Alaskan Fisherman talks about Sarah Palin

[Ought Six]

Alaskan Fisherman talks about Sarah Palin


Dewie Whetsell, Alaskan Fisherman
Marion's Word blog
August 8, 2009

The last 45 of my 66 years I’ve spent in a commercial fishing town in Alaska. I understand Alaska politics but never understood national politics well until this last year. Here’s the breaking point: Neither side of the Palin controversy gets it… It’s not about persona, style, rhetoric, it’s about doing things. Even Palin supporters never mention the things that I’m about to mention here.

1- Democrats forget when Palin was the Darling of the Democrats, because as soon as Palin took the Governor’s office away from a fellow Republican and tough SOB, Frank Murkowski, she tore into the Republican’s “Corrupt Bastards Club” (CBC) and sent them packing. Many of them are now residing in State housing and wearing orange jump suits. The Democrats reacted by skipping around the yard, throwing confetti and singing “la la la la” (well, you know how they are). Name another governor in this country that has ever done anything similar. But while you’re thinking, I’ll continue.

2- Now with the CBC gone, there were fewer Alaskan politicians to protect the huge, giant oil companies here. So, she constructed and enacted a new system of splitting the oil profits called “ACES”. Exxon (the biggest corporation in the world) protested and Sarah told them “don’t let the door hit you in the stern on your way out.” They stayed, and Alaska residents went from being merely wealthy to being filthy rich. Of course the other huge international oil companies meekly fell in line. Again, give me the name of any other governor in the country that has done anything similar.

3- The other thing she did when she walked into the governor’s office is she got the list of State requests for federal funding for projects, known as “pork”. She went through the list, took 85% of them and placed them in the “when-hell-freezes-over” stack. She let locals know that if we need something built, we’ll pay for it ourselves. Maybe she figured she could use the money she got from selling the previous governor’s jet because it was extravagant. Maybe she could use the money she saved by dismissing the governor’s cook (remarking that she could cook for her own family), giving back the State vehicle issued to her, maintaining that she already had a car, and dismissing her State provided security force (never mentioning—I imagine—that she’s packing heat herself). I’m still waiting to hear the names of those other governors.

4- Now, even with her much-ridiculed “gosh and golly” mannerism, she also managed to put together a totally new approach to getting a natural gas pipeline built which will be the biggest private construction project in the history of North America. No one else could do it although they tried. If that doesn’t impress you, then you’re trying too hard to be unimpressed while watching her do things like this while baking up a batch of brownies with her other hand.

5- For 30 years, Exxon held a lease to do exploratory drilling at a place called Point Thompson. They made excuses the entire time why they couldn’t start drilling. In truth they were holding it like an investment. No governor for 30 years could make them get started. This summer, she told them she was revoking their lease and kicking them out. They protested and threatened court action. She shrugged and reminded them that she knew the way to the court house. Alaska won again.

6- President Obama wants the nation to be on 25% renewable resources for electricity by 2025. Sarah went to the legislature and submitted her plan for Alaska to be at 50% renewables by 2025. We are already at 25%. I can give you more specifics about things done, as opposed to style and persona . Everybody wants to be cool, sound cool, look cool. But that’s just a cover-up. I’m still waiting to hear from liberals the names of other governors who can match what mine has done in two and a half years. I won’t be holding my breath.

By the way, she was content to to return to AK after the national election and go to work, but the haters wouldn’t let her. Now these adolescent screechers are obviously not scuba divers. And no one ever told them what happens when you continually jab and pester a barracuda. Without warning, it will spin around and tear your face off. Shoulda known better.

[BoneDaddy]

Oh brother.

[Ought Six]

I guess that is all you can say when faced with facts you cannot rebut in any meaningful way.

Palin-haters have tried to morph Palin into a drooling, redneck moron, which she clearly is not. I will not be voting for her, but neither will I be buying into the screaming hatred and lies of those who wish to destroy her by any and all means available.

[BoneDaddy]

Originally Posted by Ought Six

I guess that is all you can say when faced with facts you cannot rebut in any meaningful way.

Well where to start....and just a couple...I wasn't going after his "facts" I was going after his assertions.

I understand Alaska politics but never understood national politics well until this last year.

He still doesn't understand national politics. If Palin wins the GOP nomination, it will chase away the constitutionalists, RLC (libertay caucus) and Campaing for Liberty members to name a few. The GOP cannot win without that support.

By the way, she was content to to return to AK after the national election and go to work, but the haters wouldn’t let her.

No she wasn't. She quit.......because she didn't want to be a lame duck. Her words, not mine.

As far as his "facts" I could probably refute them quite easily. Politicians and their fanatic fan-boys are generally easy to expose.

Palin-haters have tried to morph Palin into a drooling, redneck moron, which she clearly is not. I will not be voting for her, but neither will I be buying into the screaming hatred and lies of those who wish to destroy her by any and all means available.

She's not a redneck. If you want to meet one come on down, I know plenty. Hell, they might even offer you a dip of skole.

I wouldn't vote for her either, but of course you already know how I'll vote. You might want to look into Gary Earl Johnson. There is quite a bit of talk about him being bandied about lately.

[Ought Six]

I am not suggesting that she could win as the Repub presidential candidate, though I do not entirely exclude the possibility. I could see her winning a Senate seat in Alaska, though, and very much changing the false image of her in the American psyche which her enemies so successfully crafted. I can also see her as Secretary of the Interior in a Repub administration.
----------

"She's not a redneck."

