I'm not the only one who thinks like that . Even though I won't vote for McCain, most will an he will likely win. I can't wait to see your angry hateful rants after McCain wins. I know it's inevitable, but he won't have my support.

I also choose not to subscribe to the theory that every single earmark is bad or worthless or evidence of corruption. An “earmark” is merely a budgetary item that originates with an individual legislator, not with the executive branch. But even those earmarks that are actually for well-intentioned, worthwhile projects are suspect because of the PROCESS by which they are included in bills, often out of public view and with little to no opportunity for debate.

A new process must be created by which such projects are exposed to daylight and debated openly, if necessary; when an earmark IS bad or worthless or corrupt, it should be eliminated from the budget, either via a legislative mechanism that needs to be implemented or via a line-item veto, which I support on a limited basis.

Wikipedia notes: “The total congressional earmarks for fiscal year 2008 numbered 11,780, worth $18.3 billion … Citizens Against Government Waste identified 2,658 of the FY08 earmarks, representing $13.2 billion, as 'Pork Projects,' significantly lower than the numbers and dollar amounts of recent prior years.” So, while a watchdog group says most of the MONEY spent on earmarks is “pork,” less than a quarter of the NUMBER of all such projects are not worthwhile. Find a way to eliminate a relatively small fraction of earmarks, and you'll save most of the total money currently allocated to them–and you'll also save a large number of worthwhile projects.

Comparing numbers or dollar amounts of earmarks requested or inserted by Palin, Obama or Biden is a red herring (though Palin's again simply lying about it in order to burnish her credentials as a McCain-alike). McCain's obsession with them only LOOKS like the stalwart position of a “maverick” “reformer.” It's really just another way of implementing the arch-conservative principle that government shouldn't actually DO anything much, or raise or spend much. It's an ideological stance, not a reformist one.

I agree that the process by which such funding gets passed into law needs to be changed dramatically, and that new mechanisms must be implemented to weed out worthless or corrupt projects. But I don't agree that there should be no mechanism by which individual legislators can insert worthwhile projects into funding bills. By the way, the Constitution agrees with me (Article 1, Section 9)–and an attempt by McCain or anyone else to eliminate earmarks entirely, by vetoing every one that comes across his desk, might not stand up to a court challenge.

As for Palin's economic prowess, I'm waiting for you to delineate exactly how she “leads an economy” in Alaska in a way that's so frickin' difficult that you'd “like to see me try.” What, precisely, is a governor's role in “leading an economy,” beyond submitting budget requests that are developed for her/him by the various government agencies, and then working with the legislature to get them passed? That sounds like politics & governing, not exactly Keynesian economic theory (or Carly Fiorina-level management, if one of McCain's own stuck-up surrogates is to be believed).

I mean, I suppose I only went to one university, not six–and I only went to one other university to get a master's degree–but honestly, when your pitch for Palin's brilliance gets to the point where you're issuing schoolyard challenges like “I'd like to see you try,” you might want to re-examine.

Good luck with whomever you vote for…or don't vote for. Ross Perot's still alive, isn't he? Maybe if you round up everybody who agrees with you to write his name in on your ballots…

You bring up Palin's earmark requests, yes she had millions. But not nearly as many as Obama and Biden, who both had literally hundreds of millions. And how many did McCain have – none. Zero. Zilch. Multiple news agencies have done the fact-checking, look it up. McCain will win on that alone. He's holding it as an ace up his sleeve.

And to respond to “Oh, and here's the thing, Jenny–I don't really give a rat's ass about the fact that Obama has “no executive experience.” He's a U.S. Senator”

And there lies the problem.

He's a U.S. Senator, as is Biden, as is McCain. I hope you do realize that is not a compliment – you DO don't you? It's actually an insult, you just insulted the man while telling the truth. Which is why I'm not voting for any of 'em. Our country won't get on the right track until we have term limits and folks like Biden & McCain who couldn't be more out of touch w/regular folks (30+ years in the Senate!!!) go away. They're just in business to get themselves re-elected. Sick. The President isn't the problem Jon, it's Congress. Whether it's controlled by R or D, they make the laws, they request the earmarks, they are the power.

