Sarah Palin Energy Guru
Apparently the soon to be ex-Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, is under the delusion that she is an expert when it comes to United States energy policy. But upon reading the first few paragraphs of her op-ed it becomes evident that she is anything but. Upon reading such nonsense given space in a respected national paper like WAPO no less I quickly realized that a response was necessary. Fortunately Andrew Sullivan delivered it and I need say no more.
Advertisement
There isn't a self-respecting progressive who wouldn't get into gutter for Sarah Palin. Haven't you been reading the front page of TPM? Andrew Sullivan hasn't left the gutter since Trig Palin.
As for "a respected national paper like WAPO", there seems to be a major cognitive dissonance going on at TPM. Weren't they vile and disgusting only last week for selling access to the White House? Or are they "respected" because they could sell it in the first place?
July 14, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The paper is widely regarded nationally, that is a fact that has nothing to do with bloggers' individual opinions. Furthermore, and to the point of the blog, I suggest you actually read what Palin presented in the Washington Post and also what Sullivan responded with over at The Atlantic. That will make you more informed on the subject and save you the time of embarrassing yourself while defending a nincompoop.
July 14, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but Lalo makes valid points about WAPO, progressives, and Andrew Sullivan without "defending" Sarah Palin in the least. I suggest you actually read what Lalo wrote.
WAPO's reputation derives from its past, not its current incarnation, and it is being criticized for multiple editorial decisions, and not just by bloggers. It publishes Gerson, Krauthammer, and Kristol and swallowed Bush doctrine whole, so why wouldn't it publish Palin as well?
July 14, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you read what Palin (or whoever) wrote?
I did. It was horrid. I mourn for the Washington Post, Gasket. WTF is up with them?
Their only saving grace is that they publish Tom Toles.
July 14, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I read it. It sounds like Palin to me, only edited.
It's propaganda. It should be called out for what it is, and neither ProfessorB nor the writer for Andrew Sullivan (Conor Clarke, not Andrew himself, btw) did that. This is a huge problem.
The Clarke critique totally misses an opportunity to point out what Palin is actually doing in her op-ed and why. Instead, it manages to reveal that cap and trade is too complicated for ordinary people to understand. Ironically, that's what Palin does get!
July 14, 2009 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't read the critiques. Thanks for the heads up.
I dunno, it worked for acid rain. Say that "simple" thing, acid rain, to people and they "get" it.
I think as a society we want to do the right thing as regards to the environment. The right gets that. Some of the most respected hunting organizations are pretty impressive champions of protecting the environment. Palin, isn't a member of ducks unlimited, though. Maybe she joined Ted Nugents group.
I think, that Professor B started out in THIS post observing that her op ed was without merit.
I will read Sullivan, but I think I know what I'm going to find. Sullivan is not an honest broker. He's a spinner of anti-populist propaganda. So, I can understand... I think.
Sometimes you make me think so hard I get a headache.
July 14, 2009 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yikes! Sorry about the headaches, B!
I agree that Americans earnestly want to do something about protecting the environment, including doing something to slow global warming.
But what's scary to me about the Palin op-ed is that she seems to have found her voice again. Right or wrong, this is the Sarah Palin that her fans are in love with, the Sarah Palin who was so enthusiastically embraced in her debut at the Republican National Convention.
What we have with this WAPO piece is Palin being rebranded and re-presented. Now I see that her resignation was a deliberate effort to control her public exposure. And when I think of control, I immediately think that's something Karl Rove would advise: control her exposure to the public because she clearly wouldn't be able to control her exposure in the remainder of her term as governor. Rove has hardly been critical of her move to resign. He has simply called it "risky."
Meanwhile, since progressives don't take Palin seriously, they predictably resort to snarky, eggheaded dismissals. That's what Rove would expect us to do, of course.
July 14, 2009 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sensible concerns that I personally share. The thing that I wonder about often is whether Palin's success with the GOP base will be a boon for progressives in 2012. Here we have an individual that at once isolates the GOP by appealing only to an ever dwindling base while offending a healthy slice of independents and motivating liberals to vote in droves (like Bush did). On the other hand anything can happen in politics (Bush got elected or installed whatever) and that is scary stuff.
July 15, 2009 6:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I remember long ago when the Moral Majority was widely written off as a harmless political faction because it was considered too small to make a difference.
Whatever happened to those voters? Nothing, they are just quieter right now. They were courted by Bush and then abandoned (they believe) on the issues they hold most dear. They're still a force, they just need new leadership. Sarah Palin appears to be applying for the job. In the op-ed she says:
She's reframing the debate: She is saying, "Look to God, who has bountifully provided everything we need." This is a powerful message that will resonate with the Christians who were abandoned by Bush and who McCain could not effectively lure.
