You can read the article here. I'm not going to excerpt it because when you read the title of this post you probably already formulated your comment. Palin is polarizing, no doubt about that.
In your comments, please stay with the facts listed in the article, thanks.
33 comments:
The author of the article states that based on the oil revenue sharing program for "resident" Alaskans that Palin instituted those Alaskan residents "went from being merely wealthy to being filthy rich." I'm skeptical. Skeptical they were "merely wealthy" in the first place. Also, who qualifies as an Alaskan resident? If I arrive in Juneau from out of state on Tuesday and rent an apartment on Wednesday am I a resident Alaskan? Such a free swinging statement makes me skeptical of anything else in the article.
All the "sharing the wealth" makes Palin sound like a socialist.
Or it makes her sound like she's looking out for the natives and residents of Alaska, and not politicians and lobbyists.
So she constructed and enacted a new system of splitting the oil profits called “ACES.”
The unintended consequences of ACES
In those price ranges the effective oil tax rates in Alaska were some of the highest in the world. Alaska’s high costs, distance from markets and harsh climate conditions were challenges enough for industry, but the high tax rate made most new Alaska oil investments uneconomic under ACES.
Industry investment in new oil projects lagged, while it boomed in other U.S. states. Meanwhile, the decline in North Slope production continued at rates of 6 percent to 8 percent yearly.
re: First Lady staff, I like context, and while 22 attendants seems excessive but how does that compare to the previous First Lady?
I had heard of some of those accomplishments, but not most of those.
She's going to more renewables earlier (hold your vomit reflex) but felt a need to rush through more Exxon contracts? Did you know that the results of the Valdez disaster are still only about 5% closer to being fully cleaned than they were nearly 30 years ago? She must either have a lot of faith in Exxon or be pretty comfortable consigning Alaskans to eating crude.
Pretty funny that the Canadian outlet publishing this touts their freedom of speech to do so. Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, much? The place is a bastion of Muslim-aggrandizing speech squelching. America simply has more polite and VERY voluntary social norms when it comes to what they know the private markets of the public sphere will tolerate and what they will vomit out.
Lol. Wiki says even Noam Chomsky's opposed to Canada's nonsensical "anti-hate" speech laws. Chomsky! One thing Chomsky and Levant and Steyn can all agree on. But T.P sympathizers up north yonder don't!
Come on. You've got to find that at least a bit ironical. ;-)
Aaaaannnnnddd.....a liberal troll slides in, takes the bait and tries to hijack the thread.
Totally predictable.
But hey, carry on.
Sorry, Haz. Was the "article's" inclusion of this statement:
"Copyright 2009 CanadaFreePress.Com
Yes, Yes, I know, The Canadian Free Press has to publish this because the USA media is too scared they might be considered racist.
Sorry USA !"
not a "fact listed in the article"?
You may have to clarify. We liberals get confused when it comes to which facts and speech you deem worthy of discussion and which would prefer everyone stay quiet about.
Other than that, the Exxon contract and push for renewables were part of the 6-point list, so it seemed legit, as did the way that last one seems actually controversial to the way conservative energy resourcing priorities are framed these days. I'm just noting an inconsistency there that I figured someone else could explain better than I.
But if you prefer its contents remain opaque...
If you think they're that disruptive, Michael, I'll remove my 4:56 and 4:58. I was heading out anyway, though, so I might not find out until I get back in a bit.
Again, sorry.
No problem, RB, leave them up.
I heard she was last seen flying a 777.
I heard she got run over by a truck.
A great reminder of what we're missing both in our media and in office.
But, hey, she goes to church (!) and has a lot of children, one of which got knocked up by a douchebag and that's an Important and Ironic Fact that also disqualifies her from office. Hahahahahhahahaha, gun clingers.
Not like our Spokesmodel Boyfriend who's got a dignified family that never is embarrassing.
I knew most of it, but then it's really old so... Any particular "this is good or bad, long term" doesn't really take away from her accomplishments or no one could ever do anything. (And then we could elect him for it.)
The oil pay-outs to citizens is a really long term thing up there. I didn't know that she'd changed how that was done.
As for complaining about reduced oil production... hey, I thought that was a *good* thing. Isn't it any more?
The fact is that Palin pushed to develop Alaska's natural resources but she was never any sort of "on the side of" oil companies.
