I read your email links. A lot of them have her saying that because the Feds won’t fund it and other Alaskans don’t see it as a priority, we can’t do the bridge. Then they talk about how to let down the locals that they won’t support the project. Of course they are worried about local reaction because she told them down there in 2006 that she would support it.
See 2006 quotes
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm
It is pretty obvious that if this wasn’t raised as a Federal issue that she likely would have taken the money and built the bridge.
I am actually not faulting her for that position, but highlighting how ludicrous it is to draw all sorts of conclusions on Michelle Bachmann from five years ago yet at the same time trying to pretend that Palin and almost every other politician doesn’t have problematic positions from years past.
"Truly this could provide an opportunity for Congress to start discussing the nation’s priorities… call me naive, but AK could/should lead in this discussion on public dollars paying for intrastucture improvements across the nation. Why CAN’T we offer to return the “B2N” earmark bc the state can’t afford the project, and the feds won’t be paying for it – the grandious $350m bridge NOT going to happen on our watch."