Palin For The Bridge Before She Was Against It
Chris Wallace didn’t let McCain campaign manager Rick Davis get away with the claim that Sarah Palin was against Alaska’s Bridge to Nowhere. She campaigned on supporting it, and then backed away only after Congress wouldn’t fund it.
h/t Think Progress
WALLACE: During her 1.5, 2 years as Governor, Alaska continued to get more federal money for pork-barrel projects per capita than any state in the country and…she supported the Bridge to Nowhere. And it was only after the federal government dropped it out, killed it, the Congress killed it that she then opposed it. And in fact she still got the money for the approach, the ramp to the Bridge to Nowhere.
Davis: Congress didn’t beat back the Bridge to Nowhere.
Wallace: But she accepted the money
Davis: That funding was in the grant and she said, “I’m not spending the money.” And what they did; they took a $500 million bridge and she turned it into $2 million ferry. And that’s what she did on her own without any help form anybody else.
Wallace: Well, actually the Congress killed the money for the Bridge to Nowhere.
Alan,
That is old news. Can’t you find anything else?
September 7th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
What old news? This is the first time I hear it, and I love it. Play it again Sam Q_Q
September 7th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Stale!!
September 7th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
So if it was known before, why do people think she was ALWAYS against it?
She acts like she was.
September 7th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
palin was against earmarks before she was for them.
mccain says he will keep taxes low WHERE HE CAN.
mccain was against the tax cuts before he was for them.
September 7th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Good lord you people are listening to the talking heads that doesn’t mean it’s true.
September 7th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
the corporate media has not focused on palin’s links with alaskan separatists.
September 7th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Working Mom:
Do you know how long we had to listen to the crap about Obama’s preacher??? This happened months ago and Hannity is STILL harping on it. Not only that, we’re still hearing about the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal.
Talk about old news. Sheesh!
September 7th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
I wonder what kind of questions Charles Gibson will ask Sarah Palin this week – in the one granted interview???
September 7th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
obama has wright. mccain has hagee. hagee thought the holocaust was a good thing.
September 7th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Okay, how about the hockey rink to nowhere, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122065537792905483.html
September 7th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
palin sounds incompetent in that wsj article. she sounds like bush.
September 7th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
McCain/Palin 2008
Palin 2012
Palin 2016
September 7th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
A vote for McCain/Palin = 4 more years of Bush/Cheney crapola
September 7th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
according to factcheck.org, mccain voted 95% with bush.
September 7th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
cool link, i don’t know if it’s already been posted: warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/the-mirrored-ceiling/?ei=5070&emc=eta1
pretty much sums up my feelings on sarah palin…
September 7th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
I bet Obama voted 90% of the time with Bush. The majority of the votes in Congress are not legislation or controversial but to recognize some good deed or name a library.
The Bush/Cheney crapola has prevented numerous attacks on our homeland. Does that count for anything?
September 7th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
No, no it hasn’t. You can’t prove a negative.
September 7th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Commonsense,
The way I heard it explained was that the 90% number comes from cases where the president made a stated opinion, I doubt he regular states opinions on ‘yes, July 29th should be green bean day’ or whatever.
I would, however, prefer to see exactly what they agreed/disagreed on than some fluffy number being thrown about without much explanation as to how it was derived.
September 7th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
“The Bush/Cheney crapola has prevented numerous attacks on our homeland. Does that count for anything?”
Posted by commonsense
…And prior to that, the last time we were attacked on our own soil was 1941 – over 60 years ago.
September 7th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Everybody seems to forget we were attacked under Bush’s watch.
September 7th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
TDRO,
In fairness, we were attacked under Clinton’s watch too. But somehow Clinton managed to resist the urge to torture, hold people indefinitely in prison, etc…
September 7th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
No.. we were attacked under Clinton’s 1993
He put a few of them in court and let the rest live to attack us again
September 7th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Vince,
Do you then support Bush’s policy of condoning torture and indefinitely holding people in prison? I’ve argued constitutional issues with you in the past, and realize that ultimately (according to my own arguments) this needs to be decided by the supreme court, but do you personally support these policies?
September 7th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
God, if ONLY it has been on Gore’s watch!!! Imagine how different our world would be!
September 7th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Um Cara – I agree we should not torture anyone. But we don’t agree on what constitutes torture. Plus the prisoners are not US citizens and have no rights under our constitution.
September 7th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
edit: had
September 7th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
prisoners are HUMANS. HUMANS have rights under our Constitution. in fact they are endowed with them by GOD!
