News Palin is probably the nation's leading energy expert - McCain

[Cyrus]

Uh, where are you going with that Cyrus?

Want to hear a joke?



Side:
Check this out:


Side 2:
Nice new signature Ivan,

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Damon nails it. No matter who she may be, we have no way to know by election day. That alone disqualifies her.

Nice new signature Ivan,

Personally, I think this episode alone shows that neither of them is qualifed to be President. I used to have a lot of respect for McCain, but at the least, his Palin pick, and his ludicrous defense of her show that he is far too cavalier with the nation's future to be trusted. I mean really, like Damon says, this is absurd!

This is why I am so confident that Palin is nothing to worry about; so long as the media and bloggers do their jobs. There isn't much time, but the facade is extremely thin. Really I think this whole business amounts to nothing more than a gimmick.

 

[castlegates]

Isn't this just a slip of a word or words?. She uses the word energy, instead of saying oil and gas? Maybe we should just stick with her hair style, and call it a day.
Yipes .. You guys are a tough crowd. :-)

 

[Cyrus]

Isn't this just a slip of a word or words?. She uses the word energy, instead of saying oil and gas? Maybe we should just stick with her hair style, and call it a day.
Yipes .. You guys are a tough crowd. :-)

Maybe instead we should hold people accountable for what they say.

Oh that's right I forgot, you don't care. So the point of you're posting was.....?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Isn't this just a slip of a word or words?. She uses the word energy, instead of saying oil and gas? Maybe we should just stick with her hair style, and call it a day.
Yipes .. You guys are a tough crowd. :-)

You think she is the nation's leading expert on oil and gas? She didn't even know how much Alaska contributes.

I don't think anyone is being unfair. I think we have grown too accustomed to accepting absolute nonsense from political charlatons.

keep in mind that only few years ago, most people would have had no way to know anything about this; only the people in Maine [many of whom may have believed McCain], and those of us who watch Meet The Press, would know. He and Palin would be free to roam the country telling all of the lies that wish to tell. Now, through the power of the internet, they can be held accountable.

 

[castlegates]

Maybe instead we should hold people accountable for what they say.

Oh that's right I forgot, you don't care. So the point of you're posting was.....?

(Maybe) is good enough for me, since it came from you. So it's not a lie as one poster suggest, and just a misuse of a word. Seems more than reasonable since the 20% corresponds with the oil and gas production percentage that this site gives.
http://www.akrdc.org/issues/oilgas/overview.html
Now maybe we should get back to her hairdoooo?

And I really really don't care who wins this election. Sara Palin isn't all that bright. We can all agree here, but she is BUBBLY!, and BUBBLY! makes her a force to be reckoned with. Now I know you won't be voting for her, but I'm not referring to you in this paragraph, nor me, because I don't vote, but the average American does vote, and if I'm not mistaken, the average American likes MIZ BUBBLY more than any of the other candidates.
MAYBE enough to tip the scales to a win, what was in the bag for Obama.

 

[castlegates]

You think she is the nation's leading expert on oil and gas?

Obviously she isn't.

She didn't even know how much Alaska contributes.

And you are willing to lie to yourself.

I think we have grown too accustomed to accepting absolute nonsense from political charlatons.

If we accept the system by which they are chosen, it is to be an expected norm, in fact it is demanded of them by the very nature of the process. You just happen to think it is only republicans that hold the realm of charlatan. :-)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Has Obama just not been getting much coverage lately? I thought it would be his best bet to ignore the Palin issue and just sit back and wait for the air to clear a bit before getting back to business as usual. This is looking to me like that's what has been going on. Without anything big from Obama to take back some of the spot light its just staying on Palin and giving their campaign more rope to hang themsevles with as they try to figure out how to avoid too much scrutiny.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Why do people care what Matt Damon thinks? Should we also consult Angelina and Brad?

 

[Cyrus]

Why do people care what Matt Damon thinks? Should we also consult Angelina and Brad?

Because he's dreamy :!)

And he makes good movies. You leave matt alone!

More seriously though: I care what he thinks because he's exactly right.

 

[BobG]

Why do people care what Matt Damon thinks? Should we also consult Angelina and Brad?

Unless he's secretly dating http://www.parishiltonmccain.com/ , I don't care what he thinks.

Hot! beats Dreamy! any day. It even beats Bubbly!

 

[Astronuc]

Why do people care what Matt Damon thinks?

