.jpg)
Posted on 09/09/2008 1:43:30 AM PDT by BigSkyFreeper
Focus in the media seems to be trying to find something to pin on Sarah Palin in hopes that it sticks there. I thought that some of this needs to be pushed back against their efforts to bring down Governor Palin, particularly the charge that Sarah Palin was for the Bridge To Nowhere.
Back in 2005, Congress voted on and passed H.R. 3058 [109th Congress]: "Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia,…". This purpose of this bill was for "Making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes."
Now, here's where it gets interesting. Before being passed by the Senate it underwent 181 amendment proposals (49 by the House, 132 by the Senate). One of the Senate amendments, proposed by Tom Coburn (R-OK), S.Amdt. 2165, "To make a perfecting amendment," was proposed on October 20, 2005. The original full text of the amendment can be found here, but the amendment basically took money that was, in the original bill, allocated to 2 "Bridge to Nowhere" projects in Alaska, the Knik Arm Bridge, and the Gravina Island Bridge, and would put this money toward rebuilding the Twin Spans Bridge which was bridge connecting New Orleans to Slidell, LA, that was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.
So, who voted against this amendment? The same people who have been lying about Sarah Palin, saying that she supported the Bridge to Nowhere projects. That's right. Barack Obama and Joe Biden voted to keep this money going toward the Bridge to Nowhere instead of spending it to rebuild after Katrina. Senator McCain was not in the Senate that day.
Later, that same day, Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) (yes, the terrible Republican who got so much pork barrel spending for his state) proposed S.Amdt. 2181: To ensure reconstruction of the Twin Spans Bridge. He probably felt bad about the money going to his bridges instead of the New Orleans bridge. Who voted against this amendment? That's right, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Again, no vote from McCain, since he wasn't there that day.
So Barack Obama and Joe Biden voted twice against funding to rebuild after Katrina, but didn't vote to stop funding TWO Bridge to Nowhere projects? And Obama/Biden call Palin a hypocrite? Palin has always been against the Bridge to Nowhere and for good reason. She didn't want the American taxpayers to foot the bill on it. Obama and Biden on the other hand were always for it, and they were against rebuilding a bridge and a city damaged by Hurricane Katrina. I dare ask, is this change we can believe in? No, to me, this is the same old Washington politics as usual.
Won;t see that on page one.
Of course not.
Liberals are not logical. They are idiots. Useful idiots. They go for anything that sounds good.
It’s pretty easy to understand compactly. Let’s say it’s a TV commercial, we see Obama talking about Palin and the Bridge. Narrator: “But Sen. Obama voted FOR the bridge—twice. And the only reason it wasn’t built is because Sarah Palin stopped it.”
The one project that has bugged the hell out of me is the "Big Dig" in Boston. Thanks to pinheads like Ted Kennedy and those who voted in favor of it in Congress, the American taxpayers are footing the bill on that.
I think 0bama has been Rope-A-Dope’d big time.
Bridge to nowhere?
Please somebody, anybody ask Biden about Delaware’s fiasco known as the “Bridge over the Indian River Inlet”.
Sorry but she should simply not use this issue in her speeches because she clearly said in this 2006 Alaska governor discussion (link above) that she supports this bridge
The other guy after her was against this pork project perhaps everybody should vote for him
I've watched with interest as she has repeated the "thanks but no thanks" line on the stump. It leads me to believe they think they have a suitable explanation. She was the one who eventually killed the project. Maybe they think they can get by with that. It appears to be a fairly brazen fudging of the facts, for pure political reasons. But she strikes me as someone who is comfortable being brazen.
In the long run, it really doesn't change anything for me. It's not as if Obama/Biden don't lie and distort things they think will help their chances. And I was already committed to McCain before he picked Palin. I have to think Charlie Gibson will ask her to explain the bridge issue. We shall see.
I've yet to see anything that truly supports the "thanks but no thanks" claim. It appears she had her hand out, and when the hand out didn't come, she bailed on the project. But we'll see. I did read some stuff where she outlined guidelines for earmarks, including reporting all requested earmarks. It's not all bad, but it does bother me a little the way they are presenting this story. Seems to be a fudge.
PS- The fact that Biden and Obama both voted FOR the bridge earmark takes quite a bit of the wind out of their argument, though. Doesn’t mean Palin is being entirely accurate, just means they are on very shaky ground to criticize. Maybe that’s what the McCain team is relying on.
What makes you think she bailed on the project? She saw the public pressure at the national level and thought it would be in her best interest to not stick it to the American taxpayer for something the state of Alaska could and should pay for. This wasn't a bridge on an interstate highway.
Per an interview with an Alaskan official a couple of days ago:
Actually the money did still come. The bill passed. The money was incremental and it was used by Gov. Palin on other Alaska infrastructure projects. She may have had many reasons for helping kill the B2N project but the high price tag was certainly one of them. As Governor she was against the project. Period. Was it a flip flop from her campaign position? Yes it was. But it was a correct flip flop.
Actually, that's not correct. The got a tiny portion of what they were asking for. They needed a couple hundred million, and got like 70 mil. And yeah, they kept the money. But there clearly are statements by her supporting the bridge, supporting the AL Congressional delegation's efforts to secure funding for the bridge. It appears to me, had their not been a firestorm, and had they been able to get the 200 million, Palin's response would have been simply "Thanks." And they'd have a bridge.
But, AFAIK, that was when she was running for office. You can speculate forever on what she might have done if the full funding had come through but the fact of the matter is that Obama and Biden voted for the bill, McCain didn't and Palin said no to the project once she was governor. It was too expensive and a bad deal. So she turned it down. That's really all that counts. What If's don't count.
That's right. She was running for office. And she clearly supported the bridge, until it became a political liability and the money dried up.
I agree with you that it's somewhat funny for Obama and Biden to try to attack her on it, when they voted for it and McCain voted against it. McCain team will surely take advantage of that, and rightfully so.
My point is that when she claims to have told them "thanks, but no thanks", she's fudging the facts. Ultimately, I think Team McCain thinks they can win the argument because in the end, she did kill the project, McCain voted against it, and their opponents BOTH voted for it. That should get the job done for them. And hey, who says politicians can't exaggerate and fudge facts? It's what they do.
They could absolutely not effort to finance this stupid bridge and if she had a different opinion here she really is not qualified for any job.
According to what i read is Alaska the biggest pork state in the US. So perhaps they should simply change the topic a little bit. It could really backfire
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.