See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Palin "bridge to nowhere" line angers many Alaskans -- Palin flip flop
Source:
www.reuters.com
URL Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCa ... ateFeed7/idUSN3125537020080901
Published: Sep 1, 2008
Author: Yereth Rosen
Post Date: 2008-09-01 10:53:17 by Ferret Mike
Keywords: None
Views: 1058
Comments: 53
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - It garnered big applause in her first speech as Republican John McCain's vice presidential pick, but Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's assertion that she rejected Congressional funds for the so-called "bridge to nowhere" has upset many Alaskans. During her first speech after being named as McCain's surprise pick as a running mate, Palin said she had told Congress "'thanks but no thanks' on that bridge to nowhere." In the city Ketchikan, the planned site of the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere," political leaders of both parties said the claim was false and a betrayal of their community, because she had supported the bridge and the earmark for it secured by Alaska's Congressional delegation during her run for governor. The bridge, a span from the city to Gravina Island, home to only a few dozen people, secured a $223 million earmark in 2005. The pricey designation raised a furor and critics, including McCain, used the bridge as an example of wasteful federal spending on politicians' pet projects. When she was running for governor in 2006, Palin said she was insulted by the term "bridge to nowhere," according to Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein, a Democrat, and Mike Elerding, a Republican who was Palin's campaign coordinator in the southeast Alaska city. "People are learning that she pandered to us by saying, I'm for this' ... and then when she found it was politically advantageous for her nationally, abruptly she starts using the very term that she said was insulting," Weinstein said. Palin's spokeswoman in Alaska was not immediately available to comment. National fury over the bridge caused Congress to remove the earmark designation, but Alaska was still granted an equivalent amount of transportation money to be used at its own discretion. Last year, Palin announced she was stopping state work on the controversial project, earning her admirers from earmark critics and budget hawks from around the nation. The move also thrust her into the spotlight as a reform-minded newcomer. The state, however, never gave back any of the money that was originally earmarked for the Gravina Island bridge, said Weinstein and Elerding. In fact, the Palin administration has spent "tens of millions of dollars" in federal funds to start building a road on Gravina Island that is supposed to link up to the yet-to-be-built bridge, Weinstein said. "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money," said Elerding about her applause line. Former state House Speaker Gail Phillips, a Republican who represented the Kenai Peninsula city of Homer, is also critical about Palin's reversal on the bridge issue. "You don't tell a group of Alaskans you support something and then go to someplace else and say you oppose it," said Phillips, who supported Palin's opponent, Democrat Tony Knowles, in the 2006 gubernatorial race. A press release issued by the governor on September 21, 2007 said she decided to cancel state work on the project because of rising cost estimates. "It's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Palin said in the news release. "Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here." (Editing by Daisuke Wakabayashi and Sandra Maler)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-13) not displayed.
.
.
.
#14. To: Ferret Mike (#12)
(Edited)
Sure you can. Abortion involves killing an innocent, capital punishment involves killing a brutal murderer. Saying that being anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment is inconsistent is like saying that you can't be anti-murder but in favor of the right to kill in self-defense. Anyway, abortion isn't the topic of this thread. As far as the "bridge to nowhere" goes, if Palin can change from being a Buchanan/Paul supporter to a warmongering neocon overnight, is it any surprise that she flip-flops on less important issues like pork earmarks too?
That would seem to be the best case scenario at this point. She then has to be careful who she picks as her VP so that they don't whack her to install a "made man". Ron Paul would be a good choice.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Didn't take her long to adopt the PNAC foreign policy line, did it? Why should we expect her to be any more principled on domestic issues? If she were the wonderful, honest person that her fans here say she is, she wouldn't be Mad Mac's VP. Just like Obama wouldn't have been endorsed by Ted Kennedy and John Kerry in the primaries if he were anything but another DNC hack.
and bush and the neocons have not? Ever stop to think that politicians use abortion as a political football and nothing else? It's all just cheap talk for them to try and get votes. You are aware that since 2000 tax payer funding for pro-abortion organizations both within and outside the U.S. has gone up substantially. If bush and the Republicans were truly pro-life, this would not have happened. And don't forget the 60,000 plus children who have been killed in the unnecessary, immoral and illegal war in Iraq and the fiasco in Afghanistan.
