Morning Joe uncritically aired McCain's false claim that Palin is "governor of a state that 20 percent of our America's energy supply comes from"
SUMMARY: On MSNBC's Morning Joe, Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough uncritically aired video of Sen. John McCain falsely claiming that Sarah Palin is "governor of a state that 20 percent of our America's energy supply comes from." In fact, as Factcheck.org noted, according to the most recent figures from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Alaska is responsible for "just 3.5 percent of the country's domestic energy production," and only 2.4 percent of the energy the United States consumes.
During the September 15 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough uncritically aired video of Sen. John McCain falsely claiming that Sarah Palin is "governor of a state that 20 percent of our America's energy supply comes from." McCain cited the statistic as purported evidence that Palin "knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America." However, as FactCheck.org has noted, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), "Alaska actually produced 2,417.1 trillion BTUs [British Thermal Units] of energy in 2005, the last year for which full state numbers are available. That's equal to just 3.5 percent of the country's domestic energy production. And according to EIA analyst Paul Hess, that would calculate to only '2.4 percent of the 100,368.6 trillion BTUs the U.S. consumes.' " Neither Brzezinski nor Scarborough corrected McCain's false claim.
In a September 12 article, FactCheck.org noted that Palin and McCain each put forth the false 20 percent statistic in separate interviews with ABC News' Charles Gibson, and that "McCain repeated the false figure more recently, in a September 11 interview with Portland, Maine, news station WCSH6." The McCain clip that Brzezinski and Scarborough aired was from that September 11 interview. FactCheck.org further wrote that it is "simply untrue that Alaska produces anything close to 20 percent of the U.S. 'energy supply' ":
It's simply untrue that Alaska produces anything close to 20 percent of the U.S. "energy supply," a term that is generally defined as energy consumed. That category includes power produced in the U.S. by nuclear, coal, hydroelectric dams and other means -- as well as all the oil imported into the country.
Palin would have been correct to say that Alaska produces just over 14 percent of all the oil produced in the U.S., leaving out imports and leaving out other forms of power. According to the federal government's Energy Information Administration, Alaskan wells produced 263.6 million barrels of oil in 2007, or 14.3 percent of the total U.S. production of 1.8 billion barrels.
But Alaskan production accounts for only 4.8 percent of all the crude oil and petroleum products supplied to the U.S. in 2007, counting both domestic production and imports from other nations. According to EIA, the total supply was just over 5.5 billion barrels in 2007.
Furthermore, Palin said "energy," not "oil," so she was actually much further off the mark. According to EIA, Alaska actually produced 2,417.1 trillion BTUs [British Thermal Units] of energy in 2005, the last year for which full state numbers are available. That's equal to just 3.5 percent of the country's domestic energy production.
And according to EIA analyst Paul Hess, that would calculate to only "2.4 percent of the 100,368.6 trillion BTUs the U.S. consumes."
[...]
McCain repeated the false figure more recently, in a September 11 interview with Portland, Maine, news station WCSH6.
Footnote: When we asked the McCain campaign where the 20 percent figure came from, we were referred to the Web site of the Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc, a group that says it promotes development of Alaska's natural resources. It states:
Alaska Resource Development Council: Alaska's oil and gas industry has produced more than 16 billion barrels of oil and 6 billion cubic feet of natural gas, accounting for an average of 20 percent of the entire nation's domestic production.
This falls far short of supporting Palin's sweeping claim, however. It refers only to "oil and gas" production, not total energy. It refers only to production, not total consumption or supply. And the 20 percent figure is an "average" over many years, though the site does not say exactly how many. That makes it very much out of date, because Alaskan oil production has declined sharply in recent years. According to EIA figures Alaskan oil production has dropped 22 percent in the most recent five years alone.
From the September 15 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
BRZEZINSKI: You can look at her experience and look at his answer to the question of her experience, and I think that was very telling. Shall we show our viewers? This is John McCain talking to a local affiliate in Maine about Sarah Palin's experience. You might want to hear it.
SCARBOROUGH: Oh, sure. Sure.
BRZEZINSKI: Here it is.
