Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Sarah Palin makes sense -- on offshore drilling

Leave it to an ecological disaster unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico and lapping up on the shores of Louisiana to put me and Sarah Palin on the same page. Usually, when the former Alaska governor issues something on Facebook, I roll my eyes at her empty rhetoric about common-sense conservative solutions or some-such. But on the issue of offshore drilling, Palin's Friday missive makes sense. There, I said it.

All responsible energy development must be accompanied by strict oversight, but even with the strictest oversight in the world, accidents still happen. No human endeavor is ever without risk – whether it’s sending a man to the moon or extracting the necessary resources to fuel our civilization. I repeat the slogan “drill here, drill now” not out of naiveté or disregard for the tragic consequences of oil spills – my family and my state and I know firsthand those consequences. How could I still believe in drilling America’s domestic supply of energy after having seen the devastation of the Exxon-Valdez spill? I continue to believe in it because increased domestic oil production will make us a more secure, prosperous, and peaceful nation.

No, domestic oil production alone will not make the United States more secure. “I want to emphasize that this announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies on homegrown fuels and clean energy," President Obama said on March 31 in announcing his comprehensive energy strategy, which includes unpopular (but necessary) plans for off-shore drilling and nuclear power.

In a New York Times opinion piece yesterday, Lisa Margonelli of the New America Foundation brought up an issue that Americans pushing for a halt to the president's plans as a result of the Deepwater Horizon disaster would do well to keep in mind. "Moratoriums have a moral problem," she wrote. "All oil comes from someone’s backyard, and when we don’t reduce the amount of oil we consume, and refuse to drill at home, we end up getting people to drill for us in Kazakhstan, Angola and Nigeria — places without America’s strong environmental safeguards or the resources to enforce them."

To illustrate her point, Margonelli points out that "Nigeria has suffered spills equivalent to that of the Exxon Valdez every year since 1969. (As of last year, Nigeria had 2,000 active spills.)" After noting that this nation's oil consumption has increased by two thirds since the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and our import of oil has nearly quadrupled, Margonelli points out an inconvenient truth. "Effectively, we’ve been importing oil and exporting spills to villages and waterways all over the world.

Obama's visit to the Gulf Coast yesterday underscored just how bad things are and could be. But I won't join the chorus demanding that off-shore drilling be stopped forever in the U.S. for one simple reason: Until renewable energy sources are more widely available we have no choice. We need the fuel.

By Jonathan Capehart  | May 3, 2010; 7:25 AM ET
Categories:  Capehart  | Tags:  Jonathan Capehart  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Can the British Conservatives win a majority?
Next: The authors of Arizona's immigration law retreat

Comments

Hey, who wrote that for Palin? Palin could not lead school children at a crossing, dumb as a fence post!

Posted by: kemcb | May 3, 2010 9:33 AM | Report abuse

What rot. Alternative energy sources have been with us forever and a program to implement them began in the seventies. It was destroyed in the 80's by the rapacious oil industry and the Reaganites it controlled. We need a national ten-year program to shift to cleaner energies such as wind and solar and everyone should keep in mind that those who claim we need to keep drilling are being well-compensated by the oil companies to keep lying to the public. Capehart, you are a shill just like Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber.

Posted by: dnahatch1 | May 3, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Make us a more properous nation??? Whaaat? If "worst case scenario" the gulf coast and the east coast of Florida become dead zones for decades - wiping out the incomes that go with it - how does that ever make us more prosperous??? - How does the continued drilling for oil ever make sense? The initial cost of converting the grid and all the rest to clean alternatives the degree that they can offset the need for oil or coal is well worth it as opposed to risking precious natural habitats that will take decades to reclaim themselves. Stop the drilling and start the build out of clean renewables.

Posted by: JimHines362 | May 3, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

http://www.golden-seller.com
underwear $5
caps $7
Sunglass $12
Purse: $12
Necklace $15
Bracelet $15
Jersey $23
handbag $33
Bikini $23
http://www.golden-seller.com

High quality,competitive price,accept paypal,fast delivery

Posted by: golden-seller | May 3, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Jonathan Capehart - have you noticed that we drill offshore? The issue is to drill closer to the coast of Florida. In case of a spill the Oil would get onshore much faster. Since they can not even contain a spill 50 miles off the coast how fast do you think it will get to the beach if the rig is lets say 10 miles offshore? Estimated reserves in Florida waters and the eastern Gulf of Mexico are only a fraction of those in the central and western gulf.
· These reserves would boost U.S. production by 1 to 2 percent, with "no discernible effect on petroleum prices at the retail level" and little contribution toward the nation's "energy independence." Florida-only reserves account for less than one week's worth of U.S. consumption.
· Best-case estimates are that gulf oil production would generate an average of $90 million to $180 million a year to the state and create 2,000 to 5,000 jobs. There would be additional revenue from state-only waters, but perhaps not as much as in other gulf states, which range from $50 million to $200 million annually. Even the most optimistic amounts of potential oil production from Florida state submerged lands and/or the Eastern Gulf of Mexico would be inconsequential for world-market prices that are dictated by more than 80 million barrels of oil consumed per day. As a reporter you should get your facts first.

Posted by: oliver8 | May 3, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

The oil industry has fought long and hard to impede the development of renewable energy resources. Anything they say to the contrary is either a distortion or flat out lie.

Obama was persuaded by oil indutry lobbyists that offshore drilling is now safe. He fell for it. I hope he feels the need to make a course correction. Big Oil needs to compensate the USA for its bribing Reagan and his acolytes to choke off all the renewable energy studies and projects that the Carter administration fostered. I suspect that about $500 billion will take care of the matter to a small extent.

Posted by: palnicki | May 3, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Jon, I certainly agree with the writer of that piece, but if you believe Palin authored it, then you might be interested in a spaceship I have to sell at half price.

Posted by: Lalady | May 3, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

I couldn't agree more. There is absolutely nothing more important for a nation than energy independence. No regulatory and oversight gimmick alone is going make a country sustainable.

It is true that Ms Palin uses platitudes to make her base happy. However, if you play close attention to her statements and interviews regarding energy and foreign policy, regarding China for example, one could clearly see her shrewd foresight that many people overlook or dare not to consider.

Posted by: lmulloth | May 3, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

The words of Sarah Palin are not the same as the actions of Sarah Palin. Does she support more government regulation of business? No. Does she support a stronger government capable of regulating businesses? No. Have you heard anything out of Sarah Palin that would suggest that she believes that companies like Massey Energy, BP, Toyota, Goldman Sachs, Enron, Exxon, etc. should face stronger regulation? No. Does she support Supreme Court justices that are more likely to put the public welfare above business interests? No. Sarah has a point of view that businesses are good (after all they follow the golden rule - profits above all else - no other gods allowed) and government is bad. Why do you think she is making so much money now?

Posted by: steve_borte | May 3, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

The oil obtained off of Louisiana will not necessarily -- perhaps not likely -- go to American consumers and factories. It will go into the vast world oil market, which will swallow it up without a trace. There is no separate "American oil market" (nor should there be).

On the larger scale, why does emptying our relatively small American reserve of domestic oil to zero make us more secure? It seems to make us more vulnerable and more dependent on others, once ours is gone.

Posted by: fairfaxvoter | May 3, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

If we got rid of the mall tanks, how much less drilling would we have to do?

Posted by: dataflunky | May 3, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

"We have no choice?" How about we CHOOSE to consume less oil? How about we stop driving around like privileged jerks in Hummers and Escalades like that makes ANY kind of environmental/economic/national security sense? We don't NEED to consume anywhere near the amount we currently do. How about we address THAT?

Posted by: lizgwiz | May 3, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm... we're watching the end, for how long I don't know, of a major source of seafood in the United States. This environmental disaster could have been prevented by America having realized a long-term strategic embrace of clean energy technologies as Jimmy Carter (remember him?) encouraged us to do 30 or 40 years ago.

America is a REACTIONARY political system. We don't plan for disaster or scarcity, we just react (and react badly) after the fact.

