Friday, October 31, 2008

Palin's "Socialist" Alaska?

Or, alternate title: (Once Again)Why Throw Stones From a Glass House?

We've already established that if Obama is a socialist so is McCain because both advocate a progressive tax policy, just to varying degrees. (See this blog, post 20)

But what about Palin? Let's look at the following quote:

"And Alaska—we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs. ... It's to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans." --Sarah Palin, explaining the windfall profits tax that she imposed on the oil industry in Alaska as a mechanism for ensuring that Alaskans share in the wealth generated by oil companies. New Yorker interview, Sept. 2008

Each citizen in Alaska opens their mail box and gets a check for over $3,000.00 from the government of Alaska, no questions asked, no work done by the Alaskan for the payment. Alaska gets that money from taxing oil companies. Whoops. I think that may be considered spreading the wealth around. Is it socialism? (See this blog, post 20 for a definition of 'socialism') Does it matter? Because if you asked Palin to define socialism she'd probably give a "Couric-type" answer. Lastly, this again demonstrates the erratic/maverick, different day, different attack, a campaign with no clear message or theme. And again, they're throwing stones from glass houses.

McCain, Money & Khalidi

Or, alternate title: Again, McCain Throws Stones From His 6 Glass Houses

McCain and his camp are continuing to make an issue of Obama's attendance at a going away party for Prof. Khalidi when he was leaving the University of Chicago to take a position at Columbia. Obama has eaten meals with Khalidi and his family. Obama spoke at his going away party. Why is this a big deal? Because McCain is trying to scare people again. Now he's trying to scare the Jewish community specifically and the public generally.

But, McCain has a problem with bringing up Khalidi. The International Republican Institute, when McCain was chairman (that means in charge), gave almost half a million dollars to Center for Palestine Research and Studies when Khalidi was on the board of trustees. In essence, McCain helped fund Khalidi's organization.

So, why would McCain bring this up when he's funding Khalidi's organization?

Again, the erratic/maverick McCain campaign at work, a different day a different attack, trying to scare the electorate. But once again, McCain is attacking from a glass house.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Senator Franken?

Or, alternate title, Al Franken hates these puppies.

Al Franken campaign ad:

This is the funniest campaign ad I have ever seen. And it is a real campaign ad in the Senate race between AlFanken and incumbent Senator Norm Coleman. Coleman declared that he was going to stop running his negative campaign ads against Franken. Whether that has indeed occured is up for debate.
Now it's a dead heat according to

Side note: Palin's top ten quotes:
Are they funny or scary?

Side side note: Joe the plumber (who actually isn't a plumber) stood up McCain at a campaign rally. McCain didn't know it and it's an awkward moment:

And don't forget McCain "agreeing" with Murtha's comments about rural Pennsylvania:
It's gaffe after gaffe for McCain. Seriously, who's running McCain's campaign, the Three Stooges?

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Obama's "Diverse" Supporters?

Or alternate title, "we have both types of music here, country and western."
(photo of a house in Martinsville, Indiana)

Don't Call It a Comeback

Or, alternate title, McCain's Hail Mary Pass?

I'm not one of those that thinks it's in the bag for Obama. I remember all the folks that went to sleep in 2000 on election night thinking Gore had won only to awaken to W. for 8 years. I, of course, stayed up almost all night watching that train wreck and continued watching for weeks until it was "sorted" out. However, many, many pundits, Dems and Repubs, are all but calling the election for Obama barring some type of game changing event. Again, it's not just Obama supporters. McCain's campaign infighting coupled with all the Republican writers and politicians that have endorsed Obama seem to indicate that at least some Republicans think Obama is going to win or at the very least is the better candidate. (see here blog post 27-side note and blog posts 23 & 22 respectively). As if that's not enough, the National Republican Senatorial Commission has come out with another campaign commercial assuming a Democratic victory in the presidential election.

But I digress, even if just two of the east coast/Midwest swing states (Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio and Virgina - the "swing states" for the purposes of this post) go for Obama it could be a short lived contest on election night. Why? Because given the way the electoral college map stands today McCain would absolutely need to win all the remaining swing states except for either Indiana or Missouri if Obama wins Colorado and Nevada. Play with the electoral college map yourself if you don't believe me:
Even if McCain flips either or both Colorado and Nevada, he would still need all but one or two of the east coast/Midwest swing states.
Again, I certainly do not take a win in any state, much less a swing state, for granted because the (over?) confidence of some Obama supporters and the doubt of some McCain supporters could could seriously affect voter turnout.