Actually, it doesn't matter what Matt Damon thinks. It matters what Sarah Palin thinks, because she and McCain are asking the country to give them the responsibility of making critical decisions regarding laws of the land, governance, economic and tax policy, energy policy, national security, . . . . So far McCain and Palin have failed to provide credible reasons, and in fact quite the opposite, have attempted to deceive the populace with regard to experience.


Matt Damon is a citizen like anyone else. The difference is that he can get face time on camera to ask - what the heck is going on with McCain and his selection of Palin for VP? The media needs to be asking the hard questions, instead of reporting the McCain propaganda.

Here's a modified version of Damon's interview - Is Sarah Palin on Welfare? - by Youtube use - britethorn. He also asks some good questions.

Matt Damon has some questions he wants answered and so do I? Why does Alaska keep taking Federal Subsidies when they have enough money to give a $1,200 check to every one of its citizens?

Why is Alaska receiving Federal subsidies when they have their own revneue from oil taxes?

 

[Evo]

(Maybe) is good enough for me, since it came from you. So it's not a lie as one poster suggest, and just a misuse of a word. Seems more than reasonable since the 20% corresponds with the oil and gas production percentage that this site gives.
http://www.akrdc.org/issues/oilgas/overview.html
Now maybe we should get back to her hairdoooo?

She said "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." That's the incorrect part.

 

[castlegates]

She said "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." That's the incorrect part.

So she refers to oil and gas as energy. Whats the big deal?

 

[LowlyPion]

(Maybe) is good enough for me, since it came from you. So it's not a lie as one poster suggest, and just a misuse of a word. Seems more than reasonable since the 20% corresponds with the oil and gas production percentage that this site gives.
http://www.akrdc.org/issues/oilgas/overview.html
.

Here's the FactCheck analysis of that statement.

But Alaskan production accounts for only 4.8 percent of all the crude oil and petroleum products supplied to the U.S. in 2007, counting both domestic production and imports from other nations. According to EIA, the total supply was just over 5.5 billion barrels in 2007.

Furthermore, Palin said "energy," not "oil," so she was actually much further off the mark. According to EIA, Alaska actually produced 2,417.1 trillion BTUs [British Thermal Units] of energy in 2005, the last year for which full state numbers are available. That's equal to just 3.5 percent of the country's domestic energy production.

And according to EIA analyst Paul Hess, that would calculate to only "2.4 percent of the 100,368.6 trillion BTUs the U.S. consumes."

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.html

 

[LowlyPion]

So she refers to oil and gas as energy. Whats the big deal?

Since you are apparently confused about what she did say here is the quote of her statement:

Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, ...

Maybe it's because she slept through the Oil and Gas Commission meetings? Or is it because she doesn't understand how these figures are put together? Oh but wait a minute, she is the energy expert?

 

[castlegates]

Why is Alaska receiving Federal subsidies when they have their own revneue from oil taxes?

Because Alaska is a much more important state than say Ohio. It's got oil. Forget about the people for a minute, and look at it as important land.

 

[Evo]

So she refers to oil and gas as energy. Whats the big deal?

The fact that she was wrong and mislead the public and considering that she is campaining to be Vice-President of this country, it's an issue.

Because Alaska is a much more important state than say Ohio. It's got oil. Forget about the people for a minute, and look at it as important land.

That's not an answer to the question posed.

 

[castlegates]

Is this wrong from this site?
"•Alaska's oil and gas industry has produced more than 16 billion barrels of oil and 6 billion cubic feet of natural gas, accounting for an average of 20 percent of the entire nation's domestic production. "
http://www.akrdc.org/issues/oilgas/overview.html

 

[Evo]

Is this wrong from this site?
"•Alaska's oil and gas industry has produced more than 16 billion barrels of oil and 6 billion cubic feet of natural gas, accounting for an average of 20 percent of the entire nation's domestic production. "
http://www.akrdc.org/issues/oilgas/overview.html

It's called "reading comprehension". They are referring to the domestic production of oil and gas ONLY. This has been explained to you a number of times, do you really not understand that or are you repeatedly posting this just to be annoying?

 

[LowlyPion]

Because Alaska is a much more important state than say Ohio. It's got oil. Forget about the people for a minute, and look at it as important land.

Not in the election of President they are not.

But that said, balancing the state budget is surely no problem.

The oil industry continues to be the largest source of unrestricted revenue to the state, accounting for 87 percent, or $4.6 billion, of all unrestricted state revenue in fiscal year 2007. Unrestricted general fund revenues from the oil and gas industry in fiscal year 2008 is expected to reach a record $7.76 billion.

