Palin: End all federal energy subsidies

posted at 1:33 pm on May 31, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Whether she’s running or not, Sarah Palin will have a big impact on the presidential race — and she demonstrated why today at a stop on her bus tour in Pennsylvania.  Palin told Scott Conroy of Real Clear Politics that not only should the US end subsidies for ethanol, but should end subsidies on all energy production, mainly because we can no longer afford to pay them:

Asked Tuesday whether she supports the federal subsidy of ethanol, an always critical issue in the presidential nominating cycle, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin went one step further and called for the elimination of all energy subsidies.

“I think that all of our energy subsidies need to be relooked at today and eliminated,” Palin told RCP during a quick stop at a coffee shop in this picturesque town tucked into the south-central Pennsylvania countryside. “And we need to make sure that we’re investing and allowing our businesses to invest in reliable energy products right now that aren’t going to necessitate subsidies because, bottom line, we can’t afford it.”

Conroy provides the context for the remarks:

Her emphatic stance against ethanol subsidies may ruffle some feathers in the nation’s first voting state of Iowa, but it will also win her kudos from fiscal conservatives who praised former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty when, in a speech announcing his candidacy in Des Moines, he called for the phasing out of the federal subsidies that cost taxpayers about $5 billion last year.

Mitt Romney, who will announce his candidacy Thursday and is considered the front-runner in the GOP field, said last week in Iowa that he supports ethanol subsidies.

Palin’s position provides a direct rebuke to Romney, who tried to argue that ethanol deserves federal subsidies because it’s an “important part” of America’s energy future.  The problem with that position is that ethanol isn’t an emerging technology.  It’s been subsidized for decades on the same basis Romney claimed last week.  Subsidies aren’t going to R&D any more; they’re being used to artificially allow ethanol to compete against gasoline on a price basis, which puts government in the position of mandating winners and losers in technology and markets — with predictable results.

There could be some argument for federal subsidies in emerging technologies in order to advance to cleaner and cheaper alternatives to fossil fuels — if we had the money to spend on them.  Simply put, we don’t.  We’re now borrowing 40 cents on every dollar spent at the federal level, pushing the US towards a fiscal collapse if we don’t address the problem of overspending and federal overreach.

It will be interesting to see how Palin defines “subsidies.”  Democrats are arguing that oil companies get subsidies through tax deductions that encourage exploration and development, but the “subsidies” in these cases are specific measures that allow oil companies to write off business costs as most other businesses do.  That allows oil companies to keep more of the money they make rather than cutting checks to artificially lower prices to the consumer.

Perhaps Palin or another GOP candidate will propose a compromise closing out some of those tax deductions in exchange for removing barriers to exploration and extraction off American coasts and in shale formations throughout the country. I’d call that a good trade.

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

Romney will now clarify his Iowa statement.

Bishop on May 31, 2011 at 1:34 PM

HA! Romney hardest hit!

csdeven on May 31, 2011 at 1:34 PM

Sarah just made it a two person race.

However this does hurt her in Iowa. And Mitt will win in New Hampshire.

William Amos on May 31, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Scratch Pawlenty, scratch Palin.

Romney wins.

Government largess will not be curtailed. Unfortunately.

rickyricardo on May 31, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Palin is again, right on the money.

ace tomato on May 31, 2011 at 1:37 PM

This is why I want her for Energy Sec.!

Tony737 on May 31, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Uh, if she’s including oil “subsidies”, she’s got my vote. Well, she already had it, but I mean I will actively campaign for this woman door-to-door. Let’s see Obama or any other Dem justify only ending oil company kickbacks while maintaining the ones for “green energy”.

Doughboy on May 31, 2011 at 1:38 PM

MSNBC headline will be, “Palin announces intention to end all green energy subsidies.”

David Shane on May 31, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Does Sarah know my every thought? I sure hope not.

GaltBlvnAtty on May 31, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Nice to hear this from her. Still don’t know what’s in it for Romney. He’s going to lose Iowa anyway. Taking a principled stand against ethanol subsidies wouldn’t cost him.

Mark1971 on May 31, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Scratching my head, wondering why Pawlenty’s statement about ethanol subsidies isn’t part of the “context” in this post….

