Gingrich-Run Coal Company Front Group Airing Anti-Climate Legislation TV Ads
Gingrich-Run Coal Company Front Group Airing Anti-Climate Legislation TV Ads
Newt Gingrich’s 527 organization, American Solutions for Winning the Future (ASWF), took to the airwaves yesterday in opposition to the Waxman-Markey clean energy reform bill. The 30-second attack ad falls highlights the Gingrich-inspired Republican strategy of calling the bill a “national energy tax”:
Now Congress is about to make things dramatically worse by passing a new national energy tax. We’ll lose more jobs, pay more for gas and electricity, pushing our economy to its breaking point. Stop the national energy tax, call your member of Congress before it’s too late.
Contradicting ASWF’s “energy tax” attack, a Congressional Budget Office analysis of Waxman-Markey found that the legislation only costs the equivalent of a postage stamp a day, while sharply cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Watch the ASWF ad:
An investigative piece by the Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson exposed Gingrich’s American Solutions as a front group for Peabody Energy, the world’s largest coal company. ASWF raked in over a quarter-million dollars in contributions in 2008 from the coal juggernaut, while receiving much of its remaining funding from a host of right-wing billionaires including casino kingpin Sheldon Adelson.
As climate change reform comes closer to a reality, expect to see more fear-mongering from these fossil-fueled front groups. Yesterday the GOP sent candles to lawmakers to “thank” Obama for “taxing our lights out.” Republicans called for the construction of 100 new nuclear power plants that same day. The fossil-fuel-dependent future promoted by Gingrich’s front group is catastrophic, as it “ignores the nightmarish damages that would be caused to our air, water and climate.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Serial marrying lying SCUM . .
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:07 amThe acronym for (ASWF) should be changed to ASWP as in @sswipe…Gingrich is an opportunistic moralizing creep…
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:11 amCALL IT WHAT IT IS……
CORPORATE FUNDED PROPAGANDA
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:14 amGuess we all know which side the butter has been slathered on his bread!
As much as I despise this arse-hole, I also have to compare him in some ways to Tom Daschle and his sell-out to the health industry. Both these guys have adopted the “Show me the money” rally cry.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:16 amIs that better than Government funded propaganda?
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 amI’m asking because I really don’t understand.
If it’s a program to address climate change that will impose restrictions on energy producers that will cost money; how is it not a tax?
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 amAmerican Solutions for Winning the Future is kind of the most ridiculous organization name I’ve heard in a while.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:17 amYesterday the GOP sent candles to lawmakers to “thank” Obama for “taxing our lights out.
From tea bags to candles…..I wonder what totally lame symbol for the conservative movement is next. They are just SO out of ideas, it is downright embarrassing.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:18 amGingrich is fronting a group whose acronym is pronounced “a$$wife”? Does that explain why he can’t seem to stay married very long?
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:19 amSince there is no such thing as “clean” coal and won’t be for the next 15-20 years the likes of Newt&Co. have to dirty the air with more corporate sponsored lies. The profit-mongers would kill our children with toxins then deny health care to comfort the dying for a little money. What a concept!!! God, I love this country.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:21 amLet me explain to you how this works. You see, the corporations finance Team America. And then Team America goes out and the corporations sit there in their, in their corporation buildings and, and and see that’s, they’re all corporationy, and they make money.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:24 amHow do you define tax…is it something that comes before or after the activity or item being taxed?
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:26 amOnly morons listen to Gingrich
He’s a proven liar
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:26 amThere will never ever be such a thing as clean coal. Even if it was possible to store all the carbon emissions, coal will remain the dirtiest least environmental friendly source of energy.
1) Mountain-top removal mining is an environmental nightmare that leaves mining area disaster areas.
2) Burning coal releases thousands of tons of toxic heavy metals
3) Transporting coal is inefficient and consumes vast quantities of energy in the form of fossil fuels
4) Millions of toxic fly-ash created by thermal electric generation has already been shown to be a disaster waiting to happen.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:29 amHere’s tax defined in wikipedia:
If the legislation would impose a financial charge on the energy producers, it would be a tax.
Taxes are necessary for the government to run programs it deems necessary.
If we collectively believe that addressing climate change is important, we should be willing to accept the taxes to address it.
