$2.50 per
Gallon Gasoline,
Energy
Independence and
Jobs – An
Address by Newt
Gingrich
Transcript
I’m Newt
Gingrich and I
want to report
to you that if
we unleash the
American people,
we can be at the
beginning of an
extraordinary
era where we
rebuild the
America that we
love.
Now, when I say
unleash the
American people,
I mean literally
get the
government to
stop crippling
our efforts to
create a better
future. This is
a big topic. It
is one I am
going to come
back to again
and again, in
the next few
weeks.
But I want to
start with a
part of it that
relates to
national
security,
relates to your
personal family
budget, relates
to the economy,
and relates to
balancing the
federal budget,
all four in one
topic.
And it comes
down to a simple
idea: What if we
had a program
that enabled the
American people
to develop so
much new energy
that we were, in
fact, no longer
reliant on Saudi
Arabia, Iraq,
Iran. We didn’t
care what the
Iranians did in
the Strait of
Hormuz because
we were safe, in
national
security terms.
What if that new
energy program
created well
over a million
new jobs,
high‑paying
jobs, jobs that
put Americans
back to work and
kept the money
here at home
that we had been
sending
overseas, giving
us a dramatic
improvement in
our balance of
payments,
strengthening
the dollar and
giving us a
chance to live
much freer and
more
independently?
What if that
very idea also
meant that we’d
have dramatic
increases in
federal revenue
in the
government
without a tax
increase but
that, in fact,
the federal
government would
have literally
an entire new
stream of money?
And finally,
what if that big
new idea meant
that you
personally were
better off
because you are
buying gasoline
for $2.50 a
gallon, not for
$3.89 or $4 as
what some people
project by the
summer could be
$5 or more?
How is that
possible, you
ask? Well, that
is what is
exciting, and
that is one of
the reasons I’m
running for
president.
I know that
science,
technology,
entrepreneurship
have made
tremendous
progress. And I
know that the
politicians in
Washington, the
old‑time
establishment,
the elite news
media, the
bureaucrats
don’t have a
clue what’s
possible, or in
some cases, they
have a clue and
they are opposed
to it. And I
want to cover
both of those in
the next few
minutes.
But let’s start
with a historic
fact that I
think is going
to change our
understanding of
America’s future
and our
understanding of
the energy
possibilities.
That fact is
called North
Dakota. In North
Dakota, there is
a formation
called the
Bakken
formation. It
has a tremendous
amount of oil.
It has much more
oil than the US
geological
survey used to
think.
In fact, based
on one US
geological
survey study,
there is now 25
times as much
oil as there was
back when they
first estimated
it, not 25
percent more,
2500 percent
more.
Now, the reason
we know this is,
I think, very
illustrative of
what is wrong
with America. We
know the Bakken
formation exist
in North Dakota
because it is on
private land,
and liberals
weren’t able to
block us from
developing it.
So the people,
the
entrepreneurs,
the business
leaders who went
in and developed
that formation,
they began to
produce more and
more oil. As one
of them said,
“They now find
that almost
everywhere they
look, there is
more oil.”
What’s the
result? Well,
the official
unemployment
rate in North
Dakota is 3.5
percent, but
that may
actually be
misleading
because most of
that 3.5 percent
don’t have the
right training.
It turns out
that North
Dakota’s booming
to such an
extent that
there is 16 to
18,000 new job,
good jobs,
60,000 to 80,000
dollar‑a‑year
jobs that aren’t
filled because
the folks who
need a job
aren’t trained,
and the folks,
the jobs they
need, don’t have
people filling
them.
Think about
that. What would
that be like in
your hometown if
the boom was so
big that there
were 16 to
18,000 unfilled
jobs? How much
better off would
we be?
And guess what?
When you have
that kind of
economic growth,
you have an
increase in
revenue to the
government. So
the State
government of
North Dakota has
had seven
consecutive tax
cuts, and it now
has a rainy day
fund of several
billion dollars,
even though the
entire state
budget is only
about $2
billion.
So energy can
lead to a bigger
economy, more
revenue for the
government,
better jobs for
people. Now
let’s step all
the way back and
look at the
other 49 states
and look at the
ocean around the
United States.
If North Dakota
has that much
energy, how much
do we think we
have everywhere
else? Turns out,
we may have more
oil in the
United States
today, given new
science and new
technology than
we have actually
pumped worldwide
since 1870. We
may, in fact, by
one estimate
have three times
as much oil in
the United
States as there
is in Saudi
Arabia.
