Pages

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Remarks by the President on America's Energy Security

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary


Georgetown University
Washington, D.C.

11:36 A.M. EDT
     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you so much.  Thank you, everybody.  (Applause.)  Everybody, please have a seat.  Please have a seat. It is wonderful to be back at Georgetown.  (Applause.)
We've got a number of acknowledgements.  First of all, I just want to thank President DeGioia for his outstanding leadership here, but also for his hospitality. 
We also have here Secretary Steven Chu, my Energy Secretary. Where is Steven?  There he is over there.  (Applause.)  Secretary Ken Salazar of the Interior Department.  (Applause.)  Secretary Tom Vilsack, our Agriculture Secretary.  (Applause.)  Ray LaHood, our Transportation Secretary.  (Applause.)  Lisa Jackson, our EPA Administrator.  (Applause.)  Nancy Sutley, who is our Council on Environmental Quality director, right here.  (Applause.) 
A couple of great members of Congress -- Congressman Jay Inslee of Washington.  Where’s Jay?  There he is over there.  (Applause.)  And Rush Holt of New Jersey is here.  (Applause.)  We've got -- he didn’t bring the weather with him -- but the mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, is in the house.  (Applause.)  Mayor Scott Smith of Mesa, Arizona, is here.  (Applause.) 
And most importantly, the students of Georgetown University are in the house.  (Applause.) 
I want to start with a difficult subject:  The Hoyas had a tough loss, Coach.  (Laughter.)  Coach is here, too, and I love Coach Thompson.  I love his dad and the great tradition that they’ve had.  (Applause.)  And it turned out VCU was pretty good. (Laughter.)  I had Georgetown winning that game in my bracket, so we’re all hurting here.  (Laughter.)  But that's what next year is for. 
We meet here at a tumultuous time for the world.  In a matter of months, we’ve seen regimes toppled.  We've seen democracy take root in North Africa and in the Middle East.  We’ve witnessed a terrible earthquake, a catastrophic tsunami, a nuclear emergency that has battered one of our strongest allies and closest friends in the world’s third-largest economy.  We’ve led an international effort in Libya to prevent a massacre and maintain stability throughout the broader region.  (Applause.) 
And as Americans, we’re heartbroken by the lives that have been lost as a result of these events.  We’re deeply moved by the thirst for freedom in so many nations, and we’re moved by the strength and the perseverance of the Japanese people.  And it’s natural, I think, to feel anxious about what all of this means for us.
And one big area of concern has been the cost and security of our energy.  Obviously, the situation in the Middle East implicates our energy security.  The situation in Japan leads us to ask questions about our energy sources.
In an economy that relies so heavily on oil, rising prices at the pump affect everybody -– workers, farmers, truck drivers, restaurant owners, students who are lucky enough to have a car.  (Laughter.)  Businesses see rising prices at the pump hurt their bottom line.  Families feel the pinch when they fill up their tank.  And for Americans that are already struggling to get by, a hike in gas prices really makes their lives that much harder.  It hurts. 
If you’re somebody who works in a relatively low-wage job and you’ve got to commute to work, it takes up a big chunk of your income.  You may not be able to buy as many groceries.  You may have to cut back on medicines in order to fill up the gas tank.  So this is something that everybody is affected by.
Now, here’s the thing -– we have been down this road before. Remember, it was just three years ago that gas prices topped $4 a gallon.  I remember because I was in the middle of a presidential campaign.  Working folks certainly remember because it hit a lot of people pretty hard.  And because we were at the height of political season, you had all kinds of slogans and gimmicks and outraged politicians -- they were waving their three-point plans for $2 a gallon gas.  You remember that -- “drill, baby, drill”
-- and we were going through all that.  (Laughter.)  And none of it was really going to do anything to solve the problem.  There was a lot of hue and cry, a lot of fulminating and hand-wringing, but nothing actually happened.  Imagine that in Washington.  (Laughter.) 
The truth is, none of these gimmicks, none of these slogans made a bit of difference.  When gas prices finally did fall, it was mostly because the global recession had led to less demand for oil.  Companies were producing less; the demand for petroleum went down; prices went down.  Now that the economy is recovering, demand is back up.  Add the turmoil in the Middle East, and it’s not surprising that oil prices are higher.  And every time the price of a barrel of oil on the world market rises by $10, a gallon of gas goes up by about 25 cents.
The point is the ups and downs in gas prices historically have tended to be temporary.  But when you look at the long-term trends, there are going to be more ups in gas prices than downs in gas prices.  And that’s because you’ve got countries like India and China that are growing at a rapid clip, and as 2 billion more people start consuming more goods -- they want cars just like we’ve got cars; they want to use energy to make their lives a little easier just like we’ve got -- it is absolutely certain that demand will go up a lot faster than supply.  It’s just a fact.
So here’s the bottom line:  There are no quick fixes.  Anybody who tells you otherwise isn’t telling you the truth.  And we will keep on being a victim to shifts in the oil market until we finally get serious about a long-term policy for a secure, affordable energy future. 
We’re going to have to think long term, which is why I came here, to talk to young people here at Georgetown, because you have more of a stake in us getting our energy policy right than just about anybody.
Now, here’s a source of concern, though.  We’ve known about the dangers of our oil dependence for decades.  Richard Nixon talked about freeing ourselves from dependence on foreign oil.  And every President since that time has talked about freeing ourselves from dependence on foreign oil.  Politicians of every stripe have promised energy independence, but that promise has so far gone unmet. 
I talked about reducing America’s dependence on oil when I was running for President, and I’m proud of the historic progress that we’ve made over the last two years towards that goal, and we’ll talk about that a little bit.  But I’ve got to be honest.  We’ve run into the same political gridlock, the same inertia that has held us back for decades. 
That has to change.  That has to change.  We cannot keep going from shock when gas prices go up to trance when they go back down -- we go back to doing the same things we’ve been doing until the next time there’s a price spike, and then we’re shocked again.  We can’t rush to propose action when gas prices are high and then hit the snooze button when they fall again.  We can’t keep on doing that.
The United States of America cannot afford to bet our long-term prosperity, our long-term security on a resource that will eventually run out, and even before it runs out will get more and more expensive to extract from the ground.  We can’t afford it when the costs to our economy, our country, and our planet are so high.  Not when your generation needs us to get this right.  It’s time to do what we can to secure our energy future.
And today, I want to announce a new goal, one that is reasonable, one that is achievable, and one that is necessary.
When I was elected to this office, America imported 11 million barrels of oil a day.  By a little more than a decade from now, we will have cut that by one-third.  That is something that we can achieve.  (Applause.)  We can cut our oil dependence -- we can cut our oil dependence by a third.
I set this goal knowing that we’re still going to have to import some oil.  It will remain an important part of our energy portfolio for quite some time, until we’ve gotten alternative energy strategies fully in force.  And when it comes to the oil we import from other nations, obviously we’ve got to look at neighbors like Canada and Mexico that are stable and steady and reliable sources.  We also have to look at other countries like Brazil.  Part of the reason I went down there is to talk about energy with the Brazilians.  They recently discovered significant new oil reserves, and we can share American technology and know-how with them as they develop these resources.
