home

Palin on the Bridge to Nowhere

By TChris, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:16:41 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

For what it's worth:

Gov. Sarah Palin was for the so-called infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" before she was against it, a change of position the GOP vice presidential running mate conveniently ignored Saturday when she bragged about telling Congress "thanks but no thanks" to the pork barrel project. ...

After McCain introduced her as his choice for vice president on the Republican ticket, Palin talked about her reform credentials, and said she stopped the bridge project as part of an effort to end of earmarking in appropriations bills. ... She didn't talk that way when she was running for governor. The Anchorage Daily News quoted her on Oct. 22, 2006, as saying yes, she would continue state funding for the bridge because she wanted swift action on infrastructure projects. "The window is now while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist," she said.

More ...

"The money that's been appropriated for the project, it should remain available for a link, an access process as we continue to evaluate the scope and just how best to just get this done,'' the [Ketchikan Daily News] quoted Palin as saying. "This link is a commitment to help Ketchikan expand its access, to help this community prosper." The newspaper also reported that she said "I think we're going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project."

< Obama on Science | Mo Do on Sarah Palin >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Palin on the Bridge to Nowhere | 77 comments (77 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I'll bet (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by indy in sc on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:30:08 PM EST
    the Repubs are going to regret that "for it before he was against it" line they used on Kerry.  It gets so much usage now with McCain's dramatic shift from 2000 to 2008 (and now Palin).

    To be clear (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:30:16 PM EST
    She never refused the money. Congress still gave Alaska the money but without a mandate for building the bridge. She gleefully took the money and spent it on whatever she felt appropriate. It is a simple lie that, I hope, will be exposed.

    She is against earmarks because (none / 0) (#9)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:42:51 PM EST
    she prefers unrestricted funds - aka slush funds.

    Nevermind that the rest of us in other states and territories pay into that pool and have a legitimate right to expect Congress to come to some agreement about how federal money is spent.

    Here is a transcript of what Palin said Friday:

    McCain Palin VP Nomination Annoucement Speech

    And I championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress -- I told Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that bridge to nowhere.

    (APPLAUSE)

    If our state wanted a bridge, I said we'd build it ourselves.

    This statement is what I think one reporter meant when he said that she tells "simple truths".

    Parent

    Slush fund? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Oje on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:58:29 PM EST
    If you care to look into the history of Roosevelt's New Deal, it was a federal policy at that time for local governments to decide how to use federal money. The New Deal was pretty radical, and local control was built into the system to break resistance to a more active federal government in the midst of the crisis. If the dollars are put to use in their category of spending (transportation?), then this does not qualify as a slush fund.

    To me, bloggers who are chasing this story are attempting to obscure the difference between federal funding and legislative earmarks. The claim that Governor Palin rejected (though she was for it, before she was against it) an earmark for a bridge to nowhere does seem to be arguable. This does not really help progressives' larger position on federal funding of infrastructure (we support) and the question of earmarks (where we seem to have more differences).

    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by nalo on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:06:34 PM EST
    Palin lied on her national introduction speech on her main qualifications for national office.  

    She ran specifically for the bridge in 2006. Now she's claiming a false reformer cred of turning down the money for the Bridge to Nowhere...the money wasn't returned to repair broken bridges in MN or towards Katrina relief (nor did she really have the authority to that). She used it for other projects in Alaska that were may or man not have been more worthwhile, but rather they didn't have bad nation publicity of the Bridge to Nowhere. She loses out by not even living up to her election promise.

    So this is a flip-flop and a lie.  All the Alaska newspapers and the Republicans in Ketchikan are calling her out on it.  This is not bloggers chasing a false story.

    Parent

    Did she say she was against earmarks? (none / 0) (#50)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:36:59 PM EST
    I don't remember hearing that, and I'd be surprised if she did.  All local pols are in favor of earmarks.

    (Everybody does realize, yes, that "earmarks" are not additional money added to the budget, they're only specifying that some portion of whatever the larger budget item is goes to a project seen as worthy for their home states/communities, rather than leaving it up to the executive branch's discretion.)

    Parent

    I don't know from the quote - (none / 0) (#64)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 06:32:15 PM EST
    Here is what she said (again):

    "And I championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress."

    Sounds to me like she's trying to make you think that she has a problem with earmarks.  How do you read that line?

    She kept the money and used it.

    She just ignored the Congressional directive on its use.

