"3 Ways to Lower Gas Prices" from Newt

[kstar]

This sounds like a reasonable approach from a very smart man, IMO.

[island911]

[the]

Makes sense to me.

I agree, Newt is a very smart man. He lead the last decent house of Congress in the late '90s, that was the last, best hope for the U.S. When the battles with Clinton, and the resulting gov't shutdown blew it all up, it was pretty much over for us.

We were put on an irreversible course, which has lead to the Reid/Pelosi Congress (certainly the worst Congress ever), and now likely will lead to Obama to round it out. The size, scope, intrusiveness and cost of govt will explode in ways never imagined in the US.

[Rick Lee]

Newt is waaayyy too smart to be a poltical leader and his personal baggage almost rivals that of the Clintons. I've hung out with him many times and never miss a chance to go see him speak. I love the guy. But he'll never be more than a Fox News commentator again.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I have to admit he sounds good there. I don't know how one extracts oil from shale (pretty damn energy-intensive process as I understand it) but I suppose worth looking into.

Shame that the guy lost all credibility when he decided to pursue impeachment over a stained blue dress. Because of that, as smart as the guy can be at times, he has absolutely zero credibility as a leader anymore. He's just another partisan hack.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

. . . snip . . .

Shame that the guy lost all credibility when he decided to pursue impeachment over a stained blue dress. Because of that, as smart as the guy can be at times, he has absolutely zero credibility as a leader anymore. He's just another partisan hack.

That's certainly an opinion.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Shame that the guy lost all credibility when he decided to pursue impeachment over a stained blue dress. Because of that, as smart as the guy can be at times, he has absolutely zero credibility as a leader anymore. He's just another partisan hack.

I think it's a shame that someone whose posts are usually as intelligent as yours thinks Clinton's impeachment was over a stained blue dress as opposed to perjury and obstruction of justice by someone who was the very guilty target of a sexual harassment suit.

[Rearden]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

I think it's a shame that someone whose posts are usually as intelligent as yours thinks Clinton's impeachment was over a stained blue dress as opposed to perjury and obstruction of justice by someone who was the very guilty target of a sexual harassment suit.

Exactly. It's like a flashing red light that proclaims "this guy doesn't actually pay much attention to national politics."

[Rick Lee]

Well, let's not leave Newt off the hook either. He was carrying on an affair all while going on tv every night and blasting Bubba. But Newt was never sued for sexual harassment. So his mistress, whom he later married, was never subpoenaed and so he never had to ask her to lie to cover anything up. Personal ethics aside, Newt is still 10x the thinker Clinton ever was. As Newt once said, he is the true visionary and his opponents were the true reactionaries. Love him or hate him, he is a man of ideas. And he's just about always worth a good listen.

[kstar]

It's hypothetical, but I'd guess if Newt was questioned about his affair under oath, he would have told the truth.

How about those three ideas, messenger aside?

[Rick Lee]

In theory, his suggestions might work. I have a big problem, though, with using the strategic reserves to manipulate markets and make examples out of villified speculators. Speculators have very legitimate reasons for buying oil futures and also for believing it's a lot cheaper now than it will be in a year or two. Why shouldn't, say, an airline be free to buy oil futures at a price higher than today's, but way lower than what they think it will be in a year? Maybe they should have to front 50% of the money instead of having no real skin in the game. But it makes perfect business sense to be able to lock in the price of a lifeblood supply for your industry when you have no reason to believe our political leaders are serious about increasing the supply of and reducing the demand for oil. If Newt really wants to stop speculators, seems to me, a far more beneficial idea would be for us to get serious about tapping all the resources we currently have at our disposal. Simply announcing that we're finally gonna start getting serious would drop the price of oil overnight.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

No, it was about partisan bickering that wasted countless millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money and many hours of time. There was no legitimate reason to blow it out of proportion the way it got other than to try and smear Clinton, because the Repubs were frustrated with his constantly getting the upper hand on them. It was a dirty, sleazy, muckraking political charade - nothing more. The only good thing that came out of it was that it kept Congress and Clinton from actually compromising on things and enacting more laws and legislation. It effectively parylized the legislative process, which I see as generally a good thing.

