Republican babes can raise taxes; it's OK! She can even take my guns away if she wants! *pant pant*

It's becoming obvious that she's really a meaner, less competent, less experienced version of Huckabee.

"Palin actually did a pretty decent job of working with a fractured state legislature to produce a new tax regime in a short period of time."

She has a pretty bipartisan record in Alaska, and had Democrats and Independents in her cabinet.

I can understand liberal fears of her, but let me point out that its the Republican party that should be the most scared.

I think there might be a misguide view in the Republican party that they can "guide" her. If you check her record, you will see that she is her own person, and extremely committed to doing the right thing (even if you don't agree with her values).

If McCain wins, I guarantee that she will be the instigator of a major revolution of the Republican party. She really is a "compassionate conservative" compared to GW's fake compassion.

I'm pretty sure that this comment will be deleted like the dozens of other comments of mine that have found their way into the internet ether, but it may stay up long enough for people to notice that it too will soon be deleted.

There is a difference between a royalty rate and a windfall profits tax. Alaska OWNS the oil in its ground. By increasing the royalty rate as the market price of oil increases they are sharing in market gains.

Obama is proposing a windfall profits tax on aggregate levels of profit. Exxon has a profit rate of 10%. Google has a profit rate of 25%. Obama is suggesting that a special tax be placed on Exxon but not on Google.

Resource royalties and windfall profits are not the same kind of tax.

[Actually it was an accident that all of your comments got deleted. I meant to delete a couple on another thread, and an accidental mouse hover marked them all for deletion. So long as you keep the racism in check, you won't be deleted. -Mod]

Compassionate Conservative is an oxymoron.

I am a staunch Republican in the sense of fiscal conservatism, low taxes, limited government, etc...(however I am mostly pro-choice, have no problem with gays, don't want to shove religion down people's throats, etc...) but I agree, she seems more like a conservative Democrat in this sense, I mean her husband is even a member of the United Steelworkers Union.

I wonder if this will pull more Hillary voters to her, as HRC wanted to enact a windfall profits tax on Big Oil, so hearing that Palin has done so in Alaska likely would make them like her even more.

i hate to admit it, but that's a pretty nifty plan she cooked up, credit where credit is due. though, yes, not the kind of plan the repugs typically have much good to say about.

It's plain to see by now that McCain has no idea who is VP nominee is. If I'm the DNC idea man, I'm pitching the ad in which the narrator introduces the two to one another:

-- McCain, tax slasher & scourge of government spending, to Palin, tax & spender;
-- McCain, proponent of "scientifically-sound" climate policy, to Palin, skeptic of global warming;
-- McCain, supporter of stem cell research, to Palin, opponent of stem cell research;
-- McCain, Iraq hawk, to Palin, Iraq blank slate;
-- McCain, professed champion of ethics reform, to Palin, Governor/VP nominee under investigation & slated to be deposed this week.

Of course, this is essentially a parlor game that you can play with the 2000 & 2008 versions of McCain, but either way the point is to hammer McCain, rather than Palin, for these differences. He picked her. She didn't pick him. It's perfectly reasonable to ask McCain if he's so weakly committed to these positions that he's comfortable placing someone who doesn't share them a heartbeat away from the presidency.

I wouldn't call Palin another Huckabee, the difference being that Huckabee is the type who wants to actually change the Constitution to shove religios views down people's throats.

Palin may be very socially consevative, but I mean she vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to gay employees, she said she would like it if schools taught both creationism and evolution, she did not say she wanted evolution banned from the curriculum as so many hardcore right-wingers would, and she did not pressure the BoE to teach creationism alongside evolution either, etc...she seems not the type to try and force her views on others regarding those things.

Apparently the issue was that she fired the state public-safety director (or asked him to resign, same-same) when he refused to fire her ex-brother-in-law, Mike Wooton, who's an AK Statie.

She has stuck it to more corrupt politicians who were entrenched in power than any other person I have ever seen in politics (including the powers that be in her own party) and as such has pi**ed off enough people that it is no surprise that the words "scandal" and "investigation" are being thrown around right now... I have no doubt it will amount to nothing other than someone with an ax to grind.

This wasn’t a nomination as much as it was an act of vandalism. Like when gang members leave a “tag” on the side of a building - to indicate their territory. The gun-loving Christian Coalition just left some graffiti on the wall of American culture.