Until this government get off it's butt and stands up for the REALITY of our energy and economic needs, we're all going to end up like the oyster beds off the Gulf coast... poisoned and wasted and ruined.

Posted by: Zino | May 3, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Let me tell the liberals on this board why Capehart is suddenly enamored of Palin's stance on offshore drilling:

He knows what $4.50 a gallon gasoline will do to the Democrats chance in 2010 and 2012. That is the ONLY reason why Capehart and other Democrat toadies are in favor of drilling: high prices at the pump will hurt the Democrats.

That's all that matters to the Washington Commentariat, so enamored are they with Obama and his Administration.

Posted by: section9 | May 3, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

It's not that offshore drilling should be completely banned. But when Palin and those of her ilk say "drill baby drill," they do not describe increased regulation, or an acknowledgement of the environmental consequences. Do a search of Palin's speeches before this spill where she used "drill baby drill" and see how many of the caveats in Friday's missive were used beforehand. See how often she acknowledged the potential negative environmental problems. See how often she used the words "risk" or "accidents will happen" or "strictest oversight." (I'll give you a hint: the answer is less than 1)

Posted by: Dr_Bob | May 3, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Ha! I am sorry, but I have very little respect for any politician who posts complex policy statements on a FaceBook page. What is she? An 8th grader? I understand that social networking sites are a big way to reach people -- to share your Bar Mitvah photos, cute cartoons, and updates on every little thing you are doing -- But if this lady wants to be taken seriously, she seriously needs to get off FaceBook and Twitter and start communicating like an adult leader.

Posted by: clintatl | May 3, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Well, why don't you get your dumb a** down to the coast and help with the cleanup..?
And take that stupid Palin garden tool with you.

Posted by: TOMHERE | May 3, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

More "Secure, prosperous and peaceful?" It sounds good. Real simple, real common-sensy..... but there is not really any evidence that any of things would happen if we drilled more oil wells offshore.

One thing would probably definitely happen...... we would have more accidents and spills like this one.

Sarah Palin likes money. Oil companies have lots and lots of money.

Posted by: cfeher | May 3, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

So it seems as if as long as we don't have the same number of oil spills as NIGERIA,. then we should keep drilling??

Or how about when it there are no more clean fresh fish coming from the GULF or anywhere else that oil drilling is taking place.

After all who needs fish to eat?

I think that PALIN et all have eaten just a few too many OIL LADEN FISH or OIL DISEASED MOOSE

Posted by: racerdoc | May 3, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Lots of great comments friends!! I totally agree with kemcb/first post-these are not the words of Sarah Palin. She is much like our former president, not capable of putting this many intelligent words together for any purpose. Mr. Capehart's
last paragraph says it all, and due to the
greed, and OBSTRUCTION by the GOP to further the renewable/clean energy avenues for our nation, we are woefully behind in finding solutions to this problem. This is a monumental disaster, sad that it has to
happen in our own back yard before the massive impact of our neglect hits home.
It is so easy to let the rest of the world suffer, in so many respects, for our un-satiable needs. What goes around, comes around, in a much bigger package, so true.

Posted by: patriotgmalou | May 3, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama's visit to the Gulf Coast yesterday underscored just how bad things are and could be. But I won't join the chorus demanding that off-shore drilling be stopped forever in the U.S. for one simple reason: Until renewable energy sources are more widely available we have no choice. We need the fuel.
===========================================
Sounds to me like exactly what McCain and Palin said during campaign. I am glad you finally agree with them. Now what about Government's responsibility for containing and acting on cleaning up these disasters.

Posted by: bobilly2 | May 3, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

that Palin statement is to well written, too well thought out, makes too much sense to have been written by the dunce princess herself. It would take her a million years to come up with something logical on her own.

Posted by: jfern03 | May 3, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

I agree that until we find another solution, we'll need fossil fuels in our energy mix (which includes domestic drilling). However, and this catastrophe will prove the point, which Governor will want that drilling to happen off the shores of his/her State? And after politicians get booted from office for allowing drilling (and then backtracking once an accident occurs)then we'll be back to square 1, getting oil from elsewhere.

But directly to your point, we get most of our oil from Canada, so to say we're exporting accidents is kind of a stretch (how much oil do we actually get from those African countries?). Also, we'll NEVER get more prosperous with fossil fuels because there is a limited supply and it's running out. So our ONLY long-term solution is to find different sources of energy. We need to put way more money into renewable energy. Everyday we treat our energy supply as business-as-usual is another day furthering us from finding a solution.

Posted by: sachancp | May 3, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama failin'
Palin gainin'

Each day...
Step by step....
Barry polls get a little worse...
Sarah crowds get a little bigger....

November, 2012: The month Obama's doctors will attempt to remove Sarah Palin's high heel from his rump.

HURRY 2012
HURRY PALIN

Posted by: QuineGeology | May 3, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Unemployment numbers rising...

Gas prices going up....

Inflation beginning to take hold....

Obama continues to dither on the economy, the oil spill and terror threats, and woefully dropped the ball on the now-hot immigration issue.....

I can see November from my house.

Posted by: QuineGeology | May 3, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

We someone please tell me if Ms. Palin plans to wear her MC HAMMER glasses when she enters the White House in 2013?

Posted by: DannyMSnyder | May 3, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Palin needs to back-peddle from her inane sound-bite slogans so she had someone write an entire paragraph that sounds alsmost reasonable - too little, too late. Unfortuanatly her entire premise is wrong.
"I continue to believe in it because increased domestic oil production will make us a more secure, prosperous, and peaceful nation."

Domestic oil production will do NOTHING to help our situation. The Oil companies are not the US goverment. They just well the stuff it does not matter where they get it. Oil srilled in the Gulf is sold to the highest bidder all over the world, it is not "ours". The GOP know how stupid the American people are and will beleive this swill. The corporations sell the oil, make big profits and give money to the politicians to ensure that they do not get regulated. End of story.

Posted by: sux123 | May 3, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Sara Palin will never be President. There has got to be at least a few determined TRUE patriots out there that will whack her out B-4 she has secret service protection.

Posted by: veronihilverius | May 3, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

In wingnut reality, Obama is a stuttering idiot who had Saul Alinsky write his term papers, and Sarah "Word Salad" Palin is a mixture of George Washington, Leonardo DeVinci, Hemingway, and Stephen Hawking.

Posted by: BurfordHolly | May 3, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Palin is just seeking to apply caveats to what she has previously said, since she knew her "drill baby, drill" slogan would come under question because of the recent disaster. Nothing more, nothing less...

Posted by: BT23 | May 3, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Today's Rasmussen poll: 51% dissapprove of Obama, 46% approve.

Today's Gallup poll: 46% disapprove of Obama, 47% approve.

Tick...tick...tick....tick....

Time is not on Obama's side
As his ratings continue to slide
The more he and his goons keep failin'
Support grows deeper for Sarah Palin

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! See you all at the voting booth, maybe....

Obama....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Tick....tick....tick....tick....


Posted by: QuineGeology | May 3, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Once AGAIN, thousands turned out to see Sarah Palin this weekend.

How many people saw Obama?
How many people even THOUGHT about Obama?
How many people even CARE about Obama anymore?

Tick...tick...tick....tick....

2012: Obama fizzle, over and out
2013: Palin in, bringing the change we'll be BEGGING for

Posted by: QuineGeology | May 3, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

It's wrong that other countries must endure oil spills, but that doesn't mean I'm supposed to open the floodgates to very close offshore drilling. I live in Florida and there is no way that anyone here except for a few Palin clones wants offshore drilling near our coast. Also, Palin acts as if this is nationalized oil. What's taken out of the gulf nothing for the US. It's simply sold on world markets at the market rate. Why this obvious fact isn't pointed out every day proves how powerful is the oil lobby, both to politicians and, apparently, the media.

Posted by: morty62 | May 3, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, but we don't need to keep on drilling. That was just an argument to appease American S$tupid. We should be pumping all funding into Biodiesel and biofuels. We are getting close, so why continue to destroy the earth to make American Idiot and the oil companies happy?

