Palin and Daschle are equivalent. Read up on it before you rant. Bottom line is the violations were minor in both cases, but were indeed equivalent. I know Daschle paid up in the end. Did Palin? I don't know. Do you?

Once again, the conservative bashes one side while justifying the other. And once again, the liberal wants to hold everyone accountable for their actions. Seems liberals believe in responsibility, accountablility and rule of law. Conservatives (at least your and Palin's brand...I certainly know many who aren't like this) believe in partisanship and avoiding the law if you can get away with it. This is why the conservatives have been losing from 2006 on.

Let’s assume what you’re saying is true – that Daschle and Palin are equivalent. I could argue it, but you’d probably be able to find a Republican tax dodger to fill Palin’s place anyway, making it moot. So, assuming they are equivalent, why did you write in your post the following: “the whole brouhaha over Daschle's taxes is yet another case of Republican hypocricy”? It’s puzzling because you don’t quote or link to a single Republican complaining about Daschle. Instead you linked to what one of Andrew Sullivan’s readers had to say about Palin.

I’m not saying you couldn’t have found a Republican critical of Daschle – just as I could have found a liberal critical of Palin. But, the Republicans had nothing to do with Daschle’s withdrawal. They didn’t kill his nomination. I don’t think a single Republican Senator said they were going to vote against his confirmation.
The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times came out with editorials against Daschle – that’s what doomed him. Is the Times conservative or Republican?

Your post, while accusing the Republicans of hypocrisy and partisanship, is in and of itself partisan. When your side messes up – attacking the other side is partisanship at its highest form. You’re better off picking and choosing your battles. Even Obama said he messed up, and it was the Times that created the “brouhaha.”

I am going to partly (only partly) concede a point. I should have said right wing blogs (which were all over Dashle and were gushing over Palin). However, the Republicans did raise questions about Dashle in a way they refused to regarding Palin (or any other Republican under a cloud until MAYBE there is a conviction).

Again, let me emphasize that the way these Republican Senators raised questions about Dashle is NOT my complaint. I question that they didn't treat one of their own the same way. Therein is the hypocrisy.

You paint Republicans with too broad a brush. The sins of one Republican becomes the sins of them all? Do you think Senate Republicans should have gone after Palin prior to the election? Come on.

Do you want hypocrisy - why did Democrats bail on Daschle and not Geithner. Why the disparate treatment? There's the real double-standard.

Or is it?

If you can explain a difference between Daschle & Geithner, then maybe I could find a difference between Palin & Daschle.

The problem with the sins of the Republicans is that it ISN'T just one. The list of Republicans indicted or convicted of crimes is long...much longer that the list of Democrats. More often than not, the Republican Party stands behind even their most corrupt members. The Democrats SOMETIMES do that (look up my writing about the Brooklyn Democratic machine...I go after them too on NYC local blogs). But more often they drop them like they did Blagojevich. Keep in mind, I, like many Dems, supported the Republican candidate in Louisiana over the corrupt "money in the freezer" Jefferson.

As to the difference between Daschle and Geithner, I don't have an answer for you and have wondered that myself. I have not had time to look into it either, so I have not taken a stand on it one way or the other. Clearly someone thought there was a difference. I do not know if I agree or not. I have no problem with Daschle being dropped. I suspect McCain wishes he had dropped Palin and maybe taken on someone else. Have to say he might have won had he picked Susan Collins (an unlikely choice) or Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Liz Dole, assuming he really was insisting on a woman. If not, Eric Cantor would have been an interesting choice and may have thrown him a lifeline in the shape of Virginia. I don't personally LIKE these politicians, and I think some have skeletons in their closet as well, but they would have been a better choice than someone who can't even remember the big Supreme Court case involving her own state when she was governor and who was under an active investigation for abuse of power.

I also live in Brooklyn - and agree that the Democratic machine here is corrupt (just as the Republican machine in Alaska was corrupt). When one party dominates a jurisdiction, and elections aren't competitive, corruption becomes more pronounced.

I find Palin's willingness to challenge her own party to have been refreshing (Obama's record didn't match hers on this point). As for her faults, all politicians have them, but I just find it bizarre that the left is still obsessed with her. Your comment talks about who McCain would have been better off with - why are you interested? Why is that important now? In hindsight was Biden a great pick - but who second guesses that? The 2008 election is over, Palin didn't abuse power, so there's no point in continuing to repeat it.