How Palin convinced me to vote for the Democrats

Until a few days ago I remained ambivalent towards the two presidential nominees and their selections for Vice President.

Sarah Palin changed that with her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention.

She seemed like the sort of normal citizen I've met all over this country. She felt like she's one of us. (I acknowledge, of course, the argument that the figurehead of the US should possess more sense and poise than your average U.S. Citizen.)

Intrigued, I researched some of her more interesting claims to measure her veracity.

For example, she said Barack Obama has not "authored" a "single major law or reform -- not even in the state senate."

The word "major" is open to interpretation, but I found that Mr. Obama has his name on at least two bills -- one to reduce the number of weapons in the world and the other to increase the transparency of government spending and to ban gifts from lobbyists. In the US Senate he has sponsored 136 bills and cosponsored 659 pieces of legislation. If you want to know about his state senate experience, look at this summary at the New York Times.

Ms. Palin does make an interesting point: Mr. Obama cannot claim complete authorship of the two bills bearing his name. My research showed senators don't really "author" legislation: rather, the Senate writes bills collectively.

Here's the process: Senators introduce legislation. Committees then edit and amend it. Senators debate the bill on the floor and modify it further. A vote determines if the bill is rejected, returned to committee for amending or sent to the president for veto or approval. No one senator deserves credit for the passing of a bill.

Next: Ms. Palin said, "Our opponent is against producing [energy]." It didn't take very much digging to identify her exaggeration. It seems Mr. Obama intends to implement immense new renewable energy sources -- 10 percent of our demand by 2012. That's a lot of new energy. And clean energy.

Ms. Palin lauded "clean coal" as part of her energy plan. She meant technology that reduces Co2, sulfur dioxide, and mercury emissions from coal burning power plants.

However, my research showed that however you burn it, coal itself remains dirty. Look up "mountain-top removal" and you'll see what I mean. Further, it seems that mercury from coal burning will still make it into our water supply and our oceans, continuing to poison our food supply.

Clean coal -- what an oxymoron!

Last, I researched Ms. Palin's statement that she "championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress." I found an article in the September 2nd Seattle Times stating Ms. Palin had requested 197 million dollars in earmarks from the federal government, just this year. What makes that number remarkable is that on September 4th, the Los Angeles Times reported that next year Alaska's estimate budget surplus will total between $5billion and $9billion.

If you have that much money available, why bother asking taxpayers in other states to pay for your state's projects? And if you want other states' taxpayers to fund your initiatives, why say you're against earmarks?

Ms. Palin almost won my approval tonight. If I hadn't researched her claims she might have convinced me. But I won't vote for a candidate for Vice President who obscures facts, whether due to ignorance or willful deceit.

Now to investigate Senator Biden.