But our best opportunities to enhance our energy security can be found in our own backyard -- because we boast one critical, renewable resource that the rest of the world can’t match:  American ingenuity.  American ingenuity, American know-how.
To make ourselves more secure, to control our energy future, we’re going to have to harness all of that ingenuity.  It’s a task we won’t be finished with by the end of my presidency, or even by the end of the next presidency.  But if we continue the work that we’ve already begun over the last two years, we won’t just spark new jobs, industries and innovations -- we will leave your generation and future generations with a country that is safer, that is healthier, and that’s more prosperous. 
So today, my administration is releasing a Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future that outlines a comprehensive national energy policy, one that we’ve been pursuing since the day I took office.  And cutting our oil dependence by a third is part of that plan. 
Here at Georgetown, I’d like to talk in broad strokes about how we can achieve these goals.
Now, meeting the goal of cutting our oil dependence depends largely on two things:  first, finding and producing more oil at home; second, reducing our overall dependence on oil with cleaner alternative fuels and greater efficiency.
This begins by continuing to increase America’s oil supply. Even for those of you who are interested in seeing a reduction in our dependence on fossil fuels -- and I know how passionate young people are about issues like climate change -- the fact of the matter is, is that for quite some time, America is going to be still dependent on oil in making its economy work. 
Now, last year, American oil production reached its highest level since 2003.  And for the first time in more than a decade, oil we imported accounted for less than half of the liquid fuel we consumed.  So that was a good trend.  To keep reducing that reliance on imports, my administration is encouraging offshore oil exploration and production -- as long as it’s safe and responsible. 
I don’t think anybody here has forgotten what happened last year, where we had to deal with the largest oil spill in [our] history. I know some of the fishermen down in the Gulf Coast haven’t forgotten it.  And what we learned from that disaster helped us put in place smarter standards of safety and responsibility.  For example, if you’re going to drill in deepwater, you’ve got to prove before you start drilling that you can actually contain an underwater spill.  That’s just common sense.  And lately, we’ve been hearing folks saying, well, the Obama administration, they put restrictions on how oil companies operate offshore.  Well, yes, because we just spent all that time, energy and money trying to clean up a big mess.  And I don't know about you, but I don't have amnesia.  I remember these things.  (Laughter.)  And I think it was important for us to make sure that we prevent something like that from happening again.  (Applause.)
Now, today, we’re working to expedite new drilling permits for companies that meet these higher standards.  Since they were put in, we’ve approved 39 new shallow-water permits; we’ve approved seven deepwater permits in recent weeks.  When it comes to drilling offshore, my administration approved more than two permits last year for every new well that the industry started to drill.  So any claim that my administration is responsible for gas prices because we’ve “shut down” oil production, any claim like that is simply untrue.  It might make for a useful sound bite, but it doesn’t track with reality.
What is true is we’ve said if you’re going to drill offshore you’ve got to have a plan to make sure that we don’t have the kind of catastrophe that we had last year.  And I don’t think that there’s anybody who should dispute that that’s the right strategy to pursue.
Moreover, we’re actually pushing the oil industry to take advantage of the opportunities that they’ve already got.  Right now the industry holds tens of millions of acres of leases where they’re not producing a single drop.  They’re just sitting on supplies of American energy that are ready to be tapped.  That’s why part of our plan is to provide new and better incentives that promote rapid, responsible development of these resources. 
We’re also exploring and assessing new frontiers for oil and gas development from Alaska to the Mid- and South Atlantic states, because producing more oil in America can help lower oil prices, can help create jobs, and can enhance our energy security, but we’ve got to do it in the right way.
Now, even if we increase domestic oil production, that is not going to be the long-term solution to our energy challenge.  I give out this statistic all the time, and forgive me for repeating it again:  America holds about 2 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves.  What that means is, is that even if we drilled every drop of oil out of every single one of the reserves that we possess -- offshore and onshore -- it still wouldn’t be enough to meet our long-term needs.  We consume about 25 percent of the world’s oil.  We only have 2 percent of the reserves.  Even if we doubled U.S. oil production, we’re still really short.
So the only way for America’s energy supply to be truly secure is by permanently reducing our dependence on oil.  We’re going to have to find ways to boost our efficiency so we use less oil.  We’ve got to discover and produce cleaner, renewable sources of energy that also produce less carbon pollution, which is threatening our climate.  And we’ve got to do it quickly. 
Now, in terms of new sources of energy, we have a few different options.  The first is natural gas.  Recent innovations have given us the opportunity to tap large reserves –- perhaps a century’s worth of reserves, a hundred years worth of reserves -– in the shale under our feet.  But just as is true in terms of us extracting oil from the ground, we’ve got to make sure that we’re extracting natural gas safely, without polluting our water supply. 
That’s why I’ve asked Secretary Chu, my Energy Secretary, to work with other agencies, the natural gas industry, states, and environmental experts to improve the safety of this process.  And Chu is the right guy to do this.  He’s got a Nobel Prize in physics.  He actually deserved his Nobel Prize.  (Laughter and applause.)  And this is the kind of thing that he likes to do for fun on the weekend.  (Laughter.)  He goes into his garage and he tinkers around and figures out how to extract natural gas.  (Laughter.)  
I’m going to embarrass him further.  (Laughter.)  Last year, when we were trying to fill -- figure out how to close the cap, I sent Chu down to sit in the BP offices, and he essentially designed the cap that ultimately worked, and he drew up the specs for it and had BP build it, construct it.  So this is somebody who knows what he’s doing.  (Applause.)  So for those of you who are studying physics, it may actually pay off someday.  (Laughter.) 
But the potential for natural gas is enormous.  And this is an area where there’s actually been some broad bipartisan agreement.  Last year, more than 150 members of Congress from both sides of the aisle produced legislation providing incentives to use clean-burning natural gas in our vehicles instead of oil. And that's a big deal.  Getting 150 members of Congress to agree on anything is a big deal.  And they were even joined by T. Boone Pickens, a businessman who made his fortune on oil, but who is out there making the simple point that we can’t simply drill our way out of our energy problems. 
So I ask members of Congress and all the interested parties involved to keep at it, pass a bill that helps us achieve the goal of extracting natural gas in a safe, environmentally sound way.
Now, another substitute for oil that holds tremendous promise is renewable biofuels -– not just ethanol, but biofuels made from things like switchgrass and wood chips and biomass. 
If anybody doubts the potential of these fuels, consider Brazil.  As I said, I was just there last week.  Half of Brazil’s vehicles can run on biofuels -- half of their fleet of automobiles can run on biofuels instead of petroleum.  Just last week, our Air Force -- our own Air Force -- used an advanced biofuel blend to fly a Raptor 22 -- an F-22 Raptor faster than the speed of sound.  Think about that.  I mean, if an F-22 Raptor can fly at the speed of -- faster than the speed of sound on biomass, then I know the old beater that you’ve got, that you’re driving around in -- (laughter) -- can probably do so, too.  There’s no reason why we can’t have our cars do the same.
