Here is Palin’s quote: “Thanks, but no thanks, Congress.” This implies rejecting money from Congress, does it not. It kind of implies that Congress was trying to give her something and she turned it down, no? Is that really what happened here? Not really. She kept the money for other pet projects. That is not fiscal reform. That is like saying someone else robbed the bank but I elected not to return the cash… Not very virtuous or maverick-like, I would think.

You people can’t even read Amanie’s intentions, let alone Palin’s. Cause you can’t even see your own intentions and the intentions of your allies in a true light. How can you comprehend what Palin was speaking of: how can you comprehend that Palin sees a difference between Congress mandating a project for Alaska and Alaska deciding to build their own infrastructure according to their views of what is profitable and economical?

This kind of historical revision, of self-denial and illusion, is not a good thing.

CHanging the past, whether you call it Yellow Cake Niger, No WMDs, intelligence was sexed up, Bush mislead the nation, are all attempts to wear away at the energy of McCain and Palin in crafting real solutions to real problems now.

Once you have leeched their attention and the attention of their supporters to the causes you wish to speak about, that you wish they would devote their energies to defend, then you speak about how McCain and Palin aren’t getting anything done, now.

It’s classic strategy.

Contradiction Watch: Palin’s Neverending Fib to Nowhere
The San Francisco Chronicle

GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin is a newcomer, but she’s using the oldest political tactic ever: If you repeat an inaccurate statement enough times, it becomes fact — at least in the ears of folks who barely pay attention to politics. As GOP consultant Mike Murphy would say, this is all so “cynical”.

In its quest to transform someone with only 21 months of governing something more populous than the Cow Palace into the next Teddy Roosevelt, the McCain campaign repeats this error about Palin in a TV ad it dropped Monday: “She stopped the Bridge to Nowhere.”

It’s not “stopping it” when it was virtually dead by the time she had a chance to kill it. Congress decided to pull funding for the bridge TWO YEARS before Palin’s decision. “It wasn’t really a bold move when she did it,” said Lois Epstein, who opposed the bridge as a memember of the Alaska Transportation Priorities Project.

Besides, she totally flip-flopped on the project, supporting it before she opposed it. In October 2006, Palin responded to a written questionnaire from the Anchorage Daily News. One question: “Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?”

Palin: “Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now — while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.”

That’s the Alaska King Crab of Flip Flops. Or, as the nonpartisan Politifact called it, “We rate Palin’s position a Full Flop.”

Full article is at: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=30024

SueK, I am not in favor of anything you are proposing in your last post. And those are not the only logical conclusions to draw from mine. My comment goes as far as it does but no further, and I think it speaks for itself.

So you’re in favor of tightening up the restrictions on divorces for couples who have children? Or are you saying that the state should support single parents who have children so that they don’t have to work?

Also, I attack the left on their blogs and the right on their blogs, thus encouraging everyone to think outside the box a little more than they normally would. Some respond positively to this, while others do not. It’s your choice.

You are already prejudiced against her on this score, absent the facts and independent corroboration.

While it’s nice that you want to remove that bias and prejudice from the consideration of Palin as VP, it continues to be a source of prejudice and bias on your part, personally, which influences your views in ways that neither you nor I can comprehend fully.