Posted by: msilva2 | May 3, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Oil production, domestic or otherwise, just kicks the can down the road, and makes the eventual problems of global warming worse while doing it. If we resolve to put solar on every roof in the nation over the next decade, put sindmills down the median of every divided highway in the nation, and put in a decent light rail sustem we won't be debating drilling or having to clean thousands of miles of coastline. Period.

And if you believe palin wrote that after having heard her speak, and after seeing what she usually writes, you are actually dumber than she is. Which begs the questio of how you knew which button to push to turn on the computer.

Posted by: John1263 | May 3, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

If Sarah Palin is best the USA has to offer then we are in serious trouble. She should have stayed in Searchlight Nevada and called it a day. I don't think the above quote is something she thought of on her own.

Posted by: Imkonfuzed | May 3, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Can I throw up now? This lady just cannot keep her mouth closed.

Posted by: Scar1 | May 3, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

"All responsible energy development must be accompanied by strict oversight," So Palin believes in strict GOVERNMENT REGULATION, or is this a convenient lie? Does she believe in Govenment Reulation of healthcare or Wall Street - NO! So she lies.

"I continue to believe in it because (full in the blank) increased domestic oil production will make us a more secure, prosperous, and peaceful nation." Same thing the NeoCons still say about invading Iraq - "It will make us a more secure, prosperous, and peaceful nation." "Naiveté or disregard for the tragic consequences" or just plain lying, or perhaps all combined.

Posted by: chucky-el | May 3, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

I don't think we'll need as much oil now that the entire Gulf Cost fishing fleet, the Cruise ship industry and all Gulf tourism is lost for the next 5-10 years. Is that how Sarah meant to reduce consumption?

Brilliant.

Posted by: joebanks | May 3, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

LISTEN UP, FOLKS! We need to know if Ms. Palin plans to wear those MC HAMMER glasses into the White House in 2013. Please, find out now!

Posted by: DannyMSnyder | May 3, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

LISTEN UP, FOLKS! We need to know if Ms. Palin plans to wear those MC HAMMER glasses into the White House in 2013. Please, find out now!

Posted by: DannyMSnyder | May 3, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

LISTEN UP, FOLKS! We need to know if Ms. Palin plans to wear those MC HAMMER glasses into the White House in 2013. Please, find out now!

Posted by: DannyMSnyder | May 3, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

But I'm sure that she doesn't mean government regulation. Surely she believes that businesses are quite capable of policing themselves, the way those nice guys at Goldman Sachs did. If she thinks government regulation is needed, why do the tea partiers tolerate her?

Posted by: jlhare1 | May 3, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

"America’s strong environmental safeguards or the resources to enforce them"

Strong compared to Nigeria, yes.

Compared to Norway? Not so strong.

There is evidence emerging that BP has regularly shorted safety measures, and the responsible US regulatory agencies have looked the other way. Lobbyists buy favorable treatment for the industry.

So here is the contradiction with following Palin's lead. Despite the rhetoric, her wing in US politics fights stronger regulation in favor of allowing license to industry to get away with cheap and sloppy practice. This privatizes profits and socializes risk. Don't get taken in by empty words.

And instead of accepting the damage to public health and the environment in Nigeria, shouldn't we be putting together a public & private consortium to push Nigeria towards more responsible behavior?

Posted by: j2hess | May 3, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Fool, dupe, or worse? You think we can't do without Gulf oil, but we can do without Gulf food. How about if we starting trying to do without Gulf oil?

But then, everything is too difficult for Americans. Do without illegals? Do without Chinese junk? Americans are too old, fat and lazy to even try to imagine new ways of living.

Posted by: rusty3 | May 3, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

DRILL BABY DRILL! DRILL BABY DRILL! DRILL BABY DRILL!

Posted by: argh2 | May 3, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

What rot. Alternative energy sources have been with us forever and a program to implement them began in the seventies. It was destroyed in the 80's by the rapacious oil industry and the Reaganites it controlled. We need a national ten-year program to shift to cleaner energies such as wind and solar and everyone should keep in mind that those who claim we need to keep drilling are being well-compensated by the oil companies to keep lying to the public. Capehart, you are a shill just like Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber.
Posted by: dnahatch1 | May 3, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse
You’re an id10t. Neither wind nor solar are effective solutions to reduce our dependency on oil. Not only that they are impractical as pointed out time and time again. But dead wood like you just keep rotting and as with anything dying you start to affect the other living entities around you. And as this blow hard sits here trying to pass judgment on others he’s using coal and oil to produce the electricity his home (PC) needs to post his ludicrous statements making him as dense as lead. Solutions are hard to find but when you’re this stup12d it’s a lost cause.

Posted by: askgees | May 3, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse


Oh please.

I can't believe you can't see how this whole oil "conversation" is rigged to benefit the oil companies -- at the expense of everyone else.

We waste so much oil on ignorant automobile habits that could be easily re-directed with technology, better community planning and -- how about our brains? Just say to no to driving out for just one item at the store! Good grief!

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | May 3, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

"the way those nice guys at Goldman Sachs did."

Would those be the same guys who are all liberal Democrats, contributed 1 MILLION dollars to Obama's campaign, are in bed with Obama and the Democrats in Congress, and will actually BENEFIT from these Wall Street regulations that Obama is shoving through?

Do your homework, follow the money. There is alot more to the Goldman Sachs/Obama story than the lapdog media is reporting.

Posted by: QuineGeology | May 3, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse


Hardly anybody bring up consumption and waste. No need for massive destruction like this ever again if we choose not to consume the earth to death.

Responsibility must be the name of the game, not just pumping more and more and more, the Hummer syndrome.

Posted by: transtique1 | May 3, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Alternative sources? Sure look into them but until they are viable to be even a drop in the bucket of our needs it is going to be nuclear and fossil fuels. All the others combined and used as much as a tree hugging ,otter scrubber could imagine in their wildest dreams still falls pathetically short of making a dent in the demand... NO need.

Stop formulating your opinions on what only makes you feel good about yourself and use a little common sense.

Posted by: theduck6 | May 3, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that something catastrophic has to happen before people in this country can have a real dialogue about how important protecting our planet, our health, our food supply, our economy, and our national security truly are? The problem with people who bash environmentalists are that they don't open their minds and stop and listen for a minute. The people that are talking about Conservation and Energy Efficiency and Clean Renewable Energy are trying to find the best ways overall of creating a healthy and sustainable country and planet that we can all live on. There are simple ways that we can do this which may require some short-term sacrifice, but the Long-Term Gains for a stronger economy with thousands more jobs that cannot be out-sourced overseas, a cleaner, healthier planet for ourselves and our children, and a stronger national security that doesn't have to import oil from hostile and unstable areas in the Middle East far outweigh any short-term sacrifices that we may need to make. We must stop the oil leak, we must clean up the Gulf waters as fast as possible, and we must finally wake up and Demand that the Senate PASS a STRONG CLEAN ENERGY BILL NOW that works steadily to move us away from our addiction to oil.

Posted by: WiseConservtv | May 3, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

"We should be pumping all funding into Biodiesel and biofuels."

Biodiesels and biofuels?!? Are you serious? These have already been de-bunked - even by the left - as creating a worse ecological disaster than oil. What's more, it's prohibitively expensive, produces less energy than oil, and wastes precious farmland for fuel when that farmland could be growing food to feed the rest of the world, as you Libs seem to want to do.

GOD, you people are stupid. So emotional. So myopic. So one-track minded.

Posted by: QuineGeology | May 3, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

I completely agree with Dr. Bob and Steve Borte: I am studying PR as a master's student, and I can tell you right now that Sarah's new stance toward strict regulation is a PR ploy. She can tell which way the wind is shifting and she is shifting with it for political expediency. Anyone who knows anything about beltway politics knows that other conservatives will do the same. But, as with so many political promises, I have no doubt they would go unfulfilled.