    People hear the word "earmarks" and as a result of years of Republican misinformation they think "bad".  People in America haven't a clue how their government should work anymore and that goes for both sides of the political divide.  How in the world do people think things actually should get done?  By lottery?  Our Congress is supposed to direct spending.  Is there abuse?  The simple answer is yes.  Does that mean that random governors are supposed to make unilateral decisions about how federal tax dollars to which we all contribute are supposed to be spent?  The simple answer is no.  That is undemocratic.

    But McCain and Palin will get away with this deception because nobody is up to the challenge of disabusing the American public of the notion that an earmark is probably always better than a blank check - no matter how screwy the earmark in question is or more importantly seems to be.  That's how people like Ted Stevens work for the GOP cause to eliminate taxes - cynicism borne out of his corruption helps their argument.  Making you believe that your Congress-critter or Senator should NOT deliver your share of taxes back to your state is Gover Norquit's wet dream.  He and his kind want you to become so cynical that you help him and Ron Paul simply shut down the IRS.

    Parent

    It sounds like she was against (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:17:50 PM EST
    the abuse of earmarks, not all earmarks themselves.

    And the Congressional directive on the use of the money was that it did not have to be used on a bridge so she didn't. She instructed the legislators to find a more "fiscally responsible" way to spend it.

    Parent

    Wow, I can't even follow (none / 0) (#81)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:55:24 PM EST
    this diatribe.  It's late and I've had a glass of wine or two, so maybe it will make sense in the morning because your commeents usually do make sense to me.

    Till tomorrow.

    Parent

    It is confusing. (none / 0) (#84)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:51:27 PM EST
    Which is by design - not mine.

    Parent
    This isn't a flip-flop, it's called a lie. (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by steviez314 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:37:52 PM EST
    She says now she was against the bridge, but she wasn't.

    She was in favor of it until it became clear they wouldn't get the money for it.  That's like saying "you can't fire me, I quit."

    In NO WAY did she believe "it ws the wrong thing to do".

    Well as someone from the state that (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:24:37 PM EST
    wasted millions of federal money during the Big Dig, this all (even if true) sounds pretty run of the mill for politicians.

    for me that is the point though (none / 0) (#43)
    by bjorn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:29:16 PM EST
    I bought into the reformer thing based on her speech Friday.  She should not have opened that door (the bridge), there were too many contradictions behind it.

    I don't mind her being a typical politician just like McCain, Obama, and Biden....just don't claim you are against earmarks if you really aren't.

    Parent

    Please read my other comments on this thread (none / 0) (#82)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:42:32 PM EST
    Alaska (Murkowski) had already accepted the money, before Palin was Governor.  She changed the destination for the money when the bridge became too expensive, after she was elected governor.

    Not only quite common for a politician (I only wish it were more common, repeat example: The Big Dig), but it's quite common for people to do this in their own lives.  I often ponder getting a flat-screen TV.  Then I look at the prices and realize it's more expensive than I need.  (then I blow the money I saved on books, but that's me).

    There aren't too many contradictions unless you count the ones inserted in to the discussion by those who are only selectively reporting or summarizing the facts.

    Parent

    True enough (none / 0) (#47)
    by nalo on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:29:57 PM EST
    It's only relevant because she's citing her reformer cred as her main qualification for national office.

    Far from saving money, they have the road up to the beach and no bridge!  Talk about a waste of money.

    Parent

    Debate question (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by waldenpond on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:50:39 PM EST
    We'll get to see how she spins this...  I am sure Ifill will ask about this at the VP debate.  She has 32 days to figure out how to perform in a debate against Biden.  The McCain camp better have a lot of info on Biden for her or else she's going to get chewed up.

    palin IS a bridge (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Turkana on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:57:12 PM EST
    to the 13th century...

    best funny of the day for me! (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by bjorn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:09:04 PM EST


    Parent
    More like pre-1973. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:10:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Flip-flop (none / 0) (#1)
    by byteb on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:21:05 PM EST
    Reality bites.

    Good catch and one that bears repeating.

    The Republicans are ready for the attacks (none / 0) (#4)
    by stefystef on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:31:09 PM EST
    The whole party is nothing but flip flops... but now it's trying to become the party of "reform".

    Hahahahahahahaha, too funny.  But nothing to take lightly.

    I think given our own candidatees (none / 0) (#5)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:31:27 PM EST
    flipping anf flopping...might be another accusation we are on the quiet side about.

    She may have camapgined on a slight positive bent about the bridge but she did come to believe it was the wrong thing to do and then she killed it.

