Anchorage Daily News: Should the bridge to nowhere be financed? 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.”

I’m tried of doing research for people, when confronted with evidence, still deny reality. The same thing happened here a couple years back when people here said the US didn’t use white phosphorous as a weapon. When I quoted a military spokesman who spelled out that we did, it was ignored.

As Gaius mentioned in another blog post, fewer Republicans came out this year than 2004. Conclusion: Palin didn’t energize the Republican base (just the opposite apparently), at best she energized the minority evangelical base. I’m finished arguing this position; if you don’t agree, fine. That Palin is a liability to the Republican party is so utterly obvious to me that I’m unable to find a common ground to defend the position. I will be curious to hear what Karl Rove and other Republican analysts have to say once the dust settles.

The examples you cite of Palin’s supposed shortcomings are unpersuasive, as is your call for the good old days of Newt’s revolution. It failed because the GOP would not stand up and fight back when Dems and MSM attacked. Cowards don’t win the brass ring and they never get the girl.

Personally, I want to know a lot more about what HER positions are, not what the Dems and the MSM SAY they are, or the positions she had to support as a member of the McCain ticket before I make a decision as to whether I would support her down the road. However, unless there is a major shake up in the MSM we may never get an unbiased view of ANY Repubkican candidate ever again.

Name them. The running joke this election is that there were great Democrats running– they just were on the Republican ticket.

1) Federal funds usually come via earmarks, which the Governor has zero solid effect on– thus, Arizona is dead last in federal funds, because it’s got McCain.
2) She flat out admitted that she supported getting more infrastructure and, after elected, when she looked at the actual budget, decided it wasn’t an effective use of the funds. Of course the money was still given to the state, they’re transportation funds.
3) WHAT anti-science leanings? It may shock you, but allowing local schools to choose to teach the scientific weaknesses of a theory is NOT anti-science; doubting that global warming is man-made is also not anti-science.

There seems to be this belief that she’s a “real conservative.” Let’s remember she’s Governor of one of the top five states that receives more federal dollars than they give – hardly a conservative position. She also just plain lied about being against the bridge to nowhere. She was a big supporter before it was exposed as pork barrel spending. And the federal money for the bridge was still given to Alaska! Her anti-science positions are disconcerting if we want the USA to remain #1.

IMO Republicans need to go back to the 90s Gingrich true fiscal conservative “contract with America” position (and somehow convince people they mean it this time) if they are ever going to regain power. The last eight years of deficit spending, huge increases in the size of government (non-defense), and pork barrel spending have jaded conservative-leaning independents from trusting Republicans with power.

*(Which was easy to uncover, unlike the President-Elect’s.)