Alaska Politics Blog : Is McCain rethinking his anti-ANWR drilling position?

Alaska Politics Blog

This is the place to talk about Alaska politics -- state, local, national. Public life in the Last Frontier has probably never been more interesting than right now -- the governor as candidate for vice president, the broad and still-evolving corruption investigation, a big election, powerful members of Congress under scrutiny, and the usual hardball Alaska politics. Come here for news, tidbits and information, and join the discussion. Keep your comments civil and on point. Avoid personal attacks. Do not use profanity. Posts that violate the Terms of Use will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned.

Contributors

Erika Bolstad

Erika Bolstad covers Alaska issues, including the congressional delegation, from Washington, D.C., for McClatchy Newspapers. Before joining the bureau in 2007, she spent seven years as a reporter at the Miami Herald, where she covered politics, government and the state legislature. E-mail Erika at ebolstad@adn.com.

Sean Cockerham

Sean Cockerham writes about Alaska state politics. He spent three years based in Juneau for the ADN before joining the Tacoma News-Tribune to write about Washington state politics. He went to Iraq twice for the News Tribune, and previously wrote about Alaska government and politics for the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. E-mail Sean at scockerham@adn.com

Kyle Hopkins

Kyle Hopkins covers politics and other stories for the ADN. He covered the 2006 campaign for governor, has blogged extensively about Alaska politics, covered Anchorage city government and was a reporter based in the Mat-Su. He grew up in Southeast Alaska and previously was a reporter at the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and Anchorage Press. E-mail Kyle at khopkins@adn.com

Features

SECTION

Alaska political corruption

The FBI raided state legislatures offices in Aug. 2006, and the fallout since has been epic in Alaska's political world.

Is McCain rethinking his anti-ANWR drilling position?

Posted by Alaska_Politics

Posted: August 16, 2008 - 8:23 am

From David Hulen in Anchorage --

This is the new Weekly Standard: To Drill, or Not to Drill
Will McCain change his mind about Alaskan oil?

Excerpt:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain says that he's taking another look at the possibility of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, and as part of that assessment McCain says that he plans to talk to the nation's most prominent advocate of drilling in ANWR, Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

McCain has opposed drilling in ANWR. In the past he's compared it to drilling in the Grand Canyon. But as energy prices climbed over the past several months, he has been careful to avoid locking himself into an anti-drilling position. In late June, McCain told voters in Missouri and Minnesota that he was open to receiving new information about exploration on Alaska's coastal plain, but noted: "I certainly haven't changed my position."

In an interview with THE WEEKLY STANDARD aboard his campaign plane last week, McCain made clear he has not ruled out a change in his position--to one that endorses drilling in ANWR. "I continue to examine it," he said. So does his staff. McCain's campaign has been quietly studying the ANWR issue and discussing the potential consequences--good and bad--of a policy change.

login or register to post comments

29 August 21, 2008 - 9:21pm | aklarro

Palin..Nations most prominent ANWR supporter?

LOL!! She was still in diapers when Ted Stevens began his crusade to open ANWR. Just a personal snub of Ted Stevens by McCain...the child running for..did you say, President?

This country is in deep Kimchi if all we have to decide between is the O'Bama mama and the McCain mistake.

28 August 18, 2008 - 10:23am | watchman

Midwest battle ground.

ANWR has attractions for both candidates, for their national energy policies, and with polls showing Alaska's Presidential vote to be close. Still, both candidates approach on energy is being given close scrutiny in the midwestern states, where the Electoral stakes are high.

McCain has to tread carefully around ANWR. The trial of Ted Stevens is a high visibility event, and an easy story on slow news days between now and the election, and then there is the rest of the Republican corruption story in Alaska. Voters have a low tolerance for corruption, and McCain is already burdened with the Bush administration corruption.

McCain is also aware that the Christian Coalition has given more emphasis to environmental issues, and he needs those votes. He will be careful.

Obama has given the Alaska natural gas pipeline higher visibility in his campaign, and he can already point to endorsements of his energy policy from Gov Palin and Mayor Whitaker. Natural gas is a safer issue with his left wing constituents and with centrist voters focused on the economy.

