Basically this author argument boils down to: I believe the Washington Post poll and ignore all other Palin polls because the WP poll validate my personal feelings. Then the rest of the article amounts to the author saying "Idon't like the way Palin conducts herself. Because of those feelings, I feel she should not be President".
Well glad you Palin haters are in touch with your feelings. Good for you.
Unfortunately for you all, no one else care what you all feel.
Then the author simply makes up numbers to validate their feelings.
For example, This claim The first two general-fund budgets for which she was responsible showed spending hikes of 16.4 percent (from fiscal year 2007 to '08) and a mind-boggling 21.8 percent the next year. Total government expenditures (a slightly different measure) grew 38.6 percent in those two years combined. This record is to fiscal discipline as the Grateful Dead was to sobriety.
The only problem is the only source this author's has for this claim is a blogger at the far left wing Huffington Post blog who ADMITS in his original article that he could not accurately assess the Palin budget because of the variety of ways Alaska splits up it's budget.
The Huff po blogger merely guessed based on his own subjective opinion of what parts of the budget Palin was accountable for. The Spectator author virtually plagerizd the numbers for the Huff post column. He merely accepted them as valid with no independet research.
So once again you Palin haters have simply made up data to give a false air of validity to your feelings about her
Outstanding post...I agree one thousand percent with.
Gov. Palin IS the real deal and she scares the heck out of the left.
End. Of. Discussion.
This egregious slander of Palin’s record needs to be reported to the Wash Times and Spectator editor.