Just as Hawaii will be a slam dunk for Obama, Alaska will be a slam dunk for the eventual Republican nominee. Alaska is a fairly reliable red state and its three electoral votes will go to the GOP. The running count thus far is Obama 4, GOP nominee 3.
Unlike 2010, there is no Senatorial drama this time around. If one remembers, incumbent GOP Lisa Murkoski, often labeled a RINO, faced an insurgent chanllenge from Tea Party favorite, Joe Miller, who managed to garner the endorsement of Sarah Palin. Miller eventually defeated Murkowski in the primary and would face off against Democrat Scott McAdams. Initial polls put Miller ahead which underscores Alaska’s red state status that a political novice would be leading. However, Lisa Murkowski then decided to launch an independent write in campaign to retain her seat. Wisely, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that Murkowski would caucus with Republicans and retain her committee assignments when it became evident she could win as a write-in. The deeper the campaign ran, the more the dynamics changed. Some of Miller’s comments, taken out of context, painted him as an extremist and it did not help when his security staff “arrested” a journalist. It became increasingly obvious that the race would basically be Murkowski versus Miller again except this time it was for all the marbles. McAdams would serve to siphon votes away from Miller.
In the end, Murkowski prevailed although Miller challenged the results in court. His primary complaint was that some citizens had misspelled Murkowski’s name and he wanted those votes invalidated. A subsequent study that even if Miller had prevailed on those grounds, Murkowski still would have won. He eventually conceded defeat and Murkowski was returned to the Senate. The fact that McAdams only received 23% of the vote in this fractious Republican environment underscores the fact that it is difficult for a Democrat to win in Alaska. If McAdams could not win under those conditions, then no one can.
One interesting facet of Alaska politics when it comes to the national stage is the fact that incumbency certainly has advantages. Look at how long corruption-tainted Ted Stevens lasted. Seniority has advantages in committee assignments. In fact, the biggest complaint is that because of longevity and key committee assignments, Alaska’s elected officials in Washington wield too much power in relation to their small population. That could be a good thing at times, but it also has it disadvantages. For example, the poster child for pork projects- the Bridge to Nowhere- is a product of that seniority in Congress and was the ork of Ted Stevens and current GOP at-large Congressman, Don Young.
Hence, the only election of consequence this year is that of Young’s seat in the House. Thus far, the only declared candidate is John Cox who unsuccessfully challenged Young in the Republican primary in 2010. Considering the fact that he lost in a landslide in an anti-incumbent environment that may have been worse than 2012, chances are he will not prevail in 2012. However, Young has not announced his intentions to run for yet another term. If so, he is a shoo-in not only for the nomination, but also for another term in Congress. If he decides to retire, all eyes will be on Joe Miller to see if he will enter the race. As an at-large candidate, it is very much like running for Senate in that state. Should Miller be the nominee or even challenge Young in a primary, it would be interesting to see if the Tea Party has lost any influence in Alaska, which could be a telltale sign that they will play a lessened role in 2012 than they did in 2010. And finally, one would be interested to know if Palin will go back to the well and endorse Miller again. Of course, all of this is conjecture until Young announces his intentions.
On the Democratic side, there is declared candidate Doug Urquidi, an electrician who lost his only other bid for elected office- the Anchorage Assembly. There is also perennial candidate Frank Vandersaar who has won and lost in the past…several times. In fact, he ran against Stevens for the Senate in 2002 and in 2010, he entered the primary for the Democratic Senate nomination, losing to Scott McAdams and finishing fourth in a field of four. In short, if the best the Democrats in Alaska can do is put forth an electrician who cannot get elected to City Council and a gadfly who finishes fourth in a field of four, then chances are they will not win this seat. Conditions would have to be almost perfect for a Democratic victory in Alaska and those conditions simply do not exist nor are they on the horizon.
Considering that a Democrat has not held Young’s seat since Richard Nixon was President and that Young himself has not faced a serious challenge since 1990 despite the controversy that sometimes occurs around his name indicates that this seat is safely in Republican hands. The only chance a Democrat has would be if the Republican (1) simply self-destructs or (2) a viable third party or independent candidate runs and siphons off GOP votes allowing the Democrat to win with a plurality. None of that is happening in 2012 and no one sees any storm clouds on the horizon.

