Reply With Quote
Oooh snap! She really told him!
Oooh snap! She really told him!
Did HUSSEIN say he was a reformer with no history of earmarks? HUSSEIN was calling out Palin's claim that she is a reformer and against earmarks, while in fact she is an Earmark Queen. He pegged as a liar, which she does habitually.
She's been pegged as liar and hypocrite on the bridge, about which she has not told the truth once since VP candidate: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0...tml?view=print
Um, the truth about the Bridge to Nowhere is that it was packaged with a bridge from Wasila to Anchorage that *was* needed.
As the mayor of Wasila, she wanted that bridge for her people. And it was needed as it actually would connect those two cities.
She hasn't lied about it, you lib s just have to hold on to anything you can, no matter how stupid it is, to try and make her look bad.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...5618/99/587721 yep, I see no coupling of the two bridges, and for a town of under 10K people, a bridge is "needed" that will cost even more than the Bridge to Nowhere?
link that the bridges were connected?
So if McCain is going to put a stop to Obama-type earmarking, wouldn't he be putting a stop to Palin-type earmarking as well?
Hush! The conservative s were having a moment.
I'll have to see if I can find a link to that one, a client mentioned it at lunch last week when we were talking presidential politics.
Earmark Queen of Alaska.
Someone's gonna figure out if she got more PORK per capita than any precinct in the United States. I bet she's pretty close.
Earmark Palin: WINNA!
This isn't going to get the Dems anywhere. She and McCain say they are against earmarks and people believe them.
Don't look at that man behind the mirror.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...in_part_i.html
The "for before I was against it" can go against anyone, whether good or bad, because of the system itself; it's unavoidable. So Obama to bash Palin for it, is really a 5 buck talking point. So whatever.
From what I've read up on Palin, it seemed like when she started, she was still working within the current system of Alaskan politics and she used those earmarks to benefit the city, where the demand for some public facilities were never delivered by the previous mayor. At least she didn't use the money to benefit herself but help develop the city. To her credit, she corrected the approach and wised up on the abuses of earmark spending and eventually sought reform, and cut exorbitant use of federal money and balanced the budget of the state.
I will say McCain's the only one who has the most credibility on the issue when it comes to wasteful using of earmarks. But Palin's actions to curb earmark abuses within her state and seek alternative revenue for the budget spending later on in her career for the people of Alaska, is commendable.
Obama's earmark spending is more blatant, since his were for his self interest (especially since he used some to benefit himself and get his wife a raise.) Plus , I've been trying to find where Obama's reforms for Illinois and Chicago were, and how he helped the people in Illinois but haven't found anything worth noting.
This guy's had his foot out of the door for every office he's run, he never really helped with actual "bottom-up" politics because he's been too busy selling that image for 2 1/2 years on the campaign trail.
As an independent I used to not mind Obama when the campaign started, I thought he was the preferable Democratic candidate because he had a refreshing take and a similar platform to Hillaries, but the more I look into him and his proposals (and past achievements--or lack thereof), the more he comes off a vapid, power hungry , clueless intellectual, with impractical naive solutions. He desperately seeks approval by telling people what they want to hear to the point where it gets exhausting.
The dems were better off with Hillary who is more to the center (not as looney-lefty) and for all her phoniness she actually had core beliefs to at least run another capable Clinton Administration.
Obama keep adjusting her stance on the issue every single time he gets called out for his flawed proposal or controversial remark. You don't know what you're getting with this clown.
It's hard to know what his promises are when he keep giving the opposition and critics credence by backpeddling on his position to appease them (his statement on taxes this week; his "paygrade" revision). He's a bull artist.
I have big doubts he's going to stand-toe to toe and reform the corrupt people abusing the system. He'll be too busy trying to be liked by them before that happens.
That the bridges were connected is news to me, I would like to see a link to that as well.
One wonders: If Governor Palin didn't stop the bridge, who did? Ted Stevens? Or is the bridge now under construction?
Until John McCain selected her as his running mate, it never occurred to anyone to deny that Palin stopped the bridge. That's certainly what the Anchorage Daily News reported on February 8, 2008:
And again on March 12, 2008:
I don't know how it could be any clearer: as the latest McCain ad says, Palin killed the bridge.
McCain Ad
Indeed, the Alaska Democrats themselves say, on a web site attacking Senator Ted Stevens:
It is frankly ridiculous to deny that Palin killed the bridge, as the ad says. If the Democrats want to attack some other aspect of her record, fine. If they want to say that she (like all state officials) was generally happy to accept federal money when it was offered, fine. But to say that the simple statement that she killed the bridge is a "lie" is false and disingenuous.Gov. Palin recently cancelled the Gravina Island Bridge near Ketchikan that would have connected the Alaska mainland with Gravina Island (population: 50).
The degree to which yonivore is full of misinterpreted increases linearly with the length of his posts.
yeah, McCain is still a standard politician. He's been using a blanket statement about earmarks for years, because it frames well, with his reformer "maverick" image.
He has his moments where he doesn't live up to what he says he is, but the earmark campaign talking point of his isn't really that big of a deal because pork-barrel spending and political perks do need to be reformed.
Nice rebuttal to linked references CBF.
So she didn't support the earmark at first or she did?
So she still spent a load of money or she didnt?
Your effort in this thread is like that of a really ty lawyer.
Who killed the bridge?
Why didn't you just type in "only Palin's earmark proposals were truly needed and asked for by her cons uency, and all others in the history of mankind were unnecessary" it would have saved you time.
That wasn't the question, its funny because your links say she supported it at first. Yet you yourself have not said that..hmm..
You guys are all full of . She supported the thing while she ran for governor. Fact. She took every bit of the money and used it in her state. Fact. I challenge any of you far right re s to explain to me how that differs from any other earmark and spending spree done by any other politician. AHF basically owned himself in that quote of his. Yonivore is incapable of hashing out a coherent argument.
So she did not build the bridge, noone said she did, but she is full of when she says she's not about all that spending, because she still spent a ton of money.
I'm sorry, I don't ever recall saying she never supported the bridge.
I'm saying the campaign isn't lying when it says she killed the bridge. Which, by the way, is what all the carping is about.
So, did she, or did she not, kill the bridge to nowhere. And, if she didn't. Who did?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions