Palin: No pay raise for me, thanks
posted at 6:51 pm on December 18, 2008 by Allahpundit
Good politics, good sense. She was absent from the state for two months; she got a monster raise just two years ago; state revenue is down thanks to the crash in oil prices; and the polish this will put on her fiscal conservative cred is worth more than the money anyway, especially with Blago in the news.
A new state commission appointed by Palin recommends boosting the governor’s pay from $125,000 to $150,000. The State Officers Compensation Commission says the lieutenant governor, department heads and legislators need more money too.
But if the commission pushes ahead with a pay raise, Palin won’t accept the money, said spokesman Bill McAllister.
“Her view is, it’s just not appropriate to accept a pay raise in the middle of the term.”…
It’s unclear if Palin would give the money to charity — as commission chairman Rick Halford predicted Tuesday — or simply not receive the extra pay.
Pay raises should go only to politicians who have excelled above and beyond all expectations — like, say, Congress. Exit question: How is this stupid, corrupt, and/or venal? An obvious explanation eludes me but I’ll be watching Olby and Maddow tonight to find out.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
I think the whole thing got out of control. Jim Geraghty had the best take on the Branchflower report. He went through it and said that Palin’s behavior was perfectly understandable, but might have crossed the line. I think the truth is that Monegan was fired for the budget, dragging his feet, and finally his attitude. But I do get the sense that the Wooten thing was the straw that broke the camels back.
Apparently, Monegan had a Trooper recruitment poster photo taken (you know the sort of job posters that are made — “the few, the proud” that sort of thing). He sent the photo to Palin for her to autograph it so that it could be made into a recruitment poster. Well, guess who was chosen as the Trooper poster boy? Wait for it… Mike Wooten! This idiot Monegan sent her a poster of the “Trooper-time-bomb” who vowed to “bring her down”. That apparently was it for Palin. She had Monegan reassigned to another job. He refused the reassignment (which was an obvious demotion) and quit instead. She never actually fired him, or even Wooten for that matter.
It was not just the poster. She had all those budget problems with him as well some other squabbles, but the poster was the final nail in the coffin.
Why did he send her that poster? If you want to be a little paranoid, you could say that it was a “sleeps with the fish” kind of message, and that Monegan was indirectly threatening her. But it’s more likely that the poster revealed his utter incompetence. He deserved to be fired. The man is an idiot.
We need politicians who are not afraid to fire incompetent people even though these same incompetent people belong to unions who will file law suits and try to drag down anyone who dares fire them for incompetence.
But as to the Troopergate investigation — I think it got out of Palin’s control when she joined the McCain campaign. Her initial instinct was to agree to a legislative investigation because she felt she had nothing to hide. She didn’t. She had the right to re-assign the guy. The guy was an idiot. With the election, this whole thing blew into something way bigger than it deserved. She then was facing a political goat rope. She decided that she wanted the official personnel board instead of the politically motivated legislative review. She should have opted for the personnel board all along, but I don’t think she thought it would ever be this big of a deal.
Underneath all of this is a nagging question. If a State Trooper can threaten the first family, drink on the job, etc. and even the governor herself can’t get any action on getting this guy off the street, what the heck can an ordinary citizen expect? The State Troopers apparently are above the law.
ramrocks on December 18, 2008 at 9:31 PM
I agree with you. That’s why I think she should have tried to nip it in the bud with an apology and additional firings back in July. Just cut their legs out from under them, and move on. She could have filed a personnel board complaint in July for good measure. The best way to head these things off is to just blow up the bomb yourself, put all the information out there, and take all the blame yourself. That tends to take away the critics talking points, and gets the public on your side. I think that she tried to do that, but didn’t go far enough. She made a sweeping denial the first day then had to backtrack when she found the tape of one of her staffers. Better to have taken an extra day to get all the facts then dumped everything at once. Hindsight’s 20/20 I suppose.
meltenn on December 18, 2008 at 9:37 PM
Yeah, that was my take on the Tasergate thing, too…especially after I read about the recruiting poster thing. Monegan was just asking for it. I think you’re being too charitable there…maybe Monegan didn’t know what Wooten looked like, but that was obviously some kind of inside disrespectful joke being played, probably by some state employees’ union thug.
Was it Gunny French that turned it into a political football?
Left-wingers are promoting Monegan as a Democratic opponent to Palin for her re-election. Heh. Wasn’t he beating up his wife? (Or maybe just “wrestling” or “tickling” her or something, I can’t remember.)