Obviously. I stated that was part the false image. Neither is she stupid. One member here basically called her a 'Dan Quayle with tits', which shows just how much her enemies underestimate her.

[BoneDaddy]

Originally Posted by Ought Six

I am not suggesting that she could win as the Repub presidential candidate, though I do not entirely exclude the possibility. I could see her winning a Senate seat in Alaska, though, and very much changing the false image of her in the American psyche which her enemies so successfully crafted. I can also see her as Secretary of the Interior in a Repub administration.

Yes on the former, negative on the latter if she ever is to consider another run.

----------Obviously. I stated that was part the false image. Neither is she stupid. One member here basically called her a 'Dan Quayle with tits', which shows just how much her enemies underestimate her.

Well.....I don't view her as being smart either. Everage perhaps. She obviously has (had) no working knowledge of the constitution when she asserted that as VP she would be "in charge of the Senate."

[BoneDaddy]

Here.....someone already did the work.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/sar...complishments/

[Ought Six]

You can pick apart the specifics of some email that Palin did not write. However, the gist of what the guy said remains true. Palin came into a situation rife with corruption. Instead of cozying up to the corporate political feed trough, she did the opposite. She aggressively took on the culture of corruption in state government, going after people in her own party (usually that alone is a career-ender). Instead of taking corporate money, she cut tough deals with the big energy corps that put more money in state coffers and the pockets of citizens. She ran the state rather effectively as Governor. Her enemies used an endless stream of almost entirely fraudulent ethics complaints to force her to rack up huge legal bills defending them, leaving her facing financial ruin and compelling her to resign (which is supposed to make her "a quitter" ).

Say what you want, but I see damn few politicians out there who have accomplished anything like this. I wish there were a lot more elected officials out there rooting out corruption and fighting corporate control of local and regional politics, no matter what party they belong to. I think this nation would be a far better place if there were.

[BoneDaddy]

Originally Posted by Ought Six

You can pick apart the specifics of some email that Palin did not write. However, the gist of what the guy said remains true. Palin came into a situation rife with corruption. Instead of cozying up to the corporate political feed trough, she did the opposite. She aggressively took on the culture of corruption in state government, going after people in her own party (usually that alone is a career-ender). Instead of taking corporate money, she cut tough deals with the big energy corps that put more money in state coffers and the pockets of citizens. She ran the state rather effectively as Governor. Her enemies used an endless stream of almost entirely fraudulent ethics complaints to force her to rack up huge legal bills defending them, leaving her facing financial ruin and compelling her to resign (which is supposed to make her "a quitter" ).

I give credit only where credit is due. While it is factual that she took down people, it wasn't while governor. The big energy deal has yet to go through. The culture of corruption in state government has not, will not end so long as corporations control the funding apparatus for the tax funded political parties.

Oh...and just because she resigned does not give her a pass on the accusation of ethics violations. That story has yet to unfold though I presume most is fallacious.

Say what you want, but I see damn few politicians out there who have accomplished anything like this. I wish there were a lot more elected officials out there rooting out corruption and fighting corporate control of local and regional politics, no matter what party they belong to. I think this nation would be a far better place if there were.

You would have to start at the local level. Political crimes are never prosecuted by the DA's and state Attorney Generals. THAT is where it all begins. You can have all the laws in the world that prohibit this or that. Those laws are worthless unless they are enforced. They will not be enforced so long as there is a D or an R behind the name. We know this to be true as history dictates such and we see it every day.

[Ought Six]

BD:

"I give credit only where credit is due. While it is factual that she took down people, it wasn't while governor."

So what?
----------

"The big energy deal has yet to go through."

You focus on the one thing that has not yet come to fruition, while ignoring the rest.
----------

"The culture of corruption in state government has not, will not end so long as corporations control the funding apparatus for the tax funded political parties. "

So she fought against corruption, unlike almost everyone else, but it means nothing because she did not single-handedly clean up the whole system forever?
----------

"Oh...and just because she resigned does not give her a pass on the accusation of ethics violations. That story has yet to unfold though I presume most is fallacious."

You might want to look into that before commenting. There were something like eleven or thirteen charges filed. IIRC, in one case she had to pay some trip expenses she improperly claimed, one charge is still pending, and virtually all the rest were tossed out as baseless.
----------

You sure seem determined to give her credit for as little as human possible, contrary to your 'credit where due' claim.

[BoneDaddy]

Originally Posted by Ought Six

BD:So what?

That is inverse to what the author is doing which is giving her credit where it is not due. What she has accomplished, give her credit for. for what she HAS NOT ACCOMPLISHED, she deserves none.

You focus on the one thing that has not yet come to fruition, while ignoring the rest.

She did not take down the "Corrupt Bastards Club." The FBI did. - this claim is FALSE.

While she did raise taxes, it did not make people "filthy rich." - therefore, this claim is misleading if not false.

Se did not cut ear-marks by 85%, she cut them by 22%. Therefore, this claim is misleading. Give her credit for the 22% sure. But getting mad at me because I won't give her credit for cutting 85% is mendacious.

The so called "bridge to nowhere" that she claimed "thanks but no thanks" during her campaign was not actually cut until this past February. Therefore, SHE LIED during the race. Let's all give her a hand shall we?

As far as the pipeline is concerned, AGIA is not a construction contract, nor does it even guarantee that one will be built. Again, a fallacious claim.

The Point Thompson claim was initiated under her predicessor. Giving her credit for someone else's initiative is disingenuous.

The author is clearly a fan-boy of Palin and resorts to misleading claims to garner support for her. That is no better than DeLay claiming to be a libertarian in my book. Especially when those claims do not hold up to scrutiny.

