I can’t figure it out, but I am tired of trying to reason with these people because they are following the talking points no matter how outrageous.

Seriously, for anyone to argue that Palin has foreign policy experience because Alaska is close to Russia is so bizzarre I simply cannot even comprehend it–and yet people are STILL making that argument.

It’s insane, literally insane. A person who argues that should not be allowed to have sharp objects for fear he or she will harm himself or herself.

A reasonable person would read what I wrote–well maybe not what I wrote but at least consider it and seek other sources….I recognize that since I wrote it he or she may attach a bias to it as they think I am some sort of whacked out liberal–and come to the same conclusion.

Palin supported earmarks; McCain is against earmarks. There is an incongruity here.

J Harden has been a strong supporter of the right, but if he is a reasonable person–and I think his last post here demonstrates he is–then he has to at least concede there is an issue.

Now, like you, I agree.

Earmarks are a part of Washington reality–if anything, McCain’s constituents have been ill-served by his battle against earmarks. Palin could be lauded by her constituents for bringing home the bacon, but that flies in the face of her claims now.

There are problems with Palin, there really are, but the problem here is that McCain and his camp are lying about what Palin really is.

They could be selling her as a rising young star in the GOP based on her record (limted) of accomplishments as an Alaskan governor, but instead they are trying to sell her as a reformer and a change agent, which she is not.

She is a a disciple at the foot of the Rovian alter who believes in power and the consolidation of it, in destroying her enemies in a ruthless manner. She supports big business, but gets a few scraps for her constituents. She is a hard right conservative who blurs the line between church and state.

She, not McCain, is Bush II, just in a different package. The far right that would not support McCain, those crazy people who make up the 29 percent that think Bush is doing a good job figured that out weeks ago and that is why McCain has got the bump. He didn’t get a bump from the independents from this. Maybe a scattered few, but these are the Bush people who are moving the graph.

What should upset the McCain supporters–the real ones–is who Palin really is, the kind of thing McCain has been fighting against in his own party.

McCain sold his soul to the far right for one more shot at the presidency, but what he doesn’t realize is that sale came with a price.

The real scary thing is that the far right is taking a calculated gamble in this election–they are voting for McCain, a guy they really don’t like, because they are betting McCain does not live out his presidency and they get their person back in the white house.

After 8 years of Bush, that could never happen–the primaries proved that. The only palatable candidate to emerge was the one least accomodating to the far right. So, the far right got the next best thing–a suspect female version of Bush who they can count on if–and in their eyes, hopefully when–McCain dies.

Is that cynical–hell yeah, but these people from the far right are evil bastards who are perfectly willing to support a 72-year-old more moderate Republican if it increases their chance of getting back into the White House from 0 percent to1 percent–according to life insurance actuarials, McCains chance of dying in office are 35 percent.

35 percent! The far right is doing cartwheels at those numbers.

What do you consider an earmark? Because I bet that McCain is defining it differently. Is it defined as an appropriation for a specific project which is latched on to an omnibus peice of legislation or any procedural process for appropriations. I think that if this is to be an issue, it should be well defined by the one’s crying foul, don’t you?

As mentioned by gerryf, I don’t think McCain is defining it differently.

Listen Josh, I think there’s a disconnect between what McCain and Palin are saying about earmarks and the reality with this VP pick. That’s all.

And, as I’ve stated on this blog, I don’t have a problem with earmarks. But I do believe that if you claim to be a reformer, you should at least not be the governor of a state that had the most per capita earmarks per person than any other state in the union. Especially when paired with a senator who had the least earmarks per capita for his state.

I think that’s a reasonable criticism, don’t you?

The CRS have a different definitions for each part of the budget process (ie, Agricultural, Defense, Energy, Foreign operations, etc).

That definition I supplied comes from the section on transportation appropriations.

Each

According to McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said that McCain’s plan to eliminate earmarks uses the Congressional Research Service’s (CRS) definition of the term.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/16/mccain-aid-israel/

Now, what’s tricky about that is the CRS claims there is no single definition of earmark, so when McCain said in April of this year that he opposed $65 million in earmarks he never said exactly what those earmarks were.

However, even though the CRS said there is no single definition for earmarks, the CRS does say that earmarks CAN be defined by appropriation.

Since the bridge to nowhere was part of Don Young (R-Alaska) transportation bill, let’s take a look at how the CRS defines an earmark (given Holtz-Eakin’s statement, that should be fair, right).

According to the CRS’s report Earmarks in FY2006 Appropriations Acts: “Funds for projects or organizations in specified locations that appear in the appropriations act or joint explanatory statement are identified as earmarks regardless of their origin or current status.”

The Bridge to Nowhere was inserted by Young to connect
Ketchikan to Gravina Island. This is clearly a project for a specific location in a transportation appropriation act.

By McCain’s own definition, the Bridge to Nowhere that Palin supported is an earmark.

quod erat demonstrandum

I mean, this has reached obscene proportions.