    She "killed" it (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:38:00 PM EST
    after the Federal government decided to give her the money without the requirement of actually building the bridge. A slight positive bent? She said last Friday that she told Congress no thanks to the Bridge to Nowhere. She did no such thing.

    Parent
    She decided she was "against" it (none / 0) (#65)
    by mbuchel on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 06:32:48 PM EST
    when it became a national joke.  Good try though.

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#6)
    by Polkan on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:32:20 PM EST
    There have been so many flip-flops on both sides during this campaign, this is going nowhere as an attack line on McCain/Palin. FISA? Drilling? NAFTA? Please...

    Once again (none / 0) (#10)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:43:07 PM EST
    that link goes back to a critic and political enemy. Not to mention we are not talking about full throated support of that bridge. Once she was elected and got into office she killed the project deciding the money was better spent on other projects.

    But by all means...keep banging away. I am sure that bloggers have scooped the Obama campaign and the vetting process and this is something that is so glaring it will push her out of the race and no one has even considered it in the McCain camp.

    Our candidate is sqeaky clean when it comes to this kind of stuff so lets throw some stones.

    Lord...I swear...we must, as a party, want to lose.

    You are wrong on this (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by steviez314 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:50:51 PM EST
    She did not "kill the project deciding the money was better spent on other projects."  She was not going to be given the money for the bridge period.

    By your standards, no critical information can be discussed since by definition, it comes from a critic.

    Since the McCain campaign barely vetted her, why be so harsh on the Obama campaign not having a think dossiier on her after two days?

    Parent

    So which is it? (none / 0) (#17)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:53:02 PM EST
    Did she get the money and keep it?

    or did she not get the money?

    It can't be both.

    The link provided did not give proof of anythng other than she changed her mind, which all politicians do.

    I really wish we could just stick to the theme of Obama/Biden are dems therefore better and say why, instead of getting distracted by a VP choice.

    I am off to do more research.

    Parent

    From Alaska Newspaper: (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by steviez314 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:01:30 PM EST
    That is not how Palin described her position on the Gravina Island bridge when she ran for governor in 2006.

    On Oct. 22, 2006, the Anchorage Daily News asked Palin and the other candidates, "Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?"

    Her response: "Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now -- while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."

    Palin's support of the earmark for the bridge was applauded by the late Lew Williams Jr., the retired Ketchikan Daily News publisher who wrote columns on the topic.

    Williams wrote on Oct. 29, 2006, that Palin was the only gubernatorial candidate that year who consistently supported the Gravina Island Bridge, the Knik Arm Bridge and improvements to the Parks Highway.

    Two months earlier, while campaigning in Ketchikan, Palin made a positive reference to the bridge, while also joking, as a resident of the Mat-Su Valley, about Sen. Ben Stevens' slap at Mat-Su residents as "Valley trash."

    "OK, you've got Valley trash standing in the middle of nowhere," Palin said on a stop in Ketchikan, a quote reprinted in the Juneau Empire Friday. "I think we're going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project."

    A year later, she issued a news release as governor saying Ketchikan needed better airport access, but a $398 million bridge was not going to happen.

    "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Palin said on Sept. 21, 2007.

    The money was not sent back to the federal government, but spent on other projects.

    That was hardly "Thanks but no thanks."



    Parent
    Link? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:17:50 PM EST
    First, it's against site policy to reproduce entire articles in the comments.

    Second, is this article by the guy who lost to her in the Governor's contest?  Because it sure sounds like he's making a fine living criticizing her at the ADN.

    That doesn't mean he's not accurate, but it does mean that he should be viewed with some skepticism.

    Parent

    This was about 1/3rd of the article (none / 0) (#38)
    by steviez314 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:20:02 PM EST
    and it was from an Alaskan blogger's page


    Parent
    Vla is right (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:27:02 PM EST
    the blogger in question is the man who lost to her. His name is Andrew Halcro, he has a blog and writes countless opeds about her in the ADN. He is also the main source of troopergate.

    Parent
    the articles policy isn't based on the (none / 0) (#58)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:58:26 PM EST
    percentage of the article quoted, it's to save bandwidth.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#59)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:59:54 PM EST
    I believe it is to comply with fair use laws regarding copyrighted material.

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#21)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:57:49 PM EST
    Right. The next post of yours that explains why Obama/Biden are the better choice would be the FIRST choice. She got half the money. How hard is that to accept?

    Parent
    I think dems are always a better choice (none / 0) (#27)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:02:05 PM EST
    However, I supported Hillary Clinton. I am yet to decide if I will vote for Obama/Biden or stay home. I do not need to be snarked at in order to make the decision. I also don't like thing to be taken out of context or to gain information provided by someone political enemy. Unbiased reporting, if there is such a thing, is best.