In fact, the Air Force is aiming to get half of its domestic jet fuel from alternative sources by 2016.  And I’m directing the Navy and the Department of Energy and Agriculture to work with the private sector to create advanced biofuels that can power not just fighter jets, but also trucks and commercial airliners.
So there’s no reason we shouldn’t be using these renewable fuels throughout America.  And that’s why we’re investing in things like fueling stations and research into the next generation of biofuels.  One of the biggest problems we have with alternative energy is not just producing the energy, but also distributing it.  We’ve got gas stations all around the country, so whenever you need gas you know you can fill up -- it doesn’t matter where you are.  Well, we’ve got to have that same kind of distribution network when it comes to our renewable energy sources so that when you are converting to a different kind of car that runs on a different kind of energy, you’re going to be able to have that same convenience.  Otherwise, the market won’t work; it won’t grow.  
Over the next two years, we’ll help entrepreneurs break ground for four next-generation biorefineries -– each with a capacity of more than 20 million gallons per year.  And going forward, we should look for ways to reform biofuels incentives to make sure that they’re meeting today’s challenges and that they’re also saving taxpayers money. 
So as we replace oil with fuels like natural gas and biofuels, we can also reduce our dependence by making cars and trucks that use less oil in the first place.  Seventy percent of our petroleum consumption goes to transportation -- 70 percent.  And by the way, so does the second biggest chunk of most families’ budgets goes into transportation.  And that’s why one of the best ways to make our economy less dependent on oil and save folks more money is to make our transportation sector more efficient.
Now, we went through 30 years where we didn’t raise fuel efficiency standards on cars.  And part of what happened in the U.S. auto industry was because oil appeared relatively cheap, the U.S. auto industry decided we’re just going to make our money on SUVs, and we’re not going to worry about fuel efficiency.  Thirty years of lost time when it comes to technology that could improve the efficiency of cars. 
So last year, we established a groundbreaking national fuel efficiency standard for cars and trucks.  We did this last year without legislation.  We just got all the parties together and we got them to agree -- automakers, autoworkers, environmental groups, industry. 
     So that means our cars will be getting better gas mileage, saving 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the life of the program -- 1.8 billion.  Our consumers will save money from fewer trips to the pump -– $3,000 on average over time you will save because of these higher fuel efficiency standards.  And our automakers will build more innovative products.  Right now, there are even cars rolling off the assembly lines in Detroit with combustion engines -- I’m not talking about hybrids -- combustion engines that get more than 50 miles per gallon.  So we know how to do it.  We know how to make our cars more efficient. 
But going forward, we’re going to continue to work with the automakers, with the autoworkers, with states, to ensure the high-quality, fuel-efficient cars and trucks of tomorrow are built right here in the United States of America.  That’s going to be a top priority for us.  (Applause.)
This summer, we’re going to propose the first-ever fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty trucks.  And this fall, we’ll announce the next round of fuel standards for cars that builds on what we’ve already done. 
And by the way, the federal government is going to need to lead by example.  The fleet of cars and trucks we use in the federal government is one of the largest in the country.  We’ve got a lot of cars.  And that’s why we’ve already doubled the number of alternative vehicles in the federal fleet.  And that’s why today I am directing agencies to purchase 100 percent alternative fuel, hybrid, or electric vehicles by 2015.  All of them should be alternative fuel.  (Applause.)
Going forward, we’ll partner with private companies that want to upgrade their large fleets.  And this means, by the way, that you students, as consumers or future consumers of cars, you’ve got to make sure that you are boosting demand for alternative vehicles.  You’re going to have a responsibility as well, because if alternative-fuel vehicles are manufactured but you guys aren’t buying them, then folks will keep on making cars that don’t have the same fuel efficiency.  So you’ve got power in this process, and the decisions you make individually in your lives will say something about how serious we are when it comes to energy independence.
We’ve also made historic investments in high-speed rail and mass transit, because part of making our transportation sector cleaner and more efficient involves offering all Americans, whether they are urban, suburban, or rural, the choice to be mobile without having to get in a car and pay for gas.
Still, there are few breakthroughs as promising for increasing fuel efficiency and reducing our dependence on oil as electric vehicles.  Soon after I took office, I set a goal of having one million electric vehicles on our roads by 2015.  We’ve created incentives for American companies to develop these vehicles, and for Americans who want them to buy them. 
So new manufacturing plants are opening over the next few years.  And a modest $2 billion investment in competitive grants for companies to develop the next generation of batteries for these cars has jumpstarted a big new American industry.  Pretty soon, America will be home to 40 percent of global manufacturing capacity for these advanced batteries. 
And for those of you who are wondering what that means, the thing that’s been holding back electric vehicles is the battery that stores that electricity, that energy.  And the more efficient, the more lightweight we can make those batteries, the easier it is to manufacture those cars at a competitive price.
And if we can have that industry here in the United States of America, that means jobs.  If those batteries are made here, the cars are made here.  Those cars are made here, we’re putting Americans back to work.
Now, to make sure we stay on this goal we’re going to need to do more -– by offering more powerful incentives to consumers, and by rewarding the communities that pave the way for the adoption of these vehicles.
Now, one other thing about electric cars -- and you don't need to talk to Chu about this -- it turns out electric cars run on electricity.  (Laughter.)  And so even if we reduce our oil dependency, and we’re producing all these great electric cars, we’re going to have to have a plan to change the way we generate electricity in America so that it’s cleaner and safer and healthier.  We know that ushering in a clean energy economy has the potential of creating untold numbers of new jobs and new businesses right here in the United States.  But we’re going to have to think about how do we produce electricity more efficiently.
Now, in addition to producing it, we actually also have to think about making sure we’re not wasting energy.  I don't know how we’re doing on the Georgetown campus, Mr. President, but every institution and every household has to start thinking about how are we reducing the amount of energy that we’re using and doing it in more efficient ways.
Today, our homes and businesses consume 40 percent of the energy that we use, and it costs us billions of dollars in energy bills.  Manufacturers that require large amounts of energy to make their products, they're challenged by rising energy costs.  And so you can’t separate the issue of oil dependence from the issue of how we are producing generally -- more energy generally. 
And that’s why we’ve proposed new programs to help Americans upgrade their homes and businesses and plants with new, energy-efficient building materials -- new lighting, new windows, new heating and cooling systems -– investments that will save consumers and business owners tens of billions of dollars a year, and free up money for investment and hiring and creating new jobs and hiring more workers and putting contractors to work as well.
