Reply #21: Sarah Palin "takes on" big oil? Hardly.

[Octafish]

When it comes to taking money: Sarah's a uniter, not a divider.

Blogger Left In East Dakota spills the beans, er, barrel:

Sarah Palin "takes on" big oil? Hardly.

Left In East Dakota
Monday, September 08, 2008

Alaska has natural gas under its North Slope region. Forget about the environment for a second and lets assume, for the sake of argument, that it is in our long-term interest to get that gas to the lower forty-eight states. The obvious question is: What is the the best way to do that? Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin would have us believe she took on big oil to push forward her plan for a pipeline. Not quite.

Palin's pipeline is not so much about taking on big oil as it is about opportunism and stereotypical smoky backroom politics. It is well known the republican party in Alaska is corrupt. The former governor, along with disgraced Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens, backed a deal that would give the companies that control the gas in the North Slope (BP, Conoco Phillips, and Exxon Mobil) a tax break if they built a pipeline. It wasn't a strong enough agreement, however, and many thought the companies would gain the reward of a tax cut and not build the pipeline. The Alaskan people were disgusted. In steps Sarah Palin. She wants TransCanada, a big energy company in their own right, to build the pipeline. She offers them 500 million of the Alaskan people's dollars. This is very similar to the democratic position. In fact, it seems she co-opted the dems position, as her and her challenger in the 2006 election essentially agreed on this issue. It doesn't bode well for your party if "taking on" entrenched interests in your state means taking the position of your opponent.

But here's the kicker: It doesn't matter who owns the pipeline, because big oil owns the gas. It doesn't matter if the state of Alaska, TransCanada, or anyone else, builds the pipeline- they must sign an agreement with the big three in order to move the gas. Big oil, who is not hurting for money and would have no problem sitting on the land as long as they have rights to the gas, will no doubt dictate the terms of the agreement. Sarah Palin knows this, the big three know this, and Sarah's husband Todd, who worked for BP for nearly two decades, knows this. Individual states simply don't have the power, or resources, to take on companies like BP, Exxon Mobil, and Conoco Phillips. As recent campaigning has shown, Palin has no qualms about reducing the few barriers left in the way of big oil, as she has adopted the McCain position of "drill now, drill everywhere," even though there is little evidence to suggest that would have anything other than a small affect on oil prices many years from now.

Sarah Palin is a good politician, better than many, including myself, thought. She is a godsend for big oil. She took a wave of sentiment that was clearly against oil's interests, used it to get elected, and "challenged" big oil on an issue they couldn't care less about. From the big three's perspective, let TransCanada build the stupid pipeline. What are they going to put in it? Oil holds all the cards. They are even talking about building their own pipeline, without Alaska's involvement. Yawn. Sarah Palin didn't take on big oil. She just borrowed a trick from the dems, basically, govern for big business while giving lip service to "everyday people."

SOURCE:

http://www.graemesblog.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-takes-on-big-oil-hardly.html

Not THAT's what I call analysis. Where's Corporate McPravda?

Most importantly: Thanks for everything, lonestarnot.