Posted on 12/03/2009 8:02:47 AM PST by skimbell
...As an early Palin supporter, I cheered for the feisty small-town Alaskan who wasn't part of the political and cultural elite. But when she started talking, revealing that she had no interesting thoughts about national governance, I was reminded of why a political elite matters...
(Excerpt) Read more at qconline.com ...
Not by the way she talks, but by what she says.
Honesty is not a subjective assessment. A person is either honest or not, and if you can't tell the difference that's a reflection on your perception based on your moral code {or lack thereof}.
So in your opinion, was she honest about the bridge to nowhere?
From articles I’ve read, she was originally for it and didn’t turn against it until it appeared it would not get funded.
Then during her speach at the convention she claimed she said “thanks, but no thanks” to Washington for the money.
Is this honest by your moral code, or not?
This is from MSNBC
“Fighting a Different Alaska Republican, Alaska Dems Credit Palin with Killing Bridge to Nowhere
September 08, 2008 4:38 PM
MoreConservative bloggers point out that in their campaign against Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, Alaska Democrats gave credit to Gov. Palin for helping to kill the Bridge to Nowhere.
“Gov. Sarah Palin said the $398 million bridge was $329 million short of full funding, and only $36 million in federal funds were set aside for it,” the Democrats say. “She said it was clear Congress had little interest in spending any more money for it and that the state had higher priorities.”
On another page the Dems say, “Gov. Palin recently cancelled the Gravina Island Bridge near Ketchikan that would have connected the Alaska mainland with Gravina Island (population: 50).”
When good oppo goes bad!
- jpt”
Actually that was ABC, no MSNBC.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/fighting-a-diff.html
Only if he supported lowering taxes and reducing the size of government.
Given your name and tagline, I’m guessing you support her primarily for her religous views.
Don't guess. You would be wrong.
Yeah, but check the dates. Before it became apparent congress would not fund it, she was for it.
Those weren’t the characteristics you cited. Instead you cited sticking it to big business and giving the money to the people.
Whatever you might consider yourself, I’d suggest “conservative” doesn’t really fit that mind set.
The state democrat party blames, Palin for killing the bridge to nowhere, and used to maintain that on their web site, until the 2008 election when they took it down.
Governor Palin killed the “Bridge to nowhere”.
I want to go on record supporting the rental of facts to those who cannot afford to own them outright.
Show me where I said that.
In comment 41 ogf this thread you said:
“..bring the largest corporation in the world to its knees; return oil profits to the citizens of her state;”
Yes. Are you aware of the facts of the agreement? No one was the loser in this agreement. Nor were profits kept by the state. The agreement was most certainly not anti corporate. Palin did, however, put the reins on kickbacks, graft and corruption as the way business was done in Alaska. Really, you are carrying pessimism into the arena of hostility.
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.