The majority disagrees with him now. :lol:

 

Now doesn't matter. However, for the first time in a long time I'm starting to believe this will actually be a horse race to the finish.

I see the bigger story here as McCain voted against a powerful republican in order to cancel this joke of an earmark while Obama voted for it. I really don't care what Biden or Palin did.

To be clear, she only "killed" it by not building it. She simply spent the money on other things.

To be clear, she only "killed" it by not building it. She simply spent the money on other things.

While it's true that I don't support all the earmarks, including this one, FWIW, better ANYTHING then the Bridge to Nowhere.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm

 

Is she just confused or out right lying?

 

 

She's clearly lying about the bridge. She was a fervent supporter of the bridge during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign and only withdrew support after it became a national embarrassment for the state and was linked to corrupt politicians Ted Stevens and Don Young. Numerous major news organizations have independently looked into the history of this issue and have all come to the same conclusion: Sarah Palin is twisting the facts regarding her support of the bridge project. Here is a quote from Palin referring to the earmark package Young had put together which included the so-called "bridge to nowhere":

 

"And our congressional delegation, God bless 'em. They do a great job for us," "Representative Don Young, especially God bless him, with transportation -- Alaska did so well under the very basic provisions of the transportation act that he wrote just a couple of years ago. We had a nice bump there. We're very, very fortunate to receive the largesse that Don Young was able to put together for Alaska."

 

Largesse, indeed. Alaska leads the country in per-capita earmark spending from the federal government. That is not evidence of a "thanks, but no thanks" attitude toward pork-barrel spending.

 

Sarah, Quit Lying About Your Record

But their not the ones on the NATIONAL STAGE lying to the people about it.

 

Sarah, Quit Lying About Your Record

I'm confused what she lied about? Did she say she never supported it?

Sarah, Quit Lying About Your Record

I love the selective moral outrage of the Obama boosters. I am still waiting for somebody on the left to condemn Obama for explicitly and repeatedly lying about the reason for his active opposition to the Illinois state version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. ("Chirp! Chirp! Chirp!" saith the crickets) :lol:

I'm confused what she lied about? Did she say she never supported it?

 

 

If you want to play the literal quotes game, did she ever say "thanks, but no thanks" as she has claimed over and over and over again in her VP speeches? Palin claims to be a reformer who eschews frivolous spending and yet she was all too happy to accept large federal handouts arranged by corrupt congressmen.

 

Much of what Palin said during her speech was either bull or structured in a way to convey meaning other than fact.

 

Quit Twisting The Facts, Sarah

I love the selective moral outrage of the Obama boosters. I am still waiting for somebody on the left to condemn Obama for explicitly and repeatedly lying about the reason for his active opposition to the Illinois state version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. ("Chirp! Chirp! Chirp!" saith the crickets) :lol:

 

 

Start a new thread if you want to talk about something else. This is a thread about McCain's hypocritical, dishonest new best friend.

If you want to play the literal quotes game, did she ever say "thanks, but no thanks" as she has claimed over and over and over again in her VP speeches? Palin claims to be a reformer who eschews frivolous spending and yet she was all too happy to accept large federal handouts arranged by corrupt congressmen.

 

Much of what Palin said during her speech was either bull or structured in a way to convey meaning other than fact.

 

Quit Twisting The Facts, Sarah

I am not asking to play the literal quotes game so how about answer a question with a straight answer. She was for it while running for governor then when elected decided it was not a good idea. What did she lie about?

I am not asking to play the literal quotes game so how about answer a question with a straight answer. She was for it while running for governor then when elected decided it was not a good idea. What did she lie about?

 

 

It is a matter of timing. She supported it during the time it was a viable federal project. Once the project became a national laughingstock and the poster child for pork-barrel spending she backed down from her support. She didn't turn down the project when the federal government was still offering it, but only after the project was removed. And as I understand it, she took the money earmarked for the bridge and spent it on other things. Doesn't sound like a "thanks, but no thanks" moment to me.