First you say "So Palin's plan increased that by another $700 million." then you say "The final version twiddled the knobs and ended up producing not $700 million in additional revenue, but more like $2 billion or so."

Which is it... or am I missing something here.

it won't matter. the wingnuts will all fall in line.

policies and facts don't matter. what matters is that she's not a Democrat.

Apparently the issue was that she fired the state public-safety director (or asked him to resign, same-same) when he refused to fire her ex-brother-in-law, Mike Wooton, who's an AK Statie.

... I have no doubt it will amount to nothing other than someone with an ax to grind.

This may, indeed, turn out to be the case, and Democrats would be stupid to hold their collective breath & expect criminal prosecutions to be political game changers. (Karl Rove, anyone? And what, exactly, did the Scooter Libby conviction get us, other than a little schadenfreude?) There are a couple of points here, though -- one related to Palin, and one to McCain.

The first is a point that Josh has made over at his site -- Palin's seemingly Bushian instinct to use an arm of the government in order to settle personal scores. If this investigation turns out to have some legs to it, Palin will become an extremely visible symbol of McCain's returning us to the ways of doing business for the last 8 years. This, combined with McCain's propensity to alienate others & hold grudges, raises fundamental questions about the temperament of the ticket.

The second point has to do with McCain's lack of judgment in terms of his choice. What, exactly, does it say about your executive decision-making capability when you're willing to gamble not only your political future, but the future of the country, on someone you clearly don't know, and who's currently under investigation -- the conclusion of which is scheduled (for now, anyway,) just days before the general election? Maybe this all comes out in the wash. That could certainly be the case. But do you really want this kind of a high-stakes gambler with his finger on the button? If the Obama campaign can emphasize these points, it'll go a long way to discrediting McCain, without really bloodying Palin. That, she will have done herself.

[Actually it was an accident that all of your comments got deleted. I meant to delete a couple on another thread, and an accidental mouse hover marked them all for deletion. So long as you keep the racism in check, you won't be deleted. -Mod]

If pointing out that Obama, newly graduated from Law School, got a contract to publish an autobiography because he's Black is considered a racist comment, then this blog is staffed by the very sensitive folks. Racism usually involves hatred, not mere notice of a person's race.

Silence, all of you! John McCain was a POW; ergo, this was not a tax hike, it was a 'royalty'.

Palin's seemingly Bushian instinct to use an arm of the government in order to settle personal scores.

Not so. The man happened to be her ex brother in law, but he was also a police officer who was a threat to the public. He was violating hunting laws, he was threatening people with violence, he was using his tazer on children. Who wouldn't want this man off of any police force? Should Palin remain silent and let him continue to serve? Would her silence further the public safety?

Yes, raising revenue is all fine and well, but windfall profit tax is a bad idea whether Obama or Palin suggest it. And Palin's represents an even worse version with the way that it increases blindly based on oil price. I'm all for severance taxes on resources extracted from a jurisdiction, but it should be flat based on the value of the resource extracted (and the cost to the environment). What she proposes here is most certainly a profit tax.

Though I wouldn't use this one example to layout her entire economic ideology (and certainly not the one the McCain campaign would follow), if I were, it would show she supports bad moderate policies, no great relief. And while Obama supports a similar bad policy, it is balanced out by an otherwise vastly superior energy/economic plan.

The neocons seem to be split over Palin. Kristol for, Krauthammer against.

Frum: a theme that I'd be pounding home if I were the Obama campaign: that it's John McCain for all his white hair who represents the risky choice, while it is Barack Obama who offers cautious, steady, predictable governance.... If it were your decision, and you were putting your country first, would you put an untested small-town mayor a heartbeat away from the presidency?

Palin shifts the focus away from Cindy McCain's baggage. The 8 - 12 houses are still there, but Cindy McCain's opulence is largely supplanted by down-home Sarah's schtick.

TangoMan -- You might want to check the facts; a good short history of "Troopergate" here.

Is this the Sarah Palin Blog? What happened to Obama?

What happened to Obama?

Sarah Palin.

I'm all for severance taxes on resources extracted from a jurisdiction, but it should be flat based on the value of the resource extracted (and the cost to the environment). What she proposes here is most certainly a profit tax.

If you're a farm owner and you sell your wheat crop, should you be content to receive a base price for the wheat and allow the refiners and other downstream processors to capture all of the value locked into rising prices?