----------So she fought against corruption, unlike almost everyone else, but it means nothing because she did not single-handedly clean up the whole system forever?

In the 2 (two) cases she was involved in, she didn't "send them packing" nor did they end up in "orange jump suits." Only one case had teeth. This was prior to her being governor. Should she be credited for these two? Sure. But to give her credit for a FEDERAL INVESTIGATION is simply stupid and dishonest.

----------You might want to look into that before commenting. There were something like eleven or thirteen charges filed. IIRC, in one case she had to pay some trip expenses she improperly claimed, one charge is still pending, and virtually all the rest were tossed out as baseless.
----------

It was fifteen and all but two were dismissed. Two have teeth. Abuse of authority is a serious charge.

As for her "claim" that defending herself has cost her so much money, those claims are unsubstantiated as she has not provided a detail of those expenses.

You sure seem determined to give her credit for as little as human possible, contrary to your 'credit where due' claim.

No....I just don't put her up on a pedestal and worship her. Therein lies the difference. Hell I don't even do that with Ron Paul, unlike some of my colleagues.

[BoneDaddy]

Democrats forget when Palin was the Darling of the Democrats, because as soon as Palin took the Governor’s office away from a fellow Republican and tough SOB, Frank Murkowski, she tore into the Republican’s “Corrupt Bastards Club” (CBC) and sent them packing. Many of them are now residing in State housing and wearing orange jump suits. The Democrats reacted by skipping around the yard, throwing confetti and singing “la la la la” (well, you know how they are). Name another governor in this country that has ever done anything similar. But while you’re thinking, I’ll continue.

Really? Since when does a governor have anything to do with a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case? It would be more factual to lay this at the feet of Bush than to disingenuously credit Palin for breaking this up.

This would be like giving credit to Rick Perry for bringing down Enron.

Shall I go on?

[Fiddlerdave]

Ohh, what a dear sweet honest letter from a hard-working fisherman, a man who knows the truth of a decent life, of hard work, who can see into the heart of politicians and know Palin towers above the riff-raff. NOT. This is the kind of thing we will be seeing regularly from now on from the Palin Propaganda Machine to be posted everywhere by dutiful servants!

Originally Posted by 06

So she fought against corruption, unlike almost everyone else,

Riiight. Let's put this accurately and say "unlike almost every other Republican". The in-power political machine in Alaska was corrupt and consisted of Republicans, with enough citizens voting Republican "no-matter-what" it could resist being thrown out.. And indeed, the Democrats and most citizens were happy to see a change in the overt political crime.

The other thing she did when she walked into the governor’s office is she got the list of State requests for federal funding for projects, known as “pork”. She went through the list, took 85% of them and placed them in the “when-hell-freezes-over” stack. She let locals know that if we need something built, we’ll pay for it ourselves

.
Hmm, just not seeing Alaska taking an 85% reduction in Federal pork, though. Or ANY reduction. Perhaps our friend Dewie could have documented that a bit. Maybe HE didn't see pork, but Alaska did. Curious about Alask citizens becoming "filthy rich", certainly some did at the top, but no one I know up there.

Even Palin supporters never mention the things that I’m about to mention here.

Maybe because they are idiotic bald-faced lies by the Palin Propaganda Machine

Date: September 3, 2008
by Martina Single

Sarah Palin, Pork Queen
"I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere," Sarah Palin recently told a crowd of McCain followers to much applause. John McCain has made fighting corruption, and specifically the practice of awarding earmarks, a central issue in his campaign. John McCain's campaign released an ad earlier this year specifically citing Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere," calling it "outrageous." The 233 million dollar project was to connect the city of Ketchikan with Gravina Island, which in the 2000 census, had a population of 50 people. McCain has touted Palin as a reformer, someone who also has fought corruption and government waste.

What the McCain campaign doesn't want mentioned is that Palin ran for Governor of Alaska in 2006 voicing her support of the Bridge to Nowhere. When the Bridge to Nowhere sparked nationwide outrage she changed her position, stating that the bridge wasn't needed, but Alaska didn't return the 233 million dollars to the federal government. Alaska simply used the money for other transportation projects. In a particularly absurd twist, a road on Gravina Island that was to connect to the Ketchikan- Gravina Island bridge is still being built. It's a road that will now lead to an empty beach. Why is it still being built? Because if it wasn't, the money for that part of the project would had to have been returned.

In fact, Palin's political career is a tale of vote-winning pork projects that paved her way from the tiny berg of Wasila, right to the governor's mansion. In 2000, as the mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired the firm Hoffman Silver Gilman & Blasco to bring home the bacon to Wasilla, resulting in $26.9 million worth of earmarks by 2004 for the town of 9,700 people. In fact, according to the Anchorage Daily News, Palin herself appeared in front of congress in 2000 requesting earmarks

To understand the amount of federal earmark money slathered on Wasilla, Alaska during Palin's term compare it with Boise, Idaho. In the fiscal year 2008, Boise, with a population of 190,000 received 6.9 million in earmarks. Wasilla, Alaska, in 2002 received 6.1.

Nor has Palin stopped pursuing earmarks for Alaska. Thus far she's applied for $197 million of earmarks for the 2009 fiscal year through Sen. Ted Stevens. And according to Citizens Against Government Waste, Alaska received $379,669,715 in earmarks during fiscal year 2008, almost $100 million more than any other state. Alaska has the fifth smallest population of any state in the US.