Just like Obama wouldn't have been endorsed by Ted Kennedy and John Kerry in the primaries if he were anything but another DNC hack. A group of people 'round here are closet McCainiacs and it's evident in their see-no-inconsistency defense of Palin and her "record".
They aren't children, they're casualties of the war on terrah. /s
You're right. It's not just Palin they're defending now, all of the sudden, McCain is looking good to them too. I'm starting to see a lot of "McCain isn't so bad after all if he picked Palin." How long before the McCain Team here starts calling everyone with any criticism of their candidate "liberal Democrats" or "Obamaites," even though most of us have no intention of supporting Obama either?
Wrong, and when the right thread for this topic comes up, I'll explain the flaws in your argument for you. This bridge issue is an interesting on as it reveals Palin to be just as much a panderer to opportunity as any politician. And actually, it is never a surprise to see a politico has feet of clay. I am deeply amused by the Republican Gramps a Sis show this time around. It is like that old TV show the Waltons done up in a South Park setting. They sure are doing a good job plowing the road for a Democratic victory in November. We are still in deep shit no matter who wins if but for the limits a Barack Obama can bring to react to a locomotive this big, fast and heavy leaving the tracks as the U.S. derails into neocon fascism. But you have to hand it to the GOP, they sure know how to build a losing presidential ticket in style. I am much amused. It is going to be a long struggle to deal with the neocons as ruthlessly as needs doing with people who are ruthless at this level naturally. But I see electing Obama as a good step creating the right climate for the upcoming struggle, so I profoundly support him for POTUS, and will enjoy opposing him where he needs opposing much more then with more neocons in the White House who believe protesters should be in FEMA camps, but are just not ready yet to admit this.
And besides, nits make lice! NITS MAKE LICE! They would've just grown up to hate us for our FREEEEEEEDOMS.
Live from the Bridge to Nowhere...
Yes you can. You can be for protecting innocent life. If your for protecting innocent life you must be for taking of guilty life that kills innocent life. Otherwise you are being inconsistent.
You are mostly correct here. I don't think "all" pro life Republicans are like that though. Or for that matter all pro life democrats. But by in large that is an accurate statement that I can't disagree with. Remember I am a Chuck Baldwin supporter. But the trash talk of these evil liberals (not you ferret) about Palins daughter is almost enough to turn me towards McCain. Just so they don't get their "messiah". To hear them gloat would be sickening.
I think you are a closeted Obama supporter. Palin is easy to defend. She doesn't have a large record of things us true conservatives disagree with. In fact she has fought corruption within the party. Sold the Governors Jet. Seems principled. So so far a lot of us like her. Maybe it is that Obama is so unacceptable that we will stay on the same bad road instead of a much worse one.
That's the same argument the Bush supporters used 8 years ago. I didn't buy it then, and I'm not buying it now.
I don't like it anymore then you do. I voted Bush in 2000 because if my strong dislike of Clinton and Gore. If I stuck to my principals I was going to vote for Buchanan. I voted constitution party in 2004. Mike Peroutka. I don't agree with Bush on very much. Especially not the war on terror. Patriot act, NAFTA etc. But the reality of the situation is that I am doing ok personally. Obama is a whole new can of worms. I think he would make things even worse. Maybe I am wrong but that is the perception I get. He is a full blown marxist. As of now I plan on voting for Baldwin. But as the left shows more and more of its ugly face. I get tempted to pull the lever for McCain. At least things would pretty much continue as they are. If Obama does win I hope that I am wrong about him, but I doubt it.
