Reply With Quote
You're changing the narrative.
People are calling McCain a liar because he claims -- truthfully -- that Palin killed the bridge to nowhere.
Pwnt, es.
You're changing the narrative.
People are calling McCain a liar because he claims -- truthfully -- that Palin killed the bridge to nowhere.
Actually when I read the original post, Obama says that Palin originally supported it, then did not. But maybe I haven't eaten enough paint chips or sucked enough to read articles the way you do.
Has she claimed otherwise?
See, I thought all this time that the information is right there in front of our faces that she supported it first, then stopped supporting it. And I thought that liberal bloggers were jacking off to Palin being hypocritical about spending money.
Again, must be the paint chips/ s in the face thing.
Are you trying to make a point?
Long before Palin killed the project, Congress washed its hands of the bridge. In the transportation spending bill that included money for the Ketchikan bridge, Congress deleted the wording that would have directed money for the project, though it left the money in place so Alaska officials could decide which transportation projects to spend it on. As a result, Alaska diverted much of the $223-million from the federal government to other projects, leaving the Ketchikan-Gravina bridge project woefully underfunded, and with no prospect of additional federal funding. That was the point at which Palin formally killed the bridge project.
Several of our readers wrote to us saying we were too generous with our ruling, that Palin had flip-flopped on the issue, at one time supporting the bridge before later opposing it.
While running for governor in September 2006, Palin assured the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce she was all for the bridge.
“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,” Palin said then, according to a story in the Ketchikan Daily News. “This link is a commitment to help Ketchikan expand its access, to help this community prosper.”
“I think we’re going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project,” she told the audience.
And in a written questionnaire for the Anchorage Daily News the following month, October of 2006, Palin was asked directly, “Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?”
Her answer: “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 position began to shift once she became governor, however.
Palin took over as governor in December 2006 and in February 2007 her proposed state budget didn't include state funding for the Ketchikan bridge. A spokesman noted that Palin's proposed capital budget focused on projects that could draw federal money, too. At that point, according to the Ketchikan Daily News, the cost of the bridge had risen $67-million and former Gov. Frank Murkowski had recommended putting $195-million in the state budget for Ketchikan's bridge.
In defending the change of position this week, Palin campaign spokeswoman Maria Comella said Palin “acted like a responsible and effective executive. After taking office and examining the project closely, she consistently opposed funding the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ and ultimately canceled the wasteful project.”
It’s true that on Sept. 21, 2007, Palin officially killed the project.
“Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398-million bridge is not the answer,” Palin said in a prepared statement. “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.”
But she wasn’t sounding like someone who opposed the project as wasteful either.
“Much of the public’s at ude 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.”
So the question here is whether Palin flipped positions on the project, or conceded to the political reality that opposition had become too strong against it. Without further support from Congress, Alaska would have had to shoulder most of the cost itself.
Palin’s quotes about the project this week seem to suggest she opposed the project.
“I’ve championed reform to end the abuses of earmarked spending by Congress,” Palin said at a joint appearance with McCain in Washington, Pa., on Aug. 30. “And I did tell Congress, thanks but no thanks for that bridge to nowhere. If our state wanted to build a bridge, we were going to build it ourselves.”
McCain said Palin has “stopped government from wasting taxpayers’ money on things they don’t want or need. And when we in Congress decided to build a bridge in Alaska to nowhere for $233-million of yours, she said, we don’t want it. If we need it, we’ll build our own in Alaska. She’s the one that stood up to them.”
Nevermind that Alaska didn't give the money back. It spent the money on other transportation projects.
The context of Palin’s and McCain’s recent statements suggest Palin flagged the so-called Bridge to Nowhere project as wasteful spending. But that’s not the tune she was singing when she was running for governor, particularly not when she was standing before the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce asking for their vote. And so, we rate Palin’s position a Full Flop.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/680/
---------
So it seems she only killed it, after Congress had already killed it.
LOL CBF is fired up.
Yonivore seriously take 2 minutes and read this thread, this very thread we are in together, from start to finish, not finish to start.
Where did this carping about her not killing the bridge start? You started it you ing dumbass. Noone was talking about that before you. Talk about changing the narrative.
"Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye." (Matthew)
Obama should pay more attention to what his Christian faith teaches.
That certainly should shut him up about earmarks.
pwned
Okay CBF, the conversation about this topic is not limited to this thread. There is a whole narrative being built around the McCain ad today that says he lied. I'm sorry if you can't think beyond Spurstalk.
Frankly the thread-starting post doesn't really start a conversation about anything...it merely quotes two candidates. Frankly, Palin took Obama to school with her response.
Hey, she has an 80% approval rating in Alaska. What does Obama and his colleagues enjoy? Something South of 20%, if I'm not mistaken.
Damn, here I was posting in a thread, thinking my posts applied to what had been said and established in this thread, you know, kind of like a conversation. And here I thought that in a conversation, people add new things to build on. Yeah, so when you add new things, its legit, yet when I scoff the ever living out of you for not seeing the forest for the trees, I'm changing the narrative If people are saying Palin did not change her mind about the earmark, then they are dumbasses.
You're changing the narrative.Hey, she has an 80% approval rating in Alaska. What does Obama and his colleagues enjoy? Something South of 20%, if I'm not mistaken.
Did she spend the money or not?
Okay, took your advice
Well, that's not what the ad says...the ad says she killed the bridge to nowhere, which she did.
http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/sha..._earmarks.html
Am I allowed to post this? Or is this changing the narrative?Here’s a pretty comprehensive rundown of Palin’s do ented record on requesting earmarks. In her second term as Wasilla mayor, she got a total of $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of fewer than 9,000 people.
