Inevitable: Media needles Palin for requesting earmarks
posted at 9:00 pm on March 13, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
What better way to wind down a long week than with an angry 800-comment thread? MSNBC’s antagonism is predictable, but hearts will break at the thought of one of the few reporters the righty blogosphere respects piling on. Et tu, Tapper? Palin’s spokesman, Bill McAllister, tries to set the record straight:
“Let’s start with the overwhelming mischaracterization of Gov. Palin’s stance on earmarks that has been repeated and repeated since Aug. 29,” McAllister wrote. “The governor never said that earmarks should be abolished or that the State of Alaska wouldn’t seek or accept any. Didn’t happen. What she said well before she was a national candidate (going back at least to October of 2007) was that earmark reform was necessary and the state would need to rely less on federal money than it had been.”
McAllister then pointed out that Palin made 51 earmark requests for the FY 2008 budget, totaling $256 million; and 31 requests totaling $197 million, for the FY 2009 budget.
McAllister said that for next year’s budget, Gov. Palin will only make eight requests, totaling $69 million, which will include “six ongoing federal appropriations and just two new projects: an upgrade at the Kodiak Missile Defense Facility, which is relevant to national security, and a bridge replacement critical to construction of the pending Alaska natural gas pipeline, also in the national interest.”
Follow the link for Tapper’s pungently snarky response. Exit question: Who’s going to be our favorite White House correspondent now? That guy who called the Democrats ugly looks promising.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Conan on March 14, 2009 at 1:01 AM
And after Obama signed a bill that had earmarks when he promised that would not.
Change the focus through causing a distraction.
technopeasant on March 14, 2009 at 1:05 AM
The size of government (bureaucracy) does not increase through infrastructure spending. Americans expect their tax money to go to infrastructure upgrades.
Obama called you unpatriotic, not me.
The money has already been designated for the pipeline itself. The pipeline is such a sure commitment, that there is concern the federal government may try to turn it into a public works program. That was why I was sarcastically alluding to Obama’s noted stance on infrastructure spending — actually very little of the actual stimulus bill.
You can pull up several recent articles on this, but here is one from KTUU:
They also say there’s a disturbing trend coming down the pipeline: more federal oversight of energy projects, even talk of turning the pipeline into a federal public works project, which Republicans feel might mire the project in bureaucracy. (My own note: gerrymandering.)
chunderroad on March 14, 2009 at 1:10 AM
Good grief, where do they have this 40 billion dollars laying around? There is no money for it, TransCanada doesn’t have that kind of money neither does the state of Alaska and regardless of what Palin may think, the producers don’t have it neither. You say it’s a sure commitment when even TransCanada admits it isn’t going forward without the producers on board and they are definitely not on board.
lowandslow on March 14, 2009 at 1:16 AM
Here’s another from the state government itself:
March 10, 2009 – Alaska Department of Natural Resources
State officials overseeing the Alaska natural gas pipeline today encouraged lawmakers to consider the need for all energy sources to be tapped in the push for the United States to achieve energy security.
“I see that a few legislators returned from the Energy Council meeting in Washington, D.C., with questions about the viability of our gas line project, based on reports they heard about the availability of shale gas as an energy source,” said Tom Irwin, Commissioner of Natural Resources. “But while shale gas is important for America’s energy future, it in no way replaces the urgent need for Alaskan gas for the Lower 48 market.”
Dr. Mark Myers, the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Coordinator, noted that much of the proposed production of shale gas will face environmental opposition over water use and disposal and conflicts over surface uses.
“Shale gas resource numbers being quoted in the media are typically “in-place estimates” of the volume, not the much smaller amount that is actually recoverable in economic terms,” Dr. Myers said. “Shale gas requires high-cost wells whose rate of production declines quickly.”
He also noted that current estimates of the national demand for energy do not reflect the need for cleaner-burning gas to reduce greenhouse CO2 emissions in the coming decades.
Alaska has 35 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of identified gas reserves, with average estimates of another 227 tcf of technically recoverable undiscovered gas.
“Getting that gas to market around 2018 is crucial in moving America toward greater energy independence”, said Governor Sarah Palin.