/s

cs89 on May 31, 2011 at 1:41 PM

What about windmills? They turn energy subsidies into electricity. Now they’ll have to depend just on wind. That’s no good.

RBMN on May 31, 2011 at 1:42 PM

See, this is another issue that goes straight to character. We know her character, so these policy announcements are no surprise.

That’s why it doesn’t matter that she doesn’t have any foreign policy experience. We know she’ll do the right thing.

John the Libertarian on May 31, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Scratch that- skimmed past the reference to Pawlenty in the quoted portion.

Doh’!

cs89 on May 31, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Like a blackboard eraser to the back of Mitt’s head from the back of the room. “Poomfff!”

Akzed on May 31, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Leadership. That’s what she brings to our table. Granted, Pawlenty tackled this first…but instead of worrying “will this policy position affect my electability” these candidates should speak to what they believe. It’s long past time for the government to get out of the marketplace…even if it isn’t popular in Iowa.

search4truth on May 31, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Now Sarah needs to send the leftover Bus pizza her family didn’t eat to the Romney Campaign.

portlandon on May 31, 2011 at 1:45 PM

I give Pawlenty credit for this as well. Good on Palin & Pawlenty.

portlandon on May 31, 2011 at 1:47 PM

This is why I want her for Energy Sec.!

Tony737 on May 31, 2011 at 1:37 PM

That would be nice, but the Energy Secretary answers to the President. I’d much rather Palin be calling all the shots when it comes to energy policy.

Doughboy on May 31, 2011 at 1:47 PM

Democrats are arguing that oil companies get subsidies through tax deductions … but the “subsidies” in these cases are specific measures that allow oil companies to write off business costs as most other businesses do.

If Republicans and conservatives would force Democrats to defend their “subsidy” statements along with the absurd phrase “We cant afford tax cuts”, all of which assumes the money belongs to the government in the first place.

cartooner on May 31, 2011 at 1:49 PM

This is why I want her for Energy Sec.!

Tony737 on May 31, 2011 at 1:37 PM

That or EPA

cartooner on May 31, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Mark1971 on May 31, 2011 at 1:41 PM

You’re right of course it doesn’t help Romney, but it is such a revealing statement about Romney’s personality. He loves telling people what they want to hear, even when it won’t help him politically. He just can’t keep his finger from testing the wind. Once he’s in Washington, everything he does will be to curry favor with the establishment of both parties and the media. There will be no principled stands on any issues. No entitlement reform. No meaningful spending cuts. The man can’t say “no” to anyone.

Ted Torgerson on May 31, 2011 at 1:51 PM

The question is when will Romney strike out? Not reassessiung his position on the diaster that RomneyCare turned out to be. Strike One. Approving ethanol subsides. Strike two. Strike three is inevitable.

volsense on May 31, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Romney simply cannot be trusted. He’s the type of establishment Republican who will end up promotion progressives to the USSC.

rickyricardo on May 31, 2011 at 1:53 PM

If Republicans and conservatives would force Democrats to defend their “subsidy” statements along with the absurd phrase “We cant afford tax cuts”, all of which assumes the money belongs to the government in the first place.

cartooner on May 31, 2011 at 1:49 PM

It’s an argument they could try to have, but I’d much rather level the entire playing field. Just call the Democrats’ bluff. We’ll give you the oil “subsidies”(which are just tax writeoffs), but in return there won’t be another dime from the taxpayers given to green energy companies or ethanol producers. We’ll see how long the latter survive in the marketplace.

Doughboy on May 31, 2011 at 1:55 PM

I like, but I anticipate a reporter is going to ask her why she opposes solar and wind energy.

So when does this turn into a Pawlenty vs Palin race?

El_Terrible on May 31, 2011 at 1:57 PM

MSNBC headline will be, “Palin announces intention to end all green energy subsidies.”

David Shane on May 31, 2011 at 1:38 PM

And you can expect to see Tingles Matthews leading the charge!

pilamaye on May 31, 2011 at 1:57 PM

End all federal energy subsidies

Just end it all.
Food stamps
Medicare
Foreign aid
Foreign wars
Ethanol

Oh! If I were king for a day.

esnap on May 31, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Doughboy on May 31, 2011 at 1:55 PM

That’s the approach I would take.

