Well we can say one thing about the Palin choice. It has certainly sucked all attention away from Obama's speech last night. Dems and Repubs alike are very very very busy discussing the choice.

Score one for McCain. Us Dems really need to wise up.

OW - I was thinking the same thing.

So if I understand Kevin's post, Alaska got the money but just didn't spend it on a boondoggle as Stevens had earmarked it. I doubt that was a tough choice given the high negative profile of the project.

This is classic Rove. Dominate the media cycle.

And her own government affairs liaison makes it perfectly clear that she wasn't a leader on earmark reform--she was REACTING to a Congressional crackdown!

Her position on earmarks came about because Alaska was a notorious abuser who finally get busted! The actions she took on earmarks were to protect their state's ability to continue to get money from the federal government! It says so in an op-ed!

In an op-ed entitled "Palin not abandoning earmarks altogether," her government affairs representative writes:

"Recognizing there have been instances of earmark abuse, Congress has instituted reforms...Congressional earmarks for roads and bridges have received much attention in Congress and have become a principal impetus for reform. Unfortunately, Alaska has featured prominently in this discussion...

The Palin administration has responded to this unwanted attention in a number of ways....

Palin has said the state can either respond to the changing circumstances in Congress or stick its head in the sand. We believe that by recognizing the necessity for change, we can enhance the state's credibility in the appropriations process and in other areas of federal policy as well.

The governor is very much aware of the importance of the federal budget to virtually every Alaskan. In responding to the new realities, we are not abandoning earmarks altogether but are seeking to constrain and document them in the ways discussed here."

This is like an underage drinker proudly touting how he told a crooked shopkeeper "thanks, but no thanks" on a 6 pack of beer when he knew a cop was looking. Of course, left unmentioned is the fact she went back for vodka, whiskey, and a 3-pack of beer later.

talk about being for it before you were against it....

has anyone notice how incredibly uncomfortable McCain looks in the photos of him with Palin?

Squirm city.

Really Kevin do you want to start the discussion about profiles in courage? That is gonna lead you back to the McCain vs Obama courage measurement. That's a big loser.

I have yet to see Barak take a courageous stand on anything.

How about we just call her clean and articulate?

Hey Kevin, I can't find your email so I'm leaving a comment here.

I was just watching Wolf Blitzer and he was interviewing Lindsay Graham.

Blitzer asked if Palin was ready to be Commander-in-Chief.

Graham answered:

"She stood up to Ted Stevens, she can stand up to the Russians."

Holy shit!

"Well we can say one thing about the Palin choice. It has certainly sucked all attention away from Obama's speech last night. Dems and Repubs alike are very very very busy discussing the choice.

Score one for McCain. Us Dems really need to wise up."

Yes, instead of talking about Obama's speech, the media are comparing Palin to Dan Quayle. And yes, they're saying that Palin's first performnce compares favorably to what Quayle did.

But they're talking about Dan Quayle! Do you *really* think that's a "win" for Republicans?

Lindsay Graham is just showing his feminine side as he was short sheeted rather than short listed by McCain.

Probably a braver decision than Obama's decision to oppose the war when he represented a district characterized as Hard Left. Boy he really went out on the plank on that position, didn't he? Like Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright would have raked him over the coals.

Kurzleg: "Alaska got the money but just didn't spend it on a boondoggle as Stevens had earmarked it."

Rep. Don Young was the one who earmarked it. Stevens merely threw a fit when Sen. Tom Coburn suggested de-funding it after Hurricane Katrina.

Kevin,

Can you post your sources for this? Thanks, it will save us some time.

Jeff

IIRC, Alaska received only the initial $90m. In order to actually build the bridge to nowhere, The state would have had to cough up another $350m, MoL. Since the total state budget is well short of $10b, obviously the bridge had to go.

Well, the fact she was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it should of great comfort to the great Flip Flopper at the head of the ticket. Peas of a pod. Probably why he took a shine to her. The lack of careful vetting will probably eventually result in the biggest blowback for him.