How can Palin call herself a reformer when she leads in earmarks?

bookaholic asked:


The latest news is that she leads Alaska to the highest earmarks of any state in the Union. She says she opposed the “bridge to nowhere” but it turns out she originally supported the bridge to nowhere until it came under public scrutiny and ridicule. Then it turns out she kept a lot of the money and is now using it to construct an on-ramp (approach road) to nowhere. Is she a pathological liar or is this just the same double-speak we have come to know so well from the Bush administration?
Here are some sources:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_earmarks

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h1HWeeFRLRyGcNH4UYtN1sLp51EgD92TI8AO0

Some of the Rep. respondents resort to name calling. I suppose it’s because they have nothing of substance to present to counter the argument.

One of the respondents says Obama leads in earmarks. On total dollars raised via earmarks, Obama did raise more than Palin one year. But on a per capita basis, those monies raised by Obama amounted to around 1/10th of what Palin raised.

More important, I didn’t hear Obama protesting so strongly about earmarks in his acceptance speech. Nor did I hear him tell such a blatant lie like the one Palin made about opposing the bridge to nowhere, which she so strongly supported from the get go. The fact that she kept the money and spent it on the onramp to nowhere is duplicitous. (I know of a few idiots out there will be looking that word up in the dictionary.)

trackin with veretek