Possibly the most ironic part of this story is that with the rise in oil prices of late Alaska has been rolling in money. Palin recently gained approval for an extra 1,200 dollar per person payout to Alaskans from the state, in addition to their annual dividend checks. The dividend checks will be $2,000 this year, from Alaska's oil-wealth savings account, known as the Permanent Fund, which contains more than $35 billion.

Democrats in Alaska argued against these checks, pointing out that the money could be used to build needed infrastructure projects. Palin got the payout approved anyway, apparently preferring taxpayers in the lower 48 states to fund Alaska's infrastructure through earmarks, while Alaskans spend the largess from their oil wealth. "As governor, I've stood up to the old politics-as-usual, to the special interests, to the lobbyists, the big oil companies, and the good-ol'-boy network," Palin said Friday. Somehow this claim rings a bit hollow when voiced by Alaska's queen of pork.

[Ought Six]

I always know Dave is trying to hide the source of his BS when he fails to post the name of the source or a link to the article. The source of that particular hit piece is Associated Content, one of those 'citizen journalism' sites that pays just about anyone to make up shit, kinda like The National Enquirer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_content

Excerpt:

Associated Content is renowned for the execrable quality of its content. Slate.com technical writer Farhad Manjoo sums up this criticism thus: "Associated Content stands as a cautionary tale for anyone looking to do news by the numbers. It is a wasteland of bad writing, uninformed commentary, and the sort of comically dull recitation of the news you'd get from a second grader."

The truth is that Palin requested 60% less in earmarks than her predecessor. "Queen of Pork"?

I guess that is what happens when you swallow whole and without question the effluent emitted by fourth-rate political tabloid sites. You doing so and regurgitating that effluent here, while in the very same breath ranting about "the Palin Political Propaganda Machine" is particularly rich.

[DReynolds]

Being a Fan of Sarah Palin is kinda like being a fan of O.J. Simpson. It says more about the Fan than anything else.

[Ought Six]

DR:

Making a despicable fact-free slander like that says more about you than it does about anything or anyone else.

[Ought Six]

BD:

"Se did not cut ear-marks by 85%, she cut them by 22%. Therefore, this claim is misleading. Give her credit for the 22% sure. But getting mad at me because I won't give her credit for cutting 85% is mendacious."

The true figure is apparently 60%. And to say that I was "getting mad at {you}" specifically "because {you} won't give her credit for cutting 85%" is mendacious (and as a result, a bit hypocritical). I did not say that, and you know it.
----------

"While she did raise taxes, it did not make people "filthy rich." - therefore, this claim is misleading if not false."

It is a rather poor characterization, to be sure, but the citizens of Alaska did receive a rather nice check from the state due to Palin's actions. As for the tax increase, you must be referring to the fraction-of-a-percent sales tax increase she supported as Mayor of Wasilla to pay for law enforcement. Funny, though, how you failed to mention the fact that the deal she proposed as Governor, which the state legislature approved, included a one year suspension of the 8¢/gallon gasoline tax. Which do you think was more important to the people of Alaska? "Giving credit where due"?

Perhaps you were talking about her raising taxes on energy companies, which was the source of the checks disbursed to Alaskans, and the source of the income that allowed the suspension of the state gas tax? Is this something she should be criticized for?
----------

"She did not take down the "Corrupt Bastards Club." The FBI did. - this claim is FALSE."

Agreed. He got that totally wrong.
----------

"The so called "bridge to nowhere" that she claimed "thanks but no thanks" during her campaign was not actually cut until this past February. Therefore, SHE LIED during the race. Let's all give her a hand shall we?"

Palin ordered work stopped on the project while she was Governor, over the strenuous objections of Sen. Ted Stevens.
----------

"As far as the pipeline is concerned, AGIA is not a construction contract, nor does it even guarantee that one will be built. Again, a fallacious claim."

Really?

Palin signs AGIA


Ted Land
KTUU TV 2 News
Wednesday, Aug. 27, 2008

ANCHORAGE, Alaska-- The Alaska Gas pipeline project is taking a big step forward.

Gov. Sarah Palin officially awarded the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act license to TransCanada.

The Canadian pipeline company may now start building the pipeline, which will ultimately stretch more than 1,700 miles, from Prudhoe Bay to Alberta.

Pipeline construction will employ about 15,000 workers at its peak, according to the governor.

"Finally, after decades of dreaming and hoping and praying for a gas line in Alaska, literally decades of hoping for this, finally, today, as we sign into law the vehicle that we need in order to progress this project," said Gov. Sarah Palin.

Palin would like to see additional legislation in January that includes a worker training program to get Alaskans jobs with the project.
_____

Contact Ted Land at tland@ktuu.com

I guess the local news stations are making "fallacious claims" as well. Here is another article on this:

Palin put Alaskans ahead of Big Oil, greens


Patrice Hill
The Washington Times
Monday, September 8, 2008

Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin, now thrust into the heart of America's energy debate, has managed as Alaska governor to confound major oil companies and frustrate environmentalists with pro-drilling policies that put the interests of the state and its 670,000 citizens ahead of either powerful special interest.

Mrs. Palin is vilified by environmentalists for wanting to open up the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. But last year, some right-wing critics accused her of rivaling the spread-the-oil-wealth philosophy of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez when she slapped a big tax increase on oil companies operating in the state and used the proceeds to send a $1,200 check to help cover the energy costs of every Alaska resident.