El_Terrible on May 31, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Strike Three? Approving of Obama’s “understandable” position on the MIddle East.

Trust me. It’s coming.

victor82 on May 31, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Why does the media think Romney’s the front-runner?
He LOST last time. He wasn’t even good enough to make the main election.
Why would we back a LOSER?
They want us to back a LOSER.
No Romney’s not acceptable.

Iblis on May 31, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Uh, if she’s including oil “subsidies”, she’s got my vote.
Doughboy on May 31, 2011 at 1:38 PM

There are no oil subsidies.

Vashta.Nerada on May 31, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Damn, she’s good. Economics makes sense unless the politicos factor in nonsense and weasel words to get their pay offs hidden in smoke and mirrors. That was why the Alaskan Murkowski Gang hated Sarah so much.

jimw on May 31, 2011 at 2:03 PM

The media want a squish to run so the O can squeak out a win. They know he can’t win against a solid conservative, thus their support of Huntsman and Romney.

The elitist leaders of the GOP would like these guys, too. They figure moderate and liberal Repubs can be led around by the nose and let them run the show.

hachiban on May 31, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Actually, this is potentially much more significant than simply getting some distance between herself and Governor
Romney. The alternative energy folks cannot compete in any way without actual subsidies, not just a few tax writeoffs here and there. She is taking straight aim at the green energy folks, and by extension, President Obama’s “pie in the sky” green rhetoric and setting the predicate to force him and the environmentalist members of the Bolshevik Left to actually defend an energy policy that is in no way defensible. It’s the economy stupid. There is no economic activity in this country that does not require affordable energy and there is nothing affordable about any of these alternative energy sources absent federal subsidies. It also puts her in a position to attack the White House on its cronyism, i.e., subsidies to GE and Solara, etc., and on the utter stupidity of light rail. If she gets attacked for her position on ethanol subsidies, she at least will be in an intellectually consistent position that Iowans may respect if not agree with.

Mongo Mere Pawn on May 31, 2011 at 2:04 PM

There are no oil subsidies.

Vashta.Nerada on May 31, 2011 at 2:00 PM

That’s why he put subsidies in quotes.

El_Terrible on May 31, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Sarah needs to send the leftover Bus pizza her family didn’t eat to the Romney Campaign.

I didn’t know Mormons were allowed to eat pizza.

Emperor Norton on May 31, 2011 at 2:06 PM

There are no oil subsidies.

Vashta.Nerada on May 31, 2011 at 2:00 PM

I understand that. But I’d much rather give up roughly $4 billion in tax writeoffs for oil companies in exchange for way more saved in subsidies that are handed out to uncompetitive alternative energy producers. Think big picture. We’ll cut way more money from the annual budget, and every energy company will have to survive on their own merits instead of being artificially propped up by politicians.

Doughboy on May 31, 2011 at 2:07 PM

One thing I would like to see her come out for is replacing the old 1960′s and 1970′s nuclear power plants with modern, safer plants. Go on a wholesale rebuilding of our nuclear power infrastructure and come out in favor of recycling spent fuel rather than burying it.

crosspatch on May 31, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Why does the media think Romney’s the front-runner?
He LOST last time. He wasn’t even good enough to make the main election.
Why would we back a LOSER?
They want us to back a LOSER.
No Romney’s not acceptable.

Iblis on May 31, 2011 at 2:00 PM

The answer is: they want 4 more years (or more) of Obama of course.

search4truth on May 31, 2011 at 2:07 PM

OK now…THIS is the kinda stuff I want to hear from Palin. Getting down to the nitty-gritty here, but better a tad late than never. Here’s hoping this is it, and she’s gonna go all out in a serious run for POTUS.

Heck, I’m getting thisclose to sporting that Palin 2012 pin.

Moar!

JetBoy on May 31, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Why does the media think Romney’s the front-runner?

I’m getting the feeling if Palin were to declare tomorrow, her approval would jump significantly.

