Governor Sarah Palin Has What It Takes To Be The Next Dick Cheney

With Sen. McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate, the Huffington Post is re-featuring Chris Kelly's May 2008 piece on the Alaska Governor

Sarah Palin keeps showing up on short lists of John McCain vice presidents. She doesn't have a weird thing growing on the side of her head, so she brings that to the ticket as balance. She also has a few other obvious things going for her:

She's the Governor of Alaska.
(A state that's 22 years younger than John McCain. Shows he can adjust to new things.)

She's a lady.
(Take that, Hillary. Or Obama, for slighting Hillary.)

She's what they call Nice Looking for a Politician.
(Don't look at me like that. I didn't say it. For one thing, Nice Looking for a Politician is what they say about anyone prettier than Haley Barbour. For another, I think Sarah Palin looks like an anchorwoman on a newscast no one wants to watch. And even if she didn't, I'm not shallow like that. I vote for the candidate with the most flag pins.)

Over the weekend, the Anchorage Daily News discovered a whole new reason Governor Palin is the perfect person to be the next Dick Cheney:

She can look you in eye and tell you black is white.

Especially when there's oil involved.

Back in January, the secretary of the interior was considering whether or not polar bears should be on the endangered species list. There were strong feelings on both sides of the issue. Childish romantics, who think there should be more bio-diversity on Earth than cows and us, wanted them listed. Grown-ups (and oil company lobbyists) argued that the answers are never that simple. But what about the scientists? Governor Palin wrote an op-ed for the New York Times that said:

"I strongly believe that adding them [polar bears that is, not scientists] to the list is the wrong move at this time. My decision is based on a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice and polar bear experts."

The polar bears weren't drowning. They were hanging themselves in their cells.

So that was that. Scientists said so.

Except they didn't.

The Feds -- who eventually did add the bears to the list -- based their decision on models that showed all of Alaska's polar bears dead by 2050. The ice they hunt and mate on is melting and they'll fall in the water and drown.

There were too many "ifs" to this theory for Governor Palin. (Does ice really melt when it gets warm? Is ice really water? It doesn't look like water.) She had to have her own people check it out. So she sent the Feds' reports to three marine biologists, including Robert Small, head of the marine mammals program for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Small wrote back:

"Overall, we believe that the methods and analytical approaches used to examine the currently available information supports the primary conclusions and inferences stated in these 9 reports."

In other words, the Feds are right. The email is dated October 9, 2007. Palin's op ed, where she says they said the Feds were wrong, was published January 5th, 2008.

But was Palin lying? Not technically. Look at what she wrote again. She only says her decision is "based on a comprehensive review of wildlife experts." She doesn't say it's based on agreeing with anything they said. That's you, jumping to conclusions.

It's like later, in the same op ed, where she repeats talk radio's favorite polar bear fact:

"Polar bears are more numerous now than they were 40 years ago."

The implication is that their habitat is stable and climate change is something Al Gore made up because he's lonely. But it's only an implication. Why else would their population increase? I mean, we also stopped hunting them in 1973, and that's... let's see... 08 minus 73... carry the 5... round up... about 40 years ago. Not shooting them -- that might be part of the explanation. But I'm sure there's more.

All I know is, there are lots of polar bears and no scientific reason at all to believe they can't live happily, underwater, eating clean coal. Let's get drilling!

It's almost like Republicans say ridiculous twisted half-truths, and the New York Times publishes them as facts.

Makes you wonder if they'd lie about a war.

--

Gov. Palin loves to say that drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will affect "a small footprint... about 2,000 acres, which is smaller than the size of LAX." This is an adorable sound bite, but when I go to LAX, I take a road. Presumably, to get the trucks to the drills, they'd also need to build those, too.

Read more reaction from HuffPost bloggers to John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate

Comments

[realpolitic]

When did the New York Times begin to simply transcribe right wing talking points as if they were facts? They should really get back into the business of journalism and correct the misstatements of these right-wing blowhards, such as Governor Palin.

[rabrophy]

How long? As long as I can remember, and I'm 62. The Gray Lady has always been on the side of the rich corporate power elite and as long as the rich are doing well , The NYT will tell us all is well. Didn't you read Kristol's latest , everything is going just great in Iraq

[realpolitic]

Yes, I read it with gritted teeth. As Jon Stewart said to Kristol: "Oh, Bill Kristol, are you ever right?" I guess Kristol feels if he keeps insisting the war is going well for the next 50 years that someday he will be right.

