August 31, 2008
— Open Blog USA Today headlines that Palin supported the bridge to nowhere, suggesting that she lied in her first public speech as VP candidate.
While running for governor in 2006, though, Palin backed federal funding for the infamous bridge, which McCain helped make it a symbol of pork barrel excess.
There doesn't appear to be any "there" there, however:
Asked why she supported the bridge, Palin's communications director Bill McAlister said, "It was never at the top of her priority list, and in fact the project isn't necessarily dead there's still the potential for improved ferry service or even a bridge of a less costly design."She changed her mind, he said, when "she saw that Alaska was being perceived as taking from the country and not giving, and that impression bothered her and she wants to change it. I think that Sarah Palin is someone who has the courage to reevaluate situations as they developed."
The headline will frame the issue however, describing Palin as just another hypocrite sucking up earmarks.
Are McCain and Palin savvy enough to predict and counter these sorts of leftist spin tactics from the mouthpiece of the DNC? It is an effective strategy to offer your opponent an arm, then when they overextend, give them a nudge into a tumble. If McCain's strategists have grokked that this is not the Media they thought they knew, they can use this particular bit of campaign judo again and again.
UPDATE: DrewM notes that according to this article, the 400 million was not actually diverted from Alaska at all. Rather, Congress killed the earmark, but allowed Alaska to keep the money to be used in other transportation spending.
Congresses head-fake on the issue in my mind reflects more poorly on them than on Palin, but keeping the money does seem to water-down her reformer credentials, and as Drew says, wouldn't have been nearly the applause line as "We told them no thanks, we'll do it ourself."
Palin's actions after being elected Governor and prior to any hint that she might be part of the 08 national ticket suggest she is supple enough to change her mind as the facts warrant.
This is an incredibly attractive feature in a leader, something McCain gets rightfully slammed for not possessing vis-a-vis the AGW hysteria and Amnesty.
It's no secret that I'm not a fan of McCain. I find his willingness to do things that benefit John McCain rather than things that help his country* to be incredibly vain and calculating.
All this makes the choice of someone like Palin all the more intriguing since she appears to actually embody the more conservative principles I feel McCain only occasionally pretends to have.
I'm still not even on the fence to vote for him, but I have to say: Despite all my previous assertions that I would never vote for the shit sammich, I feel for the first time like I could be convinced to do so.
If Palin continues to shine and can persuade me that she is not a McCain clone, I may just come to the conclusion that there is something less than disaster in store for the long-term Conservative ideals I believe in if McCain's ticket wins in November.
* McCain/Feingold, Amnesty, Gang of 14 etc...
Posted by: Open Blog at
07:31 PM
| Comments (72)
Post contains 572 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Christoph at August 31, 2008 07:34 PM (hawOV)
Posted by: Rocks at August 31, 2008 07:37 PM (7rbe9)
It's only been two fucking days. Two fucking days.
How long will it take for the entire Obama campaign to become a giant truther movement on anything Sarah Palin.
What is it about this woman who most people never heard of a week ago, that is making half the leftist world go completely berzerk?
Posted by: SlaveDog at August 31, 2008 07:41 PM (6Gy0q)
Once Palin spiked the bridge project, the money wasn't available to Minnesota or other states, however. Congress, chastened by criticism of the Alaska funding, had removed the earmark but allowed the state to keep the money and direct it to other transportation projects.
Now a case can be made that no governor would hand back the money but that's not exactly the impression she left on Friday.
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.
So yeah, she stood against an earmark but not at a net savings to the federal government and not in principled stand of self-reliance.
Posted by: DrewM. at August 31, 2008 07:44 PM (hlYel)
Posted by: Farmer at August 31, 2008 07:45 PM (VJ5hx)
I think the Biden gaffe has really explored its space so far. Yes, it shows a lack of understanding of military terminology, but little more. The intent of his statement maintains its integrity, however wrong-headed his reasoning may be.
Posted by: krakatoa at August 31, 2008 07:46 PM (lxcmS)
Yes, krakatoa, but the point is he did it TWICE, something no one has nailed him for. Seriously. Find any post anywhere where someone has mentioned that fact.