“So Americans will need both Alaska North Slope gas and shale gas,” the Governor said.
chunderroad on March 14, 2009 at 1:16 AM
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Meanwhile, CTV reports on the Arctic Gas Symposium in Calgary this week, at which the three big dueling pipeline projects are making their separate cases heard:
Alaska gas pipelines are being wooed by Calgary-based TransCanada and Denali. Both companies are positioning themselves to build a 28 hundred kilometre line from Alaska to Calgary.
With the backing of Alaska’s state legislature, TransCanada has put forward a proposal of 26 billion USD.
“We’re prepared to take a haircut on our initial return if we over cost,” said Tony Palmer of TransCanada.
Denali is partnering up with BP and Conoco-Phillips and already controls much of the state’s natural gas reserves.
“Financing a project of this magnitude, plus or minus $30 billion is going to be an enormous undertaking, it’s going to take strong financial backing to do that,” said Bud Fackrell, Denali’s president.
For 30 years, energy companies have been exploring the idea of a pipeline to get Alaska’s gas to the market.
Even though the Alaska project is still a decade away, Yukon Premier Dennis Fentie remains optimistic.
“I can tell you we’ve made great progress over the last half dozen years and there’s no reason to believe that won’t continue.”
chunderroad on March 14, 2009 at 1:22 AM
Reuters reports:
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin on Tuesday unveiled a plan to encourage development of a $4 billion in-state natural gas pipeline that would precede the massive project that state officials hope will deliver North Slope natural gas to North American markets.
“We’ve got to do this project. We’ve got to see it come to fruition, or our state will be a state that imports natural gas despite the fact that Alaska is sitting on some of the world’s richest reserves of gas,” Palin said at a news conference in Juneau.
An in-state natural gas pipeline, or “bullet line,” has been discussed for decades. There is no specific proposal pending before regulators.
Palin said her efforts, including her appointment of a state project manager, will encourage the development of an in-state pipeline that would precede construction of a 1,700-mile pipeline to Alberta that would send natural gas to the much bigger North American markets.
The in-state line the governor envisions would run 800 miles from the North Slope to the population centers along southern Alaska’s Cook Inlet, said Harry Noah, Palin’s appointee as the project manager.
It would be 24 inches in diameter and ship 500 million cubic feet a day starting in 2015, Noah said.
Radio Kenai notes:
[Harry] Noah said much of the preliminary work for an in-state line has now been completed with the help of the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority and Enstar. Noah said both identified pipeline routing, looked at permitting, and have an engineering estimate for a project. Noah said, now, a potentially feasible project has been created. The second phase involves five tasks that need to be completed. He said these tasks include obtaining a gas supply, getting commitments for buying the gas from major players, defining the tariff for the pipeline, obtaining permits, and turning this project over to a pipe builder. Noah said the intent is to have this pipeline privately owned.
chunderroad on March 14, 2009 at 1:24 AM
chunderroad, you just don’t seem to want to face reality of this pipeline. It’s just political posturing by Palin and supporters of AGIA in the state legislature. TransCanada doesn’t have 26 billion for this pipeline nor can they get it. Did you read this?
And that’s BP and CononcePhillips. Are you unaware of the financial problems worldwide? Even at the price gas was last year the producers told Palin the cost/benefit of the pipeline didn’t work out. The profit margin of shipping gas down the pipe wasn’t viable. Nobody is going to invest 40 billion dollars into it right now. No one. It’s not going to be built under her AGIA, you might as well get used to it.
lowandslow on March 14, 2009 at 1:42 AM
Well I don’t think it is a huge coincidence that we get Palin and Anna Nicole Smith all in one day do you? Obama completely f’d up in his first 50 days and even the supporters Republicans, Democrats and economists in droves are calling seeing the emperor without his clothes. When the Rush distraction died down new ones were put in its place.
Whether it is Sarah or Jindal, Romney or someone else to run in 2012 makes no difference right now. Obviously Obama can not stand up to Pelosi and Reid. He refused advice from Axelrod to veto the Budget disaster he signed in secret this week. The Chinese are worried about his reckless spending. He is running on track to put Jimmy Carter up a notch on the list of successful presidencies. Distractions may work to bide him time now, but he is running out of time and capital quickly.
msmveritas on March 14, 2009 at 1:45 AM
lowandslow on March 14, 2009 at 1:42 AM
have you ever heard of the business phrase ‘joint venture’?Unlike you folks over on the Left who couldn’t make a profit on a lemonade stand in the middle of summer, we capitalists on the right know how to business, how to raise capital, how to mobilize our work force and obtain the necessary equipment and supplies, how to build and finally how to make a profit. It’s in our DNA. We are Americans.
technopeasant on March 14, 2009 at 1:50 AM
Energy Independent……….