As I mentioned in my previous comment, we need more unknown candidates like Palin who have some experience and who, most importantly are not already in Congress. Because you are already tainted and compromised by greed & corruption when you are in Congress. Whether it's Obama's earmarks and flip-flopping on his 'change' about refusing public campaign financing, or McCain's seven houses (or is it nine?).

And this article (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008...) details how Palin and the McCain campaign have exaggerated the details of her single (ever!) overseas trip. She claimed to have gone to Germany, Kuwait, the “Iraqi battle zone,” and Ireland. Well, the first two stops actually happened–but she never got past the Kuwait-Iraq border into Iraqi territory, much less into a “battle zone,” and it also was revealed that the Ireland stop was just for refueling the plane.

I don't think Palin's foreign-travel itinerary is a major campaign issue any more than anyone else does–just as there is no actual fact in the world that would make Palin qualified for the vice presidency right now. But if she and the McCain campaign think her travel is important enough to blatantly lie about–the same way they've lied about the Bridge to Nowhere, her lust for earmarks, and who knows what else–then it's worth calling them on it.

Oh, and here's the thing, Jenny–I don't really give a rat's ass about the fact that Obama has “no executive experience.” He's a U.S. Senator, and a very smart man with very good ideas about where to take the country. By the way, he's been the chief executive of a presidential campaign for pretty much exactly the same amount of time that Palin's been governor of Alaska, and I'd say Obama's done a pretty goddamn good job of it. McCain's got “no executive experience,” either, so your argument only takes you so far unless Palin winds up running the country–in which case, heaven help us.

“Robotically pander to the same tired poop.” That is a cute–though utterly meaningless–phrase. Congratulations. I'm going to try to work that into the logo for my column.

Do you have any idea how many people these days swear they're not Republicans?

So now foreign travel is your gauge for experience? Even if that mattered so much – how do you know where Palin has traveled in her life? Since you know every country she's been to in her life and oviously have proof, please reference it – thanks.

I do know she's been to Kuwait and Iraq, and I'd have to check but it's likely she went before Obama did (or I should say before he was pressured into going).

Secondly, again, Alaska has a GDP of 40 BILLION dollars which is more than 120+ countries – sovereign countries – in the world (you conveniently forgot to address that). She is the top executive. Obama has no executive experience – none!!!! Care to comment on that?

You seem to take the approach that only folks who have had their name in the media or are commonly known can be on a ticket. Palin? Who's Palin? Never heard of her, so how could she be qualified? As if media coverage of someone at a country level makes them qualified. There's so many things wrong with that approach I don't know where to start. I take the approach that there are tons of people in the pool of 300 million Ameircans who could lead us well – most of whom are not known to us. That's what government “by the people” is all about. If the only people qualified are the ones with name recognition or who are currently in Congress (yeah, THAT Congress – the one with 27% approval – lower than Bush) then I truly believe there's no hope for our country.

Of the 4 people on the ticket, the only one who is not a Senator is Palin. She's the only one I trust. Anyone from Congress can go to hell as far as I'm concerned, they're part fo the problem.

As of this week, with financial institutions in the tank and McCain spinning furiously to cover up his own stated belief that “the fundamentals of the economy are strong” (duh, I meant that the people are the fundamentals…don't Democrats support the people? duh…), this election has gotten way too serious for Sarah Palin (or McCain's tattered credibility) to be taken seriously. But as long as we're trading facts about Palin's “experience” (quotation marks necessary), here's one for you: On July 21, when Obama traveled from Iraq to Jordan to Israel (and had substantive meetings with each nation's head of state), he set foot in more nations outside North America than Palin has in her entire life. And by the way, he did it again three days later (Germany to Paris to London).