That confidence/doubt could do three things, the last two being mutually exclusive. First (#1), over confidence could cause Obama supporters and Independents leaning Obama to stay home because they think their candidate is going to cruise to victory. Secondly (#2), that confidence could galvanize the Republican base and Republican leaning Independents, getting them to turn out in higher percentages. Or, thirdly (#3) and mutually exclusive with the previous (#2) possibility, the Republican doubt of a win could make some Republicans and Republican leaning Independents stay home.

What is more likely to happen and if it happened how would it determine the race? To find out what will happen we'll have to wait until election day and hope the poll numbers stay relatively consistent between now and then.

But, what would the impact be on the race if any of the above happened we can explore right now. If #1 alone or coupled with #2 happens then it could be an extremely close electoral college race. Especially key, it could turn the tide in Virgina and Pennsylvania where Obama's leads in the polls are statistically significant but not insurmountable. If #3 alone or #3 and #1 happen together then it could be a landslide for Obama.

A key factor to keep in mind: only about 27% of Americans consider themselves or identify with the Republican party versus about 36% that consider themselves or identify with the Democratic party, depending on which poll you trust.
So even if all the self described Republicans turn out, they still may need a sizable amount of Dems to stay home to hope to achieve a victory in the swing states. So, if Pennsylvania and any of the other east coast swing states go for Obama it will likely be a long night for McCain. If McCain can flip Pennsylvania and win all other the other swing states except for either Indiana or Missouri then, McCain will have achieved a remarkable comeback.

Lastly, here's another hail Mary scenario for a McCain win that I saw in a comment to an article that was way too confident of an Obama victory. And it doesn't involve looking too much at polls and the electoral college:
Essentially, the hail Mary would involve:
1) Sen. Stevens steps aside as a candidate and resigns immediately.
2) Gov. Palin appoints herself to the open Senate seat.
3) Now Sen. Palin simultaneously takes her name off the ballot for VP and accepts the Republican nomination for Senator from Alaska.
4) McCain puts Tom Ridge (former Gov. of Pennsylvania) on the ballot for VP.
Then, McCain could pull out a victory in Pennsylvania and maybe even Virgina and Florida making it a really interesting finale. It's a long shot but you never know, McCain is a maverick and apparently so is Palin.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Obama's Reversal of Fortune Or McCain's Missteps??

Or, why is McCain the underdog now?

Why is McCain now the underdog? It is true, Obama's reversal of fortunes coincides with the economic crisis becoming the dominant issue of the election. But, the economic crisis alone does not account for all of Obama's lead in the polls. To be sure, Obama helped himself immensely during the early part of the economic crisis. Equally and perhaps more important was McCain's monumental misreading and mishandling of that same crisis and the nine lost days McCain and his campaign wishes they had back.

This analysis is based on the Gallup poll only. Some folks don't like to look at poll numbers. Others do. I can tell you the candidates and their campaigns sure do. There are other polls but for the reasons laid out below, I focused on the Gallup poll.

Let's begin by looking at where the candidates were in the Gallup poll before the economic crisis really took hold of America's attention. Keep in mind that the AIG bailout announced on Sept 16 marked the approximate beginning of the public's focus on the United States' financial crisis. (Bear Stearns' bailout was in March but for some reason did not capture the American public's attention, perhaps because the loan to Bear Stearns was "only" 29 billion versus 84 billion for AIG and Bear Stearns quickly merged with JP Morgan Chase.) U.S.Gallup's polling is not an exact barometer for the outcome of a presidential election but for the most part has been accurate with 2-3 points. The exception was in 1992 but, much of that can be attributed to the factor Perot played in the election. And regardless it still predicted the winner.

This year's Gallup polling of the presidential election is shown in the link below:

The poll numbers for the presidential election from Sept. 12-14 had McCain leading 47%-45% over Obama, still within the margin of error but at the very least in a dead heat if not showing McCain slightly ahead. Then, McCain issued one of the worst proclamations in the history of presidential campaigns. On Sept. 15 McCain said, "the fundamentals of the economy are strong."
First, McCain tried to explain the comment as a reference to the American worker. Furthermore, McCain was likely attempting to reassure and calm those that would listen. However, the line taken alone was a gift wrapped present to Obama. Now Obama could talk about McCain being, "out of touch," because McCain refused to accept that the economy was suffering. That coupled with McCain's lack of knowledge regarding how many houses he owned worked well in pushing the talking point of McCain being out of touch with ordinary Americans.

