Last word on this for me, unless something calls for a response.

As I said, I cannot concede Palin knowingly *cut* the rape kit funding when she says she didn't, and no one is contradicting her. It's sheer speculation on your part. Simply piling on Watergate and all the rest does not change that fact.

I also neglected to give a fuller defense of Palin's qualifications. She has, as I understand it, at least twelve years of executive experience. Barack Obama has none. Joe Biden has none. That's 12 to 0. Someone mentioned football earlier. When is the last time a team scored 0 to the other's 12, and was declared the winner?

By this, I mean Palin has been seated at a desk for 12 years (14, I think, if you count the oil and gas commission) making decisions. Small ones. Medium ones. Big ones. Her mayoral job was sufficiently impressive that she was re-elected and effectively promoted to bigger things. In her short time as governor, we've read about the conflicts bill, the oil rebates, and the pipeline bids. Sure, there have been setbacks. There always are. Setbacks are the failures from which people learn. They are the springboards for future success stories in executive management.

Barack Obama, by contrast, has never failed as an executive. And he's never succeeded as one, either. The presidency is an executive position. As state senator, Barack was famous for voting present. As a U.S. senator, he has been famous for campaigning for another job. It doesn't make him a bad person. It just doesn't change the score. 12 to 0. Palin still wins.

Now, as far as all the *brilliance* required to be president, let me just say: I hope it isn't so! Most politicians are a grade above used car salesmen, and two steps above reptiles. People have mentioned Charles Keating; you could throw in Tony Rezko for Obama. Our esteemed politicians spend a lot of time in the swamp. We sometimes kid ourselves in distinguishing the noble scuba diver from the permanent fixtures in the swamp.

There's a lot of talk about P.R., wardrobes, improprieties, and spin. But at the end of the day, remember these numbers too. $0. That's the amount of illicit profit Palin has received from this campaign, or her career in Alaska. $300,000. That's the amount Obama underpaid for his land in Chicago, in the 2004 Rezko transaction when Rezko was under federal investigation. Obama returned Rezko's campaign contributions, but not the windfall. $0 to $300,000. Palin wins that game, too.

All of this is -- yes, you guessed it -- yet another argument in Palin's favor. She's a Cincinnatus. She can go back to her fishing boat, and her husband his oil rig, if it all doesn't work out. But if she were at the desk, in national office, I would be confident she's working for me. And I would sooner trust my own flesh and blood in military service to her care and custody than Obama and Biden. No question, that would be true of my tax dollars as well. 12 to 0. $0 to $300,000. Not even close. Game over.

Because you invited a response, I will respond.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Palin knew and understood the budget cut. Why would she do it? Let's assume further it had something to do with the morning after pill. Although I have pro-life sentiments, I disagree with Palin's reported views on abortion in the context of rape and incest. If that was her reason, then I would disagree with it. I would think her decision is wrong.

However, it must be repeated that she told the Alaska paper she never supported such a policy. That must mean, by implication, that concerning the budgetary information you circulated, she was not aware that the line item reductions (which apparently did not mention rape kits explicitly) effectuated such specific reductions.

I'm sure someone will say, of course she knew! Others may say, if she definitely knew, why is there no one willing to come forward and say - look, I spoke to her about it, I recall her expressing an awarenes of it, and so forth. If it is so obvious that she knew, where are the witnesses to confirm it?

That is why I said you are speculating: you are speculating that she had specific subjective knowledge -- an awareness in her mind -- of this issue. She says she didn't.

Assume she didn't know; does this make her grossly incompenent as a mayor? Well, it's a $1,000 - $3,000 item in a rather large budget. Like I said before, I have served as a fiduciary in organizations where items of this level of materiality get increased or decreased, and I would not necessarily be familiar with the inner details of every one of them. I'm sure someone will attack me here as being a polyanna for Palin. But in my experience with budgeting, you take inputs from lots of different people with responsibility for their respective inputs. You try to make it all balance, with a focus on achieving your priorities, and go from there. I think you need more proof that Palin is being disingenuous.

* * *

Finally, a word I'm sure someone will denounce as *false equivalence.* Barack Obama told a paper in 2004 that he attended Jeremiah Wright's church every Sunday. Not just most Sundays. Every Sunday. Yet, he amazingly missed every single Sunday in the church's promotional video which Barack later denounced. Either he lied in 2004, or he lied in 2008. I think it was the latter, but I have to speculate to reach that conclusion.