A ruling by the Environmental Appeals Board of the EPA has scuttled Shell Oil Company’s plan to drill its initial exploratory test in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea. This is at least the second time drilling has been deferred or delayed due to environmental concerns. But this time, the reason proffered by EPA seems to be “Because we can.”

The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling.

We have handed radical environmentalists veto power over domestic development. It matters little whether the pretext is (as in this case) ship exhaust 70 miles distant from the nearest human settlement, “burning water” or a 3-inch lizard in West Texas, environmental extremists are hell-bent on shutting down any and all development of conventional fuels in the United States. EPA offers them all the tools they need.

Read More →

A ruling by the Environmental Appeals Board of the EPA has scuttled Shell Oil Company’s plan to drill its initial exploratory test in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea. This is at least the second time drilling has been deferred or delayed due to environmental concerns. But this time, the reason proffered by EPA seems to be “Because we can.”

The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling.

We have handed radical environmentalists veto power over domestic development. It matters little whether the pretext is (as in this case) ship exhaust 70 miles distant from the nearest human settlement, “burning water” or a 3-inch lizard in West Texas, environmental extremists are hell-bent on shutting down any and all development of conventional fuels in the United States. EPA offers them all the tools they need.

Read More →

Last week, the New York Times chortled that Gov. Parnell is continuing former Gov. Palin’s efforts to remove polar bears from the “endangered” species list, after they were illegally put there in 2008 by an overzealous and undersmart Federal Fish and Wildlife Service.  Leaving aside the fact that this policy 1-is illegal, 2-is likely to be disastrous for Alaska’s already fragile economy, and 3-has no discernible benefit (even liberal scientists like Bjorn Lomborg and John Cristy have said that most polar bear populations are thriving), I have a more fundamental question: if 1-3 apply to polar bears, why should they not apply, in one form or another, to any “endangered” species?

Do you believe in evolution?  I don’t, but unlike our latte-sipping Prius-driving friends, I don’t assume myself to be so smart that I can know exactly how God effected Creation.

Look, one of two things is true.  One, Darwin was right (unlikely), and we are all mutants.  Two, Darwin was wrong (more likely).  Let’s start with Two.

If Two is right, then there is certainly no need to worry about “endangered” species; species will come and go exactly as they were meant to do, and even if we tried we couldn’t affect their place or purpose on this Earth.  If One is right, I believe we have a far more serious problem on our hands.

Let’s suppose for the moment that Darwinism is correct.  Then, just as Americans were selected to dominate the world’s economy and diplomacy, species are selected to die or thrive based on their competence.  Keeping species that were unable to survive alive then subverts evolution, and amounts to a “bailout” of species that would never be able to make it on their own.  What we end up with are zombie species, capable only of surviving in zoos.  OK, no problem, you say, my daughter loves looking at the polar bears in the zoo.  However, more dangerous still, is that by propping up old species, we are preventing new, more evolutionarily efficient species from popping up.  Indeed, by insisting on a static world and shutting down evolution, we may even be holding ourselves as Humans back, as without the interaction with new, innovative species, we have no evolutionary incentive to evolve ourselves.

“Endangered” species are thus lose/lose.  Occasionally, it is harmless fun.  More often, however, in the case of the “endangered” Alaskan polar bears, liberals are willing to absorb virtually any amount of lost economic growth in order to protect even one more precious animal.  Yet another instance of Al Gore and his ilk solving a problem that no one was aware of but them.

Even without the polar bear or some other marine mammal making the endangered species list, exploration and development off Alaska’s Arctic Coast has been halted by the DC Circuit’s decision in a lawsuit by environmental groups and Alaska Native villages.  These are the leases that were let last year for several billions of dollars and with much hoopla.  The Court held that the Bush Administration didn’t do an adequate EIS.  Of course, an adequate EIS is whatever the brilliant scientists in black robes say it is.  The Anchorage Daily News story is here: http://www.adn.com/money/industries/oil/story/762894.html  You may note our new Boy Senator is mush-mouthing about working with the Administration.  Aren’t you all glad that evil old Sen. Stevens is gone?

