For instance, how can she be blamed for opposing the bridge to nowhere? This was the right position to take, and a risk for her because she was a new state governor and this was an issue benefitting her constituents, but an outrage nationally. At that time, who would’ve possibly guessed she would end up on the presidential ticket in 2008?

And I wonder what her explanation would be for not calling a special session of the legislature to address some pro life legislation…is Alaska not already a pro life state? What was the nature of this legislation? Are babies being aborted at any whim and Sarah refused to come to their defense? If it was such an emergency, why wasn’t it addressed sooner, during the regular session?

On the issue of receding ice - I question whether that loss is due to man made global warming versus the earth’s own natural warming trends over time.

But my two biggest criticisms about Palin were not to be found in this article:

1. She has joined the administration’s (and John McCain’s) condemnation of Russia’s recent protection of the South Ossetian people who were being brutalized and murdered by the Georgian army. This is something that is on the other side of the world and is NONE of our business. The Founding Fathers certainly would not have gotten involved.

2. She is on record telling the teachers union in Alaska that she opposes school vouchers, so she is pro-government indoctrination camps and anti-choice in education.

Sarah Palin, while probably the best of the four names on the two major party tickets, is a good neo-con.