Posted by: Christoph at August 31, 2008 07:51 PM (hawOV)
Posted by: Christoph at August 31, 2008 07:53 PM (hawOV)
I heard the speech to. In fact I comment in the thread here how much I loved that line. I assure you, I wouldn't have loved it if it came with that caveat.
I linked to the transcript, there's nothing there about that, unless I missed it or the transcript is incomplete.
Posted by: DrewM. at August 31, 2008 07:58 PM (hlYel)
Palin spokeswoman Sharon Leighow said Saturday that as projected costs for the Ketchikan bridge rose to nearly $400 million, administration officials were telling Ketchikan that the project looked less likely. Local leaders shouldn't have been surprised when Palin announced she was turning to less-costly alternatives, Leighow said. Indeed, Leighow produced a report quoting Palin, late in the governor's race, indicating she would also consider alternatives to a bridge.
Posted by: Trollhammer at August 31, 2008 07:58 PM (iXM3B)
I don't know enough about the mechanics of budget -- Congress took away the earmark, but let Alaska keep the money which sounds very, well, bureaucratic. I guess the pertinent question is, did Palin request this funding be kept in Alaska?
Definitely adds some color to the issue. I think it probably reflects more poorly on Congress than Palin.
and Cristoph: I feel your pain man. You are slicin' like a hammer, but this ain't the thread for it.
Posted by: krakatoa at August 31, 2008 07:59 PM (lxcmS)
Posted by: Gran at August 31, 2008 08:00 PM (mTWN+)
Biden is a garden variety fool. I'll wait for a major gaffe before firing. Really dude, this one is small potatoes.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at August 31, 2008 08:03 PM (6L459)
I'm just saying that 'we'd build it ourselves' line is a lot different than, 'I told them thanks but no thanks on the bridge but we kept the money'. The latter version isn't really a big applause line is it?
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with what she did in keeping the money, I just think the reality may not exactly match the sheriff of the budget, we Alaskans take care of ourselves rhetoric.
Posted by: DrewM. at August 31, 2008 08:06 PM (hlYel)
Gran,
No, she made it sound like they never got it.
And it was Don Young who pushed for it.
Posted by: DrewM. at August 31, 2008 08:09 PM (hlYel)
Posted by: liontooth at August 31, 2008 08:10 PM (n3pxb)
Anyway, I'm not terribly bugged by her keeping the federal money. I would. I'm sure Alaska pays lots of federal taxes.
It's not using federal infrastructure money that's the big problem (one could argue about how this should be funded, state and/or federal). The problem is wasting it on a dumb-ass project. Using the same money to maintain Alaska's many roads, bridges, etc., that connect real people at a reasonable cost is a good use.
The problem wasn't "bridge" it was the "to nowhere" part.
Posted by: Christoph at August 31, 2008 08:12 PM (hawOV)
Christoph,
Fair enough but that's not what I'm talking about. The rhetoric in her speech was incredibly appealing. It also appears to be misleading.
She wanted credit for saying not to the money and being willing to build one with her own state's fund. The truth is she took the money and just spent it on other projects. How come she's willing to build a bridge with her state's money but not fund those other projects?
I'm not saying what she did with the money was bad or wrong but her rhetoric was misleading at best.
Posted by: DrewM. at August 31, 2008 08:16 PM (hlYel)
Posted by: Christoph at August 31, 2008 08:19 PM (hawOV)
Posted by: Christoph at August 31, 2008 08:19 PM (hawOV)
They got some of Bush's appointments through. And got Roberts on the Supreme Court, right?
Posted by: lorien1973 at August 31, 2008 08:19 PM (fE4SP)
Yeah but when McCain does the same it's reported as evidence he's got dementia. Besides, the fun part is to get under Biden's skin. He's such an arrogant prick that he will snap in a nasty way, like he did with that dude 20 years ago re: the IQ/college thing.
Check this out: Biden received 5 deferments before being declared medically ineligible for Vietnam because of Asthma in 1968. Biden is now 65
The Biden campaign states, "As a result of a physical exam on April 5, 1968, Joe Biden was classified 1-Y and disqualified from service because of asthma as a teenager," said David Wade, a campaign spokesman.