As if that weren't enough to sting the oil majors, one of Mrs. Palin's first acts in office was to tear up a deal negotiated between former Gov. Frank Murkowski, a fellow Republican, and Alaska's big three oil companies - Exxon Mobil, BP and ConocoPhillips - to build a 1,715-mile-long pipeline to carry natural gas from Alaska to the lower 48 states. She replaced Mr. Murkowski's backroom dealwith an open bidding process that awarded the state's pipeline license to TransCanada Alaska, a Canadian outsider.

Alaska's Legislature last month deemed the TransCanada deal to be more favorable in preserving the state's right to raise taxes on oil companies. The Legislature approved it overwhelmingly after having given a thumbs-down to the Murkowski deal and its guaranteed low tax rates on oil companies.

Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain is said to see a kindred spirit in Mrs. Palin, who has a strong independent streak that was on display when she appointed Tom Irwin as Alaska's natural resources commissioner during her first weeks in office. Mrs. Palin's predecessor had fired Mr. Irwin in 2005 for writing a memo saying Mr. Murkowski went too easy on oil companies in earlier pipeline negotiations.

"She is not pro- or con- big companies," Mr. Irwin told reporters last week. "Governor Palin didn't submit to the force and control of the large companies. She forced [them] into a fair, open competitive process."

Mrs. Palin also took Exxon Mobil to task for failing to develop one of Alaska's biggest untapped oil and gas fields at Point Thomson in Alaska's far north, threatening to revoke a development permit granted decades ago. The move prompted Exxon Mobil to announce in February that it is beginning a phased-in development of the fields with an eye toward eventually shipping the gas through the new TransCanada pipeline. Exxon Mobil also took pains to show that it is striving to find customers for the gas within Alaska.

"Exxon Mobil is committed to developing North Slope gas resources, and we are ready to work with the state of Alaska," said company spokeswoman Margaret A. Ross.

In another conciliatory gesture toward the Palin administration, Exxon Mobil dropped out of the consortium of oil companies that negotiated a pipeline deal with Mr. Murkowski and said it is prepared to work with TransCanada as well as the other oil companies on getting the pipeline completed. ExxonMobil said its Point Thomson project will provide about 8 percent of the gas going through the pipeline and its participation will be critical for the project to succeed financially.

BP and Conoco refused to bow to the new governor, however, and have not dropped their plans for a pipeline that would compete with Mrs. Palin's TransCanada deal.

The companies dubbed their alternative pipeline "Denali" this spring and plan to spend $600 million in the next three years conducting scientific studies and submitting regulatory applications to the federal government with an eye toward beating out the TransCanada proposal by winning over more customers. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ultimately could be the arbiter of who builds the pipeline.

"We felt [Mrs. Palin's plan] was not the best pact to get a pipeline built. We think Denali is the best way to get a pipeline built," said one oil company official who asked to remain anonymous.

BP and Conoco continue to have differences with Mrs. Palin over the state's contribution to financing the pipeline. They say they never wanted the $500 million in seed money the state is offering to get the pipeline started. But they continue to insist that state tax concessions will be needed to ensure completion of what is expected to be the largest and most expensive infrastructure project in North American history.

The possibility of Alaska imposing higher taxes years down the road under the Palin plan poses risks that could make it difficult to obtain financing from Wall Street, jeopardizing the viability of the project, oil officials contend.

"The real sticking point seems to be that Governor Palin refuses to make a long-term commitment on the tax rates for the project," said Robert Rapier, a former Conoco employee.

"For a $30 billion project, it is pretty important to understand the economics of the project pretty far in advance," he said. "It should be reasonable to at least agree in advance not to change the rules during the game. That is, after all, what Hugo Chavez has become famous for. And Palin's threats to tear up existing contracts with Exxon do provide a cause for concern."

Despite her having campaigned on independence from Big Oil, the oil companies seem confident that the governor and state legislators eventually will provide further concessions on taxes once they understand how essential they are for the project to succeed.

"Everybody recognizes there will have to be more discussion on fiscal terms" in two to three years when the pipeline companies start lining up customers, the off-the-record oil official said. In the meantime, the companies are trying to come up with more exact figures on how much the project will cost over the decade it will take to build.

"When we had talked with the governor's staff, they said they would like to see good cost estimates before talking further about terms," the official said.

Martin Hutchinson, an analyst with BreakingViews.com, a British financial-analysis firm, said Alaska is swimming in revenues as a result of Mrs. Palin's oil-tax increases. About 85 percent of the state's budget is funded by oil revenues.

The governor does not deserve the praise she receives from many Republicans for her strong fiscal record, Mr. Hutchinson contended. "2008 revenues were 40 percent above forecast, making budgeting easy," he said. "Palin's budget prowess only qualifies her to replace someone like Hugo Chavez."

Andrew Leonard, a writer with Salon.com, said "the right wing is probably going a little overboard on the Venezuelan comparison - just as is the left, in its efforts to plug Palin into a familiar Bush-Cheney energy framework."

He said he suspects that Mr. McCain picked Mrs. Palin because the longtime party maverick "became infatuated with the narrative of the pro-drilling, anti-Big Oil governor."

----------

"The Point Thompson claim was initiated under her predicessor. Giving her credit for someone else's initiative is disingenuous."

Getting the Point Thomson claim developed has been a battle fought by every single Governor since the lease was granted to Exxon more than three decades ago. Murkowski did move to cancel Exxon’s lease on that claim, which Exxon contested in court. When the courts ruled against Exxon, Exxon presented a development plan to Palin’s administration that was quite favorable to Exxon. Palin rejected it, and told them to come up with better terms, or they lose the lease. Exxon went ahead with development of the claim while appealing the decision {see article above}. I think Palin deserves as much credit as any of the previous Governors for holding Exxon’s feet to the fire on this. The idea that the whole thing began with Murkowski, and that Palin did little or nothing and is just being given credit for Murkowski’s work is simply false.
----------

” The author is clearly a fan-boy of Palin….”