I heard an interview when Exxon finally had to pay out for the Exxon Valdez... 30 years later. Ritmo so cutely pretends that she must not have cared about that (being governor for all 3 of those 30 years) but she was clearly disgusted and furious at the foot dragging and delays and the fact that the system, lawyers and courts, could allow Exxon to get away without paying until a good third of the plaintiffs had died of old age. Clearly, from her words and tone of voice she saw this primarily as an inexcusable failure of *government*.
I realize that "Sarah Palin, stooge of Big Oil" is a matter of impenetrable faith to those who insist on believing, and that nothing will change that.
(Without any proof that she managed, as governor, to build some fires under some *sses within the justice department, I will make no claim that she did. I will just point out that she was governor when something that had dragged for 30 years finally got resolved. Nor will I claim that the State of Alaska needed funds from the Exxon payout to use to clean up the damage, because that would make too much sense.)
The comment (from the way back machine) insisting that just as soon as she had to release her emails there would be indictments!!!!
Well, that was amusing. :)
"and while 22 attendants seems excessive but how does that compare to the previous First Lady?"
I think that the article claimed Laura Bush had one, and Hillary didn't have many. I don't think one was right, but it's got to be public record.
The numbers I've heard for previous first ladies were definitely in single digits, around 5 maybe.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/firstlady.asp
According to snopes, the list is accurate but the claim that other First Ladies had smaller staffs isn't true.
While it's good to get personal, financial damages paid - even if late, I think the lesson for some of us is to question whether the environmental devastation makes the enthusiasm for that stuff worth it generally - but you already know that. Sorry to bore.
I also agree that the article (the Palin part, not the seemingly unrelated Michelle Obama part) does show a record that's at least mixed enough to show what she did well, at least as far as I can see most people agreeing to. So moreso than "polarizing", it puts forward at least a few points that it seems hard for me to find anything negative about.
No wonder the Lefties are afraid of her.
She's smart, assertive, resourceful, honest, more than one jump ahead of them, articulate, savvy, and a self-made woman.
Everything the "feminists" (Ladies' Auxiliary of the Democrat Party) aren't.
The question of risk related to energy production is a different sort of issue, of course. It ought to be something discussed honestly. The Valdez spill was directly linked to the captain being drunk, wasn't it? (At least, that's what I remember.)
It would be fine with me if we stopped using fossil fuels altogether (and fine with me if we don't) but it does seem to me that when we're discussing *energy* in any form, we're discussing dangerous stuff, in any form. Did you see the reports about someone or other selling the first hydrogen cars in California? Now, that's cool beans. Enormous energy and nothing out the back-end but water vapor. But dangerous... because anything powerful is dangerous.
As for Palin, she actually is pretty darn impressive in her effective opposition to entrenched corruption, in being able to get things moving and agreements signed and through the door... the pipeline thing involved a foreign government (Canada) to deal with, but the "take away" from her discussion of experience with foreign governments and the oil industry and what that means was "I can see Russia from my house".
Not that she never made mistakes. Apparently the reason that she couldn't legally have a legal defense fund and was forced out of office was due to changes in the law that she herself advocated. Maybe the ACES thing lemondog mentioned was a mistake.
People who *do* things make mistakes.
I've never said she was perfect, but I've often been impressed by the way she seemed to view issues as connections and consequences... the push back to a reporter who wanted to do a "ha-ha, treat your husband like a big child" joke... her statement about Exxon running out of delays that wasn't some detached thing about justice or the law but about people and injustice and how it was enabled by the government that was supposed to protect us. I really liked those things. And there were other indications that she was a very non-linear thinker.
And she's not at all libertarian... pro-union, really... a not little bit populist... lots of stuff for me to disagree with.
The opposition was just so profoundly dishonest about her. Not about areas of political disagreement, but outright lies and personal attacks that it was beyond appalling. We end up with that commenter on the linked post who was absolutely convinced that an examination of her government email history would reveal nefarious evil... where does that sort of belief system come from?
Not only was nothing bad found, nothing that could be *twisted* to be bad was found.
Even if a person doesn't like Republicans very much, or doesn't like her populist tendencies or union or public schooling support or killing a few wolves so that caribou calf survival could go from 0 to 20%...