But, we should be honest that the effort has costs.
I don’t think the debate should be whether it would be a tax or not, but what are the costs and are they worth it.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:30 amEstate Tax => Death Tax, eliminated.
Polution Tax => Energy Tax…
They don’t have any ideas, but it’s pretty impressive sometimes what they can get away with using just a thesaurus.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:31 amI think it is time to require all 527’s to name the members in their adds so that the American public knows who is making the claim and what these people have to gain from the claim.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:32 ampastcaring. I don’t know. Does it matter if the charge comes before or after?
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:32 amNewt Gingrich’s 527 organization, American Solutions for Winning the Future (ASWF),
or, more accurately, maybe, American Solutions for Winning the Past (ASWP),
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:32 amaka “asswipe”…
OMG!!! pastcaring @2 – i swear, i just saw your comment!
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:34 amI see all the bands and floats are lined up, ready to begin and the clowns are ready to rock the crowd. Everyone is ready to march in lockstep to an endless stream of backwash.
LET THE PARADE OF IGNORANCE BEGIN!
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:34 amWell, now that you, the head master of ignorance has arrived, it can.
Parade away, but don’t forget to whine about TP and it not letting you dictate the topic.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:37 amAnother Joe Says:
The one trick pony is off topic.
Joe, do you have anything relevant to add to this discussion or are you here only to disrupt civil discourse?
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:41 amReggie Says:
There will never ever be such a thing as clean coal. Even if it was possible to store carbon emissions, coal will remain the dirties, least environmental friendly source of energy…
O’course, you’re correct, Reggie.
But there’s LOTS of money behind the myth, and basically all a myth needs to become reality is LOTS OF MONEY.
And of course, also, a compliant, accommodating, presidential cheerleader, such as “thePrez” has been at least since the middle of the campaign when he needed the Ohio River vote.
And B-Cup?
Freedom ain’t free.
So STFU and pay your goddam taxes and quit kvetching about it.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:49 amheh… i read when commercials come on during stephanie miller,
so this may have been thought of also, but -
ASWF, aka asswhiff, works also…
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:50 amThis just in:
We lost the future 2-1 in overtime to Canada. Damn you, sound ecological policy and single-payer healthcare!
I’m no fan of Waxman-Markey (cap&trade leaves waaay too much room for corporate greed, subsidies for clean energy don’t go far enough), but it’s a step in the right direction.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:50 amAnother Joe. I understand your point, but I also understand the TP tact.
If there is an issue on the table that you support, you can spend your energy trying to promote the virtue of that effort, or you can act to dispel the arguments of the detractors.
Either option can further the issue you support.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:51 amIt may change the way people think about it or the way people spin it…imho
LOL :]
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:51 amso, where did I say we (or I) shouldn’t pay taxes.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:53 amI think I said this:
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:56 am
Clean coal…sounds kind of like clean dirt to me, there isn’t such a thing.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:59 amEnnuiDivine Says:
We lost the future 2-1 in overtime to Canada. Damn you, sound ecological policy
I am a Canadian who is ashamed of our recent environmental policy.
We lost the moral high ground when we gave Big Oil a free pass to produce oil from tar-sands.
Canada is the largest supplier of crude oil to the United States and it’s mostly derived from mining tar sands.
Tar Sands production is destroying the environment of northern Alberta and it requires enormous amounts of natural gas to extract that oil.
Did I mention that both the Federal and Alberta Governments are right wing?
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:01 pmTaxes are the “condo” fee we Murkins pay, for the privilege of having, in effect, the largest gated community in the world.
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:01 pmDoesn’t this slimy lizard have a wife to cheat on?
Republic Fascist Party: All for corporate greed – Nothing for you.
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:02 pmbackup, making our air and water cleaner and saving the planet seem like it’s worth it to me. Unless of course you are a filthy rich, polluting corporation whose profits may be cut in to.
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:03 pmI wonder if Another Joe is a member of the Ron Paul revolution?
