someone who just got caught plagiarizing, you seem to want a lot.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:11 amplease provide an itemized list.
You’ve got none, zero, zilch, room to ask for anything.
You’re a plagiarist, a fcuking loser without a single idea of your own.
PATHETIC.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:12 amTake it up with the New York Times.
Oh, and cause you’re too inept to dig any deeper than ONE SOURCE, we should blame your source??????
Typical fcuking Repuke. God, what a imbecile your are…
August 7th, 2008 at 1:14 amwe’ll leave that to others to decide.
Let’s cut to the chase:
“THE OTHERS” ALL AGREE WITH ME.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:22 amTime devoted to preconstruction effort — 6 years approx.
You are an incredible specimen of idiocracy.
If you cared to do more research, you’d find that the PLANNING goes back well beyond simple “pre-construction efforts” (i.e. clearing right-of-ways, acquiring property rights, etc.)
I must stop now.
I’m afraid your stupidity could be contagious.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:27 amOoooh, look what I found:
The concept of transporting oil south from Alaska was discussed as early as the 1960s. In 1968, large crude oil reserves were discovered at Prudhoe Bay by the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO).
http://tapseis.anl.gov/guide/history.cfm
So yes, long before ANY work began, there was a PLAN.
Oh, and ARCO did exist then.
F
U
C
K
I
N
G
J
August 7th, 2008 at 1:42 amA
C
K
A
S
S
obamagr8 Says:
Take it up with the New York Times. The article I cited was written on July 27.
No, I’ll take it up with you. You chose a source that validated your assertion, and didn’t bother to inform us that other evidence existed that put the figures at a radically different level. That’s a lie of omission.
It one big reason we have such contempt for conservatives. You consistently present only those things that make your case, and ignore, or don’t bother to mention things that invalidate your case. This cherry-picking is obvious, and a little rude. It’s why we never believe you guys, when you try to make a point. A little digging will usually expose the truth, and the extra effort p*sses people off, when they realize you likely knew there was exculpatory or conflicting data, and didn’t bother to mention it. It also makes you look like a weak debater.
August 7th, 2008 at 2:44 amStick to what you know.
Like exposing plagiarists?
One of my favorite pasttimes.
August 7th, 2008 at 2:46 amYeah, the intern found the paper on the floor in the stall next to Senator Craig’s!
August 7th, 2008 at 8:47 amAre repugs serious? Can a group of people self-destruct before our eyes? Why do they put the US to shame based on ignorance and greed?
How can it be possible for repugs to believe that they are the only ones on course?
pelosi doesn’t see a damn thing wrong with what they do and have done.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:33 amAnd do not – DO NOT – lecture me on cherry-picking.
Fcuk off dipshit.
You have ZERO credibility, unless we’re talking plagiarism.
A VERY credibly plagiarist.
And I wouldn’t classify you as a cherry-picker. You’re just plain igorant.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:33 amAs an economist i have to say Newt does have a point, but he overestimates the effect. As future supply increases, the future price must decrease. Therefore the difference between the future price and the current price increases. This means that there will be some substitution of future SUPPLY to current supply, and there will be some substitution of current DEMAND for future demand. On the demand side, this effect may be limited, but on the supply side, it might be realistic. Anyone producing oil will find it more attractive to produce more today instead of in 10 years, and some of them will increase production now. This will lower the price now. Is that such a strange notion?
August 7th, 2008 at 11:50 amWe have ringtone-ready audio from this interview up at Entertonement.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:43 pmAnd do not – DO NOT – lecture me on cherry-picking. That would by hypocrisy of the first order.
Why? You’re the one who got caught at it. Its what conservatives do when making their case, and we understand that.
You could have made a weaker case, but preserved a small shred of personal credibilty, by mentioning other sources, like factcheck – but you instead chose to post only the source that validated your assertion, and were subsequently shown to be in error. You cherry-picked that NYT article, since you could have easily googled any number of sources that had the correct figure, but did, and said nothing. That’s the hallmark of a weak intellect: expecting others to be as partisan and incurious of facts as you.
August 7th, 2008 at 2:21 pmobamagr8 Says:
Let’s see, yes, your McBush tokens are good for a free high colonic.
But remember, don’t drink the water when you’re done!
August 7th, 2008 at 11:58 pmAs an economist
Your opinion is one of millions.
Sucks to have studied so hard and still have little credibility, no?
August 8th, 2008 at 12:00 amDieNowForPeace, i expected nothing less ;)
August 13th, 2008 at 3:53 am