[begin video clip]
ROB CALDWELL (WCSH6 anchor): Well, you say you're sure she has the experience, but again I'm just asking for an example.
McCAIN: Sure.
CALDWELL: What experience --
McCAIN: Sure.
CALDWELL: -- does she have in the field of national security?
McCAIN: Energy. She knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America. She represents -- is the governor of a state that 20 percent of our America's energy supply comes from there, and we all know that energy is a critical and vital national security issue. ... She happens to also represent -- a -- be governor of a state that's right next to Russia. She understands Russia and their newly aggressive behavior in the world, which is also something we have to be very concerned about.
[end video clip]
SCARBOROUGH: What do you think, Mika?
BRZEZINSKI: I think the fair question is we need to hear more, 'cause it doesn't tell me much and nor did the interview with ABC tell me much about her worldview and her depth on national security.
SCARBOROUGH: Do you know what I think?
BRZEZINSKI: I'm not saying she doesn't. I'm saying there are a lot of really good important questions that should be asked. What do you think?
SCARBOROUGH: Let the media ask those if you want --
BRZEZINSKI: We should.
SCARBOROUGH: -- but if you're Barack Obama --
BRZEZINSKI: Exactly.
SCARBOROUGH: -- you want the media to ask John McCain questions. You want to ask: Why are you for a tax cut that you were against? Why have you received all of this money from the same special interests you claim you want -- I mean, that's the thing -- he has to stay focused on McCain and I think they're doing it.
All Joe did here was replay McCain's shifty lying lies about Palin's nonexistent expertise on energy, instead of answering the actual question which was about her nonexistent national security qualifications.
At this point, I believe that neither McCain nor Palin have any qualifications that can help Americans on national security. Picture McCain face to face with Putin in some important negotiation ... and changing the subject like he did here.
Read this new article in The Atlantic about John McCain...
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200810/mccain
One of the points conveyed is that John McCain regards domestic matters such as taxes, health care, energy, etc. as purely matters of politics. Because of his military family background and Viet Nam experience his obsession is with military and national security matters, i.e. war. The scary part is that John McCain, as President, would likely leave domestic matters to Sarah Palin and his lobbyist friends while focusing primarily on "winning" wars.
Mine wasn't a joke, BTW. From the link:
So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency.
I’m going to have to agree with you here.
But I’m certain we can all agree Palin’s national security qualifications are just as impressive as Obama’s.
Uh, no. Hers are better. She can see Russia from her front porch.
She is also more qualified to handle the current bank crisis, because every winter she has a snow bank in her front yard...
RIGHTWINGER, you aren't sounding very right wing today. Impending stockmarket crash gotcha down?
I must admit, it is depressing, and I for one don't think that McCain can fix it. I don't know if anyone can fix it ... 7+ years of Bush deficit spending and bailing out the rich guys on a promise of paying back the bail out with future taxes on the middle class? huh? for that plan to work, first you NEED a middle class that can afford to pay taxes ... next, that middle class has to be WILLING TO PAY ... frankly, I can't see that happening. Bigtime taxpayer revolt in the near future if McCain wins and continues Bush policies.
So, I'll bite. What is your solution to the economic problems, and how do you think this should all turn out? If you do decide to reply to my questions, please don't post in ALL CAPs, I consider it rude and plus, it is too hard to read.
As someone who's in the real estate business, here's what happened in a nutshell: Bush deregulated the mortgage industry, allowed loans to be packaged as securities, feeding large amounts of capital from Wall Street to be lended out. Bank, flush with cash, lowered the requirements to get a loan and therefore, unqualified people got loans they couldn't pay back. Remember, if your credit was good enough you used to be able to get a "stated" loan with no verifiable income. You just told the bank you made $100K a year, and they believed you even if you only had a paper route.
Mortgage banks made a killing. Argent even had an Indy race car team! But the banks didn't care, because they knew in the end they'd get bailed out by the government in order to preserve economic order. But their CEO's have long since retired in luxury. It was a high-power, high-stakes, high-risk con game that leaves Joe and Jane Homeowner footing the bill.