If more people had voted their principles instead of being conned into the "lesser evil" argument, Buchanan probably would have gotten close to 10% of the vote (what he polled early on) instead of his half of one percent, or whatever it was that he got. Not enough to win, but enough to keep issues like NAFTA, immigration, and foreign policy in the spotlight. Instead, people settled for Bush, and the two party fraud kept perpetuating itself. The truth is, Gore wouldn't have been any worse than idiot Bush and crook Cheney.
Instead, people settled for Bush, and the two party fraud kept perpetuating itself. The truth is, Gore wouldn't have been any worse than idiot Bush and crook Cheney. Pat should have stayed in the primaries and not ceded it to Bush.
This is an excellent argument for voting one's conscience.
Many on the Right were very unhappy with Bush, and many on the Left were very unhappy with Gore. Unfortunately, the mass media spin about being "spoilers" and "wasted votes" scared most of them into voting for establishment candidates. I feel like killing somebody when I hear a DNC or RNC bullshitter talk about "spoilers" and "vote stealers." As if our votes somehow belonged to their rotten party hacks.
Keeping issues alive is a right worthy goal. Thanks for explaining that.
Ya' know, I really despise that argument. The AK governor can gaff about one a day now. Every day brings me one step away from NOTA and closer to voting AGAINST the commie nut cases, Obama and Biden, by voting for McCracked/Palin.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition "Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." © IndieTx Do what you want to do with your vote, but like it or not the issue of abortion has been evolving toward the pro-life position, and to bring on board those who need to to get enough national unity to end the practice of abortion is going to require people to find ways to get along or it just won't happen. Obama has taken an important step in saying he is personally against abortions. He has a difficult position on the short term in that he is not about to upset needed supporters who are vehemently pro-choice. I see Obama as someone I can work with and as being generally more forthcoming and honest in his approach to things that are important. I know McCain deep inside is as pro-choice as Obama to be generous to the man, as he well could be even more pro-choice then the Democratic nominee. Obama's honesty on the issue is better then McCain mouthing a lie to pander. Vote for the lie to dis the 'O' guy if you wish, but you will still be voting for someone who is pro-choice. Sis Palin is there in fact to help shore up Grampa McSame's reputation as a waffle on the subject, so at least you have somewhat of an excuse to vote the Gramps/Sis ticket. ;-)
Obviously, you think a lot of things that are incorrect. Accusing me of being an Obama supporter is merely a tactic to avoid the disccusion of the issues at hand. Address the topic of the thread, or come all out for McCain (Palin has)...then you can salvage some semblence of honesty in your discussion.
All the pro aborts say that. Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry. It is nothing new. It is like a murderer saying I'm personally opposed to killing but I needed that money.
It's an argument I counter with saying he's one of them.
Address the topic of the thread, or come all out for McCain (Palin has)...then you can salvage some semblence of honesty in your discussion. I said I think, not I know. But you do seem pretty liberal. No drilling. Are you pro abortion too? ( I honestly don't know) What about gay marriage? How about right to bear arms? ( I think you are probably for that one)
Was Obama being honest when he said the troops would be out in 18 months or when he said he couldn't guarantee them to be out by his first term?
It has worked magnificently hasn't it. Obama has to be runnig scared now. I think McCain rightly or wrongly just checkmated Obama. Remember there are many democrat racists that wont vote for Obama. Yes there are Republican ones too.
Again you are making hay with the complicit with the murder bombasticism. I say that the attitude of you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet acceptance of the fact innocent people get executed with the guilty makes anti- abortion pro-capital punishment people hypocrites of the highest order. So now you have brought us back here Stonie, to a demonstration of how divisive tactics do not work well at building communities or nations as you and I display two intolerant sides of an argument. We have just had over seven years of Rovian politics where divisions in people were used to hold and build power. So naturally you do what you have been taught to do, almost instinctively in fact. Let us strive to get away from that mindset and move toward a desire to build community and nationalistic cohesiveness here. We are all going to have to learn to live with one another, because if we do not the Bushes and Cheneys have won and the divided little sub groups of this and that opinion will be picked off one by one, no matter how profoundly right they feel about their belief systems. That is part of the plan on how they want things to go anyway, I say don't give this opportunity to them. Built consensuses and learn to live and build together, or we will all die apart in a Balkanized mess of immense proportions.
