Palin's Speech: What do you think?

[_dartagnan]

In October 2005, the funds were granted due to the efforts of congressman Don Young and Senator Ted Stevens. Congress gave them $220 million for the project. After Hurricane Katrina, Congress tried to divert the funds for aid to Louisianna and Mississippi, but Stevens threatened to quit Congress if it did.
13 months later Sarah palin was elected Alaska's Governor.

She campaigned and supported the idea of a bridge, but after she was elected she learned that the project required $400 million because it needed to be as long as the Golden Gate and as tall as the Brooklyn bridge for ships to pass under.

In 2007, when she changed her mind, this was her public explanation:

"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer. Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

Now in her acceptance speech, she said, "If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves." Is this really a lie?

It seems consistent with the evidence. Is there evidence that she went before congress and tried to get this earmark? It seems to me that this ordeal was hatched long before she came to office. The money was used on other transportation projects, as it should be. The residents of Ketchikan would be royally pissed if they had those funds taken away to boot.

Those funds were used to build new roads and such. Now as I understand "pork barrel" spending, it refers specifically to wasteful spending. Is spending Congress' money on roads, water treatment and sewage managment considered wasteful?
Whens she says she told Congress to stuff it, could she be referring to a subsequent incident we don't know about? This issue is fresh, and she has hardly had a chance to respond to any of this. So I will await her explanation. Now if she were really the pork meister as you claim, then perhaps she was also lying about this?

"I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes."

If this is true, then it seems hard to believe your claim can be true. If your claim is true, it hardly seems her statement above can be true. Nor do I believe she could have sold the state-owned luxury jet that was at her own disposal. I think what might be happening here is that you are interpreting any kind of spending as "pork/earmarks" and then saying this proves she is a porker.

But look at what this money is going towards. Not a town museum or amusement park. It is going towards transportation needs for the nations largest geographic state. Isn't it the general duty of the Federal government to provide bridges and roads? Why should Alaska be treated differently? That was the argument by Ted Stevens, which is what got him the money to begin with. Palin continued:

"I suspended the state fuel tax, and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress."

Is this a lie? Note that she said she tries to end the "abuses" of earmark spending. Given her numerous vetos of a half billion in wasteful spending, I don't see how anyone can argue with this. But this doesn't mean she isn't willing to accept money from the federal government, to pay for things it is supposed to pay for; things it pays for in most other states.

[_EAllusion]

She said she said "thanks but no thanks" continuing on the disingenuous theme. She abandoned the bridge once it became clear Stevens lost the political capital to deliver the funds. The quote you provided explains it. She was still favoring it when it was openly mocked nationally as the "bridge to nowhere" with its associated costs. It's Congress that told her thanks but no thanks. She said thanks, they said no thanks, and she said, "fine, we don't want it then."



John McCain, or rather his staffers that speak for him, considered Palin's activities wasteful.

WASILLA, ALASKA -- For much of his long career in Washington, John McCain has been throwing darts at the special spending system known as earmarking, through which powerful members of Congress can deliver federal cash for pet projects back home with little or no public scrutiny. He's even gone so far as to publish "pork lists" detailing these financial favors.

Three times in recent years, McCain's catalogs of "objectionable" spending have included earmarks for this small Alaska town, requested by its mayor at the time -- Sarah Palin.

Now, McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, has chosen Palin as his running mate, touting her as a reformer just like him.

McCain has made opposition to pork-barrel spending a central theme of his 2008 campaign. "Earmarking deprives federal agencies of scarce resources, at the whim of individual members of Congress," McCain has said.

But records show that Palin -- first as mayor of Wasilla and recently as governor of Alaska -- was far from shy about pursuing tens of millions in earmarks for her town, her region and her state.

This year, Palin, who has been governor for nearly 22 months, defended earmarking as a vital part of the legislative system. "The federal budget, in its various manifestations, is incredibly important to us, and congressional earmarks are one aspect of this relationship," she wrote in a newspaper column.

In 2001, McCain's list of spending that had been approved without the normal budget scrutiny included a $500,000 earmark for a public transportation project in Wasilla. The Arizona senator targeted $1 million in a 2002 spending bill for an emergency communications center in town -- one that local law enforcement has said is redundant and creates confusion.

McCain also criticized $450,000 set aside for an agricultural processing facility in Wasilla that was requested during Palin's tenure as mayor and cleared Congress soon after she left office in 2002. The funding was provided to help direct locally grown produce to schools, prisons and other government institutions, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group.

Wasilla received $11.9 million in earmarks from 2000 to 2003. The results of this spending are very apparent today. (The town also benefited from $15 million in federal funds to promote regional rail transportation.)

