Palin's Earmarks Called "Objectionable Pork" by McCain?

As part of her executive experience that the McCain campaign so highly promotes, Sarah Palin requested $2 million in earmarks that were classified as "objectionable pork" by.... John McCain.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

To quote Will Ferrell in Zoolander, "Doesn't anybody notice this? I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS!"

As part of her executive experience that the McCain campaign so highly promotes, Sarah Palin requested millions in earmarks from Congress. Three of them, totaling nearly $2 million, were classified as "objectionable pork" by.... John McCain.

Reports the Chicago Tribune:

This year, Palin, who has been governor for nearly 22 months, defended earmarking as a vital part of the legislative system. "The federal budget, in its various manifestations, is incredibly important to us, and congressional earmarks are one aspect of this relationship," she wrote in a newspaper column.

In 2001, McCain's list of spending that had been approved without the normal budget scrutiny included a $500,000 earmark for a public transportation project in Wasilla. The Arizona senator targeted $1 million in a 2002 spending bill for an emergency communications center in town -- one that local law enforcement has said is redundant and creates confusion.

McCain also criticized $450,000 set aside for an agricultural processing facility in Wasilla that was requested during Palin's tenure as mayor and cleared Congress soon after she left office in 2002. The funding was provided to help direct locally grown produce to schools, prisons and other government institutions, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group.

Come on, now.

Look, this means one of two things. Either John McCain barely looked into Palin's background and didn't realize he called her a Federal funding hog in the past. Or, McCain's team did vet her, knew she worked for everything McCain stood against, and he didn't give a damn that she wasn't the reformer he would make her out to be. If that's true, then he's saying he doesn't care because this was a craven political selection, not one based on principle or ability.

Whichever it is, it sure isn't good for McCain. But, he does need to answer this important question - did he vet her, or is he simply misrepresenting her to the nation?

Oh, and this has nothing to do with sexism. It has to do with the man topping the ticket, not doing his due diligence on his first major presidential decision.

Popular in the Community