You’ve probably got a point there

Might it be possible that she “distanced herself” from the lobbying firm in 2003 because whe was only mayor until 2002, after which she was appointed to the oil commission and so had no more reason to *have* any contact with the lobbying firm? It seems this would be the more likely explanation than any sudden change of heart about earmarks.

Then, when she fired up her gubernatorial campaign in 2006, one of the planks she ran on was getting the Bridge To Nowhere built (and yes, the funding was specifically earmarked within the transportation bill for the bridge, and later Congress removed the specific requirement of using the funding for the bridge).

How many of those who are “now totally behind McCain” would have voted for him anyway as the lesser of two evils? I’d say most. Palin just makes them a little bit more excited to do it.

Most of us who were anti-McCain haven’t changed our story just because of Palin.

She was supporting one of the most notorious earmarks ever, the Bridge to Nowhere, up until the second Congress decided to make Alaksa pay for it themselves.

That happened late last year.

Perhaps, but….

Given Governor Jindal’s record, I would think his name goes before hers.

If McCain/Palin loses, then Palin is going to be a second-tier candidate behind the Romney’s and Huckabee’s of the world.

“Palin/Jindal in 2012″

The arguments you cite are reasons to be concerned about Palin, her policies, and her qualifications.

I was specifically addressing people, some of whom I’ve been exchanging email with since Friday, who didn’t support McCain before but are now totally “on board” solely because of the Palin pick.

Frankly, that doesn’t strike me as all that rational a way of looking at things.

If that was it, then it might be true that there’s no reason for concern on the Palin front. The trouble, though, is two-fold: first, we have the recent development of a strong VP (Cheney). Now, McCain might very well pull in the reins and so that won’t be a problem, but that won’t be known until it happens.

The second is that those would only remain her duties if McCain doesn’t die or become otherwise incapacitated, and the man’s 72 years old and is a cancer survivor with repeated bouts with melanoma. I’ve seen reports (supposedly based on actuarial data but I can’t confirm that) that his odds of dying in office may be as high as 20% or about 1 in 5, with similar odds for incapacitation. Either event would result in Palin taking the reins of power.

Brad, as for your observation that she’s a pragmatist…I’m not sure what criteria you use for that determination, but while she was mayor of Wasila, the city secured the services of a DC lobbying firm that brought in federal earmarks for 14 projects to the tune of $27 million dollars – for a town of less than 10,000. While that’s not so different than other politicians bringing home the bacon for their constituents, it does highlight the inconsistency of her claim as a hardcore earmark reformer. To me, actively hiring a lobbying firm in order to seek out earmark money is a little more than pragmatism.

It seems to me that it really doesn’t matter what Sarah Palin believes.

She isn’t running for President.

Heck, she isn’t even running for Senator, Congressperson, or any other position where she actually would have responsibilities and could actually accomplish something.

She’s running for Vice-President of the United States. Her sole duties in that office would consist of breaking ties in the Senate, inquiring as to the health of the President, and attending funerals of foreign leaders deemed too secondary for a Presidential visit.

Even if she was the greatest thing since sliced bread, nobody has given me a reason why I should vote for John McCain just because she’s on the ticket.