Posted by: rhalter3633 | May 3, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

There is nothing that can convince me that palin is anything more than an empty-headed bimbo.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | May 3, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Plain fact food and water will be worth more in weight than oil in 50 years. Biofuels made from almost 10% sunlight capture are being developed. We have the natural resource to develop wind and solar on major scales to supply 25% of energy needs. We can build our nuclear capacity and install nuclear mini power plants in outlying areas to make up for distance losses for power transmission. Fossil fuel production is a dirty dangerous business that to date is burnt releasing pollutants. A small carbon tax of 1/100th of a percent could start a tax credit for conservation. Things like solar water heaters, wind turbines, solar panels should have an amortized tax credit paying half the cost over the items lifetime. The energy savings make it a cost saving thing for everyone to do, built in America, installed in America.

Posted by: jameschirico | May 3, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Do you leftists realize that homegrown GREEN energy is a fairytail? It's a myth. Brazil has come the closest to realize home grown fuel. They had to destroy 97% of their Atlantic Rain Forest to do it. An area twice the size of Texas. Brazil is also a third world country that does not have anywhere close to our energy needs. We use 25% of the worlds oil, we also produce 26% of the worlds GDP.

Posted by: robtr | May 3, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Plain fact food and water will be worth more in weight than oil in 50 years. Biofuels made from almost 10% sunlight capture are being developed. We have the natural resource to develop wind and solar on major scales to supply 25% of energy needs. We can build our nuclear capacity and install nuclear mini power plants in outlying areas to make up for distance losses for power transmission. Fossil fuel production is a dirty dangerous business that to date is burnt releasing pollutants. A small carbon tax of 1/100th of a percent could start a tax credit for conservation. Things like solar water heaters, wind turbines, solar panels should have an amortized tax credit paying half the cost over the items lifetime. The energy savings make it a cost saving thing for everyone to do, built in America, installed in America.
Posted by: jameschirico | May 3, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse
I wasn’t aware that there we’re any laws preventing you from taking the lead. Please, by all means show us. You are more than welcome to spend your money retrofitting your home with a solar cell or solar cells to heat your water. This is a fantastic idea but why must you so called “Save the Planet” types always telling others what to do yet we never see you actually doing it???? Is it because that’s the standard LIB approach to everything complain, do nothing, wait for it to be done, then step in for the photo shoot??? Lead by example or shut up. As for your nuclear plans too bad the spent fuel is a million time more dangerous than the leaking oil and we can not EVER DISPOSE of it. Anymore bright ideas???? There is no silver bullet to the energy issue. It will take a combination of things to handle the needs. Anyone that tells you other wise is a liar and is simply pursuing their own agenda.

Posted by: askgees | May 3, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

So, when Palins' statements come into agreement with Obama's actual policy, you say she makes sense? How conveniently inconsistant of you.

Aren't you supposed to repeat the lefty mantra that she's just a dumb white conservative and that anyone who might agree with her is a racist?

Posted by: ttj1 | May 3, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Let me tell the liberals on this board why Capehart is suddenly enamored of Palin's stance on offshore drilling:

He knows what $4.50 a gallon gasoline will do to the Democrats chance in 2010 and 2012. That is the ONLY reason why Capehart and other Democrat toadies are in favor of drilling: high prices at the pump will hurt the Democrats.

That's all that matters to the Washington Commentariat, so enamored are they with Obama and his Administration.

Posted by: section9 | May 3, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

*****
It is amazing that people like you are still learning to walk upright. You Repugnants have held the President's Office far longer then the Democrats and have done nothing for the citizenry. Everything they've done is for Corporate America and their own pocketbooks. Trying to blame Obama for our energy problems that are bankrupting the citizenry, or like other idiots blaming Arizona's immigrant problems on Obama, all the while closing your eyes and brain tightly over the lack of legislation from Repugs for either of these big problems. Name one Repug who gave a damn about how difficult it is for lower and middle income Americans to heat their homes, operate their automobiles, etc. The Repugs are deadly quiet about energy because they have long been in bed with the oil producers. Just look at the photos of lil Bush kissing the tyrants Of Saudi Arabia on the lips, cheeks and holding their hands as he lead them into his house. Ask him why Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia has two guests houses named after both Bushes at his Colorado estate. Obama gave a courtesy bow to the leaders of Asian country and the rightwingers went nuts.

I don't worry about 2010 or 2012 because everyday in every way American citizens are witnessing the amoral felons on the right who have stood in the way of their lives by opposing anything that would better our lives. The gas prices you mention are high because the Repugs are in the pockets of big oil and that is where they are most comfortable. You need to look in your rear window to see what Bush and company left behind. fritz

Posted by: papafritz571 | May 3, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Palin contradicts herself, as usual.

Posted by: lartfromabove | May 3, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Let's drill on whatever shore you have a house Capehart. This is another of WaPo's dumb columns, since, as others here have noted, we have long had alternative energy technologies ready for deployment. But the oil and auto industries have killed every effort to switch to them, and as long as we say they are many decades away the oil interests will continue to win this argument politically.

Posted by: douard1 | May 3, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

A moonbat claims Gov. Palin is "dumb as a fence post."

Not so. That would make her a Dimwitcrat.

Posted by: thebump | May 3, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

What an idiotic "commentary".
So simple, huh? We need the oil so we must continue to drill baby drill.
It's ignorant and more importantly self serving people like you and the Palin's of this world that are flushing our country down a toilet.
We CAN change our ways but now with arrogant rhetoric...
Give us a break and get out of the way!

Posted by: mappy1 | May 3, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Fool, dupe, or worse? You think we can't do without Gulf oil, but we can do without Gulf food. How about if we starting trying to do without Gulf oil?
But then, everything is too difficult for Americans. Do without illegals? Do without Chinese junk? Americans are too old, fat and lazy to even try to imagine new ways of living.
Posted by: rusty3 | May 3, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse
Sure we could live with out it but would you be willing to pay 5-6.00 per gallon for gas. Also the cost of that FOOD you mention would double as the cost of getting to market would double. So it would appear you really haven’t thought your plan trough all the way. Go back and try again.

Posted by: askgees | May 3, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Are you on drugs?

Palin makes as much sense as the Tea Bag Terrorists blowing up SUVs in NYC.

As in ... none.

Posted by: WillSeattle | May 3, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Good article by Capehart.

Eseentially, the problem the environmentalists pulling out the stops to exploit this oil spill have to get "all drilling in America banned for the wee little fishies and the pwecious cute seabirds" - is they want to farm the problem out to other nations.
Spills killing fish and seabirds DO bother me! But I don't see why it is more preferable to have oil produced 10-16 times more unsafely in Nigeria killing 10 to 16 times more wildlife is better than drilling here.
Why should I want 16 Nigerian seabirds killed rather than 1 AMerican one?

Nor can we expect and demand perfect human suystems. Doctors, nurses and techs screw up and kill patients in hospitals or on the meds given. We accept that because we need medical services. We don't accept it can't be done safer, but we aren't calling for bans on med care or sending patients to Nigeria "because at least in Nigeria while 16 times as many patients would die, at least they wouldn't be killed in American accidents!"

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | May 3, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Let's drill on whatever shore you have a house Capehart. This is another of WaPo's dumb columns, since, as others here have noted, we have long had alternative energy technologies ready for deployment. But the oil and auto industries have killed every effort to switch to them, and as long as we say they are many decades away the oil interests will continue to win this argument politically.
Posted by: douard1 | May 3, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse
Well since you seem to THINK you have all of the answers. Please tell us what alternative fuel source we have ready NOW to replace oil and power the gas/diesel engine??? That’s right NOTHING. Even the latest hair brain idea you m0r0ns came up with causes more environmental damage than the oil you seek to replace. But do share. LIBS are the stup1dest mammals on the planet.

Posted by: askgees | May 3, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: papafritz571 | May 3, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse
It is amazing that people like you are still learning to walk upright. You Repugnants have held the President's Office far longer then the Democrats and have done nothing for the citizenry.