Maybe Lehman's bankrupcy will change things. I doubt it. The rich and powerful always look out for each other.
boyisayboyalistenhere,
Don't hold your breath on any investigations into the mess of mortgage companies and bad loans. Why, because it would fall to people like Dodd, Obama to 'splain' why they took so much money from people they were overseeing.
I agree, the CEO's should be in jail instead of getting sweetheart deals. But instead you end up working for Obama's campaign, ala Penny Prinkey(sp).
Bigtime taxpayer revolt in the near future if McCain wins and continues Bush policies.
The media will just spread the blame over to Democrats.
You may now continue uppercase rant.
PS. Please change your name =\
Executive experience, like that which Sarah Palin has, is of limited value. It's not value-less, but it's pretty darn close. Running a homogeneous state with a tiny population and lots of natural wealth plus lots of money from the Feds is pretty darn easy, relatively speaking. Being a mayor of a town with well under 10,000 residents is even easier.
Having national political experience, and foreign policy expertise, and education about the Constitution - all those things are more valuable than the experience that Palin can claim by being governor and mayor.
You lose. That's because you're a dishonest punk.
You lose. That's because you're a dishonest punk.
Max Dharma always loses. Because he's a loser.
Morning Joe uncritically aired McCain's false claim that Palin is "governor of a state that 20 percent of our America's energy supply comes from"
Okay, I'll agree here with MMFA's complaint. However; how come Scarborough can say the following without equal outrage from you guys?
SCARBOROUGH: -- you want the media to ask John McCain questions. You want to ask: Why are you for a tax cut that you were against? Why have you received all of this money from the same special interests you claim you want -- I mean, that's the thing -- he has to stay focused on McCain and I think they're doing it.
That seems horribly biased and far from reporting the news. That statement seemed to be Scarborough’s pet rant and went uncritically challenged by anyone on MSNBC including his co-anchor.
Fair is fair.
Instead of soccer moms maybe you should have written, upper middle class, with large 401K savings plans, close to retirement or in retirement people.....who voted for Bush. Or people who believe only repubs have morals and dems don't. It seems to me there are only two reasons to vote republican - you have tons of money or your church told you where you are going if you don't.
McCAIN: Energy. She represents -- is the governor of a state that 20 percent of our America's energy supply comes from there, and we all know that energy is a critical and vital national security issue.
I guess Gramps McCain's America is a different place from the America the rest of us live in....
I don't think there's any serious, or at least genuine, debate about her foreign policy ignorance. Her combination of apparent cluelessness about the rest of the world and her possible end-of-days religious beliefs scare the bejeezus out of me. The idea that she could have any input in any discussion having anything to do with the "holy land" is terrifying.
Aside from all that, though, I'm not sure she even knows that much about this country - she doesn't seem to have been too interested in the lower 48 before now, and Alaska is so culturally distant from, say, Pennsylvania and Michigan and North Carolina, that you would think people would be a little nervous about her ability to have a voice in domestic issues. I mean, if Obama gets tagged "too exotic" for his time in Hawaii, how does her selection look to voters in places where the idea of shooting animals from the air for sport must be as mysterious and foreign as the popularity of Don Ho? (Rest his soul.)
How does being near Russia equate with understanding Russia?
I know - There's a Hispanic family three doors down from me, but that doesn't mean that I understand Spanish.....
Congratulations to Palin for having her house in the same state as an oil field, though. My house is in the same state as the nationally ranked Missouri Tigers football team. I'm sure that makes me a great quarterback.
Stop being shy....
"My house is in the same state as the nationally ranked Missouri Tigers football team. I'm sure that makes me a great quarterback." -steeve
we all know that because you live so close, you've played a pivotal roll in helping to win the Super bowl (as quarterback) three times in a row.
Now, if they had said something about, "Palin understands the oil industry, as it predominates the economy in Alaska, and she has a firm understand of how it operates, and how it is used, and where the resources go."
That would have been fine, and something that I could even agree with. I'm sure, as Governor of a large oil producing state, she does have a firm grip and understanding of the oil industry, but no, they have to use this 20 percent claim to make it sound more important than it really is.
