The Democrat's Bridge to Nowhere Obsession

After watching Tony Knowles, the Democrat defeated by Sarah Palin for Governor, I am starting to be convinced that the Democrats are obsessed with the so called bridge to nowhere and Governor Palin's role in it. In answering nearly each and every question, he brought up the bridge to nowhere and attempted to minimize Governorner Palin's role in it. (along with a healthy dose of Palin/McCain will continue failed Bush policies) Here is how the Obama campaign characterized the issue recently.

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 state
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.

Finally, as Governor, she also passed ethics reform, and she had to reach across the aisle because Republicans weren't altogether excited about this reform.

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.