Posted by RationalThought at 9/5/08 11:24 a.m.

Sarah Palin is Dick Cheney in a dress - another cheerleader for the oil industry and for destroying the environment in the search for ever-larger corporate profits for Republican benefactors.

Posted by seattle j at 9/5/08 11:45 a.m.

RationalThought is right.

She needs to be exposed as more of what has gotten us to this sad state to begin with.

Change means change, not four more years of the same.

Posted by unregistered user at 9/5/08 11:57 a.m.

Those of you who are getting all crazied about McCain using the "e" word, get over it! Quit nit picking and look at his goal - the health of the PLANET. I might not be a rocket scientist but I can take that as the "environment"...duh.

Posted by unregistered user at 9/5/08 12:00 p.m.

Why is it that everyone put such a huge emphasis upon how the Democratic candidate *HAD* to say "God Bless America" at the end of his speech? Everyone kept putting all this emphasis on him having to respect the country with a line like that, and that no candidate had EVER not blessed the country.

Why is it now, that nobody cares McCain doesn't want to bless America? He just wants God to bless the Republicans.

A political gaffe? Who knows. But from a line like that, its quite obvious that despite his protests, he DOES care about just *his* party, and not *our* country.

Posted by WestSeattleDave at 9/5/08 12:21 p.m.

McCain will do as he is told as he panders to the Right, to the Republican leadership and to the Corporate executive management community through the lobbiests who are his close friends and allies.

Posted by unregistered user at 9/5/08 12:22 p.m.

Do your research, PI. Sen. McCain did talk about the environment. An excerpt from his speech:

M"y fellow Americans, when I'm President, we're going to embark on the most ambitious national project in decades. We are going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much. We will attack the problem on every front. We will produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells offshore, and we'll drill them now. We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. We will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles.

Senator Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power. But Americans know better than that. We must use all resources and develop all technologies necessary to rescue our economy from the damage caused by rising oil prices and to restore the health of our planet. It's an ambitious plan, but Americans are ambitious by nature, and we have faced greater challenges. It's time for us to show the world again how Americans lead."

Posted by truthmeister at 9/5/08 12:37 p.m.

No surprises from John McSame, just more of the same old failed Bush policies that favor corporations over citizens.

Posted by unregistered user at 9/5/08 12:58 p.m.

Whats the difference between Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney?

Lipstick!

Posted by Lookitsme at 9/5/08 1:04 p.m.

What do you expect him to say?

The McCain/Palin campaign is a wholly owned subsidiary of big oil - much as most of the Republican party is.

How much more obvious must it be that these people don't give a damn about the country or the future? One glance at the Reagan/Bush/Bush memorial borrow and spend national debt should make this clear.

Posted by pahart at 9/5/08 1:06 p.m.

Actually, Sarah Palin reminds me of Reagan's Secretary of Interior James Watt, who, being a Christian fundamentalist, believed the "end was coming soon" anyway, and so it mattered not a wit what we did to the environment. Might as well drill, dig, rape and ruin, as it won't matter anyway...since Jesus is coming.

Posted by myopinion_matters at 9/5/08 1:07 p.m.

blah, blah, blah, more liberal loonie rants. get over it folks, sound off all you like, this is the republican winning ticket. too bad for you guys that shillery was cast to the side.

Posted by unregistered user at 9/5/08 1:09 p.m.

I truly do hope the American people, Dems and Republicans wake up and smell the coffee before it's too late. They say advanced civilizations only last 200 years. Well, Bush has put us on the path to decline. If McCain and Sarah are in the White House look for an even more rapid decline. I once heard a person say, "How can you keep doing the same old thing, and expect new results?" Well, you can't, so don't expect anything new or enlightening from the Republicans

Posted by unregistered user at 9/5/08 1:26 p.m.

Actually, Obama did cite nuclear energy as one of his prerogatives in last week's speech. One more factual "omission" from the McCain camp.

Posted by unregistered user at 9/5/08 2:01 p.m.