    I have found plenty on this subject. That quote from Sarah Palin supposedly supporting the project is the only time she spoke on the matter. She had no other public opinion. When she got into office the bridge became a hot issue nationwide and Alaska became the symbol for wasteful spending. She made a good decision.

    Link to ABC News: End of the Bridge to Nowhere

    Parent

    Are you simply ignoring (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:16:23 PM EST
    the facts that you don't like.

    Congress made a decision NOT Sarah Palin.  They cut the funding in half.

    As for her only supporting it once publicly.  Ketchikan Republican Kyle Johansen seems to think otherwise..

    "For somebody who touts process and transparency in getting projects done, I'm disappointed and taken aback," said Ketchikan Republican Rep. Kyle Johansen.

    "This is contrary to about every statement she has ever made," he said. "We worked 30 years to get funding for this priority project."

    Then there is this comment from Palin after it was officially killed after funding dried up...

    Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island.

    I would have more respect for her if she actually defended the bridge after it was cut.  Ketchikan is actually a lovely town that is completely isolated, I once visited on a trip to Alaska.  They could never afford building such a bridge but it would help the town considerably.

    Parent

    Thank You For Your (none / 0) (#44)
    by kaleidescope on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:29:38 PM EST
    Concern.

    Parent
    According to the ABC piece linked (none / 0) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:41:43 PM EST
    it would appear that Congress did not cancel the "bridge to nowhere," it simply removed the requirement that the money going to Alaska be spent on it.  If i'm reading that right, it means Palin/Alaska were perfectly free to use the money for the bridge as originally planned, they just weren't obligated to.

    It would seem, if the ABC piece has it right, that Palin therefore did, indeed, "kill the bridge to nowhere" by deciding to use the money for something else, no?

    I don't know how else to read that article.


    Parent

    The funding was cut in half (none / 0) (#56)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:56:10 PM EST
    and could no longer fund the project. State funds would be necessary which is why Palin cut it. They were certainly entitled to use the funds any way they wanted, and they did. How does this jibe with Palin telling Congress "No thanks" on the bridge?

    Parent
    It doesn't jibe (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 06:45:54 PM EST
    with her saying that.  Didn't say it did, did I?  I'd like to hear her explanation of the statement, though, or a little more background from at least semi-objective sources.

    Sorry, flyerhawk, but I've been taught the last X months not to trust any of this stuff any longer. The Dem. Party and its supporters have lied to me over and over and over and over again about other Democrats.  Why should I trust any of you on a Republican?

    I'm no longer willing to declare somebody evil on the basis of their party affiliation or their religious beliefs or any other factor and then go looking for proof of it after the fact, which is what it seems to me way too many people are doing with Palin.

    Not accusing you necessarily, but if the shoe fits, by all means put it on.

    Parent

    Evil? (none / 0) (#69)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 06:56:27 PM EST
    Of course she isn't evil. She actually seems like a decent person, albeit with some noxious political views. But this is the deep end of the pool and you don't get to say whatever you like because no one is that interested in following up to see if you are telling the truth. I oppose Palin because of her politics. I applause McCain picking her because I believe she will be a train wreck of a VP choice.

    Parent
    I agree entirely with (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:42:17 PM EST
    the first part of your comment, and I absolutely believe in following up to see if pols are telling the truth.  We're in total lockstep on that.

    But I still don't know for sure whether Palin has noxious political views.  She certainly holds personal views I find noxious, but so far, I haven't seen evidence she's hell-bent on imposing them on other people.  I freely admit I could be wrong on that, but that's the sense I get from the initial reporting.

    Isn't that what we liberals are for, being totally tolerant of different religious and moral views as long as they don't try to require the rest of us live by them by statute?

    And just fwiw, I think you're quite wrong that she's a "train wreck of a nominee."  I think she will appeal enormously to a lot of voters in this country.  But we'll see.

    Parent

    Here is what she said at the time (none / 0) (#71)
    by rachelann on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:02:56 PM EST
    Doesn't sound like Thanks But No Thanks to me
    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/

    We can debate the wisdom of her changing her mind about continuing the bridge without federal funding, but its not the point.  Her characterization on friday that she turned down federal funding is clearly not true

    Parent

    No it doesn't (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:51:06 PM EST
    it links to a British newspaper. She did NOT kill the project. Congress did.
    With criticism over earmarks increasing, Congress stripped the provision from the bill, requiring instead that some of the money be used for an airport. Alaska eventually received about half the money. Palin last fall directed that money to transportation projects statewide instead of for Ketchikan's bridge.
    She still took the money and spent on other projects. So she was for the Bridge to Nowhere until they cut it and then she was for using the money on others things because apparently the bridge wasn't that important in the first place. Your "Well Obama is twice as bad" canard to all criticisms of McCain/Palin is stale.

