Why would Palin be upset even if her Brother-in-law tasered her nephew?

These authoritarians don't believe that tasers are torture devices in the first place! For all they care, tasers are nothing but tickle-sticks. Suppose her brother-in-law beat the life out of her nephew. Cheney and Rove would still consider that rough play.

I'm sorry, but WHY is this so hard to understand?

_This brother-in-law is by all accounts a sleaze-ball. _Even if that's so, there are certain procedures and laws to punish him. _As this commentator states,he had already been punished. _Even leaving all that aside, Governor Palin abused her office to punish him further.

This is called 1L law. Having an a public office does not entitle you to exact personal vengeance or offer personal favors (the Bush administration's enormous gifts to war profiteers --and there are at least 25 of them-- aside). The law is the authority of the land, not the person who happens to occupy office. You would think after 8 years of this bullshit, people would get that.

She's just another politician, but a fairly corrupt, dynastical one, too, for whom there is little distinction between politics and familiy. She's also become a complete farce for the McCain campaign. A former deficit hawk, still desperately clinging to his old reputation while he undermines all the reasons he had it in the first place, nominated a "reformer" whose state sucked more cash per capita than just about any state in the union, a reformer who lobbied Congress for $27 million in earmarks for a town of 6,000 people. McCain not only had to hug and kiss Bush and Dobson to get power, now he has to run with a figure that's indistinguishable from them.

The WaPo reporter was right--this is a significant ethics issue, legally, and as a reflection on Palin's character. But Matthews is right that voters may see it as a small-bore issue. Frankly a lot of voters will probably think of some dirtbag brother in law they'd love to fire, unfortunately.

The earmark thing is funny. Voters love them! Members of Congress openly tout their earmarks in campaign commercials. It's only reporters, Jeff Flake, and a few other people in DC who find them icky. Of course they are pretty bad, but they're still about 3 weeks worth of Iraq spending per year. But for McCain that's "a cause worth the fighting for!"

SOMEBODY HAS TO STRAIGHTEN THE RECORD!!!!

The media keeps characterizing this brother-in-law as a terrible guy that tazered his own son, "to teach him a lesson" - they make it sound as if the guy was punishing his son with a taser gun.

IT"S NOT TRUE !!!!

His son was curious about the taser and asked if he could see what it was like, so the father layed his son down on a bunch of pillows and shocked his son for a fraction with the gun cap off.

By all accounts from the family, the boy laughed and bragged about the experience afterward.

SARAH PALIN IS A PURSING A VENDETTA AND HAS ALREADY FIRED ONE PERSON THAT GOT IN HER WAY --- WHAT A WICKED PERSON THIS IS!!!!!

Sorry to keep on this, but this woman gives me the creeps!!!!

Why has she insisted on claiming to be against taking federal money for the "bridge to nowhere"? What is wrong with her?!?!

This is so reminiscent of the Bush 2004 presidential campaign. The Bush Administration during that campaign, as directed by Carl Rove, engaged in very much the same type of persistent pre-emptive lying. Most notably, they lied about having found mobile bio-weapons lab trailers in Iraq for many months leading up to the 2004 election. They lied so early and so often, that (according to the polls) the main stream American couldn't keep up with the truth.

Now we have Carl Rove's signature showing up again in the McCain campaign with Sarah Palin lying about being against federal earmark funding for the bridge to nowhere. Not only was she all for it, but she never did send the money back.

Sarah Palin = more lying, more abuse of power to pursue personal vendettas, more anti-science policy, more pushing of creationism as a science, and on and on ...

Wow! IQ dude is like calligraph, only on the side of GOOD.

What a pro.

Hooray for the Wall Street journal - dang, I've read so much shilling in WSJ for Bush and Co. the past 7 years, I just stopped reading that paper or taking seriously any excerpts I've been passed.

Now, to be fair to Palin, her verbiage was "I said thanks but no thanks." See? She said "thanks" for the earmark while running for office. Then when she took office and realized it was bad politically she said "no thanks." Brilliant, no? But not nearly as crafty as keeping the 300 million and putting it elsewhere!

So, why the hell would it be dangerous to tag her as "just another politician"? Oh please please let that sink in. Cause it's dangerous for US if that tag doesn't hold, and McCain/Palin get in office.