Obama Loses His First Debate (can't rebut Newt's compelling understanding of U.S. energy policy)

The American Spectator ^ | February 29, 2011 | Peter Ferrara

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Lying is not going to rebut Newt Gingrich's compelling understanding of America's energy policy and huge energy reserves.

In a speech that the Gingrich campaign has begun broadcasting around the country, and which is posted at Newt.org, Gingrich presents a unique new vision for a booming American economy. I think you will find it pathbreaking. It is so compelling that it drew Obama into a transcontinental debate with the former Speaker, the first exchange that Obama has decisively lost since he appeared on the national stage.

Gingrich began the explanation of his vision like this:

"What if we had a program that enabled the American people to develop so much new energy that we were, in fact, no longer reliant on Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran. We didn't care what the Iranians did in the Strait of Hormuz because we were safe in national security terms.

What if that new energy program created well over a million new jobs, high-paying jobs, jobs that put Americans back to work and kept the money here at home that we had been sending overseas, giving us a dramatic improvement in our balance of payments, strengthening the dollar and giving us a chance to live much freer and more independently?

What if that very idea also meant that we'd also have dramatic increases in federal revenue… without a tax increase but that, in fact, the federal government would have literally an entire new stream of money?

And finally, what if that big new idea meant that you personally were better off because you are buying gasoline for $2.50 a gallon, not for $3.89 or $4 or what some people project by the summer could be could be $5 or more?..............."

[dforest]

Are you for real?

I didn’t say anything like those in my posts.

I am sure you have heard these sentiments before:

If you can’t take the heat, get outta the kitchen.

If you are going to dish it out, be ready to have to take it too.

Now me? I will vote for Newt or Santorum. I don’t dislike Newt and I am not in love with Santorum. It would be perfect if nobody around here picked on either one. But that isn’t going to happen, is it?

Meanwhile, Romney is gaining momentum.

[Triple]

“”He says quote, ‘Over the last 3 years, my administration has approved dozens of new pipelines, including through Canada.’ Now, Mr. President, you know how limited your respect for the intelligence of the American people must be.

How could you possibly veto the only major pipeline that matters from Canada, the Keystone Pipeline, and turn around and suggest to us that the fact that we have approved dozens of tiny ones — this is like saying, ‘My Navy has 11 ships, they’re all rowboats.’ I mean how do you deal with a President who is this fundamentally out of touch with being honest?

It would be one thing if he said, ‘Yes, I vetoed the Keystone Pipeline and here is why.’ But to come and say, “I have approved lots of pipelines, why are you mad at me? Well, because you did not approve the one that mattered. The Keystone Pipeline is worth 700,000 barrels a day when you use it” - article

This is the best - Newt actually nails Obama to the wall on this one. The interesting thing is the lapdog press lets lies like this just roll right by, without so much as batting an eye. (The true greenies should complain, if this were true, and the high and mighty MSM, should hold him accountable for the truth - *IF* the were actually journalists and not cheerleaders.)

[Real Cynic No More]

This is an EXCELLENT article. I think it may be the real reason why the Republican establishment do not want Newt for President: they can't control him. They're in cahoots with the liberals - including OBAMA!! - to maintain the status quo, because if Newt's proposals come to pass, there will be an extremely large power shift in the country. The people will trust Newt. There will be no need to prop up puppet governments overseas for the purpose of getting oil.

The liberals and the rinos are in favor only of tit for tat types of responses, because these give them time to plot and scheme how best to take advantage of the situation. To them it's like a game. For a game-changer like Newt proposes in the energy arena, the impact on liberals and rinos will have the impact of the bombs dropped onto Hiroshima and Nagasaki... it will take them years to recover... and they won't be around by then.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Bumps!!

[bert]

Re: The pipeline....

Lay baby, LAY!!

[Sgt_Schultze]

Thanks for this post. Newt is much brighter than the media's candidate.

FWIW, if you haven't seen an alternative to oil, here's a link to Karl Denninger writing about the conversion of coal to liquid fuel for our transportation needs, and extracting thorium from that same coal to power the electric grid. I can't speak to the specifics outlined, but if it is possible, we can cure our own energy problem while creating millions of jobs doing it.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Sorry, Here's the detailed link

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Thank you for the LINK and the information.

There is NO reason the U.S. should be dependent on others for energy. Let’s produce enough to supply our own needs and then sell to the world.

[Triple]

To: pfflier
The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. George Orwell “1984”
Modern example — Global Warming casues Cold

Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.” “I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” “Through the Looking Glass” Lewis Carrol

7 posted on February 28, 2012 10:38:14 PM EST by Repeat Offender (While the wicked stand confounded, call me with Thy Saints surrounded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

---

So I just read this post on a Global Warming thread (hilarious story - AGW causes cold weather).

Anyway - it occurred to me that these instances of ‘1984’ and ‘Alice in Wonderland’ behaviors are far from isolated.

[Aria]

I sometimes listen to Imus on my way to work...not because I like and admire him but because I want to hear what is being said. This morning he described Newt as a “despicable human being”. He didn’t have anything good to say for Santorum either - Mitt is his guy.

I was fairly disgusted...to dismiss Newt like that is what’s despicable. Newt definitely has great ideas and is brilliant at articulating them. It’s our misfortune that his ideas are road kill alongside the road of dirty politics.

[jonrick46]

Thanks for the post. I have seen Newt’s energy video done earlier.