The community transit center is a landmark: a one-story, tile-fronted building with a drive-through garage. Its fleet of 10 buses provides service throughout the region. Mat-Su Community Transit Agency officials say the building was made possible with a combination of federal money and matching gifts from a private foundation.

Taylor Griffin, a McCain campaign spokesman, said that when Palin became mayor in 1996, "she faced a system that was broken. Small towns like Wasilla in Alaska depended on earmarks to take care of basic needs. . . . That was something that Gov. Palin was alarmed about and was one of the formative experiences that led her toward the reform-oriented stance that she has taken as her career has progressed."

Palin, he said, was "disgusted" that small towns like hers were dependent on earmarks.

Public records paint a different picture:

Wasilla had received few if any earmarks before Palin became mayor. She actively sought federal funds -- a campaign that began to pay off only after she hired a lobbyist with close ties to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who long controlled federal spending as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He made funneling money to Alaska his hallmark.

Steven Silver was a former chief of staff for Stevens. After he was hired, Wasilla obtained funding for several projects in 2002, including an additional $600,000 in transportation funding.

That year, a local water and sewer project received $1.5 million, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, which combs federal spending measures to identify projects inserted by congressional members.

When Palin spoke after McCain introduced her as his running mate at a rally in Ohio last week, she made fun of earmarking. She said she had rejected $223 million in federal funds for a bridge linking Ketchikan to an island with an airport and 50 residents, referring to it by its derogatory label: the "bridge to nowhere."

In the nationally televised speech, she stood by McCain and said, "I've championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress thanks, but no thanks, on that bridge to nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, I said, we'd build it ourselves."

However, as a candidate for governor in 2006, Palin had backed funding for the bridge. After her election, she killed the much-ridiculed project when it became clear the state had other priorities. She said she would use the federal funds to fill those needs.

This year she submitted to Congress a list of Alaska projects worth $197.8 million, including $2 million to research crab productivity in the Bering Sea and $7.4 million to improve runway lighting at eight Alaska airports. A spokesman said she cut the original list of 54 projects to 31.

"So while Sen. McCain was going after cutting earmarks in Washington," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, "Gov. Palin was going after getting earmarks."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 2434.story

[_dartagnan]

She said she said "thanks but no thanks" continuing on the disingenuous theme.

And did she or did she not? Is she really referring to a time before she was governor - as we all assume- or is she referring to a later time?

She abandoned the bridge once it became clear Stevens lost the political capital to deliver the funds. The quote you provided explains it. She was still favoring it when it was openly mocked nationally as the "bridge to nowhere" with its associated costs. It's Congress that told her thanks but no thanks. She said thanks, they said no thanks, and she said, "fine, we don't want it then."

I think there is a difference between wasteful spending and earmarking as a legitimate means to direct federal funds towards things it should pay for anyway. Earmarkings is not illegal, but it is often abused. I see no evidence that she abused the system. I see plenty of evidence that she tried to reform it. I mean come on, the woman sold the government jet on Ebay for crying out loud. She is willing to sacrifice to give back to the people of Alaska. I think she will do the same for Americans.

Much of this depends on what specific things we are talking about. So far the lists of things being paid for seem legitimate. The bridge idea might seeme wasteful to a non-Alaskan who sees an open territory and a tiny island with a relatively small population, but then it wasn't Palin's idea to begin with. She went into office knowing that congress had already set aside money for that bridge. She knew her constituents were expecting that money. But the amount wasn't nearly enough to pay for the bridge, so the funds served the people of that town by providing paved roads. How is that wasteful? How is that hypocritical? She never said she was against the federal government helping small towns ever. She only said she vetoed a half billion in wasteful spending and she worked to stop abusive earmarking.

The entire bridge idea wasn't hers to begin with, but when she came into office there were already expectations for its construction and the money was already there. It was set in motion a year earlier by two Alaskan politicians who had convinced congress to give them 200 million. And the photo you provided explains why she refers to it as the bridge to "nowhere." It isn't intended as derrogatory; it is simply what it is known as. Why would they print tee-shirts in the town and wear them if it were derrogatory?

However, as a candidate for governor in 2006, Palin had backed funding for the bridge. After her election, she killed the much-ridiculed project when it became clear the state had other priorities. She said she would use the federal funds to fill those needs.

Well, that is prefectly consistent with the image the convention made of her. She uses money where it is best needed. She said she worked to end the abuse not the use of earmarks.

This year she submitted to Congress a list of Alaska projects worth $197.8 million, including $2 million to research crab productivity in the Bering Sea and $7.4 million to improve runway lighting at eight Alaska airports. A spokesman said she cut the original list of 54 projects to 31.

From 54 to 31? So she cut project spending by 43%? Well, that's also consistent with the image of someone trying to cut down on earmarks.