We are going to hear more from Obama in the Midwest on the Alaska natural gas pipeline. Michigan voters, in particular, remember McCain during the primary speaking about the failing Michigan auto industry, "Those jobs are gone forever."

Obama has taken a more positive direction. For Obama the Alaska gas pipeline is a forward-oriented issue, and fits his approach. He has spoken about rejuvenating the tri-state steel industry with that huge pipe order. He can point toward Rep Rahm Emmanuel's announcement of legislation requiring conversion of a large % of American autos to natural gas, and incentives for gasoline stations to install natural gas pumps, all with the result of elevating the competitive position of American auto makers, and grabbing those Michigan jobs back.

November 20, 2008 - 12:48pm | abidiks

A great read, very

A great read, very informative
bedava türkü dinle türkü sözleri türkü dinle türkü notaları radyo dinle müzik dinle key ödemeleri sohbet radyo sohbet sohbet müzik dinle
canlı müzik dinle
şarkı sözleri radyo dinle

27 August 17, 2008 - 12:13pm | LilysDaddy

The momentum continues,

and Sen. McCain will win in November. Sen. Obama (D-"AN- what?") and the Dems have not one clue; not one. Special interest groups, and particularly the enviro whackos, will drive the party into the ditch.

Again.

August 17, 2008 - 2:49pm | Stags_Leap

McCain will win - I agree with you

for the first and only time. But it's not environmental whackos that will ruin Obama...rather it is Obama himself, who keeps shifting positions on a multitude of issues. And Obama is likely to select a very boring VP -like Dodd or Biden, instead of someone uplifting like Evan Bayh or RFK Jr.

McCain will pick someone moderate, maybe even a Dem moderate like Bayh, which I think would be an awesome move -politically speaking.

In the end, Obama must pick his VP first, a full-week before the REPUB convention in St. Paul, which gives McCain a lot of leverage. And I think McCain is doing an effective job of creating the perception that Obama is a celebrity for sure -but not presidential material...someone ready to handle the Russia's, North Korea's and Iran's of the world.

August 17, 2008 - 12:19pm | TheSdog

Not this time

Obama is not as far ahead as would be expected but the electoral map is in his favor.

The other wild card here is Bob Barr wh will become more prominent as this race goes on.

The best long term outcome for this country is establishment of The Obama Nation for 4 years.

26 August 16, 2008 - 9:14pm | hpwells

Vote for McCain and fight to live in freedom

vote for Obama and submit to sharia law.

August 16, 2008 - 9:49pm | akartisan

Give Me A Break

Vote for McCain and live in a country that continues the policy of giving its freedom and liberty away to the boogey man of "terror". Wake up.

August 16, 2008 - 10:07pm | TheSdog

The "boogey man"

does not fly planes into buildings.

Or blow up embassies.

Or US warships.

Be careful artisan because Obama is backing off his far left positions on wiretapping and many other things. You may be left without a candidate.

August 19, 2008 - 10:42am | leowassilie

no, the boogey man does not do those things

but the Bush/McCain US $ell$ the supplies and intel to the ones who do.

Have to be sure the other side has just enough supplies and information to keep up with the times and fatten the US discetionary military contractor budget.

August 17, 2008 - 10:06am | Cartman3_15

What you deceptively spin away as

a "far-left position" is actually the constitutional position.

It is very clear you are not an advocate of the state constitution. Are you now admitting you dislike the U.S. Constitution, too?

August 17, 2008 - 10:56am | TheSdog

cartman

The pendulum has swung too far in this country

The founding fathers never intended the Constitution to handicap the country's ability to fight wars or fight crime.

Our legal system has been bastardized and that is a source of many problems.

There need to be limits but expediting the process for law enforcement when they are tracking down terrorists is important. Paranoid people like yourself think they actually care if you are cheating on your wife.

August 19, 2008 - 10:32am | leowassilie

fight fight fight

No, but the constitution gave us the right to defend ourselves and our privacy first and foremost.

You and your fighting warmongering profiteers. That's what it really comes down to.

August 17, 2008 - 11:34am | Cartman3_15

I'm pretty sure

the founding fathers also never intended it to be allowable for the government to spy on law-abiding citizens.

You are free to trust these powers in the hands of political people. You should allow more reasonable people who understand history and human nature to not be so comfortable with the notion.