McCain's camp is then in limbo for about nine days and watches as McCain's poll numbers begin to slide. Then, on Sept. 24 McCain "suspends" his campaign to address what he now calls a, "historic crisis."
It is arguable that first, it was too little too late. But secondly, it came off as a political stunt, especially when he didn't rush back to Washington. Ask David Letterman about it.

Then the polling numbers' slide finally bottoms out for McCain and quickly. By the time the Gallup polling numbers came out for Sept. 25-27, the time period immediately after he "suspended" his campaign, McCain now trailed Obama by 8 points, 42%-50%. That difference is astonishing especially in the context of the earlier poll numbers. It was effectively a 10 point swing in Obama's favor.

And still, after the McCain campaign's initial mishandling of the economic crisis, McCain's surrogates continued to give Obama ammunition to use against McCain.

For example, his surrogates on Sept. 28 and 29 gave McCain credit for getting a bailout bill passed that did not end up passing.

On Oct. 3 a McCain surrogate talked of, "turning the page," on the economy and getting back to issues favorable to McCain.

Then again on Oct. 5 a McCain surrogate stated that if the conversation stayed focused on the economy McCain would lose
Both statements on Oct. 3 & 5 may very well have been honest and true but, why would you say such things to a reporter? Why didn't McCain do what he had done on Obama's "need for change" talking point/issue. Specifically, why didn't he immediately try to usurp the mantle of being "strong on the economy" from Obama?McCain had arguably succeeded in softening Obama's theme of being the "change" candidate when McCain began the talking point of being the "maverick". But, McCain didn't do the same with the economy. Instead, he waited about 9 long days then tried to tackle the economic problems facing the nation by "suspending" his campaign, which again came off looking like a political stunt.

Lastly, remember that the now infamous Palin/Couric interview began to run nightly on CBS beginning on Sept. 24 and ran nightly for what must have seemed like an eternity to the McCain campaign. Why the McCain campaign agreed to an interview with CBS that could be shown on multiple nights is a question McCain's camp will be asking itself for a long while.

It was misstep after misstep and quite frankly, it was difficult to watch at times. And since then Obama has maintained a statistically significant lead in the Gallup poll. So now McCain is the underdog. But, of course it's just a poll and you can trust it or not. We'll see how accurate or inaccurate it is on election day.

Side note: Here's another perspective on the "socialism" attack/talking point that the McCain/Palin campaign has been attempting to use, without much success, against Obama. Two of the article's points are, 1) the difference between McCain's and Obama's tax plans are 4.4% for the top bracket (both plans tax the top brackets more than the lower brackets thus, both are progressive tax plans) and somehow that makes Obama a socialist and 2) Palin's state of Alaska taxes oil companies and spreads those taxes around. Each citizen of Alaska gets a check to the tune of $3,269.00.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Kanas Politics Showcased

The Republican candidate for a county commissioner seat was caught red-handed, on video, stealing the campaign signs of his opponent and charged for the crime.

McCain vs. Obama in a Crisis

Or, is Yosemite Sam our best option in a crisis?

Much has been made of Biden's remarks predicting an international crisis that would test Obama's mettle, and rightfully so. However, is one to assume that McCain would have handled an international crisis such as the Cuban Missile Crisis or 9/11 better than Obama? If so, based on what?

Based on how both candidates handled their campaigns amid the recent economic crisis it seems clear who appeared calm and level-headed and who appeared erratic and directionless. For some reason in my mind McCain came across as Yosemite Sam, ready to go somewhere, guns blazing and do something, anything without much forethought. Obama on the other hand came across as cool, collected and thoughtful.

Yes, I understand that McCain served his country with distinction and was a P.O.W. for years. However, that in and of itself does not dictate how he would handle a crisis such as the Cuban Missile Crisis for example. Remember, Kennedy went against is top military advisers and in doing so probably averted a nuclear exchange with the Soviets. Does anyone really believe that McCain would have disregarded the advice of top military brass? Remember, McCain was in agreement with W. on going into Iraq and still cannot admit it was a mistake to enter. Obama, admittedly on the outside looking in, pointed out that those responsible for 9/11 were in the Mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, not in Iraq and, was therefore against an Iraq war.