And remember,
right now I am
just talking
about oil which
were relates
directly to
gasoline, but
there has been a
parallel
revolution in
natural gas.
In the natural
gas, we knew
that technically
there was a lot
of gas in shale,
but we did not
know how to get
it out. And
people thought
given the amount
that could be
recovered, as
recently as the
year 2000, they
thought that
natural gas was
a declining
commodity. It
was a perfect
example of what
has been called
“Peak
Production”; we
have already
used up over
half of it.
In fact, as
recently as
about 2000,
people thought
there was about
seven years
supply left.
They were
literally
talking about
getting
liquefied
natural gas out
of the Middle
East, putting it
in giant
refrigerator
ships, bringing
it to the US,
unloading it
here, because
the chemical
industry, in
particular,
needed the gas.
All of a sudden,
somebody had a
really bright
idea. They took
a technology
which had been
developed for
ocean drilling,
because ocean
platforms are
really
expensive, and
so when you
drill one rig on
the ocean
platform, you
want it to go as
many places as
you can.
So they
developed really
brilliant
techniques for
going out
horizontal. They
come down with
one, and then it
goes out in
every direction.
And all of a
sudden somebody
figured out,
gee, if you
could do that
with natural gas
and at the same
time, if you
could fracture
the rock in a
way by using
steam and water
that you could
actually get the
gas to come into
one collection
point, you could
get a lot of gas
out of the
shale.
The net result
was that we now
have in shale
tremendous
amounts of
natural gas that
is recoverable.
In fact, the
most recent
estimate is that
we may have over
a hundred year’s
supply of
natural gas.
Think about
that.
In one short
decade, we went
from seven years
supply to over a
hundred years
supply because
science and
technology had
improved so
much.
Furthermore,
instead of us
importing
liquefied
natural gas from
the Middle East,
there is now
serious talk
that we’re going
to build
facilities in
Houston, and
we’re going to
ship liquefied
natural gas to
China.
So we will be
making money
exporting
natural gas
where people
thought we would
be giving up
money 10 years
ago importing
natural gas.
Now, what does
this mean? It
means in places
like the
Marcellus Shale
in Western
Pennsylvania, in
the areas of
eastern Ohio,
cutting down all
along the
Appalachians,
all the way out
to Dallas,
Texas, there is
formation after
formation after
formation.
And the result
is not just
money for big
oil, but people
who own the
property,
farmers. I have
talked several
years ago with
Governor Jindal
of Louisiana who
just had run
into a farmer
who suddenly
discovered that
he had natural
gas on his farm
and he had been
given an
amazingly big
check by the
natural gas
company, and do
so he was very
happy to find
out that he had
a better income,
he was going to
get royalties,
and therefore,
the local
economy around
Shreveport was
really beginning
to grow.
Now, I give you
that background
because these
new sciences,
these new
technologies and
the
entrepreneurs
who use them are
giving us
dramatic new
opportunities.
This really
matters for some
very practical
reasons.
First of all,
since the
mid‑1970s, we’ve
known that the
Arab states and
Iran combined
have dominated
oil production
and have used
their leverage
to raise the
cost of oil and
to bring
political
pressure to bear
on the Americans
and on the
Europeans.
Now, I want to
get to a point
where we produce
so much oil in
the United
States that no
American
president will
ever again bow
to a Saudi King.
I thought,
frankly, it’s
time that we
tell the Saudis
the truth: We
know that they
are the largest
funders of
schools called
madrassas, which
teach hate. We
know that they
spend several
billion dollars
a year exporting
a very, very
extreme version
called Wahhabism,
and we know that
they are not
straight with
us.
And up until
now, our
presidents have
been too
cautious to say,
“Oh gee, I don’t
want to offend
the Saudis. I
don’t want them
to do something
with their oil
supply.”
Well, we have an
opportunity now
to turn that
around. We have
an opportunity
to build up the
American oil
supply, the
American natural
gas supply, so
we can then tell
the Saudis the
truth, so we can
deal with them
from a position
of strength, so
we can no longer
worry about the
Persian Gulf.
And at that
point, if, in
fact, the
Iranians want to
do something
with the Straits
of Hormuz, maybe
the Chinese have
a problem or the
Indians have a
problem or the
Europeans have a
problem. But I
am not sure at
that point that
the Americans
will have a
problem if we
become once
again what we
were in World
War II, the
leading producer
of oil in the
world.