It is hard not to point out, again, how likely it is that your position would be much different if Hillary Clinton, for example, had been pushing the assault on the Constitution that the Bushies have succeeded with.

August 17, 2008 - 11:38am | TheSdog

There in lies the rub.

This is not about law-abiding citizens. It is about criminals and terrorists.

Again, nobody cares if you are cheating on your wife.

August 17, 2008 - 11:44am | Cartman3_15

No, Dog

It's about trusting -- or not -- those who are empowered to use the tools. It should be about criminals and terrorists, but only partisan morons would pretend we should not safeguard against political abuses.

August 17, 2008 - 11:48am | TheSdog

And now we will wait

as cartman provides us 5 examples of "political abuses" using the system.

August 18, 2008 - 3:12pm | Emperor

What makes you think...

...we would know about it?

August 18, 2008 - 7:04pm | TheSdog

Emp

if somebody passes gas related and is detained for 5 seconds while the feds make sure it is safe we hear about it.

The left wing machine would be all over it.

August 19, 2008 - 1:01pm | Emperor

You really believe that?

You honestly don't think our government could get away with illegally or wrongfully detaining someone under the "Patriot" act?

I don't trust government, and neither did the authors of our constitution. That is why there were strict limits set on what the government was allowed to do, and why specific individual rights were afforded citizens.

The government has long sought to impinge on the right to privacy of citizens, "for our own good". Communism, drugs, civil rights and the labor movement are just a few of the evils that our government also thought were important enough to infringe on our right to privacy. Each time there is someone like you that says "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear." Which misses the point entirely. What we do in private is none of the Government's business.

I find it interesting that you don't think the government should do anything for their citizens, but you are all for the government doing anything to them.

You support our government spending hundreds of billions of dollars killing people all over the world, but don't think that the government should spend a dime helping those in need here at home.

You scream about "socialism" while ignoring the growing "fascism" in our country, which is a much greater threat to the American way of life.

August 19, 2008 - 9:01pm | TheSdog

Wrong

It is not fascism to defend the country.

Nobody cares if you are cheating on your wife. And quite frankly, the government does not care about you and I at all.

Is it fascism to take your shoes off at the airport?

Is it fascism to require a license to drive?

Is it fascism to pay taxes and all the privacy that ends up taking away?

Of course it is not.

It is not a case of completely trusting government. It is a case in that a major job of government in any system is national defense. You need to have tools to defend the country and it is not always pretty. And yes, an innocent may occasionally get caught up in the web and half to take their shoes off.

It all depends on where the line is drawn and during times of war, and we are at war, you have to draw the line a lot wider than at other times.

People have forgotten 9-11 and when THe Obama Nation gets in there for a few years we may get a chance to repeat it. Or maybe not, since Obama seems to have at least some clue.

August 19, 2008 - 9:16pm | Cartman3_15

I am in awe

at the profundity of your ignorance.

Not fascism to defend the country, huh? Mussolini? Hitler? Stalin? Saddam? I guess as long as long they were all defending their countries they were just regular, democratic chaps, right?

P.S. Will you never tire of using 9-11 for political gain? I know it's way too much to expect that you'd actually do some homework. But the least you could do is find some new talking points

August 19, 2008 - 9:23pm | TheSdog

cartman

Look at WWII where most of your examples came from...

You can look at policies in the US and UK and ask the same questions of FDR and Churchill.

August 20, 2008 - 11:52pm | Cartman3_15

So you agree

that your original statement was silly.

Thank you.

August 21, 2008 - 6:44pm | TheSdog

Hardly

National security is the most important function of our government.

August 21, 2008 - 7:03pm | rfn

That's so 1950's!

The most important function of our government today is universal health care.

Ask any Democrat!

August 17, 2008 - 12:22pm | Cartman3_15

Is it possible for you,

EVER, to address the substance of a post without hijacking it with your self-serving deflections designed to mask that you have no argument?

One final time. Then I'm done with you. Perhaps you will read it more slowly this time: IT'S ABOUT TRUST.

You trust this gang of liars who have undermined the Constitution. I join the majority of Americans in not trusting them.

Simple, right? Just like your red Kool-Aid-fueled posts.

