The repugs always talk about smaller government and lower taxes and debt while campaigning, then put the country massively in debt. Reducing debt is very hard to do when they get elected and proceed to start wars with other countries and give tax cuts only to those who don't need it, their fellow rich people. They do it every time and if mccain plans on making bush and his tax cuts for the richest 5% permanent, then our debt will continue to balloon. That, in combination with his eternal Iraq occupation/war and his new war with Iran and his new cold war/arms race with Russia will assure that we the people are screwed.

Republicans don't want smaller government per se, what they want is for government not to interfere with them. Also, the money savings issue is more to this point: 'If I'm not using it, I'm not paying for it', hence the liberal (how about that adjective) use of fees instead of taxes to pay for services. Lastly, Republicans' complaints about tax & spend Democrats weren't really about the bottom line, they were more the rationalization of their real hatred...the fact that they didn't control the spending. Instead it was Democrats who were saying where and how much. Witness most of the past decade when the Rs were in full control, did the budget go down? No, look at the deficits. Who can they blame, now?

What a load of horse hockey. Sarah Palin was FOR the bridge to nowhere, and couldn't have vetoed it because its funds came into being BEFORE she ever took office. While mayor of Wasilla, she frequently lobbied Congress for earmarks for her community, including those that built the sports complex in her hometown, funds for the airport, the library: this woman was no earmark reformer, as can be seen plainly in her ledgers, where she notes how much she appropriated from the feds and how well they did. As governor, she stopped asking for federal funds once it became apparent that the state had such huge surpluses from its oil revenues: asking for federal funds on top of such huge revenues would look pretty despicable, especially in the wake of such huge federal deficits. With her, it all leads to oil.

Every Alaskan benefits from the oil pumped from the state: they're all paid for it by big oil. The more there is, the better for everyone. She thinks polar bears should be delisted from the endangered species list because they interfere with oil companies in their need to drill, drill, drill whatever the cost. No matter that the Arctic ice is shrinking and the polar bear population is plummeting: scientists are afraid they'll be extinct in the wild by the middle of the next century if this continues. To Sarah Palin, that's of no consequence: she doesn't believe that people have ANYTHING to do with global warming anyway.

Aerial 'hunting' of wolves, voted down by Alaskans TWICE before, was high on her agenda. So Mrs. Palin, the 'reformer', spent $400,000 of the state's money to promote the slaughter and sway Alaskans to vote her way: this time, they voted to allow the disgusting practice, but by a slim margin. To entice more people to participate (the money for wolf pelts apparently wasn't high enough), she further placed a $150 bounty on them: all the 'hunter has to do is bring in the left foreleg to provide proof of the kill. More state money spent in the slaughter of wildlife this woman doesn't like. Why, you ask, is this necessary? Because she wants the moose and caribou populations to increase, and wolves are their natural predators. Fewer wolves, more moose. Apparently, the example of that same type of imbalance in nature in the Eastern US has somehow escaped her notice. Predators are what keep the populations in check. There are still enough moose and caribou for hunters to shoot, even if she's the one doing the shooting.

Of course, there's troopergate. There's also the librarian she wanted to fire as mayor of Wasilla: the day after she asked the librarian if she would remove books from the library if asked to because of questionable content without giving specific titles), and the librarian answered no, the librarian received a letter THE VERY NEXT DAY telling her the mayor wasn't pleased with her job performance and she would have to go. The librarian refused to step down, and had it not been for the protests of many citizens (it seems that particular librarian was well liked and highly thought of by the town's citizens), she would have been fired. Sarah Palin also believes that creationism should be taught in EVERY school. The implications of all of this are rather frightening.

Sarah Palin is no reformer: in some ways, she is as bad as, or even worse than, George Bush all by herself without the added benefit of John McCain, who voted with Bush 90% of the time. I've heard her described as the future of the Republican party: if so, then the GOP appears destined to continue into the long, downward spiral it threw itself into so eagerly so long ago.

When Palin became mayor of Wasilla, the town had zero debt. When she left, the town was $22 million in debt. (And it didn't go for much-needed infrastructure.) How's that for fiscal conservatism?

As for small government, she wants no regulation of corporations, even for safety matters, but wants to outlaw birth control for all married women. If you want an abortion for valid reasons (rape, incest, inability to care for a child), forget it. She's also cut money for support for unmarried mothers. You must carry the child no matter the cost to you or society. It's your punishment for having sex, consensual or not. Pity the child who grows up being told that it's a punishment for its mother.

Noun, Verb, “Tweety” McCain was a Viet Cong collaborator.

http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine06132008.html

FREE AMERICA

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY