Not to underestimate Gov. Palin.

No politician is perfect, but her faults in governing have to do with wanting perfection (which often translates into demanding loyalty and a willing to fire anyone she doesn't like) rather than enriching herself.

Not only has she torn up Republicans politics in Alaska, she's taken on oil companies, and actually resigned rather than be around those seeking personal gain.

I thought back early this year that she'd make a great VP.

I wanted to say something. But now that I think about it, I really don't care. Everyone can go to Hell. Funny how these blogs become annoying. Message to all; Go fuck yourselves. Have a nice day.

I dunno, Andrew. I think you may have been the only person watching that speech who was actually able to mine some policy nuggets out of it.

For most of the viewers (and the press) the tabloid/reality TV aspect of her nomination overshadows *everything* else. Now we've got the National Enquirer alleging an affair, so that pretty much seals the deal. She has the spotlight, but not for the reasons McCain gambled on.

The one hope McCain had to turn things around (and he got a little traction on it in August) was to make Obama the story. As long as everyone was talking about Obama and whether he was a celebrity and whether he could do the job, there was hope for McCain. But now all anyone's going to talk about for weeks is Palin and her daughter and her baby and her troopergate and did she have an affair and was she for the bridge before she was against it and does giving National Guard orders really endow her with military leadership qualifications and what about that Jews for Jesus thing, anyway? -- and on, and on.

And meanwhile, Obama will be smiling off to the side, giving beautiful speeches, talking about the economy, and letting the undecided voters pig out on Palin's soap opera until they slowly awaken to the realization: Oh, right -- the last eight years sucked. And we're voting for president.

Sarah Palin is a book burner!!

Matt

I'd rather have Palin as VP than the current office holder.

If Sarah Palin can present a positive, coherent program as well as she can slash, then she will definitely be a force.

People seem to be equating having experience dealing with oil companies to knowing something about *energy* and *energy policy*. As far as I can tell, her knowledge on the subject of energy is one-dimensional.

What are her opinions about which sources of energy should be used for what purposes? Is she knowledgeable about nuclear energy (or "newkular" as she pronounces it)? What is her opinion on ethanol from corn? Peak oil? Does conservation have a role in energy policy? How should fossil fuels be priced/taxed?

She seems to believe that humans have no responsibility for global warming. Some would think this to be a disqualifier as an expert on energy policy.

Moreover, what I know about her is that she is generally anti-scientific.

There are probably dozens of people on the national stage...people that we've all heard of...who are much-better versed on energy matters.

Maybe you haven't been watching the GOP Convention, but they have said, in no uncertain terms, that this election will not be won on the issues. Palin's speech this evening confirmed it - not one single thing she actually believes in and stands up for.

Plus, the very fact that you intimated she is ok with "windfall profits" means that her stance on energy policy, which is anathema to Republicans, will never be heard.

My god, can you even imagine if she ever said those words at a Republican event?

How would feel about having Sarah Palin as President, serving with a vice president of her own choosing?

I'm not quite sure why yet, mjn3457, but your post struck a nerve in me and I laughed loudly at your perhaps unintended humor;

I wanted to say something. But now that I think about it, I really don't care. Everyone can go to Hell. Funny how these blogs become annoying. Message to all; Go fuck yourselves. Have a nice day.

Revealing, funny, and to the point!

However, the more I think about it, the more I can see your point (lol) and think this is--sad to say--likely to become the prevailing mood for significant portions of the left should McCain/Palin win in November.

Scary times indeed.

Yes, she has the perfect energy policy for low information voters to latch on to. Unfortunately, it's not an energy policy that is going to solve any problem we have - but that won't stop the electorate from choosing to follow it.

Nuclear? The free market has decided to not bother. Clean coal? 20 years away - still. Alaskan oil? If we used all our oil to displace foreign oil (call it 20 billion barrels of domestic supply), assuming we could pump it out of the ground at a rate of 13 million barrels per day (highly unlikely), then in 4 years, instead of being 67% dependent on foreign oil, we would be 100% dependent at that time. Just to power 80 mph speedboats cheaply for a few more years. That's some long time thinking we can believe in.

Oil shale in Wyoming? How do Wyomans feel about a huge swatch of their state being turned into an industrial mining site? For the cost of the pipeline from Alaska ($30 billion) and the cost of the natural gas for the years it is in use, how much gas could be saved by spending that money on conservation and efficiency? If roughly comparable, why not do the easy thing first?

All these solutions create new problems. The only solution that creates no new problems is conservation. Its cheap, ready, quick, and easily understood. The technology is there. We just need to will to do it. And to convince conservatives that it isn't a scheme by bunny huggers to have a one world government control the United States.

Oh, and conservation reduces greenhouse gas emissions, too.