Now, let's see if you're singing the same tune if the other guys get in power in November.

August 17, 2008 - 12:37pm | TheSdog

As expected

No examples.

Just another cartman fabricated fantasy.

August 17, 2008 - 11:58am | rfn

Unless, of course,

you are running for office in which case cheating on one's wife is a major concern. I submit in evidence the tale of the late Mr. Edwards. "Late" used in describing his political career; no longer even welcome to attend The Democrat National Convention - let alone speak - and seriously let alone any chance of his being anointed Vice Presidential nominee.

Once elected, however, it seems fully appropriate and sanctioned by precedent. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Clinton --- in recent years.

25 August 16, 2008 - 8:39pm | Stags_Leap

Calm down, RFN

your posts are kind of manic tonight. Relax. Take a deep breath. I know Parnell's huge drop in the polls have your underwear all bunched-up, but take it easy on the posts. You have like two dozen on this thread alone.

August 17, 2008 - 11:32am | rfn

Just what is it

about "on topic" that you find so confusing? The subject was McCain's position on drilling ANWR. That means "Alaska National Wildlife Reserve". Mr. McCain is running for President of The United States. I know your anti-Palin fixation prevents your devoting much attention to other issues, so I help the explanations above are of some help.

But now that you've once again hijacked a thread with your obsession, thank you for the opportunity for me to ask, again, the questions with which you seem incapable of of dealing:

Which of the following most lead you to believe that Don Young will be returned to Congress?

His stand on "right to life"?

His proposal to tax gasoline heavily in order to keep pump prices up and Alaskans in their proper place (their homes)?

His diversion of campaign contributions to fill the coffers of his legal defense fund?

Or...this is a new and tricky question...a misguided belief that Mr. Young would be the weakest candidate to stand against the liberal Mr. Berkowitz-Pelosi?

August 17, 2008 - 12:14pm | Cartman3_15

Parnell beats Berkowitz,

Young does not. Polls have been consistent.

Hence the childish blogging behavior coming from certain self-loathing lefties.

August 19, 2008 - 12:55pm | rfn

Now more than ever:

It's Parnell over Berkowitz-Pelosi!

(PRESS RELEASE)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: MEGHAN STAPLETON

907.301.7120

Parnell Defeats Berkowitz in November

Republican Seat Maintained Only One Way: Parnell in Primary

August 18, 2008, Anchorage, Alaska – Three recent polls show the Republican Primary Election is close. Two of three recent political polls show Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell ahead of the incumbent Don Young. Hays Research and Basswood Research each show Parnell polling ahead of Young by four percentage points. And in the Basswood Research poll, two-thirds of the undecided lean favorably toward Parnell.

In another recent poll, conducted by Ivan Moore Research (IMR), the results differ in that Young polls ahead of Parnell by six percentage points in the primary.

But for the first time, we have a look at the General Election and IMR poll results show a very clear distinction: Sean Parnell is the only Republican who can defeat Democrat Ethan Berkowitz in November. Parnell is the only choice for the Republicans to keep Alaska`s lone seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Ivan Moore Research General Election poll numbers:

Ethan Berkowitz 51.3% versus Don Young 40.6%

Sean Parnell 46.0% versus Ethan Berkowitz 41.7%

`To me it speaks volumes that Ethan’s long-time friend, Ivan Moore, released these results,` said Sean Parnell. `A victory for Parnell for Congress in the primary is the only way to prevent a Democrat Party victory in November. A vote for Parnell is a vote for conservative Alaskan values; a vote for Young is a vote for Berkowitz.

(END PRESS RELEASE)

What isn't noted, and what you'll never see in The Veco Voice, is that a vote for Berkowitz-Pelosi is a vote to donate Alaska's lone seat in The U.S. House of Representatives to California to make the score:

California 54
Alaska 0

August 19, 2008 - 1:13pm | bobbyc

Meghan Stapleton

Isn't she the gal that quit working for Sarah Palin so she could "spend time with her new baby"? I guess she doesn't mind working with other people.

August 19, 2008 - 1:15pm | rfn

Not sure....

However doing voluntary campaign work from home would not fly in the face of spending time with a new baby.

Many women these days feel there is more to life than bare feet and pregnancy, shocking as that may seem.

