The Observation Deck

Certainly tight with energy companies, from MSNBC.com

Windfall tax lets Alaska rake in billions from Big Oil

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... tax07.html

yeah they must lover her lol

you can say that she hasn't been in office long enough, but can you please stop trying to compare the difficulty of being Governor of Alaska by way of population.

As I've said before, Alaska is more like a country than a state. And being Governor of Alaska is unlike anything the "lower 48" has to offer.

Find me another Governor that has to deal directly with the Russians on a regular basis over border issues?

Where in the continental U.S. is there an equally high percentage of people who own guns, yet retain an amazingly low violent crime rate, given a police force that has 10 and sometimes 100 times more area to cover?

The Governor of Alaska has to deal with weather several months of every year that would have any other state declaring a "state of emergency".

You're talking about a Governor that holds an 80% approval rating in a place that pays higher prices for gas than the states they provide it to. And a place that pays $8 and $9 for a gallon of milk.

you can say that she hasn't been there long enough, but don't underestimate the responsibilities of the job.

Bret Callentine wrote:As I've said before, Alaska is more like a country than a state. And being Governor of Alaska is unlike anything the "lower 48" has to offer.

Should that make me feel better about the prospect of her being VP?

Find me another Governor that has to deal directly with the Russians on a regular basis over border issues?

Come on. Is that the "She DOES have foreign policy experience" card? I doubt that the governor of a state deals directly with world leaders over national border disputes.

Where in the continental U.S. is there an equally high percentage of people who own guns, yet retain an amazingly low violent crime rate, given a police force that has 10 and sometimes 100 times more area to cover?

You could take any high-crime area in the country, spread the people out to 1 person per square mile, directly pay to each person $1000-$2000 per year from oil revenues, and have the federal government spend over $12,000 per annum per capita in the area on subsidies and development, and you'd probably see an overall reduction in violent crime.

Stephen Eisel wrote:

Brad Hutchison wrote:I agree with Jim that executive vs. legislative experience is overrated. That some republicans claim she has more experience than Obama because she was in the executive branch is laughable. The population of Alaska (600,000) is smaller than that of the greater Cleveland area. Approximately 85 metropolitan areas in the US have larger populations than Alaska.

BS! A Governor has a lot more responsibility than a legislator... regardless of the size of the state..

The population of the state is relevant, as are the issues specific to that state (as Bret points out). However, my broader point is that while a governor may have different responsibilities than a U.S. senator, I think it's arguable whether those responsibilities are "greater." And with Sarah Palin specifically, I believe her experience is less relevant than Obama's in terms of being president/vice-president.

Brad Hutchison wrote:

Stephen Eisel wrote:

Brad Hutchison wrote:I agree with Jim that executive vs. legislative experience is overrated. That some republicans claim she has more experience than Obama because she was in the executive branch is laughable. The population of Alaska (600,000) is smaller than that of the greater Cleveland area. Approximately 85 metropolitan areas in the US have larger populations than Alaska.

BS! A Governor has a lot more responsibility than a legislator... regardless of the size of the state..

The population of the state is relevant, as are the issues specific to that state (as Bret points out). However, my broader point is that while a governor may have different responsibilities than a U.S. senator, I think it's arguable whether those responsibilities are "greater." And with Sarah Palin specifically, I believe her experience is less relevant than Obama's in terms of being president/vice-president.

On domsestic energy, she wins hands down..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp ... 8#26484038

I can't knock her experience with oil and gas, but it makes me uncomfortable that she (and many others, to be sure) is pushing increased domestic production. As an energy policy, shifting from foreign to domestic oil is not the answer. She is pro-fossil fuels and anti-sustainable/renewable.

Brad Hutchison wrote:I can't knock her experience with oil and gas, but it makes me uncomfortable that she (and many others, to be sure) is pushing increased domestic production. As an energy policy, shifting from foreign to domestic oil is not the answer. She is pro-fossil fuels and anti-sustainable/renewable.

Her stand on increasing oil production worries me too. We have had a pro-oil guy in office for 8 years and all that has happened is that we have high oil prices. We need a president and vice president who understands that drilling for more oil is merely a band aid. I think we need candidate that understands that we need to find alternatives to oil and I don't think the McCain/Palin ticket is going to do anything but continue to push for more drilling as the answer to our energy crisis.

Brad Hutchison wrote:I can't knock her experience with oil and gas, but it makes me uncomfortable that she (and many others, to be sure) is pushing increased domestic production. As an energy policy, shifting from foreign to domestic oil is not the answer. She is pro-fossil fuels and anti-sustainable/renewable.