As governor, she requested $254 million in earmarks last year, and $197 million in earmarks this year. As the Seattle Times story notes, that’s more per capita than requested by any other state in the union:
“Palin’s requests to Congress came at a time of huge federal deficits, while Alaska state revenue was soaring due to rising oil prices and a major tax increase on oil production that Palin signed into law in late 2007.
As a result, Alaska this year was in such a money-flushed condition — with no state income tax or sales tax and total state revenues of $10 billion, double the previous year’s — that Palin gained legislative approval for $1,200 cash payments to every Alaskan.”
This, from the candidate who said Wednesday night that she “championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.”
She's a hypocrite yonivore, thats what obama was talking about, thats what the real issue is about. Just admit it and maybe you wont go straight to upon death.
She killed it, only when there was no possibility of it being funded.
No, I'm not. Did McCain run an ad that said she opposed the bridge to nowhere or that she killed the bridge to nowhere?
Well, I don't see that as the question being raised here.
I see the question as, "Is Obama ed because he has resorted to distorting a McCain ad into a strawman that Can't Be Faded has picked up and run with."
So if the issue is now about distorting facts, am I allowed to point out them distorting Obama's views during the RNC speeches? Or is that changing the narrative?
No, by all means, change the narrative.
How, by the way, does a city mayor or Governor request earmarks in federal legislation? Congress (or their lobbyists) write legislation and earmarks.
And you guys still need to learn the meaning of the word hypocrite.
I guess Mr. Dictionary needs to come in andsave the day.
ROFL. The quote of mine you just quoted says in the article that she requested the earmarks as governor.
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/...901411709.html
Record Contradicts Palin's 'Bridge' Claims
The Bridge to Nowhere argument isn't going much of anywhere.
Despite significant evidence to the contrary, the McCain campaign continues to assert that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told the federal government "thanks but no thanks" to the now-famous bridge to an island in her home state.
The McCain campaign released a television advertisement1 Monday morning led "Original Mavericks." The narrator of the 30-second spot boasts about the pair: "He fights pork-barrel spending. She stopped the Bridge to Nowhere."
Gov. Palin, who John McCain named as his running mate less than two weeks ago, quickly adopted a stump line bragging about her opposition to the pork-barrel project Sen. McCain routinely decries.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain (right) and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, at a campaign rally in Lee's Summit, Mo.
But Gov. Palin's claim comes with a serious caveat. She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere.
"We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge," Gov. Palin said in August 2006, according to the local newspaper, "and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative." The bridge would have linked Ketchikan to the airport on Gravina Island. Travelers from Ketchikan (pop. 7,500) now rely on ferries.
A year ago, the governor issued a press release that the money for the project was being "redirected."
"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," she said. "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. Much of the public's at ude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."
On Monday in Missouri, Gov. Palin put it this way: "I told Congress thanks but no thanks for that bridge to nowhere. If the state wanted to build a bridge we would built it ourselves."
Senior adviser Mark Salter pointed to her role in killing the project while in office and allocating the money elsewhere. When pressed further that it was actually Congress that stopped the earmark, Mr. Salter said: "She stopped it, too. She did her part." Mr. Salter added that he welcomed a fight over earmarks with the Obama campaign.
Democratic candidate Barack Obama used a town-hall style event in Flint, Mich., to attack Gov. Palin over the "Bridge to Nowhere" debate. He accused the vice presidential nominee of lobbying for the bridge and then hiding her initial position when she ran for governor and the project became unpopular.
"You can't just make stuff up. You can't just recreate yourself. The American people aren't that stupid," he said. It's like "being for it before you were against it," Sen. Obama said, a reference to a damaging statement John Kerry made in 2004.
Why is this one issue such a big deal? Sen. McCain's anti-earmarks stance has been paramount to his campaign. The Arizona senator has blamed everything from the Minneapolis bridge collapse to Hurricane Katrina on Congress's willingness to stuff bills full of pork barrel spending.
As such, Gov. Palin's image as a "reformer" is part of the storyline the McCain campaign needs to complement the top of its ticket. Her quip about passing on the bridge and "building it ourselves" has been a staple of her stump.
But she's drawn considerable fire as result. Sen. Obama's campaign released an advertisement pointing out her original support of the bridge. And on Monday, an Obama staffer emailed a photo of Gov. Palin holding up a T-shirt that was made shortly after the bridge caught national attention. It reads "NOWHERE ALASKA" and "99901," the zip code of Ketchikan.
The McCain campaign jumped back with spokesman Brian Rogers calling the attacks "hysterical."
"The only people 'lying' about spending are the Obama campaign. The only explanation for their hysterical attacks is that they're afraid that when John McCain and Sarah Palin are in the White House, Barack Obama's nearly $1 billion in earmark spending will stop dead in its tracks," Mr. Rogers said.
At a rally today, Sen. McCain again asserted that Sen. Obama has requested nearly a billion in earmarks. In fact, the Illinois senator requested $311 million last year, according to the Associated Press, and none this year. In comparison, Gov. Palin has requested $750 million in her two years as governor -- which the AP says is the largest per-capita request in the nation.
But kept the money.
Am I too late to say that?
It's kind of off topic but, go ahead since you seem to be lost in the whole earmarked bridge to nowhere debate.
Now, let us all guzzle about ten loads of elephant and maybe that article will say "Obama's earmarks = bad, Palin's earmarks = good"
way to edit your post
I don't think I've ever owned the out of you like this before.
You are losing your edge
So? Is there any claim that she didn't keep the money?
Maybe she and McCain disagree on earmarks...maybe she's had a change of heart on earmarks...but, either way, it doesn't matter. The McCain message is no earmarks. She's on board. What are you going to do?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions