I didn't see this posted on BGP yet (insert mild exclamation of surprise here). Worst part about the story is that Palin evidently altered the records after the state asked for them.

 

http://www.drudge.com/news/113955/palin-charged-alaska-kids-travel

 

Gov. Sarah Palin charged the state for her children to travel with her, including to events where they were not invited, and later amended expense reports to specify that they were on official business. Palin charged the state $21,012 for her three daughters' 64 commercial flights since she took office in December 2006, and in some cases charged the state for hotel rooms for the girls.

 

Long story short, she spent Alaska tax dollars as though they were her own, self-invited her kids, and then falsified the reasons for their travel.

It seems the more they check her background the more they find out. Probably why they don't want her to talk to reporters.

Devastating news! Gov. Palin often traveled with her children in tow while attending official events scattered around a state twice the size of Texas and was legally reimbursed by the state of Alaska. Devastating!

It's legal to falsify records?

Devastating news! Gov. Palin often traveled with her children in tow while attending official events scattered around a state twice the size of Texas and was legally reimbursed by the state of Alaska. Devastating!

 

Alaska has gotten really big if it extends all the way to New York City.

It's legal to falsify records?

If this AP-Obama story is so troubling to you, why did you not express outrage when you learned that the Obama campaign filed false reports with the FEC to describe expenditures to ACORN before the Ohio primary, only to file amended reports containing the real purpose of the expenditures months later?

 

The article states that that the reimbursements that Palin received were not illegal. Palin also did not claim per diem expenses for each of her children, which would also have been legally reimbursable expenses. Had Palin not sold the gubernatorial Gulfstream jet, the children would have traveled with her at a much greater expense than they did by flying commercial.

 

Liberals amaze me. They defend Barack Obama for requesting a $1 million earmark for Michelle Obama's employer, Michelle's salary more than doubles, yet they see no tit-for-tat.

 

Yet, when Obama sends an army of lawyers to Alaska to dig for dirt on Sarah Palin, apparently all they could find was some questionable expense reports and the fact that Palin spent her own money to put a second hand tanning bed in the governor's mansion - and this is supposed to be a devastating revelation. Why is that? Is it because even Democrats expect Republicans to operate at a much higher level ethically than their own politicians?

Long story short, she spent Alaska tax dollars as though they were her own, self-invited her kids, and then falsified the reasons for their travel.

Short story expanded just enough to be balanced:

• She sold the fancy jet purchased by the previous governor.
  
• A jet that typically requires around $1.4 million a year just in fuel and maintenance
  
• Not to mention the salary for a two man flight crew somewhere in the neighborhood of $200,000 or more.
  
• Her family would have flown for "free" on such a state owned jet
  

So, not even counting the actual cost of the jet itself, and deducting the $22,000 or so Gov. Palin spent trucking around her minor children, she is providing the state of Alaska an annual Net Savings of around $1.5 million.

 

Yeah, I can see why only 80% of the citizens approve of the job she's doing up there... :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Yet another stellar bit of one sided reporting delivered by our crack media. :thumb:

 

Where is the same intensity to learn about Ayers, Rezko and ACORN?

If this AP-Obama story is so troubling to you, why did you not express outrage when you learned that the Obama campaign filed false reports with the FEC to describe expenditures to ACORN before the Ohio primary, only to file amended reports containing the real purpose of the expenditures months later?

 

The article states that that the reimbursements that Palin received were not illegal. Palin also did not claim per diem expenses for each of her children, which would also have been legally reimbursable expenses. Had Palin not sold the gubernatorial Gulfstream jet, the children would have traveled with her at a much greater expense than they did by flying commercial.

 

Liberals amaze me. They defend Barack Obama for requesting a $1 million earmark for Michelle Obama's employer, Michelle's salary more than doubles, yet they see no tit-for-tat.

 

Yet, when Obama sends an army of lawyers to Alaska to dig for dirt on Sarah Palin, apparently all they could find was some questionable expense reports and the fact that Palin spent her own money to put a second hand tanning bed in the governor's mansion - and this is supposed to be a devastating revelation. Why is that? Is it because even Democrats expect Republicans to operate at a much higher level ethically than their own politicians?

 

Short story expanded just enough to be balanced:

• She sold the fancy jet purchased by the previous governor.
  
• A jet that typically requires around $1.4 million a year just in fuel and maintenance
  
• Not to mention the salary for a two man flight crew somewhere in the neighborhood of $200,000 or more.
  
• Her family would have flown for "free" on such a state owned jet
  

So, not even counting the actual cost of the jet itself, and deducting the $22,000 or so Gov. Palin spent trucking around her minor children, she is providing the state of Alaska an annual Net Savings of around $1.5 million.

 

Yeah, I can see why only 80% of the citizens approve of the job she's doing up there... :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Yet another stellar bit of one sided reporting delivered by our crack media. :thumb:

 

Where is the same intensity to learn about Ayers, Rezko and ACORN?

Don't you two get it?

 

If Obama wants to be painted as the anti-lobbyist, but takes lobbyist money and nominates a VP candidate whose son is a lobbyist (I believe), then he deserves to be painted as a fraud.

 

Yes, every politician does shady things. But if Palin wants to be painted as a reformer, then she deserves to be exposed as a fraud as well, for even minor transgressions. You can't put yourself on a pedestal, and then expect to get away with whatever you want.

 

You bash liberals but have the same blind eye to your beloved GOP members. Two wrongs don't make a right. Call a spade as a spade, and quit looking at the big letter beside their name.

