Comparing Obama and Palin on earmarks

I never saw what the big deal was in the fact that Palin flipped her position on that infamous Bridge to Nowhere, first giving support to it as a candidate and then getting into office and learning more about the project and deciding against it. Gosh, if a candidate was disqualified from serious national consideration because of flipping on an important issue, Obama would be long gone. Perhaps it was an exaggeration for her to brag about killing the project, but what is important is what someone does as a final position and we should be glad she went from the wrong to the correct position. That is totally different from the statement that John Kerry used about voting for something before he voted against it. He went from the correct position to the wrong position and then tried to get credit for his previous, rejected position. Why Obama would want to resurrect that whole controversy was beyond me.

Now her critics are touting her record on earmarks to paint her as a bad an earmarker as some of the Alaskans in Congress. Senator Jim DeMint, who describes himself as a recovering earmarker writes today to contrast the records on earmarks of both Palin and Obama.

Mrs. Palin used her veto pen to slash more local projects than any other governor in the state's history. She cut nearly 10% of Alaska's budget this year, saving state residents $268 million. This included vetoing a $30,000 van for Campfire USA and $200,000 for a tennis court irrigation system. She succinctly justified these cuts by saying they were "not a state responsibility."

Meanwhile in Washington, Mr. Obama voted for numerous wasteful earmarks last year, including: $12 million for bicycle paths, $450,000 for the International Peace Museum, $500,000 for a baseball stadium and $392,000 for a visitor's center in Louisiana.

Mrs. Palin cut Alaska's federal earmark requests in half last year, one of the strongest moves against earmarks by any governor. It took real leadership to buck Alaska's decades-long earmark addiction.

Mr. Obama delivered over $100 million in earmarks to Illinois last year and has requested nearly a billion dollars in pet projects since 2005. His running mate, Joe Biden, is still indulging in earmarks, securing over $90 million worth this year.

Mrs. Palin also killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state. Yes, she once supported the project: But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation's budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge.

When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys' club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark.

Mrs. Palin has proven courageous by taking on big spenders in her own party. In March of this year, the Anchorage Daily News reported that, "Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens is aggravated about what he sees as Gov. Sarah Palin's antagonism toward the earmarks he uses to steer federal money to the state."

And once again, the Obama campaign finds itself in the position of comparing the top guy on their ticket to the bottom person on ours. They need to get beyond that. But on earmarks, they can't frame a comparison with John McCain because he has a sterling record and Obama, well, doesn't.