A percentage of the profits from domestic drilling need to be invested into alternative energy.

Should that make me feel better about the prospect of her being VP?

Nope, and it certainly shouldn't dissuade you from thinking hard about the possibility of her becoming President. My point is simply that while I agree that it's a hard argument to vote her in based on her experience, in the same sense, I don't think her experience is such that it would automatically rule her out.

We need a president and vice president who understands that drilling for more oil is merely a band aid.

In my opinion, when it comes to energy use, this country is in for some serious hardships ahead. And if you don't use oil to stop the bleeding now, you'll never make it to the point where you can get the transplant of new technology.

America didn't stop using candles until after the light buld was not only discovered, but made economically feasible for the masses.

Bret Callentine wrote:In my opinion, when it comes to energy use, this country is in for some serious hardships ahead. And if you don't use oil to stop the bleeding now, you'll never make it to the point where you can get the transplant of new technology.

I agree about upcoming hardships, but if you consider new drilling, whether offshore or ANWR, will take 5-10 years to start extracting oil, we could make a lot of progress in alternative sources by then... if we dedicate ourselves to it.

Oil prices are greatly manipulated by a speculative market. Just suggesting that we will be building new refineries would drop the price immediately (which is what happened when the president recinded the drilling ban).

I don't think gas will ever really be cheap again, but cheap oil isn't what's needed, we just need it to not be so expensive that we're all bankrupt by the time alternatives become available.

If anything, I'd like to see a focus on keeping the price of deisel fuel low, to help with the prices at stores, as opposed to worrying so much about helping out the people who drive 40 miles each way to work.

Danielle Masters wrote:

Brad Hutchison wrote:I can't knock her experience with oil and gas, but it makes me uncomfortable that she (and many others, to be sure) is pushing increased domestic production. As an energy policy, shifting from foreign to domestic oil is not the answer. She is pro-fossil fuels and anti-sustainable/renewable.

Her stand on increasing oil production worries me too. We have had a pro-oil guy in office for 8 years and all that has happened is that we have high oil prices. We need a president and vice president who understands that drilling for more oil is merely a band aid. I think we need candidate that understands that we need to find alternatives to oil and I don't think the McCain/Palin ticket is going to do anything but continue to push for more drilling as the answer to our energy crisis.

Oil is a traded commodity. World supply,demand and specualtion impact the price of oil more than President Bush. Nancy Pelosi promised us lower oil prices in 2006. She has not delivered. We elected a ton of dems in 2006 to end the war in Iraq and lower oil prices. To date, we have only seen higher oil prices since 2006. We have been hoodwinked .

Bush lifted the Executive offshore drilling ban in early August and oil prices fell every day for about two weeks straight. Nancy Pelosi decided that $4.00 a gallon was not a problem for most Americans and closed down congress and went on vacation.

Palin wants to increase oil production while investing in alternative energy.

http://alaskareport.com/news58/x61241_energy_plan.htm


http://www.akcenter.org/juneau-watchdog ... priorities

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=836304396

http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stories ... 6847.shtml

Brad Hutchison wrote:

Bret Callentine wrote:In my opinion, when it comes to energy use, this country is in for some serious hardships ahead. And if you don't use oil to stop the bleeding now, you'll never make it to the point where you can get the transplant of new technology.

I agree about upcoming hardships, but if you consider new drilling, whether offshore or ANWR, will take 5-10 years to start extracting oil, we could make a lot of progress in alternative sources by then... if we dedicate ourselves to it.

yes, it will take at least 5 years until the oil begins to flow and 3 of those 5 years will be spent on paper work .. But oil prices will be probably be impacted immediately...

But oil prices will be probably be impacted immediately...

Maybe in the first month of drilling, but 6 months later? 3 years later? Oil prices will stay down because increased supply is expected in a few years? I'm skeptical...

Brad Hutchison wrote:Maybe in the first month of drilling, but 6 months later? 3 years later? Oil prices will stay down because increased supply is expected in a few years? I'm skeptical...

I am also skeptical, maybe prices will go down and maybe they'll still stay high, but people will get accustomed to whatever the prices are and will continue to not conserve. It shocks me how many people I hear say that they won't converse because this is America and they have the right to do whatever they want. I would love for people to change their habits but as long as they feel and hear that there is more oil they will continue to keep driving. All I need to see is that the school year has started and there are just as many cars as always, and Lakewood has walkable schools. This argument will go on because some people feel more oil isn't the answer and some people think more oil is the answer and I doubt people will budge until they have to.