It is a matter of timing. She supported it during the time it was a viable federal project. Once the project became a national laughingstock and the poster child for pork-barrel spending she backed down from her support. She didn't turn down the project when the federal government was still offering it, but only after the project was removed. And as I understand it, she took the money earmarked for the bridge and spent it on other things. Doesn't sound like a "thanks, but no thanks" moment to me.

The article posted is vague on the details of when she first stated she opposed it but if she did indeed oppose only after the project was dropped then I would have to agree that is at least distorting the truth.

It is a matter of timing. She supported it during the time it was a viable federal project. Once the project became a national laughingstock and the poster child for pork-barrel spending she backed down from her support. She didn't turn down the project when the federal government was still offering it, but only after the project was removed. And as I understand it, she took the money earmarked for the bridge and spent it on other things. Doesn't sound like a "thanks, but no thanks" moment to me.

 

I think one has to know if the other projects that she used the money for are "worthwhile" projects or are boon doggles and wasted expenditures before we can criticize her for taking the money and using it for other projects. Do you know what they were? I don't so I'm curious.

 

Are Democrats now saying that there are no worthwhile federally funded projects? Heck, as a fiscal conservative I wouldn't go that far. There are some things that the federal govt should fund; like the Brent Spence (I-75 Bridge) connecting Ohio and Kentucky. As fiscally conservative as I am, I'd have a very hard time calling that pork. Its a major north south corridor (I 75 is) and the bridge is "funtionally obsolete" or someother similar phrase and the fed better address that issue quickly or interstate transportation going north and south is really going to be hurt.

 

Maybe Palin did use the federal money for pork projects. I don't know, but if she used them for worthwhile projects, I have zero problem with it.

I think one has to know if the other projects that she used the money for are "worthwhile" projects or are boon doggles and wasted expenditures before we can criticize her for taking the money and using it for other projects. Do you know what they were? I don't so I'm curious.

 

Are Democrats now saying that there are no worthwhile federally funded projects? Heck, as a fiscal conservative I wouldn't go that far. There are some things that the federal govt should fund; like the Brent Spence (I-75 Bridge) connecting Ohio and Kentucky. As fiscally conservative as I am, I'd have a very hard time calling that pork. Its a major north south corridor (I 75 is) and the bridge is "funtionally obsolete" or someother similar phrase and the fed better address that issue quickly or interstate transportation going north and south is really going to be hurt.

 

Maybe Palin did use the federal money for pork projects. I don't know, but if she used them for worthwhile projects, I have zero problem with it.

 

 

I don't think the Democrats are saying that there are no worthwhile federally funded projects. No one except for the most extreme Libertarian would agree with that view, I think. I certainly think there is a place for them (in general, the U.S. interstate highway system is a perfect example).

 

And I don't know what Palin used the money for. I suppose the uses could be considered worthy (although if used for worthy purposes, one has to wonder why funding for the bridge was prioritized over them in the first place). It does say a lot to me that the state of Alaska is the highest per capita user of earmark funding in the U.S. I think I remember reading that Alaska gets back almost $2 for every $1 in federal taxes collected there, far more than any other state. It just seems incredibly disingenuous for Palin to imply that she turned down federal funding for a wasteful project when she really didn't (at least not until after the project was DOA) and then spent the money on projects that apparently weren't important enough to seek funding for in the first place.

 

If she's going to be on a high horse about crusading against government waste and corruption, she probably needs to quit talking about the bridge.

Why would she not take the money for her state? It is going to go somewhere, it is her responsibility as Gov of Alaska to try and get that money for Alaska if it is being handed out. Maybe as VP she can try and motivate congress to cut back on Pork spending.

 

Almost all politicians in Alaska, including Dems, give Palin credit for stopping the bridge. Ill trust them over what Obama and Biden say anyways.