Posted on 03/04/2012 5:41:39 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The redoubtable media watchdog Media Matters has thrown a red challenge flag over what it deems a “manufactured attack” by Politico on Obama Energy Secretary Steven Chu. At issue is whether Chu told the House Appropriations Committee—as Politico initially reported—that the administration’s goal was not to lower the price of fuel oil but to decrease America’s dependency on it.
Luckily, replay footage of the relevant exchange between Rep. Alan Nunnelee (R-MS) and Chu is available for review (cue 2:56). I have now watched the clip several times and am of a mind that Politico was too hasty in offering a retraction. It is clear that Nunnelee was in the process of asking “Is the overall goal to get our price lower?” before his microphone cut out. And it is equally clear that Chu’s answer in brief was “No.”
It’s not as though Chu’s position on the price of fuel oil in the U.S. is any secret. He is on record as telling the Wall Street Journal back in September of 2008, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”
What Chu or his boss said or did last week is of little consequence anyway in light of Newt Gingrich’s latest campaign speeches on energy, which are sure to redefine the debate. There are two key pivot points to the former speaker’s position, which are summarized in another WSJ article, this one by Kimberley Strassel. Strassel writes:
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.’ It’s a winning heartland argument, since cheap natural gas is the way to ‘increase our manufacturing base.’
The likelihood that Gingrich will emerge as the GOP nominee is slim, even if he wins his home state of Georgia. It is therefore incumbent on whichever candidate does win the nomination to pick up on this argument—the sooner, the better.
I say we nominate the real deal. GO NEWT GO!
Newt needs an earthquake.
It's not too late for Newt and Sarah to have that long phone conversation and announce a joint Newt/Sarah team for President/Vice President.
". . And if I am nominated, I have asked Sarah Palin, and she has accepted, to be the Vice Presidential nominee. I ask you America, for the sake of our Sacred Republic, to vote for us on Super Tuesday." . .
Then I could start raising that $2 million dollars,
Wouldn’t it be better to let the real deal make those arguments?
What makes people so blind? What makes people so gullible to the negative ads. I believe the republican establishment really does think we are all stupid out here in the real world. That is why Mr. Newt is the right man to go back to Washington and kick some elitist butt!
That one sentence says it all. Absolute dynamite.
An argument that a vast majority of Americans can understand and embrace.
Let Bozo and his gang tell everybody how we "can't". He'll look weak, defeatist, and stupid.
Yes you could!
newt needs to stand up and give a solid explanation of what motivated him to join Nancy Pelosi in her Cap and Trade Campaign. Just saying, “it was dumb” isn’t enough. I have wanted him to be my guy from the beginning. But, I can’t get that commercial out of my mind and with it comes an insecurity over how prone a political opportunist may be to making colossal blunders, or putting himself in positions he can’t get out of.
It would be blatant Plagiarism. Newt owns the 2.50 gas.
This is one of the important parts of this campaign. I’m depressed, it’s not very likely we’ll get a good nominee. The deck appears to be stacked. HOWEVER, because there have been many in the fray, and because it’s still not over, the best thing we have is that many viewpoints have at least been put out there for discussion that might have been hidden. We might have to work a bit harder to keep them out there, but every candidate, the ones no longer in the race, still had things to bring to the forefront.
If Mitt promised to hire Newt as his press secretary for 4 years, I’d send money!
The heads of the entire front-line media would simply explode.
Exactly. Why settle for a fake Gingrich, when we can elect the real thing.
I love the rhetoric and his drive. I want to believe. But, I have that problem nagging me like someone who has been cheated on by their spouse who only says, "I don't know why. It just happened". You can listen and want things to be like they were , but in your heart you will always be waiting for the next lapse in judgment.
I guess it says something but, all I see is "it was dumb". I'm sorry my skepticism offends some. I also know that we can't have the perfect candidate. I voted my conscience at the caucus and will support our candidate no matter who it is.
I like that!
Mistake, yes. Explanation no; at least, not one that I have found. If you'll paste it for me to learn from I'll be obliged. Like I said, I am trying hard to commit to him, but the opportunistic vein is as troublesome as the short comings of the others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.