And see there is your problem. The office of the president has very little power. It is Congress that writes the laws not the president. So until you actually understand how our Gov. works you would be better served by keeping your mouth shut. Ignorance kills.

Posted by: askgees | May 3, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Brilliant reasoning: if we don't destroy the environment and wildlife, someone else will.
Sarah Palin should call Joe the Plumber to fix the leak. That would make perfect sense as well.

Posted by: karinmebius | May 3, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

askgees - 'Lead by example or shut up. As for your nuclear plans too bad the spent fuel is a million time more dangerous than the leaking oil and we can not EVER DISPOSE of it. Anymore bright ideas???? "

Funny how all the foreign countries with extensive nuke power programs are managing to safely store their waste. I guess a foreign spent fuel rod of burned uranium or MOX must be different than an American one! Who knew laws of energy and physics and engineering were different once you crossed the US Border.
Not to mention that 99% of a spent fuel rod is recyclable and the French, Koreans, Japanese, Swedes and Brits all do it quite easily...as the US used to!

I'd love to know how this technologically illiterate poster "askgee" managed to figure out spent fuel is a million times more dangerous than an oil spill. I've been in buildings full of spent fuel stored in a pool, walked on top of dry spent fuel storage cask containers, skipping the ones that had nesting birds on top of them and less than 1MR/day rad exposure.

Not that oil spills are exactly "dangerous". They just make for a nice temporary mess until time and nature and some human involvement deal with it.

Each year, the equivalent of two Exxon Valdez's worth of oil seeps from shallow deposits in the Gulf of Mexico. Oil spillage is natural. Same or perhaps more oil was seeping out in the Gulf before humans were even in the New World, let alone drilling.

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | May 3, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Conservation, conservation, conservation. All else is selfish & irresponsible.

Posted by: hector_samkow | May 3, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Are you on drugs?
Palin makes as much sense as the Tea Bag Terrorists blowing up SUVs in NYC.
As in ... none.
Posted by: WillSeattle | May 3, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse
Of course she doesn’t make sense in your little pea sized brain. People like you think everyone else should suffer so you don’t have to. Drill in other countries, have goods made in China. The list goes on and on. Let’s face it. DEMS like you want you cake but don’t want to have to do any work for it or take any chances. Sort of like the LIB jagoff that never has a party because he’s worried someone will break his stuff. But yet goes to everyone’s party and are usually the P0S breaking things. Does that put things into perspective for you????? Also my guess is someone along the Ayers or Rev. Wright train of thought is responsible for the fake bomb and threat. Not saying it’s beyond a REP to try something like this but they would at least have the brains to build it correctly. Just the fact it failed proves it was a LIB loser.

Posted by: askgees | May 3, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Palin makes sense was a more appropriate headline for the first of LAST month.

Posted by: slim2 | May 3, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Brilliant reasoning: if we don't destroy the environment and wildlife, someone else will.
Sarah Palin should call Joe the Plumber to fix the leak. That would make perfect sense as well.
Posted by: karinmebius | May 3, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse
Power off that PC, TV and any other electrical items you have. Sell your car and buy a bike. Don’t mind the high 80’s or low 90’s AC is for those that don’t care about the environment. But we know your convictions only go so far. LOSER.

Posted by: askgees | May 3, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

IT'S OBVIOUS YOU READERS ARE NOT UNDERSTANDING THE IMPORTANT OF THE ISSUE OF MS. PALIN'S MS HAMMER GLASSES! We need to know; will she be wearing them as she begins her residence in the White House in 2013?

Posted by: DannyMSnyder | May 3, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"Drill here. Drill now." Firstly, it was "drill, baby, drill." Secondly, drill where, Jonathan? Drill when?

Posted by: NMP1 | May 3, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

A matter of record. Dick Cheney is responsible for Gulf oil spill ... He refused to require $5000,000 remote shut-off button ... http://shar.es/mGoWL

Posted by: CitizenWhy | May 3, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

askgees - 'Lead by example or shut up. As for your nuclear plans too bad the spent fuel is a million time more dangerous than the leaking oil and we can not EVER DISPOSE of it. Anymore bright ideas???? "
Funny how all the foreign countries with extensive nuke power programs are managing to safely store their waste. I guess a foreign spent fuel rod of burned uranium or MOX must be different than an American one! Who knew laws of energy and physics and engineering were different once you crossed the US Border.
Not to mention that 99% of a spent fuel rod is recyclable and the French, Koreans, Japanese, Swedes and Brits all do it quite easily...as the US used to!
I'd love to know how this technologically illiterate poster "askgee" managed to figure out spent fuel is a million times more dangerous than an oil spill. I've been in buildings full of spent fuel stored in a pool, walked on top of dry spent fuel storage cask containers, skipping the ones that had nesting birds on top of them and less than 1MR/day rad exposure.
Not that oil spills are exactly "dangerous". They just make for a nice temporary mess until time and nature and some human involvement deal with it.
Each year, the equivalent of two Exxon Valdez's worth of oil seeps from shallow deposits in the Gulf of Mexico. Oil spillage is natural. Same or perhaps more oil was seeping out in the Gulf before humans were even in the New World, let alone drilling.
Posted by: ChrisFord1 | May 3, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse
Yes until an earthquake cause the containment pools to crack and leak. Then would you walk out on top of the same spent fuel rods??? Oh but then that would be somewhat like the unplanned disaster we’re dealing with in the Gulf. Only this time million could die not just some shore line damaged. And you think you have a grip on reality. You’re a dumb@zz. Complains oil is bad but then says nuclear is good. By that I suppose you mean as long as it’s no where near you. TYPICAL. Friggin dolt!!!!!

Posted by: askgees | May 3, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

The problem isn't drilling offshore. The problem is the depth of the water and the lack of tools we have to prevent spilling and if spilling does occur in such depth, we lack the tools to stop it. That's the issue.

Posted by: denise4925 | May 3, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Palin's comments make sense if taken in a bubble. The 'drill baby drill' supporters have increased our risk, in both national security AND the environment.

It makes no sense when you realize drilling is not the only path for this nation. Alternatives represent far less risk in a dozen ways -- from global geopolitics to food sources.

Wind and sun are low risk power sources. Oil isn't.

And that is why Palin's comments fail.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | May 3, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Energy independence is a joke...energy is a global industry, and until we incorporate zero point energy, wind and water energy, we will never be independent for our energy needs. And as long as there is greed and corruption, the new energy systems don't stand a chance in the USA.
The other joke here is that Sarah Palin wrote what was quoted. She is incapable of putting two coherent sentences together.

Posted by: tootsie11 | May 3, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

I don't think all scenarios were considered before BP started this venture. Whoever gave the final thumbs-up didn't ask if BP was prepared for a disaster of this magnitude. To use the excuse "We did not have a precedent to follow" is a bunch of crap. However, I am suspicious of associates of Cheney seen in the area prior to the explosion. I'm just saying.....

Posted by: skinfreak | May 3, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

We do need stronger safety measures, especially for deep-water off-shore oil production. The Valdez oil spill (Alaska) was a wake-up call that has gone unheeded. And of course, those safety measures must be enforced strictly by goverment agencies.

We do have some environmental laws for CLEAN AIR, and CLEAN WATER. But we don't much for SAFE OIL PRODUCTION.

Posted by: rmorris391 | May 3, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Palin posts, over her name........"increased domestic oil production will make us a more secure, prosperous, and peaceful nation."

1. That is indeed true if we include clean-up and restoration costs of the current spill.

2. So the US has been LESS peaceful, not to say beligerent, with lower domestic oil production?

Who knew Ms. Palin had grasped such fundamentals of 1) national income accounts and 2) military empires?

Posted by: incredulous | May 3, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

It scares me that people pay attention to this twit from the Northland. TFL, Ken

Posted by: kentigereyes | May 3, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Jonathan:

I'm astonished. You have been led into the abyss of Pee-Party rhetoric and mindless political spin by of all people, the Swag-Hag!! (ok, her ghost pen'ers but still)

There is not a SINGLE WORD that she either wrote, approved of or thought about (her brain is not capable of comprehending this issue) in this rhetoric. Most, if not all, came from Liz Cheeney !!