Once again, the Greenie/Lefty game with the courts works out for them.  Rather than revise the EIS or appeal to the USSC, the BHO Administration will just tut-tut about the incompetence of the Bush Administration and how ill-considered and hasty it all was and those leases will never be heard of again.  The game the Greenies/Lefties play is to tie any development, or anything else they don’t like, up in court until at least the next election.  The moral of the story is that a pro-development administration or any administration that wants to do something that the Left will oppose, MUST start the project, program, or initiative immediately upon taking office.  It is hard to get a dispute through both the state courts and the federal courts even in a four year term.  If the appeals go into the election season, they just become trade bait in the election and you can be sure that if a Democrat wins, the appeals will either be tanked or dropped.

Alaska Natives, in this case the Inupiat Eskimo village of Pt. Hope, are usually supportive of development so long as the price to them is right.  Per the Statehood Act, Alaska is entitled to 90% of the revenue from OCS development, but getting that would require taking it from the cold, dead hands of the US Government.  First the State and the US would have to come to some agreement on the State share, then the State would have to come up with a deal with the village or with the borough (Pt. Hope is in the North Slope Borough, I think, which is quite wealth off taxes and royalties from development at Prudoe Bay, but that is on State land.)  The Pt. Hope village is one of the more activist villages and has adamantly insisted on having the ability to harvest Bowhead Whales.  Only Natives can take any marine mammal; whites go to jail for even disturbing them or getting too close to them.  The village claim is that the development will damage the bowhead.  Having the village join in is just gravy for the Greenies plus it gives the State another hurtle by forcing us to placate them.  It is very much an issue for the State as well, since there is no infrastructure out there to support development and no overland access.  Like the early days at Prudhoe Bay, everything will have to come in by summer barge or by air at enormouse expense; it’s a little over an hour by B737 from Anchorage to Kotzebue, the nearest town of any size with regular, direct jet service.  Alaska will have to bear the infrastructure and social welfare costs of development with an uncertain revenue future.

In any event, I’m sure we’ll find that every EIS done during the Bush Administration was somehow inadequate.  That means no Alaska oil development in federal and probably State waters so long as the Communist in Chief is in power.  While we still have a chance at the USSC, it might be well if we or another oil state started a development on state lands or in state waters and asserted that the oil from that development would be used only within the state.  That might enable another whack at the “effecting commerce” interpretation in the case about wheat for personal use back in the New Deal days.  I can’t remember the cite, but the gist was that if the farmer grew his own wheat solely for personal consumption, his growing the wheat effected interstate commerce since it prevented him from buying wheat that he would otherwise buy or allow the sale of other wheat in interstate commerce.  I don’t know how much hope there is to modify that precedent, but there is more now than there will be after BHO gets some justices that see things his way.

SubTitle: The Government force of Green agenda against “traditional” Energy to hit new levels of hostility (Big Govt. to push Democrat’s invested agenda) Boston Globe: Obama vows action on Global Warming and/or FoxNews: Obama Plans Meeting With Al Gore To Talk Energy.

Tuesday December 9, 2008 – President Elect (read Radical-Elect) Barack Obama flanked by Al Gore and VP-irrelevant Joe Biden discussed how the upcoming ObamaBinBiden Administration would be advancing, what to them is the undeniable truth, of Man-made Global Warming, and that the time for actions would begin immediately. According to Obama ‘we have listened to the Scientists!’ Trouble is, they ignore the new data and/or anyone that doesn’t care to push forward this Democrat POLITICAL issue/agenda!

We too believe the Scientists that (as of late) have noted that the Oceans have been COOLING the last few years. We PAY ATTENTION TO THE SCIENCE and the facts that WARMING has ceased the last half dozen years despite Al Gores insistence on his “Hockey Stick” graph that while Carbon continues to climb that Warming MUST/WILL continue. Despite their (Democrats) demagogue of this issue, the Scientists DO NOT HAVE A CONSENSUS! Many “Researchers” are more than happy to be on the band-wagon entirely because it puts Grant money into their coffers, and little to do with real science.

Read More →