Don't you two get it?

 

If Obama wants to be painted as the anti-lobbyist, but takes lobbyist money and nominates a VP candidate whose son is a lobbyist (I believe), then he deserves to be painted as a fraud.

 

Yes, every politician does shady things. But if Palin wants to be painted as a reformer, then she deserves to be exposed as a fraud as well, for even minor transgressions. You can't put yourself on a pedestal, and then expect to get away with whatever you want.

 

You bash liberals but have the same blind eye to your beloved GOP members. Two wrongs don't make a right. Call a spade as a spade, and quit looking at the big letter beside their name.

Wow...

 

I gave up on the big "R" sometime ago when all the Rs started spending money and growing government debt just like the Ds I'd been so frustrated with.

 

To me, it's all about bottom line. It's beyond absurd for politicians to rail against carbon emissions and refuse tapping domestic oil reserves and preaching for alternative energy sources while cruising around in a private jet sucking more fuel in a week than my entire family consumes in a year.

 

Palin cut costs radically, actually delivered measurable savings to the citizens of the state she serves, (who approve of the job she's doing more than the combined approval ratings of our current congress and president by a margin of two or three to one) and reduced the convenience to her and her family in the process. She brought about positive change with her own actions, not just wagging her finger at Alaskans and telling them what they should be doing.

 

You say, "Two wrongs don't make a right" and I can't argue, but I will add, "One wrong doesn't make all wrong." This is especially true if the results are as billed.

 

Again I ask, "Where's the intense media scrutiny of Obama's connections with Ayers, Rezko and ACORN?"

 

It won't happen until O's already in office and screwing up badly enough that some of the coronation court presently overlooking their duties to uncover such things decides that maybe they should actually do their job afterall... and by then, it will be too late.

Nothing but liberal spin and spew ---- there is enough corruption on both sides to fill a sewer. And wrong is wrong. However, to ignore ACORN, Ayers, the financial boost for Michele Obama, et. al. is nothing but choking on a gnat and swallowing a camel IMHO.

Don't you two get it?

 

If Obama wants to be painted as the anti-lobbyist, but takes lobbyist money and nominates a VP candidate whose son is a lobbyist (I believe), then he deserves to be painted as a fraud.

 

Yes, every politician does shady things. But if Palin wants to be painted as a reformer, then she deserves to be exposed as a fraud as well, for even minor transgressions. You can't put yourself on a pedestal, and then expect to get away with whatever you want.

 

You bash liberals but have the same blind eye to your beloved GOP members. Two wrongs don't make a right. Call a spade as a spade, and quit looking at the big letter beside their name.

Yes, I get it. We have four imperfect candidates running and some people believe that this is a reason to give Obama a pass by declaring moral equivalence among the four. When it comes to public corruption, the scale and scope of the corruption does matter and I am sorry that you just do not get that.

Yes, I get it. We have four imperfect candidates running and some people believe that this is a reason to give Obama a pass by declaring moral equivalence among the four. When it comes to public corruption, the scale and scope of the corruption does matter and I am sorry that you just do not get that.

 

:thumb::thumb::thumb:

Nothing but liberal spin and spew ---- there is enough corruption on both sides to fill a sewer. And wrong is wrong. However, to ignore ACORN, Ayers, the financial boost for Michele Obama, et. al. is nothing but choking on a gnat and swallowing a camel IMHO.

:thumb: Exactly, compared to Obama, McCain, Palin, and even Slow Joe are squeaky clean.

I think we could devote an entire forum to track how politicians fudge tax payer dollars to benefit themselves across the country. I would say Palin is a guilty as every single politician in America. I am not going to say it does not bother me that every politician does this; but, it is one of those things I have come to accept happens and part of electing anyone.

Wow...

 

I gave up on the big "R" sometime ago when all the Rs started spending money and growing government debt just like the Ds I'd been so frustrated with.

 

To me, it's all about bottom line. It's beyond absurd for politicians to rail against carbon emissions and refuse tapping domestic oil reserves and preaching for alternative energy sources while cruising around in a private jet sucking more fuel in a week than my entire family consumes in a year.

 

Palin cut costs radically, actually delivered measurable savings to the citizens of the state she serves, (who approve of the job she's doing more than the combined approval ratings of our current congress and president by a margin of two or three to one) and reduced the convenience to her and her family in the process. She brought about positive change with her own actions, not just wagging her finger at Alaskans and telling them what they should be doing.

 

You say, "Two wrongs don't make a right" and I can't argue, but I will add, "One wrong doesn't make all wrong." This is especially true if the results are as billed.

 

Again I ask, "Where's the intense media scrutiny of Obama's connections with Ayers, Rezko and ACORN?"

 

It won't happen until O's already in office and screwing up badly enough that some of the coronation court presently overlooking their duties to uncover such things decides that maybe they should actually do their job afterall... and by then, it will be too late.

You won't hear me say that Palin is worse than Obama. You won't hear me say that Obama has not gotten a pass (relative to Palin) from the media. But, I don't view "less corrupt then Obama" as a positive attribute. I'd prefer "not corrupt".

Yes, I get it. We have four imperfect candidates running and some people believe that this is a reason to give Obama a pass by declaring moral equivalence among the four. When it comes to public corruption, the scale and scope of the corruption does matter and I am sorry that you just do not get that.

 

I guess that I am just more of an idealist, and I'd rather stand against political corruption rather than accept it. You both know that I would never vote for Obama in a million years, but that doesn't mean that I can't realize the wrongs of his opponents without invoking his name.