Posted on 09/08/2008 3:57:27 PM PDT by Fred
Despite significant evidence to the contrary, the McCain campaign continues to assert that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told the federal government "thanks but no thanks" to the now-famous bridge to an island in her home state.
The McCain campaign released a television advertisement1 Monday morning titled "Original Mavericks." The narrator of the 30-second spot boasts about the pair: "He fights pork-barrel spending. She stopped the Bridge to Nowhere."
Gov. Palin, who John McCain named as his running mate less than two weeks ago, quickly adopted a stump line bragging about her opposition to the pork-barrel project Sen. McCain routinely decries. Republican presidential candidate John McCain (right) and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, at a campaign rally in Lee's Summit, Mo.
But Gov. Palin's claim comes with a serious caveat. She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere.
"We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge," Gov. Palin said in August 2006, according to the local newspaper, "and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative." The bridge would have linked Ketchikan to the airport on Gravina Island. Travelers from Ketchikan (pop. 7,500) now rely on ferries.
A year ago, the governor issued a press release2 that the money for the project was being "redirected."
"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," she said. "Despite the work of our
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Maybe the "federal money" shouldn't have been stolen from the taxpayers in the first place.
(yawn)
How stupid would it have been to send the money out of Alaska and back into the Washington DC toilet?
This is just another "no there there" story....
I know, I was being facetious. ok, ok, SARCASTIC! You caught me
It wasn’t even the whole amount. Only about $36 million.
Scratch the $36 mill. If I read the article that I posted correctly, it was about $69 million.
See post 35. It’s an original story.
Article is wrong; it was $36M and that was not Earmarks, it was FHWA funds, which are from normal allocations to all states. Many states receive quite a bit more than that.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2077758/posts?page=5
So, if elected, are Obama/Biden promising to reign in earmark spending or not?
Thank you. :-)
And when McCain ran this ad, he tricked Obama into running an ad attacking Palin for originally supporting the Bridge — implying that ANY support of the Bridge meant you were NOT an agent of change.
But who opposed the Bride in the Senate — John McCain.
And who voted for the Bridge in the Senate — Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
So, by the admission of Obama’s campaign, Obama and Biden are posers who aren’t real change agents, while McCain is.
Palin, on the other hand, DID originally hold Obama’s BAD position (although from her perspective, she was running for the office and didn’t have all the information she would have later as Governor).
But once she WAS governor, and had all the information, she killed the Bridge.
Obama and Biden voted for it.
Good example of why earmarks must go - if the money can just be spent on anything then really it is just a gift to a senator’s home state.
More shoddy WSJ reporting. Do they really think their readers appreciate this crap? What happened to business reporting?
http://blogsforjohnmccain.com/former-palin-aide-alaska-blows-democrats-bridge-attack-palin-out-water-video-9808
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.