As always, great post, Theda.

It is a bit shocking how demonstrably false claims can slide by ... until one reflects one the job our media and electorate did on vetting GWB, whose inadequacy was readily accessible to anyone who looked at his gubernatorial and business records, and on vetting his war in Iraq.

I take heart from the fact that media cycles turn over so fast now that I expect the action hero version of her will flame out in a week or two, leaving only the kooky, ethically challenged, and dramatically underprepared person McCain recklessly inflicted on us.

Spinning Straw into Gold: Sarah the Spinner!

@ skocpol

From the front page of todays WaPo

The governor also has charged the state for travel expenses to take her children on official out-of-town missions. And her husband, Todd, has billed the state for expenses and a daily allowance for trips he makes on official business for his wife.

Palin, who earns $125,000 a year, claimed and received $16,951 as her allowance, which officials say was permitted because her official "duty station" is Juneau, according to an analysis of her travel documents by The Washington Post.

The governor's daughters and husband charged the state $43,490 to travel, and many of the trips were between their house in Wasilla and Juneau, the capital city 600 miles away, the documents show.

Gubernatorial spokeswoman Sharon Leighow said Monday that Palin's expenses are not unusual and that, under state policy, the first family could have claimed per diem expenses for each child taken on official business but has not done so.

The first family's travel is an expected part of the job

"As a matter of protocol, the governor and the first family are expected to attend community events across the state," she said. "It's absolutely reasonable that the first family participates in community events."

The state finance director, Kim Garnero, said Alaska law exempts the governor's office from elaborate travel regulations. Said Leighow: "The governor is entitled to a per diem, and she claims it."

Is there some reason you dismiss this as mere "legalities"? Without a better explanation I'll dismiss your article as partisan slime.

I haven't yet researched the dispute over earmarks.

As a matter of purely tactical politics -- and Republicans will tell you this till their lips drop off -- it doesn't matter what color the mud as long as it sticks. Any even remotely plausible mud that the Democrats can stick on the already dirty Republicans will help the Democratic American cause. As master-strategist Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove always says: take whatever the other side thinks they have going for them and trash it in a heartbeat. Anything you do to accomplish the smearing, you can later blow off blithely as "just politics." Republicans will howl "librul, librul, librul," of course, but they'll understand why and how they got their asses kicked if they have to pull their own jackboots out of their own culturally constipated asses.

Panama-John McBush ought to know about this scurrilous political stuff better than anyone, since Deputy Dubya Bush and his Rasputin Karl Rove did the dirty deed on McBush back in 2000's South Carolina Republican Party primary. Assuming that the Democrats wish to win the presidency this year, they'll take down Granpa Simpson McBush as a dottering, reckless, cancer-stricken, "senior moment" Thomas Eagleton psyco-disaster-waiting-to-happen. At the same time Democrats who want to win will take mommy-pit-bull's lipstick-smeared baby blanket and strangle her with it. Personally, I'd loudly remind women voters how pet pit bulls have a notorious reputation for mauling and killing infant children whose stupid fucking parents leave their babies unattended by anyone but the psychotic animal. I mean, would putting lipstick on the barking beast change anything about its truly dangerous nature? Stuff like that.

And pay no attention to phony Republican cries of outrage when others do to them what they have so often done unto others. I mean, when even John McBush will not only forgive but hire those who trashed him and his family for political gain, why should Democrats treat the elderly wobbling war-lover with anything less than an equally cynical disdain. Caving-in so repeatedly to the reactionary religious crazies in his own party shows that McBush has no pride, principles, or honor left to lose. But leaving nothing to the vagaries of chance, the Democrats should see to it that the awful truth about McBush and his trophy nurse receives the widest possible dissenination.

Pointing out the obvious dirt on Repubicans who wallow in the mud shouldn't prove at all difficult -- for Democrats who really want to win.

So we agree, this is business as usual. Everyone does it. Please avert your gaze.

Under what circumstances are the governor's children required to participate in official functions and under what situations are the tax payers of Alaska required to pay their travel expenses? In Alaska is the First family like the Royal family in England?

The per diem, as distinct from writing off mileage to and from the office, when one stays at home does really seems bizarre.

What I find strange is that sometimes, HOWEVER RARELY, offensivetoyou writes something with sense. Sadly, this is not one of those wondrous days.

Clearly, it is not for Senator Biden to concentrate on "Build better future by stealing office supplies" aspects of Gov. Palin's carrier. [Book title that featured in one of Dilbert cartoons.] How about forming an organization of "Friends of Palin" to fund an ad: "Vote for Palin! She does not fleece taxpayers imaginatively!"

The "lie" idea needs to go to the next level. People are sort of familiar with politicians overstating things and lying when they think they can get away with it. The lies are a huge problem, because this is exactly what Bush did too. If you don't trust Bush, there is no reason to trust McCain either.

McCain is lying the same way Bush did. The same way Bush lied when he and his administration claimed WMDs. The same way Bush lied when he explicitly and implicitly suggested 9/11 highjackers were supported by Saddam. They are lying for political gain, not to put country first.

McCain is lying about Obama's record and Palin's record, the same way Bush did, and there is no reason to think that McCain will be any more noble if elected President. We will get more lies from an administration about Iran, the economy, torture, spying on US Citizens, etc. We will get more lies from the lobbyists in a McCain administration about what is for sale from our government.

McCain is also steering towards the political center within 2 months of the election (lying about his record and what he intends if elected). Bush in 2000 promised the same sort of more moderate version of extreme conservatism, while making references to code language to extreme conservatives, that he was off the deep end with them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slmr024JYaA

McCain now is promising the same sort of centrism, but he has surrounded himself with neo-conservatives that got us into the Iraq mess, the economic mess with ill-advised "small government principles" that allowed Enron and the subprime crises, the isolation of America in foreign policy, and the messes of healthcare, social security, and job losses that have only been made worse by GWB's experiment of keeping selectively small government out of any policies that would help improve the situation. Just look at the extreme politics of the replacement he picked in case he is replaced. Country first, right? He is lying about all of it, just like Bush did.

"And the giveaway that you didn't read the article is that you completely ignored the fact that Palin's expenses were 75% lower than her predecessor."

What is it -- "we steal less" campaign slogan?

The story is about Palin improperly pocketing rather small and trivial amounts of cash -- but not all THAT trivial. For a person making 100k per year, pocketing extra 10k is quite attractive.

Caribou Barbie has got to go!!.

The Republicans seem to be running two campaigns. One is visible and the other is subversive.

Picking Sarah Palin epitomizes the subversive one, just as picking Colin Powell and Condi Rice epitomized a Bush subversion: "we are for equality, we include two African Americans in the cabinet," and then Bush fiddles while a city with a large African American population drowns.

I cannot remember (I am 60) when I last heard the term "uppity" -- the eighties maybe or the seventies? -- but in a TPM post someone mentioned that the Republicans seem to be inserting it into the political discourse without ever hitting Obama with it. Once it is out there, of course, everyone gets who it is about.

The sex ed ad is right out of the Willie Horton playbook, complete with a leering image of the candidate.

But let Obama repeat a cliche about pigs and they squeal like stuck ones.

So, how to hit back? Complaining really is whining. Ignoring it lets it stick. Omama does seem to have a rapid response team, but it needs to do more. Did someone just say Ron Allen was "uppity"? Put up a clip of the interview (via youtube, if not NBC) and ask if a reporter asking questions on behalf of the American people is uppity or is acting, as Jefferson so rightly defended, in the interests of the people's right to know. (Don't go with free press, as it sounds elitist.) Why are there no clips of John McCain using lipstick/pig on Hillary? Because the networks have limited resources and a lot to do, so send them all a clip. I bet they'll use it. Keep an "uppity" score on a site where the press can find it so people realize what's happening.

And hammer, hammer, hammer at "where is Sarah?" Excuse me, she's getting prepped???? Would Joe Lieberman need prepping? Would Would Olympia Snowe? Would Kay Bailey Hutchinson?