Sarah Palin has dishonestly and repeatedly overstated her role in killing the project because she was all for it until it became the most well known example of wasteful government spending since the $500 hammer. Her folksy speechspeek is a completely misleading account, implying that she turned it down as soon as the funding was offered. She didn't. She was all too happy to take the money until Congress killed the bridge earmark. Then, she kept the money and used it for other purposes. She certainly didn't say, "Thanks, but no thanks". Her speech line is blatantly dishonest.

 

So you are disputing what CCAGW reported? If so, on what points are they wrong.

 

I read the article (quickly I'll admit) but I recall it saying that Palin had at least at times expressed doubts about the bridge ( and evidently at other times expressed support) when she was running for Governor. It also says she failed to put any money in her budget for the bridge. Did Congress require some state funds to be spent on the bridge in order for the fed funds to be tapped? If so and if she failed to put funds in her budget before the feds allegedly killed the bridge, would you agree that her failure to put funds in her budget in effect killed the bridge? Furthermore, why do people believe that Congress killed the Bridge (did they vote, what action did they take to kill the bridge?) and if Congress did kill the bridge when did they do so? CCAGW's report says Congress didn't actually kill the bridge; rather the 06 appropriations bill (which based on the CCAGW article leads me to believe was the last action taken by Congress in re the bridge) allowed Alaska to decide if it wanted to use the money for the bridge or other surface transportation projects. Was CCAGW wrong in its assertion that Congress basically didn't give a hoot how the money was used (thank you very much Congress) and what support is there for the argument that it was wrong? If the CCAGW is right that Congress didn't kill it, but allowed Alaska to make the call, and Alaska didn't then build the bridge, can it be argued any longer that Palin didn't kill the bridge?

 

A thorough and comprehensive time line would be most helpful on this issue. I haven't followed it as carefully as some have so I may be confused on dates and actions.

 

I will say that if it turns out that Palin did kill the bridge and used the money for other useful projects (which is not pork), Obama is going to have a lot of egg on his face. If you are going to attack another candidate and basically call them a liar, you better have it right. Not saying Obama isn't right here, not saying he is, but the CCAGW folks evidently believe he's not right.

 

As for your quote of her's in late December of 06, do you know the actual date of the quote. She got sworn in on December the 4th I believe.

^ After the fallout over the "Bridge to Nowhere" began, Congress took out the earmark for it in the appropriations bill, but left the money, which means the money did not have to be spent on anything specific. It is true she decided not to spend the money on the bridge, despite campaign rhetoric to the contrary, but it would have probably been political suicide to do it at that point.

So you are disputing what CCAGW reported? If so, on what points are they wrong.

 

I read the article (quickly I'll admit) but I recall it saying that Palin had at least at times expressed doubts about the bridge ( and evidently at other times expressed support) when she was running for Governor. It also says she failed to put any money in her budget for the bridge. Did Congress require some state funds to be spent on the bridge in order for the fed funds to be tapped? If so and if she failed to put funds in her budget before the feds allegedly killed the bridge, would you agree that her failure to put funds in her budget in effect killed the bridge? Furthermore, why do people believe that Congress killed the Bridge (did they vote, what action did they take to kill the bridge?) and if Congress did kill the bridge when did they do so? CCAGW's report says Congress didn't actually kill the bridge; rather the 06 appropriations bill (which based on the CCAGW article leads me to believe was the last action taken by Congress in re the bridge) allowed Alaska to decide if it wanted to use the money for the bridge or other surface transportation projects. Was CCAGW wrong in its assertion that Congress basically didn't give a hoot how the money was used (thank you very much Congress) and what support is there for the argument that it was wrong? If the CCAGW is right that Congress didn't kill it, but allowed Alaska to make the call, and Alaska didn't then build the bridge, can it be argued any longer that Palin didn't kill the bridge?

 

A thorough and comprehensive time line would be most helpful on this issue. I haven't followed it as carefully as some have so I may be confused on dates and actions.