JetBoy on May 31, 2011 at 2:09 PM

JetBoy on May 31, 2011 at 2:08 PM

How is she “late”? Half the expected candidates haven’t even announced yet, and I imagine even fewer have all their policy ducks in a row yet.

alwaysfiredup on May 31, 2011 at 2:09 PM

the 2012 election is now Sarah Palin’s to win or lose, awesome.

mathewsjw on May 31, 2011 at 2:10 PM

JetBoy on May 31, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Not to quibble too much, as you have finally seen teh awesome that is the Cuda. :) Welcome aboard, it’s gonna be a fun ride!

alwaysfiredup on May 31, 2011 at 2:10 PM

you all want spending cut elect Palin.

unseen on May 31, 2011 at 2:14 PM

How is she “late”? Half the expected candidates haven’t even announced yet, and I imagine even fewer have all their policy ducks in a row yet.

alwaysfiredup on May 31, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Late in getting serious with some policy specifics. Just my opinion.

I ain’t on board yet…but I got a foot in the bandwagon door.

JetBoy on May 31, 2011 at 2:15 PM

JetBoy on May 31, 2011 at 2:08 PM

I hope you see more too.

Just need to ask..

…you’re not surprised by her saying this though, are you?

(I don’t think you are, but I just have to ask.)

Saltysam on May 31, 2011 at 2:15 PM

We’ll cut way more money from the annual budget, and every energy company will have to survive on their own merits instead of being artificially propped up by politicians.

Doughboy on May 31, 2011 at 2:07 PM

I refuse to allow the media to propagate a lie. Note how they change the narrative before the argument is even begun. Oil companies are currently allowed to deduct expenses in the same manner as any other manufacturing company, but, on top of that is a reduction in allowed expensing to the ‘big oil’ companies, which in itself is tantamount to a bill of attainder.

If you want to avoid ‘artificially propping up’ oil companies, you would have to change the tax treatment of manufacturing firms as well, because at the moment, big oil is essentially subsidizing manufacturing.

Vashta.Nerada on May 31, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Palin: End all federal energy subsidies

You can’t do that, the entire economy will collapse!
–Willard, Petunia and Hollownoggin.

Whether she’s running or not,

Thankfully, as I wrote about 10 days ago, the deadline has passed and the GOP field for 2012 is now set: its Romney v. Pawlenty. They are simply magnificent, and anyone who denies it is not to be trusted as an analyst.
–Youknow Hugh

james23 on May 31, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Wait. I thought Palin was completely disallowed from talking to any media source outside of Fox News, and that’s why she never gives any interviews to sources that don’t already love her?

I bet Fox News will fire her now that she talked to Politico!

TheBlueSite on May 31, 2011 at 2:18 PM

I’m sorry, RCP (not politico).

TheBlueSite on May 31, 2011 at 2:18 PM

I refuse to allow the media to propagate a lie. Note how they change the narrative before the argument is even begun. Oil companies are currently allowed to deduct expenses in the same manner as any other manufacturing company, but, on top of that is a reduction in allowed expensing to the ‘big oil’ companies, which in itself is tantamount to a bill of attainder.

If you want to avoid ‘artificially propping up’ oil companies, you would have to change the tax treatment of manufacturing firms as well, because at the moment, big oil is essentially subsidizing manufacturing.

Vashta.Nerada on May 31, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Great point.

Saltysam on May 31, 2011 at 2:19 PM

JetBoy on May 31, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Not to quibble too much, as you have finally seen teh awesome that is the Cuda. :) Welcome aboard, it’s gonna be a fun ride!

alwaysfiredup on May 31, 2011 at 2:10 PM

No offense to JetBoy as he is a real good guy and all but…
I’m a bit worried he’s starting to back her so soon. Look at his track record of picking candidates IYKWIM.

Also, while she is my #1 pick, she still hasn’t announced yet, and I would like to hear more foreign policy from her. I have a pretty good Idea on Domestic policy outside the specifics of her immigration (is it amnesty or isn’t it) policy.

More specifically, if we are going to continue this boondoggle in the Middle East, I want to know what serious changes in the RoE’s (IE, the tying of our soldiers hands) would she get rid of (All of them hopefully).