The nice thing about energy efficiency is we already have the technology.  We don’t have to create something new.  We just have to help businesses and homeowners put in place the installation, the energy-efficient windows, the energy-efficient lighting.  They’ll get their money back.  You will save money on your electricity bill that pays for those improvements that you made, but a lot of people may not have the money up front, and so we’ve got to give them some incentives to do that.
And just like the fuels we use in our cars, we’re going to have to find cleaner renewable sources of electricity.  Today, about two-fifths of our electricity come from clean energy sources.  But we can do better than that.  I think that with the right incentives in place, we can double our use of clean energy. And that’s why, in my State of the Union address back in January, I called for a new Clean Energy Standard for America:  By 2035, 80 percent of our electricity needs to come from a wide range of clean energy sources -- renewables like wind and solar, efficient natural gas.  And, yes, we’re going to have to examine how do we make clean coal and nuclear power work.
Now, in light of the ongoing events in Japan, I want to just take a minute to talk about nuclear power.  Right now, America gets about one-fifth of our electricity from nuclear energy.  And it’s important to recognize that nuclear energy doesn’t emit carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  So those of us who are concerned about climate change, we’ve got to recognize that nuclear power, if it’s safe, can make a significant contribution to the climate change question. 
And I’m determined to ensure that it’s safe.  So in light of what’s happened in Japan, I’ve requested a comprehensive safety review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to make sure that all of our existing nuclear energy facilities are safe.  And we’re going incorporate those conclusions and lessons from Japan in design and the building of the next generation of plants.  But we can’t simply take it off the table. 
My administration is leading global discussions towards a new international framework in which all countries who are operating nuclear plants are making sure that they’re not spreading dangerous nuclear materials and technology.
But more broadly, a clean energy standard can expand the scope of clean energy investments because what it does is it gives cutting-edge companies the certainty that they need to invest.  Essentially what it does is it says to companies, you know what, you will have a customer if you’re producing clean energy.  Utilities, they need to buy a certain amount of clean energy in their overall portfolio, and that means that innovators are willing to make those big capital investments. 
And we’ve got to start now because -- think about this -- in the 1980s, America was home to more than 80 percent of the world’s wind capacity, 90 percent of the world’s solar capacity. We were the leaders in wind.  We were the leaders in solar.  We owned the clean energy economy in the ‘80s.  Guess what.  Today, China has the most wind capacity.  Germany has the most solar capacity.  Both invest more in clean energy than we do, even though we are a larger economy and a substantially larger user of energy.  We’ve fallen behind on what is going to be the key to our future.
Other countries are now exporting technology we pioneered and they’re going after the jobs that come with it because they know that the countries that lead the 21st century clean energy economy will be the countries that lead the 21st century global economy. 
I want America to be that nation.  I want America to win the future.  (Applause.) 
So a clean energy standard will help drive private investment in innovation.  But I want to make this point:  Government funding will still be critical.  Over the past two years, the historic investments my administration has made in clean and renewable energy research and technology have helped private sector companies grow and hire hundreds of thousands of new workers. 
I’ve visited gleaming new solar arrays that are among the largest in the world.  I've tested an electric vehicle fresh off the assembly line.  I mean, I didn’t really test it -- I was able to drive like five feet before Secret Service said to stop.  (Laughter.)  I’ve toured factories that used to be shuttered, where they’re now building advanced wind blades that are as long as 747s, and they’re building the towers that support them.  And I’ve seen the scientists that are searching for the next big breakthrough in energy.  None of this would have happened without government support.
I understand we’ve got a tight fiscal situation, so it’s fair to ask how do we pay for government’s investment in energy. And as we debate our national priorities and our budget in Congress, we’re going to have to make some tough choices.  We’re going to have to cut what we don’t need to invest in what we do need. 
Unfortunately, some folks want to cut critical investments in clean energy.  They want to cut our research and development into new technologies.  They’re shortchanging the resources necessary even to promptly issue new permits for offshore drilling.  These cuts would eliminate thousands of private sector jobs; it would terminate scientists and engineers; it would end fellowships for researchers, some who may be here at Georgetown, graduate students and other talent that we desperately need to get into this area in the 21st century.  That doesn’t make sense.
We’re already paying a price for our inaction.  Every time we fill up at the pump, every time we lose a job or a business to countries that are investing more than we do in clean energy, when it comes to our air, our water, and the climate change that threatens the planet that you will inherit -– we’re already paying a price.  These are costs that we are already bearing.  And if we do nothing, the price will only go up.
So at moments like these, sacrificing these investments in research and development, in supporting clean energy technologies, that would weaken our energy economy and make us more dependent on oil.  That’s not a game plan to win the future. That’s a vision to keep us mired in the past.  I will not accept that outcome for the United States of America.  We are not going to do that.  (Applause.)
Let me close by speaking directly to the students here -- the next generation who are going to be writing the next great chapter in the American story.  The issue of energy independence is one that America has been talking about since before your parents were your age, since before you were born.  And you also happen to go to a school [in a town] that for a long time has suffered from a chronic unwillingness to come together and make tough choices.  And so I forgive you for thinking that maybe there isn’t much we can do to rise to this challenge.  Maybe some of you are feeling kind of cynical or skeptical about whether we’re actually going to solve this problem.  But everything I have seen and experienced with your generation convinces me otherwise. 
I think that precisely because you are coming of age at a time of such rapid and sometimes unsettling change, born into a world with fewer walls, educated in an era of constant information, tempered by war and economic turmoil -- because that’s the world in which you’re coming of age, I think you believe as deeply as any of our previous generations that America can change and it can change for the better. 
We need that.  We need you to dream big.  We need you to summon that same spirit of unbridled optimism and that bold willingness to tackle tough challenges and see those challenges through that led previous generations to rise to greatness -– to save a democracy, to touch the moon, to connect the world with our own science and our own imagination.
That’s what America is capable of.  That's what you have to push America to do, and it will be you that pushes it.  That history of ours, of meeting challenges -– that's your birthright. You understand that there’s no problem out there that is not within our power to solve.
I don’t want to leave this challenge for future Presidents. I don’t want to leave it for my children.  I don’t want to leave it for your children.  So, yes, solving it will take time and it will take effort.  It will require our brightest scientists, our most creative companies.  It will require all of us –- Democrats, Republicans, and everybody in between -– to do our part.  But with confidence in America and in ourselves and in one another, I know this is a challenge that we will solve.
Thank you very much, everybody.  God bless you.  God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)

