A close examination of her record as governor reveals that Sarah Palin is nothing if not consistent. Policies that would be described as pork, waste, taxes, or welfare if they benefited all Americans cannot, by definition, be those awful things if they are for Alaskans.
Case 1: The Bridge to Nowhere. Palin's record is crystal clear. As long as the rest of the country was going to pay the bill, she supported it. When the real hero in killing it, Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn, tried to shift the funding to restore New Orleans, Ted Stevens had to compromise. Alaska still would get the money but the earmark went away -- and it became clear that Alaska would have to pay the rest of the bill. Palin then came out against it -- she had never intended that Alaskans should pay for this boondoggle.
You want proof that no principled opposition to pork and waste was involved? Look at the access road. Through a drafting error the separate earmark of $25 million for the access road to the bridge didn't get taken out of the appropriations bill. (Or perhaps Stevens intended it as a final finger to Coburn -- no way to know.) The access road is truly the kind of "make work" that conservatives used to accuse Roosevelt's Works Progress Administration of funding -- a completely useful piece of pavement, leading nowhere, which will never be driven on. The Heritage Foundation begged Palin to send that money to help with reconstruction on the Gulf Coast. Palin declined and built the road. It's a perfect monument to her indifference to wasting the American taxpayer's money -- just as long as it's wasted in Alaska.
Case 2: Palin is a popular governor. Why? Because she beefed up Alaska's status as North America's only true welfare state. Alaskans, every one, regardless of how rich, receive an annual check -- her family's is $22,400 -- and pay no taxes, courtesy of a special deal by which Alaska alone gets a huge share of the revenue from federal oil and gas drilled within its boundaries. But faced with inflation, a weak economy, and higher gas prices, Palin increased taxes on the excess profits of the Alaska oil industry, and gave every Alaskan a second $1,200 rebate.
Now if this idea seems familiar to you, it should -- it's what Barack Obama favors. And what does John McCain think of this proposal -- he blasts it, because it would "increase our dependence on foreign oil and hinder exactly the same kind of domestic exploration and production we need."
So in any other situation, McCain would be blasting Palin's policies as those of a tax and spend welfare queen.
Now, of course, Palin will say there is a difference -- and McCain evidently agrees. The difference is that Obama wants all Americans to benefit from a windfall profits tax, and Palin wants to keep the booty for Alaskans.
That's the Palin doctrine. It dovetails nicely with the McCain doctrine: nuclear waste is safe enough for Nevada, but not Arizona.
Has anyone told them they are running for national office?