MadDogF on May 31, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Kudos to Palin!

FloatingRock on May 31, 2011 at 2:22 PM

I thought Palin was completely disallowed from talking to any media source outside of Fox News

TheBlueSite on May 31, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Televised interviews, yes. Print reporters, no.

alwaysfiredup on May 31, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Late in getting serious with some policy specifics. Just my opinion.

I ain’t on board yet…but I got a foot in the bandwagon door.

JetBoy on May 31, 2011 at 2:15 PM

Uh oh! Shades of Charley Crist! Don’t do it, we want her to win!

;)

fossten on May 31, 2011 at 2:28 PM

I thought Palin was completely disallowed from talking to any media source outside of Fox News

TheBlueSite on May 31, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Your ignorance is astounding. And you write a blog?

Sigh.

fossten on May 31, 2011 at 2:29 PM

alwaysfiredup on May 31, 2011 at 2:27 PM

i don’t buy it. krauthammer is on other tv shows all the time. geraldo goes on other outlets. o’reilly goes all over. juan williams is on other media. karl rove isnt limited to fox news. theres no way fox news is going to limit her ability to go out there on other outlets and give them publicity.

i think it kills her credibility. she looks weak, as if she refuses to ever answer a tough question. with her recent comments it’s getting scary, because if she gets the nomination, it will prob look similar to 1980 come election night

TheBlueSite on May 31, 2011 at 2:33 PM

My seat is wet! OMG!

SouthernGent on May 31, 2011 at 2:34 PM

I refuse to allow the media to propagate a lie. Note how they change the narrative before the argument is even begun. Oil companies are currently allowed to deduct expenses in the same manner as any other manufacturing company, but, on top of that is a reduction in allowed expensing to the ‘big oil’ companies, which in itself is tantamount to a bill of attainder.

If you want to avoid ‘artificially propping up’ oil companies, you would have to change the tax treatment of manufacturing firms as well, because at the moment, big oil is essentially subsidizing manufacturing.

Vashta.Nerada on May 31, 2011 at 2:16 PM

You have to factor in the politics of this. Even if the GOP manages to win enough control of the government next year and can roll back subsidies for alternative energy producers, the fallout will be ugly. If Palin or whomever the Republican nominee is calls the Dems’ bluff and gives up the tax writeoffs for oil companies in exchange for no more subsidies for any other energy producers, they’ll either have to cave in or expose themselves as the shills they are.

Besides, don’t we eventually want to reform the entire corporate tax code and get rid of all the writeoffs in exchange for a much lower but simpler tax rate? That way we don’t have the likes of GE paying nothing in taxes despite making billions in profits.

Doughboy on May 31, 2011 at 2:34 PM

wait. also- when did conservatives start supporting higher taxes on oil companies? i think we can assume she was talking about the tax breaks for oil corporations, no?

ed pointed out that they’re not subsidies, but what other big energy subsidies are there outside of some green stuff and ethanol that she could be talking about?

TheBlueSite on May 31, 2011 at 2:36 PM

I give Pawlenty credit for this as well. Good on Palin & Pawlenty.
portlandon on May 31, 2011 at 1:47 PM

Heh. “As well.”. Pawlenty led first, by example. It should read, “good for Palin for following T-Paw”.

Vyce on May 31, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Palin is again, right on the money.

ace tomato on May 31, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Bada-bing

Like a blackboard eraser to the back of Mitt’s head from the back of the room. “Poomfff!”

Akzed on May 31, 2011 at 1:43 PM

ROFLOL.

Here’s an idea. Like the shots game, everytime SP zings the MSM/RINOs, make a small donation to SarahPac off her Tourbus link. 8)

AH_C on May 31, 2011 at 2:38 PM

I hope you see more too.

Just need to ask..

…you’re not surprised by her saying this though, are you?

(I don’t think you are, but I just have to ask.)

Saltysam on May 31, 2011 at 2:15 PM

No,not surprised…but it’s nice to hear from the horses mouth so to speak.