Jim62sch on December 18, 2008 at 9:40 PM
lowandslow on December 18, 2008 at 9:17 PM:
technopeasant on December 18, 2008 at 9:41 PM
http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2008/12/alaska-gas-pipeline-company-moves-into.html
joey24007 on December 18, 2008 at 9:42 PM
French stated that their findings would be an “october surprise’
joey24007 on December 18, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Gerald Ford?
joey24007 on December 18, 2008 at 9:44 PM
Yeah, here’s the stuff on Monegan:
More at the link.
Jim62sch on December 18, 2008 at 9:46 PM
His ex-wife I think. He claimed he dislocated her shoulder ‘play wrestling.’ It’s at the bottom of this article.
meltenn on December 18, 2008 at 9:48 PM
Can you get a better pic for posts about her?
How about this one: http://www.gov.state.ak.us/large_photo.php?id=213
ashleymatt on December 18, 2008 at 9:49 PM
You’re too fast for me.
meltenn on December 18, 2008 at 9:49 PM
Exactly. I don’t think she was aware of how often her husband and some staff members complained about Wooten. And I think the poster story in and of itself is proof that Wooten was not a big discussion point between Monegan and Palin. If he was then Monegan’s poster of Wooten could be seen as a threat. I mean, think about it. If you feel pressured to fire a trooper, and refuse to do so, and then send a photo of him as “Trooper of the Year” to the person demanding that you fire him, what are you trying to tell this person? I think it’s more likely that Monegan had no idea who Wooten was because it was only mentioned to him a few times.
I have no idea whether the idiot writer of that article is correctly quoting the report on the conversations Palin had with Monegan about Wooten. Even if the conversations did take place, I don’t see how they would be damaging to Palin. Perhaps her denial or lack of recollection was in the details of the conversation. The whole thing seems unnecessarily legalistic. It’s as if the lawyers got involved, and now the obvious truth is being blurred. She had every right to complain about a trooper would threatened her family. She didn’t have the right to pressure the guy who worked for her to fire this trooper. But she had the right to complain, which is exactly what she did.
But here’s a larger question: why is it wrong for a governor to fire a commissioner who wouldn’t fire a bad cop? I mean, if the governor can’t do this, who the hell can? The guy is obviously a bad character. He just kidnapped his own kid by refusing to return the kid to his ex-wife. This trooper thinks he’s above the law. He can threaten the governor and her family, and the governor doesn’t have the authority to do anything about it?
ramrocks on December 18, 2008 at 9:50 PM
You want evidence for something that doesn’t exist? And as for your “Why did the legislature enact Palin’s pipeline plan if it’s so freaking impossible” statement, the answer is simple, because the 20 Republicans that voted against weren’t enough to offset the 25 Democrats that voted for it.
lowandslow on December 18, 2008 at 9:54 PM
You keep living up to your name..
DaveC on December 18, 2008 at 9:55 PM
OMG. This is the man the left is championing? They really are crazy. I mean, I always knew they were crazy, but stuff like this offers frighteningly fresh proof of their utter insanity.
They’re demonizing a woman who was upset about a Trooper who drinks on the job and tasers his step-son (because the kid “asked him to”) and yet they have no problem championing a wife beater?
As crazy old Jim Traficant used to say on the floor of the House, “Beam me up, Scotty!”
ramrocks on December 18, 2008 at 9:56 PM
I know that my shoulder gets dislocated when I’m ‘wrestling and tickling’ all the time. /sarc
Her deposition is supposed to be private unless she chooses to release it, but I hope that she chose her words carefully anyway. You can get in trouble even if you just misspoke and didn’t intend to. You have to use those legal phrases in case you’ve forgotten something or don’t remember it exactly as it happened. So, I hope she listened to her lawyer. And yeah, the trooper should not have a job. What does it take to get a union cop fired up there?
meltenn on December 18, 2008 at 9:57 PM
meltenn on December 18, 2008 at 9:57 PM
technopeasant on December 18, 2008 at 9:59 PM
Why don’t you rebut something I write then. Why is it these sites get overrun with people that can only make snarky comments while never looking at something or even having an original thought. Are you capable of having an original thought DaveC? Dazzle us with your profound knowledge of this nonexistent pipeline.
lowandslow on December 18, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Sometimes I wonder if she realizes what kind of loyalty she inspires. Hell, I never heard of her up until a year ago, and have only seen her in person once (at a campaign rally). I’m an over-40 guy who has followed politics long enough to be completely jaded about politicians. But she inspires me to the point that I’m pretty sure I’d take a bullet for her.