And, in fact,
there is at
least one study
already out
there says by
2017 if we do
the right
things, we will
produce more oil
than either
Russia or Saudi
Arabia, and we
will regain, by
the end of the
decade, being
the leading
producer of oil
in the world.
What I want to
do is accelerate
that for a
couple of
reasons: First
of all, to get
this economy
back on track.
If you had $500
billion a year
that was not
going overseas,
that was paying
royalties in the
US, paying
landowners,
paying people to
go out and
develop the oil,
pain in the
pipeline
builders, you
would suddenly
have a really
booming economy
right here at
home. We have an
opportunity to
really help our
economy.
There is a
second part:
Every time gas
prices go up,
they are the
equivalent of a
tax on working
Americans and
retired
Americans. Think
about it: You go
to the gas
station. If you
are paying $4 a
gallon, you have
a lot less money
left each week
than if you are
paying $2.50 a
gallon. Now
$2.50 may sound
like it is an
impossible
number, but
that’s baloney.
When I was
Speaker of the
House, we paid
$1.13 on average
during the four
years that I was
speaker. When
Barack Obama
became
president, we
paid $1.89 that
week.
But the Obama
administration
is so anti‑oil,
so anti‑gas, so
anti‑fossil
fuels in
general,
including coal
that basically
their view is:
If we have lots
of fuel, they
don’t want it.
They are
prepared to do
almost anything
to stop the
development of
these kinds of
programs. You
may think I’m
exaggerating,
but let me give
you an example.
In North Dakota
where the
developments are
on private land,
so the liberals
have not been
able to stop
them, the Obama
US attorney for
North Dakota
filed a lawsuit
because eight
migratory birds
had been found
dead near oil
fields.
Now I want you
to think about
this: Thousands
of migratory
birds are killed
every year by
wind turbines.
But wind
turbines are one
of President
Obama’s favorite
alternative
fuels, so they
are green.
Therefore,
although they
kill birds, they
are green so
they are good
even though what
they are doing
may not be good.
And I happen to
think wind is a
legitimate
source of
energy, and I
have noticed
often, for
example, that
Iowa produces 20
percent of its
electricity from
wind, the second
larger producer
in the world
after Denmark.
So I am not
anti‑wind, but I
think it is
fascinating: The
selective
prosecution of
oil companies
over eight birds
because the
ideological
radicals in the
Obama
administration
so deeply
dislike using
oil.
You have the
same challenge
with the way in
which we now
fracture ‑‑
called
“fracking” ‑‑
and the Obama
administration
has literally
assembled
multiple
agencies to hold
workshops to try
to figure out
how to stop it.
It is almost as
though anything
which succeeds,
anything which
enables
Americans to
have a better
life with more
income, with
less expensive
energy is
somehow bad.
To show you how
far this is
going: Even
though we have
today the
highest price
average cost of
gasoline in
history. That’s
right, President
Obama has taken
us from $1.89 to
the most
expensive
gasoline on
average we have
ever had. They
are still not
satisfied. The
Environmental
Protection
Agency under
President Obama
has a proposal
for a brand‑new
regulation that
would, on
average, raise
the cost of
gasoline another
$0.25.
And that is
still not
enough:
Secretary of
energy,
Secretary Chu,
who in many ways
ought to be
called the
secretary of
anti‑energy said
before he was
named Secretary,
“He really
wanted American
gasoline prices
to reach the
European level.”
That would be $9
a gallon.
Now you have two
be somebody who
does not
understand
America if you
think the people
who live in a
state like
Montana,
Washington
State, Idaho,
Minnesota, for
that matter
Michigan. Look
at the distance
you drive from
Detroit to go up
to Mackinac
Island or to go
to the Upper
Peninsula. Look
at the distance
you drive in
Arizona or in my
home state of
Georgia, the
largest state
east of the
Mississippi, the
distance from
Atlanta to Sea
Island or the
distance from
Albany up to
North Georgia,
to Dalton.
I think there
are a lot of
academic
liberals, and
Dr. Chu is one
of them, who
live on a nice
campus and they
live will
bicycle to their
lab. They have
no idea how the
average American
works. And
frankly, he is a
good case for
abolishing the
Department of
Energy. We have
had one since
Jimmy Carter
created it after
the oil shock,
and it does not
work very well.
It has, I think,
hurt the entire
process of
finding energy.