The oil belongs to the people of Alaska. The oil companies deploy capital and expertise to extract that oil. If particular oil companies can earn a higher rate of return than their competitors based on their unique management practices, then they have a solid case for capturing all of the realized gain. What case do they make for capturing all of the gain in the commodity price of oil?

A windfall profits tax kicks in after the cost of materials is already extracted from the sale price. Royalty payments are a cost of goods. Those goods, the oil, belongs to the people of Alaska. They should benefit from the run-up in the price of oil to the same degree that the citizens of Norway, Britain, Canada, etc benefit from the increased price - that is, they should be capturing the value, instead of sending it to the oil company, which doesn't bring any value added contribution to the issue.

*

Tango man what you are saying makes sense when applied to most industries where virtually all their costs are variable costs.

But because the oil industry is a very, very, very heavy fixed or sunk cost industry with insignificant variable cost your analysis is essentially irrelevant.

sounds like you have had a good course in accounting, but your understanding goes no deeper.

At today's oil price, every new dollar the industry earns in our state, the government takes a mind-boggling 85 percent.

That sure puts Palin's reputation as favoring oil companies and ANWR drilling in a different light.

Not so. The man happened to be her ex brother in law, but he was also a police officer who was a threat to the public. He was violating hunting laws, he was threatening people with violence, he was using his tazer on children. Who wouldn't want this man off of any police force? Should Palin remain silent and let him continue to serve? Would her silence further the public safety?

So if this is nothing more than a public safety issue, why did she initially deny that her office had anything to do with his firing? And why was it necessary to also fire the Public Safety Commissioner -- the same commissioner who, coincidentally, refused to fire her brother-in-law? And how in the world is the safety of the public better served by replacing the Public Safety Commissioner with someone who has a history of sexual harassment? At this point, her executive decision-making capacity seems to be as questionable as McCain's.

I'm happy to remain agnostic on Palin's culpability until the investigation is completed, but McCain is taking an enormous gamble by adding someone involved in this type of an investigation to his ticket before any findings have been made. I don't want to know what other kinds of gambles a President McCain would be willing to take with the country.

Spencer,

But because the oil industry is a very, very, very heavy fixed or sunk cost industry with insignificant variable cost your analysis is essentially irrelevant.

Saying so doesn't make it so. Heavy fixed costs are irrelevant to a situation where the investment decision is predicated on the floor price attached to the royalty. If the variable costs of extraction are negligible compared to the fixed cost, the as the price of oil increases on the world market, the variable costs of extraction remain mostly the same, the fixed costs are already sunk, and the profit was already attractive at the lower royalty level.

If you wish to dissuade me of this reasoning you'll have to do better than an appeal to your own authority.

OK. How many states have such an opportunity like Alaska to avoid the really difficult tax issues? Most states, unlike Alaska, do have income and/or sales taxes. Most states are running big budget deficits. In these cases, attempting to raise revenues without raising income or sales taxes on individuals or businesses is a huge challenge that many state governments are failing. Palin gets off pretty damned easy on this account. So, what really difficult taxing decisions has she had to make? None. Her move to increase taxes on oil was a no brainer, no? And just exactly who else is helping to make her look good? Why who else but you federal tax payers and purchasers of oil.

...the oil industry, since that's how the rugged individualists up north fund themselves. (In addition to massive infusions of federal cash...

Excellent snark, Mr. Drum. I mean that as a sincere compliment.

Blah blah blah... ad hominen... blah blah blah... ad hominen.
Then when you try to talk substance you prove you are completely ignorant of the consitution. $100 to anyone who can correctly fill in the blank without looking it up. Another $100 if you can name the article and section.

"The (President/Congress/Supreme Court) shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "

This is what you will learn in the third grade:

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated...

Guess what? I just registered to vote for the first time, I was not going to vote at all in this election, but I really like Palin, she seems to be a real person... like the rest of america. Yes she may have different ideology than Democrats or Libertarians, but unlike Obama, McCain, and Biden... she is a regular joe like me. I liked what she said about her son being in the military, and I want a real person with a real child serving at the time of her administration. That fact alone will guide her judgement, and I think that by protecting her own, she will protect the rest of americas own. That I like, and neither of the other candidates in this race have that kind of weight on their sholders when making a decision.
Yes, I know some will say McCain is in charge, but buddy, she is down the hall, and I think she will in fact storm in the Oval office and have a heated conversation with McCain if he chooses to do something stupid. We need a regular person down the hall from the President with proven experience authority to "have a little chatt" with the President if need be. To be honest, I don't care if we were having the same conversation about a Democrat, I am one of those Independents, I just want a real person at the white house with the gutts to challenge anyone, and I see that in Palin.