With that extra $3 Billion this year why the heck can't they build their own bridges and give back US Taxpayer money that was supposed to go for bridges?

 

[Astronuc]

Is this wrong from this site?
"•Alaska's oil and gas industry has produced more than 16 billion barrels of oil and 6 billion cubic feet of natural gas, accounting for an average of 20 percent of the entire nation's domestic production. "
http://www.akrdc.org/issues/oilgas/overview.html

But that is 20% of domestic oil and gas production. The uses imports more than 50% of petroleum, and oil is about 38% of the total energy supply.

At best Alaska contributes to 4% of the nation's energy supply - as of 2007.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0103.html

Palin is just confused by the details.

So simple, yet Palin doesn't get it.

 

[Cyrus]

I can see alaska from my house!

 

[Astronuc]

I can see alaska from my house!

You must be an expert on polar bears.

 

[NeoDevin]

Just last weekend I drove past a sign that said "Scenic Route to Alaska". Does this mean I'm now qualified to make foreign policy decisions for Canada?

Edit: And I've been to Newfoundland, that's kind of like a foreign country, but they weren't speaking any language I could recognize.

 

[turbo]

Alaska derives the bulk of its revenues from taxes on oil. If I was an Alaskan resident, I would have to wonder how my governor could be so far off on the impact of my state's oil exports on the domestic market.

If my governor didn't have a firm grasp of the magnitude of the wood products industry in my state, or of the extent to which Maine captures market share of framing lumber, paper products, etc, I would consider him woefully inadequate. I would also expect him to be able to rattle of relatively accurate numbers regarding the value of tourism, fishing, agriculture, manufacturing, etc. These businesses are the life-blood of our state, and the governor has to form regional and international alliances with leaders of other states and provinces to ensure fair trade and protect our resources and market shares.

 

[OAQfirst]

I've been thinking about divvying up $400 for Google Earth Pro as support for Governor Palin's education in geography. She'll be able to see the whole world from her desktop!

Make location related decisions better and faster. Google Earth makes businesses and governments more effective and efficient across a wide range of applications. From commercial real estate site selection to homeland security disaster response, Google Earth helps make location related decisions better and faster.

 

[LowlyPion]

I've been thinking about divvying up $400 for Google Earth Pro as support for Governor Palin's education in geography. She'll be able to see the whole world from her desktop!

Apparently if she can only see it, she's an expert.

 

[mheslep]

...I care what he thinks because he's exactly right.

Impeccable logic. Have fun down the rabbit hole.

 

[mheslep]

But that is 20% of domestic oil and gas production. The uses imports more than 50% of petroleum, and oil is about 38% of the total energy supply.

At best Alaska contributes to 4% of the nation's energy supply - as of 2007.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0103.html

Palin is just confused by the details.

So simple, yet Palin doesn't get it.

Then Sen Obama is confused about the number of states .

 

[mheslep]

It's called "reading comprehension". They are referring to the domestic production of oil and gas ONLY. This has been explained to you a number of times, do you really not understand that or are you repeatedly posting this just to be annoying?

Palin said domestic. She blew the oil and gas part.

 

[mheslep]

Palin was Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission for 1 year.

Domenici has chaired the United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for 4 years and been the ranking member on that committee for many more. Likewise, with the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. And he's been on the Appropriation subcommittee for Science (etc.) for who knows how many years. He has written a book on Nuclear Power and edited a second one, and has earned the epithet "Nuclear Renaissance Man" as arguably the strongest driver of Nuclear energy development in the US Congress. Heck, he is the only American to be awarded the French Nuclear Energy Society’s Grande Medaille de l'Academie des Sciences (their most prestigious recognition). He is one of the strongest supporters of the US National Labs, and has been calling for US energy independence for about a quarter of a century now. He has authored numerous bills on energy, science and technology and water management. He has been instrumental in virtually every major energy bill (including the 2005 Energy Policy Act that he crafted) in the last couple of decades. He is the second most senior Republican in the Senate.

You really think Palin can hold a candle to Domenici on Energy issues? You've got to be kidding!

Not on nuclear, as Ak doesn't have any commercial nuclear (yet). On oil and gas, yes. Being in charge is akin to teaching a course rather than being a student or reading the text, no matter how many times. There's nothing like actually teaching material (or being in charge) for really fundamentally learning the material. I'd like to see more to be sure, but then being up on Capital hill for a long time, where most of your time is spent raising money, does not guarantee one is an expert on anything either.

 

[LowlyPion]

Palin said domestic. She blew the oil and gas part.

