Nice try Crank, Please look up the History of Adak NAS. Then repost. Keep trying

According to what I could "Google" it looks like NAS Adak was put in caretaker status in 2005, but in 2007 found a new mission. It seems to be in use. Are there any reliable links to the contrary?

Seriously, it is all part of her secret plan to use the Aleuts to protect us all from Russian invasion. In fact, I'll bet Todd is out on his snowmobile doing reconnaisance. On his per diem paid by the taxpayers, of course.

So Governor Palin requested an earmark heroically for the military, that they chose not to ask for themselves?

If this was so vital to have the military commute through this island, why didn't they.. you know.. ask for it in the hundreds of billions they ask for every year. I believe they can still ask for service/infrastructure upgrades for otherwise private/state. Since there was an air station until 97, and is now operated by Alaska's DOT. 2 737s go there a week (thank you wiki), and they needed an upgrade for an outpost of 90 people?
Ah, that's right - the island's primary focus is in assisting the commercial fishing trade. You really should at least bother to find out the primary purpose of the island before claiming this. As should the link's author, but why bother.

Instead of going through the proper channels - military, national infrastructure, the DOT's extensive subsidies of small airports, it was a classic earmark request. Money from the federal government for nothing.

Republican earmarks good!

Only people in Congress can request an earmark. A state or local official can request that money be appropriated, but earmarks are entirely a function of Congress.

Crank, it would appear that you haven't been able to attract any of the smart liberals.

I followed one of the links in Crank's link
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6220.html

According to this, states and Governors cannot request earmarks, thus the WSJ is debunked. All of this sarcasm is based on a bad story. Try all the links before you jump onto the anything Palin does is by definition bad, bandwagon.

Man you people must be really rattled to be making these arguments -You have had your lunch handed to you over the last 2 weeks regarding the qualification issue-where for some reason you thought it was a good idea to denigrate a US Governor's executive experience when your ticket 's executive experience consists of a guy who was in the US Senate for about 5 minutes before he decided to run for President and another Senator who is basically Cliff the Mailman from Cheers. Now you want to get into arguments about earmarks when your 2 guys have a terrible record on this issue. OK-I know who wins this argument in the end.

"Only people in Congress can request an earmark. A state or local official can request that money be appropriated, but earmarks are entirely a function of Congress."
"According to this, states and Governors cannot request earmarks, thus the WSJ is debunked."

These, and that link, are some of the most laughable comments I've ever seen. Anyone with any sense whatsoever knows that Governors have little control over the federal budget or any operations. I would say none, but there are volumes of law out there, so who knows.

Are you at all aware that these 31 projects are "requested" through a document she sent to Ted Stevens? In addition to scores sent in by local governments.

Here;s a nice link: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008154532_webpalin02m.html

Included is "Palin wrote that she supports state earmarks "when there is an important federal purpose and strong citizen support.""

Debunked. It makes me laugh a little every time I read it. At least go to the old well, "everyone does it, we're just going for ours." Works much better.

"Crank, it would appear that you haven't been able to attract any of the smart liberals."
That's funny too. Wait - there are state governments too! Why has no one informed me of this change! Next thing you know there will be local ones as well, and perhaps even areas that fall under general US laws and protection but are not even states.

As I am sure you all remember, I have been strong in my dislike of McCain. I have not and do not believe he is the best candidate...of course Obama is not the lessor of the evils either. However, with the choice of Palin as a running mate I believe I am going to vote for McCain instead of sitting out the election for the first time...ever.

I have come to believe that because of MCCain's age he is going to be a one term President, by choice. If that is the case his running mate needs to be someone who passes the Conservative test and Palin does.

The only valid arguement I have heard against her is that she does not have enough experience, yet she is the only candidate in the race that has meet a budget above the household level in her career. Yes, I will grant you it is for a limited time, but it is at least two levels above any of the other candidates. Obama hasn't even meet a budget or ran a department at the dogcatcher level and for that matter neither have McCain or Biden.

The arguement was made that the Republicans needed to lose this election to lose this election to get the party back on line, but lets face it, if that happened it would have been at the cost of even more seats in the House and Senate. This is the best option, a turd at the top of the ticket with a rising star in the number tweo chair grooming to take the reins. Lets face it, a Palin/Jindal ticket in 2012 could be just about unstoppable if only the Republican members of the House and Senate will get their heads out of the sand and start taking stands on issues.

You should link fivethirtyeight.com (instead of rcp) more often. Especially since it's another baseballstat/political guy.

You should link fivethirtyeight.com (instead of rcp) more often. Especially since it's another baseballstat/political guy.

You should link fivethirtyeight.com (instead of rcp) more often. Especially since it's another baseballstat/political guy.

You should link fivethirtyeight.com (instead of rcp) more often. Especially since it's another baseballstat/political guy.

You should link fivethirtyeight.com (instead of rcp) more often. Especially since it's another baseballstat/political guy.