[nexus1961]

Anyone surprised at the constant stream of bile and bullshit emanating from the
NYT simply hasn't been paying attention.­... after all.. Bill Kristol still has a job..
despite being REPEATEDLY as accurate as Phil Glass was.

[jsarets]

I'm a progressive environmentalist. I think that opposing drilling in ANWR is ultimately a political disaster.

Why? Because the price of gas will be $12-15 per gallon by the summer of 2012, and there's no way that any opposition to domestic drilling is going to fly in electoral politics, even though drilling for more oil is an economic dead-end that marginally increases the rate at which we're destroying the Earth's delicate ecological balance.

In the scheme of things, the remaining unexploited domestic oil reserves are a drop in the bucket, both in terms of their impact on the price of gas and on greenhouse gas emissions. But if we don't do "everything we can" to help American workers afford to commute to work, progressives are going to get crushed.

Now, I realize that, with 2% of the world's oil reserves and 8% of the world's oil production, we're burning through our meager resources 4 times faster than the big oil exporters, and we're in danger of leaving future generations of Americans with nothing to make polymers and other petrochemicals for which there are no substitute inputs.

But when we're staring into the abyss of $15 gas, nobody is going to care about future generations. The global economy will be in crisis mode, and it will become increasingly difficult to avoid oil wars between nuclear powers. A negligible concession such as opening ANWR to oil producers could stave off the outbreak of civil unrest and nuclear confrontation.

[sarge]

Gas will not get to double digits in the next 10 years. There are plenty of alternates and substitutes at prices well below that, and people will use other sources of energy and find different ways of doing things.

Part of the reason we use 25% of the worlds oil at 4% of the population is because gas has been a lot cheaper here than in europe, so we use lot more of it. As the price goes up, that will change. America would use less than half the amount of gas they use now if the price were, say, $7.00 - 8.00 per gallon, but it won't get that high because as people start changing their ways, long term the demand will drop too much for the prices to rise dramatically.

In a few years, you won't have to park your SUV in the compact spaces, there will be plenty of full size spots available.

[JerryinATL]

I am driving my Harley now for commuting. 50MPG and it look so darn cool. I leave my Hot Rod at home. too expensive.

[mamacat]

If Bush's economic policies are continues, then yes, gasoline could get that expensive, because the dollar will have decreased in value another 40% or so. It seems that the inflationary effects of deficit spending and voodoo economics are increasing exponentially, so it is pretty difficult to gaze into the crystal ball and see how bad things are going to get in another 4 or 5 years.

[LITU]

Second attempt:

I doubt that you're a progressive environmentalist.

Hemp, a renewable resource, having nearly unlimited potential to REPLACE OIL-BASED HYDROCARBONS, is at least a part of the solution. Fixes nitrogen, requires little to no pesticides, renewable every 110 days, wouldn't get a fly high. The seeds produce one of the purest natural oils known, just ask Rudolph Diesel. You remember him? The guy who invented the diesel engine, which he ran on hemp seed oil. Oh yeah, it's also edible and highly nutritious.

The hurd, that stuff inside the husk walls, can be converted to any number of hydrocarbon profiles (thousands actually).

The French build earthquake-proof houses using resins and hemp fibers. Look ma, no trees felled!

5000 known uses and still counting. Compared to hemp, every other bio fuel alternative, with the exception of bio waste from livestock is bogus. Oh yeah, hemp is 100% recyclable. I can go on and on, but I won't.

Getting back to your notion that ANWR is doomed to development - it is only doomed if the opposition fails to hammer home the foolishness of the idea. And I mean HAMMER! A maximum of six-months' supply that will take one to two decades to realize, that will have nearly zero effect on the cost of fuel. There is NO logical reason to pursue the ANWR argument.

So go pound sand up someone else's Khyber.

[JerryinATL]

I did not know all that about hemp. What would the energy requirement be to produce it on a large scale i wonder? what is the harvest cost and cost to get the oil from it? any books to read on this?

[newunderground]

Let's save it. It's like money in the bank. Break it out when oil is $300/barrell.

[JerryinATL]

I am a conservative, and THAT IS THE BEST IDEA YET!