Again, it's hard to believe you get caught up in this backwash but it could just be the environment you have to play in.....Weymouth and all...


Posted by: rbaldwin2 | May 3, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Good article Mr. Capeheart.

Rock on.

Posted by: ZZim | May 3, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Column mentioning Sarah Palin ------> record numbers of readers and comments.

Sarah Palin wins again.

Posted by: etpietro | May 3, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Palin makes sense?
Since when?
Did she grow a brain?

Posted by: analyst72 | May 3, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Palin may be making a little more sense, but she is still being disingenuous. We cannot drill enough oil to sustain us. It's a false promise. Now, with this spill, NIMBY will kick in and will delay the already long time schedule for setting down any new rigs. It might be 20 or 30 years before a new rig comes online. This is Three Mile Island for off-shore drilling.

Off-shore drilling is NOT a solution to our long-term problems of energy and security.

Posted by: mypitts2 | May 3, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Palin loves Facebook because someone with half a brain can stand there and tell her what to write, just like they did with her book. We all know she loves oil and was the cheerleader for oil drilling all last Summer. Of course now she only likes responsible drilling, give me a break. Obamas problem is always trying to appease Republicans, he'll never get anywhere as long as he does that.

Posted by: rj2008 | May 3, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Sarah "The Bimbo" Palin would say ANYTHING rather than face the fact that the best thing America can do for itself is to develop a better source of energy than fossil fuel which is bad all the way around.

Posted by: lindalovejones | May 3, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

At this point in time, alternative energy sources can only supplement but not replace carbon-based sources. And unless we want to take a vow to never again use plastic, pharmaceuticals and many, many other conveniences of modern life, we still need all the other non-energy uses of the carbon resources including coal,oil and natural gas. Capehart is right. And whoever wrote Palin's article for her is right, because I would agree with many of the other writers here. Comparing her intelligence level to a fence post, though, is unfair to fence posts. However, the other writers are wrong about moving away from offshore drilling. We can't do without it at this point in our development.

Posted by: stillaliberal | May 3, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

even a stopped clock is right once in a while, but if people like her hadn't been so adamant against alternative energy back when Jimmy Carter was calling for it we'd be a lot less dependant on oil now.

like most of what she, and people on the right say, she is speaking only for the moment, not in political or historical perspective.

Posted by: summicron1 | May 3, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Energy is like any technological development. The seller wants to make as much $ as possible on their current product before introducing a new product. It's better for electronics makers, for example, to offer a slightly better, faster product each year to keep people buying rather than simply offer the best, fastest unit out of the gate. No energy company wants to offer better, cleaner products when they are still sitting on a mountain of dirty product they know they can sell. Anyone who believes otherwise is acting like a fool. Those who support petro as an act of political conviction (since domestic production is infinitesimal) clearly prefer tearing down their 'socialist' political foes to building a better future. They are the wrong people to lead society, and they won't. They associate cleaner forms of energy with the liberal environmentalists they despise. How long will we suffer their nonsense?

Posted by: swankcurtain | May 3, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Let me see,
While Obama was an Alinskite and giving advice to ACORN, Sarah Palin was the Chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas conservation Commission.

Posted by: moonjohn | May 3, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

We currently use 25% of the world’s Oil while we have only 3% of it. No amount of domestic drilling will adjust that number even a percentage point or have any effect on the price of Oil on world markets. What will have the greatest effect is Using a lot Less of it (& ending Wall Street Energy speculation). Transportation Efficiency can reduce that by several points, domestically produced Biofuels reduce it several more points. Developing Freight Rail (such as along the I-81 corridor) reduces it a few more points. Here is where we get the greatest Bang-for-the-Buck and Job Creation without sacrificing other Multi-Billion dollar industries and White Sand beaches.

Drilling for a few million in royalties while putting our multi-billion dollar industries at risk is not what we need. We need to invest in creating Millions of Jobs from Renewable energy technologies. Virginia has enviable resources for Offshore Wind, Distributed Solar and Biomass Combined Heat and Power facilities. These take intelligence and work beyond trying to find free gold in the Sea. Nothing is free without hard work and Investment.
Right now, Alabama Senator Shelby and other GOP leaders are stalling Energy Legislation that will fund our Domestic Renewable Energy Development and Free us from Oil and Coal Dependence. Call, Write, and Visit them now and tell them to stop stalling. We need important JOBS and Energy Independence Legislation we need NOW.

www.votevets.org

http://connolly.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=50§iontree=3,50

http://webb.senate.gov/contact.cfm

http://warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Contact

Posted by: liveride | May 3, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Look on the bright side, at least this spill may do something good... Kill the Climate Bill. The science behind Global Warming has proven to be junk science. And without the Democrats giving away off shore oil drilling to the Republicans (they were before the spill) the Cap and tax bill is dead on arrival. No bill will be passed before November, and no treaty will be signed in Mexico. The Global Warming Scam goes down in flames.

Posted by: Senator_Salesman | May 3, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Palin has at last hired someone who is able to put a cogent sentence together -- actually, a paragraph -- and it does make sense. I doubt very much whether she had much of a hand in its composition.

Posted by: Diogenes | May 3, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

quick check for signs of devil possession. Exorcism is available, just ask Sarah.

Posted by: 44fx290 | May 3, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Massive flip-flop by Obama on oil drilling and nuclear. Obama is becoming John McCain BTW.

Posted by: hz9604 | May 3, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

It is not the fundamental concept of whether to drill or not. It is the fact that with such limited knowledge and skills, Sarah Palin touted the benefits because she had no idea what the consequences were. For Sarah it was 100% benefits, and 0 costs. But that simply shows she has 0 knowledge of that industry, 0 knowledge of the environmental impacts, 0 knowledge of the science, and absolutley 0 abilty to formulate a reasonable decision. Alaska is well rid of her, and Fox News deserves her.

Posted by: wmboyd | May 3, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Capehart: Please show evidence of Palin being in favor of (even better: actually passing regulation as governor) strict regulation of the oil and gas industry before the BP catastrophe. Then you might have a point. But this post is lazy journalism at its finest.

Posted by: Aerowaz | May 3, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Sarah, how's that "drill, baby, drill" thing workin for ya?

Posted by: sr31 | May 3, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Sarah, how's that "drill, baby, drill" thing workin for ya?

Posted by: sr31 | May 3, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Pretty good. I assume the same for you as you we're able to fill up your car with out paying 6.00 per gallon. Oh did you think you we're not partly to blame??? To bad you are as long as you depend on the product.

Posted by: askgees | May 3, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

No, Gov. Palin, you did not say, "Drill here. Drill now". What you said, countless times was,
"Drill-Baby-Drill." Some of us have memories larger than an Alaskan Titmouse. Please stop lying to us.

Posted by: BBear1 | May 3, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

The real test of the viability of renewable energy in the US will be whether forest of 300 340' high wind turbines ever appears off the coast of Cape Cod.

The East Coast liberal extremists want to see the blight of wind and solar power in the back yards of the poor, not on their own door steps.

Posted by: mike85 | May 3, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

No, Gov. Palin, you did not say, "Drill here. Drill now". What you said, countless times was,
"Drill-Baby-Drill." Some of us have memories larger than an Alaskan Titmouse. Please stop lying to us.

Posted by: BBear1 | May 3, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

The real test of the viability of renewable energy in the US will be whether forest of 300 340' high wind turbines ever appears off the coast of Cape Cod.

The East Coast liberal extremists want to see the blight of wind and solar power in the back yards of the poor, not on their own door steps.

Posted by: mike85 | May 3, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

The real test of the viability of renewable energy in the US will be whether the forest of 300 340' high wind turbines ever appears off the coast of Cape Cod.

The East Coast liberal extremists want to see the blight of wind and solar power in the back yards of the poor, not on their own door steps.

