Loading ...
SENATOR DISCREDITS FALSE ATTACKS ON ALASKA GOV.’S RECORD
The feeding frenzy surrounding overnight rock-star Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska who came from out of nowhere to become Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s running mate, has recently centered around — among other things — a line she’s been using in her stump speeches.
“I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ on that Bridge to Nowhere,” Palin has said numerous times, referring to the multi-million dollar pork barrel project championed by Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska. “‘If our state wanted a bridge,’ I said, ‘we’d build it ourselves.’”
But the ravenous left-wing media, who have worked overtime looking in every nook and cranny to find something to discredit Palin, say the claim is bogus.
A search of Google returns hundreds of articles with headlines like “Palin backed ‘bridge to nowhere,’ then opposed it” (CNN), “Palin ‘bridge to nowhere’ line angers many Alaskans” (Reuters), “Account of a Bridge’s Death Slightly Exaggerated” (NY Times), “Setting The Record: Palin’s Earmarks” (CBS), and “Palin won’t back off bridge claim, despite criticism” (AFP).
But the “questions” surrounding Palin’s part in killing the bridge project are baseless.
So who better to help fend off some of the false attacks than Sen. Jim DeMint, the self-proclaimed anti-pork crusader. DeMint said this in a guest editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal:
Mrs. Palin cut Alaska’s federal earmark requests in half last year, one of the strongest moves against earmarks by any governor. [...]
Mrs. Palin also killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state. Yes, she once supported the project: But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation’s budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge.
When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, [Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and vice presidential nominee Joe Biden] voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys’ club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark.
Mrs. Palin has proven courageous by taking on big spenders in her own party. In March of this year, the Anchorage Daily News reported that, “Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens is aggravated about what he sees as Gov. Sarah Palin’s antagonism toward the earmarks he uses to steer federal money to the state.”
I honestly don’t know what more proof these folks could want that she killed the damn thing. Instead of being attacked as part of a non-stop negative media barrage, she should be praised.
But what I do know is that DeMint hits a key point in there: If Obama and crew continue to pursue this issue, they’re only going to trap themselves. When given the chance to stop the bridge to nowhere in the Senate, both Obama and Biden did nothing.
So not only are they factually wrong in attacking Palin, but they have absolutely no right to talk themselves.
(Photo: Associated Press)
I got that email from Demint earlier today. I won’t bother reading any further emails after this one. Palin didn’t stop the bridge to nowhere, congress allowed it to be killed. If she was so against the earmark she wouldn’t have taken the money allotted for the project afterward. Palin nor McCain are reformers. They are both crooks, McCain isn’t half the man he was just a year or two ago. The fiscal responsibility repubs preach was the only thing that kept me from leaning democratic. Until so called conservatives are ready to demand better leadership they won’t have my vote.
Yeah, because Jim Demint knows what he’s talking about. Everything Republican blowhards say, must be true.
Jim oughta be recalled. What has he done to help the people of SC? Nothing. What has he done to further the radical agenda? EVERYTHING POSSIBLE.
I respect Demint’s commitment to lower spending, but he’s wrong when he says that Palin “changed her position and saved taxpayers millions.” The taxpayers didn’t save a dime; Alaska still got all the money, but it was used for other roads projects, some of them actually on the “nowhere” island.
Among the “ravenous left wing media” groups disagreeing with Palin/Demint on this is the Taxpayers for Common Sense, whose leader Keith Ashdown coined the term “Bridge to Nowhere” and called Demint a “friend of the taxpayers”. I think I probably believe this organization when they talk about Palin’s record. Here’s a nice NPR interview with Ashdown: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94481285
So, when did you liberals start having a problem with earmarks? If you don’t vote for a big spender, you will not be able to vote at all. Demint admits that he he is a reformed earmarker and I believe him. -
David- as a rather confused libertarian, I’ve had a problem with larger government spending for a while, whether it comes from earmarks or other sources. As you’ve said, both parties have a problem with huge spending, so I’ll have to base my decision on other issues (small things like respect for the law and protecting the constitution).
The reason Obama can use this against Palin, even if he didn’t oppose the project, is that she has constantly said she was responsible for killing the bridge to nowhere, and that she’s a proven anti-earmarks crusader. That’s just not true. People should know it’s not true- and if Obama has to spend money to make sure people know, he’s got every right to do so without being a hypocrite.
I’m scared to see what Obama and a Dem congress would do to the budget, but it couldn’t be any worse than what Bush and the Republicans have done.
One more quick note- although this “Bridge to Nowhere” money was spent elsewhere, the money for the access road to the bridge had to be spent or returned to the federal government. Did Palin return it to the feds? Nope. Alaska is “continuing to build a road on Gravina Island to an empty beach where the bridge would have gone”. I think that’s probably the definition of “wasteful spending”. Here’s the link: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/128721.html