September 7th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Vincent:
If you had read my post I said the last time we were attacked on our own soil was 1941 – over 60 years ago. I said nothing of being attacked overseas.
September 7th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
The solution is to not take them prisoner. According to the Geneva Convention they could be killed on sight.
September 7th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
I dont care what you say.. especially when you’re wrong
September 7th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Commonsense,
I would be very interested in what minimum action would have to be taken to be considered torture by you.
Ultimately both issues will be decided by the supreme court – but I can tell you as a matter of policy I think both do more harm than help, and are not among the (many) things I am proud of the US for.
And from a practical perspective, we have spent such a great deal of our moral capital on things like this that when McCain makes statements like “in the 21st century nations don’t invade other nations.” regarding Russia’s invasion of Georgia, it comes across as base hypocrisy (I disagree with Alan on Russia’s invasion of Georgia, in my view it was a test, a test the west failed, the bear is waking up again)
September 7th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
TDRO,
We were most definitely attacked on our own soil. The 1993 incident I believe Vince was referring to was the bombing of the World Trade Center.
September 7th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Right On Vince!
September 7th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Thanks UC, Commonsense.
How do you feel about some of the comments here… they feel they need to say they need to keep prisoners in nice humane cells,, and yet when Alan rapes the reputation of the gov. of alaska they say nothing.
September 7th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Vince,
I do think the US is a humane enough country that we can keep our prisoners in humane conditions.
The only issue I have seen the major media be totally unfair about with Palin is the apecific family issue that I think should be off limits.
Wackos on the left unfairly attack Palin on a host of issues, Wackos on the right unfairly attack Obama on a host of issues. I probably notice the attacks on Obama more that you, and I would guess you notice the attacks on Palin more than I.
Also, Palin is so new to most of America that she deserves a great deal of attention right now. We only have a couple of months to get to know her.
September 7th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
I am right there with you. These people are the enemy not citizens of the United States. Alan is scared of Palin. She is part of the winning ticket.
September 7th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
{typo apecific = specific)
September 7th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
oh pooooor Sarah Palin is in the spotlight, and people are giving her a hard time.
I didn”t hear you all complaining that Obama was being “raped” by the media.
September 7th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Commonsense,
And the people on the Bataan Death March were enemies of Japan. Was it thus justified?
Obviously I am not saying our ‘resort’ in Cuba is the equivalent of the BDM, but am pointing out that just because they are enemies of the U.S. does not lessen our moral need to treat them humanely (and, at least in my opinion, and the opinion of many others, constitutionally)
September 7th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Um Cara:
I stand corrected. I forgot about the 1993 bombing.
Also, we really don’t care about Palin’s personal life, however, she’s running on the “family values” ticket and we are just pointing out the hypocracy. Don’t forget, the republicans ruthlessly pursued Clinton because of his sexual indiscretions, calling it immoral behavior unbecoming the president of the U.S.
September 7th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
(isn’t it just really sad that here in the United States of America; “land of the free and home of the brave”; great experiment in liberty; we are actually debating whether or not it is okay to torture people?)
September 7th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
whose debating?? you’re just talking to yourself.
To answer the question about torture .. what I would say is.. in public “no” but if we had to do it then i would and not say anything. you dont need to know.
September 7th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
TDRO,
That does not make it justfied to bring up a daughter, especially a minor. As I’ve stated before, I think the girl has enough on her mind without feeling like she is a weapon to be used against her mother. She didn’t get to say whether or not her mom ran for VP, she shouldn’t have to suffer for it. Not to mention that decisions made by her daughter say NOTHING about Palin’s ‘family values’. When I was 17 I did plenty of stuff my parents would not have wanted me to, or allowed me to do if they knew about it, and their family values were just fine, thankyouverymuch. But no worries, there are plenty of weapons to use against Palin that don’t involve her daughter!
And I REALLY, REALLY don’t want to rehash the Clinton stuff, but at least it was about his own actions, not someone elses, and of course the impeachment was not about sexual indiscretions, but about lying under oath.
But yea, of course the nations resources could have been more effectivly used than to try to bring down Clinton. Just like those of us who oppose McCain/Palin can more effectively use our resources elsewhere than picking on her family.
September 7th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Oh, so as long as you hide it from people it’s okay _ hey_ wait, i think the average german didn’t know about concentration camps either! Good thing the government hid it from them!