 

I will say that if it turns out that Palin did kill the bridge and used the money for other useful projects (which is not pork), Obama is going to have a lot of egg on his face. If you are going to attack another candidate and basically call them a liar, you better have it right. Not saying Obama isn't right here, not saying he is, but the CCAGW folks evidently believe he's not right.

 

As for your quote of her's in late December of 06, do you know the actual date of the quote. She got sworn in on December the 4th I believe.

I believe the arguement is in Palin's speech she made a big deal that she told Congress thanks but no thanks, we don't need your money. Not that she didn't kill the bridge, which she did. If someone is arguing that she didn't they are 100% incorrect. However, they would be correct in she full of it say she told congress thanks but no thanks. She took the money, which she should have, but just spent it else where.

^ After the fallout over the "Bridge to Nowhere" began, Congress took out the earmark for it in the appropriations bill, but left the money, which means the money did not have to be spent on anything specific. It is true she decided not to spend the money on the bridge, despite campaign rhetoric to the contrary, but it would have probably been political suicide to do it at that point.

 

Okay, so if I understand your post correctly, Palin decided not to spend the money on the bridge. She could have if she wanted to because Congress gave her the latitude to spend it on the bridge. If my understanding is correct, how can any one say it was Congress that first killed the bridge and Palin only came out against the bridge after Congress had previously killed it?

Okay, so if I understand your post correctly, Palin decided not to spend the money on the bridge. She could have if she wanted to because Congress gave her the latitude to spend it on the bridge. If my understanding is correct, how can any one say it was Congress that first killed the bridge and Palin only came out against the bridge after Congress had previously killed it?

 

To me it isn't a matter of who killed the bridge. Realistically, public opinion killed the bridge. It is a matter of her claiming to have said "thanks, but no thanks" when she really said "please" and "thanks anyhow."

To me it isn't a matter of who killed the bridge. Realistically, public opinion killed the bridge. It is a matter of her claiming to have said "thanks, but no thanks" when she really said "please" and "thanks anyhow."

 

Fair enough. But there are others that have posted rather strongly that it wasn't Palin, but instead Congress, that killed the bridge. Based on what I know (and its possible I'm missing some info) it appears they were wrong and that Palin indeed made the decision not to move forward with the bridge, and hence, was not lying when she claimed credit for killing the bridge. With that seemingly resolved (at least with you and I), lets discuss the "thanks but no thanks" comment.

 

Are you disappointed/upset with her because of the fact she took the federal money and used it in Alaska? Help me understand the "please" and "thanks anyhow" part of your post. I didn't follow it.

Fair enough. But there are others that have posted rather strongly that it wasn't Palin, but instead Congress, that killed the bridge. Based on what I know (and its possible I'm missing some info) it appears they were wrong and that Palin indeed made the decision not to move forward with the bridge, and hence, was not lying when she claimed credit for killing the bridge. With that seemingly resolved (at least with you and I), lets discuss the "thanks but no thanks" comment.

 

Are you disappointed/upset with her because of the fact she took the federal money and used it in Alaska? Help me understand the "please" and "thanks anyhow" part of your post. I didn't follow it.

Yes, she was in fact the one that killed the bridge. Congress did not, they only removed the earmark stipulation that the money be used for the bridge. Anyone that says differently is WRONG.

 

That said, I think the problem Habib has is she said in her speech that she told congress thanks but no thanks when that is simply not true. She killed the bridge and still took the money. I like Palin and think she should have taken the money. I also think she was wrong to us the "thanks but no thanks" line in her speech based on what I have read.

This could quite possibly be the funniest thread I have ever read. The Dems are trying so hard to discredit Palin as a "reformer/anti-earmark" candidate over this one issue. When she drastically cut her states budget. She probably did overstate her stance on the bridge.

 

Give me ANY...ANY...politicians speech and I will show overstatements.

