Let's not change the subject. You started a thread with the apparent premise that any articles about Palin that do not put her in a flattering light are smears. I responded that I think the concerns about her use of state money for herself and her family are legitimate avenues of inquiry. I truly don't understand why you insist on viewing everything through the lens of Democrats or Republicans, or liberals and conservatives, as though we are two different species.

BTW, I don't think it's much of a defense of questionable behavior to say someone else did worse.

Back to lurking -- I am sticking to my plan of no more than twice a day on the UT, 5 minutes each. Michel better hope everyone doesn't start doing that <g>.

>Seriously, I'm OK with it if it is within state regulations. And her expenses are less than her predecessor. Also, some of her travel involves invitations to her family and not just her.
>
>So let me flip this on you, Mike: If it's within state guidelines and shows fiscal prudence and she has a proven track record of shedding unnecessary state expenses (the plane, the chef), then what is your problem? What, it's bad if you and other Democrats don't like it?
>
>>I think it is a legitimate story. You're seriously OK with her billing the state a per diem for staying in her own house, and travel expenses for her husband and kids to fly between Juneau and Mayberry? (whatever the name of the burg is where she's from -- Mozilla? gorilla? <g>)
>>
>>>Exactly the point, she does come out well and was completely within state guidelines. But the casual reader sees the headline "Palin expenses under scrutiny" and makes a negative assumption.
>>>
>>>End result - there's no story here but we have a controversial headline. The "scrutiny" appears to be that of the reporter and not any governmental agency. It's sickening.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Another hit piece that, when you read it, belies the title
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26616212/
>>>>>
>>>>>MSNBC is truly on a crusade, huh? Unbiased media my butt.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Where's the bias it seems like an article about her expenses and she seems to come out quite well.
>>>>
>>>>"Palin spent $93,000 on airfare in 2007, compared with $463,000 spent the year before by her predecessor, Frank Murkowski"
>>>>
>>>>Maybe your skins a bit thin at the moment as you seem to take any article about her (unless its about how the sun shines out of her rear) as a smear.
>>>>
>>>>Remember as a nobody politician up to now everything about her is going to get raked over.as its all new.