Posted by: mike85 | May 3, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

that Palin statement is to well written, too well thought out, makes too much sense to have been written by the dunce princess herself. It would take her a million years to come up with something logical on her own.

Posted by: jfern03 | May 3, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse
=================

I know that you left wing extremist nut cases like to criticize people you know nothing about. But, Sarah Palin happens to be one of America's most highly regarded experts on the petroleum industry. She was president of the Northwest Petroleum Producers Association for four years, and she directly negotiated with the major oil companies, the US federal government, the Canadians, and the Russians. Laugh if you like, but she definitely knows what she is talking about when it comes to petroleum. I wish we could say the same about anything Obama.

Posted by: mike85 | May 3, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

I am SICK of people arguing against alternative fuels because "it's too expensive," or "we haven't developed an efficient plan for it." I was just a child during the oil crisis of the 70s, but I remember the lines of cars at the gas stations jamming traffic. Later at the 1982 World's Fair, I saw hope and ingenuity that would make change--the kind we already KNEW we needed--possible. Scientists from all over the world were looking at the problems we still face today and creating solutions. I still have a yellow-ing photo in my scrapbook of a car that could run on electricity (and it looked HOT!). Yet, why, almost 30 years later, are we not all driving that kind of car around town?

Because America (especially the greedy, chest-thumping, mega-mall building conservative) loves oil, and has resisted the kind of change that would have prevented a spill like this. Nah--those European wimps walking and biking more and driving smaller cars instead of Hummers and super-sized pick-ups are flamboyant peons with tiny pelvic parts. We don't want to be confused for their kind, do we?

If Palin were to recognize this as a real problem, what would her hunting buddies think of her? This woman is all about illusion and the spotlight, brandishing a shiny rifle and perfectly-tinted lip gloss at the same time, so of course she can demand the oil and downplay the risks all in the same breath.

Posted by: EdgewoodVA | May 3, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

"Sarah Palin makes sense...on offshore drilling"

This is easily explained by the Infinite Monkey Theorem:

"Given enough time, a hypothetical chimpanzee (or Sarah Palin) typing at random would, as part of its output, almost surely produce all of Shakespeare's plays.

Posted by: apspa1 | May 3, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

this past election..and the play that followed it...has confirmed one thing...the U.S. population of european ancestry...is definatelly composed of at least 45% trailer trash...analusis of voting results and the following Palin and her troup has confirmed that for me...yep..proud to be an american...with 45% of the whites being ignorant,racist,uneducated idiots.

Posted by: kiler616 | May 3, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Ah good, an honest editorial from someone trying to shore up their BP stock. . .

Posted by: mycroft42 | May 3, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin makes sense...on offshore drilling"

This is easily explained by the Infinite Monkey Theorem:

"Given enough time, a hypothetical chimpanzee (or Sarah Palin) typing at random would, as part of its output, almost surely produce all of Shakespeare's plays.
******************************************8
We are talking about Sarah typing randomly for infinity right?....in any caes..the money would probably win by default...due to Sarah driving herself mad trying to produce something of intelligence...as opposed to the monkey doing it randomly...am i the only one that gets a sick feeling from the shrill sound of her voice?....yes,,she is attractive...and i would sex her up if given the chance...but i would indeed muzzle it first.

Posted by: kiler616 | May 3, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Makes sense as in leaks will be leaks and until we know how bad it is how bad can it be?

Posted by: Wildthing1 | May 3, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Palin is right about this.So is Obama.America gets 30% of its oil supply from the gulf coast.To shut it down would cause energy prices to skyrocket.If you shut it down America would be totally beholden to a volitile hostile region called the middle east.Obama is no fool he knows that region could erupt into war anytime.Just think what would of happened had those Yemen Al Quedas being successful attacking the Saudi Oil field infrastructure.Imigine that and the gulf being shut down at the same time($$$ oil prices?).Palin like Obama does call for more energy renewables.She helped get her state 20% on them.However they both realize untill the infrastructures in place America needs to keep drilling.Passing cap and trade is where Obama and her conflict.I would support it if it helps get energy renewables in place faster.I guess a person would have to read a final bill first then decide.Palin disagrees with the congress bill.She should wait and see what the final product is before attacking it.Seems she likes to jump the gun(and loves shooting guns).

Posted by: RandyR1 | May 3, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Let's see though, we are very concerned about being fair to Kazakhstan! So we take over Iraq's national oil company and farm it out was to help Kazakhstan too I suppose. No, it looks more to me like we want to dominate all oil. The real question is what would we do if China demanded we open our oil shale so they can buy the oil or....?

Posted by: Wildthing1 | May 3, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

I love opinion writers who love to quote themselves at length. Some people write to get at the truth; others write to stroke their own narcissism. I wonder where Capehart would land along this spectrum?

Posted by: mikefba | May 3, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

A good two thirds of these comments are concerned whether Sarah Palin or her speechwriter(!) wrote those words. Most of the rest blame President Obama for deciding well before the accident that off-shore drilling was O.K. But some people just enjoy finger-pointing and name-calling, no matter how inappropriate or useless.

Only a few comments are concerned with the horrible damage to the shoreline of our Gulf states. And I saw NO comments on the multi-year effects of this oil slick. Authentic Naw'lins gumbo is gonna have a right "slick" taste for a few years.

It would not surprise me to see a "Grapes of Wrath" type exodus of those who are making a marginal living today. And there is NO way that British Petroleum can make it up to people whose livihood was destroyed through BPs' carelessness. Bottom line: BP was responsible as BP admits. BPs' actions (or lack of actions) caused a huge oil slick to threaten the Gulf coast and ALL the economies dependent on it. BP will escape with a miniscule fine.

Posted by: shadowmagician | May 3, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

summicron1 - "even a stopped clock is right once in a while, but if people like her hadn't been so adamant against alternative energy back when Jimmy Carter was calling for it we'd be a lot less dependant on oil now."

Few people have done as much damage to America as Jimmy Carter. James Buchanan and the Southern Sessessionists may have exceeded him, thanks to the Civil War, but hard to think of another as bad. Bush II may have come closer than most, but it is still no contest.
In energy, Jimmy Carter added the malaise in spades. Nixon launched a national energy program after the 1973 OPEC embargo and Jimmy spent most of his time sabotaging one piece after another.

1. Ended nuclear fuel recycling and reprocessing on grounds "other nations might find out the secrets of doing so". Other nations found it was easy.
2. Put all offshore drilling but Gulf of Mexico and ANWR off-limits.
3. Put National forests and other BLM lands off-limits to drilling. Even for just gas. Great Lakes off limits for Nat Gas while Canada proceeded.
4. Ended the US oil shale program.
5. Ended the US synthfuel from coal and natural gas program.
6. Stopped new hydro dams.
7. Installed solar energy panels on the White House, wore a cardigan sweater, and praised biofuels like "Miracle Ethanol".
8. Demanded CAFE standards that came too fast and helped wreck the domestic car industry.
9. Perhaps worst of all, caved to Iran and radical Islam..leading to the Saudis believing the US was too weak to help so they decided to fund Islamists as long as they would stay clear of challenging the monarchy.

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | May 3, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Now ain't that big of you Mr. Capehart!

When is the last time you had your hindsight checked?

I don't recall The Drilla from Wasilla ever mentioning safeguards, environmental concerns or responsible exploration before this disaster, much less supporting such obviously Un-American ideas. Do you, sir!

What's your next insanity?

Blaming Nissan, or the meter maid for the Times Square bombing attempt?

Posted by: Epistolarian | May 3, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Hmm, the ex-gov of alaska says drill despite the risk. I'll barf now. And spare me the Not in my backyard speech. Anyone remember Carter and his initiative, and how Reagan crushed it (for the oil companies). When will America wake up to how our lives and livelihoods are at the whim of profit mongering companies. We could help not only our fisherman but Nigeria's too by improving our alternative energy sources.

Posted by: golfhokie | May 3, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Palin didn't write that statement. Whoever wrote it will have a challenge to explain it to her in case some reporter thinks to ask her about it.