Agreed.
----------

”…. and resorts to misleading claims to garner support for her.”

That is a pure unsupported assumption on your part. He may well believe everything he is saying, for all you know. You are falsely ascribing motives to people where you actually have no knowledge of them.
----------

"In the 2 (two) cases she was involved in, she didn't "send them packing"...."

Really? In both of those cases, the people involved were either fired or forced to resign. So what is your personal definition of "sending them packing" (because that sure fits mine)?
----------

” It was fifteen and all but two were dismissed. Two have teeth. Abuse of authority is a serious charge.”

How about we presume innocence until guilt is proven? This seems especially indicated where 13 of 15 charges have already been dismissed as baseless.
----------

”As for her "claim" that defending herself has cost her so much money, those claims are unsubstantiated as she has not provided a detail of those expenses.”

Seriously? You know that politicians need lawyers to defend themselves against such charge. You know what a good lawyer costs, and how much time is involved in amassing evidence, deposing people, doing evidentiary hearings, researching the law and legal precedents, and etcetera. The amount is in no way out of line with what one would expect for defending a sitting Governor from so many specious charges.
----------

” No....I just don't put her up on a pedestal and worship her.”

You seem to be going out of your way to shoot her down. That is the way it appears to me, anyways.

[DReynolds]

Originally Posted by Ought Six

Making a despicable fact-free slander like that says more about you than it does about anything or anyone else.

Sarah Palin is a semi-retarded, but good looking soccer mom. Defending her candidacy as a politician or leader of any kind is craven and weird. We live in a nation where there are wonderful conservative women politicos like Kay Baily Hutchison. So why defend the semi-retarded Palin?

[Ought Six]

So you seriously expect me to bother with your silly stereotype of Palin? Perhaps you should read some of the interviews with her by liberal interviewers who were extremely impressed with her intelligence and perceptiveness. Or more likely you are just comfortable with your preconceived notions, spoonfed to you by the MSM and leftist political hate blogs like the HuffPo.

As for 'craven', the easy and craven thing to do is to join the herd in thoughtlessly bashing her.

[rryan]

Originally Posted by DReynolds

Sarah Palin is a semi-retarded, but good looking soccer mom. Defending her candidacy as a politician or leader of any kind is craven and weird. We live in a nation where there are wonderful conservative women politicos like Kay Baily Hutchison. So why defend the semi-retarded Palin?

KBH is far from being a conservative.

Sarah might not be the smartest or most savvy but compared to the current crop of politicians ...?

I hear a lot of women say things like this about her (and she is obviously not really retarded) and I think there is a fear among a lot of women in this country that someone like Sarah Palin is hugely popular amongst those who are tired of the same old crap and that somehow diminishes them.

As i have said before, she is far from my ideal candidate for major office but I'd vote for her over the recycled neocon/rino republican establishment any day.

[Ought Six]

I think those who believe that she is stupid are just repeating what the media has programmed them with. No one who really knows her thinks that she is stupid. Unprepared for the situation she was thrust into last time around? No question. But stupid? I think not.

That being said, I could not vote for her. She is a religious right conservative, and I am a libertarian. Yeah, I would much rather see her in office than what we have now, but I still must vote my values.

[Fiddlerdave]

Let's see, Palin is to get credit for getting the oil companies to start drilling on leases and getting Alaskans a $1200 rebate from oil company royalties? (Similar suggestions for which the Righties here have vilified me!)

This is a little like giving her credit for grass growing in summertime , given that the prices for a barrel of oil had increased so massively in the last 20 years,(even before the $140 peak prices the oil companies may have had some idea was coming) that even the most patient oil company stockholder would have been lynching oil company execs for not getting in on that gravy train!'

I always know Dave is trying to hide the source of his BS when he fails to post the name of the source or a link to the article. The source of that particular hit piece is Associated Content, one of those 'citizen journalism' sites that pays just about anyone to make up shit, kinda like The National Enquirer.

Perhaps a little more observation on your part would let you see I may choose an article not to PROVE my point, but simply to illustrate it, and it will have these really weird things in it your sources generally ignore (like the AmericansTinker or Western States (un)Journalism, which is references to credible publications.

Of course, I fail to see how my presented blog article (with references) is deficient compared to your "fisherman" publishing in Marion's World" blog who references nothing except parroting obviously cribbed Republican Party PR handouts and obviously fabricated baseless conclusions. DO you have any concept of the legislative process? For instance, EXACTLY how do you document a "60% reduction in earmark requests"? Much of that is backroom deals or quid pro quos. Frankly, the national Republican party could have been spanking Palin for running her own powwr agenda against the team's, and REFUSING earmarks if you were to measure successful earmarks. Asserting she lowered "earmark requests" is absurd.

[BoneDaddy]

The true figure is apparently 60%. And to say that I was "getting mad at {you}" specifically "because {you} won't give her credit for cutting 85%" is mendacious (and as a result, a bit hypocritical). I did not say that, and you know it.

You miss the point and obviously did not read the source material. When one makes that claim PRIOR TO actually carrying out a deed, that claim is false.

Additionally, why not use her own figures instead as a mean indicator...