[Wilbur]

Recent studies show that drilling for oil in the ANWR would reduce the price of a BARREL of OIl by at most SEVENTY-FIVE CENTS! We're already destroying the ANWR with global warming. You want to destroy it FASTER by drilling for oil there (which, ironically, would produce more oil to be burned to create more greenhouse gases which would produce more global warming which would melt the polar ice caps even faster)??

Yeah, you're a "progressive environmen­talist"...­......and I'm the starting QB for the Green Bay Packers!!

Wilbur (not Brett Favre)

[Cybesq]

According to Palin's bio:

She created Alaska’s Petroleum Systems Integrity Office to provide oversight and maintenance of oil and gas equipment, facilities and infrastructure, and the Climate Change Subcabinet to prepare a climate change strategy for Alaska.

Petroleum Systems Integrity Office? That's practically an admission that the industry is full of crap. It's almost like she's trying to blame the equipment. We're here to make sure that this 20 metric ton Geoprobe doesn't drill itself into our pristine forests.

Climate Change Subcabinet? And if the Subcabinet says we're killing off the polar bears, I want you to head directly to the SubSubCabinet.

Another great post Chris. Thanks!

[PandeiroMan]

Yeah, she is kinda hot for a politician. I guess she can be VP or somehing.

[Kundera]

"She can look you in eye and tell you black is white." If that excludes her, are you taking your Bill Clinton votes back?

[MourningDude]

The point is that if polar bears are threatened, they are threatened by "global warming", not by anything being done specifically to their habitat by the state of Alaska.

Putting them on the "endangered species" list causes a lot of unnecessary protections that won't do anything to reduce the threat polar bears are facing.

The feds already said they're not going to allow polar bear endangerment to be used as a back door to implement greenhouse gas restrictions, so putting them on the list is pointless.

[miatch]

So your argument is that even though they may be endangered, they shouldn't be put on an "endangered species" list?

What kind of species should be on the endangered species list than?

[MourningDude]

That's like saying every species on the planet is "endangered" because we are likely to be hit by a cataclysmic meteor sometime in the future. So what? The endangered species list is not designed for such situations. Putting every species on the planet onto the list because they're endangered by meteors makes the list itself meaningless and hampers our efforts to help species that the list was designed to help in the first place.

[BADEN]

Oh great - a stealth DLC candidate.­.....

Grrrrrrrrr­rrrrrrrrrr­rrrrrrrrrr­rrrrrrrrrr­rrrrrrrrrr­rrrr

[Liberace]

Pay attention, because gems like this don't come along this often. This whole issue is an absolutely elegant and cosmic illustration of the principle that actions have consequence, and that all things are connected.

I've lived in Alaska and I love the Great Land. But its inhabitants are zombies, WHORES to the oil industry. Alaskans talk out of their asses about independence and self-sufficiency and the big, bad government. Well guess what? No other state gets more federal assistance than Alaska. For every dollar in federal taxes Alaskans pay, they recieve almost TWO dollars back in federal spending (some states get as little as 60 cents on the dollar). Each resident is PAID to live there, there's no state income tax, and very low (if any) sales taxes. For many, the Alaskan lifestyle is propped up by welfare, not self-sufficiency. Alaskans are junkies with a big oil rig on their backs.

So, here's the punch line: Alaska is the state most affected by, you guessed it, GLOBAL WARMING. Forget flashy polar bears, the average temperature in AK has risen 9 degrees in 30 years. HUGE infestations of beetles and unprecedented fires have decimated millions of acres of climate stressed spruce forests. Glaciers are retreating at an alarming rate.

So does the junkie realize the destructive nature of his poison? NOOOOOO! More! More! More! Gimme ANWR! That'll solve it. Then when the ice melts, and the polar bears are all gone, we can drill there and keep AK rolling!

[BADEN]

You are right.

A perfect DLC argument. And a perfect DLC candidate.

[MinuteMan]

After all the state motto is "Please lord, just give me one more boom; I promise not to squander it this time!"

[nexus1961]

Beautiful !!!!!
If ANY of that is true, then I cannot WAIT to hear about their Buildings sinking into
melting permafrost­... as is happening RIGHT NOW in Siberia!!!
Only fair to see them bear the brunt of the effects of their GENERATIONAL
greed and idiocy.