Liberal media my ***.
Let's see in the military I spent 2 years in Japan and 3 months in Bahrain and I read an article about Vladimir Putin in Vanity Fair this month does that give me more foreign policy experience than Failin Palin? I must be a great quarterback too as I live in Missouri too.
Okay, I'll agree here with MMFA's complaint. However; how come Scarborough can say the following without equal outrage from you guys?
SCARBOROUGH: -- you want the media to ask John McCain questions. You want to ask: Why are you for a tax cut that you were against? Why have you received all of this money from the same special interests you claim you want -- I mean, that's the thing -- he has to stay focused on McCain and I think they're doing it.
That seems horribly biased and far from reporting the news. That statement seemed to be Scarborough’s pet rant and went uncritically challenged by anyone on MSNBC including his co-anchor.
Fair is fair.
From the article:
This falls far short of supporting Palin's sweeping claim, however. It refers only to "oil and gas" production, not total energy. It refers only to production, not total consumption or supply. And the 20 percent figure is an "average" over many years, though the site does not say exactly how many.
If Charlie Gibson were asking the questions, he would probably try to make ask what one thought of the 'Oil Doctrine". Well, which is it, the amount we consume, the amout we could consume if we were allowed to drill, do we include gerbel and nuclear power?
We know the potential is there for our country to more of the resources that God has placed here. Let's hope that we are soon able to fully access those in Alaska and the other 49 states.
Agreed, but according to Obama, there are 57 states, so our chances of being able to supply our countries energy needs just went up!
PS. Morning Joe uncritically aired McCain's false claim that Palin is "governor of a state that 20 percent of our America's energy supply comes from"
Maybe MMFA should do a better job at critically reviewing their own false claims since Morning Joe’s airing of McCain's claim was justified.
The 57 state mistatement -- alright I'll give you that a candidate who is tired can make a dumb comment.
How about Gramps and his continual statements that the Shia run Al Qaeda (3 times) until Joe "the ventriloquist" McCain corrected him. Of course, I guess it is easy to throw your voice when your head is up someone a@@ like Joe's is John's.
If gaffe's make you unqualified for the office I think this one rules out McCain. Or it could be that on the day he says the economy is "fundamentally strong" that the stocks tumble roughly 500 points, Lehman has to be bought out to keep it from bankruptcy, and AIG is looking at a major restructing.
Read some of the article before you coment on it, surprise everyone.
I know I know, the EIA's figures cut no ice with you.
The fact that oil drilled in the US is sold on the world market rather than in the US is a near unknown here in Tennessee. And no one seems to address this on the MSM. I thought this article stated it well. This link will take you to the article below, originally from the HP:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/if-we-drill-in-the-us-we_b_114525.html
The oil that comes from offshore drilling will belong to the multinational firm, like Exxon-Mobil and will go to world markets, not us.
"One thing has been driving me crazy about this drilling debate -- everyone seems to assume that if we drill for oil in the US, that we will get the oil. And hence, we won't be dependent on foreign oil anymore. But we won't get anything, Exxon-Mobil will.
The oil that comes from that drilling will not be United States property (Republicans aren't suggesting we nationalize the oil companies, are they?). It will be the property of whichever oil company got the rights to that contract. They can then sell it to whoever they like -- and they will. They will sell it on the world market, so the Chinese will have just as much access to the oil that comes out of the coast of Florida as we will.
The Democrats have done a decent job of beating back the argument that this will effect prices in the short run, or even in the long run. But no one has addressed the point above. The Republicans make it seem like we won't be dependent on foreign oil -- and that prices will go down in the US -- if we have our own oil. But it won't be ours. And it will be sold on the world market, so its effect on global oil prices will be even smaller.
When we ask the question of whether there should be drilling off the coast of Florida or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we should ask the question this way -- would you be comfortable with the Chinese or the Germans or Russians or the Saudis drilling on American land? Because for all intents and purposes, they will be.