For the 2007 federal budget year, the administration of former Gov. Frank Murkowski submitted 63 earmark requests totaling $350 million, Palin's staff said. That slid to 52 earmarks valued at $256 million in Palin's first year. This year, the governor's office asked the delegation to help them land 31 earmarks valued at $197 million.

http://www.adn.com/politics/story/516743.html

From Murkowski's last year to Palin's first is a 27% reduction.
Form Murkowski's last year to Palin's second year is a 44% reduction.
Hardly the 85% that is claimed.....(when the claim was published).

It is a rather poor characterization, to be sure, but the citizens of Alaska did receive a rather nice check from the state due to Palin's actions.

I wouldn't knock $1200 that is for sure. However, it has been my experience that those making such claims are prone to exaggeration. Rule #1 as a campaign strategist is to steer very clear of such behavior. Your opponents will discredit you as a result.

As for the tax increase, you must be referring to the fraction-of-a-percent sales tax increase she supported as Mayor of Wasilla to pay for law enforcement.

No....I was referring to, in the context of the above "filthy rich" rebate check, which was funded by ACES (Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share) legislation. This act raised taxes on oil producers from 22.5 percent to 25 percent.

http://gov.state.ak.us/aces/aces_about.php

Funny, though, how you failed to mention the fact that the deal she proposed as Governor, which the state legislature approved, included a one year suspension of the 8¢/gallon gasoline tax. Which do you think was more important to the people of Alaska? "Giving credit where due"?

It wasn't part of the OP. 8 cents per gallong doesn't equate to much. I pay 38.4 cents, and drive < 4K miles per year (much closer to 3K). This means I buy about 200 gallons per year in gas and pay about $76 in taxes. Now I relize that I only make a 12 mile round trip daily. However, even when I worked in Houston I didn't drive more than 10K per year. You compare that with income or property taxes and it is insignificant.

Perhaps you were talking about her raising taxes on energy companies, which was the source of the checks disbursed to Alaskans, and the source of the income that allowed the suspension of the state gas tax? Is this something she should be criticized for?

You know that corporate taxes are passed onto the consumers as well as I. It simply means that the oil companies will pass that tax onto us (and them) in the form of higher prices.

Palin ordered work stopped on the project while she was Governor, over the strenuous objections of Sen. Ted Stevens.

I know she did, but the money had already been spent. How is that saving the taxpayers money?

In the fall of 2005, Congress removed the language specifically directing the money to the bridge, but it kept the money in place and left it up to Alaska to decide which transportation projects the state would like to spend it on.

By the time Palin pulled the plug on the Gravina bridge project in September 2007, much of the federal funding for the bridge had already been diverted to other transportation projects. The bridge would cost $398 million, Palin said then, and Alaska was $329 million short.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fac...aggerates.html

Really?

Yes really. Legislation is NOT a contract. AGIA established the "rules" or "requirements" that companies would have to meet in order to be issued a license. Here is the actuall "act."

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/agia/agia...cs/HB0177F.pdf

Notice that this is not an agreement between two parties as a contract requires?

TransCanada, as a factual note, was the ONLY bidding company that met all of the prerequisites. However, since that time Exxon has entered into an agreement (contract) with TransCanada to do the actual construction.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124474802050807207.html

There is a wealth of information here: http://www.gov.state.ak.us/agia/
It discusses the licensure process. Keep in mind .06, I have many licenses. Those licenses do not require me to fullfill anything. They only state that I have met prerequisites and as such am authorized to "contract" with entities.

I think Palin deserves as much credit as any of the previous Governors for holding Exxon’s feet to the fire on this.

Perhaps, but she wouldn't be the first Governor to finish something begun by a predecessor. She should get credit for "completing" the task. So should the others involved (state oil and gas director for one).

That is a pure unsupported assumption on your part. He may well believe everything he is saying, for all you know. You are falsely ascribing motives to people where you actually have no knowledge of them.

No it isn't unsupported. The claims are easily refuted for anyone with an internet connection which he has. By the way.....he believes in death panels and says so on his blog.

http://restlessbrainsyndrome.blogspot.com/

If one (him...not you) cannot debate a topic or promote an idea / philosophy from a position of strength and truth, it is better not to try. You'll only shoot youself in the foot as a result.

Really? In both of those cases, the people involved were either fired or forced to resign. So what is your personal definition of "sending them packing" (because that sure fits mine)?

Both instances resulted in resignations (not firings) and only one resulted in a fine. Sending someone packing is when you fire or dismiss someone. Neither was the case in either instance. Look up Randy Ruedrich and Gregg Renkes.

http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/510276.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...official_x.htm

Complaints by her (and others) led to investigations. Those investigations (one of which bore fruit) led to the resignations. While she should get "some" credit, it would not be fair to give her all the credit. The second case I believe she deserves more credit than the former.

How about we presume innocence until guilt is proven? This seems especially indicated where 13 of 15 charges have already been dismissed as baseless.

I did not claim she was guilty, only that abuse of power is a serious charge. It is somewhat misleading to state that the other charges were "baseless" when at least one was a duplicate of (or very simlar to) what is now being investigated (abuse of power). The trooper's union claim is one such dismissed case.

Seriously? You know that politicians need lawyers to defend themselves against such charge. You know what a good lawyer costs, and how much time is involved in amassing evidence, deposing people, doing evidentiary hearings, researching the law and legal precedents, and etcetera. The amount is in no way out of line with what one would expect for defending a sitting Governor from so many specious charges.

Yes seriously. You seem to forget that I file ethics complaints on occasion. None of these complaints ever lead to criminal charges but they can and do lead to fines. While one may be deposed, one may or may not need a lawyer, or travel. All of mine have been correspondance based (i.e. written responses including documentation such as campaing account finance reports etc. etc. ad nauseam). I've even assisted in one complaint levied against the "party" and we never felt compelled to get an attorney.