END         
12:24 P.M. EDT

America’s Energy Security


March 30, 2011 | 46:59 | Public Domain

President Obama lays out his plan for America’s long-term energy security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, developing more domestic energy resources, and encouraging conservation in a speech at Georgetown University.




The Obama Administration’s Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future

“Today, my Administration is releasing a Blueprint for A Secure Energy Future that outlines the comprehensive national energy policy we’ve pursued since the day I took office.  And here at Georgetown, I’d like to talk in broad strokes about how we will secure that future."
-- President Obama, March 30, 2011
Rising prices at the pump affect everybody – workers and farmers; truck drivers and restaurant owners.  Businesses see it impact their bottom line.  Families feel the pinch when they fill up their tank.  For Americans already struggling to get by, it makes life that much harder.  Demand for oil in countries like China and India is only growing, and the price of oil will continue to rise with it. That’s why we need to make ourselves more secure and control our energy future by harnessing all of the resources that we have available and embracing a diverse energy portfolio.
 Every president since Richard Nixon has called for America’s independence from oil, but Washington gridlock has prevented action again and again.   If we want to create a more secure energy future, and protect consumers at the pump, that has to change.  When President Obama took office, America imported 11 million barrels of oil a day.   Today, he pledged that by a little more than a decade from now, we will have cut that by one-third, and put forward a plan to secure America’s energy future by producing more oil at home and reducing our dependence on oil by leveraging cleaner, alternative fuels and greater efficiency.
We’ve already made progress toward this goal – last year, America produced more oil than we had in the last seven years.  And we’re taking steps to encourage more offshore oil exploration and production – as long as it’s safe and responsible.   And, because we know we can’t just drill our way out of our energy challenge, we’re reducing our dependence on oil by increasing our production of natural gas and biofuels, and increasing our fuel efficiency.  Last year, we announced ground-breaking fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks that will save consumers thousands of dollars and conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil.
And beyond our efforts to reduce our dependence on oil, we must focus on expanding cleaner sources of electricity, including renewables like wind and solar, as well as clean coal, natural gas, and nuclear power  – keeping America on the cutting edge of clean energy technology so that we can build a 21st century clean energy economy and win the future.
To help us reach these goals, the Obama Administration is releasing a Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future (pdf) – which outlines the comprehensive national energy policy that this Administration has pursued since day one, and the which we will build upon to secure our energy future. The Blueprint is aimed to:
  • Develop and secure America’s energy supplies:  We need to deploy American assets, innovation, and technology so that we can safely and responsibly develop more energy here at home and be a leader in the global energy economy.  To get there, we need to:
    • Expand Safe and Responsible Domestic Oil and Gas Development and Production
    • Lead the World Toward Safer and More Secure Energy Supplies
  • Provide consumers with choices to reduce costs and save energy:  Volatile gasoline prices reinforce the need for innovation that will make it easier and more affordable for consumers to buy more advanced and fuel-efficient vehicles, use alternative means of transportation, weatherize their homes and workplaces, and in doing so, save money and protect the environment. These measures help families’ pocketbooks, reduce our dependence on finite energy sources and help create good jobs here in the United States.  So, we’re implementing policies that:
    • Reduce Consumers Costs at the Pump with More Efficient Cars and Trucks
    • Cut Energy Bills with More Efficient Homes and Buildings
  • Innovate our way to a clean energy future:  Leading the world in clean energy is critical to strengthening the American economy and winning the future.  We can get there by creating markets for innovative clean technologies that are ready to deploy, and by funding cutting-edge research to produce the next generation of technologies.  And as new, better, and more efficient technologies hit the market, the Federal government needs to put words into action and lead by example.  That’s why we need to:
    • Harness America’s Clean Energy Potential so that 80 percent of electricity will come from clean energy sources by 2035
    • Win the future through Clean Energy Research and Development
    • Lead by Example so that the Federal Government models best practices and clean energy technologies
Read the full Blueprint (pdf).

Obama: U.S. can't keep going from 'shock to trance' based on gas prices


AP
President Barack Obama gestures while speaking about his plan for America's energy security today at Georgetown University in Washington.
From NBC's Athena Jones
In laying out his administration's plans for increasing U.S. energy independence, President Obama set a big goal: to reduce oil imports by about one-third in a little over a decade.
The president set out that goal in a wide-ranging nearly 50-minute speech during which he spoke about a series of steps his administration would take to increase domestic oil and natural gas production and promote research into and production of biofuels and raise automobile efficiency standards.
He argued the best opportunities to improve America's energy security "can be found in our own backyard," and he set a goal of breaking ground on at least four commercial-scale cellulosic or advanced biorefineries over the next two years. He made the remarks at Georgetown University, the same place he laid out his sweeping economic agenda two years ago.
Today's speech is part of a White House public communications effort to focus America's attention on energy security during a time of unrest in the Middle East and rising gas prices at home.
"Obviously the situation in the Middle East affects our energy security," Obama said. "In an economy that relies on oil, rising prices at the pump affect everybody -- workers and farmers, truck drivers and restaurant owners; businesses see it hurt their bottom line; families feel the pinch when they fill up their tank. For Americans already struggling to get by, it makes life that much harder."
He went on to say there were no quick fixes to America's energy challenges and that addressing them would require a long-term strategy.
"We cannot keep going from shock to trance on the issue of energy security, rushing to propose action when gas prices rise, then hitting the snooze button when they fall again," he said. "It is time to do what we can to secure our energy future."
As part of the administration's new push on energy, Cabinet officials will hold a series of energy events in Washington and around the country. In an afternoon briefing with reporters, Energy Secretary Steven Chu talked about the "great strides" made in areas like fuel economy, electric vehicles, development of advanced batteries and biofuels and the president himself plans to highlight green vehicles on Friday by visiting a UPS shipping facility in Landover, MD, where he will view vehicles from AT&T, FedEx, PepsiCo, UPS and Verizon's clean fleets.
Despite Japan's nuclear crisis, Obama said nuclear energy would remain part of the U.S. mix of energy sources and said he had called for comprehensive safety review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to make sure that all existing U.S. nuclear energy facilities are safe.
But he also spoke about his administration's work to expedite new oil and gas drilling permits. The administration also wants to provide incentives to encourage energy companies to develop the millions of acres in available oil and gas leases.