I love the Orwellian term "clean coal." There's nothing clean about coal or any other petrochemical. We CAN have clean energy powering the totality of our country within the next decade or two if we would get off our collective butts and find the will and courage to do it. It can be had via solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and bio sources, along with the attendant power grids, storage capabilitis, and transportation technologies.

Posted by Numen at 9/5/08 2:06 p.m.

I think we need to stop using "secret ballots". I want to know who should get the bill for this stupidity. Stupid is when you know better but don't do it. If you voted for Bush, either of them, you owe America $trillions. If you're one of The Insane for Mc Cain, your bill is coming.

There's something really off balance about people who just have to trumpet, "God loves us...not you". Amazon forest down for cattle and soybeans, trees in Seattle hacked and poisoned for profit and presumption. "I will bring to ruin those ruining the earth."

Will the appropriate people please stop breathing now?

Posted by nullbull at 9/5/08 2:07 p.m.

Read these stats and tell me that McCain's energy program will work (all figures are cited from the US Minerals Mangaement Service, EIA, and Dept. of the Interior - see link for more detail):

- Permits for drilling on public lands are up 361% since 2000. If more drilling was going to work, why has the oil price nearly tripled during that same period?

- Of the oil and gas reserves on public lands (both On and Offshore), 83% of gas reserves and 79% of oil reserves are ALREADY AVAILABLE FOR DRILLING. Do you imagine that less than 20% of the US's reserves is going to turn around the price of oil GLOBALLY?

- Of the area CURRENTLY, ALREADY AVAILABLE for oil and gas development, only 26% is in production. If the oil companies need more access to oil so badly, why aren't they producing off the 74% of leasable lands they ALREADY have access to?

- Additionally, the Energy Information Administration says that even if 100% of reserves were put into production, starting tomorrow, by the time they were at peak output (sometime in the 2020s), we could expect a 75 cent reduction in the cost of a barrel of oil. In today's price, that means we'd pay $105.25 rather than $106 a barrel. You think that's going to save the middle class? Get real.

1994-1999 - Between 1500 and 3000 drill permits issued annually
2000-2003 - Between 3000 and 4000 drill permits issued annually
2004-2007 - Between 6000 and 8000 drill permits issued annually

During the same period the price of gas tripled.

resourcescommittee.house.gov/images/stor
ies/Documents/truth_about_americas_energ
y.pdf

Wake up, people. We started trying to drill our way out of this probelm 8 years ago. How's that working for you so far? Horribly. The reason oil is dropping right now is because speculators are no longer willing to bet on worldwide demand in the face of a recession. The US demands more oil per dollar of GDP created than any other rich country economy. We're more addicted than anyone. The MOMENT oil hits a lower tipping point, consumption will renew, the economy will rebound for a couple months, then be buffeted by high oil prices again as demand rises.

Welcome to the new energy reality. If the US economy rebounds due to cheap oil powered by slack demand, we will go back to buying Chinese products and Indian services. Those economies will also rebound and follow our consumptive example. Demand will spike again, and we're back in the same vicious cycle.

WAKE UP! Drilling more will NOT WORK.

Posted by hparks_3 at 9/5/08 2:59 p.m.

Global Warming/climate change (whichever brand we are selling this week) is a hoax. The data is routiinely refuted, and then the amended data is refuted. As was pointed out by England's Environment Minister Sammy Wilson today, 'climate change' is nothing but a "hysterical psuedo-religion". More importantly, he provided the most cogent environmental analyisis to date:

"Reasoned debate must replace the scaremongering of the green climate alarmists."

Posted by unregistered user at 9/5/08 3:19 p.m.

He's mum because there is NO man made climate change!!!! He's finally seeing the light and not falling for this load that Lisa, Robert and other of the hand-wringing class are pushing on us, with NOOOOOO proof. Just computer models and flimsy speculation. Hell, they don't even call it global warming anymore, it's climate change now, which leaves a lot of grey area. Someone shut down this joke of a newspaper section. It's a joke and blatantly biased without, as libs like to shout for, fairness.

Posted by unregistered user at 9/5/08 4:27 p.m.