Grover? Rush? Newt? Sean?

intelligentsia ???????

TangoMan: I'm pretty sure that this comment will be deleted like the dozens of other comments of mine that have found their way into the internet ether

Tiny violins are playing. I've seen PLENTY of your posts on this blog.Rightwing self-pity at its finest.

Or at least I thought you were right wing:

Alaska OWNS the oil in its ground. By increasing the royalty rate as the market price of oil increases they are sharing in market gains.

"Alaska" owns it? That would be the collective people somehow exercising ownership of communal resources via the state? Where does the state get off "owning" and levying "royalties" (read TAXES) on oil or anything else for that matter? Sounds like effing Hugo Chavez to me. Whadda you a goddamn Leninist or something?

I don't want to know what other kinds of gambles a President McCain would be willing to take with the country.

And with that, Junebug, you name the thing that is the real heart of the issue here. It's not just the move of a guy who's an arrested 20-something fighter-jock in his head and thinks he's immortal, it's the move of a high roller betting the family mortgage at a high stakes craps table in Atlantic City. Maybe it pays off, maybe it doesn't. But what about the next one, and the one after that? Is that the kind of president we need in these precarious times?

Please visit a new SARAH PALIN fan and supporter website at:

http://www.sarahpalin.me

It has a bio,photos,contact information and free Sarah Palin computer wallpaper.

>The oil belongs to the people of Alaska.

I think it belongs to the people of *America*. Y'know, the ones who paid for the purchase of, pay for the protection of, and subsidizes the communities of, Alaska.

I think this may be a good time to crack open the whole stinking Permanent Fund mess and wave it under the other 49 states noses.

I mean, I think it the crap about opening offshore drilling somehow affecting today's prices is as much bullshit as anybody. But Republicans believe it.

I know that not only are the quantities of American oil insufficent to get anywhere near "energy independence", but the quality of American oil (esp. Alaskan) is also woefully sub-optimal. But Republicans believe the first and refuse to understand the second.

So if prices at the pump are high, and can be fixed by "tax breaks on oil producers" which will "encourage more production", then I gotta ask Republicans: What. The. Fuck.

Alaska pays every citizen 4-figures every year from oil revenues from the Permanant Fund. Alaska has still managed to amass 40 billion dollars in this trust fund, which is 1/2 of the sum people are screaming at Iraq for.

And if I understand correctly, the revenues directed towards the Permanant Fund are not quite 1/2 of Alaska's total take.

So somebody should ask Gov. Palin, why should Alaskans profit from our pain at the pump? Aren't we supposedly all in this together? Can't Alaska forgo its revenues for a few years to help out?

They have exposed their groin here, and somebody needs to take a kick at it.

TO BE CLEAR: This is not an argument that would appeal to me. I don't care who taxes oil, I think whatever makes the pump price dearer and dearer is unarguably a good thing for the future of our country and the planet. I'm a total enviro-nazi.

But Alaska is two-faced Republican politics at it's finest, and they've just opened themselves up to being publically called on it. If you offered Alaskans ANWR, but with no revenues to the state, you'd suddenly find a state just full of people waving "preserve Alaska's last wilderness" signs.

And everybody would have a subject for a really, really good re-think.

It doesn’t take a private detective to figure out that Big Oil chose Sarah Palin for the Republican VP slot. It was evident when John McCain had to look at his notes to remember her name when he made his announcement on Friday. (Watch the reruns if you don’t believe me.) He hardly knows this woman! Governor of the Big Oil State of Alaska, former chairperson of the state’s Oil and Energy department, a cheerleader for drilling in our Wildlife Preserves and even her husband is an oil company employee. Did you think for one second that Big Oil was going to give up control of our government after Dick Cheney and George Bush leave office? Of course not! Sarah is Cheney’s replacement. With John McCain’s age and health problems, it’s easy to foresee Sarah Palin’s influences grow, if elected.

Forget all that fluff about pro-life, her son going to Iraq and the proposition that she is a substitute for Hillary fans. The real story is that Big Oil told John McCain whom to name. I feel sorry for old John. It is belittling for a man of his stature. Look forward to continued dominance of our lives by the petro-dictators. They have bought our government. Let’s hope that next winter we don’t all freeze in the dark.