I can completely understand her staffers’ actions – maybe they heard her complain about the guy, and were doing whatever they could to carry out what they thought she wanted. Not that it was necessarily right, but I can see how overzealous people might have taken it too far.
No tears for Monegan, though – the recruiting poster thing revealed him as either a) politically clueless or b) a snarky douchebag.
Jim62sch on December 18, 2008 at 10:01 PM
The USA Today article you cited for the increase of “30% in state spending” also lists Palin’s “requests” of 27 million in earmarks as the mayor of Wasilla.
That has already been proven to be a lie.
Have a nice day
joey24007 on December 18, 2008 at 10:03 PM
You guys ever watch the Red State Update videos? The ones about Palin are pretty damn funny. This one in particular cracks me up.
meltenn on December 18, 2008 at 10:04 PM
joey24007 on December 18, 2008 at 10:05 PM
Big deal.
Sarah doing something politically smart, professional, with the interests of the people of Alaska in mind during hard times.
She does these good things a lot. Par for the course for our lovable Mommabear.
And if that goofball Monegan runs against her in 2010, I’m heading up there to complete my deforestation of Monegan signs throughout the southern part of the state.
Sapwolf on December 18, 2008 at 10:07 PM
Exactly. I wouldn’t be surprised if she followed her legal counsel in declaring her inability to “recollect” because that was the best way to end this stupid legal hemorrhaging. She doesn’t want her testimony made public because it will be picked over by the same idiots that are making more of this than it warrants. They’ll look for “the meaning of the word is is” type of quotes. Bottom line for me is that even if she said flat out, “yeah, I fired him because he wouldn’t fire Wooten.” I would think that she was acting ethically. A bad cop is a bad cop, and this guy is a bad cop. Unfortunately, he will now never be fired, and when he does finally go off the deep end (which could be very soon considering that he’s just kidnapped his kid) everyone will wonder why didn’t the state do something. The state will then be sued by his victim(s) and will have to pay millions of dollars in damages. This isn’t an unlikely scenario. It’s happened before in Alaska.
ramrocks on December 18, 2008 at 10:08 PM
ROTFLMAO!! You rock!
ramrocks on December 18, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Meltenn, that one is my favorite, too.
“Rabies! The moose had rabies!”
“Poor Trig! His first words are gonna be ‘Where’s my Momma? Where’s my Momma?’”
Oh, geek alert…Majel Barrett-Roddenberry has passed away. Look in the sky tomorrow for Constellation-class starships in a missing-man formation.
Jim62sch on December 18, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Makes me laugh just reading it.
meltenn on December 18, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Warp speed to the sweet hereafter…
ramrocks on December 18, 2008 at 10:18 PM
I lost it when he started screaming, “rabies! the kid had rabies!”
ramrocks on December 18, 2008 at 10:19 PM
If they run that idiot against her, it’s basically a declaration that they think no one can beat her.
ramrocks on December 18, 2008 at 10:21 PM
“He was drinking in his patrol car!”
“You’d drink too if your sister-in-law was Sarah freaking Palin!”
LOL
Captured the attitude of the media perfectly….
Jim62sch on December 18, 2008 at 10:25 PM
what do the Brown shirts and the nutroots have in common? Everything except the nutroot’s leader doesn’t have a moustache.
technopeasant on December 18, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Way-to-go-Palin!
HotAirJosef on December 18, 2008 at 10:32 PM
“You know what the Mayor of Alaska does? Sweeps the moose sh^t off the streets and locks up drunk Eskimos!”
“What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Pit bull don’t know how to get books banned!”
Jim62sch on December 18, 2008 at 10:34 PM
They signed the license for the pipeline. The project has a very clear timetable, and they are doing everything on schedule so far. The real issue is the “open season”. That’s what everyone will be watching. The Denali pipeline has more hurdles than TransCanada because they need federal permits.
The state will benefit from the natural gas development either way. But the state doesn’t want the TransCanada pipeline to be useless. I don’t think it will be because they have ways of making sure the open season is successful. They’ve already vowed to make it economically beneficial to the producers to use the pipeline (by lowering tariffs, etc.), and if the producers refuse to use the pipeline even though it is economically viable, then the state can revoke their leases. I don’t think it will come to that, but if it does, the power lies with the state — by which I mean the people of Alaska since they are the natural resource owners.
What I would like to know is why Denali is even out there. What is the reasoning behind it? Can any Alaskan energy expert help me out on this? What is BP and ConocoPhillips reasoning on this?
ramrocks on December 18, 2008 at 10:36 PM
I have no objection to Denali competing with the TransCanada Pipeline. The key word is compete. The oil producers are pissed off about competition being introduced into the process. That’s what broke the logjam.
