They're starting to run an ad now saying she (Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin) opposed the Bridge to Nowhere," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said today in Flint, Mich.Obama was referring to this new TV ad from the McCain campaign, titled "Mavericks," which states that Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere."
Well, now, let’s get the facts clear here," Obama said. "When she was mayor, she hired a Washington lobbyist to get earmarks -- pork barrel spending –- all the things that John McCain says is bad, she lobbied to get! And got a whole lot of it. When it came to the Bridge to Nowhere, she was for it until everybody started raising a fuss about it, and she started running for governor, and then, suddenly, she was against it!
"You remember that?" Obama asked the Flinters. "'For it before you were against it'? I mean you can’t just make stuff up. You can’t just recreate yourself. You can’t just reinvent yourself. The American people aren’t stupid."
Liberal pundits are also fond of pointing the inconsistency as this column illustrates...
Republicans have been heavily touting Sarah Palin's reformist credentials, with her supposed opposition to Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" as Exhibit A. But how hard did she really fight the project? Not very, it seems. Here's what she told the Anchorage Daily News on October 22, 2006, during the race for the governor's seat (via Nexis):
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.
So she was very much for the bridge and insisted that Alaska had to act quickly—the party of Ted Stevens and Don Young might soon lose its majority, after all. By that point, the project was endangered for reasons that had nothing to do with Palin—the bridge had become a national laughingstock, Congress had stripped away the offending earmark, shifting the money back to the state's general fund, and future federal support seemed unlikely. True, after Palin was sworn into office that fall, her first budget didn't allocate any money for the bridge. But when the Daily News asked on December 16, 2006, if she now opposed the project, Palin demurred and said she was just trying to figure out where the bridge fit on the state's list of transportation priorities, given the lack of support from Congress. Finally, on September 19, 2007, she decided to redirect funds away from the project altogether with this sorry-sounding statement:
"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," said Governor Palin. "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," Governor Palin added. "Much of the public's attitude 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."
As with most things in politics, the truth lies somewhere between where each side claims it is. First, it is absolutely true that Governor Palin originally supported this bridge and then changed her mind about it. So, the attack that she was for it before she was against is fair, however not very effective in my opinion. The reason it stuck to John Kerry is that he had the perception of being someone that changed his mind for political expedience. That is not the perception of Governor Palin. Ultimately, she refused the project though she kept the money allocated for it. Furthermore, by the time she refused the project, it had become a symbol of the corruption. As such, it wasn't necessarily the bold move she suggests. Still, whether or not she is misrepresenting her position comes down to another version of defining what is is.
What's more important though is how truly trivial the whole debate is. The bridge to nowhere in and of itself is somewhat trivial. What it has become is a symbol of the waste of D.C. The half billion dollar project, on its own, didn't effect the federal budget in any way. Furthermore, Palin's role in this particular fiasco is ultimately rather minute in her overall record. Merely dismissing the bridge to nowhere doesn't make her a reformer in any way shape or form. Yet, the Democrats are obsessed with "setting the record straight" on this bridge to nowhere. It's as if everyone knew that she was originally for it, or that it became unpopular before she nixed the project, that suddenly her entire perception as a reformer would dissipate.
I will let the Democrats in a little secret. Palin's perception as a reformer was cemented long before this and her credentials as a reformer grow from accomplishments significantly larger than this. Trying to bloody her on this particular matter will do absolutely nothing on her larger perception. When she discovered corruption on the Oil and Gas Commission, Palin became a whistleblower against her own party. This caused the removal of the powerful GOP Party Chair from the commission and eventually the removal of the Attorney General from his post. As Governor, she has cut the number of earmarks that the state has received in half from her predecessor. Palin even went as far as putting each and every state expenditure on the internet.. As Governor, Sarah Palin was not afraid at all to use her veto pen to cut wasteful spending.
Gov. Sarah Palin on Friday axed about 10 percent of the spending that stateFinally, as Governor, she also passed ethics reform, and she had to reach across the aisle because Republicans weren't altogether excited about this reform.
legislators approved for hometown projects.
This is the second year in a row Palin vetoed projects dear to legislators. She said lawmakers stuffed the $2.7 billion state capital budget too full.
"There were things like dealing with killer shrubs and Zamboni blades that are not the state's highest priority at the time," Palin said on Friday.
She cut $43,000 from the budget for landscaping at Klatt Elementary in South Anchorage. A legislative document justified the money, saying "the risk of a child impaling themselves is substantial." Palin also vetoed a Homer Zamboni blade sharpener.
An ethics reform package for state officials was signed into law Monday by Gov. Sarah Palin, just minutes after a former state representative was convicted on seven federal counts of extortion and bribery.
Palin said the law will help re-establish trust between the public and elected officials by improving on existing statutes. The conviction of former Rep. Tom Anderson, an Anchorage Republican, makes the law more necessary than ever, she said.