With investors
like Solyndra,
it is open to
charges of
corruption.
I think we would
be much better
off to abolish
the Department
of Energy and
create the right
rules and the
right
approaches.
Now let me give
you some
examples of what
I mean by that.
Under President
Obama, because
he is so
anti‑American
energy, we have
actually had a
40 percent
reduction in
development of
oil offshore,
and we have had
a 40 percent
reduction in the
development of
oil on federal
lands. This is
the exact
opposite of what
we should be
doing.
What we should
do and what I
will do as your
president is I
will authorized
the development
of offshore, as
long as it is
far enough out
that it is not
visible, and it
is not a threat
to tourism or
the fisheries.
And I will
authorize the
development of
federal lands
that are
appropriate.
And think about
this: We own ‑‑
we, the American
people, own 86
percent of
Nevada. That’s
an area 40
percent the size
of Texas. And
mining is the
second‑largest
employer in
Nevada. If the
Federal
Government were
more willing to
open up parts of
Nevada, we would
have a lot more
jobs.
We own 69
percent of
Alaska. Alaska
is, in fact,
twice the size
of Texas. That
means we own one
and a half
Texases. So you
can offer the
environmentalist
half of Texas,
125,000 square
miles.
They can take
national parks,
polar bear
areas, walrus
areas, glaciers,
an area half the
size of Texas.
That would leave
us for
development for
looking for oil,
for gas, for
coal, for
minerals, an
area literally
the size of
Texas that is
currently
undeveloped.
So when I
suggest to you
with the new
technologies,
with the new
ability to have
very
sophisticated
seismic
exploration to
target where the
reservoirs of
oil and gas are,
with the ability
to go out and
have very
sophisticated
and efficient
methods of going
down and finding
them, we could
have an
explosion of new
energy, news
sources, and new
capacity.
There’s no
reason we cannot
set three goals:
Become energy
independent for
national
security
reasons;
Develop enough
new energy here
at home that
would create
well, over a
million jobs in
the next few
years,
high‑paying
jobs, very
useful jobs,
jobs which by
the way,
increase our
manufacturing
base because
much of energy
production
requires
manufacture
products in
order to both
drill, due
process, to
transport;
Third, by using
federal property
and by allowing
offshore
development on
federally
controlled
waters, we get
paid a royalty.
One of the
leading experts
on North Dakota
has suggested
that we might
well have over
the next
generation 18
trillion, not
billion, $18
trillion in
royalties that
we could gather
for the federal
government with
no tax
increases.
And in fact to
accelerate that,
I propose the
following tax
changes. I
propose we go to
zero capital
gains tax, so
hundreds of
billions of
dollars pour
into the United
States to enable
us to have new
investment, new
factories, new
exploration, new
companies. I
suggest a 12 a
half percent
corporate tax
rate would
liberate about
$700 billion in
overseas profits
to bring them
back home to be
reinvested and
to allow our
companies to
compete
everywhere in
the world. I’ve
also proposed
that we abolish
the death tax
permanently, so
that we are in a
position where
family
businesses can
focus on job
creation and are
being
successful, not
on hiding from
the IRS.
I’ve also
proposed that we
have 100 percent
expensing. And
what that means
is: When you
invest in new
equipment, you
write it off in
one year. Now
that is really
important
because it means
if we are going
to go out and
find new oil,
we’re going to
move the oil
with pipelines,
we could make it
very desirable
to develop
energy in
America and to
develop
manufacturing in
America, so that
the energy
companies would
be buying from
American
manufacturers.
And you would,
once again,
rebuild our
machine tool
industry and
rebuild our
industry that
supplies goods
and services.
I was in a
company that
makes forklifts,
Xtreme
Manufacturing,
in Las Vegas,
Nevada, and they
were looking
forward to the
Keystone
Pipeline because
they were
building the
forklifts in
Nevada that were
going to be used
to build the
pipeline. So
there are jobs
all over the
country dating
back into this
reemergence.
I guarantee you
that as your
president on the
very first day;
I will sign an
executive order
approving the
Keystone
Pipeline so that
oil can come
from Canada
through the
United States to
Houston and
Galveston.
That way we will
have 30 to
50,000 new jobs
building the
pipeline, and
for the next 50
years, we will
have people
working to
maintain the
pipeline; we
will have people
working to
process and
refine the all
products and to
ship them out of
the ports of
Galveston and
Houston.