 

Obama needs to get his team off of this issue and start talking about things that many really care about. And if you dont think this is true, then look at the latest polls. When Obama is only up 5pts in NY then he has bigger problems than a "bridge to nowhere".

Yes, she was in fact the one that killed the bridge. Congress did not, they only removed the earmark stipulation that the money be used for the bridge. Anyone that says differently is WRONG.

 

That said, I think the problem Habib has is she said in her speech that she told congress thanks but no thanks when that is simply not true. She killed the bridge and still took the money. I like Palin and think she should have taken the money. I also think she was wrong to us the "thanks but no thanks" line in her speech based on what I have read.

 

But did she mean "thanks but no thanks" I don't want the money at all (in which case she obviously lied), or "thanks but no thanks" I don't want the money for the bridge (in which case she told the truth)?

 

I think I remember her comments being in the context of wanting to eliminate pork barrel projects and she was using the bridge kill comments in the context of her killing the pork barrel bridge project. I don't remember her saying or even implying that all federally funded projects necessarily constitute pork.

But did she mean "thanks but no thanks" I don't want the money at all (in which case she obviously lied), or "thanks but no thanks" I don't want the money for the bridge (in which case she told the truth)?

 

I think I remember her comments being in the context of wanting to eliminate pork barrel projects and she was using the bridge kill comments in the context of her killing the pork barrel bridge project. I don't remember her saying or even implying that all federally funded projects necessarily constitute pork.

Oh, maybe your right. I didn't watch her speech as I had a softball game that night. I am simply going by the accounts of the speech. Would be interesting to read the speech or watch the video of it.

Fair enough. But there are others that have posted rather strongly that it wasn't Palin, but instead Congress, that killed the bridge. Based on what I know (and its possible I'm missing some info) it appears they were wrong and that Palin indeed made the decision not to move forward with the bridge, and hence, was not lying when she claimed credit for killing the bridge. With that seemingly resolved (at least with you and I), lets discuss the "thanks but no thanks" comment.

 

Are you disappointed/upset with her because of the fact she took the federal money and used it in Alaska? Help me understand the "please" and "thanks anyhow" part of your post. I didn't follow it.

 

My problem is that she was a supporter of it until she had to make an unpopular decision about it. She said "please" in that she was a proponent of this bridge and said "thanks anyway" when Congress pulled the plug and handed her a check. The point being, she can't say she fought government waste by saying "thanks, but no thanks."

 

After Congress pulled the earmark, she could have built a $398 million bronze statue of herself in Wasilla and still stand in front of campaign rallies and say "I told Congress 'thanks, but no thanks'".

My problem is that she was a supporter of it until she had to make an unpopular decision about it. She said "please" in that she was a proponent of this bridge and said "thanks anyway" when Congress pulled the plug and handed her a check. The point being, she can't say she fought government waste by saying "thanks, but no thanks."

 

After Congress pulled the earmark, she could have built a $398 million bronze statue of herself in Wasilla and still stand in front of campaign rallies and say "I told Congress 'thanks, but no thanks'".

 

Why do you say she was a supporter of it and ignore what CCAGW stated in its article that while running she at times indicated that she vascillated between support and doubt concerning the bridge? To me that shows someone not sure of whether the project was worthy and in need of more study before a final decision was made.

 

Why do you say that Congress pulled the plug and ignore what CCAGW stated in its article that Congress never pulled the plug at all, but rather in the 2006 Transportation Act gave Alaska the right to decide how the money would be used? That's not pulling the plug; that's not saying the bridge can't be built with federal dollars. That's saying that Alaska could use the money for the bridge if they wanted to. But Palin/Alaska decided not to use the money on such a wasteful project but use the money for other (hopefully more meaningful projects).

 

I'm really trying hard to understand why you think that Palin messed this up or was dishonest. Give me some facts to support why you think Palin did anything inappropriate. I think I have an open mind on this issue but if the CCAGW article is correct, I don't have any problem with what Palin did or her "thanks, but no thanks" comments. And I do want to say that I really appreciate the adult like discussion we are having on this matter. Good job!