……….. I kind of heard that some where over the past two years or so.
Seven Percent Solution on March 14, 2009 at 1:55 AM
technopeasant on March 14, 2009 at 1:50 AM
It has nothing to do with will, it has to do with reality. Nobody is going to invest in something that doesn’t make economic sense. Why would they?
lowandslow on March 14, 2009 at 1:59 AM
lowandslow is a perfect example of the negative doomsayers that populate the left. Surely if American ingenuity could get us to the moon, Alaskans can manage a pipeline. Obama is failing big time and they all know it. They can distract with Palin BS, pipeline arguments and heck even Anna Nicole Smith for a while but tempus fugit.
msmveritas on March 14, 2009 at 1:59 AM
This won’t be an 800 comment thread b/c I think most recognize the blatant dishonesty at work here and, let’s face it, MSNBC has run out of credibility. I’m sure all of this is on C4Palin.com and has been discussed by Joey, but a few redundant points.
(1) Alaska is one of the smallest (if not the smallest) state in terms of population. It is also probably the most heavily controlled and regulated by the federal government. Can an Alaskan open a Burger King without asking for permission from Washington first? So when those buttwipes say Alaska will receive more earmark dollars per capita, there are just a few TINY reasons why. Good grief.
(2) Palin is a Governor, and Governor of a heavily regulated state. Her job, first and foremost, is to keep things running. If she didn’t ask for any earmarks, Alaska would look like a snow-covered version of Ethiopia.
(3) Palin never said she was against any and all earmarks. She wants to put an end to the abusive ones. As such, each year she requests less to wean the state off earmark abuse as much as possible. Her record on that is crystal clear.
(4) Comparison to John McCain is ludicrous. He is a senator and does not run Arizona. Thus, he does not have much to lose by refusing to ask for earmarks. Yet he picked Palin as his running mate b/c she recognizes earmark abuse can’t continue.
(5) The MSM is becoming boring. I’m sure next week they’ll recycle the “book banning” and “religious nut” themes.
(6) Palin ain’t the President. And the one we have…oh nevermind, everyone’s gone to bed anyway.
Erich66 on March 14, 2009 at 2:04 AM
I’ll save the honor for Larry Craig, cowboy.
capitulus on March 13, 2009 at 10:38 PM
Yoo Hoo don’t forget Barney Studly.
heshtesh on March 14, 2009 at 2:15 AM
msmveritas on March 14, 2009 at 1:59 AM
No the left is infected with the same feel good policy ideology nonsense as some Palin supporters. It’s like talking to a wall. It doesn’t matter how much you wish for a pipeline and throw good money after bad trying to make it so, doesn’t change the fact no one is going to pay to have it built.
lowandslow on March 14, 2009 at 2:16 AM
By the way yesterday Obama was talking again yesterday about setting up a civilian national security force (can we say Brownshirts
Do they come with embroiderd targets?
heshtesh on March 14, 2009 at 2:24 AM
lowandslow, I’m curious, have you ever explained why anyone should take what your have to say about this pipeline project seriously?
You make numerous assertions of fact and of certain knowledge regarding the future of the energy market and the financial wherewithal of major corporations in the US and Canada, while impugning the honesty and forthrightness of a series of officials and industry spokespeople, Gov Palin and her office not least.
If your interest was to inform and persuade, rather than merely to attack Palin and dismay her supporters, I’d think you could bring forth evidence from neutral third parties that supported your case. Instead, you seem to expect us simply to take your word, and to ignore signs of fixated hostility and ulterior motive in your numerous posts on virtually every Palin thread.
I don’t claim to know the truth of this matter, and, frankly, I can’t imagine why anyone would care about my opinion on it or any assertion I might make about it, but, I repeat, why exactly should I believe anything you post on the subject?
