McCain's VP:

Sooo... doesn't that mean that those $200 million were added to Alaska's total allocation?

It's evident that some folks here misunderstand the nature of earmarks. An earmark isn't extra money that is added to a spending bill. Instead, it's money that has already been allocated -- the earmark just directs the money to a specific project. So if Alaska was allocated a certain amount of money for road and infrastructure improvements, and $233M of that was earmarked for the Ketchikan bridge, then that $233M came out of Alaska's total allocation. If the bridge project is subsequently cancelled, Alaska would still get the $233M -- it just doesn't have to spend it on that bridge any more.

Palin kept the bridge money because that money would have gone to Alaska anyway. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Yup, that's what the article said.

It also said that "Republicans U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens and U.S. Rep. Don Young championed the project through Congress two years ago, securing more than $200 million in funds for the bridge between Ketchikan, on Revillagigedo Island, and Gravina Island."

Sooo... doesn't that mean that those $200 million were added to Alaska's total allocation?

Joe: Read the articles about the bridge project and then read the transcript from Palin's acceptance speech [excerpt below]. Palin is misrepresenting herself.

I believe Joe is mistaken concerning the character of the "earmark" in this particular matter. If the 233 million dollars was truly money that AK would have been allocated regardless, as Joe believes, then why did the AK congressional representatives have to fight so long and hard to get it and why did the "bridge to nowhere" become a national symbol of federal pork-barrel spending?

I'd move on to her views on creationism.

Oh God. This is now getting officially painful. Just listen to this audio of Palin talking about Iraq. It's excruciating. She doesn't "know what the plan is to ever end the war"? She sounds about as informed as someone you would grab off the subway at random. This is how seriously McCain takes foreign policy and war? Here's the full interview from August 14th. And here's the quote in more context:

Quote:

The GOP agenda to ramp up domestic supplies of energy is the only way that we are going to become energy independent, the only way that we are going to become a more secure nation. And I say this, of course, knowing the situation we are in right now " at war, not knowing what the plan is to ever end the war we are engaged in, understanding that Americans are seeking solutions and are seeking resolution in this war effort. So energy supplies and being able to produce and supply domestically is going to be a big part of that.[/quote[/quote]

"this audio"= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7niokOXyjs

"full interview"= http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837536,00.html

Palin

The longer I think about it, the less well this selection sits with me. And I increasingly doubt that it will prove good politics. The Palin choice looks cynical. The wires are showing.

John McCain wanted a woman: good.

He wanted to keep conservatives and pro-lifers happy: naturally.

He wanted someone who looked young and dynamic: smart.

And he discovered that he could not reconcile all these imperatives with the stated goal of finding a running mate qualified to assume the duties of the presidency "on day one."

Sarah Palin may well have concealed inner reservoirs of greatness. I hope so! But I'd guess that John McCain does not have a much better sense of who she is, what she believes, and the extent of her abilities than my enthusiastic friends over at the Corner. It's a wild gamble, undertaken by our oldest ever first-time candidate for president in hopes of changing the board of this election campaign. Maybe it will work. But maybe (and at least as likely) it will reinforce 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.

Here's I fear the worst harm that may be done by this selection. The McCain campaign's slogan is "country first." It's a good slogan, and it aptly describes John McCain, one of the most self-sacrificing, gallant, and honorable men ever to seek the presidency.

But question: 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?