"I believe it could be a precursor for what's to come, and it's unfortunate," she said. "This bill is a good start to getting the comprehensive ethics reform that we need here in Alaska."
Three more current or former Alaska lawmakers face corruption trials this fall. The former top two officers of Veco Corp., an Anchorage oil field services company, have pleaded guilty to bribing lawmakers.
This debate over the bridge to nowhere is silly and trivial. It's as though Palin's entire record hinges on her pure and enduring opposition to that project. Do the Democrats really think the public believes that her entire record rests solely on her opposition to this bridge? This obsession once again proves that the Democrats are totally dumbfounded as to how to deal with her. Focusing on the bridge to nowhere misses the larger debate. Even if the Democrats win the debate on the bridge to nowhere, they are going to do little to minimize her image as a reformer. It is these larger points whistleblowing, the veto pen, ethics reform, transparent government that have given her the well earned reputation as a reformer. It is these points that the Democrats refuse to address because they have no answers on them. The bridge to nowhere is a side issue and the country largely can comprehend this. The Democrat's obsession with it reveals that on the larger record they have no criticism, and I believe the country largely understands this as well.
12 comments:
They don't have a clue because they don't play the game that way. Obama and his Chicago cronies don't fight their opponents in direct combat on the field; they use the guerilla tactics of smears, dirt-digging and barely legal dirty politics. Actual qualifications are obviously irrelevant or they wouldn't have pushed Obama to the forefront in the first place. Power is the goal, not service or governance. I wasn't a big McCain supporter before Palin but no one could argue against his steady, consistent fight (however wrong-headed it is at times) for what he feels best serves the American people. Palin is another power-to-the-people warrior. The difference between the two tickets is blindingly obvious to everyone except Obama's strategists.
The Dems will keep loosing on this issue because they can not change history. They have an obsession to "bring down or destroy or distort" anyone or anyone's words who do not agree 100% with them. Here is an article from the Citizens Against Government Waste, CCAGW, issued Sept 11, 2008 regarding the "Bridge to nowhere".
Gov. Palin is CORRECT. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, "As governor, she submitted her budget on January 17, 2007 without any money for the bridge. On July 17, 2007, the Associated Press reported that “The state of Alaska on Friday officially abandoned the ‘bridge to nowhere’....“The 2006 transportation appropriations bill allowed Alaska to decide whether or not to move forward. Governor Murkowski said yes; Governor Palin said no.”
Look at the details behind the article, all linked to facts not opinions.
http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594
I'm glad to see your fair and balanced opinion on the topic. I'm afraid you miss the mark on the cause of the Democrat "obsession" however. If Gov. Palin wanted to tout herself as a reformer using other examples, most Dems would leave it alone. But it is her repeated claim that she was against the bridge, ad nauseum, that seems disingenuous, and when combined with some rather deceptive ads from the McCain campaign, gives the impression that the Republican ticket is quite happy with blatantly lying to the American perople.
I'm glad to see your comment is fair and balanced. I am sure you were just filled with righteous indignation when Barack Obama attempted to paint John McCain as wanting to keep the Iraq War going for 100 years. A point you could only make if you only repeat one part of a comment John McCain make and thus take him totally out of context. I am sure that you were filled with righteous indignation when Barack Obama touted that he supported welfare reform when the reform legislation he was talking about he himself opposed in the Illinois Senate. I guess you are only up in arms when it is the other side perceived to be manipulating.
The fact is that there is no lying or misrepresentation here. She did say thanks but no thanks to the bridge. Period. That she initially supported it is not relevant to the fact that ultimately she didn't accept funding for the bridge and used it for other projects. There is no lying at all.
If you really think that people are voting for her because she simply stopped the bridge to nowhere you really don't understand her phenomenon.
I never said the Democrats were not guilty of prevarication. In fact, the Democratic party's slight misrepresentation of the "100 years" in Iraq meme (and I stress "party", Clinton, Edwards, and Obama were all guilty) is also a fib, and they should rightfully be called out for it. Just as Gov. Palin should be called out for giving the impression that she brought about the reform that led to the "Bridge to Nowhere's" downfall, when in fact she just jumped on the bandwagon.
All politicians fib. Every single one. The problem is when it becomes a consistent basis for a campaign.
Slight misrepresentation, are you kidding me right now.
McCain gave an explanation in which he imagined a long term presence similar to the one we have in Italy, Germany, and Korea and the Democrats characterized it as wanting U.S. soldiers in a war zone for a hundred years.
This is what you call slight. Are you serious?
Like I said, she ruled the bridge to nowhere out of the budget. She never said she brought about the reform. She said thanks but no thanks. That's exactly what she did. This reform was a tiny part of the overall reform platform that she brought to Alaska a platform that none of you can or will challenge because her credentials as an agent of refomr are not in doubt.
Instead, you all want to get into a debate over minutae over who was more responsible for ending the bridge to nowhere. It is an entirely trivial debate, and it is infinitesimal to her overall record.