Jim62sch on December 18, 2008 at 10:40 PM
I know exactly what you mean. I remember a conversation I had with a friend some years ago. We were discussing Joan of Arc, and my friend said that she must have been an extraordinary woman for men to decide to follow her into battle. Imagine a 17-year-old peasant girl inspiring thousands of men to risk their lives and charge into battle behind her banner. That, my friend said, is true leadership.
Perhaps it’s not for nothing that Palin was once dubbed “Alaska’s Joan of Arc”.
ramrocks on December 18, 2008 at 10:44 PM
the pipeline will be up and running before Obama can fill any of the jobs he will create..
as for refuting what you say.. it’s been refuted 8 times over and you are the little boy screaming “I can’t hear you” with your hands over your ears..
grow the puck up.
DaveC on December 18, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Competition is great. I hope that there will be enough natural gas for both pipelines. I would love it if both of their open seasons were successful. The history books can then argue about whether Palin’s AGIA was the final key to goading the oil producers into moving on a pipeline. That’s what is already being argued now.
But I would still like to understand what the reasoning is behind the Denali plan. Do they think it will be cheaper to ship natural gas in their own pipeline in the long term? It’s as if they’re throwing a temper tantrum because she called their bluff on the outrageous demands they were making in their prior pipeline negotiations.
ramrocks on December 18, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Dittos from a 44-year old bachelor. I’d take one for her too, but she is such a class act she’d order me to back off because she found out I have a six year old son who needs his father. That’s what I think she is like.
For now, I’m one of … “Sarah’s People”.
Sapwolf on December 18, 2008 at 10:53 PM
ditto
DaveC on December 18, 2008 at 10:56 PM
I was just over at the Trig Truther site (I hadn’t been there in a few days). Oy. I really am going to laugh when Bristol’s kid is born. I know it’s a waste of time to use logic here, but they understand that Palin has health insurance right? If people are willing to go into Joe the Plumber’s data, and Palin’s email, and Obama’s Verizon account; wouldn’t someone have already sold it to the Enquirer if there was something damning in her records?
meltenn on December 18, 2008 at 10:56 PM
copy that
joey24007 on December 18, 2008 at 11:00 PM
No update form AP concerning Olberdouche and Madcow? Disappointing. Maybe he couldn’t stomach it after all… can hardly blame him for that.
Hog Wild on December 18, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Alternate universe. They’re living in an alternate universe.
ramrocks on December 18, 2008 at 11:04 PM
I’m sure Olbermann and Maddow are pouring all of their investigative resources into finding out who tried to kill parishioners at Wasilla Bible Church. After all, journalists are good guys, right?
Jim62sch on December 18, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Someone hacked Obama’s Verizon account? How did I miss this. When?
ramrocks on December 18, 2008 at 11:05 PM
A couple of employees at Verizon looked at his records for a phone he wasn’t using anymore. They didn’t get a look at his BlackBerry emails or text messages, though I’m sure they tried. It’s been several weeks since it came out. They got fired.
meltenn on December 18, 2008 at 11:12 PM
You are back? Now it is the pipeline you are squawking about?
Speaking of misinformation…
A few days ago, you were squawking that Governor Palin was not a fiscal conservative.
By the way, your figures from the other day appear to be wrong. Spending under Governor Palin did not go up by 30% in the last two years as you claimed.
Figures just released yesterday shows that spending actually went down in Palin’s first year by -0.8% and up her second year by 9.5%. Total increase for Palin over the two years is up 8.7%.
Your hero, Matt Blunt(Missouri Governor), the real fiscal conservative… His spending over the last two budgets was up by 2.7% and 9.8%. Total increased spending for Blunt was 12.4%.
In my opinion, both Governors are fiscal conservatives. You were making the argument that Palin was not a fiscal conservative, but Blunt was.
The numbers do not bear you opinion out.
Both states have a 0% deficit, which is fantastic. Neither state will need to be bailed out, which is even better.
Alaska has billions of dollars in their rainy day fund(at least $3 billion in one fund alone, and their are other funds if they need it).
Missouri has about $500 million in their rainy day fund. This is really good and Matt Blunt should be commended.
However, Alaska can outlast the state of Missouri in a downturn of the economy.
You were attempting to make the argument that Alaska could only dip into its surplus for two years, but that is not true.