In a conference call with reporters to preview today's speech, one senior administration official cited a Department of the Interior report showing that last year the oil and gas industry leased only 2.4 million out of 37 million acres offered. The official said in the Gulf of Mexico, companies were sitting on an estimated 11.6 billion barrels of oil and tens of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas.
"These are massive supplies of American energy just waiting to be tapped," the official said.
Republicans have argued the Obama administration has made it harder for companies to drill, dragging its feet on issuing new permits. And soon after the president's speech, congressman Doc Hastings (R-WA), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, released a statement in which he said he agreed with the president's goal, but noted, "[W]e have very different ways of getting there. The President wants to decrease imports by telling Americans to use less and to pay more. Republicans want to decrease imports by increasing U.S. production -- while simultaneously creating American jobs, raising revenue to help pay down the national debt, lowering energy costs and increasing our energy independence. I hope the President would be willing to work with Congress in achieving his goal to cut imports by unlocking our American energy resources.”
White House officials believe they can get bipartisan support for several of their energy initiatives and pointed to the Natural Gas Act, a bill introduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), as an example of legislation with the support of members from both sides of the aisle. The bill -- which was co-sponsored by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Sen. Orrin Hatch  (R-UT) and has the support of billionaire energy executive T. Boone Pickens -- aims to spur the development of natural gas vehicles and decrease America's dependence on foreign energy.
Still, officials have suggested that not all of the incentives and other proposals the administration is putting forth will have to be passed by Congress. They noted the Obama White House has used its administrative authorities aggressively -- whether regarding auto efficiency standards or efforts to green the federal fleet -- since the president took office, and that it would continue "thinking creatively" about what can be accomplished using existing authorities.

House, Senate No. 2s battle over federal budget




Cantor's 'Law of the Land'


John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, Jeb Hensarling
J. Scott Applewhite  /  AP
Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other GOP leaders comment on the Senate Democratic leadership and the problems in passing a long-term spending bill, on Capitol Hill in Washington on Tuesday.

Sen. Schumer and Rep. Cantor's multimedia war can resemble a Spy vs. Spy contest

By LAURIE KELLMAN
updated 3/30/2011 9:51:23 AM ET
They're a pair of flamboyant lawyers who are fond of cameras and adept at messaging, two No. 2s with ambitions to land, someday, on top.
So the emerging political warfare led by Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and Republican Rep. Eric Cantor, now playing out in multimedia form over the budget impasse, can resemble a Spy vs. Spy contest over some of the most serious issues facing Congress and the nation.
Story: Dems hint at flexibility in budget talks For them it's not just about getting to a budget agreement, cutting spending or the deficit. In fact, neither Cantor nor Schumer is directly involved in the sensitive, secretive budget negotiations. But the snippy rhetoric is expected to intensify as the April 8 deadline — and a possible government shutdown — loom.
First Read: 2012 GOP race off to slow start To these two, and arguably all of the congressional Republicans and Democrats they represent, the federal budget mess is a campaign within the long 2012 re-election campaign. And that means all the responses and "pre-sponses" the Internet, the Twitterverse, television and the old-fashioned telephone allow.
'Extreme and draconian' Tuesday provided an apt, daylong example. Reporters dialing in to a news conference-by-phone could hear Schumer, the media-savvy New Yorker tapped by Majority Leader Harry Reid to handle the party's messaging, giving talking points on the budget to other Democratic senators. He was clearly unaware that reporters were already on the line.
Schumer's advice was familiar: Call the House Republicans' proposed spending cuts "extreme."
"Extreme and draconian," Schumer, 60, advised. "The subtext of this is, the only way we can avoid a shutdown is for (House Speaker John) Boehner to come up with a reasonable compromise and not just listen to what the tea party wants."
Is this thing on? Open mic reveals moment of Dem strategizing
The GOP's victory dancing began, from Cantor's office and beyond. Within moments, Boehner's office fired off an email with an account of the overheard conversation.
Then Cantor, 47, referred to Schumer several times during the Republican's weekly off-camera briefing.
"We have seen what the motive is behind Mr. Schumer," Cantor said. "He says every spending cut is unreasonable."
On-camera later, there was more. "I think we did find out that Chuck Schumer's intent on playing political games," the Virginia Republican said.
Other Republicans chimed in.
With a flash of smirk, Boehner twice referenced the Democrats' "marching orders."
Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., another Republican leader, said he wonders who's in charge of the Senate.
Story: Time short, tempers flaring in budget showdown "Do we have a de facto leader in Schumer, who thinks he wants to engineer a political game, as many reporters could actually hear on the call?"
And Rep. Jeb Hensarling quipped that it was "extremely revealing that Senate Democrats have instructed their members to use extreme language."
Twitter war The exchange followed a similar back-and-forth last week, which included Schumer's response to a Cantor speech at Stanford University — before the Republican had delivered it, and before many reporters had even obtained a copy.
On Friday, a Twitter war broke out after Schumer said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that "some progress" had been made between Reid and Boehner in budget talks.
In one tweet, Cantor's office didn't even mention Reid.
"Sen. Schumer and the WH (White House) continue to abandon their responsibility to get our fiscal house in order by negotiating off of the status quo," tweeted CantorPress.
For his part Tuesday, Schumer wasn't backing off the talking points overheard by reporters. They're the same ones he and other Democrats have been using for weeks, a point underscored when Schumer stopped talking, the conference call officially began and the senators on the line delivered prepared statements.
First up: Sen. Barbara Boxer of California.
"We have a very straightforward message and each of us will give it in our own words. And my words are these," Boxer said. "We Senate Democrats are calling on Speaker Boehner to abandon the extreme right wing of his Republican caucus."

Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Admits Motive Was Union Busting

29 March 2011


Let there now be no doubt that Wisconsin’s budget fight was not about the budget. Think Progress, emphasis mine:

State Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R) has already revealed that the true motivation behind the bill was to defund unions to make it “much more difficult” for Democrats, including President Obama, to get elected in Wisconsin. Now, attempting to fend off efforts to recall eight of his Senate colleagues, he’s mailed out a fundraising letter that removes any doubt about the GOP’s motive:

Fitzgerald in the fundraising letter:

quote(Unions have) ruined California and Illinois, but they’re not going to ruin Wisconsin. That is because Republicans faced down Big Labor’s bully tactics and a Democratic walk-out in the state Senate to break the power of unions like WEAC and AFSCME once and for all.
Well, hey, we knew that it was about union busting early on. But, it’s always nice to get it out in the open via the horses mouth. They now have no further ability to deny their real motivation.
Not that they won’t do exactly that anyway.

Republicans Plan to Halt Economic Recovery Through Mass Layoffs

March 30, 2011
By Ray Medeiros
 
 

The elections of 2010 focused of jobs, the GOP ran on a lack luster economic recovery from the Republican induced recession.  They won the  U.S. House and gained seats in the U.S. Senate.  Now that they have won, they are very timid about talking about the economy.  I pointed out to you in a previous article the latest GOP jobs plan. It aims to increase  thousands of highly skilled former government workers into the  already saturated private labor market in an attempt to drive down middle class wages.
Rather than increasing real demand, which is the base of a healthy economy, the GOP wants to build a facade by lowering Americans’ wages.
Under the leadership of President Obama, the economy has grown. Unemployment continues to go down, and weekly unemployment filings also follow that trend, dropping the week ending March 26 to the lowest level since July 2008 as lay-offs slowed.  The months of February and March has seen some  job growth.
 