If you are still paying attention . . . I remember reading an article in Fortune Magazine back in 1998 telling (unfortunately, not warning) readers that the influential Texas oil barons had found a willing candidate for president…. “the likable son of former president George H. W. Bush, now serving as Governor of Texas.” The rest is history and as we well know, history has a way of repeating itself.

Get over it she is very qualified.
She’s a soccer mom.
She does not practice birth control.
She wears high heals and was an almost beauty queen.
What other qualifications do you need to have your finger on the nuclear button?

hey, listen to Sarah Palin in her own words in this NewsWeek Video that was done back in March 2008! Its very telling!
http://www.newsweek.com/id/156190

Here is another Pic. Now that her daughter is carrying her new baby (maybe this was the one that Sarah had in May) Is this the crack in the story we are looking for - shades of Thomas Eagleton. I hopes its not true but remember these backwoods types handle life differently than we do. Need some birth records reviewed I think. I think there may be a Sarah in the woodpile. You cons deserve it = why didn't you get behind Romney earlier and avoided all this shit.

Sorry forgot the pics

Bristol
http://i523.photobucket.com/albums/w357/tcpeep/bristol.jpg

Pic taken after she shot a liberal
http://img239.imagevenue.com/aAfkjfp01fo1i-1513/loc56/51420_n125886_35303886_8208_123_56lo

I am a 40 year old female voter from Michigan. I am elated that mccain picked palin for his vp.. One, he threw away Michigan votes by not picking Mitt Romney and two, she is a liar just like the rest of the republicans that have messed the U.S.A. up. She cant even manage her own family and were sapposed to think she can be commander and chief.. wow thats funny

http://www.jcarsonblack.com/index.php

Read about John McCain's Shotgun Wedding with Sarah Palin on J. Carson Black's blog - what a hoot.

Politics have hit a new low with the liberal dems when they attack a Vice President nominee for a 17 year old daughter getting pregnant. This same hypocrit bunch of libs swoon and bow at liberal movie actors and sports stars, singers who drop illigitmate babies all over the country with no responsibility. Has any main street media reporter asked Obama about his ties with Weather underground bomber Ayres? What about your Muslim father etc. The press is in the pocket of libs and the main reason many of us are turning to talk radio for the truth.

you are kidding right? shes so compassionate that she cut funding for unwed pregnant teens in alaska... she raises taxes.. lobbies for earmarks..and abuses her exectutive powers by trying to fire and ex brother in law.. a real reformer i tell you!

Well, this choice is so interesting on so many levels. The first issue (getting swing votes belonging to Senator Clinton) seems to be the most important to the Republicans, that is, winning. Then, they have taken the rhetoric away regarding the first this and the first that which is intended to help people vote for someone who lacks all the political strengths. Then, they have, of course, taken the first woman mantra away from Senator Clinton and the Democratic party (wow, she must be even more furious). Then, they get this pageant princess with a communications degree, who is portrayed as "mom" and "apple pie" and hell how is Senator Biden going to attack that, we all know what mom and apple pie means in politics. So, Senator Biden is doing the sweet gentleman approach (now), while everyone is shaking their heads, because it is so transparent, so ridiculous, so scary, so much a Disneyland movie or a Mrs. Smith goes to Washington, that NO one can really believe that they would actually risk getting Governor Palin to the Presidency, of course, McCain does not plan on dying, and I am sure they have a body double to fill in for him, like that other movie. Social researchers have found that in most households men control the money, that is, until there are debts, then they turn it over to the women. The country is bankrupt and now the Republicans want Grandpa and Mom to fix it. Well, the pageant princess would make a good ambassador for fly fishing, tourism and hunting expeditions, but President of the United States, I don't think so!