No wonder you moved onto the pipeline argument because you lost the fiscal conservative argument.
kcarpenter on December 18, 2008 at 11:12 PM
I should should say that they looked at them without authorization or legitimate reason to do so. Apparently, they were just curious. Stuff like this could really make you paranoid.
meltenn on December 18, 2008 at 11:13 PM
After reading the stuff on per diems, I really wish she hadn’t charged these. I know that they’re perfectly legal, but they look bad.
ramrocks on December 18, 2008 at 11:18 PM
Wow … you just took
lowandslowGerald Ford straight to schooljoey24007 on December 18, 2008 at 11:20 PM
I’ve thought that all along. There’s nothing wrong with them, but she should have seen the criticism coming and just avoided it all together.
meltenn on December 18, 2008 at 11:21 PM
A nosy employee who got caught, but didn’t reveal what was found. Not the same as hacking in my mind or what happened to Joe the Plumber, but it was bad none-the-less. Looks like the snooper got caught by Verizon’s own internal monitoring. Good.
ramrocks on December 18, 2008 at 11:21 PM
Refuted? Nobody has ever refuted anything I’ve said, you’re the Republican version of of DU, caught in the delusion Palin is some second coming based on nothing. The only one close to making an argument is ramrocks and he or she is under the misguided notion the State of Alaska can hold a gun to the producers head and force them to commit to using a pipeline an assertion that’s so far off point it’s ridicules. The fact is when the producers fail to commit at open season, it’s over, there is no pipeline, just more years wasted. The only way any pipeline is going to happen is if the State of Alaska brings the producers into the pipeline planning now. They also need to quit obstructing the producers plans for development at Point Thompson because again without Point Thompson, no pipeline. They also in all likelihood repeal some of their windfall profit taxes to encourage the producers to invest on State land to ensure there is even a product to ship. All of these things the Palen Administration isn’t willing to do. As of right now it’s pure fantasy to believe it will happen, all to the tune of 500 million dollars.
lowandslow on December 18, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Of course they think that because it’s true. Why wouldn’t it be?
lowandslow on December 18, 2008 at 11:25 PM
I feel sure that if they had gotten into his BlackBerry they would have leaked it, but they didn’t get anything but the numbers that he called. I feel pretty sure that somebody has looked at Palin’s records and found that there’s nothing in them worth getting themselves fired or fined or prosecuted over. I may be wrong about that, but human beings being what they are I think somebody has peeked.
meltenn on December 18, 2008 at 11:26 PM
Check this post out there Gerald
kcarpenter on December 18, 2008 at 11:12 PM
joey24007 on December 18, 2008 at 11:30 PM
I don’t have any problem with the travel stuff though. Plane tickets cost money. She travels coach.
Maybe we’re missing something with the per diems. Perhaps she needs the money with her husband taking a leave from his job. The article did note that she doesn’t take per diems for her kids, which she is legally entitled to do.
But the whole thing doesn’t look good. Her comments about the repairs being done on the house could very well be true (though the guy who wrote the “impeach her” article scoffed at it), but it wasn’t the case for the entire 300 days. It seems as if the larger issue might be some longstanding Alaskan power struggle about having the state capital in Juneau even though industry and the population is based in Anchorage.
The pay raise might have been a remedy for this per diem thing. This is what the smart trolls will argue.
ramrocks on December 18, 2008 at 11:31 PM
Out: lowandslow as Gerald Ford
In: lowandslow as Baghdad Bob
joey24007 on December 18, 2008 at 11:31 PM
Are you serious? Really?
lowandslow on December 18, 2008 at 11:34 PM
how much did Palin request in earmarks as mayor of Wasilla?
joey24007 on December 18, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Most of the time in politics it’s how it looks that’s important. It doesn’t matter that she saved the state money, or followed the law; the bad headline is all that counts. That’s all most people ever read. Hopefully, she’ll learn from it and drop them even though she’s entitled to them. She needs to be Caesar’s wife basically. Take away as many talking points as possible.
meltenn on December 18, 2008 at 11:38 PM
The records or the people? Personally, I’d prefer both.