The best indicator for our economic health is small businesses and according to the Financial Times ,  Small businesses – those with fewer than 50 employees – hired the most workers, adding 102,000 jobs. Medium-sized businesses added 82,000, while large businesses, which employ more than 500 workers, hired 17,000 new employees.
So maybe the reason why there hasn’t been much focus on the economic front is because it would point to an improving economy, something that would increase public satisfaction for President Obama and thus nullify the Republican chances of winning in 2012.
Don’t get your hopes up to soon though. The Republicans have a trick up their sleeve to ensure an economic slow down.  They intend to lay off thousands of employees from the federal government, there by sucking more  demand out of the economy. Most public employees spend all of their money into the economy, just like the private sector.  Without that demand, the economic engine will slow down and propel us back into negative jobs territory.
If that happens rest assured the Republicans and their think tanks will begin to talk about the economy again. This is their plan to set up for the 2012 elections. It’s not about what is best for the American people, it’s what is best for the Corporate Party, called the GOP.
 
 
Nefti on March 30, 2011 at 4:18 pm
EVERYONE! I mean EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN from here in California to Wisconsin Indiana Ohio Floria ..and to all of you denying repub constituents who are watching as your RW leaders strip the average everyday American of his/her job, benefits, homes–THEY HAVE BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO SHIP YOUR JOBS OFFSHORE..as BACHMAN SAID AT THEIR CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLE PAC the other..THE OUTSOURCING CREATES JOBS HERE!!! WTH? Do you actually believe that? Are you that devoted to YOUR PARTY that you DO NOT MIND SUFFERING? Do you not know that what they are doing is going to IMPACT ON YOU, YOUR KIDS, YOUR PARENTS, YOUR GRANDPARENTS??? I beg of you to please NOT VOTE PARTY..but do vote for the PARTY THAT ISN’T TAKING OUR JOBS AWAY, OUR BENEFITS AWAY, OUR DIGNITY AWAY. THEY TRULY WANT TO OWN US ALL….like Ghadaffi..DO NOT VOTE REPULICAN. THEY ARE LITERALLY LYING EVERY DAY IN OUR FACE AND TAKING JOBS AWAY. How and why would you support that..when YOUR JOB MAY BE NEXT!!!!!!!!
 

Clueless in Wisconsin: Newt Gingrich Praises Gov Walker as Job Creator

March 30, 2011
By Sarah Jones
 
 
 
Republicans Have No Idea Why You're So Mad; Things Are Great for Them!
Republicans Have No Idea Why You're So Mad; Things Are Great for Them!
In Marquette, Wisconsin for a showing of his film that seemed more like a campaign stop, Newt Gingrich touted Governor Walker as a good county executive and claimed that people would like Walker once his programs were proven successful by creating jobs.
Newt Gingrich led the “Republican revolution” against President Clinton as Speaker of the House from 1995 to 1999 and resigned his seat in disgrace after bringing the Republican Party’s short majority to a close by trying to oust President Clinton from office over what turned out to be exceptionally hypocritical claims to family values, given that Newt left his first wife while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer in 1980 and then after marrying his mistress, cheated on her with a House of Representatives staffer 23 years younger than himself while he was screaming about Clinton’s blue dress. Newt has recently claimed that love for his country drove him to have these affairs.
In case you’ve been in a cave and forgotten just how petty Republicans can be, as he left, Newt whined, “I’m willing to lead but I’m not willing to preside over people who are cannibals. My only fear would be that if I tried to stay, it would just overshadow whoever my successor is.”
In our last flashback to Newt’s leadership skills — after all, praise should be vetted via the source — Newt shut down government after he felt slighted by President Clinton who refused to discuss the budget with Gingrich on the plane ride home following a funeral. In spite of having ruined the GOP with his pettiness and hypocrisy, Gingrich is still touting his shut down of government as “doing what Americans elected them to do” and says it was definitely not a mistake. In 1997, he also made history as the first Speaker to be disciplined for ethics violations. All of this should warn you that he is a shoe-in for the Republican candidacy.
At Marquette University Tuesday for his film on Pope John Paul II (Newt is now a Catholic, which can be seen as a sign of his flexibility in bending to his various wives’ values — for a time, at least ), Newt took swipes at President Obama, suggesting that Obama would be easy to beat unless he magically makes the world a better place (you know, like Republicans are in Wisconsin and Michigan and Florida). Newt said, “If the economy is at 7 percent unemployment and coming down, if the budget has gotten dramatically less expensive, if Libya turns out to be wildly successful, and his next Final Four picks don’t all crash and burn, I can imagine a circumstance where Obama will be fairly formidable.”
 
Of course, Newt doesn’t deal with reality well, being a Republican, so he must not have heard about the latest Michigan poll that shows the President beating him in an approvals match up with Obama at 53% and Gingrich 37%. The same poll places Gingrich just above Governor Scott Walker, whom Gingrich praised on his campaign stop, with Barack Obama at 52% approval, leading Walker whose approval is a shame-inducing but well earned 32%.
Speaking of the universally loathed and proving himself to be as out of touch with the public now as he was in the late ’90′s, Gingrich praised Governor Scott Walker to Wisconsinites, saying he was very fond of him and that after Walker’s plan creates jobs, people will embrace him.
Jim Cryns reporting for WisPolitics:
Gingrich said he didn’t meet with Gov. Scott Walker while in town, but said he liked him very much and was with him the last week of the campaign.
“I’m very fond of him. He was a very good county executive,” Gingrich said.
Gingrich said he suspects as people understand Walker’s effort to create jobs for the state, they will embrace his administration.
“He will turn out to be a very good hands-on leader,” Gingrich said.
I wonder if Newt realizes that creating lower paying jobs to replace the higher paying jobs Walker gave to the Koch brothers isn’t going to go over well, and while wealthy Republicans who do not live paycheck to paycheck might not notice a $200.00 a week change in their pay, for struggling families it can mean the difference between losing their house or not. Something tells me Wisconsinites won’t forget that very soon.
Meanwhile, back in crazy land, Gingrich patting himself on the back as a Presidential candidate, said, “I’m not talking about ‘Gee, I’d like to do this.’ I’m talking about ‘Well, this is how we did it last time. Wouldn’t it be good to balance the budget again, go back and reform things again?”
Just how many times can these boys run on “reforming” their own bad policies with the same bad polices before the public catches on? Reform. That’s so 1997, Newt.
Please note people that when a Republican talks about “creating jobs”, you should immediately flash to Wisconsin and Michigan and ask yourself, creating jobs for whom? Serfs? And remember that when they “create” these jobs, they will do so by reaching into your wallet, your grandparent’s wallet, and your sick friend’s wallet, and they will take every last dime out of the wallet, with a stern lecture about entitlements, and they will proudly hand your dimes to the Koch brothers, who will then “create” jobs for you, where you will be entitled to earn your dimes back one year at a time, working 18 hour days.
Who is going to tell Scott Walker that in the modern age of branding, when Newt Gingrich approves of the job you are doing, your career is doomed? Newt and Walker, looking down from their castle window at the little people, have no idea just how mad the serfs are. And this isn’t the ’90′s. We have the internet now.
Clueless, boys. Just clueless.
 