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:07 pmthe people pushing these industries are rich enough to avoid the environmental catastrophes brought about by global climate change…they can evacuate and escape the consequences of their actions while lower income people are not as liquid or mobile…imho…
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:09 pmi think AJ needs to peruse the right side of TP’s page…
say, the “what we’re about” link, or even “hot tips”…
he can even submit a well-researched, well-sourced story of his own to TP…
but it should be said, again, TP is NOT a “news site”…
but, as much as he complains about the subject matter, the best course of action is to move on, find another site to pester…
those kind are so easy to ignore, otherwise…
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:11 pmUncle Fester. I agree.
But, consider this. Let’s say that after a hurricane, you have a lot of debris in your yard.
making your yard clean again makes sense. Everyone would agree. Let’s say if cleaning up your yard would cost a few hundred dollars.
But, what if the cleanup was going to cost $100,000? Would it still make sense?
My point is that the cost is relevant.
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:13 pmYou know, if using gas in cars is so bad why doesn’t government motors push Hydrogen cars?
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:14 pmReggie Says:
1) Mountain-top removal mining is an environmental nightmare that leaves mining area disaster areas.
Farms in my area use a 100 foot buffer to prevent fertilizer and cow flop from running into the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Coal companies are required to have a 100 foot buffer around a mountain stream to prevent an entire freaking mountain from washing into the water. Does that make sense to anyone?
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:17 pmYour analogy is not…debris in yard does not equate to lack of clean air, water etc.,
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:26 pmtokin librul Says:
And B-Cup?
Freedom ain’t free.
Wingnuts are only willing to pay with other peoples’ lives.
.
backup Says:
My point is that the cost is relevant.
It’s a perfectly fair question.
However…
1. The (forthcoming) costs of global warming are tremendous.
2. The (current) costs of dependence on foreign oil are tremendous.
These are two of the foremost problems facing our country right now. Balancing those against the costs of changing how we get energy seems at least an even break, if not a scale-tipper.
But then you add the benefit of developing new industries and markets. Not only domestically, but if we can become the technology leaders in clean/alternative energy, we can export that expertise over time as other countries eventually seek to change over.
Shifting to a cleaner and more diversified energy stance in this country not only averts potential climatological disasters and international instability, it also has tremendous opportunity to improve the economy, by putting it on a footing that involves a lot more technology and job creation than merely extracting and importing carbon fuels.
The way to spur that change is to impose costs on the current way of doing business.
If you’re unwilling to suffer some temporary disadvantage for a solid long-term advantage, then you hardly get to call yourself “conservative.”
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:27 pmP.S. backup…the debris from hurricanes in your yard will become a reality if we don’t do something…
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:29 pmI think we should consider our position in the world as a provider of electricity to our citizens and understand how good we have been able to harness energy without having to pay a ton for it.
For example, in electricity, we consume the most electricity per year and are 9th in per-capita consumption (as of 2005), yet our payment per kilowatt-hour of electricity in households is still relatively low (up from 8.2 cents a kWhr in ‘99 to 10.6 cents in 2007).
We’re paying a lot for energy because we use it like it was water. We need to learn to conserve our resources here while attempting to find better and ecologically-safer methods to produce energy. Perhaps we should learn to live with higher energy costs if it’s going to lead to less pollution and more conservation of resources.
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:40 pmFreeMarketLiberal Says:
Why GM failed.
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:48 pmI see FreeMarketLiberal is really just another GullibleRightWinger
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:53 pmI agree with ElBruce and Purple State.
We should be willing to endure higher taxes and other sacrifices to get to a place where we are more energy independent and eco-friendly.
That’s where the debate should be. In this thread, there seems to be an effort to deny that there will be taxes placed on energy. Deny that there is a sacrifice we need to make. That we will get something for nothing.
I don’t think that is correct.
The honest (and more potent argument) is that we need to tax energy to both help us gain energy independence and to promote a cleaner environment.
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:41 pmFreethinkingMan Says:
You know, if using gas in cars is so bad why doesn’t government motors push Hydrogen cars?
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:14 pm
______________
Where do you think hydrogen comes from, moron?
And yes, I know some scientists figured out a way to extract it from algae but that technology is years away from commercial viability/
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:47 pmReminds me of the old John Prine song, Paradise: “Mister Peabody’s coal train has hauled it away”
June 23rd, 2009 at 5:39 pmSesli Chat
Sesli sohbet
Thanks
June 27th, 2009 at 4:10 pm