"So while Sen. McCain was going after cutting earmarks in Washington," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, "Gov. Palin was going after getting earmarks."

I think this is just liberal spin that one could only expect from something like the LA Times. McCain was going after cutting "wasteful" spending and so did Palin. The fact that on a few occassions, McCain and Palin happened to disagree on what counted as wasteful, is really a weak point to make I think. It certainly didn't hinder their relationship, and it doesn't prove she is a liar.

Again this is all fresh. She has been at the convention for days while the liberal media has been pumping out whatever dirt they can muster. So she hasn't had time to respond to any of this. I'll wait and see what she says. I already saw where one of her spokespersons tried to explain, but was cut off by Larry King. He started to explain that she didn't understand the fiscal realities as a candidate, but quickly learned them as governor. But the important thing to note is that she didn't build the bridge using the money she had. That would have been a waste. I think she was pressured to do it and she ultimately didn't, which doesn't sound like someone who is blowing congress' money on stupid stuff.

[_moksha]

Rove praises Palin's experience here:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... e-rnc.html

Funny, just 3 weeks ago, he made these comments about Tim Kaine as a possible VP candidate: ...

Yeah, Rove will apparently say anything for partisan purposes. The Daily Show featured this exact thing, as well as some about faces from O'Reilly and McCain's campaign chair. The need to support Palin is really making them eat their words. However, they don't really care. They will just keep spinning them out.

.

[_aussieguy55]

In Dr James Dobson's site
"Next weekend, the action moves to Washington, D.C., for the annual Values Voters Summit. Confirmed speakers include Newt Gingrich, Lou Dobbs, Star Parker, Phyllis Schlafly, Bill Bennett, Chuck Colson and many more."

Newt on his 3rd wife, turned up at her home with the divorce papers after she just got out of hospital with cancer. Bill Bennett writer of a book on virtue had a gambling problem. Chuck Colson spent time in jail.

[_dartagnan]

Beastie is trying to score all sorts of weird polemical points by pulling up anything any republican has said in the past that might seem contradictory to what was said previously, but she has yet to deal with the meat of her frustration with McCain, who she said is most likely to go to war with another nation. She ignores the words from her preferred candidate.

Obama made it perfectly clear on O'Reilly last night that he would attack Iran for the same exact reasons Bush attacked Iraq: if they continue efforts to obtain Nukes. He is even willing to enter Pakistan against their will. McCain commented last night that he absolutely hates war, and doesn't take it lightly, which is what I said of him the other day.

And she hasn't even begun to address the colossal quagmire the democrats are in for complaining about Bush's war regarding WMDs, when it was her own party who invented the whole thing to begin with. This concerted effort among democrats as a whole, makes her isolated examples from irrelevant republican figures, smack of denial on her part. She digs up these things for confirmation bias purposes, the same way LDS apologists will ignore damning evidence against their leaders by bringing up all kinds of weird tangential anecdotes about any anti-mormon, just to make themselves feel better.

[_dartagnan]

Yea, you keep watching the Daily Show for your political coverage Moksha. You're bound to find an unbiased comment, maybe even two, if you watch it long enough.

Good grief, why am I not surprised.

[_EAllusion]

And did she or did she not? Is she really referring to a time before she was governor - as we all assume- or is she referring to a later time?

You know, you could just look up the information from an independent source rather than rely on partisan spin. Again, she supported the bridge, even after it was being used nationally as a symbol of the problem with pork barrel projects. As governor, she continued building the road that led to the bridge. (They're still building it, since it was either do that or return the funds.) What happened is their congressional delegation lost the political capital to deliver on the funds in the face of ballooning costs. Palin's response, only after it became clear she could not fund the bridge solely with federal funds and would have to rely in significant part on the Alaskan state budget, was to kill the project and use the money elsewhere. Even as she did that, you can hear the lament in her quote that you provided. She takes a parting shot by saying the nature of the project was misrepresented nationally. She didn't say "Thanks, but no thanks" and she certainly wasn't opposed to the idea as a principled stand on self-reliance. If Stevens could've delivered the funds, she would've taken them. The impression they are attempting to create is 180 degrees the opposite of reality.

I think there is a difference between wasteful spending and earmarking as a legitimate means to direct federal funds towards things it should pay for anyway.

You should take that up with the McCain campaign that is trying hard to push a complete moratorium on earmarks. Legislative efforts he has been apart of thus far to stop it have not been successful, but there has been some success in cutting down on the process. I happen to agree with that stance. It's just that Palin doesn't, or rather she didn't. It's an interesting tactic you are taking here, defending her history of being as pro-earmark as all get out which is in completely opposition to how she was presented, by arguing that her earmarks were justified. To put it in perspective, if everyone received earmarks at the rate she achieved for her town, the government would be spending ~1.5 trillion on them in the same time period. Fortunately, what she and her lobbyist did with Ted Stevens isn't representative. Defend that all you want, but I have a problem with it in terms of my political views and in terms of how she was presented. The misrepresentation is already posted in black and white in my previous post. You can try to justify her practice, but that's beside the point.