Does anyone believe that Obama would have told the American people to go out and, "shop," like W. did after 9/11? And if a severe economic downturn so confused McCain and his advisers what would a, God forbid, military or terrorist crisis scenario bring us from a McCain presidency? Again, if recent history has any lessons it would indicate that McCain would act erratically and take over a week to begin to appreciate the severity of the situation (the fundamentals of the economy were strong according McCain for more than week before he proclaimed that we were in the worse economic crisis since the Great Depression).

Moreover, the next president, which ever is elected, will not make decisions in a vacuum. Both will surround themselves with advisers. If this election and campaign are any indication of the company they would keep in the Oval Office then again, Obama's judgement would seem to be more sound. McCain in this campaign has surrounded himself with lobbyists and former Bush advisers. I think I'll take my chances with an Obama cabinet borrowing from the best of past administrations and injecting new blood.

But lastly, crisis management to a large extent involves having the thoughtfulness and temperament to make decisions in a stressful environment. Who would you rather have making those decision, should they need to be made, in the next four years? I wouldn't want it to be Yosemite Sam.

Side note: Palin and McCain camps start blaming each other?

Or again, ow, it hurts when you stab me in the back

The following story is leaked on purpose by "insiders" in the campaign. A McCain insider has called Palin a, "diva." A Palin friend said that McCain's advisers, "mishandled," Palin and her rollout. They're firing shots back and forth already. These leaks set up the postlogue to the election should the campaign fail to win. The postlogue will include why the campaign failed and where blame should be placed. If McCain/Palin lose this election I don't think that they'll be sharing Thanksgiving together. That the leaks and back stabbing between the McCain and Palin camps is happening before the election is telling.

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Just Kidding

Or, Alternate Title: "Susan Smith tried it, Todd just thought she could pull it off.
(Ashley Todd, left; Susan Smith, right)

So, the McCain volunteer, Ashley Todd, in Pennsylvania who claimed that an African-American male mugged her and upon seeing a McCain bumper sticker on her car proceeded to carve a "B" on her face has admitted it was all hoax. Not the funny kind. This is the, "sad and reflective of how far we still have to go," kind of hoax.

I'm not the first to write this but it's sadly reminiscent of the Susan Smith case. Smith accused an African-American male of kidnapping her kids. It turned out Smith made the whole think up and she actually killed her own children. Of course the hoax is not as extreme in that Todd was not trying to cover up the crime of murder. But, Todd was potentially trying to influence a presidential election by making false, racially based allegations. It is still sad.

All joking aside, especially in this context, this young women is apparently troubled. To what extent is yet to be determined. That said, this writer feels badly that this young lady, for whatever reason, has come to this point. I hope she receives the care she needs.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

McCain: NYC & DC Lousy With Elites

Or, He hates these cans, I mean, cities!

This from Ben Smith's blog on and to be aired on NBC: in an interview with Brian Williams McCain proclaims that NYC and Washington, D.C. are home to "elites". By the way, isn't it a bit contradictory for McCain (with his 6? homes) to say, "I'm better than you because you think you're better than me and my supporters."

New York City is often referred to as the best city in the world. Washington D.C. is, last I checked, our nation's capital. There are some across the nation and the globe that happen to think these towns are home to some of our best and brightest. So surely McCain wouldn't say anything to insult two the of largest, most important cities in America. I know McCain is not going to win New York or D.C. but seriously, he wouldn't say anything to just anger those that reside there and those that have friends and family there, would he? Ah, but, one has to remember we live in the age of Erratic/Maverick McCain. Attack anyone, anywhere, for whatever reason you can think of at the time. This time it just happens to be cities, namely New York and Washington, D.C., for some amorphous reason, this time being that they are home to "elites." Who knows what it'll be next.

The sad thing is that odds are there will be another random Erratic/Maverick McCain attack. It's just a matter of when, against who or what group, and for what reason. Remember, Erratic/Maverick McCain attacks anyone, anywhere, for some strange, unknown reason. Stay tuned for the next Erratic/Maverick McCain attack as his campaign's desperation grows.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Biden: "I Made a Mistake This Big!"

Or, "D'oh! I did it again!" Biden says as he has a Homer Simpson moment.

Biden spoke of four or five scenarios where an Obama presidency would be tested by an international crisis much like JFK was. Essentially, Biden said that a new inexperienced president, like Obama, would be tested. Biden did not elaborate on the specifics of the scenarios. D'oh!
Obama and his camp can try to spin this all they want but, it was a stupid thing for Biden to say.

