Global Search

opinion

She said no, and yes, to "Bridge to Nowhere''

  • Article by: Scott Gillespie
  • Updated: September 9, 2008 - 4:07 PM

A number of news media organizations have tried to set the record straight on Gov. Sarah Palin's now oft-repeated campaign claim that she put the breaks on the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere.'' On Monday, an e-mail from the McCain campaign defended the claim and cited a Sept. 6 story by the Washington Post that said Palin's opposition to the bridge had angered top-ranking Republicans. The e-mail did not mention a Sept. 9 "Fact Checker'' from the Post, which gave Palin a three-Pinocchio rating, concluding: "While it is true Palin declared an end to the project, that's beside the point. It would be more accurate to say that she finally bowed to fiscal reality and congressional politics after a year as governor, and killed off a project that had become a national joke.'' Meanwhile, here's the e-mail from the McCain campaign:

  • 13

  • Comments

  • Results per page:
DesigngruntSep. 9, 08 4:23 PM

The only thing more ridiculous that calling a career politician a "maverick" who will stop HIS OWN PARTY from governing the way it's been governed for the last 8 years, would be saying a 20 month Governor of a state with less people than a few big cities is qualified to be VP! Hilarious.

13
7
oldblevinsSep. 9, 08 4:59 PM

She is a maverick and reformer. George W. Bush is a uniter, not a divider, the decider-in-charge. Change is coming alright.

8
5
jimbob21aSep. 9, 08 5:23 PM

Congress killed the earmark for the bridge in November 2005. Senator Stevens managed to keep the money for Alaska as undesignated funds. $442 million......Palin ran for Governor as a SUPPORTER of the bridge in November 2006---after Congress had already killed it. Also in 2006, Democrats took over Congress--the bridge was obviously completely dead at this point.....In Sepember 2007, Palin "officially" killed the bridge, but kept ALL of the money that Stevens had held out for it. She never said "no thanks", and never gave a dime of it back.......Why can't you guys just call these people the flat-out liars that they are?

13
6
dbthinkingSep. 9, 08 5:50 PM

We now have proof that she did more even before being elected Governor of Alaska then Obama has done as a junior senator from chicago land

6
16
lvanonymousSep. 9, 08 6:45 PM

So it's ok for Biden to be for the war, then against it (ie, change his mind)? It's ok for Obama to say he's going to take public funding, then refuse it? But it's not ok for Palin (or any other Republican, for that matter) to change their minds? Looks like the Democrats are really afraid of her...

4
14
jimbob21aSep. 9, 08 7:28 PM

Biden didn't vote for the war and then LIE about it. Obama didn't opt out of public funding and then LIE about it. Palin is LYING about her record on the bridge. Palin is LYING about her record on earmarks. McCain is LYING about those things, too. Pretty simple: McCain and Palin are LIARS, just like Bush and Cheney. That's "change you can believe in": more GOP LIARS in the White House.

16
6
stormb69Sep. 9, 08 7:38 PM

and the issue isn't that she changed her mind it's that she lied and claimed she was always against it. Alaska gets 10 times the earmarks per capita that Illinois does. The state is number one for earmarks per capita. Not an easy feat with Robert Byrd and West Virginia in the mix. When she was mayor the town had a paid lobbyist in Washington and got $27 million in earmarks, with a population of 6500. She loves earmarks, until it's politically expedient to be against them. Sarah Palin is simply a politician who is saying what she needs to say to get elected. If McCain doesn't get elected she will simply reinvent herself and try again with different values and positions. By this point, after watching all the campaign commercials, I really don't care which of them gets elected. As the bard said " A plague o' both your houses!"

14
4
khibdwbSep. 9, 08 7:42 PM

So it's ok for Biden to be for the war, then against it (ie, change his mind)? It's ok for Obama to say he's going to take public funding, then refuse it? But it's not ok for Palin (or any other Republican, for that matter) to change their minds? Looks like the Democrats are really afraid of her...posted by lvanonymous on Sep 9, 08 at 6:45 pm

Thy name is pot.

As I recall, the inventor of the infamous flip-flop was the GOP! More to the point, Palin was the one who, about the bridge and on prime time, loudly proclaimed, "I said 'thanks but no thanks!"

So it is very appropriate to underscore her fakery.

But, I would like to hear more about her associations with the Alaskan Independence Party. You know, the one that wanted Alaska to secede from the Union. And her ability to speak in tongues. And her conviction that the war in Iraq fulfills the will of God. Oh...and also her belief that God wants a new Alaskan oil pipeline built.

Now, I ask you, is this mainstream? Is the change that McCain is talking about bringing to Washington.

Please, keep the Christian taliban out of the White House and...vote Obama!

15
5
zeissSep. 9, 0810:38 PM

stormb69, she never claims to have always been against it. if you listen carefully, and you have to listen carefully in politics, the article above says that *after taking office* she consistently opposed it. the point isn't who signed the dotted line on the final veto (and it was probably her) or whether she ever thought it was a good idea (it may have been before the budget was finalized) but rather that she stood up to her party after doing due diligence as the project evolved, even if she was in error herself previously.

0
5
zeissSep. 9, 0810:43 PM

khibdwb and others, if you honestly think that considering the will of god when making decisions in your life is radical and bizarre, then you must never have set foot in a church before. no one who has ever been to church would be shocked to hear someone pray for god's favor in their life (regarding life, job, etc) or that they would be following god's will. this is as common as saying amen at the end of the prayer. "mainstream" folks are drawn to this, not turned away. her "ability to speak in tongues," which you just made up, doesn't deserve a rebuttal. seriously, how can you live in the US and be so ignorant of religion?

1
7

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

from the homepage

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: How are your seasonal allergies this year?

Weekly Question