Actually Gary it is not pathetic at all. She billed the state for 312 days of sleeping in her own home.

There are a lot of things in life that are legal that are not considered to be ethical or moral.

The fact that she took less than her predecessor doesn’t make it right or any less egregious.

She likes to position herself as being a reformer who is against pork barrel politics.

The reality is otherwise. Not to mention that she hasn’t any substantive experience in foreign policy or economics.

And that doesn’t get into any of the multitude of other issues that she is involved in.

I just wish that McCain was ten years younger and then I wouldn’t have to worry about a second rate candidate for VP getting a shot at the top spot.

You never know what can happen. Sharon got ill and that hack Olmert has made a mess of things.

Another pathetic attempt at slamming Palin. She took routine and entirely legal per diems for travel between the state capital in Juneau and her home 600 miles away (Alaska’s a big state, y’know). More to the point, she stopped using a fancy private jet and reduced these travel expenses by 80% from her Democratic predecessor.

By the way, the last two biggest ethics bills to pass the Senate and become law were in large part due to Obama.

I think you are wrong. I think Palin appeals far more to men than women. I hope I don’t need to explain that. Sheesh, a babe who can hunt, fish and raise lots of babies. Not to mention has a mind like a steel trap and an iron will who can get things, important things, done. Color me smitten (and I share your views on abortion and Christianity).

And any Democrats who wants to claim that two years as governor is not enough for a Presidential candidate, that was all the experience in politics that Woodrow Wilson had when he ran for President in 1912. I do believe that Dems still think well of the man, though I can’t imagine why.

I do not vote on the basis of identity politics. Frankly, if a Jewish candidate were running on the same platform (insofar as you can determine what that is) as Obama I’d vote against him. I would not put his Jewishness above a patent advocacy of rotten and countreproductive policies, based on delusional ideas, which is what the Dem candidates are giving us.

I like to say that my preferred candidate for president in 1992 was a woman, but that for some reason Margaret Thatcher’s name wasn’t on the ballot. That’s the kind of woman candidate I want to see and will vote for. I will not vote for a woman because she’s a woman, a man because he is a man, or black or white or, for tha matter pink with purple polka dots (an unrepresented minority indeed). Nor will I vote for a Jew because he is Jewish, nor against him for that reason.

Obama will benefit this November from a lot of people voting for him simply because he is black. That is an unworthy reason, indeed a racist one. It’s a great pity that Colin Powell did not accept the Republican nomination for President in 1996. It was his for the asking, but he would not take it. It would be far better for the US if the first black President was a man of real accomplishments like Powell, and not a poseur.

I don’t have anything against a woman in office, just one who is completely unqualified for it.

She has no substantive foreign policy or economic experience. I don’t look at POTUS as a place where I want on the job training.

I don’t like reading about her charging the state for sleeping in her own home.

I have a problem with people who want to ban books, doesn’t matter whether it was one or a 100.

And yes I know that she didn’t actually ban any, but she inquired about how to do it.

There is a pattern here that I don’t like. There are other women who have experience who would be far better choices.