Large multi-national firms like Exxon-Mobil are not US property. They sell to the world and their allegiance is to corporate profits. So, when they drill, they drill for the whole world, not just us. Some might find that heart-warming, but it certainly has nothing to do with the US having more oil or lower prices."--Cenk Uygur
By the way, OT for a moment, as a long time reader, of MMFA, I think the comments section is outstanding debate on the profound misinformation saturating the airwaves and print media. I was a moderate Republican but long ago that party left me behind and became something really scary. I always enjoy the intelligent, well-informed commentary. I send credited selections with links to people in the "I think so you don't have to" ditto zone, hoping for a light to go off and encourage all to at least give MMFA a test drive.
seecatrun,
That is what is called the 'market'.
Our dependence on foreign oil is to the amount of oil put on the 'market' for any purchaser to buy. Unless you are a lefist country that indeed nationalizes drilling, oil companies drill for oil and return profit to their owners, owners being those who have stocks whether individuals, 401k's or union pensioners. The purchaser could be let's say China, India, Canada or the US. We are all consumers and when the supply of any product goes up, the price goes down. When we take huge amount of reserves off of the 'market' by saying we just need more windmills in the Kennedy's backyard, then supply goes down and prices go.........up. Very good!
So you either stop using oil, uping the number of gerbels turning wheels for electricity or just go back to the stone age in terms of convenience to make us less dependent on the influence of others to raise or lower prices, like Russia, Venezuala, Iran in terms of suppy and China and India in terms of demand, OR you just let us increase supply whether we drill in Alaska, on already approved leases or offshore without some whacked out eco-facist filing worthless appeal after appeal.
Then we won't have to worry about another country drilling/mining our resources because we will have greater control over fluctuations, hurricanes, regime change, India coming into the 21st century, or Amadeenejad threatening the flow of oil out of middle east.
Economics is not that simple. There are some circumstances where demand can increase and supply increase, yet prices still increase. In the example you have given you say we build more windmills, so production goes down, and therefore prices go up. Not necessarily true. For one thing it depends on if we are the only country trying to reduce our dependency on oil. If you have a significant reduction in demand that can also lower prices; the purpose: to try and get people to buy more oil. It is sort of like the I-Phone. You can buy an I-Phone on the first day for 2X what it may cost in a couple of months - the reason - demand has gone down.
THE 'ECON BRAIN,' PHIL GRAMM: Former senator Phil Gramm is known as McCain's "Econ Brain." Recently, he has called America "a nation of whiners" who are in a "mental recession." While in the Senate, he was behind the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The former made legal "the mortgage swaps distancing the originator of the loan from the ultimate collector," while the latter "destroyed the Depression-era barrier to the merger of stockbrokers, banks and insurance companies." As The Nation wrote, "those two acts effectively ended significant regulation of the financial community." After leaving Congress, Gramm worked for the Swiss bank UBS. Politico reported that while at UBS, "Gramm lobbied Congress, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department about banking and mortgage issues in 2005 and 2006. During those years, the mortgage industry pressed Congress to roll back strong state rules that sought to stem the rise of predatory tactics used by lenders and brokers to place homeowners in high-cost mortgages." McCain has also voted against discouraging predatory lending practices.
THE OUTSOURCER, CARLY FIORINA: As CEO of Hewlett-Packard (HP), Fiorina exploited a corporate loophole to hold more than $14 billion in profits overseas, a loophole that McCain is against closing. She was forced out of HP after a merger with Compaq failed to bring Hewlett the profits that Ms. Fiorina had forecast," resulting in tumbling shares. She is also a defender of outsourcing, which she calls "right-shoring," and has said that "there is no job that is America's God-given right anymore." "It's hard on people, but I don't understand how you pick and choose among the jobs you want to save and protect against and not expect people to do the same to you," she said. While McCain has recently condemned "golden parachutes" -- excessive compensation for exiting CEOs – by saying, "CEOs that led us into this mess are walking away with over $20 million, and we're not going to let that happen as president…They deserve nothing," Fiorina walked away from HP with a $21 million severance package, which, with another $21 million in options, brought her $42 million. In a 2007 interview with Fortune, Fiorina said that “what we ought not to do is regulate or legislate CEO compensation."