In order to substantiate (establish proof) of this claim, release of information would be required and I am sure that will never happen. Therefore, without proof, it is unsubstantiated and will remain such. habeas corpus my friend.

You seem to be going out of your way to shoot her down. That is the way it appears to me, anyways.

Meh.......I just don't like fan-boy hyperbole. Considering that I have to deal with such in my own field, I would expect you (expecially) to understand. It is quite similar to the specious claims promoted by the Randbardian cultists in my view.

[Ought Six]

P:

"Let's see, Palin is to get credit for getting the oil companies to start drilling on leases and getting Alaskans a $1200 rebate from oil company royalties? This is a little like giving her credit for grass growing in summertime , given that the prices for a barrel of oil had increased so massively in the last 20 years,(even before the $140 peak prices the oil companies may have had some idea was coming) that even the most patient oil company stockholder would have been lynching oil company execs for not getting in on that gravy train!'"

Palin negotiated a tough new deal that directly led to an additional payment to Alaskans above and beyond the usual royalty checks. It was in no way, shape or form an artifact of higher oil prices. This kind of negotiation on behalf of the people of Alaska was the opposite of what the 'Corrupt Bastards Club' that were in power before her did. Your statement here is simply false.
----------

"Perhaps a little more observation on your part would let you see I may choose an article not to PROVE my point, but simply to illustrate it and it will have these really weird things in it your sources generally ignore (like the AmericansTinker or Western States (un)Journalism, which is references to credible publications."

You attack others for using source you consider suspect, but you using a 'citizen journalist' source that actual journalists have slammed as 'second-grade level crap'; that is A-okay? Sorry, Dave, but that flagrant double-standard does not cut any ice here. Your source was garbage, and you know it, and you tried to hide it. Do not try to BS your way past being called on it, because it is not going to work.
----------

"Of course, I fail to see how my presented blog article (with references) is deficient compared to your "fisherman" publishing in Marion's World" blog who references nothing except parroting obviously cribbed Republican Party PR handouts and obviously fabricated baseless conclusions. DO you have any concept of the legislative process? For instance, EXACTLY how do you document a "60% reduction in earmark requests"? Much of that is backroom deals or quid pro quos. Frankly, the national Republican party could have been spanking Palin for running her own powwr agenda against the team's, and REFUSING earmarks if you were to measure successful earmarks. Asserting she lowered "earmark requests" is absurd. "

Per the link I provided, upon request, Palin's office released all the documents to Seattle Times investigative reporters about earmarks requested by the Governor's office to be submitted by senior Senator from Alaska at the time, Ted Stevens. I think those reporters are smart and experienced enough to know if they are being BSed, and have contacts on the Hill to check the facts they were given. You would know this had you bothered to read the linked material before responding.
----------

As for the bombastic, sneering, ubercondescending style of your post, please recall that this precisely what we were asked *not* to do by the staff.

[Fiddlerdave]

Originally Posted by Ought Six

P:Palin negotiated a tough new deal that directly led to an additional payment to Alaskans above and beyond the usual royalty checks. It was. This kind of negotiation on behalf of the people of Alaska was the opposite of what the 'Corrupt Bastards Club' that were in power before her did. Your statement here is simply false.

Let's see, oil prices are WAAAY up, we have a politician looking for a high profile giveaway, but the payoff is "in no way, shape or form an artifact of higher oil prices"???? Hmm, are you selling a completed "bridge to nowhere" as well?

----------You attack others for using source you consider suspect, but you using a 'citizen journalist' source that actual journalists have slammed as 'second-grade level crap'; that is A-okay? Sorry, Dave, but that flagrant double-standard does not cut any ice here. Your source was garbage, and you know it, and you tried to hide it. Do not try to BS your way past being called on it, because it is not going to work.

Let's see, 06's blog post has NO references to ANY sources whatsever, but I am "bombastic, sneering, ubercondescending" over its fawning and irrational statements? FD's blog post refers to actual sources for its assertions, and to try to say my blog post is not good "journalism" is your debate tactic. Of course it isn't journalism or "proof" itself, and I have never asserted nor defended it as such, unlike what you do with the elusive "Dewie", who accounts for NOTHING in his writing.

The "double standards" in play here are your own, and I'd say are clearly are A) a way to avoid answering Bone Daddy and B baiting me.

----------Per the link I provided, upon request, Palin's office released all the documents to Seattle Times investigative reporters about earmarks requested by the Governor's office to be submitted by senior Senator from Alaska at the time, Ted Stevens. I think those reporters are smart and experienced enough to know if they are being BSed, and have contacts on the Hill to check the facts they were given. You would know this had you bothered to read the linked material before responding.

Oh, yes, let's believe the figures produced by Palin office to document her assertions about her wonderful policies. How far does principle this fly with Obama's assertions?

As for the bombastic, sneering, ubercondescending style of your post, please recall that this precisely what we were asked *not* to do by the staff.

Which of us is the pot and which is the kettle today, 06? Of course, I am supposed to show utter respect to a "poor hapless anonymous fisherman" who just so happens to produce perfect (baseless) copy for Internet-wide Palin PR campaigns parroting her every claim? An interesting guy who refuses to document ANY of his claims or even respond. Yeah, excellent "source". I should keep my mouth shut in the face of such factual brilliance. I can see why you posted him.

Besides, I was given notice, you were not, so drop the "we" crap......