I get worried when progressives get overconfident and take their eye off the ball (which they seem to do the minute they get into office). History shows liberalism has absolutely nothing to be confident about. This is my ongoing complaint about all of the Sarah Palin posts at TPM: Progressives are clueless (and worse, resentful and disdainful) about how Palin could win anyone over, and they wrongly assume she has no power.
But Palin "taps" (a word she used in the op-ed) the emotional wellspring that comes with loving God/family/country, and that's all the power she needs. With that gift she doesn't need to be accurate about anything, especially not "cap and tax."
July 15, 2009 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, it's a given that she will have strong support within the republican primary but the numbers have consistently painted a different picture of what the rest of the electorate thinks of her. The polarizing label would come to mind but it's different than Hillary Clinton. Clinton had the 50 percent minus 1 problem. She could easily command 46 percent of the electorate but could she make it over the hump by election day. Well she's out of politics now but Palin by comparison, I'd say she could secure 40 percent of the electorate but the climb after that is quite steep. The latest cbs poll shows that 55 percent of Americans (a clear majority) believe that she is unfit to govern the nation and 65 percent believe she resigned as Governor of Alaska for politically ambitious reasons. Let's face it, in order to defeat Obama Sarah Palin would have to work twice as hard as Hillary Clinton (and then some because Obama beat Hillary) and with a weaker skill set.
July 15, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who says she's running for president? Her party will decide who is running, not Sarah, and I'm sure it's much too early to decide that. Meantime, she'll be used to raise money.
July 15, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Truer words were never spoken. It's Big Box religion that fuels the GOP and allows them to mesmerize the masses. Not nearly enough covereage was made of all the tractor-trailers that went to these churches to provide the Word of God regarding how these folks needed to vote to prove their faith and win slavation in 2000 and 2004. While this makes no sense to me whatsoever, I do accept it is the perfect reason for these children of God to follow the Leader.
July 15, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
That column will reach precisely ZERO people who don't already have a strong opinion about Sarah Barracuda.
For example, I'm pretty sure she's Satan, and reading that column isn't gonna change my mind!
July 15, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I realize you are being facetious, but I think your comment is excellent. People either love or hate Sarah, and this column won't change anyone's mind about that.
But the column isn't written for us, of course. It's written to rally her (dejected) supporters, especially the supporters who are hiding out right now.
ProfessorB is right to be alarmed that this is a mainstream national soapbox.
July 15, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any doubts about her intentions post-AK Governorship can now be erased. We do need to stay on the attack, but rather then going to war with shock and awe, a very stupid idea, we know who their Leader is and we need to discredit her. Plenty of material available to do this, but we should be surgical about it, eroding her credibility with care to ensure it is complete.
July 15, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a great idea.
July 15, 2009 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll give you that, I did not provide additional material in the present blog to respond to Palin. In my defense, I was out on business all day and stopped in a Starbucks for a few minutes in order to post at least something. The fact that the thread has sparked a debate and now that you have brought up the need to debunk the "propaganda" makes me feel a bit better though.
July 15, 2009 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It sounds like Palin to me, only edited."
Now there's a job I wouldn't relish, editing Palins work.
July 15, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Teaching Sarah Palin how to form a complete sentence and/or finish a thought while being brow beaten in the process.
It is very clear the WaPo article wasn't written by Palin. I cannot believe that anyone published this op-ed and tried to pass it off as Palin's work.
Is it "Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people"????
July 15, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
This was my first reaction to the op-ed.
July 15, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that the paper has done reprehensible things in the past does not remove the urgency to respond to Palin's obfuscation. Were her talking points included in the Wall Street Journal or on Fox News airwaves they would have necessarily needed to be knocked down in light of the large numbers of people that accept these "news" sources as credible and yes respectable. Now the fact that many people hold this view does not make it so yet my emphasis here is not on subjective reality but rather a response to the drivel that seeks to control it. Sullivan provided that despite his shortcomings (and we all have our own). BTW I did read Lalo's comment and was not impressed.
July 15, 2009 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are relying on Andrew Sullivan, the self-proclaimed gynocologist?
I would prefer to listen to people like Warren Buffet who calls cap-and-trade an massive, regressive tax.
Cap-and-trade is going to make it more expensive for businesses to operate. They will pass these expenses on to their customers.
The big leap of faith that cap-and-trade proponents keep making is somehow the extra revenue flowing to the government will somehow make it back to the benefit of the people. That's like saying we are going to see the benefit of all the TARP and Stimulus spending (I'm still waiting.)
The bill the House passed was a joke (not even to mention the 300-page amendment at 3am. And when Congress voted on the bill that Friday the House clerk didn't even have an official copy). I bet most Congressmen didn't even read the final bill. It doesn't even auction all the permits - most would be given away so you'll have windfall profits for many. And it puts a tax on imports. Hello Smoot-Hawley.
