Scrutiny, Mr. Hunt suggests, such as:
"Her decision to have a Down syndrome child this year and pledge to be an advocate for families with special-needs kids was inspiring for any family with such children. Why then did she veto a bill passed by the Alaska legislature increasing funding for the Special Olympics?"
Maybe because she thought Special Olympics already got enough state funding in Alaska?
Is there any law that requires elected officials to automatically increase funding for a program just because it might be seen to benefit one of their family members?
At least, Hunt characterizes her veto of this budget item as not increasing funding. Others in the media have claimed that she "slashed" and "cut in half" funding for Special Olympics in Alaska. For now I'm having trouble finding out. But it is not uncommon for interested parties to characterize the refusal of a proposed budget increase as a "cut."
Then there is this from the Los Angeles Times:
"In the budget she signed into law earlier this year, Palin approved a dramatic raise in spending on children who have what Alaska officials call “intensive needs,” including children who need nurses full time or cannot breathe without ventilators.
"When Palin took office, the state was spending $27,000 a year on each such child. The budget she signed this year raises funding to $49,000 per child. In three years, the amount will rise to $74,000, roughly equal to the $75,000 a year cost of educating such children."
Anyway, the media will continue to do its job scrutinizing Palin, not matter what the McCain campaign says. It should do so objectively and fairly and -- in the news pages -- with as little spin as possible.