Well, “Newt” is a four-letter word
By D.J. McGuire | Thursday, January 27th, 2011 | International, Policy, Politics
There was a time when Newt Gingrich really was the reform-minded conservative he still thinks he is. This week, he went to Iowa and dispelled any doubt that said time has come and gone (Radio Iowa via Jonathon Adler in The Corner):
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich today dismissed the “big city” critics of corn-based ethanol and suggested the biofuels industry will be able to “stand on its own” without federal subsidies once all autos are “flexible-fuel” vehicles.
. . .
Gingrich called for new federal regulations to ensure every vehicle made in the U.S. is able to run on ethanol or methane. Gingrich told reporters after his speech that he does not support extension of the federal tax create for ethanol fuel “beyond this year.”
“If they’re prepared to insist on a flex-fuel vehicle and every car in America’s capable of buying ethanol, I think the industry can stand on its own,” Gingrich said.
Really, Newt? Are you seriously trying to claim that an industry reliant on a national regulation affecting every car in America is one that “can stand on its own”?
That’s economic illiteracy, pure and simple.
Of course, like most people who rail against imported oil, Gingrich also got his facts wrong – a high irony for someone who insisted his critics “use facts that are accurate.”
In particular:
I would rather have the next building boom in Des Moines than in Dubqi (sic: I’m guessing Gingrich said “Dubai” and Radio Iowa’s Kay Henderson committed a typo).
Dubai, Newt? Have you been paying no attention to the international economy?
For starters, the United Arab Emirates (in which Dubai is a large city) actually has sent little oil to the United States; for every barrel of oil we imported from the UAE in 2009, we bought 25 from Saudi Arabia.
In reality, I’m guessing the Saudis were Newt’s real target, but that doesn’t make him any less ignorant.
Newt’s been out of active politics since 1998, so perhaps he didn’t notice (and, to be fair, nearly everyone still in politics hasn’t really noticed either), but neither the Saudis nor the Persian Gulf as a whole are America’s primary source for foreign oil these days.
In fact, one country exported more oil to us than all the Persian Gulf nations combined: Canada, which was the source of 20% of our imported oil last year. The Saudis don’t even have a firm grip on second place, trading it from month to month with Mexico.
The point here is simple: our oil imports are much more geared toward local neighbors than Levant nuisances. The greatest victims of our ethanol policy (besides hungry children whose parents cannot afford scarce food due to so much corn going into fuel) will not be Arab sheiks, but Albertan citizens (who also happen to be the most right-wing, pro-American group of voters outside of the US itself).
The facts and realities of oil have changed dramatically over the last decade. It is truly sad to see Gingrich – who once prided himself as a dynamic futurist – to be so deeply stuck in the past.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Former candidate for Board of Supervisors in Spotsylvania, current blogger, economics teacher, and long-rumored windbag. There are two causes closest to the heart: steering the country away from the social democratic nonsense that is sinking Europe, and convincing the rest of the "rightosphere" that the NBA really is a joy to watch.
Comments
13 Responses to "Well, “Newt” is a four-letter word"
Gingrich continues to display his true/modified colors and his irrelevancy to the conservative movement. Simply put, no right-minded conservative should support his bid for president (or anything else for that matter).
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bearing Drift, Jeffersoniad. Jeffersoniad said: Well, “Newt” is a four-letter word http://bit.ly/eCamtW [...]
IMO: What did you expect? Newt failed to live up to conservative movement when he fatherd an out of wedlock child and divorced his wife…
Why would anyone follow, support or look to him for leadership? You really have to ask WTF???
Newt should be embarrassed to be to the left of Algore who recently admitted that ethanol was a bad idea. This is what happens when you hang out with Pelosi. Her idiocy is contagious.
Cut off ethanol subsidies.. Why is joe public paying for it?
Thanks for catching and reporting this D.J.
One small quibble: Close observers of the Newter’s career know he has always been an opportunist, first and last.
He’s as commited to principle as he has been to his … oh, well, you get the point.
best regards
valentinus. What does Rep Pelosi have to do with Newt Gingrigh or this article? Can’t you write a comment without petty name calling. It may make you feel good but it only shows how low you would stoop.
As I did not follow politics in the 90s, I thought Newt was a hero. Wasn’t he a part of the movement to slow down Clinton’s liberal agenda. Of course, the non-biased media holds conservatives to a different standard than Democrats. Democrats get away with adultery and Newt’s career is over.
Didn’t quite understand your article, Dubai was a great example of how importing oil is paying for foreigners lavish lifestyles. There’s no country more lavish than Dubai.
As for whether Ethanol can survive on it’s own, let’s see. Isn’t he advocating that it be a stand alone rather than subsidize it. The industry will evolve if there’s a market for it.
Meanwhile, the children will be able to afford their corn?
@William, Nothing can surpass John Edwards but he’s gets a pass. If it weren’t for a rogue magazine, he wouldn’t have been caught. Mark Sanford couldn’t be gone for a weekend and they had a national manhunt on for him. Again, our media made the moral call between a conservative and liberal. Meanwhile, Elizabeth Edwards’ body wasn’t even in the ground before John was proposing.
@Valentinus – Keep up the good work. As our unemployment rates rise, her “it could be worse” continues to get higher. It’s up to 16% now.
Dear Louis,
What does your post have to with the article? My first sentence was relevant enough. Why not criticize William Bailey’s post for insulting Newt? I didn’t object to it because it contained enough truth to defend itself. I assume you didn’t mention it because you drive on a one way street. If you want to provide an example of Pelosi’s brilliance please go ahead. If Pelosi is going to engage in name calling that is really vicious as opposed to the trivial barbs said here and furthermore backed up by the powers of office, I would expect you to be the first one condemning her given your stance. If you can provide examples of your condemnation of Dem hate speech and convincing examples of Pelosi’s rhetorical and conceptual brilliance I will retract it.
Aimed at the Persian Gulf and hit Canada? He must have been using a SCUD.
So apparently nobody is going to have the guts to go to Iowa in 2012 and tell them corn-based fuel is a boodoggle? It’s ridiculous that we have a national policy decision determined by the order of the presidential selection process.
Yes there is some relevance to your post but in addition more times less there is a illusion torep. Pelosi and the terrible and nasty things she has to say. It seems to me that she is a lot more civil towards the Republicans than they or you are towards her. This is not her country or your country it is our country and being civil would make it a much better place.
As far as Mr. Bailey’s remarks about Newt go it looks like Mr. Bailey was stating a fact and facts are not insults.
@John Jackson I didn’t give Edwards a pass… I wouldn’t grant him, Clinton or any others from either party a pass for that type activity.
Edwards wasn’t the topic so I stuck to the subject.
Infidelity wasn’t the subject either.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.