CK MacLeod on March 14, 2009 at 2:28 AM
I have this theory that all the Palin worshippers on the internet are all just part of a very elaborate reality tv show where everyone is trying to irritate me by being incredibly stupid all the time. This theory gains even more credence whenever I observe people’s behavior in traffic and in social situations.
Proud Rino on March 13, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Ya you strike me as the type that would be into reality shows,enjoy that intellectual thinking.
heshtesh on March 14, 2009 at 2:31 AM
What? Where do you get she halved spending as the Governor? Where do you get that she requested only two earmarks? How is the natural gas pipeline a national interest?
Let’s try not to just make up sh*t here.
lowandslow on March 13, 2009 at 11:19 PM
We don’t need to what do you think your purpose is here?
heshtesh on March 14, 2009 at 2:40 AM
Palin has some choice words of her own.
Poptech on March 14, 2009 at 3:19 AM
Poptech on March 14, 2009 at 3:19 AM
Yawn good nite.
heshtesh on March 14, 2009 at 3:26 AM
lowandslow:
A pipeline is in the national interest because it GETS US FREAKING NATURAL GAS TO POWER OUR HOMES WITH. Are you an imbecile, or did you mom drop you on your head 75 times between the age of 2 days and 4 years? This makes sense to people like me. Why? Because we actually, you know, USE natural gas. And having this pipeline is in the best interest of Alaska and the US of A.
As for Poptech, all I can say is that he is the reason why I demand Ron Paul’s head on a gold-plated platter. Severed, of course.
Sakaki on March 14, 2009 at 3:32 AM
As for Poptech, all I can say is that he is the reason why I demand Ron Paul’s head on a gold-plated platter. Severed, of course.
Sakaki on March 14, 2009 at 3:32 AM
Thanks now i’ll sleep better.
heshtesh on March 14, 2009 at 3:46 AM
Tapper’s wife used to work as a Field Coordinator for Planned Barrenhood.
Tapper is evil through and through to marry or even consider dating a girl like that.
TheMightyQuinn on March 14, 2009 at 4:49 AM
What is that annoying sound I hear when reporters try one-upmanship on politicians and can’t be bothered to read the record?
Ahhh… it involves the Governor of Alaska.
These are Palin-drones.
The media has an SOS out: Stuck on Stupid.
ajacksonian on March 14, 2009 at 5:27 AM
And the mask falls away.
Jim Treacher on March 14, 2009 at 5:53 AM
McGreevey.
That’s it, scuttle away, insect.
Jim Treacher on March 14, 2009 at 5:58 AM
Do you know anything about this? Is there a shortage of gas in the U.S. I’m not aware of? Good grief we already have over 50 years worth of proven reserves in the lower 48. There is no vital national need for Alaska’s gas.
Well look into it. When did this providing link garbage start? There is no big mystery here, we have plenty of cheap gas right now with an efficient pipeline distribution system in place in the lower 48, we don’t need Alaskan gas now. Now Alaska on the other hand has a couple of problems, there oil reserves are running out and the cost of extraction coupled with their high taxation along with the price of oil will severely limit their revenue stream in the near future. They need to replace that revenue with something and they’re looking at gas. Good for them but they got another problem, the market and cost to transport it doesn’t make economic sense for anyone but them. This has nothing to do with our national interests, it’s Alaska’s problem.
lowandslow on March 14, 2009 at 8:44 AM
No for gods sake don’t spend any money on energy delivery systems. We need that for Chrysler.
MarkT on March 14, 2009 at 9:19 AM
TransCanada has committed $26 billion with the backing of the Canadian legislature. The quote you pulled up said ConocoPhillips realizes they need strong financial backing. That language (present tense) says they are moving forward on the project.
President Obama has said it is about number 7 on his top 10 list of priorities, according to an article I’ve read, another that was citing concerns this would become a public works project that would be endlessly mired in bureaucracy and case difficulties. Everyone is on board.
Sarah Palin has financial commitments from the Canadian government and the private companies are getting their money together. They have said they are pushing through regardless of how economically tough times are, because they are looking forward to completing it by 2018.
chunderroad on March 14, 2009 at 9:21 AM
Is an “800″ comment thread really worth anything when it is just LowandDumb and Poptech spamming the thread?