...Are we really better off that she's out of the political sphere and the possibility of national office? Is it a victory that she was pushed out of office in Alaska?
I wonder... was winning worth it?
Alaska residents went from being merely wealthy to being filthy rich.
Er, uh, um...not so much.
Please read the entire article. Nice to have the income per se, but hardly filthy rich. Whats up with that assertion?
I like Palin for herself, as she is today...not for the things she has mades up or the things that get made up about her. Her publicity advisors & promoters in 2008-2010 were the worst possible...how did she find such incompetents?
... killing a few wolves so that caribou calf survival could go from 0 to 20%...
A link or citation. By a reputable expert, like, say Professor L David Mech. Please. On its face that statement is sheer nonsense. O% to 20%...please.
Well Synova, and I know you're not going to like hearing this, but of course you're better off. For one, even if a few policy positions might have wider appeal than people know (i.e. allowing calf survival to increase), that doesn't mean she's good at selling things. On the contrary, she's horrible at selling them. People can speculate as to why this is, but I could bring up a number of reasons that seem like bad choices just to me.
For one, her family life seems messed up. Is fatherhood important to conservatives or isn't it? Because it sure seems like they do they're best to create unnecessary distance between her youngest grandchild and his father.
Then there was the not reading thing. Even if you call it a mis-statement, there hardly seems to be a consensus that has her coming across as at least curious enough to be well-informed or intelligent. And notes on the hand?
And then, and in her defense this was probably "coached" into her rather than originating as her own idea, there was the winking thing during the 2008 debates. Whose idea was that? Just way too damn tacky.
I think if you want appeal as a reformer, you have to find a way to come across as thoughtful. No one wants a steamroller reformer. Just ask Elliott Spitzer.
For one, her family life seems messed up. Is fatherhood important to conservatives or isn't it? Because it sure seems like they do they're best to create unnecessary distance between her youngest grandchild and his father.
I understand that Mr. Johnston is arrears in child support.
Then there was the not reading thing. Even if you call it a mis-statement, there hardly seems to be a consensus that has her coming across as at least curious enough to be well-informed or intelligent. And notes on the hand?
Video link please
And then, and in her defense this was probably "coached" into her rather than originating as her own idea, there was the winking thing during the 2008 debates. Whose idea was that? Just way too damn tacky.
LOL! ;)
I think if you want appeal as a reformer, you have to find a way to come across as thoughtful. No one wants a steamroller reformer. Just ask Elliott Spitzer.
Wasn't Spitzer recently sighted with yet another babe in the Caribbean? So Palin-like.
And now the Democrats have decided that Paul Ryan is a flaming Racist Scumbag. Apparently lying about people is what they do best.
The wink and the notes on her hand were humanizing. F showed a sense of humor that, unlike B. 0. is not based on being a sly prick.
But never mind that. 4 years from now you'll be telling me that we dodged a bullet with the racist Paul Ryan because, if nothing else, he was unable to stop the Democrats from lying about him, what he says and what he thinks.
We can't ever actually blame those guilty of full time slander. Oh, hell no.
Same with the kids. I'm not surprised that Levi flaked out after the Dems went after him and his mother and wouldn't let the two of them alone to figure it out. Are you?
I understand that Mr. Johnston is arrears in child support.
So damn what! If the only value you or other conservatives think that men have is financial in nature, then you're in for a world of hurt when it comes to the idea of their regaining any respect among society. By reducing them to materialistic ends, you debase them and make inevitable the argument that a government's financial support is a suitable substitute.
Surely you must understand that.
The notes on the hand thing must be pretty easy to find. Just GOOGLE "notes hand palin" and let me know what you come up with.
Oh well. Here's your homework completed for you.
See, if Bristol Palin had had an abortion rather than bringing her son to life, liberals would have totally approved of the Palin family values.
Somehow it's cool for well educated liberal women to decline marriage as a lifestyle, purposely become pregnant, and live life as single moms. But should a single woman accidentally become pregnant and not abort the baby, she becomes fodder for the snark of liberal boys and girls.
Such ridiculousness.
Sharing created wealth is one thing - not to be confused with what socialists do.
Socialists like to share stolen wealth.
The left like to pronounce the "there will be indictments... soon!" I think because they are like Nazis or crazy Stalinists or something.
Post a Comment