 
  1. Scott Rose on March 30, 2011 at 12:08 pm
    Why do we never see polls of the unemployed, asking if they are Democrats or Republicans? Think about it. It could be significantly more difficult for an unemployed person to vote. Long-term unemployed people, for example, would be more vulnerable to serious depression. If a majority of unemployed identify as Democrats, the Republicans could be motivated to keep them unemployed.
    • Phil Perspective on March 30, 2011 at 12:46 pm
      Good question. It would be interesting to see a poll of that.
      • Reynardine on March 30, 2011 at 2:03 pm
        That’s not all. If they lose their places of residence, it becomes a lot easier to disqualify them as voters.
  2. Eykis on March 30, 2011 at 12:20 pm
    Sarah,
    You could not be more correct as to the CLUELESSNESS of Newtie and Scottyboy along with every Rethug in office.
    They seem to believe what Faux Noise promotes – that everyone who votes only watches Faux Noise and believes every single lie they perpetrate. Not so~as is evidenced by protests all over this country. I have a feeling this is going to be the Summer of Protests against the Rethugs and their dictator ways. People cannot afford to lose any more than they have already lost.
    Right now, I am applying for a job (second interview, wish me luck) at one-half the pay and no benefits except partking, for a position that was paying $42,000 three years ago. I will be grateful to take the job – I have been looking for 8 months and apply to at least 7 jobs a day. This is my 4th interview in 8 months. I had worked on a 1099 for two years, so I only received 13 weeks of UI and then 3 tiers of UI, so I have been without pay for nearly one year.
    Yeppers, go ahead Rethugs, We The People are interested in working for nothing, 30 years experience and a college degree mean nothing anymore. You have already ruined our pensions and 401ks, so the Baby Boomers get to look forward to NOTHING in our retirement years.
    That will certainly impress everyone.
    • Sarah Jones on March 30, 2011 at 12:36 pm
      My thoughts are with you. Your story is exactly what is wrong with their narrative of creating jobs and lazy people who don’t want to work. The fact that they think so little of Americans ought to tell us a lot- they think this country is “exceptional” for going to war without the resolution of the UN, they like to talk about how wealthy we are, but they don’t think the American PEOPLE are exceptional.
      I know a lot of people who are out of work, but I don’t know a lot of people who aren’t LOOKING for work desperately. And those people are willing to take major pay cuts to boot, while corporations are “entitled” to our money in bailouts but don’t have to sacrifice anything along with the rest of us.
      The American PEOPLE are exceptional- they are hard working, tough, compassionate people with tremendous spirit, as evidenced in WI, MI, etc.
  3. Hrafnkell on March 30, 2011 at 1:11 pm
    The potential Republican candidates for 2012 seem more interested in outdoing each other in levels of lunacy than saying anything that makes sense; they certainly offer no hope that they intend to tackle any of America’s real problems, including unemployment. We all know the real threat comes from women’s reproductive rights and marriage equality.
  4. Anne on March 30, 2011 at 1:19 pm
    Newt Gingrich is clueless about everything that matters, and I agree totally that the potential GOP presidential candidates for 2012 are a bunch of pandering, hypocritical, and terminally idiotic sad sacks. They are bereft of ideas, and if they had any leadership qualities, they would not be pandering to the worst elements in their party.
  5. Shiva on March 30, 2011 at 2:09 pm
    jobs are going to be the key. Speaker Boehner, Gov. Walker, Gov. Snyder, and all the other states that are screwing with the unions had better be showing some real high gains in employment by 2012. Because if they’re not, well I probably better not say this because it probably isn’t true, the Democrats will pounce all over them. and if they are showing job gains it will be manipulated data
    Gingrich isn’t clueless. He’s a very smart man. He is also a fraud and a charlatan. He is the medicine man that you see in the Indian tent selling your dreams. he knows how to cheat anyone out of their money, but I think he also knows he has absolutely no chance of winning the primaries. I think he is doing the same thing that Sarah Palin is doing. He’s playing dodgeball with the Democrats making them think that he is going to run. Why you ask? I haven’t a clue, it’s a game they play
    • Reynardine on March 30, 2011 at 2:13 pm
      To divert attention from the real one, of course.
      • Shiva on March 30, 2011 at 2:59 pm
        Im sorry Rey, I’ve been very sick for 4 days now and reality is passing me by and forcing me to ask silly questions
    • Anne on March 30, 2011 at 3:36 pm
      Actually, he IS clueless about a number of things, no matter how “smart” he is. For one thing, how did he think that blaming his hard work and patriotism for his infidelity would go over?
      And then there’s the fact that he still thinks the 1995 government shut down he was part of was a good idea. You know there had to be a lot of clueless people who made the GOP a Senate and House majority during that time, although Bill Clinton did get re-elected.
      • Shiva on March 30, 2011 at 3:44 pm
        No, I think he knew people would laugh at him and within his ow party, they would blow it off in time
  6. Twrex on March 30, 2011 at 3:01 pm
    Here’s Newt’s line of policy making and wife choosing footwear
    http://wp.me/p1dwVT-2l
  7. Phantom on March 30, 2011 at 3:17 pm
    What do you mean about Republicans “creating jobs by reaching into your wallet” ? Really, that’s the Republican’s complaint about the Dems: they tax people then use the money to make more government employees.
  8. Bette on March 30, 2011 at 3:59 pm
    Republicans don’t create jobs or even care to create jobs! all they care about is filling their own pockets and protecting the big money people! They want to keep hard working people under them, whether it be public or private, union or not. They want the POWER and the money! Why are we fighting with each other ? (that is what they want.) The Republican party of today is nothing even close to the party of years ago.They now are the party of hate, stupidity,and just plain mean, and hypocritical! Look at the people they are considering to run for President! Really people, think about it! Newt, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann,Donald Trump,Pawlenty,etc,etc. It is just plain crazy!