In principle, I think some earmarks are ridiculous. In real terms, they do not appear to be a real drag on our economy. What to me constitutes genuine reform? Well, earmarks are fine, but for real results we might look at defense spending (5x the next 5 nations’ spending combined), the necessity of changing social security (something as simple as pushing the age back?), and controlling the real debt now, so as to prevent interest payments from reaching 9% of our total spending (which they already have).

Anyway, the point is I don’t see controlling earmarks as big of a deal as other things, but I don’t want to see someone lie about their positions right off the bat.

So in this case her stand on the issue appears to be a matter of convenience. Nevertheless, blame for pork belongs at the feet of congress. I’d like to see reform, which is long overdue. And McCain and Palin are the ones talking about it.

Democrats, on the other hand, on the cusp of a possible democratic presidency with the backing of a substantial congressional majority, lack anything resembling eagerness.

And I thought it was even a child could understand that someone opposed to earmarks would not try to get them by any means at her disposal–and if she somehow actually got them taking them was proof she supports them.

How silly of me to think that seeking and accepting them actually means she opposes earmarks. Good thing you were here to clear that up for all of us children who don’t know any better.

It must be very complicated inside your head. This issue is a real loser for the GOP, you should take their lead and pretend it doesn’t exist (kind of like foreign policy experience after the whole next to Alaska argument blew up in their faces).

I think this is a completely valid point to go after her on…in her introduction speech to a nation (when announced as VP), she lied outright! And, it was Congress who killed the bridge to nowhere, not her, and even after it was killed she kept the several million Congress had given her for the bridge and reallocated them. There is no real way for Republican to spin this (though I am sure they will figure out something)…she lied about a major decision that is an important part of McCain’s campaign! This one might actually stick…

Oh, and the billion dollar figure was not a total. Well, it was total fiction, but that’s the only total it was.

Earmarks are a congressional practice, and blame for them should be laid at the feet of the congresscritters who traffic most eagerly in them. Alaska’s earmarks have everything to do with guys like the disgraced senator Stevens, and substantially less to do with governors and mayors. Even a child could understand this.

I’m sure the figure McCain is citing for Obama’s earmarks is the accumulated sum during his several years tenure in congress. Whichever dollar figure you use, it has no meaning to the unfamiliar unless it is given a context. The figures we need would show how piggish or how fastidious Obama has been in comparison to his colleagues.

Now, surely one reason that theobama folks are trying to link undercarder Palin to earmarks (even though she’s not a member of congress) is because the comparison of Obama to McCain is not favorable. Unfortunately for Democrats, McCain has been comparatively abstemious. What’s Biden’s record.

The most amusing part of this is how vociferously the Obama camp keeps going after Palin. It’ was already more than comical enough for me that Obamites were WAY, WAY, WAY off in their initial spin of the Palin choice.

And now that its apparent that she’s not going to be blithely dismissed and is in fact a potentially formidable game-changer, they are trying to cut her head off using whatever’s near at hand that seems sharp at a quick glance. This is just another recipe for looking bad while actually building her cred. Time to shut up until you can find something that might actually stick.

Unvetted Kritter

As long as the game is what it is, I actually think that’s a plus on her part–I want my Mayor playing the game and getting earmarks for my town, and any other funds he or she can gather.

My only problem is the dishonesty/hypocrisy of Palin claiming she is against something she is clearly for. She ought to be stepping up and saying, “This is the way the system works and I played the system to benefit my constituents!

Then, if she says, “But the system stinks, and I will change it.”

I realize that leaves her open to another attack (“She got hers and now she wants to stop anyone else…..”), but it would at least be defensible.

To deny/lie about the past makes me wonder if anything she says is true.

It confounds me why a state with such massive resources and so few people needs earmarks at all.

1. To be fair, do mayors make earmarks? I thought that was a function of the legislative branch. They ask for things, but it’s up to the federal folks to decide where it fits nationally. I’d think she could take credit for creating a good budget, but it’s hard to give her credit or blame for earmarks.

2. Alaska’s a big state, with a scattered population. That means they have a big need for things like roads, sewers, etc that big cities pay for themselves due to their higher population concentrations. One could argue people shouldn’t have the rest of us pay for them, but Alaska’s one of those places that seems to be pretty strategic in most senses of the word, and inhospitable enough that keeping people there requires a subsidy of some sort.