Palin's actual position on drilling is "we don't need more STUDIES, we need more ACTION."

Yes, that's what she said, earlier this year. Does that resemble that Facebook statement, at all?

Posted by: mukome1 | May 3, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

The mention of Palin is nothing more that a tease for readers. Seriously..."Palin makes sense."? Nothing more than a headline to draw attention. My opinion is that it is because Palin is like a train wreck. You can't help but look at it. People, whether the love her or hate her, just can't turn away.

I'm disappointed when an op-ed writer uses such tactics to have his/her article read. This disaster is all over the news. Any journalist who uses Palin's name as the lead-in to their story simply isn't able to consistently write something worth reading and has to resort to something other than the quality of their own work.

Posted by: Sofie230 | May 3, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

This article points out common sense Sarah Palin on energy and some Palin-haters insist she couldn't have written it ! Ignoring that her message clearly resonates with them as sound.

Other Palin-haters repeat the "dumb" mantra. They must be shocked that the New York Times discovered last week that those Palin-loving Tea Party folks are BETTER-EDUCATED than the average American !

Who knew Palin-haters were in the "dumbest" segment of society ? : )

Posted by: pvilso24 | May 3, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Why so little commentary on the very disturbing morality issue raised ?

"Moratoriums have a moral problem," she wrote. "All oil comes from someone’s backyard, and when we don’t reduce the amount of oil we consume, and refuse to drill at home, we end up getting people to drill for us in Kazakhstan, Angola and Nigeria — places without America’s strong environmental safeguards or the resources to enforce them."

To illustrate her point, Margonelli points out that "Nigeria has suffered spills equivalent to that of the Exxon Valdez every year since 1969. (As of last year, Nigeria had 2,000 active spills.)"

Similarly the European Left trumpeted its use of bio-diesel for years and we now know huge rainforests have been destroyed to produce it...

Liberal/left morality ? Not in their backyard.

Posted by: pvilso24 | May 3, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

The poster [oliver8 | May 3, 2010 10:58 AM] has it right, drilling off shore will add negligible amounts of oil and not even dent our imports. But they do make a lot of money for BP and others, which is why people like Sarah are behind the drilling in such sensitive areas. We may lose the Louisianan coastal marshes now, but Sarah's statement makes it sound like we must drill or lose some amount of national security, pure gibberish. As usual no numbers or facts go with her words, just lies and misinformation dumbed down for her constituents.

One thing oliver8 did not mention is conservation. The vast majority of oil in the US goes into cars and trucks. Bumping their MPG up by an average of 5 would eliminate the need for some of these oil platforms and is a lot safer than risking our coasts. No words from Sarah on increasing fuel economies. Guess why? Because increasing fuel economies does not generate money like oil gushing out of the sea bed does.

If Alaska reduced its drilling, rebates to Alaska from oil companies goes down. Sarah herself has a financial incentive to see this nation drill for more oil. She should explain that to people when she talks about drilling. No wonder she can talk about off-shore drilling after seeing Exxon-Valdez, the money she and Alaska receive makes all that oil look very green.

Posted by: Fate1 | May 3, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Palin said we should "trust the oil industry". We did. The Gulf spill is the result of that trust. This might be the most moronic statement by a politician in my lifetime.

Posted by: theStockman | May 3, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

$arah Palin is not capable of writing, Trig must have helped her.

Posted by: Sadaam | May 3, 2010 10:44 PM | Report abuse

This is plain silly. When an airplane crashes, do we say, ah heck those are the breaks? No, we investigate and change procedures and inevitably increase the safety factors. The cumulative effects have made air travel generally the safest form of travel. When a bomber threatens are airplane, do we say what the heck, we need the flight. No, we freak out and get all kinds of counterproductive. So, prudent risk management lies somewhere in between where trade offs, not wild cliches, are made. Obviously the oil industry does not have adequate safe guards. What is a more basic risk than uncontrolled leak from a reservoir? 5,000 feet of water does not suddenly make that unusual. What is unusual is that these activities are allowed to go ahead recklessly without adequate risk analysis and fall back safety measures. And ignoring that is the biggest mistake of all. Unfortunately the article attempted to make that distracting move and as such is a profoundly wrong headed.

Posted by: pinetree2 | May 3, 2010 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Two things seem odd in this brief essay. First, the declaration that you "won't join the chorus demanding that off-shore drilling be stopped forever in the U.S." What chorus? Creating a straw-crowd to make an argument is Palin's stock and trade. It is also what makes her so aggravating.
On the other hand, her statement seems so out of character. Not because it has been professionally edited, and thus reads well. Rather, the very common-sense notion that "All responsible energy development must be accompanied by strict oversight"seems to run counter to all the rhetoric in her high-paid stump speeches.
It seems she has opened a Pandora's box of necessary government oversight --for oil, for financial misdeeds, for health insurance companies, for ethics violations, for …. OMG, She's a socialist!

Posted by: Mark_Spence | May 3, 2010 11:56 PM | Report abuse

Sarah doesn't worry about tomorrow. The rapture is comeing tomorrow. Todays profits are all that matter. Who needs to be concerned about the environment when they know they are getting called to heaven soon? Those pesky tree huggers don't get it.

Posted by: fishinfool | May 4, 2010 12:38 AM | Report abuse

Sarah doesn't worry about tomorrow. The rapture is comeing tomorrow. Todays profits are all that matter. Who needs to be concerned about the environment when they know they are getting called to heaven soon? Those pesky tree huggers don't get it.

Posted by: fishinfool | May 4, 2010 12:41 AM | Report abuse

We already drill in the Gulf to the tune of 37,000 operational oil platforms right now. If gas was going to be cheaper, it would have been. If oil companies were going to employ locals, it would have been done already. If to drill was making sense economically, why are our gas prices going up? This disaster was all created by our leaders who in reckless mismanagement of our tax dollars and those who took money from BIG OIL to finance their campaigns and line their pockets--need to be held accountable.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/More-on-the-Oil-Gush--by-Anita-Stewart-100502-286.html

Posted by: anitamstewart | May 4, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

PIG VOMIT
We need a a progressive energy policy that invests heavily in renewable and sustainable energy sources.
SARAH PALIN'S CRASS RHETORIC is NOT PRODUCTIVE.

Posted by: SethPlatt | May 4, 2010 8:49 PM | Report abuse

This statement pretty much sums up the reason she gives

"I continue to believe in it because increased domestic oil production will make us a more secure, prosperous, and peaceful nation."

Studies have shown increased domestic oil production WILL NOT make us significantly less reliant on foreign oil. There is not enough domestic oil for thatand we can't pump it out fast enough to meet our needs. So her main argument for which she provides absolutely NO PROOF is wrong. Second her record of governorship and her speeches in the media should make any intelligent person be hesitant to put any trust in any thing she says. She talks about responsible use of energy resources and yet does not mention what would be the MOST RESPONSIBLE way to develop energy resources which is put money into renewable energy sources.

The following is a second argument she makes

"No human endeavor is ever without risk – whether it’s sending a man to the moon or extracting the necessary resources to fuel our civilization"

The argument assumes its necessary to expand oil production to meet our resource needs. The evidence does not support that. Our needs can and should be met without increasing our current oil production and putting that money instead into renewable energy resources and even better into energy conservation. Going to the moon is something that can only be done by taking enormous risks. Risks that involves risking the lives of people. Meeting our energy needs however does not
require a continued risk of lives. The RISK that it requires and that Palin and many others are too afraid to take is the

risk to our money and resources

in the believe that American ingenuity and innovation can find cheaper and cheaper ways to produce electricity in a renewable and sustainable way.

Posted by: applkj12 | May 4, 2010 11:56 PM | Report abuse

Sara Palin lost my support when she decided to back McCain in the 2010 election. She paid a debt to a liberal and totally worthless politician. Had the RNC selected a decent candidate in 08 we might not have been in the mess we're in today.

Posted by: sesails | May 8, 2010 4:32 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company