I mean, it is getting old with these two.
joey24007 on March 14, 2009 at 9:21 AM
Oh, way, way back as a way to show that one’s assertions aren’t just pulled out of one’s anus. The same used to be called “footnotes” and “references” and the like.
ddrintn on March 14, 2009 at 9:22 AM
LowandSlow and Poptech run in here with the same old bs on every single Palin thread. It is the reason why we hit so many comments.
Its not even an honest discussion about anything. LowandSlow has been smacked down on his nonsense over and over again. Poptech is just a troll, I don’t know why he is still allowed to post.
We asked LowandSlow for his ideal fiscal conservative and he said “Matt Blunt”
We then did the research on Blunt’s record (we do this thing called research, its becoming a lost art) and discovered that Blunt is no fiscal conservative.
When we called LowandSlow out on it, he replied “I didn’t look into his record.”
800 comment threads are great … when they contain really debate.
Not trolls and the same false arguments over and over again.
joey24007 on March 14, 2009 at 9:28 AM
Shortage ain’t the point, hoss. The folks who do the kind of longterm energy thinking that’s essential in a modern nation know that the dominant problem of the 21st century is going to be energy. The more of it, the better.
If the 20th century was the petroleum age, then the 21st is shaping up to be the electric age. And demand is only going to increase as the developing countries in Africa and southeast Asia make progress in improving their infrastructure. There’s a whole continent of people who don’t currently use much electricity — over the next 100 years they will. Think about what happened to energy prices when China ramped up it’s economy these last 10 years.
There are geopolitical and national security reasons for tapping into the natural gas we have early and often also, but I don’t want this to get too long.
It’s called proving your assertions. You don’t need to do so if you’re arguing from logic or by analogy. But if you’re going to make empirically-checkable statements of fact, you should be ready to back up your assertions with links to data.
If that’s too difficult, I recommend a different hobby. Macramé, perhaps.
Harpazo on March 14, 2009 at 9:32 AM
MSNBC…wow…I can’t even remember the last time I watched anything there.
bluelightbrigade on March 14, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Another palate cleanser for Allah. There must have been too much garlic in his hummus. I am awaiting the inevitable Darwin/evolution headline and or Vatican pro-nazi headline. Is this groundhog day?
Fuquay Steve on March 14, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Palin sees energy deficits in the same way that Reagan viewed the Soviet Union and how the world was propping them up.
Energy is the key to security.
Palin gets that
joey24007 on March 14, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Here’s a link for you from the International Herald Tribune. It repeats what one of the Alaskan articles I posted, except it takes a national view.
Gas production in the US is up about 9% this year, a rate of increase not seen since a one-year jump in 1984 and matching rises more typical of the 1950s when gas drilling was booming. Most of that gain is coming from shale, particularly the Barnett Shale around Fort Worth, Texas, which has been under development for several years. The increase in gas production stands in sharp contrast to the trend in domestic oil production, which has been declining in fits and starts since 1970.
Barnett proved that shale gas could be practicably extracted, but companies have lately set their sights on shale formations that could produce far more gas. Testing to determine the productivity of fields has been completed on just a tiny fraction of the potential acreage. According to a new report by Navigant Consulting, paid for by a foundation allied with the gas industry, there could be as much as 842 trillion cubic feet, or 24 trillion cubic meters, of retrievable gas in shales around the United States, enough to supply about 40 years of use at today’s consumption rate. But thousands of wells need to be drilled before the exact reserves will be known.
Contrast that with…
Dr. Mark Myers, the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Coordinator, noted that much of the proposed production of shale gas will face environmental opposition over water use and disposal and conflicts over surface uses.
“Shale gas resource numbers being quoted in the media are typically “in-place estimates” of the volume, not the much smaller amount that is actually recoverable in economic terms,” Dr. Myers said. “Shale gas requires high-cost wells whose rate of production declines quickly.”
He also noted that current estimates of the national demand for energy do not reflect the need for cleaner-burning gas to reduce greenhouse CO2 emissions in the coming decades.
Alaska has 35 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of identified gas reserves, with average estimates of another 227 tcf of technically recoverable undiscovered gas.
Natural gas prices in the US have spiked 9% although the price is low right now given the current economy.
Your comment about Alaskan oil fields “running out” is wrong. The North Slope is drying up but nowhere near exhausted. There is tons of oil in the Beaufort Sea area, but that’s tied up in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Most energy companies have to factor in environmental groups, as was pointed earlier.
