why is palin calling her self a reformer when she agrees with bush 97% of the time?

Barrack is talking about simple change of the people running the government. They have painted everything Bush has done as failure, but it's not. It's a Clinton ploy, keep calling Bush and his results failures, have their press operatives keep on that message, and the people will believe it sooner or later they hope.

Bush's economic policy has been phenomenally successful. He took over an economy in free fall, that's right, the tech bubble which had made Clinton's economy look better than it was had burst and while Clinton was still in office the economy was tanking. Those claims of a surplus? Those are bold face lies. The predictions they speak of were bad predictions in the first place, and never happened.

Then there was 911, which devastated our economy just 7 months after Bush came into office. This following right on the heels of the Clinton economic disaster.

The Katrina, the absolute worst natural disaster in US history by far, which really knocked us back as well.

Through all that, Bush's economy had better numbers, better growth, and better unemployment numbers. Bush also received 20% more revenue than Clinton and that's along with a tax cut. That rise in Revenues will not surprise anyone with a clue about macro economics in tax policy. Every single time a tax cut has been issued the Revenues have gone up, every single time. JFK knew that, and he cut taxes and the economy flourished. JFK would be treated like Lieberman in todays democrat part, because he would not stand for the BS.

Why do tax cuts reliably come with revenue increases? Even though if the economy were a dead unmoving thing it would be less money? It's very simple, when taxes are down there is less risk in business startup, and more up side, so those with capitol put it to work. Jobs are created, and incomes go up, and it's a domino effect of wealth creation for business, workers, and that causes money to circulate more than it would if taxes made investment to risky and people didn't put their money out there. To make it simple, you get a much bigger revenue opportunity as money changes hands more often, so you get a much larger pie, and a 1/4 of a 4 trillion $ pie is more than 40% of a 2 trillion $ pie to put it in simplistic terms.

The major problem right now with the economy is oil prices, or more accurately energy prices. The democrats have obstructed not only drilling, but nuclear energy, natural gas drilling, hydro electric dam projects, and anything that is economical at all. Wind and Solar are not going to help the economy. They cost to much, it's as simple as that.

Why do democrats oppose any means to obtain effectively priced energy? Are they stupid? Well, the leadership knows better, but one thing about the democrats is they do better in a down economy, when they have control of much of the revenue stream and they can take it and give it out and so buy voting blocks. They can make enough people dependent on them and fearing to lose what they give them so that they have what is effectively voters in bondage to their programs, ensuring themselves voting blocks.

That is the reason democrats want high fuel prices. AND that is why democrats want high taxes even though that will bring in less revenue. Their having control of revenues and resources is power to them, it is control, it is riches, it is them on top of the world ... over us, and controlling us in order to keep them in power, the country their oyster.

This being understood, why should reform (change in a good way) mean changing what works and putting the most corrupt group into power in Washington? Real reform would be exposing the traitors in Washington who work against our people, and our nations efforts in order to gain power for themselves. In putting them out of office, and cleaning that kind of corruption which tears our country apart out of Washington for good. That's what McCain and Palin are about, and that is reform that is good for the country.

Your percentage is suspect. Why is Obama calling himself an agent of change when he agrees with Pelosi and Reid 100% of the time?

because shes reforming bush's policy for another 8 year's

She's not.

Its a Rove trick - repeat it and they'll believe it.

The "Maverick" claim has no basis in fact. Its just empty rhetoric repeated over and over until we believe it.

Did you just pull that number out of your ***?

How exactly did you arrive at that percentage?

She is most corrupt and biggest liar.

She just reading what they gave her to say.

I still don't see where they came up with that one...