Let’s Keep Our Eyes On The Prize: One Presidential Candidate Will Support Reasonable Energy Policies That Build Prosperity And The Other Will Support Unreasonable, Impoverishing Energy Policies.
It’s not whether we prefer the morals of one imperfect candidate over another. Both are flawed, as have been past presidents, as have been ourselves.
One, in our opinion is more fatally flawed than the other, but setting that aside, we choose to focus on the prize.
Since our entire way of life, prosperity and even survival is based upon a robust domestic energy program, that must be the prize! Our wealth flows from our national blessing of a domestic energy foundation…and a glorious superstructure of other mineral and natural resources (all dependent on a secure source of energy).
With an eye on the energy prize, we therefore ask, “Which candidate would most effectively stimulate our energy wealth production?” With that calculation made, we will know which one is most capable of restoring America’s/Alaska’s wealth, jobs, educational excellence and national security…and all of our Constitutional freedoms.
Our commentary yesterday (i.e. regarding Trump’s decade-old vulgarity) offered reasons for our leaders to carefully consider both the influence they wield and the complex implications of their decision to support or oppose the Trump candidacy. Below (left) you will see several comments received via email and Facebook. We provide this diversity of viewpoints below to help our readers more thoroughly consider their own positions. Please remember that we are approaching this election from the viewpoint of energy as the foundation for the Alaskan/American economies, the prize.
As the November election becomes closer, we hasten to ask that, “God bless us everyone.” -Tiny Tim. -dh
Our Facebook comment: We appreciate our US Senators, but did they jump the gun on this one? -dh
Reader response. I so agree. I think our senate delegation jumped the gun. Trump is a patriot albeit crude but his vision is way better than the shipwrecks we have seen Hillary leave behind. -T.Z.
Reader response. Thank you, Dave. Donald Trump (like the rest of us) is not perfect. I wish he hadn’t said or done some of the things reported. But he is the best choice we have among those running right now. -L.L.
Reader response. I love you Dave, but I must disagree with you on this point. Some things are more important than your 1-4 points below, such as regard for one’s self-respect, concern for our country’s reputation, and my ability to look my 13-year old daughter in the eye. The GOP abdicated it’s moral footing when it nominated this candidate, and it is regrettable for Alaska’s future. I feel I have no choice in this matter. -D.N.
Reader response. Couldn’t agree more, JUST KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!!! Neither are in any jeopardy as far as being reelected so why, why…….. -S.S.
And while we’re speculating about what Mrs. Clinton might do to Alaska if she were president, one might also speculate about what Vladimir Putin might do about his nation’s former possession under a Trump presidency. My point is, neither “major” candidate is attractive, but the world will not really end if either one of them is elected.
That being said, thank you for all your diligence, patience and hard work trying to keep Alaskans informed about the very real challenges or menaces are facing our state. Don’t give up! -T.W.
Reader response. Dave: Thanks for the great letter. Your friend, J.W.
Reader response: I do not agree with you and that is Ok that we do not agree. I am glad they made the statements. When it is wrong, we all know it has been wrong, and it continues to be wrong, then it is not the time to “keep the powder dry.” G.S.
Our response. It’s a tough one, G. One candidate was taped being vulgar a decade ago. The other candidate breaks the law by violating Congressional subpoenas, lies to Benghazi families, lies about classified documents and would open Alaska’s borders to anyone wanting to walk in. She would also be happy to deprive Alaska of its non government natural resource jobs, killing Alaska’s economy. Yes, it’s a “tough one” but there is a clear decision and for every voter, a “fork in the road”. I respect that you have chosen yours. My advice to Tim Pawlenty was not to go this way or that, but carefully consider the ramifications of his decision. He and our Senators chose to react immediately rather than more fully consider the ramifications after Sunday’s debate. While I do not understand that logic, I respect and accept- – while lamenting — that they have also chosen their path. -dh
Back to Alaska’s gas pipeline/LNG’s WANTS Vs. fiscal challenge NEEDS!
We are grateful to our friend, former Attorney General John Havelock, for his insight and wisdom on this matter. Read his complete ADN editorial here. -dh
It’s long past time for Gov. Bill Walker to concentrate on the critical business at hand: resetting the Alaska economy. Shelve pipe dreams. Anybody paying attention can see, as a panel of expert critics noted at the recent Commonwealth North presentation, that the pipeline proposal relies upon long-term fantasies, impracticalities and unacceptable risks. Zero out the gas line, and please — not another Far East trip! Give a final dump to other capital projects on which the administration is still wasting time and money, e.g. Knik Bridge and Juneau road. Sorry Win Gruening (commentary, Oct. 5), a road to nowhere matches a bridge to nowhere.
Fixing the Alaska economy is politically tough but not complicated. Yes, bitter pills must be swallowed and a clear path set out. Alaskans are waiting for leadership: a much more vigorous advocacy plus clarity of purpose and direction. Walker and his administration must take their case, against a fainthearted Legislature and vested interests, to the people.
Alaskans need to know before the November election who’s ready to get real. No quiet toleration of nonsense please, like solving the problem with budget cuts or, this week, an unproven oil discovery that looks more like a timely political cue to preserving billions in oil tax refunds. Dropping an obsession with the gas line (and thus need for oil industry political support) will enable Walker to get in the industry’s face about oil taxes, an issue which has …. More here.
John Havelock, retired UAA professor of Justice, was Alaska’s attorney general in the early 1970s and worked with commissioners Eric Wohlforth and Joe Henri for Gov. Bill Egan in setting oil taxes, preparing the governor’s budget and educating the public.