August 19, 2008 - 1:17pm | bobbyc

My suspicion

is that she quit working for Palin reasons that had nothing to do with her new baby.

I'm voting for Don Young.

August 19, 2008 - 1:00pm | blue_in_AK

I also find it interesting

that Ivan Moore apparently didn't conduct any polls on how Diane Benson would fare against either Don Young or Sean Parnell -- not surprising given his close ties to Berkowitz -- or if he did they weren't favorable to his candidate.

But Ivan has been notoriously wrong in the past, so I don't put much stock in his results.

August 19, 2008 - 1:09pm | rfn

Perhaps Mr. Moore

can enlighten us.

Remember, the press release was from Mr. Parnell's campaign and it's not clear who paid for it or specified what was to be asked. It's not impossible that the question of how Ms. Benson might fare was asked and tallied; just not included in the press release that did not come from Mr. Moore's organization.

Ivan?

August 19, 2008 - 2:00pm | rayrocks

More for (Ivan) Moore

And what about Palin's current numbers? Surely he asked about this, as I recall him saying a while back he always asks this, regardless of the poll he's doing, just so he can track the numbers over time.

I wonder why he didn't release the information this time. Any chance you'll tell us, Ivan?

August 19, 2008 - 9:54pm | rfn

Word on the street is

that Mr. Moore is holding back as a humanitarian gesture.

Great fear of strokes and heart attacks among the membership of the Constantly Complaining Coven when the number showing a miniscule decline are made public. Rumor says 81.27% approval, 9% disapproval (sound familiar) and the rest responded that the question was silly because Frank Murkowski is Governor for Life.

Oddly all of the "silly" responses came from Wasilla.

August 20, 2008 - 10:09am | rayrocks

I heard 80 percent approval.

The day the poll was released, channel 2 reported Palin's number on the 5 p.m. report. It was not included in the broadcasts at 6 and 10, and does not now appear on KTUU's website. So something is up.

Maybe Ivan will straighten it out for us.

Funny post, btw.

August 17, 2008 - 11:58am | Stags_Leap

Parnell is not from Alaska

and the only misguided belief is that he can be trusted to be pro-life, anti-tax, and a fiscal conservative. He can't be trusted -is the reality.

Half of Parnell's campaign is funded by the east coast Club for Growth -which is an anti-senior citizen group of wall street hacks.

Parnell and Palin raised taxes on Alaska industry by BILLIONS. As such, Parnell is fibbing when he casts himself as a fiscal conservative anti-tax law maker. He has taken positions that are just the opposite. You can't trust him.

Palin-Parnell allowed the state's operating budget to grow by 23% in Year One of their administration. That is contrary to Parnell's claims of favoring less government.

Parnell and Palin stayed silent -instead of advocating for the two pro-life bills in the last regular session, and refused to add them to the special session agenda. As such, I am not sure how Parnell can claim to be a pro-life candidate. He for darn sure has done ZERO to support that cause.

And lastly, the Palin trooper scandal has tainted Parnell. His steep drop in the polls over the past 3 weeks reinforces that concept.

In sun, you may not like Don Young, but he at least is consistent on his positions, and isn't afraid to speak from behind Palin's skirt.

August 17, 2008 - 12:20pm | rfn

Once again,

the issue is not where anyone might have been born.

Only about where their instructions originate.

What is so frightening about the questions I have posed that prevents them being answered?

I must point out, too, that merely being from San Francisco and being directed from San Francisco does NOT necessarily mean a candidate shares ALL San Francisco views. For example, those so dearly held in Baghbad-by-The-Bay on same-sex marriage and abortion on demand. This may come as a disappointment but it should be faced!

Now, if we may briefly return to the topic of this thread, A very large question is where the candidates might stand on resource development in Alaska. Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama are neck-and-neck in the polls. It could go either way. Mr. Young, I will grant, likely would continue to half-heartedly seek to allow Alaska to develop oil and natural gas. Mr. Parnell would enthusiastically do so regardless of whether it is a McCain or Obama presidency. Ms. LeDoux would surely do her best though her chances of victory seem to be the least among the contenders. On The Democrat Party side, Ms. Benson can be counted upon to stand by her principles and favor nothing that might harm the environment in any way. In short, arrested development. Mr. Berkowitz-Pelosi, beholden not just to the party line but also to his power base in California, might well be among those most vehemently opposed to anything other than the concept of Alaska as a gun-free, vehicle-free national park for the elite.