It is a win‑win
program. I am
dedicated to
making sure that
the Canadians do
not have to have
a partnership
with China to
build a pipeline
due west across
the Rockies.
I want them to
have the less
expensive, more
effective, and
frankly, more
pro‑American
pipeline that
comes right down
to Houston and
enables us to
make money with
our Canadian
neighbors in a
way that is
positive for
both countries
and helps us
increase our
national
security. So
these are very
practical steps
we can take.
A president who
is willing to
replace the
environment
protection
agency with a
brand‑new
environmental
solutions agency
dedicated to
common sense, to
science and
technology, to
innovation and
to be
economically
rational.
A president
dedicated to
opening up
offshore so that
we can develop
the maximum
amount of
American oil and
gas right here
at home.
A president
willing to use
federal land
where
appropriate, not
national parks,
not areas of
great beauty,
but we have
millions of
acres that we
can allow to be
developed in a
way that will be
good for
America, good
for our economy,
good for our
national
security.
A deliberate
strategy to
bring down the
price of
gasoline to
$2.50 a gallon
or less so that
you can afford
to buy the kind
of car you want.
And remember,
once we prove
there is no
“Peak Oil,” once
we prove that,
in fact, there
is a huge volume
of energy out
there that we
can develop if
we are willing
to do it, there
is no reason to
have CAFE
standards. CAFE
Standards were
adopted for
automobiles as a
response to the
Arab embargo in
the 1970s. But
if we’re going
to produce
plenty of
energy, let the
American people
by the car or
truck they want.
We don’t need
this meddlesome
Washington
bureaucracy and
Washington
politicians
dictating to the
rest of us what
we should do and
how we should
live. People, if
they go to work
and they earn a
living and they
pay their taxes,
when it is their
take‑home pay,
it ought to be
their decision.
And they ought
to have the
freedom to drive
what you want to
and they ought
to have the
freedom to enjoy
the things they
want to enjoy.
And they should
not be told by
some Washington
bureaucrat or
some Washington
politicians what
they have to do.
And frankly, if
we eliminate the
CAFE Standards,
all of our auto
companies are
going to be
healthier
overnight. The
American people
replied to
bureaucratic
meddling by
moving from
full‑size cars
when they were
outlawed to
trucks. So the
effect wasn’t to
have us go to
smaller
vehicles, it was
just to shift us
out of cars into
trucks.
And I think we
need to
understand the
American people
really are proud
about their
right to choose
the way they
want to live
without
politicians and
bureaucrats
telling them
what to do.
And I will say
finally, if we
do all of this,
the amount of
money we are
going to
generate is
going to enable
us to move
towards a
balanced budget,
if we control
spending, if we
modernize the
Federal
Government, if
we adopt
anti‑fraud
procedures, if
we abolish a
couple of
departments. If
we take the
Tenth Amendment
project that
Governor Rick
Perry has agreed
to head up, and
we return power
back to state
and local
government.
Those things
will enable us
to move back
toward a
balanced budget.
I know this can
be done, because
when I was
Speaker of the
House, I worked
with President
Bill Clinton and
passed the 1997
Balanced Budget
Act and out of
that came four
consecutive
balanced
budgets. We paid
off $405 billion
in debt.
So when I look
at the scale of
the Obama
deficit, the
amount of money
he is throwing
away, the
wasteful use of
his credit card,
I know that we
can do better.
And I know that
if we open up
American energy,
think about the
things that
happen
simultaneously.
We get a lot
more jobs, that
is, people that
come off of
unemployment,
they come off of
food stamps,
they come off of
welfare, they
come off of
public housing,
they come off of
Medicaid. All
that saves us
money. And they
go to work
taking care of
their family and
paying taxes. So
government
revenue goes up,
government
expenses go
down.
Second, I know
that when we
develop this,
the companies
are going to
make more
profit, so they
are going to pay
more taxes back.
And I know that
the royalties
that we are
going to get
from federal
land and from
offshore
developments is
going to pour in
by the billions.
In fact, if the
estimates from
North Dakota are
right, it could
literally be
pouring in at
the rate of $100
billion or more
a year of
increased
royalties
without a tax
increase. So
there are a lot
of positive
things that can
come, all
simultaneously.
And finally, as
a national
security matter,
it allows us to
say to the all
developing
dictators,
whether they are
Venezuela, Saudi
Arabia, Iran,
you name it,
that we are
going to be
standing on our
own two feet.