Also, it's a gift wrapped present for McCain to open and show to everyone that will listen. Unfortunately, McCain and his staff have not received quite the traction they should have because of the Palin clothing purchases by the RNC that somehow have taken up as much or more air time and print space.
I think the Palin clothes issue is an RNC problem. I can understand why some of their donors would have a problem with their money going to buy her clothes. Does the RNC buy clothes for male candidates? I don't know. However, I think in large part it's a small story made big because or Palin's, "joe six-pack," supposed appeal. But, it is definitely not as big a story as Biden's remarks.

I think one could hear the top Obama campaign staffers yelling, "D'oh!" all across the country. Obama's camp had somehow lasted this long without letting Joe Biden say something to try to derail an otherwise smoothly run campaign. Remember, Biden has lost the Democratic nomination at twice, in 1998 and 2008 that I can think of off the top of my head, at least in part because of these types of gaffes. Again, off the top of my head, in 1988 there were plagiarism issues with some of Biden's speaches. In 2008 Biden described Obama as, "clean." Don't even ask me to start on what that last one means. Biden at times seems to have no filter. And now this.

The McCain camp should and has attempted to make an issue of this. But given their limited budget relative to Obama, the Palin clothing thing, and just the nature of the new cycle and it being negative of McCain (although much of that negativity McCain brings on himself) it'll be interesting to see if they can make any hay with this. (see blog post #4 here for more on McCain campaign budget)
McCain also recently started describing Obama's tax policy as socialist.
I have expressed my thoughts on that description already in relation to McCain's own tax policy. (see blog post #20) However, the "socialist" talking point is strong for McCain, especially coupled with Biden's prediction of an Obama presidency's international crisis.

They're both strong talking points because of Obama's lack of a clear and concise response to either or both. We'll see if over the weekend Obama's camp comes up with some type of cogent, responsive talking points to each. Or Obama's camp may just hope to let the news cycle wash them away as they watch the clock tick down to November 4. I've never been a fan of the latter. I think Obama needs some type of response, perhaps on Sunday, a slow news day and then start the last full week of the campaign anew. Respond once to each concisely and move on. Obama doesn't want to be saying, "D'oh!" on election day because he let these McCain talking points fester and gain traction.

"GOP Forms Circular Firing Squad"*

Or, "hey, that hurts when you stick that knife in my back."

*title of this post taken from the title of a great article on

Maybe some of the Republicans are tired of McCain the Maverick. By the way, I'm starting to think that Erratic/Maverick McCain is more correct in describing his campaigning style.

So the latest bad news for McCain is from his own party (supposedly it's his party, but you wouldn't know it from recent headlines). The National Republican Senatorial Committe is running an ad with the central premise that if Senator Dole loses her particular Senate seat the Democrats will control "all branches of govenment," and "have a blank check." So it seems they are assuming an Obama victory.
So McCain's fellow Republican Senatorial leadership is saving their own skin, by essentially advertising, "hey, Obama's going to win, so at least balance him out with a Republican Senator." Ow.

McCain's love/hate relationship with his own party may be why none of Bush's big 527 supporters are going to bat for McCain this election cycle.

Lastly, here's another example of the animosity between McCain and his party. The very conservative Washington Times ran a story yesterday titled, "McCain Lambasts Bush Years." McCain takes dead aim at W. and the Republican controlled Congress (of which he was and is a member) instead of going after Obama and the Dems that have controlled Congress the last two years. I'm not sure what McCain's strategy is here. Is going after the Republican base's favorite son, W., and the Republican Congress from 2000-2006 in a newspaper only the Republican base really reads a good idea? Is it telling when the Whitehouse spokesperson has to defend the sitting Republican president against the Republican nominee?

This is yet another example of a campaign that is all over the place, attacking everyone and everything, with no clear message or theme. In other words, classic Erratic/Maverick McCain.

Side note: At least the RNC is still finacially supporting McCain in his campaign. Representative, Michele "Joe McCarthy," Bachmann is no longer receiving money from the RNC. Ouch.

Side side note: If you're having trouble figuring out who to vote for go to:
and take their quiz.

Side side side note: The below link from helps Obama supporters encourage others to actually get out and vote otherwise the loss of the election could very well be their fault. At the very least it's funny:

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Would Alex P. Keaton Be for Obama?

Republican Nerds (Goldwater Republicans) for Obama?

