I just finished watching an interview with Michelle Bachman, representative from Minnesota.  She stated unambiguously that Palin was "for earmarks" as the Mayor of Wasilla but that as Governor her position has "evolved."  The "corruption" associated with earmarks made her see the light.  Yesterday I posted about Gary Bauer arguing that the 400 million dollar "Bridge to Nowhere" was a necessary, worthwhile project and that the only problem was that the federal government was asked to pay for it.  Palin, of course, thought it was a necessary, worthwhile project as long and only as long as the federal government was willing to pay for it- she cancelled construction when Alaska's portion of the bill rose from 160 to 329 million dollars and she kept the earmarked money.  So publicly disavowing her actions as Mayor and Governor now means contradicting McCain surrogates with on record.  I've got an idea for a commercial.(Ominous music.)At a time when incomes were dropping and unemployment was rising...Sarah Palin hired a lobbying firm to secure 27 million dollars for her tiny town of 7000...As Governor of Alaska she supported the Bridge to Nowhere and accepted 300 million federal tax dollars for it on behalf of her state...Is this the economic change you've been looking for?