A Giant Leap at This Time: The Alaska Standard Poll on Palin

The short side is; Senator Lisa Mukowski beats Governor Palin. For myself I would expect as much. I wouldn't vote for Palin in 2010. And if I was asked if I would vote for Palin, I would have said no.

Governor Palin needs to finish getting the job done on the gasline. And do it correctly. I don't believe that will be accomplished by 2010.

The polling seems realistic, but in the end of the topic, Dan Fagan inserts a comment that makes a giant leap to the future when he states:

First, sentiment in the poll in Alaska has nothing to do with how others feel within the Republican Party on a national level. On the ground, Palin brought the crowds in, McCain didn't. And she wasn't the top of the ticket.

Moreover she got "raked over the coals" by the MSM but still was pulling in huge crowds that even had Obama nervous.

I have high hopes on Fagan's endeavor with The Alaska Standard, but as he puts himself in a postion of offering an alternative to the Anchorage Daily News, Dan needs to think more and look at the big picture.

And I say this basing my own feeling (without seeing the questions asked) on that the poll is somewhat limited in its scope.

Dan would have helped those of us who read the article, to include more information on the polling. That may come and my feeling on the matter may be incorrect.

For now, on a national level, Palin is leading in a poll and is popular as a Republican nominee for the 2012 election. A direct contradiction to Dan's final comment on the matter.

Here is a hit piece....

http://www.adn.com/front/story/641997.html?pageNum=4&&&mi_pluck_action=page_nav#Comments_Container

As to the article on the poll, it is a valid response nor is it a hit piece. It is a fact that many in Alaska think Palin would be better served to finish the gasline project.

Not run in 2010 for the Senate. Moreover, Governors make better presidents.

This (below) seems to be an accurate (believable) description of her position on the issue. But again, where has she stated she is going to run for a senate seat? Nowhere. Since this was from almost two months ago. Sarah defeated Frank Murkowski, Senator Lisa Murkowski's father and it sounds to me like `ol Frank has a few fans in the press and Lisa is a little nervous.

When I run a search on "Palin run senate 2010" I see a lot of speculation-based "reporting." Below is what Sara has actually stated.

November 14th

It depends on Alaska voters, Palin told CNN.

"If they call an audible on me, and if they say they want me in another position, I'm going to do it. ... My life is in God's hands. If he's got doors open for me, that I believe are in our state's best interest, the nation's best interest, I'm going to go through those doors."

Her position has evolved in the past week. Last Friday, Palin told the Daily News only that she was "not planning" on a Senate run.

http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/588672.html

Sounds to me like she is paying attention. I don't think the good folks of Alaska have a thing to worry about.

There is really one issue and one issue only for Alaskans. We NEED the gas pipeline or Alaska has no economic future. I tend to view all things political through that prism which upsets my celebrity driven neighbors. With that in view I would like to see Sarah go to the senate and let a business minded governor get the job done. Despite what SP claimed in her speech she has NOT gotten Alaska a gas pipeline and it is not a inch closer to being built since the day she took office. Lisa is not a conservative though she has done a fairly good job since her daddy appointed her to the seat. However if the Dittman poll is accurate she may not be able to beat Lisa so it may be a moot point.

I'm confused by the writer's comments that he wouldn't vote for her in 2010. Does he mean that he wouldn't vote for her re-election as governor or as Senator if she decided to challenge Murkowski?

The premise of Palin's supposed 2010 problems if she were to seek re-election is Dan Fagan's assertion that Palin's AGIA plan will tank because TransCanada will not have a successful open season in 2010 because the big three oil producers will refuse to commit their gas.

Little problem with this scenario. The AGIA plan is committed to ensuring that it will be profitable for the oil producers to ship through TC's pipeline. If they can prove that the oil producers are refusing to ship despite the profitability of doing so, then the state can revoke their leases. The state has revoked Exxon's lease to drill for oil on Point Thompson. It's not the same deal as revoking the lease for natural gas, but it's the same principle. They either use it or lose it.

Conoco is playing with their Denali plan, and it's very doubtful that it will even get off the ground.

BTW, the leading newspaper on the Alaskan oil industry, The Petroleum News, has a great article on the potential for a successful open season.

This is called "negotiation." The oil producers are trying to scare the state into giving them everything they want. The idea that the oil companies are "friendly" to free market capitalism is a friggin' joke. They regularly sit on leases and lower production in order to manipulate the price of their product. That's their prerogative. They're in this to make money. But the state doesn't need to roll over for them -- especially in the case of Alaska where the people own the resources and the oil producers must pay them for extracting it.

Take a look at this [see the section 6:56-7:25 of this video] for a succinct description for why corporations are "opportunists" not "free market capitalists".

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.