When readers attack or praise Linda P. Campbell for what she has to say about Governor Palin, then maybe she is doing something right as a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. When one reader sends an e-mail informing Campbell that she is an "ugly hag" who is just jealous because Palin is a beautiful woman, well now, that may be why more men than women are prepared to vote for her at all, Palin is beautiful. But, so? Or if Campbell's readership gets heartburn when the columnist addresses how Mom Palin would juggle work and family as Vice President, I guess they forgot that they raised the first qualification of Palin as veep because she is a mom first. But from what I have seen of Palin supporters in the Spokesman-Review Roundtable, none of them have seen fit to ask the sort of questions that Campbell does ask, such as health care, views on Supreme Court Justices, tie breaking votes. Or even reducing the national deficit, what would we do about energy independence and leaving the environment cleaner.
It was on CNN that we learned how Sarah Palin governed Alaska, first by cutting taxes. Yeah, all kinds of taxes: property tax, no income tax. Which must be why she left the town of Wasilla in the red and even further, hired a lobbying firm to get all those earmarks. You bet she can be considered popular, seems you can buy popularity if you hand out a lot of dough. That came courtesy of the windfall profit tax. And when she raised sales taxes, it was to buy a sports arena that as CNN reports, is still in the red. She has been described as a "fiscal hawk." Oh? Then those surrogates who'd offer that sort of description have some strange ideas of what they mean by a "fiscal conservative." Not when Alaska got some of my tax dollars for all of her earmarks. A "fiscal conservative" would at least argue the need for the state and its government to have some self-sufficiency, especially if you are now opposed to earmarks. Correct that Palin began cutting earmarks, but that she had not eliminated them altogether. That should tell you something.
On the same day, an "Outside View" that had to do with Senator McCain, the Air Force procurement of tankers—Boeing v EAD, Boeing that was legally investigated for possible snafus in the procurement matter that led to a CEO and an Air Force officer facing imprisonment. While McCain's supporters have lauded McCain's "maverick" approach to bucking the party or bucking American special interests, McCain, at least according to the editorial first published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, was actually acting on the behalf of EAD. In short, McCain's campaign staff that is or was composed of lobbyists, some of whom acted on the behalf of EAD, shall we say that those lobbyists persuaded McCain to think globally against an American business and American workers when it came to the Air Force procuring new tankers?
McCain expressing outrage over the melt down of Lehman Bros and demanding, demanding that we must have the sort of legislation in place to regulate what should never have happened in the first place. Senator Obama on McCain, what he happened to not do was to help insure that what happened to Lehman Bros, need not have happened in the first place. That is, support legislation that would have halted the abuse of subprime mortgages, etc. that has since broken the back on our ownership society. According to Obama, McCain did not support any such legislation. Nor did McCain while in the Senate support regulation of the financial markets. That seems to go hand in hand with the above editorial. McCain, maverick? Only if you take his record out of context.