Yes, I say slight. If you look at the exact quotes, you find that, until recently, most of the party has just said the words "100 more years in Iraq", simply implying more engagement. Even without the implication, there are many citizens (and some experts) who want no military presence AT ALL in Iraq. Many see that as just making the situation as potentially more volatile and provocative, not less. But recently they've been adding "of war" in there every now and then, and that is indeed shady, though they could argue that the area will not ever be as stable under US watch as say, the Korean DMZ (which is still a powder keg waiting to go off), and thus there will be a potential warzone for many, many years to come.
You could just as well argue that the McCain campaign's "lipstick on a pig" reaction was just as outrageous/misrepresentative. Or the proclamation that Obama would rather "lose a war than lose an election". Both sides are fighting dirty here.
But, back on the topic at hand. If Mrs. Palin has such a strong, rock solid record of reform, why mention the Bridge to Debate at all? Why not mention something unassailable?
If you are going to distort, it is much better not to distort to someone who has studied the situation. I actually wrote a piece about how the Dems distortied this comment...
http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/05/distortions-in-21st-century.html
There was nothing slight about this distortion. The Democrats thought they could turn McCain into a war monger because of this statement. Now, you ought to quit misrepresenting what people said and did, I am fairly politically well versed.
Nothing that McCain or Palin did comes in the same ball park as the distortion of McCain's statements by Democrats.
The reason she mentions it is because she did refuse the bridge to nowhere. In other words, why wouldn't she take credit for what she did? Do you think that her predecessor would have done the same? I think not. It was these small steps, along with getting rid of the jet and the cook, that was a part of the overall spirit of reform.
Again, I'll say that most of the party didn't take it so far to start adding "of war", sadly, the candidates did. And again, it's reasonable to assess that an occupation in an area that has such virulent philosophical and political opposition to the U.S. could lead to no easy 100 years, at least on the front end. Is that a bit of stretch? Perhaps, but it is not wholly without merit.
And again on Mrs. Palin, what exactly was she taking credit for at that point? Going along with the majority that felt it was a doomed project? Giving back the money? (she didn't). Again, if she's going to be presented as an agent of reform (her basis for even mentioning the issue), I would think there would be something more significant to showcase.
By most of the party you of course mean most except for its current Presidential candidate. Are you serious? Do you think that the statements I included were the only ones made, or do you think that I chose a few to give everyone an idea of the distortions? Give me a break.
The whole quote, the one that the Democrats refuse to acknowledge was
" As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that’s fine with me. I hope that would be fine with you"
The only occupation that McCain was in favor was of one that insured the safety of American soldiers.
Look stop trying to defend them.
The money was allocated for the bridge. If you know anything about Alaskan politics it rivals that of Chicago in terms of corruption. Politics as usual would have said that the governor still spend it on this bridge which she could have since it was allocated. What she did, while inconsequential to you, was in fact, was actually not business as usual in Alaska. It is just that simple. Most politicians in Alaska would go along with corruption no matter how brazen. Now, you may not be familiar with how corruption works, but here is a great story from my town.
" and currently running for Cook County State's Attorney (on a platform of rooting out the very corruption I am talking about). He described one Cook County Board meeting in which the then President, John Stroger, was trying to muscle through a no bid contract that Peraica and his allies had traced back to a buddy of Stroger. According to Peraica, Stroger was trying to muscle it through in less than the four business days that was called for. The action was voted against 15-2 according to Peraica. With news cameras rolling, Stroger brazenly said that the motion passed despite being overwhelmingly voted against."
So this idea that the bridge wouldn't have been built with or without her pulling the plug is nonsense. Corrupt governments know no end to their corruption.
Of course I say most of the party. I can find just as many quotes from Howard Dean et al. that are not nearly as bad. Any rational person (and yes, there are plenty of those in both parties) knows the spirit of what McCain meant. What's in question is if that could actually come to pass in that region. Lots of people don't believe so, and as such, the idea of 100 years there with nobody getting hurt seems ludicrous to them.
As for the bridge: it's quite clear she supported it until it became unfavorable in Washington, in the national media, and even in the state of Alaska itself as a "posterchild" for wasteful spending. This wasn't about fighting corruption so much as it was about following the political flow, which in this case turned out to be the right decision. Sure she said "thanks, but no thanks", but in the context (context works both ways) of showing her chops as a reformer, it seems a bit disingenuous.
And we'll have to agree to disagree, because I have other things to do now :)
Unless you double as a mindreader, you have no idea what was clear in Sarah Palin's mind. The bottom line is the governor nixed the project. Period.
As for Democrats, I could dig up the mass email that Howard Dean sent claiming that McCain wants to continue the war for one hundred years. It is just plain silly to pretend as though this wasn't said by the Democratic party at large. To claim that only everyone running for President said it is nonsense. Are you now saying that the leading candidates for President said one thing while most of the rest of the party said something else? Give me a break.
Post a Comment