    Parent
    Very timely research (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:29:38 PM EST
    Thanks for the info.

    Parent
    Obama's earmarks, on the other hand, (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:06:58 PM EST
    benefited the faith based programs run by Father Pfleger.  Good programs, I might add.

    Parent
    Further info (none / 0) (#55)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:55:54 PM EST
    The article in the ADN (if read in full) says that her decision to kill the bridge project came after cost estimates rose substantially above the amount the federal government had allocated.

    So, Palin should have built the bridge anyway, based on a campaign promise which was premised on the federal money covering the bridge's costs?  (Alaska had already accepted the money before Palin become governor).

    When she made the 'promise', the state expected to have the funds to build the bridge.  When it became apparent that the costs had almost doubled (and went beyond the amount of $ from the feds), Palin decided to kill the project.

    That is, she reversed a promise based on an external change of circumstances.  Now, tell me again, what was the external change of circumstances that caused Obama to vote for the bill he'd promised to filibuster?  The fact that his campaign switched from primary to GE?

    Parent

    Thank you Val (none / 0) (#60)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 06:01:11 PM EST
    for showing what happens when you read an article in a reasoned way, without looking for a smoking gun.

    Parent
    Palin political panderer (none / 0) (#11)
    by wlgriffi on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:46:48 PM EST
    "She didn't talk that way when she was running for governor."

    Are you suggesting she (as a woman) hasn't the right to changing her mind?

    No. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Brillo on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:51:11 PM EST
    Nobody is suggesting that.  Why even try and imply something like that apart?

    Parent
    "Thanks but No Thanks" (none / 0) (#67)
    by rachelann on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 06:47:46 PM EST
    Isn't this missing the point.  She said Friday she turned congress down, and its just not true at all, only after the funding was changed and the cost estimates went up did she change her mind on the bridge.
    No one here has questioned the decision to change her mind, it was the mischaracterization on Friday that the project was rejected because she turned Congress down.  There doesn't seem to be any truth to the statement.

    By itself it might not concern you, but this in combination with the troopergate scandal should raise some concern about her veracity

    Parent

    Sounds reasonable (none / 0) (#80)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:48:38 PM EST
    bur I'd just like to hear her side of the story before passing judgment on it.

    She does stike me instinctively as a truth-teller, much as I disagree with so many of her views.  I'm reluctant to brand her a liar until I have a fuller picture than we have now, that's all.  I could be all wet on that, but that's my early impression.

    Parent

    Yes. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:49:49 PM EST
    Especially because people keep repeating, ad nauseum, that she said on Friday that she turned Congress down.  

    Could someone please link to a transcript?  Or video?

    I watched the Dayton thing and I didn't hear her say that.  Of course, I wasn't obsessively peeling her every word to be one up on the other gotcha players later in the day either, so I could be mistaken.  I do believe McCain said something about reducing wasteful Congressional spending, which might be considered related, but certainly is not a flip flop.

    Parent

    Transcript (none / 0) (#85)
    by rachelann on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:23:38 PM EST
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94118910

    Here is the passage

    I signed major ethics reforms, and I appointed both Democrats and independents to serve in my administration. And I've championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress thanks, but no thanks, on that "bridge to nowhere." If our state wanted a bridge, I said, we'd build it ourselves.

    Parent

    Not only can she change her mind (none / 0) (#12)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:50:42 PM EST
    but I bet her knowledge of the situation was far different as a candidate than as the gov. Some things you just have to change your mind about once you have all the facts.

    I would imagine (none / 0) (#16)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:52:28 PM EST
    Congress cutting the funding in half and removing the requirement to build the bridge probably had a lot to do with changing her mind.

    Parent
    Imagining and knowing for sure (none / 0) (#18)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:53:46 PM EST
    are two different things. Like I said I am off to do research. The link provided shows nothing.

    Parent
    I posted this info in previous thread (none / 0) (#19)
    by bjorn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:56:33 PM EST
    after conversation with friend in AK.  Her take, as someone who lives there, is consistent with the article and with what flyerhawk is saying...there has been plenty of flip flopping on both sides, but I do think I was wrong when I assumed she was telling the truth on Friday, and thus could call herself a reformer.  She will have to offer up more evidence of her reforms for me to buy that lable now.