So if when Biden was 25 he was disqualified, is he healthy enough to be president NOW, 40 years later?
Posted by: liontooth at August 31, 2008 08:25 PM (n3pxb)
Seriously though, it's interesting that the coverage at least on this story has gone from painting her as a rube to painting her as a player. Either way it's a loss for the other side. And probably a sign of increasing nervousness at DNC head quarters. Better and better...unless you're Shrum and Brookhiser or silly enough to listen to an MSM lobbyist...er...reporter.
Posted by: The Obvious at August 31, 2008 08:31 PM (1g+FW)
Posted by: Christoph at August 31, 2008 08:36 PM (hawOV)
Posted by: Christoph at August 31, 2008 08:36 PM (hawOV)
Posted by: The Obvious at August 31, 2008 08:41 PM (1g+FW)
Posted by: The Obvious at August 31, 2008 08:42 PM (1g+FW)
But we don't have the disadvantage of bothering to listen to MSM reporters very much.Posted by: The Obvious at August 31, 2008 08:45 PM (1g+FW)
Posted by: liontooth at August 31, 2008 08:46 PM (n3pxb)
Posted by: Christoph at August 31, 2008 08:50 PM (hawOV)
BTW does someone have a link to the Palin acceptance speech in text to the part about the bridge?
Posted by: liontooth at August 31, 2008 08:56 PM (n3pxb)
Posted by: The Obvious at August 31, 2008 08:57 PM (1g+FW)
I may be wrong, probably drunk.
Posted by: Christoph at August 31, 2008 08:58 PM (hawOV)
I don't know how accurate that is, but if I have it close to right, then refusing the BtoN and keeping the money isn't dishonest on Sarah's part at all. Though it could be phrased to look that way.
Posted by: Nevicata at August 31, 2008 09:00 PM (8DaJ6)
However, that's a big if. Any chance you could find a source?
Posted by: Christoph at August 31, 2008 09:02 PM (hawOV)
That can't be t he case. If it were, they'd never ask for earmarks. People woud rather have the freedom to spend their money as they like.
Posted by: ace at August 31, 2008 09:23 PM (1WR4H)
What Ace said but also that's still not the impression she left with that 'no thanks' line. She wasn't saying she wanted the freedom to spend federal money as she saw fit, she said they would do it with their own money if they needed a bridge.
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.
That statement doesn't equal the situation you describe.
Posted by: DrewM. at August 31, 2008 09:32 PM (hlYel)
1. They attack Palin as inexperienced knowing full well Obama is weak on this issue. I mean she is after all the VP nominee. Don't they think this issue might eventually migrate back to the top of the ticket?
2. They try to group her with the corrupt Alaskan political class even though she got elected fighting against, and (cough) CHICAGO (cough). She tried to get a police officer fired for....eh... tasering a 10 year old and threatening to kill her father. Yikes!
3. They attack her on pork? WTF? Pork? Do they know how badly McCain wants to talk about Obama and pork? Michelle's 200K raise? Reskoe and Obama's "affordable housing" scheme?
And that's just the stupid shit, not the crazy shit.
Posted by: runninrebel at August 31, 2008 09:33 PM (qAMnO)
According to FactCheck.org, an earmark isn't necessarily additional funding from the feds, so much as it specifies how a portion of the funds given by the feds must be spent.
So it provides a way for a wily Congresscritter to get around having to persuade his state legislature to spend more money from the general fund on his district.
So the only question remaining would seem to be, in absence of the earmark, would the Feds have given 400 million less to Alaska that year?
Posted by: krakatoa at August 31, 2008 09:34 PM (lxcmS)
I think you're right that an earmark can be extra money or a string attached to money that would normally flow (transportation aide has a formula I think for states).
Even if it was the stings kind, I still think her statement was misleading. She wasn't saying she as Governor should have more freedom of action with money but that she would use the state's money if they wanted a damn bridge. I don't think that's a fair statement of what happened.
You can see here that the Palin administration didn't swear off earmarks entirely.
The Palin administration has responded to this message by requesting 31 earmarks, down from 54 last year. Of these, 27 involve continuing or previous appropriations and four are new. The total dollar amount of these requests has been reduced from about $550 million in the previous year to just less than $200 million.
That's obviously an improvement but not exactly the impression she gave on Friday.
Posted by: DrewM. at August 31, 2008 09:43 PM (hlYel)
That can't be t he case. If it were, they'd never ask for earmarks. People woud rather have the freedom to spend their money as they like.
I am the one who posted it. here - http://minx.cc/?blog=86&post=272043#c2830834 I know it to be true of earmarks in general. I will have to check to confirm if it is specifically true about the Gravina Island Bridge. I will do so and get back to you.
Posted by: jc at August 31, 2008 09:44 PM (E9BMW)
Actually it does if she's saying fuck off to telling us to spend the money on a worthless bridge, we'll spend it how we want thankyouverymuch.
Posted by: Christoph at August 31, 2008 09:51 PM (hawOV)
So . . . when congress orders a project, the Purpose and Need for the project is established by law and moves beyond the scope of anything a federal bureaucrat is allowed to contest. Earmarks are one way to cut red tape and bureaucratic power plays.
Posted by: jc at August 31, 2008 09:52 PM (E9BMW)
Here's a primer. Make up your own mind.
Posted by: jc at August 31, 2008 10:01 PM (E9BMW)
Where they stand (10/22/2006)
5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?
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.
.Posted by: Karl R. at August 31, 2008 10:02 PM (n3pxb)
Palin touts stance on 'Bridge to Nowhere,' doesn't note flip-flop
But Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it.
The Alaska governor campaigned in 2006 on a build-the-bridge platform, telling Ketchikan residents she felt their pain when politicians called them "nowhere." They're still feeling pain today in Ketchikan, over Palin's subsequent decision to use the bridge funds for other projects -- and over the timing of her announcement, which they say came in a pre-dawn press release that seemed aimed at national news deadlines.
"I think that's when the campaign for national office began," said Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein on Saturday.
Meanwhile, Weinstein noted, the state is continuing to build a road on Gravina Island to an empty beach where the bridge would have gone -- because federal money for the access road, unlike the bridge money, would have otherwise been returned to the federal government.
Posted by: liontooth at August 31, 2008 10:09 PM (n3pxb)
The bridge was intended to provide access to Ketchikan's airport on lightly populated Gravina Island, opening up new territory for expansion at the same time. Alaska's congressional delegation endured withering criticism for earmarking $223 million for Ketchikan and a similar amount for a crossing of Knik Arm at Anchorage.
Congress eventually removed the earmark language but the money still went to Alaska, leaving it up to the administration of then-Gov. Frank Murkowski to decide whether to go ahead with the bridges or spend the money on something else.
In September, 2006, Palin showed up in Ketchikan on her gubernatorial campaign and said the bridge was essential for the town's prosperity.
She said she could feel the town's pain at being derided as a "nowhere" by prominent politicians, noting that her home town, Wasilla, had recently been insulted by the state Senate president, Ben Stevens.
"OK, you've got Valley trash standing here in the middle of nowhere," Palin said, according to an account in the Ketchikan Daily News. "I think we're going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project."
One year later, Ketchikan's Republican leaders said they were blindsided by Palin's decision to pull the plug.
Palin spokeswoman Sharon Leighow said Saturday that as projected costs for the Ketchikan bridge rose to nearly $400 million, administration officials were telling Ketchikan that the project looked less likely. Local leaders shouldn't have been surprised when Palin announced she was turning to less-costly alternatives, Leighow said. Indeed, Leighow produced a report quoting Palin, late in the governor's race, indicating she would also consider alternatives to a bridge.
Posted by: liontooth at August 31, 2008 10:15 PM (n3pxb)
Posted by: cutting through the crap at August 31, 2008 10:35 PM (ynsah)
She said NO on the bridge, not necessarily on the earmark.
Can't wait to see how the socialists spin this one....
Posted by: Kal at August 31, 2008 11:05 PM (vYdn0)
Think of the children!