September 7th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
UM – Everyone is so high and mighty. I was talking about constitutional rights. I believe they are treated pretty darn well right now and for you to say differently is just bs.
Sky – You can complain if and when Obama is ever “raped” by the media. (But of course this won’t happen because they are all in the tank for the big O)
September 7th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
“(But of course this won’t happen because they are all in the tank for the big O)”
Still hard for me to believe that you guys really believe this propaganda.
September 7th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
I dont believe it, i pointed out many lies by Alan
September 7th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Commonsense,
I was talking about constitutional rights as well. And I certainly accept that you don’t believe what has been done amounts to torture, but please don’t call it BS that I think it does.
If we have been treating them so well, why do we have to do it in Cuba instead of in the US?
September 7th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Just joined this discussion. To TDRO:
Am I understanding you correctly? Are you comparing Clinton’s immoral behaviour (while in office) to Sarah Palin’s; what immoral behaviour has she done? Are your parents held responsible for your decisions and mistakes? Besides, Clinton was found guilty of lying to a grand jury.
September 7th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Welcome aboard DKS. Sounds as though you are here to give all a what to for.
September 7th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
DKS:
No, I’m not comparing her daughter to Clinton. In fact, I really don’t care about her daughter’s predicament. Actually, I wasn’t referring to her daughter at all. Somebody mentioned all the attention Sarah Palin was getting since she accepted the nomination.
My point is, if this had happened to Obama’s daughter, he would have been shamed out of the race by the right.
Also, I’d like to point out that Palin should have known she would have been scrutinized once she accepted the V.P. position. How could she not? Look at the everything Obama’s been through (and still going through). If she was concerned about keeping her family’s business private, she would have thought twice about accepting the position.
September 7th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
well, mccain voted to invade iraq based on a lie. that’s a pretty important vote. mccain is now for the bush tax cuts. i believe mccain voted for the medicare drug plan proposed by bush.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
mccain cheated on his first wife. the national inquirer says palin cheated on her husband.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
44 detainees have been tortured to death by US officials.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Liberalism is the bridge to NOWHERE.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
well, since palin initially supported the bridge, she was a liberal.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
most americans think we are going in the wrong direction now.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
I am a 65 year old man who has voted Republican my entire life – until this year that is.
I have never liked the idea of McCain, but was willing to wait to make a decision until I seen who his running mate would be. That did it for me. It has nothing to do with the fact that he picked a woman, it was the woman he picked.
None of us are naive enough to believe that Sarah Palin was chosen based on the fact that she is the most qualified person for the job; there were so many other people (both men and women) that would have easily been a better choice. I think we all know if Hillary would have been on the Dems ticket; Palin would have never even been considered. This is nothing more than political gimmickry; participating in such a tactic is in my mind a severe lack of integrity (a quality that has been missing in politics for some time).
McCain says he’ll put “Country First”; but ironically he has already proven he won’t. He chose someone solely based who can get him more votes; despite the fact that she is highly under-qualified compared to possible other selections – this is not putting “Country First”. McCain is older than the US average male life expectancy; if God forbid he dies while in office – well let’s just say it’s something I prefer not to even think about.
The Republican Party has lost my vote for this election. I haven’t decided if I will vote for Obama or just not vote.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
palin suppoted pat buchanan the bigot.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Dear One Disgusted Voter: I understand you concerns. McCain’s health is something to think about. But consider this; Obama has virtually no experience either and he is the #1 on the DNC ticket. It won’t matter if he is likely to die or not. Are you willing to let him run the country and make decisions that will affect lives for years? There are many questions about Obama that make me scared. Also, do you really want all three branches to be run by the far-left? In this election, we have to decide not just on one issue, but many.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
by picking palin, mccain is saying that experience doesn’t matter.
September 7th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Scottsoperson-I guess you could say that about McCain and his pick, but I don’t see that at all. He is the one with the experience and the one at the top. That is the big difference in my mind. He will be ready on day one, but will Obama?
September 7th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
obama has wright. mccain has hagee.
Obama supported Wright; joined his church. Hagee supported McCain. They are different positions.
September 7th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
according to factcheck.org, mccain voted 95% with bush.
According to factcheck.com:
Obama’s voting record is no less partisan than McCain’s. He has voted in line with his party an average of nearly 97 percent of the time. The truth is that neither candidate can claim a strong record of “breaking with his party” if Senate votes are the measure.
support Bush’s policy of condoning torture and indefinitely holding people in prison?
Would have to define torture.
indefinitely holding people in prison? No, do not support this.