Allow me to clarify. I don't support either of the two party frauds or their henchmen or henchwomen. Not Obama, not McCain. I think the oil corporations with their greedy self interest in ANWR don't serve the interests of the American people. I'm not opposed to drilling but knee-jerk, blantant drilling for oil at the expense of other valuable resources isn't prudent. I'm not pro abortion, but I think abortion should remain legal and solely the decision of the woman. I don't care what the gays do, I just don't want them in my face or their politics in the pre-secondary classroom. I support the constitution. Owning guns and weapons for defense and hunting is perfectly acceptable to my way of thinking.
Mike I think you want to do the right thing. I think you are sincere. I just think you are wrong. About the abortion part. But you are right on the part that we should try to get along and build consensus and do the right thing.
Everything else you said was pretty good imo. But if think abortion should be legal. Then you are for it. It is a cop out to try and score brownie points to say otherwise.
That is part of the plan on how they want things to go anyway, I say don't give this opportunity to them. Built consensuses and learn to live and build together, or we will all die apart in a Balkanized mess of immense proportions. If that were your true position, it allows no room to support an Obama ticket. The democrats gave up on "freedom" as the reason for their positions decades ago.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition "Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." © IndieTx I don't see that. And I do not see panic in Obama over this pick. Barack Obama see it for waht it is, a desparate attempt to mend fences he should have mended months ago to the point he could have moved on to a VP candidate that provides assurance of the support of a demographically large swing state. Or one that covers another more common roll of the number two in a ticket. My take on it is Obama smells weakness and is seeing McCain sweat. I see the pick as a sign of desparation from a man knowing he is going to lose in November. And so does the Obama campaign.
Tell that to the 10 million dollar woman. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5700022&page=1
One or the other ticket will win. I am going to live with putting my vote where I feel it would do the most good. I also like the guy and find him a refreshing change from the sort of politician I have been used to seeing and want him to have a go at the job. He has much more riding on success in that he doesn't want to make it harder for another non Caucasian man or woman to follow in his foot steps, and I expect that to help keep him 'out of the box' and not fall into the rut of taking power and prerogative of the office for granted and think of himself as above the law as the current administration does. In any event, I still see him as going on to a win, so we will see if I will have to endure "I told you so" barbs or not in the end. If that happens, oh well, that's how things sometimes go in life, yes?
I don't care what you think. You asked me my position, I gave it. You contine to avoid discussing Plain's inconsistencies and it's tiresome. I'll just not bother to respond to your attempts to distract the threads from the topics.
You mean you didn't expect a deadline generated bump in McCain donations? One common theme in this election is "money bombs." And it is no surprise to see them try to tie it a solely Sis's doing. Nice little story that, the Grinch - McCain - is a stale, temperamental, and jaded idiot cousin brought back to good standing in the Republican family by a sweet little sugar pie from Alaska. It would be a ready for the Waltons sort of tale, if it didn't sit on the foundation of South Park sorts of truths to it. ;-) Well, gee, that's swell she ballooned the take for the loon if that is so. But in the end that is just another little slice of what goes on in this sort of campaign in the You Tube/Internet age.
The closet commies were exposed here, next up is the closet fascists. More pretend "independent constitutionalists".
Mark If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower
I'm just pointing out hypocrisy, and agree that one issue voting (on either side) will, many times, drag wet clothes inside the sleeping back.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition "Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." © IndieTx You cannot be pro-life and pro-capital punishment.
#15. To: Sam Houston (#8)
What would really be fascinating would be for him then immediately to die in office. That would be a hoot (not for him, but for Mrs. Palin and the rest of us, for sure).
#16. To: angle (#11)
(Edited)
Whatever is politically expedient works for Mrs. Palin.