Why are prominent Republicans turning their backs on McCain? For the individual reasons given by each, look at the links below. If I can generalize, and I will, why, en masse, have they abandoned McCain? It may be because McCain has had and still has a very weird, strained relationship with his party. In the past he has butted heads with both big wings of the Republican party. He's been crosswise with both the economic-conservative Republican "Intelligentsia," that I'll call Barry Goldwater Republicans (BGR's) and the newer religious-conservative Republicans that I'll call Pat Robertson Republicans (PRR's). (I think Alex P. Keaton would be considered BGR). There are a few self-proclaimed hybrids, proclaiming that they are equally BGR's and PRR's. But, usually they are really one or the other, just espousing the views of the other wing of the party in order to appeal to the Republican party as a whole. And when push comes to shove and the BGR's and PRR's policy goals conflict or need to be prioritized, the hybrid will act and react according to the policies of wing that the hybrid puts first.

2000 McCain seemed to be more aligned with the BGR's when he ran against W. W. was and is a good example of a hybrid, but arguably won the 2000 nomination because of his relative strength with the PRR's as compared to McCain. McCain talks fondly at times of being a Goldwater Republican and part of the Reagan revolution. Also, it is interesting to note that H.W. coined the phrase "voodoo economics" describing Reagan's trickle down tax policy when he ran against him the 1980 Republican primaries. "Voodoo economics" is the hallmark and cornerstone of the BGR's. So what happened to the BGR's support for McCain?

McCain bridged the gap with the PRR's by picking Palin. But that pick coupled with his handling or mishandling of the economic crisis and McCain's terribly run, negative campaign disillusioned and alienated the BGR's. Plus, McCain doesn't hold, "Georgetown cocktail party," Republicans (BGR's?) in very high regard, at least partially because they were not enamoured with the Palin pick.

McCain courted and won the support of the PRR's by picking Palin. At least some of the BGR's saw and see the Palin pick as pandering to the PRR's. Also, the BGR's apparently see the Palin pick as irresponsible given her relative obscurity and inexperience in politics and on the national stage. Strangely though, 2008 McCain still supports the tax cuts and general economic policies the BGR's hold dear yet, some of BGR's have abandoned him.

McCain is trying to be a hybrid and appeal to both BGR's and PRR's. Perhaps, the BGR's see the Palin pick as McCain, when push came to shove, putting his lot with the PRR's instead of sticking with them and their Goldwater/Reagan roots. Some of the BGR's may see McCain as switching allegiances within the Republican party. McCain was once alligned with the BGR's but, now has committed to the PRR wing of the party. And now the BGR's see McCain as putting them second to the PRR's, and they don't like it. And neither would Alex P. Keaton.

Peggy Noonan

Kathleen Parker

David Frum

David Brooks

Christopher Buckley

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Palin (Abuse of) Power

Darn that pesky gotcha-media

So much for Palin being a straight talking, "not your typical politician" politician. Let's recount her public record to date that hurts her credibility.

Palin abused her power while governor according to official state findings, contrary to her interpretation of that same report, in relation to exerting power in an attempt to have her ex-brother-in-law fired from the Alaska State Troopers.

Palin was for the "Bridge to Nowhere" until she was later against it after a public/national outcry:

Maybe she read the state's official report regarding her abuse of power the same way she read the U.S. Constitution regarding the powers of the Vice-President in relation to the Senate.
By the way, the VP's only power, per the Constitution, is to exercise the power or take the office of the President should the President be incapacitated or worse and break ties in the Senate, that's all.

And now it's revealed that Palin had Alaskan taxpayers foot the bill for her family's travel expenses.

So to recap everyone else's reality VS. Palin's reality:
1) The VP's power in the Senate is to break a tie VS. being in charge of the Senate and driving it's agenda
2) Palin was for the "Bridge to Nowhere" VS. Palin saying, "thanks, but no thanks"
3) the official report found that Palin abused the power of her office VS. Palin saying that the very same report cleared her of all wrong doing
4) Palin wastes taxpayer's money on free trips for her family VS. Palin saying that she's against wasteful spending

Now that's maveriky maverikness at its best. What color is the sky on planet Maverick? Oh, it's probably blue but, Palin would tell us that it's orange and somehow look like she meant it while lying to the cameras and America.

Oh, yeah, McCain lost the ability to effectively use the "Inexperience" attack/argument against Obama the moment he chose Palin as his running mate. Now that's a mavericky move if there is one.