The article really isn't a "Fact" check since almost all of the 'rebuttals' are opinion, not fact. For instance, Palin says she was against abuse of earmarks, not against earmarks. McCain is even more pronounced on the issue. Look at the statement about the bridge to nowhere - it doesn't deny she rejected the planned bridge, as she claimed, it says she did it late. All the tax information isn't fact as think tanks frequently come up with different numbers. Even then some of the responses are just purposely misleading. For instance Palin says Obama hasn't authored major reform and the response talks about working with Lugar on legislation. Not the same thing and he hardly was the main force behind non-proliferation legislation with a real force in that arena like Lugar.
Hmmm that is interesting. I never noticed that. Don't know if I missed it because of the over saturation of a lot of BS Palin articles (with a few being legitimate) right off the bat or the fact that I have had 4 of my grand kids with the last couple of days. Haven't actually had time to read anything since they have been here. If that is true it does change things a little bit on this issue because being against the abuse of something isn't totally being against it if used in the right way. Could explain why they (the Mccain camp) hasn't backed of this tact as of yet. Should be interesting to look up. Thanks Hayesfan.
This isn't surprising because Mccain is and always has been a no holds barred grade A certified a-hole. This is old news. I hardly see what everyone is so surprised about. I'd be surprised if Mccain wasn't playing old school anything goes as long as it hurts the other side politics.