Plus the prisoners are not US citizens and have no rights under our constitution
Agreed
HUMANS have rights under our Constitution.
Those humans must be citizens. However, I think that all civilized countries do recognize Habeas Corpus; this does extend rights to all humans.
According to the Geneva Convention
I don’t think that the Geneva Convention applies to these folks.
we are actually debating whether or not it is okay to torture people?
I am not debating should we torture. I am debating what constitutes torture. If anything other than offering these guys a cup of coffee and a cigarette while asking for information is torture, then we have a different conversation.
there were so many other people (both men and women) that would have easily been a better choice.
I was/am in the same boat. But I think of it this way: Both parties have drafted a rookie QB based on past track record. The Dem’s is starting, the Rebup’s is holding the clipboard.
September 7th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
The funniest part of this is that it was on Alan’s network and he h/t think progress.
September 7th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
mccain accepted hagee’s support initially, until pressure caused mccain to flip flop.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:38 am
44 detainees were tortured to death by the United States.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Barracude by Heart:
If the real thing dont do the trick
No, you better make up something quick
You gonna burn burn burn burn it to the wick
Ooooooohhhh, barra barracuda.
September 8th, 2008 at 1:32 am
You cannot use factcheck.org to get inforation that is in any way related to Obama.
factcheck.org is funded by Williams Ayers and owned by his Annenberg Foundation
September 8th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Jeff: you neglicted to mention that the vanishing of the DOTCOM phony economy began in 2000 leading toward Recession in Clinton’s last year.
September 8th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Jeff,
You really don’t have to post the same diatribe in every freaking topic. Come up with some new material.
September 8th, 2008 at 7:15 am
DKS – thanks for your comments.
You must understand, I am not a person who will stand by their party and their decisions if I do not agree with them. I have always considered myself an American first, a Republican second. In other words, I will not “go along, to get along”. My country deserves better and so do my fellow Americans.
I compromised this stance once already by voting for Bush a second time – even though deep down inside I probably knew I shouldn’t have. I have grown to regret that decision.
Although I’m not sure I will vote for Obama; even I have to admit that he has shown more integrity. I base this on the fact that he clearly could have chosen Hillary as a running mate, knowing this election would have been a done deal. He knew that by not choosing her, he was taking a huge risk and for whatever reason – he chose to go with Biden. That takes guts.
I also resent my fellow Republicans for claiming that Palin has been horribly attacked; yes some very unkind things have been said about her (but no more or less than anybody else ever got), but none of these comments have came from the Obama camp. The demeaning, condescending comments of Rudy, McCain and especially Palin during the RNC were disgusting. People that found humor from these remarks shows their true character.
We can say what we want about Obama (and yes I think we can say alot), a lack of integrity in the way he has run this election is certainly not one of them. In addition, I don’t think anybody can say this is not a highly intelligent man. Again, I’m not sure that will be enough for me to vote for him in the end. But I never thought I would even consider voting for a Democrat; the fact that I am even considering it is a big reality check for me.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:40 am
ONE DISGUSTED VOTER:
I’m with you buddy! I’m a 53 year old, fat, bald, man who has voted Republican my entire life.
Guess what – it’s Obama/Biden for me!
We may be the only two voters in this country that value integrity!
September 8th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Dear Disgusted, I, too, am not a party-liner. I just suggested you give both McCain/Palin a chance with an open mind, not a knee-jerk decision. Yes, you can say Obama took a courageous chance with Biden, though I didn’t. He picked someone already from Washington. But that said, I see McCain’s choice as an equally courageous decision. Both have run a campaign with integrity, as much as possible. Politics has always been a “dirty” game. If you check history, elections have always been in the gutter–not that I like it at all.
To ME TOO-I resent your last comment suggesting not voting for Obama is a lack of integrity. One could suggest voting for 2 men who say they value unborn life but don’t have the guts to protect it, could show a lack of integrity, but I won’t.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:40 am
I’ve voted Republican many more times than I’ve voted Democrat (which was just these last 2 terms).
DKS, it’s not a knee-jerk reaction not to support the party that’s been largely in power for the last 10 years, given the state of the nation today.
One thing that troubles me, though– I hope everyone who CAN vote, DOES vote. We owe our nation’s vets at least that much.
September 8th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
[...] again, the false claim that Palin “stopped the Bridge to Nowhere”. And notice how they brag about how they [...]
September 8th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
One disgusted voter & Me too!!