JetBoy on May 31, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Any feedback from Iowa on their reaction to Pawlenty’s call for cutting ethanol subsidies?

hawksruleva on May 31, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Heck, I’m getting thisclose to sporting that Palin 2012 pin.
Moar!
JetBoy on May 31, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Oh no, JetBoy.

Our love may be over.

Vyce on May 31, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Late in getting serious with some policy specifics. Just my opinion.

I ain’t on board yet…but I got a foot in the bandwagon door.

JetBoy on May 31, 2011 at 2:15 PM

The 3rd time picking a candidate is a charm, eh? :P

AH_C on May 31, 2011 at 2:48 PM

because if she gets the nomination, it will prob look similar to 1980 come election night

TheBlueSite on May 31, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Haha, 1980 was a conservative Republican landslide.

I hope like hell it looks like that on election night, all those red states sure were pretty on the map!

Brian1972 on May 31, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Sarah just made it a two person race.

However this does hurt her in Iowa. And Mitt will win in New Hampshire.

William Amos on May 31, 2011 at 1:35 PM

So? We do have 55 other states ya know.

katy the mean old lady on May 31, 2011 at 2:51 PM

i don’t buy it. krauthammer is on other tv shows all the time. geraldo goes on other outlets. o’reilly goes all over. juan williams is on other media. karl rove isnt limited to fox news. theres no way fox news is going to limit her ability to go out there on other outlets and give them publicity.

i think it kills her credibility. she looks weak, as if she refuses to ever answer a tough question. with her recent comments it’s getting scary, because if she gets the nomination, it will prob look similar to 1980 come election night

TheBlueSite on May 31, 2011 at 2:33 PM

ummm, all contracts are not created equal. Newt the Grinch gets $10K per appearance while SP gets an exclusive $1M contract. Clever as she is, she probably insisted on an exclusive to give her the excuse NOT to interview with other MSM outlets.

That said, telling RCP or even the NYT that she’s for eliminating subsidies does not an interview make.

Just face it, she’s three steps ahead of you all the time. How’s that “she’s ignorant” meme working for ya? Always scratching head, trying to figure out just what the heck she done did. Bwahahaha.

AH_C on May 31, 2011 at 2:54 PM

I’m so sick of Iowa and what it has to say about anything.

angryed on May 31, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Brian1972 on May 31, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Of course I mean Reagan’s crushing of Carter. Obama will crush Palin. The poll numbers alone bear that out.

Diehard Palin fans seem to think there are actually humans in America who don’t already have an opinion on Palin. There are exactly 3 people in the country that haven’t made up their mind on Palin, and there’s next to nothing she can do to do change that.

So, better idea- let’s get behind a solid candidate who CAN defeat Obama…perhaps? That’s what I’m doing.

AH_C on May 31, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Okay then- the media can simply make the argument that instead of actually facing tough questions for once (something she hasn’t done really in 2 years), she decided she’d go with a contract to keep her isolated that would also make her obscenely rich at the same time. Still makes her look weak. If it’s a choice between explaining yourself or having O’Reilly and Hannity fawn over you (as much as I like both of them), my kind of candidate would say to heck with being a pundit and go out and answer the tough critics everyday.

This is the sort of thing that ensures the 3 people who don’t have an opinion on Palin won’t swing her way anytime soon.

TheBlueSite on May 31, 2011 at 3:14 PM

TheBlueSite on May 31, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Do you even know the difference between the print media and TV media?

fossten on May 31, 2011 at 3:17 PM

I think that all of our energy subsidies need to be relooked at today and eliminated,” Palin told RCP during a quick stop at a coffee shop in this picturesque town tucked into the south-central Pennsylvania countryside. “And we need to make sure that we’re investing and allowing our businesses to invest in reliable energy products right now that aren’t going to necessitate subsidies because, bottom line, we can’t afford it.”

First off- “relook at”? English fail. Again.

Second- she wants to end energy subsidies, but also “invest” in “energy products”? Huh? Which is it?

Hollowpoint on May 31, 2011 at 3:20 PM

This is the sort of thing that ensures the 3 people who don’t have an opinion on Palin won’t swing her way anytime soon.