Sarah Palin is certainly not the only one critical of cap-and-trade. Others like Buffet see it for what it really is. No need to be critical of them for their views. But you have the right to your own opinion.
July 15, 2009 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
And you have the right to yours, though I think it is silly to equate Palin to Buffet. Warren Buffet is a business man with skill and insight and a respectable reputation. Sarah Palin is a well known partisan hack that has no intentions other than undermining the current administration while positioning herself for 2012 (and she doesn't try to hide it either). My issue is not with individuals criticizing Cap and Trade, it's with obscurantism which Palin is a part of.
July 15, 2009 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Being from Alaska, she's always been focused on energy policy. She's making the same arguments that other people (including Buffet) are making against cap-and-trade.
July 15, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Back when industry dumped their sewage in our water it was a lot cheaper for them and once they had to deal with their own sewage I'm sure they passed the cost on. Fixing that problem was well worth that risk.
Current industry is dumping its CO2 into our air at the risk of frying the planet. It is well worth the cost to prevent that risk.
When Obama gets through with his plans the poor are going to be paying much less than they paid -- one way or another -- under Bush. And they might even have health care. Doubt they'll complain much.
Palin made herself ridiculous by framing the issue as solely one of energy independence rather than a mechanism for coping with global warming with a side benefit of greater energy independence.
July 15, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The poor are going to be paying less? How do you figure that? Even Warren Buffet, a strong Obama supporter, says that this will be a huge regressive tax on the poor
July 15, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed but when you factor in the higher percentage to of the tax burden to be paid by the wealthy I figure the poor are going to net out ahead. There are a variety of things that will net out that way -- affordable education, etc.
July 15, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The rich can afford it if their utility bill doubles. I don't think the poor can afford that.
July 15, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why whine about the mean and nasty liberal media when you can just take your ball and go home, like the big hero Sarah Barracuda?
July 15, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palin the energy wizard is lecturing Obama, what a joke. There is an interesting related post at http://iamsoannoyed.com/?page_id=588
July 14, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the link Carly.
July 14, 2009 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's nothing wrong with going after "coal plants" to reduce emissions, but cap and trade goes after everyone.
Unfortunately that nifty replacement technology is three blades on a fruit stick capable of an incredible 30% of its rated capacity that costs 3-5 times that of conventional power. What a deal.
In the case of Sarah Palin she does not believe in whimsical energy schemes, globalism or the abortion of the imperfect. Her mistake was believing in America which liberals love to hate.
July 14, 2009 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cap-and-trade incentivizes conservation, the cheapest CO2 mitigation option, as well as alternative energy development, including wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, and selected biofuel technology. Wind is already reasonably cost competitive with fossil fuels in many regions and circumstances - Wind Power - and is likely to become cost-advantageous as technology progresses. In my area, our fairly large home, despite conservation, utilizes a non-trivial quantity of electricity. By substituting 40% of our usage with wind as opposed to fossil fuels, we do experience a slight extra cost; it averages about $120/year (a small fraction of our total bill), but is likely to drop in the future.
July 15, 2009 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I heard this on cable and paid it no mind. But now that you talk about it here....
Of course the energy nazis that control this country need a face...
I am speechless.
July 15, 2009 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wot? DD speechless? Not for long I hope.
July 15, 2009 6:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Palin's article does not address cap and trade, only cap. She is knee-jerking against any sort of environmental regulation at all, which should play well to her base. According to Nate Silver's site, Palin is raising a fair amount of money from small donors.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/palin-all-tail-no-head.html
July 15, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, all those smackeroos for Iowa. Methinks she's building up a war chest for the circus.
July 15, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's hope so, for the entertainment value alone.
July 15, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget Obama and Edwards made themselves front-runners with these small-donors too. When all is said and done, we the people still will give more money to politics then companies can, because they need the cash to perpetuate their organizations and spread the wealth to the shareholders. We also vote!!! At last count, population of people's outnumbered businesses and even though a business has this legal personhood, it's not so much that they have a vote ... yet ... just influence. They can take their monies and hire lobbyists. We simply hold rallies and lack as clear an organization as a company. But we're talking Sarah Palin and I have wandered to far. Back on track.
What's the difference between Sarah Palin and George W. Bush?
LIPSTICK!!!
That joke never gets old and we should beat her with that as our token jab every single chance we get. It was a major part of how McCain lost. Obama effectively tied him to Bush so tightly people coudl barely see the old guy. She's the same great big steaming pile of crap polished to shine like a mirror. People look at her and see hemelves and, my, I am so beautifuk, aren't I?!? Sure, but do we really need YOU to be President of the United States? NO! We need the most qualified person with the ability to understand the problems we face and the intelligence to fix them. Sarah did not fix Alaska. She left. BUt she remembered to bring her lipstick!
July 15, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said Gregor well said.
July 15, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink