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.

Let's clarify something. The feds didn't remove or kill the project. The money was originally earmarked for the bridge. Once it became bad news nationally they removed the earmark and said Alaska could do what they wanted with the money. I have yet to find exactly what they did but most likely built roads. Once they removed the earmark Palin said the bridge didn't make since and they would find an alternative. Now as far as her saying "we don't need your money" I believe she needs to let that go. It doesn't look like that is the case but still researching.

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

You are right. The other threads are still open. (Chirp! Chirp! Chirp!) No need to start a new one.

 

Palin killed the bridge project. Biden and Obama voted for it twice. What were you saying about hypocricy? :lol:

You are right. The other threads are still open. (Chirp! Chirp! Chirp!) No need to start a new one.

 

Palin killed the bridge project. Biden and Obama voted for it twice. What were you saying about hypocricy? :lol:

 

 

Palin killed the bridge project after it became apparent the state would have to pay for it. Did she say, "Thanks, but no thanks" as she claimed and turn down the federal money for the bridge when it was still on the table? No.

 

Biden's and Obama's votes on a multi-faceted spending bill are completely irrelevant to Palin's dishonest representation of what happened regarding the bridge.

 

 

Sarah is twisting the facts.

 

 

As to your other comment, I will not waste time arguing complexity and nuance with someone who tries to condense everything into gotcha campaign soundbites.

Palin killed the bridge project after it became apparent the state would have to pay for it. Did she say, "Thanks, but no thanks" as she claimed and turn down the federal money for the bridge when it was still on the table? No.

 

Biden's and Obama's votes are completely irrelevant to Palin's dishonest representation of what happened.

 

 

Sarah is twisting the facts.

Do you think most voters will see the fact that Biden and Obama are criticizing Palin, who canceled the plans for the bridge, voted for the project twice and never voted against it will find these facts irrelevant, or just the far left Democrats who would never vote for McCain anyway? I think that Barack Earmarks Obama would be wise to drop this issue and return to the platitudes that have gotten him where he is.

Palin killed the bridge project after it became apparent the state would have to pay for it. Did she say, "Thanks, but no thanks" as she claimed and turn down the federal money for the bridge when it was still on the table? No.

 

Biden's and Obama's votes on a multi-faceted spending bill are completely irrelevant to Palin's dishonest representation of what happened regarding the bridge.

 

 

Sarah is twisting the facts.

 

 

As to your other comment, I will not waste time arguing complexity and nuance with someone who tries to condense everything into gotcha campaign soundbites.

Now your disorting/twisting the facts.

Do you think most voters will see the fact that Biden and Obama are criticizing Palin, who canceled the plans for the bridge, voted for the project twice and never voted against it will find these facts irrelevant, or just the far left Democrats who would never vote for McCain anyway? I think that Barack Earmarks Obama would be wise to drop this issue and return to the platitudes that have gotten him where he is.

 

 

Why should anyone drop the issue of Palin lying again and again for political effect? She is lying. Period. Plain and simple. The McCain campaign is trying to recast itself as the campaign of change, the original maverick, etc., etc. and they are displaying Saint Sarah high on a pedestal with her little white gown and halo. Well, in that case, Sarah, you need to quit lying about how you tried getting porkbarrel funding for the bridge until the feds pulled the plug and told you to pay for it yourself.

 

Sarah didn't say "Thanks, but no thanks".

Sarah said, "Send us the check".

 

And the bill you're referring to was not a standalone appropriation for the bridge project. It was an appropriations bill for dozens of federally funded projects in many states. They weren't explicitly voting for just the bridge to nowhere in Alaska, so you should stop implying that they were with your cute statements. It makes you look like you don't understand the legislative process.

Why should anyone drop the issue of Palin lying again and again for political effect? She is lying. Period. Plain and simple. The McCain campaign is trying to recast itself as the campaign of change, the original maverick, etc., etc. and they are displaying Saint Sarah high on a pedestal with her little white gown and halo. Well, in that case, Sarah, you need to quit lying about how you tried getting porkbarrel funding for the bridge until the feds pulled the plug and told you to pay for it yourself.

 

Sarah didn't say "Thanks, but no thanks".

Sarah said, "Send us the check".

 

And the bill you're referring to was not a standalone appropriation for the bridge project. It was an appropriations bill for dozens of federally funded projects in many states. They weren't explicitly voting for just the bridge to nowhere in Alaska, so you should stop implying that they were with your cute statements. It makes you look like you don't understand the legislative process.

Obama and Biden voted for the bridge twice. Obama has managed to add an average of more than $1 million per day of his own earmarks for each day that he has been in office. This is not a winning issue for Obama and he is just taking the bait that the McCain campaign is dangling.

 

McCain will gleefully debate earmarks with Obama - if Obama ever stops focusing his attacks on the bottom of the ticket. If Obama wants to shake up Washington, then he better shake up his campaign staff soon. What a horrible campaign Obama is running! :lol:

Why should anyone drop the issue of Palin lying again and again for political effect? She is lying. Period. Plain and simple. The McCain campaign is trying to recast itself as the campaign of change, the original maverick, etc., etc. and they are displaying Saint Sarah high on a pedestal with her little white gown and halo. Well, in that case, Sarah, you need to quit lying about how you tried getting porkbarrel funding for the bridge until the feds pulled the plug and told you to pay for it yourself.

 

Sarah didn't say "Thanks, but no thanks".

Sarah said, "Send us the check".

 

And the bill you're referring to was not a standalone appropriation for the bridge project. It was an appropriations bill for dozens of federally funded projects in many states. They weren't explicitly voting for just the bridge to nowhere in Alaska, so you should stop implying that they were with your cute statements. It makes you look like you don't understand the legislative process.

Again, you need to get your facts straight.

It's not about the earmarks, it's about LYING about earmarks to make yourself look like a reformer.

Obama and Biden voted for the bridge twice. Obama has managed to add an average of more than $1 million per day of his own earmarks for each day that he has been in office. This is not a winning issue for Obama and he is just taking the bait that the McCain campaign is dangling.

 

 

This is not about whether Obama or Biden have pulled in earmarks for their constituents. Obama's constituents are in one of the most populous cities in the country. Of course he is going to pursue federal funding for projects in Chicago. Chicago is a huge city and is a major element in the national economy. The federally-funded projects Obama has supported for his home state of Illinois are irrelevant to the discussion about Sarah Palin's dishonest (outright lie, if you are honest about it) and repeated assertions that she turned down federal funding for the Gravina bridge. She has lied and continues to lie about it. Numerous news outlets have investigated the story and concluded that she has been less than honest. They include the Wall Street Journal, CBS News, USAToday, NPR, local TV stations in Alaska, and many others.

 

Sarah, you have been called on your lie!

Again, you need to get your facts straight.

 

My facts are straight as an arrow. Sarah's not being honest about her record.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122100927525717663.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

 

Mrs. Palin also killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state. Yes, she once supported the project: But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation's budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge.

 

When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys' club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark.

My facts are straight as an arrow. Sarah's not being honest about her record.

No sir. You have repeated posted that the feds killed the project and told the state to pay for it themselves. THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. How about you post the facts and your stance may be taken serious.

 

U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young, both Republicans, championed the project through Congress two years ago, securing more than $200 million for the bridge between Revillagigedo and Gravina islands.

Under mounting political pressure over pork projects, Congress stripped the earmark -- or stipulation -- that the money be used for the airport, but still sent the money to the state for any use it deemed appropriate.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/

Also, from the article but not concerning the bridge.....

 

Mrs. Palin used her veto pen to slash more local projects than any other governor in the state's history. She cut nearly 10% of Alaska's budget this year, saving state residents $268 million. This included vetoing a $30,000 van for Campfire USA and $200,000 for a tennis court irrigation system. She succinctly justified these cuts by saying they were "not a state responsibility."

 

Meanwhile in Washington, Mr. Obama voted for numerous wasteful earmarks last year, including: $12 million for bicycle paths, $450,000 for the International Peace Museum, $500,000 for a baseball stadium and $392,000 for a visitor's center in Louisiana.

 

Mrs. Palin cut Alaska's federal earmark requests in half last year, one of the strongest moves against earmarks by any governor. It took real leadership to buck Alaska's decades-long earmark addiction.

 

Mr. Obama delivered over $100 million in earmarks to Illinois last year and has requested nearly a billion dollars in pet projects since 2005. His running mate, Joe Biden, is still indulging in earmarks, securing over $90 million worth this year.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122100927525717663.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

 

Mrs. Palin also killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state. Yes, she once supported the project: But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation's budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge.

 

When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys' club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark.

 

 

How did she save taxpayers millions? Alaska kept the federal funding and used it for other projects. This in a state that receives more per capita earmark funding than any other state and receives huge inflows of revenue from oil and natural gas pumped from federal lands. It's just hilarious how we're hearing about St Sarah's crusade against porkbarrel spending when her state gets by far the most from the feeding trough.