Look at the ice shelves in the arctic and tell me there is no warming climate, I can't believe people won't see the obvious. /cheers

Posted by pahart at 9/5/08 5:18 p.m.

hparks,
Sammy Wilson is the environment minister for Northern Ireland, NOT the British Environment minister. As leaders in Ireland's environmental community said of his remarks, "Wilson is like the cigarette salesman saying smoking doesn't cause cancer." Wilson is just another political hack, and has no credentials with regards to scientific knowledge. He is merely stating his "opinion," that global warming is a pseudo religion.
Want an opinion from Britain's scientific community? Check out Sir James Lovelock of the Hadley Centre for Climate Research: he says "our collective goose is likely cooked"....and the changing climate is largely caused by us.

Posted by unregistered user at 9/5/08 6:00 p.m.

IPCC(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)has recognized more than 1,200 authors and 2,500 scientific experts (world-wide)that contributed to the recent report.
The evidence suggest that there is a "discernible human
influence on the global climate".
Governor Palin denies that it is man made.

Who do you believe?

Posted by Lookitsme at 9/5/08 6:18 p.m.

I can't believe people won't see the obvious.

Of course they can see the obvious.

The problem is that many of them are happily paid to proclaim that they can't see the obvious. Most of the rest of simply too self centered to be willing to make necessary life style changes...

Posted by Steve E. at 9/5/08 8:05 p.m.

See the obvious?
There's nothing obvious about the obvious, isn't that obvious?
Said the frog in the pot.

Posted by hparks_3 at 9/5/08 8:48 p.m.

"Posted by pahart at 9/5/08 5:18 p.m.

Want an opinion from Britain's scientific community? Check out Sir James Lovelock of the Hadley Centre for Climate Research: he says "our collective goose is likely cooked"....and the changing climate is largely caused by us."

Laughable. A Center for Climate Research? That it is in their financial interest to find Climate Change/ Global Warming (whichever brand sells this week)so they can get more research money? Yawn---questionable credibility. Global Warming/Climate Change is far from decided science. Given the routinely refuted data, and the manifest political motivations behind the Climate Change/Global Warming crowd (and profit motive), any claims to fact on Global Warming/climate Change should be treated with skepticism and suspiscion.

I'll repeat what Sammy Wilson said (contrary to your post):

"Reasoned debate must replace the scaremongering of the green climate alarmists."

Posted by Lookitsme at 9/5/08 9:41 p.m.

Reasoned debate must replace the scaremongering of the green climate alarmists

Translation - the consensus opinion of basically all of the world's top climate scientists should be "balanced" against the opinion of a handful of scientists mostly paid to be oil company shills....

Debate you say? The debate's over. Even wingnuts like Bush and Pat Robertson have acknowledged the truth. Didn't you get the talking points memo yet?

Posted by hparks_3 at 9/5/08 9:50 p.m.

Posted by Lookitsme at 9/5/08 9:41 p.m.

"...the consensus opinion..."

Consensus isn't science.

Posted by unregistered user at 9/6/08 6:32 a.m.

Sarah Palin's abysmal environmental record is already influencing McCain's position on the environment. Palin opposed the Alaska Clean Water Act (ballot measure 4 which recently failed to pass) that would have banned metal mines from poisoning salmon streams. Even the Juneau Empire (a conservative newspaper) came out in favor of ballot measure 4, saying "demanding clean water is the right thing for all of Alaska to do, and now is the time to do it." She decided to choose profits for mining companies over the health of the public.

She supports drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. The ANWR was established in 1960 by President Eisenhower, a Republican, as a "promise to the American people to preserve the area's "unique wildlife, wilderness and recreational values." According to the ANWR government web site, "the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of the last untouched wildlife places on earth. It includes nearly 20 million acres (the size of South Carolina), three Wild rivers, and the largest designated Wilderness (eight million acres) in the National Wildlife Refuge System."

According to an analysis by the Energy Department, opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America's dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel and it would take 10 years for production to begin. Is it really worth destroying one of our few remaining protected wild areas left in the US? Isn't it time we did something about our addiction to oil by investing in clean renewable energy?