Posted by: greg s at September 01, 2008 12:05 AM (DlMoL)
Yes, or the Feds can demand the money back. The way it works is the Federal Highways Administration authorizes the Alaska State DOT to complete a project in phases. (eg. pre-design & enviro, design, right-of-way, construction) As each phase is completed, the FHWA authorizes another. If the state does not follow through on the project they have to give the money back. That is why ADOT is building the scaled down road on Gravina Island. Otherwise they would have to give all the EIS and design money back.
That's a key reason why Alaskans hate earmarks. Usually the earmark is not enough money to complete the project. It is just enough money to get the state or locality started on projects they can't really afford. By the time they figure it out they are screwed.
Posted by: jc at September 01, 2008 12:25 AM (E9BMW)
Logic must have left the building, along with shame.
Posted by: MarkD at September 01, 2008 02:48 AM (qZFLO)
No smear will be too stupid not to let loose- they had better understand that and react when needed.
Posted by: jjshaka at September 01, 2008 04:37 AM (Rr/+R)
Posted by: Frank G at September 01, 2008 05:10 AM (P0rQD)
Posted by: Frank G at September 01, 2008 05:16 AM (P0rQD)
<a href="http://rank.ranking-cafe.com/deadel/">出会いハニカミ!!</a>
<a href="http://frrk.jp/sehuman11/">セフレ</a>レストラン
<a href="http://rank.ranking-cafe.com/kekonl/">結婚ステーション</a>
<a href="http://www.1st-rank.com/m/sutabig09/">スタビストリート</a>
<a href="http://hitoem19.9th.jp/">人妻三丁目</a>
Posted by: モバイル出会い at September 13, 2008 03:47 AM (URIJq)
Posted by: Airlia at June 01, 2009 01:55 AM (NNxYx)
Posted by: Tatyana at July 12, 2009 09:34 AM (NNxYx)
Posted by: Ayisha at July 15, 2009 01:18 AM (RwHhp)
Posted by: Fantom vacuum cleaner at August 06, 2009 02:55 PM (bZ8te)
. Vintage bathroom furniture.Posted by: Vintage bathroom furniture at August 11, 2009 01:11 PM (bZ8te)
, Lowest one way airfare.Posted by: Lowest one way airfare at August 16, 2009 09:39 AM (bZ8te)
, Sinead.Posted by: Sinead at August 18, 2009 04:50 PM (qGMIj)
Posted by: fdsfsd at October 08, 2009 06:13 PM (eqMrT)
Posted by: ugg boots cheap at November 04, 2009 04:50 AM (bg72W)
Posted by: adsds at January 24, 2010 05:05 AM (bYUmd)
cheap wholesale nfl jerseys are only the beginning
in terms of what you can expect to find online now.
wholesale nfl jerseys Discount NFL merchandise is available in all sorts of
categories and products,wholesale nfl jerseys and
you'll love the selection that you can have access to for each and every time. Besides
other apparel like t-shirts, hats and jackets, you can find many other products like NFL
Fatheads.You can purchase cheap wholesale jerseys
if you action as well.
Posted by: 987654 at May 11, 2010 03:01 AM (8CdGY)
Posted by: oakleys sunglasses at February 22, 2012 08:53 PM (KauVU)
GHD Midnight Collection
GHD Midnight Collection Deluxe
Taken together, the suits filed in courts across the country amount to a multifront legal challenge to the league and to the game itself.GHD Midnight Collection Deluxe
Posted by: Cheap NFL Jerseys at May 18, 2012 09:39 PM (3Rq6/)
What happens when these rules come into conflict? Again, the supposed rule that takes precedence -- which we'll be hearing all the time in the Congressional hearings NFL Jerseys On Sale
Miami Dolphins Jerseys
New York Giants Jerseys
Miami Dolphins Jerseys
New York Giants Jerseys
-- is that of course, Rule 2 is the more important rule. Nothing, supposedly, is more important than national security and the preservation of troops' lives.
Posted by: Cheap NFL Jerseys at May 19, 2012 02:13 AM (3Rq6/)
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