TheBlueSite on May 31, 2011 at 3:14 PM

The biggest, and fatal, flaw in your argument is that you fail to take into account the fact that there are only 3 people left who don’t have an opinion of Obama either. And they won’t change their minds any time soon either.

fossten on May 31, 2011 at 3:20 PM

Hollowpoint on May 31, 2011 at 3:20 PM

This is the epitome of nitpickery.

You sound desperate and shrill.

fossten on May 31, 2011 at 3:22 PM

TheBlueSite on May 31, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Public opinion changes all the time.

Just ask Obama’s pollsters.

Brian1972 on May 31, 2011 at 3:24 PM

Palin: End all federal energy subsidies

YES!!!

Go Sarah!!!

landlines on May 31, 2011 at 3:26 PM

fossten on May 31, 2011 at 3:20 PM

That’s simply not true. The polls attest to this. Just today, they’re reporting that he’s losing tons of support in the military.

I dislike Obama as much as anyone else here, but I’m not foolish enough to think he’s anywhere near as polarizing a figure as Palin. Palin is in a different universe in terms of being a polarizing figure.

Indiana, the state I’m in, has already started to move well away from Obama…he won the state for the first time since 1964…I doubt he can pull it off in 2012. There are several other states that can flip too.

Palin doesn’t have that luxury. She has, unfortunately become simply a caricature, and a lot of that is due to her own missteps when first introduced and her subsequent actions since 2008. No doubt the media played a part, but her constant use of the victim card solidified the weakness in a lot of minds.

If we push her as the candidate, she will be torn apart in the general election. I know a lot of people here want to pretend that isn’t true, but I think a lot of them know, deep down, that it’s going to happen.

We need to be realistic and back a candidate who can take down Obama. Whether or not he’s the perfect candidate or not.

TheBlueSite on May 31, 2011 at 3:29 PM

TheBlueSite on May 31, 2011 at 3:29 PM

You don’t really know nearly as much as you think you know son.

Brian1972 on May 31, 2011 at 3:31 PM

fossten on May 31, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Ugh. He as a good point. The complaints made by so many who dislike Palin are that she doesn’t really understand the issues very well, and she comes off as sort of a bumpkin who can’t speak very fluently. We like to pretend we don’t care, but we do.

I do wonder what she meant. We can’t invest in new energy sources if we’re all about ending all subsidies for new energy sources.

TheBlueSite on May 31, 2011 at 3:32 PM

We need to be realistic and back a candidate who can take down Obama. Whether or not he’s the perfect candidate or not.

TheBlueSite on May 31, 2011 at 3:29 PM

In order for a candidate to be able to take down Obama, shouldn’t that candidate first be able to defeat Sarah Palin in the primary?

I would think so.

Brian1972 on May 31, 2011 at 3:33 PM

The obsessive, near cult-like nature of Palin fans doesn’t match the general electorate (thank God.)

TheBlueSite on May 31, 2011 at 3:36 PM

TheBlueSite on May 31, 2011 at 3:14 PM

I assume you are a liberal democrat otherwise you are sounding exactly like the GOP’ers of 64 who talked down Goldwater so much they swung the election to LBJ. I must say that really worked out well for this nation. Not.

chemman on May 31, 2011 at 3:38 PM

TheBlueSite on May 31, 2011 at 3:36 PM

you must be getting frustrated with the responses you are getting, because you now go back to the lame “Cultist” thing.

lol

Brian1972 on May 31, 2011 at 3:39 PM

This is the epitome of nitpickery.

You sound desperate and shrill.

fossten on May 31, 2011 at 3:22 PM

How is it nitpicking? When a politician says they support “investment” in an industry or technology, it’s generally accepted they mean that they want to spend taxpayer money on it.

Here, Palin on one hand says she wants to end energy subsidies, but supports “investment” in them (or whatever she means by “energy products”. Which is it?

Hollowpoint on May 31, 2011 at 3:43 PM

How is it nitpicking? When a politician says they support “investment” in an industry or technology, it’s generally accepted they mean that they want to spend taxpayer money on it.

Here, Palin on one hand says she wants to end energy subsidies, but supports “investment” in them (or whatever she means by “energy products”. Which is it?