Here is one thing I've never understood about this issue: Isn't it part of a governor's job to push for appropriations, earmarks, whatever you want to call them? A politican can both a) be a fiscal conservative and against runaway spending, but also b) be a state leader who pushes for the federal spending to be done within your state. It's not a governor's fault that Congress spends too much money, and if it's going to be done, I want my governor pushing for it to be done in my state.

"Yes, I will grant you it is for a limited time, but it is at least two levels above any of the other candidates."
Your reasoning is fine for you to have, but it's important to know how she did this.

She did not dramatically managed the budget, or passed sweeping reforms in order to do this. Or have to fight through a collapse in manufacturing, real estate, or general small business. Alaska has 85%+ of it's revenues from oil taxes, and she had a surplus when she took office(and oil took off).

Pre Nomination: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html

The combination of a tax increase - windfall tax! oh nooooes! wait, oil companies still go there? huh - and having this tax be progressive in the face of dramatically rising oil prices made things what they were. 25% profit above ~$50/bbl gives the state a great cushion at $100 - not so much at $70.
I think their entire budget is built around $80 oil, last time I spoke to an industry friend. Upside is, all those state taxes mean federal tax deductions.

Business cycles are a fact of life, but relying on luck for the nation doesn't work.

"You should link fivethirtyeight.com (instead of rcp) more often."
RCP is conservative, 538 is more neutral and has one of those commie fellows as a main writer - tries to stay neutral but slips at times. Great site though.

If the Federal government uses the airport to service their radar installation, why should Alaska's taxpayers pay to maintain it?

And didn't this appropriation go through a DoD funding request?

De-friggin'-bunked.

"If the Federal government uses the airport to service their radar installation, why should Alaska's taxpayers pay to maintain it?"
Just curious, do you think that it is supplied mostly through the large naval port is spends 3 months a year in, and only ferries people who work there through the airport - which, as is more often than not, done by private planes?
Or, do you think the military is landing giant supply planes 4 times a day in order to keep it stocked?
I believe Alaska's simple description includes "To continue necessary airport upgrading after the transfer of Naval air station to state".

"And didn't this appropriation go through a DoD funding request?"
Well, since you obviously don't understand the word 'earmark' check how the executive branch defines it here: http://earmarks.omb.gov/ But I like the style you put on there, pretending it's something different. I also believe it's still going - really, who knows.
Here's something more: Don Young calls it out in something called Earmark List (PDF):http://donyoung.house.gov/Earmark%20List.pdf

"De-friggin'-bunked."
Hee. Still untrue, still so very amusing.

I love the overall metamorphosis:
She's against earmarks!
- Ummm, she's been for it a lot in a short career
It's important!
-Umm, not as much as not for the reasons you're saying, as it's by far the minority reason if nonexistant
She's a gov, can't earmark!
-Yeah... Kinda knew that already, but thanks for sharing
It's not an earmark, it's a request!
-Riiiight. You know that even if you want to ignore Don Young she came out and stated that this was earmarks? http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/aug/29/palin-setting-earmarks-opinion-straight/

You guys are a hair away from screaming "Leave Sarah alone!" into a video camera. Honestly, just go with Everyone Does It + But We're Better Now with a dash of The Other Guys Are Worse, things will go easier.

"If the Federal government uses the airport to service their radar installation, why should Alaska's taxpayers pay to maintain it?"
Just curious, do you think that it is supplied mostly through the large naval port is spends 3 months a year in, and only ferries people who work there through the airport - which, as is more often than not, done by private planes?
Or, do you think the military is landing giant supply planes 4 times a day in order to keep it stocked?
I believe Alaska's simple description includes "To continue necessary airport upgrading after the transfer of Naval air station to state".

"And didn't this appropriation go through a DoD funding request?"
Well, since you obviously don't understand the word 'earmark' check how the executive branch defines it here: http://earmarks.omb.gov/ But I like the style you put on there, pretending it's something different. I also believe it's still going - really, who knows.
Here's something more: Don Young calls it out in something called Earmark List (PDF):http://donyoung.house.gov/Earmark%20List.pdf

"De-friggin'-bunked."
Hee. Still untrue, still so very amusing.

I love the overall metamorphosis:
She's against earmarks!
- Ummm, she's been for it a lot in a short career
It's important!
-Umm, not as much as not for the reasons you're saying, as it's by far the minority reason if nonexistant
She's a gov, can't earmark!
-Yeah... Kinda knew that already, but thanks for sharing
It's not an earmark, it's a request!
-Riiiight. You know that even if you want to ignore Don Young she came out and stated that these activities were earmarks? http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/aug/29/palin-setting-earmarks-opinion-straight/

You guys are a hair away from screaming "Leave Sarah alone!" into a video camera. Honestly, just go with Everyone Does It + But We're Better Now with a dash of The Other Guys Are Worse, things will go easier.