Snowed In on December 18, 2008 at 11:45 PM
If you are defending/explaing … you’re losing
joey24007 on December 18, 2008 at 11:48 PM
explaining even
joey24007 on December 18, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Still trying to associate me with something I never once mentioned? In your mind does that make you think you won something? I’m curious because that’s what I’m beginning to believe, it seems that’s what most people here do believe. Like Palin is some home football team, something you cheer about no matter how bad they may be. Does the welfare of the country, our economy, our future ever come into your mind at all?
lowandslow on December 18, 2008 at 11:52 PM
I think that’s more than a little unfair. Most of the Palin fans here aren’t blind. If you have something substantial to say in turning people away from Palin fandom, out with it in a verifiable form, i.e., links to documents etc. Otherwise, it sounds like just being contrary for its own sake, or looking for blemishes that may not in fact be there. I like Sarah Palin and would vote for her, but that doesn’t mean I think she’s perfect or that I would agree with her on each and every point. Also, unlike the DU and Daily Kos types, I wouldn’t stand by Sarah Palin if she were to engage in all sorts of prevarications and other shenanigans just for the sake of winning. In other words, we have more of a conscience.
ddrintn on December 18, 2008 at 11:53 PM
Yeah, I tend to agree, but this just really sucks. The woman is doing what many other governors do, by working much of the year out of the state’s largest city instead of the podunk “capital”. She has a family settled in Wasilla, and everyone knows how kids hate to be moved around.
Her family has already had to sacrifice financially – I read that her husband once had a management job with BP, and quit when she was in state government to avoid conflicts of interest. He had to go back to work (with a demotion to a blue-collar job to avoid the COI rap) to help support the family.
If she still had the private jet, she could fly her family everywhere and nobody could complain about it so long as she was on the plane.
*Sigh*. The whole system is leveraged against normal people and honest politicians.
Jim62sch on December 18, 2008 at 11:54 PM
No it’s not a little unfair, the large majority of the posters here don’t look at Palin’s actual record objectively or even look at it at all. Her popularity is just based on the same cult of personality as Obama’s was. Yet when someone as myself points out just how troubling it is, they’re mocked, ridiculed, belittled, insulted, etc. Tell me how that’s so different?
lowandslow on December 18, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Can we give Matt Blunt some respect?
joey24007 on December 18, 2008 at 11:59 PM
I’m sorry, but you’re full of it. I’ve dug into everything I can find about her record, and I can’t find anything to back up the smears except minor irregularities that would be ignored with any other person.
What evidence do you have for your position that the Gas Pipeline project would be better off without Palin’s involvement? 30-50 years of inaction, periodically interrupted by corrupt payoffs to crony politicians?
Jim62sch on December 19, 2008 at 12:03 AM
Also, we already know where he gets the “30 percent increase” in spending number:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-23-palinspending_N.htm
In the article you will find this little bit of “reporting:”
This has already been proven to be inaccurate, I was disappointed when even Chris Wallace reported that number… wrote FOX NEWS about it
joey24007 on December 19, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Hmmmm. Maybe Monaghan’s violence set the example for his own daughter’s abuse of her toddler stepson. She inflicted horrible, horrible damage on the little boy when she repeatedly plunged him naked into scalding water — the poor little boy almost died. Any one in Valdez remember that one?
TeleL on December 19, 2008 at 12:08 AM
If it’s just your say-so, you’ll be subject to ridicule or mockery whatever you might be trying to say. Give us some documentary evidence. I can give all sorts to combat an Obama cult of personality. Anyway, I don’t think “cult” is as much an operative thing in regard to Palin fans. We just feel she adheres most closely among national politicians to our ideals. If you’ve got something to refute that belief, out with it…and back it up.
ddrintn on December 19, 2008 at 12:11 AM
I never once said the pipeline would be better off without the States involvement, just the opposite, it needs the States involvement with the producers. This is what I’m talking about, you piss and moan on how unfair the Anchorage paper is toward Palin because of some imagined inference of theirs yet you got no problem twisting anything I say and outright fabricating thing I said. How do you square that in your mind?
lowandslow on December 19, 2008 at 12:12 AM
What the eff are you talking about? You go on and on about how the gas pipeline will never be built. Your only alternative is some oil-company plan (where the state spends all the money and the oil company gets all the profits).
Are you saying that the oil companies would rather ship zero natural gas, and collect no revenue, than accept a compromise with the state?
Jim62sch on December 19, 2008 at 12:17 AM
Then your ideals are bigger government, government meddling in the private sector, windfall profit taxes at the expense of future investment. These are not conservative ideals.
lowandslow on December 19, 2008 at 12:18 AM
PROVE IT. Give me some links to evidence to support what you say.
ddrintn on December 19, 2008 at 12:21 AM
I don’t think I’ve belittled or mocked you, or ever addressed you at all. I like Palin. I’ve looked at a lot of information and read a lot of articles about her (both positive and negative), and I’m under no illusions that she’s perfect. She’s a politician. She acts like one. She’s an ambitious person. She acts like one. She’s a human being. She acts like one.
