A reader writes:

I just listened to the video you posted of Palin's interview on Fox, and what is striking to me isn't even that she repeats her lie on the bridge but that she betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what an earmark is or what she is accused of lying about:

"If its something that Alaskans really want and support, which at this point they are not willing to support to such an extent that we'll pay for it ourselves, we better kill the project 'cause we know that the rest of the nation isn't going to pay for it."

So Palin seems to be admitting here that the reason she eventually opposed the bridge after supporting it is that it was no longer going to be paid by the federal government. She is explicitly saying that Alaskans (and herself) would be fine with the bridge if it were paid by the "rest of the nation." But she still took the money for other projects anyway.

The logic behind it is the direct opposite of McCain's anti-pork message. I think the best way to think of Palin is as a welfare queen, draining other people's money in order to enrich Alaskans and get her more votes. As Kinsley put it in his must-read Time column:

Alaska ranks No. 1, year after year, in money it sucks in from Washington. In 2005 (the most recent figures), according to the Tax Foundation, Alaska ranked 18th in federal taxes paid per resident ($5,434) but first in federal spending received per resident ($13,950). Its ratio of federal spending received to federal taxes paid ranks third among the 50 states, and in the absolute amount it receives from Washington over and above the amount it sends to Washington, Alaska ranks No. 1.

And she has the gall to talk about Other People's Money. All she has done her entire life is take other people's money. Mainly yours.

(Photo: Bill Pugliano/Getty.)

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to