7     August 26, 2008 - 2:17pm | palmeranian

Biden was poor choice

It would have been difficult for Obama to pick anyone who would not have hurt him. But Biden was an especially poor pick.

It is evident that his team must be overloaded with liberal elites. This east coast left wing blowhard might play well on the blue coasts...but he won't cause any excitement in the contentious mid-western states. It's a lose/lose with Biden

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  6     August 26, 2008 - 1:20pm | LilysDaddy

Wow,

the choice of Sen. Biden (D-"Plagiarize? Me?") has really given the Democratice ticket a bounce, eh?

Not.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  5     August 25, 2008 - 7:11pm | erak

Obama is a belief system, blind faith religion

He believes checking tire pressure will do more than all that drilling!

All that talk about coming together (which only the gullible would believe anyway) is vaporized with smokin Joe Biden. He is as partisan as any one in the country.

I was planning to vote for Obama (simply because his is black) because McCain is such a loser but I cannot vote for Biden.

Just to make things interesting the narcissistic McCain should run with Hillary. Afterall, all that matters is winning.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  4     August 25, 2008 - 5:29pm | watchman

If you say my name three times

On a lit match, it will help chase away those Reudrich Republican vapors, LilysDaddy.

Yes, I said precisely what I intended to say - Barack Obama and Joe Biden have the best energy policy, a policy which benefits Alaska. I thank you for repeating my points. I was looking for some new content in your response. I found the sarcasm, standard fare (along with corruption) from Reudrich et al, but I did not find anything new.

Obama has shown he understands the Alaska Natural Gas pipeline, its role in a national energy policy, its importance to the midwest rust belt and our American auto industry, and its role in shifting dependence away from foreign oil.

Yes, Naval Petroleum Reserve 4 is part of the Naval Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Glad to see you understand that.

You were asking about the Chukchi Sea and offshore production. No, to my knowledge, neither Obama nor Biden have committed specifically to offshore production in the Chukchi Sea. They have committed to consider increased offshore exploration and production, which means exactly what it says. If you are asking whether the risks of offshore production in the Chukchi Sea would be part of their consideration, then yes, I think so. The risks would not be part of your consideration?

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  3     August 25, 2008 - 4:51pm | LilysDaddy

watchman, watchman, watchman

I agree with Mr. Chance below, that you've certainly got the Democratic talking points down. Got them down cold, I'd say. If you're not being paid, you're missing out on a source of income.

For grins, let's just examine a few of your "real Alaskan" points, shall we? You say Sen. Obama (D-"I don't know a Mr. Rezko!") "...has endorsed exploration and production from the Naval Petroleum Reserve." What exactly does that mean? There are several Naval Petroleum Reserves (note the plural), which are various fields located throughout country, in production since the early part of the last centruy. Might be kinda easy to "explore" for and allow "production" from them, eh? Wow, that Barack is bold, isn't he? And note the term naval; think that might have anything to do with their intended purpose?

And what does this mean: Sen. Obama (D-"Nuance!") is "...open...to consideration of offshore exploration and production?" "Consideration?" That's what I tell my 13-year-old daughter when she asks that her allowance be tripled; I'll "consider" it, I say. It seems to make both of us happy for the moment.

Go back to your talking points memo, please. Does it say Sen. Obama (D-"A Mile High! An Inch Deep!") supports or opposes drilling in the Chukchi? In ANWR? No, not "consideration;" yes or no.

Do you really wonder, watchman, with tightrope-walking talking points like those you've cited, that The Messiah is in a dead heat with McCain on the first day of the Democratic Convention?

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  2     August 25, 2008 - 3:46pm | tommcgrath

Obama and Biden

It is obvious to this common observer that Obama/Biden in the White House would be a disaster for Alaska. As bad as Carter (to my way of thinking, the worst president ever) was I don't think Obama would be half as good, if that could be measured.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

  1     August 25, 2008 - 12:22pm | watchman

Good article

It is true, Joe Biden has well-represented his Delaware constituency on environmental issues. Today, Senator Biden is articulate on the dangers of dependence on foreign oil, its negative impact on foreign policy and trade relationships, and the need to work for energy self-sufficiency.

Rather than looking back to the '70s, perhaps we could look forward for a moment. Barack Obama has already stated his support for the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline, a position endorsed by both Governor Palin and former Mayor Jim Whitaker of Fairbanks. Candidate Obama has spoken about the pipe itself, and the hope of rejuvenating the rust belt steel manufacturers in the midwest. Barack Obama has also endorsed the legislation recently announced by Rep Rahm Emmanuel, requiring accellerated conversion of the US auto fleet to natural gas, and providing substantial incentives to gasoline stations and distributors to add natural gas pumps. Such actions will assist the midwest-based US auto industry in recovering competitiveness and midwest jobs. Such actions increase the value and importance of Alaska natural gas reserves.

On the oil production side, Barack Obama has endorsed exploration and production from the Naval Petroleum Reserve, and opened up to consideration of offshore exploration and production, particularly of existing lease tracts. These are practical proposals which stand a good chance of non-controversial implementation by an Obama-Biden administration emphasizing bipartisan cooperation. Noting that the 'Perfect Storm' of Republican politicans, all strong pro-TAPS voters, was not able to overcome opposition to ANWR under 8 years of a conservative Republican President, it is time to focus on what we are able to accomplish.

These energy policy approaches are consistent with Senator Joe Biden's stated preference to accomplish North American petroleum self-sufficiency, control demand, and expand the use of alternative fuels to oil. Frankly, I think future Alaska petroleum production is well-positioned with the Obama-Biden ticket.

login or register to post comments | flag this »