Andrew Revkin - Did I Give Gingrich Too Much Of The Benefit Of The Doubt? - NYT

[hatrack]

As you’ve probably noted, Newt Gingrich, once casting himself as a conservative conservationist, lately has been proclaiming “Drill here, Drill now, Pay less” through one of his online organizations, American Solutions for Winning the Future. Is anyone experiencing cognitive dissonance?

I gave the former (and future?) politician the benefit of the doubt last year when I covered his call for conservatives to moderate their approach to the environment. Joe Romm (and others) excoriated me (and others) for not recognizing a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Is Mr. Gingrich proving them right?

Now the Alaska Wilderness League has sifted the financial backers for Mr. Gingrich’s campaign and released a list of donors that it says shows Mr. Gingrich’s push for drilling is “funded by Big Oil, for Big Oil.” The list is below and the group’s initial report on the Gingrich group and its backers (pdf alert) is online. To me, the list is not exactly the advertised “gotcha” and more of a cross section of influential investors whose donations imply they’re conservative and pro-industry. Some donors appear to have specific ties to the oil industry, but I’d be curious to get your reactions to them as a group (and these are only the ones identified by the conservation organization as oil-linked).

So what about the drilling question? As a result of his new oil push, Mr. Gingrich has been labeled an “eco-fraud” by the left and lionized by the right. (Mr. Romm has also reminded everyone that I and Edward O. Wilson of Harvard were among those “suckered” by the sweet-talking former Speaker of the House.) The bottom line? Federal energy analysts have said offshore drilling would have no impact on oil production or prices before 2030.

EDIT

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/whos-backing-gingrichs-drill-here-drill-now-push/index.html?hp

[Hydra]

1. Anyone who trusts Gingrich is an idiot n/t

[liberal N proud]

2. To give him any benefit is too much

[jobycom]

3. The one thing Gingrich has proven is that he's a lying hypocrite. Start with that assumption

and factor that in to anything he says. Which to me means there is no reason to interview him or give him airtime on any issue, since you can't believe what he says.

He accused Clinton of disgracing the government for having an affair while he himself was having one. He ran Jim Wright from office for financial violations that he himself was committing at the very time. He lied under oath to all of Congress when they investigated him for these violations, and when caught, bargained a plea agreement, which he was caught blatantly violating the next week.

America can believe Gingrich about as much as any of his wives could believe him, including the one he divorced while she was in the hospital undergoing cancer treatment--that's the teacher he coaxed into leaving her husband for him while he was in high school.

Some people are just despicable beyond all belief. Most of them wind up in prison or in the Republican Party. Gingrich should do both.