Was it REALLY worth the time/effort/expense involved? Was it REALLY worth ruining a young girl's life forever by making her a household joke? Was it REALLY worth making "blowjob" a household word and having every five-year-old in America asking what a "BJ" was? Not even remotely close. It was a simple partisan smear tactic and that's it.

Gingrich is just a partisan stooge - he proved it. Shame too, because if he wasn't so blinded with partisan hatred he might be a good, reasonably intelligent guy and a potential source of forward-thinking in this country (something that is desperately needed right now).

FWIW I followed the entire incident pretty closely. I even have (to this day) several VHS tapes with key segments of testimony and the House impeachment proceedings as part of my records. I dare say I probably took a keener interest in this than many of you guys who are so dismissive of my opinion of Gingrich because I don't happen to see it the same way you do. I'd have expected quite a bit more from the party claiming the moral high ground than to simply use that as a mask for more of the "same old" partisan B.S. that's done nothing productive - only divide this country. Do I think Clinton was a saint? Certainly not. A lot of his politics I really detest to this day (NAFTA in particular). What have the Republicans done with their "moral high ground" and promises in 1999/2000 to "restore dignity to the White House", hmm? I'd hardly point to Bush and Dick as examples of moral leadership. Bush is FAR more deserving of impeachment than Clinton ever was, much as Clinton did some intensely dislikeable things.

Gingrich has no credibility whatsoever anymore. None.

Just shout "stained blue dress!" and feel better though. Or just blame all the world's problems on Carter if you find blaming Clinton too tiresome. That's about the level of intellect I'd expect from some of you based on your posts.

[KFC911]

You said it better than I ever could Jeff...but I agree completely.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

No, it was about partisan bickering that wasted countless millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money and many hours of time. There was no legitimate reason to blow it out of proportion the way it got other than to try and smear Clinton, because the Repubs were frustrated with his constantly getting the upper hand on them. It was a dirty, sleazy, muckraking political charade - nothing more. The only good thing that came out of it was that it kept Congress and Clinton from actually compromising on things and enacting more laws and legislation. It effectively parylized the legislative process, which I see as generally a good thing.

Was it REALLY worth the time/effort/expense involved? Was it REALLY worth ruining a young girl's life forever by making her a household joke? Was it REALLY worth making "blowjob" a household word and having every five-year-old in America asking what a "BJ" was? Not even remotely close. It was a simple partisan smear tactic and that's it.

Gingrich is just a partisan stooge - he proved it. Shame too, because if he wasn't so blinded with partisan hatred he might be a good, reasonably intelligent guy and a potential source of forward-thinking in this country (something that is desperately needed right now).

FWIW I followed the entire incident pretty closely. I even have (to this day) several VHS tapes with key segments of testimony and the House impeachment proceedings as part of my records. I dare say I probably took a keener interest in this than many of you guys who are so dismissive of my opinion of Gingrich because I don't happen to see it the same way you do. I'd have expected quite a bit more from the party claiming the moral high ground than to simply use that as a mask for more of the "same old" partisan B.S. that's done nothing productive - only divide this country. Do I think Clinton was a saint? Certainly not. A lot of his politics I really detest to this day (NAFTA in particular). What have the Republicans done with their "moral high ground" and promises in 1999/2000 to "restore dignity to the White House", hmm? I'd hardly point to Bush and Dick as examples of moral leadership. Bush is FAR more deserving of impeachment than Clinton ever was, much as Clinton did some intensely dislikeable things.

Gingrich has no credibility whatsoever anymore. None.

Just shout "stained blue dress!" and feel better though. Or just blame all the world's problems on Carter if you find blaming Clinton too tiresome. That's about the level of intellect I'd expect from some of you based on your posts.

1. What is wrong in his speech?

2. So what did Bush do that is worse than Clinton covering for his Loral Corp buddies selling top secret missile technology to the red Chinese?

[einreb]

Originally Posted by island911

The strategic reserve 'idea' is amusing at most. Just don't think about it to long or it all falls apart.

I think his math is off on the Brazilian 'find'. That number changes ever time I hear it. Is it 33 brazilion, or 50 brazilion or 90 brazilion barrels?