You must be men after my heart. Can I tell you how much I love you (old, fat, bald and all)!
One disgusted voter: Your thoughts are some of the most logical, boldest, truthful statements I have seen on this website. You are to be admired for that. Too many people strictly vote “party” despite the fact that it is so clearly not in the best interest of this nation.
I have felt similar to you in the past. As a Democrat, who has never voted anything else, I will admit that I was not proud to be voting for John Kerry this last election. But I felt I had no choice; when your alternative is a second term of Bush/Cheney – to put it bluntly, I would have helped elect a piece of cat sh!t over them. I promise you, had there been someone like Condi Rice or Colin Powell on the Republican ticket last election – I would have voted for them (despite not agreeing on everything they represent – and no people it’s not a race thing – I’m white). Rice and Powell are just the first two that come to mind because to quote you “they don’t go along, to get along” – they both had no problem standing up to Bush or Cheney.
Yes, I will be voting for Obama / Biden, although again I would be lying if I said I had absolutely no concerns – but the concerns I have with McCain / Palin are far greater.
I agree with you about the question of integrity; that is a very good point you bring up. I will admit that I thought he should (and wish he would have) chosen Hillary as his running mate; but your right, the fact that he didn’t knowing that could jeopardize his chances of winning – took alot of guts.
I too was completely disgusted in the comments by some (mainly Palin) at the RNC; they were some of the most ignorant, condescending remarks I heard made by the actual candidates and their surrogates. Many unfair, hurtful things were said about Palin and her teenage daughter, but not only did Obama and his camp not say anything negative about that issue – I feel he was even more gracious then he needed to be in defense of her. There were also some very horrible things said about Obama and his family, and as you can see nobody in the McCain / Palin camp ever went out of their way to defend him against those personal attacks. Obama has more integrity in his little finger then the Republicans have in their entire ticket.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
DSK:
McCain’s pick of Palin wasn’t at all a “courageous decision”; it was a foolish, self-serving, dangerous decision.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Like Obama’s choice Joe (open mouth insert foot) Biden?
September 8th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
The classic Republican argument: “I know you are, but what am I?”
So much for civil, progressive discourse.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Woh….according to the “Chicago Daily Observer”, today’s edition, both Obama and Biden voted for the “Bridge to Nowhere”….using the Washington Post US Congress Votes Database. Article was writen by John Powers, Aug. 31, 08….and appears as second listing in the Google base after searching Chicago Daily Obsever. Any replies?????
September 8th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
actually it probably would be a good thing if senator obama was NOT elected.it is evident from his past that he is better suited in a profession of helping the disadvantaged. if he loses the election it will be an excellent opportunity for introspection. it’s obvious his personality is not suited for the gutteral nature of politics. he can help the american people in a much more personal way, and continue this service without having to compromise his beliefs. let politics continue with those willing to compromise!
September 8th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
we all have to compromise.
September 8th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
ad rem, how about a link?
how did mccain vote on the bridge to nowhere?
September 8th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Though Gov. Palin originally supported the earmark spending on the Ketchikan bridge (“to nowhere), she eventually killed the project, chosing to spend Federal money on other infrasturcture programs.
FROM AD REM’S LINK. I GUESS MCCAIN WAS AGAINST IT. BUT HE PICKED A VP WHO IS FOR IT.
September 8th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
DKS – again thanks for your comments.
I do not feel I’m making a knee-jerk reaction. My decision is based on what it should be based on, and that is integrity.
I stand behind my thoughts that McCain has shown a severe lack of integrity by choosing Palin as a running mate; again this was solely done as a way to bring more votes, not what is best for this country. I do not agree with you when you say that McCain made a “courageous decision”; he made an incredibly selfish decision”.
Trust me, I do not make this decision flippantly – you have no idea how difficult it is for me as a 65 year old man that has voted Republican my whole life. But, I feel I have choice.
As a person, if one can’t stand up for what they believe in the most, one can’t stand up for anything in life. For me, that is integrity – John McCain has proven that he has none.
September 8th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
For a more compelling look at Sarah Palin, please take a look at this link below—
http://howinsaneisjohnmccain.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-scandals-complete-list.html
September 8th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
your videos are no longer available.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/510378.html
palin was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Thanks Alan for putting out the facts that need to be heard! Keep it up!
September 12th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
[...] addition to the myth that Sarah Palin said, “Thanks but no thanks” to the bridge to where, Newsweek has [...]
September 21st, 2008 at 10:02 am