Palin opposed adding polar bears to the endangered species list. Polar bears are starving due to melting sea ice caused by global warming. Of course, the fact that Palin said she doesn't actually believe that global warming is caused by humans may explain her lack of concern. She actually sued the federal government for listing polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. It just so happens that polar bears live in the wilderness areas where she wants to drill, which would be an inconvenience to the oil companies.

She supports aerial shooting of wolves in Alaska, ignoring Alaskan voters who twice passed ballot measures to halt the barbaric practice of aerial gunning. Yet she approved $400,000 in state funds for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to develop an "educational campaign" that promoted the state's predator-control programs in a thinly veiled attempt to persuade the public to support her proposal. Palin's $150-per-wolf bounty program contradicted Alaska's bounty laws which were repealed in 1984 and the State had no legal authority to implement the bounties. And to top things off, with Palin's blessing, for the first time in Alaska's history the Board of Game approved the hunting of black bear sows and cubs in an 11,000-square-mile area northwest of Anchorage where the goal was to kill 60 percent of the black bear population. If she really cared about nature, she would understand that carnivores play a vital role in keeping natural ecosystems healthy. Watch out Bambi, Palin is on the march.

A self proclaimed pit bull (with lipstick), Gov. Palin sounds like a person with strong beliefs and is apparently very popular in Alaska, but I'm surprised that Alaskans aren't more concerned about the environment. If you're surrounded by wilderness, I guess you tend to take it for granted - thinking that it will always be there.

Together with McCain, who the League of Conservation Voters gave a score of zero for his environmental voting record in 2007, the McCain/Palin ticket is no friend of the environment, or anyone who cares about the environment. But they'll make quite an attractive ticket for anyone whose priority is drilling for more oil rather than fighting to preserve the environment and investing in clean renewable energy. Their environmental record will likely end up worse than Bush, if that's even possible since he is considered to be the President with the worst environmental record ever. Just like Bush, her answer to our energy crisis is drilling for more oil, regardless of the environmental consequences.

No one can successfully argue that the environment isn't a critical issue that deserves much more attention in this important election. The environment, energy, and health are all intricately linked. The burning of fossil fuels pollutes the air and water and causes major health problems, it increases carbon dioxide which causes global warming (yes, it is caused by humans) and is severely harming our oceans and sea life by making them more acidic. Clean renewable energy addresses all of these issues, but until we can stop our addiction to oil and other fossil fuels, we'll don't stand a chance of stopping global warming. Even if you choose not to believe in global warming and could care less about the environment, reducing our use of oil would be a good thing from a health and economic perspective.

A healthy environment and slowing global warming are critically important issues, especially to future generations who will be the ones suffering for our actions and inactions. It's perplexing that for someone with five kids, Palin doesn't seem to be concerned about their future in a world threatened by climate change and environmental destruction. Palin of all people should be just a little bit concerned about what kind of world we're leaving for future generations. Palin being just a heartbeat away from the presidency scares me to death. I have to question McCain's judgement picking this winner.

There's an old Indian proverb: "We don't inherit the earth from our grandparents. We borrow it from our children." We can not continue to borrow from our children's future.

Posted by unregistered user at 9/6/08 8:43 a.m.

McCain has proven his record. He voted 95% of the time with Bush. And Palin hasn't proven anything but she sounds an awful lot like Bush did before he was elected--only now we have a good ol' girl instead of a good ol' boy.

If you want to see 4 more years of a trashed environment, a broken economy, our kids coming home wounded, nations destroyed, then by all means, vote McCain.

Posted by unregistered user at 9/9/08 11:07 a.m.

We'll -- we'll -- my friends, we'll build more nuclear power plants. We'll develop clean-coal technology. We'll increase the use of wind, tide, solar, and natural gas. We'll encourage the development and use of flex-fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles.

I thought all of these things mentioned were technology that the libs are cramming down our throats for climate change.

Don't worry though when Obama is pres everything will change right? Again what did he do to become the best candidate for pres. Sorry, I forgot we was a community leader.