UH OH: “This does not look good. Lots and lots of earmarks requested by Gov. Palin, on an Obama scale, which is saying something.” Reading the actual story, though, it’s not clear whether they’re actually earmarks — that is, things that bypass the normal appropriations process — or not. If they are, then it does look bad, and it makes the McCain campaign’s focus on the issue a big mistake.

UPDATE: A reader emails:

Much as we’re now discussing the true definition of the Bush Doctrine, I think we need some clarity on the definition of earmarks.

You used a definition in a recent comment: ” earmarks — that is, things that bypass the normal appropriations process.” That bears emphasis and frequent repetition. No one is objecting to federal funding for various and sundry state and local projects – at least not in this context. It’s the unexamined, last-minute, “do-me-a-favor” projects that taxpayers don’t like. But, as many catch phrases do, the term “earmarks” is becoming something like Vizzini’s “inconceivable.” It may no longer mean what you think it means.

Yes, I’ve used the Citizens Against Government Waste definition, which is that it bypasses the normal appropriations procedures. From the WSJ article, it’s hard to tell how it fits — they talk about specific appropriations, which may or may not be “earmarks.” Here are the CAGW criteria.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Governors Cannot Earmark.

Well, true. But they can request earmarks. Of course, so can I. Hmm . . . how about $50M to build the PorkBusters Museum in Knoxville?

Don’t hold your breath. . . .