In summary (not "sun"), then, a primary vote for Mr. Young might show respect for all he has done in the past. It surely is a vote of confidence in The Trial Lawyers of America. It is also a vote in favor of Alaska as a job-free wilderness since he (Mr. Young) could not possibly defeat any of the Democrat candidates.

But that is, after all, the goal, eh?

At the end of the day, since Mr. Obama is already waffling (none dare call it "flip-flopping") on the issue of drilling, the best outcome for Alaska might be the combination of obamanation with a strong Republican congressional contingent as opposed to an obstructionist Democrat contingent. Mr. McCain might also flip-flop (it's safe to say that about him as he is not a Democrat, albeit a liberal). Were he to do so and appoint Governor Palin as his Secretary of The Interior, all things become possible. Especially if Alaska's congressional delegation is not handed over to the liberal element.

August 17, 2008 - 1:27pm | AK_Lady

Secretary of the Interior

I wonder if Sarah knows what that person does? I mean, she's already admitted that she doesn't know what the VP does.

I predict McCain will win the election. Let's hope I'm not wrong.

August 17, 2008 - 3:46pm | rfn

There is one very important

role the Secretary of The Interior needs to play. It's one which Governor Palin (I don't know her as well personally as do you, so decline to use her first name) thoroughly understands. That how to stand up the multi-national oil companies. Surely they and their Muppets will recoil in horror at the very thought. For that reason alone the concept of Mrs. Palin as Secretary of The Interior is delicious!

I must agree that McCain is likely to win. Unfortunate, though, that since we're doomed to have a Liberal president it won't be one who admits to the fact. Denial. It's not just a pipeline anymore. Also tough luck for Republicans if he wins. The economy is in such a mess that whoever is elected is doomed to serve what is, in effect, Jimmy Carter's Second Term. After four years of economic misery the party in power through that time will be out of power for minimum sixteen years.

August 17, 2008 - 3:52pm | TheSdog

There it is

The "take a stand" rhetoric returns.

Go get those evil oil companies.

How much of that $4+ I pay the pump goes to govt again?

And how much more in revenue did the govt take from oil than the profits of the oil companies again?

If making money on resources is evil then why do you love her so much?

Private companies making money is okay.

August 17, 2008 - 5:48pm | Stags_Leap

no offense, RFN

but Sarah Palin the politician -is an intellectual idiot. She would be terrible at any national office -let alone a cabinet position. The nation needs competent people who are capabel of rising above cat fight frays. Sarah Palin is not that person.

August 17, 2008 - 6:26pm | rfn

Despite your obsession...

I believe Mrs. Palin would be a most capable Secretary of The Interior. Her mere presence would cause fear and consternation in the executive suites of the multi-national oil giants. If she did nothing more than keep them constantly off balance the world would be a far better place.

Of course we are all entitled to our opinions. For example, some folks believe Don Young's demand for a huge gasoline tax is exactly what the country needs. They don't know why - they just are enraptured with the concept. Sometimes those same people believe Alaska should not have any representative in Congress...that our present one vote there should be handed over to California. Just opinions, of course.

Please be careful about the use of pejoratives such as "idiot". You might find your favorite watering hole picketed by the folks whose photos were so prominently feature in today's edition of The Anchorage Daily News. If you apologize to them quickly enough you might be spared their wrath.

August 18, 2008 - 5:47am | Stags_Leap

her mere presence?

you mean those Michael Jacksonesque red jackets...or that fact that's she from the Valley -is what would cause fear.

Allow me to re-direct you to reality. The multi-nationals are laughing at Sarah Palin....rip-roaring laughing. It's like sending a softball leaguer to pitch against the Yankees.

Palin-Parnell may have raised taxes on Alaska industry by BILLIONS, but the only fear Palin causes is among the public...who fear the mess she is going to leave our state in at the end of her term.

August 17, 2008 - 7:02pm | AK_Lady

Idiot is okay.

It's 'retard' that they don't like.

Search Jobs | Place an employment ad