THE CHIEF LOBBYIST, RICK DAVIS: After the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that called lobbyists "primary contributors" to the crisis. One of these lobbyists though, is McCain's own campaign manager, Rick Davis, who " served as president of an advocacy group led by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that defended the two companies against increased regulation." Davis challenged even the smallest reform measures intended to make sure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were being held more accountable for their actions. This helped the mortgage giants, "consistently [beat] back congressional efforts to increase oversight, even after a major accounting scandal in 2003 resulted in a $400 million fine for Fannie.
THE IDEOLOGUE, DONALD LUSKIN: Like McCain, Luskin believes that "things today just aren't that bad," and everyone should "quit doling out that bad-economy line." In a Washington Post op-ed last Sunday, he wrote that "we have surely become a nation of exaggerators" regarding the economy, despite agreeing that "the foreclosure rate is the worst since the Great Depression." Luskin claimed that "unemployment is up a bit," when it is at a five-year high of 6.1 percent. He also asserted that the housing crisis is "over." As evidence of the economy's strength, he pointed to last quarter's GDP growth of 3.3 percent, yet "somehow fail[ed] to mention that the quarter before, it was 0.9%, and the quarter before that, -0.2%." Luskin also failed to note that one of the primary reasons for the growth was the "$90 billion in economic stimulus payments that reached
Proud Con,
My post was in response to, and immediately follows, RGKHAN's post. There seems to be a misperception by your average Joe or Jane, encouraged by linking increased drilling to "oil independence", that the oil from increased drilling will remain in the US, adding directly to US oil reserves, reducing the amount of oil that must be bought on "the market". It is a distinction that is not given attention in MSM. You are correct that the oil companies deserve profits.
You say, "When we take huge amount of reserves off of the 'market' by saying we just need more windmills in the Kennedy's backyard, then supply goes down and prices go.........up. Very good!"
Conversely, when the supply on the market goes up, the price of gasoline in the US goes down proportionately. Oh, wait. No it doesn't. The major oil companies are engaging in nothing less than extortion of the American people for profits that break records no matter which way the world price of oil goes. Surely you would not object to investigations into their practices regarding price fixing? Or dare we? I do not believe the oil companies should be nationalized. But since their products and practices affect every man, woman, and child, I do believe their practices should be open to the American people. Conservatives of 30 years ago would have understood that. I didn't leave the Republican party, it left me.
cyclopt,
After 9 million 'congressional' investigations to uncover this phoney issue of industry-wide price gouging, we continue to find that the blowhard politicians have no interest in the subject except to act like they are doing something valuable. They have done nothing to make the access to resources for us any easier, including the last 2 years as we wait for a common sense policy to solve this problem.
"The average net profit margin for the S&P Energy sector, according to figures from Thomson Baseline, is 9.7%. The average for the S&P 500 is 8.5%. So yes, energy companies are more profitable than many others...but not by an inordinate amount.
Google, for example, reported a net profit margin of 25% in its most recent quarter. Should we have an online advertising windfall profit tax?"
http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/markets/thebuzz/
The left hates success, especially when it thinks it can exploit it for the purpose of keeping another hoax alive about energy use.
Instead, hating success means that try to punish companies that provide us and the economy with an essential product, safely, quickly and cost efficiently.
Congratulations ProudCon, your sanctimonious screed whines again with [your] scatological non-sequiturs. You really think others would fall for that smoke & mirrors claptrap you delight in spewing? Waving about your mere “difference” of 1.2[%], without mentioning how many zeroes are involved before one gets to the dollar sign? Then you tout Google’s net as being what…mutually exclusive or perhaps causative? Such wrappings upon your baseless corpus, into a package of pox-like clichés, flatulates still another halo atop your Herr Rove’s dialectic concerning anything neoconish. In your case ProudCon, that would be reinventing definitions to suit your own fascist dogma. Then again, meandering [old] Republicans are known to spew such effluvia, empirically, before lying down upon the sod, as an old sod, to then languor under the sod, as you, do-do, do...old sod.