Hollowpoint on May 31, 2011 at 3:43 PM

Going by what she has said before, she often talks about the government getting out of the way so the private sector can invest in what the market is demanding, rather than DC politicians picking winners and losers based on their political priorities.

This is not hard.

Brian1972 on May 31, 2011 at 3:46 PM

allowing our businesses to invest in reliable energy products right now that aren’t going to necessitate subsidies because, bottom line, we can’t afford it.”

Second- she wants to end energy subsidies, but also “invest” in “energy products”? Huh? Which is it?

Hollowpoint on May 31, 2011 at 3:20 PM

I don’t know if you forgot the sarc tag, but if a business makes an investment in their own company, its not a subsidy.

El_Terrible on May 31, 2011 at 3:47 PM

The only group this will hurt is schizophrenic Iowa farmers. They won’t know whether they are coming or going come caucus time.

scotash on May 31, 2011 at 3:47 PM

HollowpointHead on May 31, 2011 at 3:43 PM

idesign on May 31, 2011 at 3:48 PM

First off- “relook at”? English fail. Again.

She is from Alaska, they have a different language…even with the loss in translation, it makes more sense than that coming from most candidates like Mitt.

Second- she wants to end energy subsidies, but also “invest” in “energy products”? Huh? Which is it?

Read what you posted, she wants business to be able to choose which products they want to use, not be forced to use ethanol, wind or some other less efficient alternative to oil. Companies should not be forced to use something less efficient and more costly by the Government, when there is an alternative, people and business which switch to it out of cost effectiveness or necessity.

rgranger on May 31, 2011 at 3:49 PM

What about windmills? They turn energy subsidies into electricity. Now they’ll have to depend just on wind. That’s no good.

RBMN on May 31, 2011 at 1:42 PM

LOL, nice one.

Missy on May 31, 2011 at 3:49 PM

And we need to make sure that we’re investing and allowing our businesses to invest in reliable energy products

Those are two separate items.

She doesn’t own an energy business, so one has to assume she meant the govt needs to invest and that the govt also needs to allow businesses to invest.

TheBlueSite on May 31, 2011 at 3:54 PM

Palin: End all federal energy subsidies

It would sound a lot better without the qualifier.

logis on May 31, 2011 at 3:56 PM

First off- “relook at”? English fail. Again.

Hollowpoint on May 31, 2011 at 3:20 PM

It’s not a coinage, although “revisit” might be a better choice.

Second- she wants to end energy subsidies, but also “invest” in “energy products”? Huh? Which is it?

Hollowpoint on May 31, 2011 at 3:20 PM

Investment doesn’t always mean government spending.

This is why I want her for Energy Sec.!

Tony737 on May 31, 2011 at 1:37 PM

In other words, eight-place consolation prize. Condescending.

pseudoforce on May 31, 2011 at 3:56 PM

When a politician says they support “investment” in an industry or technology, it’s generally accepted they mean that they want to spend taxpayer money on it.

Hollowpoint on May 31, 2011 at 3:43 PM

She’s not responsible for your comprehension problems. You were just fine with Pawlenty’s more tame version last week. Now you’re some sort of subsidy dove? LOL Typical.

pseudoforce on May 31, 2011 at 3:59 PM

And we need to make sure that we’re investing and allowing our businesses to invest in reliable energy products

Those are two separate items.

She doesn’t own an energy business, so one has to assume she meant the govt needs to invest and that the govt also needs to allow businesses to invest.

TheBlueSite on May 31, 2011 at 3:54 PM

Have you ever heard of “stock”?

pseudoforce on May 31, 2011 at 4:00 PM

one has to assume she meant the govt needs to invest and that the govt also needs to allow businesses to invest.

TheBlueSite on May 31, 2011 at 3:54 PM

One does not have to assume, you just choose to do so.

Brian1972 on May 31, 2011 at 4:02 PM

pseudoforce on May 31, 2011 at 4:00 PM

I hope you’re kidding. So, Americans should buy stock in companies that deal in untested energy sources that might or might not bear fruit? That’s what Palin meant and not govt investment?

Glad she’s not an investment advisor if that’s the case.

TheBlueSite on May 31, 2011 at 4:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2