#17. To: Old Friend (#1)
#18. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#16)
If she were the wonderful, honest person that her fans here say she is, she wouldn't be Mad Mac's VP.
#19. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#17)
And don't forget the 60,000 plus children who have been killed in the unnecessary, immoral and illegal war in Iraq and the fiasco in Afghanistan.
#20. To: angle (#18)
#21. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#14)
(Edited)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#22. To: angle (#19)
They aren't children, they're casualties of the war on terrah.
#23. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#20)
--
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#24. To: Ferret Mike (#12)
You cannot be pro-life and pro-capital punishment. That is my quite consistent position on this.
#25. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#17)
and bush and the neocons have not? Ever stop to think that politicians use abortion as a political football and nothing else? It's all just cheap talk for them to try and get votes. You are aware that since 2000 tax payer funding for pro-abortion organizations both within and outside the U.S. has gone up substantially. If bush and the Republicans were truly pro-life, this would not have happened. And don't forget the 60,000 plus children who have been killed in the unnecessary, immoral and illegal war in Iraq and the fiasco in Afghanistan.
#26. To: angle (#18)
A group of people 'round here are closet McCainiacs and it's evident in their see-no-inconsistency defense of Palin and her "record".
#27. To: Old Friend (#26)
Maybe it is that Obama is so unacceptable that we will stay on the same bad road instead of a much worse one.
#28. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#27)
That's the same argument the Bush supporters used 8 years ago. I didn't buy it then, and I'm not buying it now.
#29. To: Old Friend (#28)
(Edited)
I don't like it anymore then you do. I voted Bush in 2000 because if my strong dislike of Clinton and Gore. If I stuck to my principals I was going to vote for Buchanan.
#30. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#29)
If more people had voted their principals instead of being conned into the "lesser evil" argument, Buchanan probably would have gotten close to 10% of the vote (what he polled early on) instead of his half of one percent, or whatever it was that he got. Not enough to win, but enough to keep issues like NAFTA, immigration, and foreign policy in the spotlight.
#31. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#29)
#32. To: buckeye (#31)
(Edited)
#33. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#32)
#34. To: Ferret Mike, old friend (#2)
He has come out against abortion personally and supports the woman carrying having the right to chose differently then he believes she should.
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of it's very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#35. To: IndieTX (#34)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#36. To: Old Friend (#26)
I think you are a closeted Obama supporter.
#37. To: Ferret Mike (#35)
Obama has taken an important step in saying he is personally against abortions.
#38. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#29)
Gore wouldn't have been any worse than idiot Bush and crook Cheney.
#39. To: angle (#36)
Obviously, you think a lot of things that are incorrect. Accusing me of being an Obama supporter is merely a tactic to avoid the disccusion of the issues at hand.
#40. To: Ferret Mike (#35)
Obama's honesty
#41. To: Ferret Mike (#35)
Sis Palin is there in fact to help shore up Grampa McSame's reputation as a waffle on the subject, so at least you have somewhat of an excuse to vote the Gramps/Sis ticket.
#42. To: Old Friend (#37)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#43. To: Old Friend (#39)
#44. To: Ferret Mike (#42)
#45. To: angle (#43)
I'm not pro abortion, but I think abortion should remain legal and solely the decision of the woman.
#46. To: Ferret Mike (#42)
We are all going to have to learn to live with one another, because if we do not the Bushes and Cheneys have won and the divided little sub groups of this and that opinion will be picked off one by one, no matter how profoundly right they feel about their belief systems.
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of it's very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#47. To: Old Friend (#41)
"I think McCain rightly or wrongly just checkmated Obama."
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#48. To: Ferret Mike (#47)
I don't see that. And I do not see panic in Obama over this pick.
#49. To: IndieTX (#46)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#50. To: Old Friend (#45)
#51. To: Old Friend (#48)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#52. To: angle (#18)
#53. To: Ferret Mike (#35)
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of it's very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest