Either way, this election marks a turning point in American politics: it is the first time in history that BOTH members of a major party's ticket for the nation's top offices have already been investigated and found to be involved in ethical violations.
Truly, a first. Sure, the Democrats beat the GoOPers to the whole "putting a woman on the ticket" thing by more than two decades....but you gotta hand it to the party of the Grand Old Policeblotter....they're waaaaay out front in nominating and supporting ethically questionable folks. Gotta give 'em props for that.
Ah! Remember, it was not that the act of adultery or misusing funds, it's always the COVER UP that gets officials impeached or fired. Sarah Palin has a pattern of hiding and/or lying about how she uses the TAXPAYER'S MONEY.
I gave the article only a quick read, but I can't summon up a particle of outrage about charge No. 2. My feeling? a) We want women to serve in public office; b) Women often have these little appendages called "children"; c) Women (and men, too!) should not have to choose between serving the public and laying eyes on their children from time to time; d) If we want people with families to be able to serve as high-ranking public officials, and if we want to ask those high-ranking public officials to travel frequently as part of their jobs, then hell, yeah, we taxpayers should be willing to foot the bill for them to bring their kids along—perhaps not always, but certainly sometimes. It seems reasonable to have some controls on spending, but it also seems reasonable for Palin to feel that if she has to schlep all over the state (or the country), she should be able to bring her kids with her some of the time.
The alternative to taxpayers footing the bill for some of this? The only people who will serve in such public office will be the childless, those who don't care about their kids, and those rich enough to pay on their own. I'd rather contribute some of my tax dollars. Yes, even for Bristol.
Pages
Yeah, I saw this story.
Either way, this election marks a turning point in American politics: it is the first time in history that BOTH members of a major party's ticket for the nation's top offices have already been investigated and found to be involved in ethical violations.
Truly, a first. Sure, the Democrats beat the GoOPers to the whole "putting a woman on the ticket" thing by more than two decades....but you gotta hand it to the party of the Grand Old Policeblotter....they're waaaaay out front in nominating and supporting ethically questionable folks. Gotta give 'em props for that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9DSuP94OBw
Looks like no one is "refuting" this particular article.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/09/09/so-what-let-the-taypayers-pay-for-palin-s-kids-travel.aspx
I gave the article only a quick read, but I can't summon up a particle of outrage about charge No. 2. My feeling? a) We want women to serve in public office; b) Women often have these little appendages called "children"; c) Women (and men, too!) should not have to choose between serving the public and laying eyes on their children from time to time; d) If we want people with families to be able to serve as high-ranking public officials, and if we want to ask those high-ranking public officials to travel frequently as part of their jobs, then hell, yeah, we taxpayers should be willing to foot the bill for them to bring their kids along—perhaps not always, but certainly sometimes. It seems reasonable to have some controls on spending, but it also seems reasonable for Palin to feel that if she has to schlep all over the state (or the country), she should be able to bring her kids with her some of the time.
The alternative to taxpayers footing the bill for some of this? The only people who will serve in such public office will be the childless, those who don't care about their kids, and those rich enough to pay on their own. I'd rather contribute some of my tax dollars. Yes, even for Bristol.
Do you feel the same way about women (and men)
Pages