Alaska has more natural gas than the entire US, and the US supply would only last the next 40 years. Plus, that supply is shale deposits, which Alaska has factored into the equation and points out: it’s expensive because of extraction, and the method will make it difficult in areas like Colorado where drinking water is in demand and environmental groups will challenge it.
Your final argument, that no one will want to assume the cost of the pipeline has been shot down by quotes provided that the Canadian government, the US government and two private companies are currently undertaking the cost. The US has already put down $550 million on the pipeline. Canada committed several billion already. ConocoPhillips is moving ahead and securing capital.
You’ve taken an entirely solipsistic, contrary point of view which you refuse to back up with sources or statistics. It sounds like you’re the one in denial.
chunderroad on March 14, 2009 at 9:53 AM
The thread been hijacked anyway.
Amadeus on March 14, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Not really. One of Palin’s two earmark requests was to repair a bridge crucial to the pipeline deal, which is moving along smoothly and in the national interest.
chunderroad on March 14, 2009 at 10:26 AM
This woman was scrutinized, investigated, hacked, misrepresented by the MSM and they still won’t stop.
What does Sarah has that the DemocRATS don’t?
…*crickets*…
Way to go Sarah, I know all is well in Alaska and the Lower 48 are truly constipated. —–> the media is too. ;D
ProudPalinFan on March 14, 2009 at 10:47 AM
According to Palin earmarks for Alaska are not abusive and any for the other 49 states are. I get the logic, but it’s still wrong.
hanzblinx on March 14, 2009 at 11:44 AM
I have no problem with Tapper’s remarks aside from the “palling around with terrorists” reference(BTW, Obama DID pal around with two terrorists). He wrote a column and Palin’s spokesman responded. With facts I might add. Not with snide comments like Robert Gibbs.
That’s how journalism should be. Good job, Tapper and Palin. MSNBC however can go kiss off.
Doughboy on March 14, 2009 at 12:25 PM
heh.
Without even researching, I imagine it a good idea, having another strategically located airport for transporting, landing and refueling in such a zone as the Alaskan arctic where small aircraft are greatly needed and utilized.
That Alaskans are able to perform so effectively given their few numbers is hardly reason to discriminate against them because they don’t hire excessive employees to conduct business and provide energy and national defense.
maverick muse on March 14, 2009 at 12:42 PM
“Well look into it” doesn’t qualify as justification for a series of attacks on a range of public officials and corporate decisionmakers. “Looking into it” is what we’re doing now, and you’re not helping.
If you can’t provide a link or directions to publically available sources or maybe a few names of experts whose opinions and qualifications we could check out for ourselves, and presuming you’re unwilling to identify yourself and provide your own qualifications and credentials, then you’re just some unpleasant non-entity vouching for his own statements and arguments.
That’s neither persuasive nor useful. Suppose we decided what you’re saying made a lot of sense, and decided to spread the good word. When our colleagues and friends, no doubt nodding their heads agreeably, asked us where we got our information and arguments, all we could say is that we got it from some guy with a vaguely sexually suggestive all-lower-case screen name, who we run into at right wing web sites, and who obviously hates Sarah Palin’s guts.
“So wait,” our brother-in-law says, “you got this all from a HotAir troll?”
“Uh, yeah.”
“…Huh. So what do you think Pittsburgh’s chances are of a repeat?”
CK MacLeod on March 14, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Natural gas
pricessales in the US have spiked 9% although the price is low right now given the current economy.Sorry, my writing was a little sloppy, since it was late at night and early this morning.
chunderroad on March 14, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Did anyone really think you could trust a reporter, especially one from ABC or any of the big networks? Come on, he may have intended to be fair and unbiased, but after a few short weeks, I think his re-education as to how to play the game has been completed. Very few out there in any media can be trusted to be fair, especially to conservatives. We are all alone kids, well except for each other. good enough for me!..By the way, who is this a##wipe talking head, I think he is gay..(the guy on msnbc) Anyone?
anyone? bueller? *sigh*
clinker46 on March 14, 2009 at 3:07 PM
When companies have to put out a lot of money then that cost is passed on to the consumer.
Pretty easy concept to grasp.