Face it. She was caught again gilding the lily, padding the resume, inflating her experience, magnifying her worth, exaggerating her competence and areas of expertise. No matter what you want to call it, it was a misrepresentation designed to inflate her image - DISHONESTLY.

And she is supposed to be a reformer? Washington DC is overpopulated with people like her, big noting themselves, in order to act important and valuable, instead of going about the People's work to solve problems and guide the Nation.

I'd say she has much more to worry about now with this latest Nixonesque stonewalling tactic of hers with the expanding TrooperGate investigation.

 

[LowlyPion]

Being in charge is akin to teaching a course rather than being a student or reading the text, ...

Where did you get that? What course is she capable of teaching outside the context of Wasilla?

Surely you aren't going to represent that she knows anything about Nuclear Power or the technologies behind alternate power sources to hydrocarbons - in a state that has been awash in oil tax revenues.

Interesting side note: I understand that in Alaska that Todd "First Dude" Palin sits in on many of the Governor's meetings. If he is helping her understand "complex" issues such as energy, then maybe his views on Separatism and support of the AIP should be a more central issue in the campaign?

 

[Cyrus]

Impeccable logic. Have fun down the rabbit hole.

What a pointless post mhslep. Damon brought up valid questions and concerns.

Do you not believe in dinosaurs?

 

[Astronuc]

Where did you get that? What course is she capable of teaching outside the context of Wasilla?

Home economics? Oh, but then she's been absent.

Maybe cosmetology.

Acting?

 

[Gokul43201]

Then Sen Obama is confused about the number of states .

Has the Obama campaign repeated the 57 state statement? McCain-Palin have made the Alaska:20% of US "Energy" statement on at least 3 different occasions (and maybe many more that I haven't come across). It's become a part of the campaign spiel and Palin, rather than correct it, has been an active participant in the misinformation.

Not on nuclear, as Ak doesn't have any commercial nuclear (yet). On oil and gas, yes. Being in charge is akin to teaching a course rather than being a student or reading the text, no matter how many times. There's nothing like actually teaching material (or being in charge) for really fundamentally learning the material. I'd like to see more to be sure, but then being up on Capital hill for a long time, where most of your time is spent raising money, does not guarantee one is an expert on anything either.

This is astounding!

From the wiki on the Alaska Oil and ...Commission:

The structure of the membership has changed throughout the years, though it has consistently been a three-person Commission.

Under the current structure, adopted in 1979, one member must be a registered petroleum engineer, one member must be a registered geologist, and the third member must represent the public at large (and not be in either of the other categories).

I'm guessing Palin was not the first or the second. How is Palin more qualified than any of the previous or succeeding commissioners - most of whom served 4 years on the commission to Palin's 1 year? What does Palin know about Coal, Solar, Hydroelectric, Wind or Nuclear "energy".

Nevertheless, if you are seriously contending that Palin knows more about energy than Domenici then I choose not to spend any more time on this particular argument - I personally think they are not even anywhere near the same league and any comparison is ludicrous.

 

[mheslep]

...Nevertheless, if you are seriously contending that Palin knows more about energy than Domenici then I choose not to spend any more time on this particular argument.

Again, I didnt say that. OIL AND GAS.

 

[Gokul43201]

More energy talk from the nation's leading energy expert:

IBD: Some politicians and presidential candidates say we can't drill our way out of our energy problem and that drilling in ANWR will have no effect. What's your best guess of the impact on prices?

Palin: I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can't drill our way out of our problem or that more supply won't ultimately affect prices.

Rest of the interview here: http://www.omgili.com/newsgroups/talk/environment/C49F02AA10FDCleonard78spprimusca.html

 

[Gokul43201]

...Nevertheless, if you are seriously contending that Palin knows more about energy than Domenici then I choose not to spend any more time on this particular argument.

Again, I didnt say that. OIL AND GAS.

I thought we were discussing mcCain's claim that Palin was the leading energy expert.

In fact, this is what you first objected to...or so it seemed:

...
Palin doesn't even come anywhere near the kind of energy credentials that Republicans like Don Young and Pete Domenici have. There are at least a half dozen Republicans in Congress that know way more than Palin does about energy. ...

According to who?

 

[Evo]

More energy talk from the nation's leading energy expert:

"Palin: I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can't drill our way out of our problem"

I can't believe she wants to spend $30 billion for a pipeline for an oil and gas supply that is projected to be completely depleted in 7 years?