Time to put solar panels back on the WHITE house and wear sweaters. Either that or freeze military oil consumption for a few months. Thats 350,000 barrels a day right there.

[Rick Lee]

Jeff, you are leaving out a ton of stuff that started the whole impeachment thing and had nothing to do with Newt. First of all, Newt was a backbench minority leader in the House when Clinton tried to make his sexual harassment suit by Paula Jones go away. Newt was also still a nobody when Clinton's own AG (Johnny Reno) named Robert Fiske as independent counsel to investigate what started with Whitewater and the WH travel office firings and grew into a hydra of other Clinton scandals. Fiske eventually got sick of Clinton stalling and litigating everything and quit. That's when Ken Starr got appointed. Again, it had nothing to do with Newt and it was all a result of Clinton's own behavior.

Yes, Starr spent a lot of money. But he only did so, again, because, despite Clinton's promises of cooperation and full-disclosure, his lawyers litigated and stalled on every issue. In fact, the only time Clinton did not lose in court was on the posthumous atty-client privilege of Vince Foster's suicide note. And since Starr got something like 25 convictions or plea bargains out of the investigation(s), they probably weren't fishing expeditions.

Now, if you were Ken Starr, investigating all that stuff and then got wind Clinton's having had a(nother) affair with a(nother) subordinate (sexual harassment in the workplace anyone?), told that subordinate to sign a false affidavit denying the affair and a host of other official actions designed to cover up his behavior, well, wouldn't you look into that? No one ever accused Ken Starr of being lazy or unthorough.

Again, none of this had anything to do with Newt. Once it got referred to the House for impeachment, Newt perhaps could have squelched it. But why should he have? Clinton really did everything he was accused of doing, which were very much federal crimes. What would you think of Newt had he just swept it under the rug and told everyone it was just sex and the POTUS is allowed to suborn perjury and obstruct justice to cover his tracks? What would you say to that?

The ENTIRE impeachment scandal was 100% a result of Clinton's own behavior, both his piss-poor judgment and his fantasy that he could talk or litigate his way out of anything, never having to face consequences for his own actions. He was and is a sexual predator, narcissitic liar and ego-maniac. I'm glad he was taken down a notch.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by einreb

Time to put solar panels back on the WHITE house and wear sweaters. Either that or freeze military oil consumption for a few months. Thats 350,000 barrels a day right there.

That's a great idea. Makes about as much sense as those bumper stickers that suggest the Air Force hold bake sales to afford their bombers.

[KFC911]

"Sandy Berger's Skivvys"! ...remember to use that one too Mule (as your predecessor (Mul) was so apt to do) along with the crying baby...makes for a great combo . Bush has sold a huge "IOU" (somebody had to pay for our Iraq fiasco) to the same folks. Not defending Clinton...irrelevent at this point, but both parties are sucking left hind tit if you know what I mean.

[einreb]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

That's a great idea. Makes about as much sense as those bumper stickers that suggest the Air Force hold bake sales to afford their bombers.

I forgot the Green.

How about some 'fuel cell' uav's flying all over the place with hellfires or whatever the latest thing is for small stuff and then fire off an ICBM when we need to take out something big. Much smaller supply line and carbon footprint?

I would still insist that the blue angels come to chicago for the air show every other year. If they could somehow fuel that with processed boomer biofat, even better.

[Paul_Heery]

Originally Posted by einreb

The strategic reserve 'idea' is amusing at most. Just don't think about it to long or it all falls apart.

That's the problem that I was having. I just couldn't get past the short-term thinking behind releasing 1/3 of the SPR. The numbers don't work.

The current SPR inventory is 705.9 million bbls. IF we were to release 1/3 of the reserve, that would be 235.3 million bbls. Now, all of that oil would not come flooding into the market all at once. The maximum total withdrawal capability from the SPR is only 4.4 million barrels per day. That would only offset about 36% of the 12 million bbls. of oil that we import daily.

So, we may have some short-term relief for the 54 days it would take to release that oil into the market. However, during that time we would also need to start spending money replace/replenish the oil in the reserve. Iin two months we are back to where we started.