From 54 to 31? So she cut project spending by 43%? Well, that's also consistent with the image of someone trying to cut down on earmarks.

I posted an op-ed written by Sarah Palin arguing that the reason for doing this was the climate in the federal government turning sour for pork. They're still managing to get the highest per capita pork in the country, it's just that it's harder for their congressional delegation to deliver the bacon. She specifically says it is necessary to reduce the amount of requests in order to maintain credibility in their appropriation requests given the increased difficulty in receiving them. Hardly an expression of anti-pork that McCain legitimately represents.

[_EAllusion]

http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html

BRIDGE TO NOWHERE

But it is the federally funded Bridge to Nowhere in Ketchikan that seems destined to make or break Palin's national reputation as a cost-cutting conservative.

The bridge was intended to provide access to Ketchikan's airport on lightly populated Gravina Island, opening up new territory for expansion at the same time. Alaska's congressional delegation endured withering criticism for earmarking $223 million for Ketchikan and a similar amount for a crossing of Knik Arm at Anchorage.

Congress eventually removed the earmark language but the money still went to Alaska, leaving it up to the administration of then-Gov. Frank Murkowski to decide whether to go ahead with the bridges or spend the money on something else.

In September, 2006, Palin showed up in Ketchikan on her gubernatorial campaign and said the bridge was essential for the town's prosperity.

She said she could feel the town's pain at being derided as a "nowhere" by prominent politicians, noting that her home town, Wasilla, had recently been insulted by the state Senate president, Ben Stevens.

"OK, you've got Valley trash standing here in the middle of nowhere," Palin said, according to an account in the Ketchikan Daily News. "I think we're going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project."

One year later, Ketchikan's Republican leaders said they were blindsided by Palin's decision to pull the plug.

Palin spokeswoman Sharon Leighow said Saturday that as projected costs for the Ketchikan bridge rose to nearly $400 million, administration officials were telling Ketchikan that the project looked less likely. Local leaders shouldn't have been surprised when Palin announced she was turning to less-costly alternatives, Leighow said. Indeed, Leighow produced a report quoting Palin, late in the governor's race, indicating she would also consider alternatives to a bridge.

CHANGE OF VIEW

Andrew Halcro, who ran against Palin in 2006, told The Associated Press on Saturday that Palin changed her views after she was elected to make a national splash.

Mayor Weinstein said many residents remain irked by Palin's failure to come to Ketchikan since that time to defend her decision -- despite promises that she would.

Weinstein may be especially sore -- he helped run the local campaign of Palin's 2006 Democratic rival, Tony Knowles. But comments this week from area Republicans show bitterness there too.

Bert Stedman, a Sitka Republican who represents Ketchikan in the state Senate, told the Ketchikan Daily News he was proud to see Palin picked for the vice-president's role, but disheartened by her reference to the bridge.

"In the role of governor, she should be pursuing a transportation policy that benefits the state of Alaska, (rather than) pandering to the southern 48," he said.

Businessman Mike Elerding, who helped run Palin's local campaign for governor, told the paper he would have a hard time voting for the McCain ticket because of Palin's subsequent neglect of Ketchikan and her flip-flop on the "Ralph Bartholomew Veterans Memorial Bridge."

TIMING OF PRESS RELEASE

Palin's 2007 press release announcing her change of course came just a month after McCain himself slammed the Ketchikan bridge for taking money that could have been used to shore up dangerous bridges like one that collapsed in Minnesota.

Leighow said she had no record of what time she sent out the press release, but does not recall being told to send it out early for East Coast media.

Once Palin spiked the bridge project, the money wasn't available to Minnesota or other states, however. Congress, chastened by criticism of the Alaska funding, had removed the earmark but allowed the state to keep the money and direct it to other transportation projects.

Enhanced ferry access to Gravina Island is one option under consideration, the state said.

Meanwhile, work is under way on a three-mile road on Gravina Island, originally meant to connect the airport and the new bridge. State officials said last year they were going ahead with the $25 million road because the money would otherwise have to be returned to the federal government.

Leighow said the road project was already under way last year when Palin stopped the bridge, and she noted that it would provide benefits of opening up new territory for development -- one of the original arguments made for the bridge spending.

[_EAllusion]

McCain/Palin are in Wisconsin today. Palin is still using her zinger against community organizers and it's still a huge applause line for the attending crowd. For the love of God, why?