That the United
States is not
going to bow to
anybody, we are
not going to be
blackmailed by
anybody, and as
we get to a
balanced‑budget,
we’re going to
start paying
down our debt,
paying off the
Chinese held
bonds, so that
we can become
truly once again
independent and
able to do what
we believe in on
our terms,
without having
to deal with the
kind of pressure
you might get
into even if
there is
somebody holding
onto your oil or
because they’re
holding onto
your U.S.
Treasury notes.
Either one is a
form of leverage
over us and
weakens us.
I believe it is
very important
that we take
advantage of
this. But notice
what my outline
for you. Here is
a whole new
approach.
It is positive.
It is exciting.
It means you
will have more
money in your
pocket because
at $2.50 a
gallon, you can
figure out for
yourself what
does that save
you annually?
And if you are a
family that has
several cars or
several trucks,
it saves you a
lot. If you are
an independent
trucker, it
saves you a
whole lot of
money. If you
live in a town
where trucks are
bringing your
groceries and
they are
bringing things
to your local
mall, you are
going to save
money.
Every time you
can lower the
cost of energy,
you make it
easier for us to
have
manufacturing
and you lower
the cost of
living. It is a
win‑win
environment. You
also know that
if you do this,
we have a lot
more jobs, and
we need a
growing economy
with a lot of
new jobs,
because we want
to be a country
where America
works best when
Americans are
working.
We are not a
country of food
stamps and
welfare. We are
a country of the
work ethic, of a
job, of
take‑home pay,
of opening up
our own
business. And
this kind of
energy program
will do just
that.
I know it is
different. I
know a lot of
folks in the
establishment
will say it is
“unrealistic.”
These are the
same people who
said to
President Reagan
when he said,
“We can defeat
the Soviet
empire,”
“Now be
reasonable.”
These are the
same people that
when Governor
Reagan,
President Reagan
said ‑‑ first
Governor Reagan
as candidate,
then President
Reagan once he
won ‑‑ he said,
“If we cut
taxes, we will
create jobs.”
They said, “That
is “voodoo
economics.”
Well, he created
16 million new
jobs during his
presidency.
I came back
really applying
the same things
in 1994 with the
“Contract with
America.” And
people said that
is
“unrealistic.”
You are not
going to win
control of the
House. It’s not
possible. No one
has done it in
40 years. You
can’t balance
the budget. You
can’t reform
welfare.
Well, guess
what? Because we
had positive
ideas that were
real, we had the
largest
one‑party
increase in
American
History; 9
million
additional votes
in 1990 went to
the Republican
side, a million
fewer votes than
the Democratic
side. We won
control for the
first time in 40
years and we
kept our word.
We, in fact,
passed welfare
reform; two out
of three went to
work or went to
school. Incomes
went up. We had
fewer children
in poverty
because their
parents were
working and have
a better future.
We passed the
largest tax cut,
the largest
capital gains
tax cut in
history.
Unemployment
dropped to 4.2,
11 million new
jobs.
And the budget,
as I said
earlier, was
balanced for
four straight
years. So I
believe if you
have courage and
faith, if you
have the right
principles and
you have the
right facts,
then you can
develop the
right policies.
And even if it
scares the
Washington
establishment,
even if the
Liberals don’t
like it, even if
the New York
Times editorial
writers say “You
can’t do this?
How can you have
all that new
energy? How can
you let the
American people
buy the kind of
car they want?
How can you
lower the price
of gasoline to
$2.50?”
Well, my answer
is: We are
Americans. And
Americans do
what needs to
get done. We
have a long
history of
people doing
great things
together and I
believe we can
have an energy
future together.
And I think with
that energy
future, we’re
going to have a
better quality
of life, a
better economy,
better national
security, and
take a big step
toward balancing
the federal
budget.
I do need your
help. This is a
wild campaign.
It has been up
and down; it’s
like riding the
roller coaster
at Space
Mountain. And I
would love to
have you come to
Newt.org and
sign up and help
us.
We need all the
folks we can get
because if
enough Americans
come together,
we are going to,
in fact, create
a much better
future. And
together, let’s
get America back
on the right
track. Let’s get
the economy
growing again.
Let’s make sure
that our
national
security is
safe, and let’s
give our
children and
grandchildren
the kind of
fabulous country
that our parents
worked and
fought to give
us. Thank you
very, very much.
Source: Newt
Gingrich 2012
Website |