I’ve read about the pipeline deal, and I haven’t come to any conclusions about it one way or the other. I think a lot is going to depend on the steps that all sides take in the next two years. It may be successful, it may not. I think that it is encouraging that at least a small amount of progress has been made on it. If that turns out to be for naught, that’s a shame, but that will make Palin no different from every other governor for the last 30 years. The common response there would be that she touted it on the campaign trail. Well, of course she did; she’s a politician. See above.
I think some people have hair triggers on criticism of Palin because there’s been so much criticism, much of it unfair, and so many smears. For some people, that may make it difficult to take the time to consider legitimate criticisms. That doesn’t necessarily excuse it, but people do seem to be passionate about Palin one way or the other.
meltenn on December 19, 2008 at 12:22 AM
Who should be the leader in Alaska then? Is there a more effective state administrator available? And what windfall profit tax are you talking about? Fees on oil extraction in Alaska actually go down the more oil is extracted. Pretty elegant compromise with the requirements of the Alaska state constitution. Or should Palin be disregarding that constitution?
Jim62sch on December 19, 2008 at 12:23 AM
How are they’re moving their gas now? Do you think this pipeline is the only way possible? If it’s not economically feasible to use a pipeline they’re not going pay for it or to commit to using it for 25 years, the end. And where do you get that the state is going to pay for Denali? That’s a new one. And I’ll say this also, after Denali get’s done with all their prep for open season it’s highly doubtful that will move forward but at least they’re being realistic of the cost and amount of product they’ll have available to ship.
lowandslow on December 19, 2008 at 12:25 AM
As the only person so far who has tried to argue with you about AGIA, I can once again state that you are totally wrong. I’ve been slowly slogging through the AGIA paperwork. It’s tedious reading, but enlightening especially if anyone is under the delusion that Palin is a mental light weight. AGIA is a great piece of legislation. It’s the free market at it’s finest IMHO. It was designed to ensure competition and expansion and to prevent one producer from stymying develop of new oil fields by their competitors because they want to monopolize the market. It offers clear incentives for producers and is pro-business and pro-development.
And they do have a plan to insure a successful open season. They have legal recourse. They are the owners. The producers are lease holders. The state can revoke their leases and give them to smaller independent producers. Don’t think it’s possible? We no longer have a Texan in the White House. We have a socialist who hates Big Oil, but loves natural gas. But it won’t come to that because the state is determined to make it economically beneficial to the producers to use the pipeline. They are “sitting down and negotiating.”
And if TransCanada can’t get it together, then the state will not suffer. According to the AGIA Special Sessions Executive Summary:
So the state gets to revoke the license if the licensee doesn’t deliver, and the licensee gets to triple its investment if the state provided financial encouragement to a competing pipeline. So the state is staying out of the Denali deal while TransCanada is on target. If TC bombs out, the state can negotiate with Denali if it agrees to the AGIA stipulations about expansion and availability to all producers.
Fact is that Denali needs the help of the state as much as the state needs the producers to bid on the TC open season. They will all end up working together because they all need each other. And the outcome will be beneficial to all Alaskans and all Americans.
ramrocks on December 19, 2008 at 12:27 AM
You can color me impressed. You’ve been reading the actual legislation/paperwork? I’ve just read the different articles and opinion pieces. I’m a slacker.
meltenn on December 19, 2008 at 12:34 AM
Wow, great analysis.
lowandslow will now, as a rebuttal, say that Palin wears clothes.
Jim62sch on December 19, 2008 at 12:35 AM
But all your studying of AGIA is pointless if you don’t listen to what the producers say, the plan isn’t economically viable to them and in the end that’s all that matters right now. There is no way TransCanada will get the finacing to go ahead without the producers on board so when open season comes, it’s over. My point is when our energy dependence on foreign nations is so strong we have to quit playing political games and use all the resources available. AGIA will just slow things down for even more years and it’s because of populist politics.
lowandslow on December 19, 2008 at 12:38 AM
I, for one, have never heard that. That’s quite a charge to make. Do you have a link for that?
meltenn on December 19, 2008 at 12:38 AM
Of course they’re going to say that, it’s called a negotiating position.
Jim62sch on December 19, 2008 at 12:45 AM
I’m a speed reader — came in handy in grad school.
The legislation is tedious, but impressive. They covered their bases very effectively. She assembled an amazing team, and designed a plan that would be a win for everyone. I think the Denali thing is a game of chicken. I think the producers are trying to get a better deal from her, and so are fomenting these fears of a no bid open season. When you get down to it, they have no legal recourse not to ship gas. The difference between Palin and the other administrations is that she has the balls to hold them accountable because she’s not in their pay. But it won’t come to that because they aren’t stupid. The market is ripe for natural gas development. She is willing to make it profitable for them. They’ll do it. The reason why it was stalled in the past is because they were demanding outrageous concessions from the state. One of the legislative power point presentations explained why producer owned pipelines are not good for free market future development. Great example of why AGIA was a good idea.