One could argue that energy is a special case as it’s something we can’t realistically do without…it’s not hamburgers we’re talking about here. Still, because it’s all through our taxes, pay now or pay later.
Why should the people of Alaska foot the bill for energy that would benefit private companies, the U.S. as a whole or foreign buyers?
Federal projects and those dealing with national security and infrastructure should be funded by Washington (the rest of us that is). But, what upsets us is if the money is being spent frivolously or just to benefit special interests and not the People at large.
Dr. ZhivBlago on March 14, 2009 at 3:55 PM
You need serious help.
Erich66 on March 14, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Take from a person who understands politics. It will not be Sarah’s acceptance or non-acceptance of earmarks that will undermine any campaign she launches for the Presidency.
technopeasant on March 14, 2009 at 6:55 PM
200+ comments isn’t impressive when one considers that over 30 of them are either ddrintn or joey! :)
benny shakar on March 14, 2009 at 10:23 PM
lowandslow on March 14, 2009 at 8:44 AM
There is nothing cheap about natural gas prices. You are confusing gasoline (vehicle fuel) with natural gas. I live in Michigan and my heating costs for the past two months averaged $450/month. But, then it seems like you’re always confused.
bw222 on March 14, 2009 at 10:29 PM
I haven’t commented on Palin much in this thread. A lot of my comments are asking for rational arguments from O-bots. Want to be the first to offer one? I doubt it.
ddrintn on March 14, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Take from a person who understands politics. It will not be Sarah’s acceptance or non-acceptance of earmarks that will undermine any campaign she launches for the Presidency.
technopeasant on March 14, 2009 at 6:55 PM
It certainly didn’t help John McCain who claimed to have never requested one (although he certainly voted for legislation containing lots of earmarks – talk about hypocrisy)! Barack Obama acknowledged he requested earmarks and still won.
I think the average voter doesn’t know what an earmark is. Not all earmarks are pork – some earmarks are needed to maintain major infrastructure like highways/bridges/pipelines or to fund federally mandated programs like No Child Left Behind and SCHIP.
Sarah is serving the needs of the constituents of her state who pay their share of federal taxes. Also, Alaska’s Senators, Congresspersons and numerous other parties (universities, state agencies, etc.) are the ones asking for most of the earmarks. It’s not fair or logical to blame Sarah for all of Alaska’s earmark requests. Sarah has actually worked to reduce the number of earmarks each year (she has achieved that goal).
I bet the majority of taxpayers appreciate it when federal money is returned to their state (remember, the feds got that money from us taxpayers in the first place!). If the feds would agree to abolish federal income taxes then the states and their constituents would probably not need as many earmarks.
sarahpalinfan99 on March 15, 2009 at 12:03 AM
sarahpalinfan99 on March 15, 2009 at 12:03 AM
This is a very rational argument which I totally agree with but let’s face it more people are concerned that Sarah apparently only believes in abstinence as a form of birth control and that she is a religious wacko.
I’m sorry to say that but it’s true.
technopeasant on March 15, 2009 at 12:28 AM
That’s how we got Obama. If we don’t want more of the same, we have to work on educating the electorate and reforming the system.
Sarah Palin is very good at expressing her views and explaining her ideology. She has overcome religious stigma and misconceptions about pro-life Americans. I say giver her a chance in the next primary.
chunderroad on March 15, 2009 at 9:23 AM
So if Palin and Alaska say no to earmarks they don’t have to pay for any of them right? rights?
…. silence….
CrazyFool on March 15, 2009 at 10:02 AM
So if Palin and Alaska say no to earmarks they don’t have to pay for any of them right? rights?
…. silence….
CrazyFool on March 15, 2009 at 10:02 AM
No because under existing law, the citizens of Alaska have to pay federal income taxes regardless of the amount of earmarks requested by that state’s officials.
Please note from my post above that “Not all earmarks are pork – some earmarks are needed to maintain major infrastructure like highways/bridges/pipelines or to fund federally mandated programs like No Child Left Behind and SCHIP.” The way the system exists now earmarks are necessary for states to meet the needs of their citizens and to comply with federally mandated programs (No Child Left Behind is a federal program that all states have to follow but it costs money to do so. The states are not able to fulfill NCLB requirements without the required federal funding.)
sarahpalinfan99 on March 15, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3