Gallery: Newt Gingrich Says You Can’t Put A Gun Rack on a Chevy Volt


Yesterday we brought you news that Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum was angry with President Obama for putting “Earth above man”, and today we’ve got more environmental jibber-jabber from another Republican contender, Newt Gingrich. At a recent rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the former senator told the crowd: “Let me start from a simple premise that Oklahomans will understand: you cannot put a gun rack in a Volt.” He then went on to say, “there’s no reason we couldn’t have a stable price around $2 or $2.50,” per gallon of gasoline by “drowning demand in supply.” Needless to say, we’re more than a bit baffled by Gingrich’s statements. Besides the fact that you actually can put a gun rack on a Chevy Volt — not that we think you should — Newt’s efficient-vehicle diss just doesn’t make much sense, considering his political leanings. The Chevy Volt is a vehicle made by America’s biggest automaker on United States soil by American workers that helps get this great country off its addiction to risky foreign oil and out of our currently still unhappy economic situation. Plus, “drowning” the oil market in the United States with “supply” would necessitate buying more of that risky foreign oil everyone wants us to leave behind.

As we’ve reported before, semi-domestic projects like the Keystone XL pipeline that some politicians, including Gingrich, support aren’t such great oil booms anyway. The XL pipeline, when at full force, will be capable of supplying just 5% of the oil the United States uses in any given day. So if erecting the Keystone pipeline is Gingrich’s idea of “drowining” the market in “supply” then he’s going to need vehicles like the Chevy Volt to reduce oil use in order to make that new friendly oil count for much of anything.

Gingrich was on CBS’s “This Morning” with Charlie Rose today touting his view that we should all drive big cars and burn up all the gas we’ve got. When asked by Rose about whether Gingrich actually believes — as he’s previously stated — that President Obama wants higher gas prices Gingrich responded, “Of course… you know that. He has said it himself. Chu, his energy secretary, said in 2008 he wanted gasoline prices to get to the European level, which is $9 or $10 a gallon. Last year, the president said people shouldn’t complain about high gas prices — they ought to buy more efficient cars. The president himself said he wants to get there, he just wants it to be gradual. His policy has been outrageously anti-American [toward] energy.”

We’d like to counter that statement by suggesting that Gingrich is the one being anti-American. Considering the fact that we are fully capable of running our homes on American-made wind turbines and solar panels and driving to work in fuel-efficient — or fuel-less — American-made cars, Gingrich’s bull-headed view of this whole energy situation is backwards at best. Not to mention the fact that his whole gasoline strategy is going to surely run out of steam sometime in the near future.

Via Autoblog Green

Lead image by Gage Skidmore on Flickr


or your inhabitat account below


  1. greenvandan February 29, 2012 at 9:04 am

    I’ve got two problems with Gingrich’s statement: 1) I’ve been reading reports about how Cushing OK has a glut of oil and is actually building new storage tanks, so drilling is not the answer, if we refined the oil we have we’d have more gasoline, so the drill argument doesn’t fly 2) I have my concerns about the Keystone pipeline, it’s not our oil, it’s Canada’s, and once they get it to the refineries in the south who’s to say they’ll sell it to us, if they get a better price overseas then it’s bye bye oil, and Canada’s laughing all the way to the bank. And don’t get me started on the hybrid bashing.

  2. electric38 February 28, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    How about we “drown demand with oversupply” in the solar rooftop industry. Many Americans could charge their electric vehicle and throw away the next 25 years of utility bills with consumer owned rooftop solar.

    Or will too many oil, coal, nuclear and utility companies lose the money they lobby certain politicians with. Military suppliers will lose out too as mid east oil will lose value quickly.

  3. caeman February 21, 2012 at 11:47 am

    That 5% is no small amount of oil. And, it is 5% less being purchase from the Middle East or South America. That means 5% greater energy security for the USA.

    As more the nation switches to alternative fuels/batteries, wouldn’t it be nice to have all remaining oil-based fuels coming solely from North America? Less oil being shipped here means less chance of oil spills in our ports and the ultimate in energy security.

    The march to fuel cells, batteries and other sources to power our cars is slow, but will continue. WHILE that march happens, we NEED to secure our current supply of oil and diminish the risk that comes with buying form countries that support terrorism, for example, or has a communist president that hates you.

    If you have a home that off the grid, being supplied by wind and solar, you aren’t just being green, but you have energy security. You know exactly what you next electric bill will cost, and no outside force and raise the prices on a whim, or the false-perception of demand and supply.

get the free Inhabitat newsletter

Submit this form
popular today
all time
most commented
more popular stories >
more popular stories >
more popular stories >
Federated Media Publishing - Home