    Parent
    She has also pointed to how (none / 0) (#24)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 04:59:18 PM EST
    she has reformed her party in Alaska while ignoring the fact that the investigations going on in Alaska are by the Feds and that her career depended on the patronage of Mr. Bridge to Nowhere himself Ted Stevens.

    Parent
    Have a gander at this (none / 0) (#29)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:05:05 PM EST
    From the Anchorage Daily News

    And this paper doesn't even support Palin

    Parent

    What? (none / 0) (#39)
    by nalo on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:21:43 PM EST
    Anchorage Daily News is who's calling here out on her flip-flop for the Bridge to Nowhere and lies based on quotes from Republicans.  

    Parent
    People should read the article at the (none / 0) (#46)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:29:47 PM EST
    link, because your summary does accurately reflect what is said in it.

    Parent
    Here is what she said at the time (none / 0) (#70)
    by rachelann on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 06:56:56 PM EST
    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/

    Parent
    I believe this is in response (none / 0) (#48)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:31:07 PM EST
    to the scoffing at the idea that she's any kind of reformer.

    Parent
    That event occurred (none / 0) (#49)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:34:37 PM EST
    5 years ago when she was on the Oil and Gas commission.  Her whistleblowing resulted in the guy getting a $11,000 fine.  And note that she wasn't the one who started the investigation.  Heck she wasn't even a whistleblower.  According to the article she was asked to investigate someone on her committee.

    Meanwhile, as governor, she has ignored the ridiculous nepotism and corruption that has occurred among the Young/Stevens cabal.

    If you want to think of her as a reformer, that's your right.  But the evidence doesn't really support it.

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#40)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:23:47 PM EST
    the Assistant AG of Alaska asked her to break into a computer and get details on some fellow Republican's activities? She gained political notoriety, ending up with her being elected by unseating the guy she was politically opposed to? I'll grant it was a good thing to do but I don't see this as some extraordinary act of selfless sacrifice by Palin.

    Parent
    Oh, well, that settles it (none / 0) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:43:27 PM EST
    She's guilty.  String her up!

    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#54)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:54:11 PM EST
    What does this even refer to?

    Parent
    ...does not... (none / 0) (#32)
    by andrelee on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 05:08:03 PM EST
    about Obama...

    Here is what she said at the time (none / 0) (#68)
    by rachelann on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 06:55:57 PM EST
    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/

    Here is the CNN article from when the bridge was actually cancelled quoting Pain

    Seems pretty clear to me (none / 0) (#73)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:21:38 PM EST
    "We will continue to look for options for Ketchikan to allow better access to the island," the Republican governor said. "The concentration is not going to be on a $400 million bridge."

    Palin directed state transportation officials to find the most "fiscally responsible" alternative for access to the airport. She said the best option would be to upgrade the ferry system.

    Parent

    huh? (none / 0) (#74)
    by rachelann on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:07:39 PM EST
    On Friday she said
    And I championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress -- I told Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that bridge to nowhere.

    She gave up on the bridge after losing the earmark- not before!  

    Parent

    Maybe you missed this part (none / 0) (#75)
    by rachelann on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:10:33 PM EST
    "Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here," Palin said. "But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

    She lost funding and could not afford the bridge- she didn't turn down funding as she said on friday

    Please, criticize her positions, talk (none / 0) (#77)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:38:48 PM EST
    about your positions, talk about both, but to be insulting because her beliefs are different from hers. We are all products of where we've come from and been in life and she has chosen which way she prefers. It only makes it different from yours.

    should read: because her positions (none / 0) (#78)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:39:16 PM EST
    are different from yours....

    Parent
    For what it's worth (none / 0) (#86)
    by bluejane on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 04:09:18 AM EST
    Honesty is not her long suit in the political rhetoric department, either. In that first statement to the world the other day she stole Bill Clinton's best line "Putting people first" which was not just one of his throwaway generic slogans but the title of his economic plan in 1992 and often used by Clinton in his speeches and campaign literature. One of the best lines ever is politics. She's got a good ear for great language, even if not her own.

    If she said, "As Bill Clinton put it, 'Putting people first' she might think that would be embarrassing. On the other hand, that would have a smart move to show her "hands across the aisle" creds (ha). She probably thinks she invented it.

    Palin on the Bridge to Nowhere | 77 comments (77 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment