Posted by | August 30, 2008 15:23 | Filed under: Top Stories

She is being touted as an anti-Ted Stevens reformer, but the truth is she supported the “bridge to nowhere” .  Asked if she was for it by the Anchorage Daily News on October 22, 2006, she said,


“Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now–while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.”




Brad Plumer at TNR gives some background:


True, after Palin was sworn into office that fall, her first budget didn’t allocate any money for the bridge. But when the Daily News asked on December 16, 2006, if she now opposed the project, Palin demurred and said she was just trying to figure out where the bridge fit on the state’s list of transportation priorities, given the lack of support from Congress.


It is also untrue, that Palin opposes earmarks, or funds provided by congress for local projects that “circumvent executive branch or merit-based competitive allocation processes.”  In fact, her special counsel, John Katz, makes the case for earmarks here.

In my opinion, earmarks are not bad in themselves. In fact, they represent a legitimate exercise of Congress’ constitutional power to amend the budget proposed by the president.


Katz admits that the Palin administration examined earmarks because of “unwanted attention” ie, the media:



The Palin administration has responded to this unwanted attention in a number of ways. Certain previous decisions concerning transportation earmarks are being re-examined. Currently, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities is conducting an audit to determine the status of all recent earmarks.


I guess this all means she is no John McCain.  That is the former John McCain.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2008 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.