This should be the most interesting distruction of a party ever. the ISSUES will decide this election. I am helping to mobalize/Empower the new homeless masses of w2 economy;}

I would like to believe that the ISSUES would decide this election or any other election. Unfortunately, this does not seem to have been the historical outcome. The U.S. has lost its manufacturing base,has a horrendous commodity based inflation, is loosing job growth at 600,000 annually, Japan and China has a decline of, at least, 2% on their consumer index, the dollar is weak, the middle class wealth has been globally eroded by subprime housing loans or wall street schemes for short-term gain, Washington politicians continue to resist ending an oil war in Iraq, domestic spending on infrastructure necessities are gone, social security is bankrupt, health care is missing for millions of Americans, the greying of America continues to present historical challenges, National debt is beyond correction, consumer debt is beyond correction, Americans still speak of the "American Dream" as if it were real, education (so necessary for the building of a new economy) is woefully out of reach for middle class and poor students, illiteracy grows,etc.,etc.,etc., and yet there seems to be a need to debate the Emperor's clothes, and find ISSUES that may represent the thoughts of a VP candidate who astounds the imagination as the most improbable and ridiculous choice to be in a position to grapple with the catastrophic ISSUES of America. The dumbing down of America has reached a height of absurdity. Yet, everyone is playing the ISSUES game over the IMAGE game. George Lakoff (2004), has written the blue print for addressing the Republican machine "Know Your Values and Frame the Debate". The Republican machine has once again taken the Democrats frame and turned it against them. If the FRAME is not regained the outcome could be lost. The ISSUES are so glaringly clear but they continue to win on the FRAME. The frame is so transparently hollow, the Pageant Princess (Palin) and the QVC Queen (Mrs. McCain)and a Presidential candidate who was so damaged by years in Prison that he is on a mission to heal himself by becoming President of the United States, regardless of the obvious recklessness of that choice (ostensibly being done as a martyr to "his" country, whatever personal frame he created under duress and torture during a genocidal war in Viet Nam). The army of well funded "FRAMERS of a new and personal "Constitution" have been devastatingly effective in reaching their goals. I agree with Professor Lakoff, we will fall with the ISSUES and rise with the FRAME.
*footnote, once again, I believe, it will be Senator Clinton who saves yet another President (male) and win yet another election, because it will be HER base that decides this election and I believe SHE will do it once again. Senator Clinton was not my personal choice for President, but, I have renewed respect for her achievements and place in American history.

Sarah Palin is a regression for women who have been supporting women's rights for years. She is extremely devisive and condescending. She put down Obama's community activist experience, comparing to her mayoral experience to it except noting that her experience as a mayor had "actual responsibility". At this time in our nation's history, the last thing we need is more divisiveness. We need leaders who are respectful which is what I thought John McCain was trying to be. His pick of Sarah Palin tells you the truth - they are just like all the other politicians. It's time for something different.

The problem with criticizing Governor Palin for making political comments that divide is that you give her more power. There is an inherent component of any political speech that is "divisive," which is positive. It is that by which the candidate distinguishes them self from an opponent, bases their reasons for running and often wins. The call for unity in a Democratic (real or not real) system can be interpreted as a plea for mercy from the weak. The people are considered the source of political authority, the individual voice is respected, the vote (allegedly) decides those differences among those empowered individual voices, a majority vote. If we criticize based on divisiveness, we can be seen as someone intending to suppress the democratic process, our unity translates into our aims, over and against the process of voicing our interests, debating our interests and letting everyone decide individually where they stand. We can be accused of trying to repress freedom of speech, differing political perspectives, subverting the fundamentals of a democratic process.
It is the complex mixture of
the "Moral Politics" (Lakoff,2004) so intrinsic to the voting body of the Republicans that seems most vulnerable to review. Those voters who vote 'their identity, "who vote on the basis of who they are". Lakoff points out that "the most powerful forms of identification are with values and corresponding cultural stereotypes. The idealized family structure lie at the heart of our politics (2004), i.e., founding fathers (nation family), a strict father model and a world view that the world is basically good and can be made better (2004), i.e., mom/apple pie nurturing family model. What better than a lactating woman with five children who is physically very stereotypically female. Parents have the responsibility to nurture children, and teach them responsibility e.g. do not get pregnant while in high school, do not have premarital sex (Republican value), consistent responsibility is an expectation one has of parents,as well as, open two- way communication. Government, elected by the people, creates and safeguards the infrastructure for the citizens to benefit from being protected,exercise civil liberties, an economy that benefits everyone (2004) etc. Governor Palin fails the test in so many of these areas she was chosen to embody. The Republican party fails in these areas as they have defined them for the past twenty years of political power. These failures are the vulnerabilities that can be exploited to expose the mistake of electing them to those voters who vote based on moral identification, the swing voters the Republicans are trying to reach. The spin is already in full swing by the Republicans to obfuscate this reality, in my opinion.