Palin:"In Alaska alone we can supply seven years of complete crude-oil independence, and eight years' supply of natural gas for Americans with ANWR (and) other areas of Alaska that we want to allow for development."

Do the math.

 

[quadraphonics]

I can't believe she wants to spend $30 billion for a pipeline for an oil and gas supply that is projected to be completely depleted in 7 years?

It won't be depleted in 7 years; that was for the "energy independence" case where the United States stops importing oil and gas entirely. If we did that, we'd run through Alaska in 7 years (which, to me, is just an example of how insignificant Alaska is as a strategic answer to energy policy). Of course, we would not do that, and the pump and pipe infrastructure associated with something like that would be ridiculous in the first place. Even an aggressive expansion of oil and gas production in Alaska would take decades to deplete the reserves; it's just that it wouldn't really put a dent in foreign oil dependence, and so they don't discuss these realistic scenarios on the campaign trail.

 

[Cyrus]

mheslep, I'm waiting to know her stance on dinosaurs (and yours).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Face it. She was caught again gilding the lily, padding the resume, inflating her experience, magnifying her worth, exaggerating her competence and areas of expertise. No matter what you want to call it, it was a misrepresentation designed to inflate her image - DISHONESTLY.

And let's not forget: These are supposed to be her foreign policy credentials. That was the original question. And does her proximity to Russia no longer count? Anyway...

How does a pipeline count as foreign policy experience?

Assuming that even McCain doesn't seriously intend to pass off a pipeline as foreign policy credentials, one has to wonder why McCain didn't have a better answer. Did he not anticiapte the question? And if not, what does this say about his competence. Did he think no one would ask? If he did, then it still speaks to his competence because no one in their right mind would accept this answer.

Either McCain gets confused [perhaps when he gets desperate], or he thinks the voters are all too stupid to understand that his answer is nonsense.

 

[LowlyPion]

How does a pipeline count as foreign policy experience?

Because she is paying a Canadian Company - not American I note - to do the $500M study?

Who needs jobs in America anyway? The Republicans certainly don't stand for that.

Either McCain gets confused [perhaps when he gets desperate] ...

Maybe he just gets confused when people ask him questions?

 

[LowlyPion]

I can't believe she wants to spend $30 billion for a pipeline for an oil and gas supply that is projected to be completely depleted in 7 years?

Maybe she wants the pipeline in place before Alaska seeks it's independence?

 

[mheslep]

It won't be depleted in 7 years; that was for the "energy independence" case where the United States stops importing oil and gas entirely. If we did that, we'd run through Alaska in 7 years (which, to me, is just an example of how insignificant Alaska is as a strategic answer to energy policy). Of course, we would not do that, and the pump and pipe infrastructure associated with something like that would be ridiculous in the first place. Even an aggressive expansion of oil and gas production in Alaska would take decades to deplete the reserves; it's just that it wouldn't really put a dent in foreign oil dependence, and so they don't discuss these realistic scenarios on the campaign trail.

Exactly:
US total oil consumption: 7.66B bbl/year, 58% imported - 4.45B bbl/year. Alaskan official reserves - 31B bbl. Converting all imports to Alaskan oil: 6.7 years.

 

[Evo]

Exactly:
US total oil consumption: 7.66B bbl/year, 58% imported - 4.45B bbl/year. Alaskan official reserves - 31B bbl. Converting all imports to Alaskan oil: 6.7 years.

So her statement was meaningless and mis-leading by stating that Alaska could provide "complete crude-oil independence". So, is she dishonest or mis-informed?

 

[quadraphonics]

So her statement was meaningless and mis-leading by stating that Alaska could provide "complete crude-oil independence". So, is she dishonest or mis-informed?

She's a dishonest person hoping to misinform ignorant people for electoral advantage.

But more than that, her comments are just stupid. The basic point she is going for is "wow, we have so much oil in Alaska! We should drill our way to energy independence!" But to anyone with half of a brain, the response is "7 years? That's not even till the end of your term limits, should we elect you. You fail at coming up with a basis for energy independence, let alone a comprehensive national energy strategy."

 

[mheslep]

So her statement was meaningless and mis-leading by stating that Alaska could provide "complete crude-oil independence". So, is she dishonest or mis-informed?

Drilling our way out of the problem is the arguable statement. The seven years part is just a matter of fact, completely accurate as stated, another way of saying Alaska has 31B bbl reserves, which most people wouldn't fathom versus a usage abstract with which more people would. Same as saying a new GW power plant will provide power for one million homes, the world has '5 years' until peak oil, US has 200 years of coal, etc.