Why do you say she was a supporter of it and ignore what CCAGW stated in its article that while running she at times indicated that she vascillated between support and doubt concerning the bridge? To me that shows someone not sure of whether the project was worthy and in need of more study before a final decision was made.

 

I'm not ignoring anything in the CCAGW article. They provide a quote from her saying she wasn't sure if the bridge was the most efficient use of funds. The editorial it cites is deadlinked. That doesn't negate the fact that she openly and vocally supported the bridge during her campaign. She admitted such in the ABC interview.

 

Why do you say that Congress pulled the plug and ignore what CCAGW stated in its article that Congress never pulled the plug at all, but rather in the 2006 Transportation Act gave Alaska the right to decide how the money would be used? That's not pulling the plug; that's not saying the bridge can't be built with federal dollars. That's saying that Alaska could use the money for the bridge if they wanted to. But Palin/Alaska decided not to use the money on such a wasteful project but use the money for other (hopefully more meaningful projects).

 

Congress pulled the plug because they repealed the earmark, which is stated in the article. Of course they didn't say it couldn't be built, Congress just put a politically unpopular decision in her hands.

 

I'm really trying hard to understand why you think that Palin messed this up or was dishonest. Give me some facts to support why you think Palin did anything inappropriate. I think I have an open mind on this issue but if the CCAGW article is correct, I don't have any problem with what Palin did or her "thanks, but no thanks" comments. And I do want to say that I really appreciate the adult like discussion we are having on this matter. Good job!

 

She didn't do anything inappropriate. I've never said that. I would have done the same thing. My problem is with the "thanks, but no thanks" line. She's using the line as a testament to her credentials as a fighter of government waste when she didn't do anything. I'll put it this way: If Congress had left the earmark, they would be building a $398 million dollar bridge to Gravina, Alaska. If Congress left the earmark, and Governor Palin stepped in and said "no, this is a waste" then she could use her "thanks, but no thanks" line without a problem. In this case, she received a big check with no strings attached. I don't know how that is an example of fighting government waste.

In this case, she received a big check with no strings attached. I don't know how that is an example of fighting government waste.

 

We'll disagree on most of how you interpreted CCAGW's article; well, better stated, I interpreted it differently.

 

As for the above portion of your post, unless I learn how the money was actually spent, I cannot conclude that she supported government waste. If the fed money was spent of "good" projects, I don't have any problem with her receipt and use of the fed money. But from what I do know, if the money had been spent on the bridge, such would have been wasteful spending and I do know that such did not occur. Whether she made the call as to how the money was spent or some one else in Alaska made that call, I don't know. But I do know that it wasn't Congress that killed the bridge. If people are upset with anyone, they should be upset with Congress, shouldn't they? They pretty much gave the money to Alaska and said spend it however you want as I understand it. That's really sad.

 

Has any one been able to find how the money was actually spent?

We'll disagree on most of how you interpreted CCAGW's article; well, better stated, I interpreted it differently.

 

As for the above portion of your post, unless I learn how the money was actually spent, I cannot conclude that she supported government waste. If the fed money was spent of "good" projects, I don't have any problem with her receipt and use of the fed money. But from what I do know, if the money had been spent on the bridge, such would have been wasteful spending and I do know that such did not occur. Whether she made the call as to how the money was spent or some one else in Alaska made that call, I don't know. But I do know that it wasn't Congress that killed the bridge. If people are upset with anyone, they should be upset with Congress, shouldn't they? They pretty much gave the money to Alaska and said spend it however you want as I understand it. That's really sad.

 

Has any one been able to find how the money was actually spent?

 

Can't answer your question yet, but if it can be found out that the money was in the form of a categorical federal grant, it would have had to be specifically spent on the bridge, and only the bridge.