Oh, and that “impeach her” article is total bs. One of the huge benefits of AGIA, and one of Palin’s primary goals in it, was more affordable energy for Alaskans and jobs that will never go away. She solves both with AGIA. I think that’s a “plan for governance” or whatever phrase that idiot used when he griped about her.
ramrocks on December 19, 2008 at 12:46 AM
Ramrocks, you need a blog! Or at least contribute to one! you have great analysis and actual rock-solid evidence to support what you say. Kudos!
hockey2k5 on December 19, 2008 at 12:47 AM
No I’ll say that ramrocks rebuttal is based on the notion the producers and the state will in the end forget about the economic realities, share a group hug and build a pipeline. The producers are in the business to make as much money as possible, they’re not just going to forget the AGIA mandates that make’s it economically nonviable.
lowandslow on December 19, 2008 at 12:50 AM
High stakes poker.
To bring this back around to the pay increase…there was a public meeting about it tonight in Anchorage. Not surprisingly, it was poorly attended. Those kinds of things always are, then people complain about what happens at the bar or over coffee.
meltenn on December 19, 2008 at 12:51 AM
That’s great analysis? That’s one sided analysis, Ramrocks is not telling you what the producers are saying.
lowandslow on December 19, 2008 at 12:57 AM
So it’s economically viable for them to sink billions on their own pipeline even though they don’t have FERC applications and no promises for their own open season, but it’s not economically viable for them to ship gas in a pipeline that has already been constructed without any financial expenditure on their part? What the hell are you smoking? Palin’s administration is on the record as stating that they will do everything to make shipping gas financially beneficial to the producers. The only way that she could revoke their leases is if the state can prove that they are sitting on these resources when it is economically viable for them to ship them via the TC pipeline. Do you see that it is necessary for the state to make it beneficial to the producers? She is not anti-business or anti-development.
The Big Three want to get as much from the state as they can. That’s what they do. It’s totally cool. But the people of Alaska need a tough negotiator who will not sell their birthright. That’s what Palin is doing. In the end, these oil companies are not gods. They run the largest financial empire in world history. Do you realize that? Let me say it again: they are the most powerful financial empire in world history. They will not “go broke” by anything Palin does. They are just playing hard ball, and they’ve never encountered a politician who was willing to stand up to them.
And spare me the populist slam. Defending corporatism — which is what you are doing when you claim that the state needs to cozy up to big business — is not free market capitalism. Free market capitalism is all about competition, which is what AGIA calls for. A non-producer owned pipeline prevents any one single producer from blocking future resource development by refusing to expand to new fields controlled by their competitors. Here’s an interesting look at why producer owned pipelines are not a good idea.
ramrocks on December 19, 2008 at 12:59 AM
Me too!
I suspect we’re not the only ones on HA who would….
CCRWM on December 19, 2008 at 1:02 AM
Tell us what the producer’s are saying. Link to it.
BTW, the leading newspaper on the Alaskan oil industry, The Petroleum News, think that Palin’s the sh^t (replace the ^ with an i).
They even wrote a book about, “Sarah Takes On Big Oil.” They seem to think she’s doing a good job. I’m not as expert as they are, but I’m trying!
ramrocks on December 19, 2008 at 1:07 AM
Actually, you know why I go right to the primary source? Because I don’t trust journalists any more. I think most of them are lying sacks of you-know-what.
Primary source has been my mantra since my undergrad days when I took a women’s studies class an was told that until Gloria Steinem came on the scene women were universally oppressed and subjugated. I started reading the writings of Catherine of Siena and other medieval women and wondered how they slipped through the oppressive cracks. I’ve been skeptical of leftist dogma ever since.
ramrocks on December 19, 2008 at 1:14 AM
Actually, Palin came up with some questions that Alaskans should ask of the producers about their pipeline plan. Smart lady. I would love to see her negotiating with Putin! LOL!
ramrocks on December 19, 2008 at 1:18 AM
Good call on the primary sources.
I’m on Eastern time so it’s past time for me to call it a night. As always, it’s been fun guys.
Maybe we’ll be talking about the new little Palin-Johnston tomorrow, and enjoying the Trig Truthers reactions.
meltenn on December 19, 2008 at 1:21 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »