Watch Sarah weasel her way out of her support for the Bridge to Nowhere.
How do we counter the spin that Jamison Foser of Media Matters reports at http://mediamatters.org/items/200809120021
• When Palin/McCain’s lies are reported as “here’s what Palin/McCain said, let’s see what Obama will do…” that makes it harder to see the lie.
• Once (1 time), Al Gore said he’d been involved in development of the Internet (true), and the NY Times and Wash Post led the narrative of the entire 2000 campaign, saying that Gore exaggerated:
“A whopping 74 percent thought “Gore would say anything to get elected,” compared to 58 percent who thought the same about Bush. Sixty percent thought Gore attacked Bush “unfairly,” while only 49 percent thought Bush attacked Gore unfairly.”
• When a lie is debunked, the media have 3 choices (and guess which one they choose for Democratic candidates):
“1. Ignore it, on the basis that a false claim is unworthy of attention.
“2. Adopt the false claim as the basis of their report, as they did with this week’s stories about whether or not Barack Obama made a sexist comment about Sarah Palin.
3.Report that the candidate is saying something that is untrue. If it is the latest of many falsehoods, indicate that. If the candidate is telling more and larger falsehoods than the opposition, make that clear.
Read the whole article, which is insightful, but discouraging. How do we counteract such a powerful (negative to the Democrats) media spin?
I think the hosts of “The View” knocked McCain around quiet well in regards to the lying and misrepresentation today. And McCain was wedged in between 5 women so he had no where to go. No one can call the questions sexist since there are 5 females hosts, and uber conservative Hasselback got him to talk about the types of supreme court justices he’d place/stance on abortion. McCain talked about getting back to what the constitution originally meant, and Whoope asked if she had to be concerned about being a slave, since that’s what the Constitution originally accepted. He was forced to acknowledge some flaws exist in the original document.
He still lied a bit, but they made him really uncomfortable and asked very pointed questions about issues and the campaign.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv5T_JC_mJ0
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzXMExpZm8w
The cable and MSM news teams should be embarassed that The View did a better job in one 20 minute segment than they’ve been doing for months.
Here’s the karmic bit: the rock star is being beaten by a folk singer. You may doubt the credentials, but the power of the people’s like for the form gives it all the credibility it needs.
Ultimately, she may not be the American Idol, but I bet she walks away with a good deal.
Style. It’s about style.
I’d rather by punched by someone who feels bad when they do and there is a chance their shame will stop them in the future as opposed to someone who has no shame in punching me, and tells me I should like it!
“[A] talent for speaking differently, rather than for arguing well, is the chief instrument of cultural change.”
Please, we want to talk weasel words, there are plenty of those on Obama’s and Biden’s side. This is politics, not the choice of the next pope.
Understanding Alaska politics (dominatd by the hands of Don Young and Ted Stevens) helps to understand Palin’s position. It would have been career suicide not to have supported the bridge originally.
In addition, what makes it wrong for a state to aggressively go after earmarks? They are playing by the rules. The rules need to change, but it’s like accusing someone of “taking deductions on their tax return”. You’re going to get a blank stare — what does one do, NOT take the deduction? It’s a fair analogy.
Finally, the Bridge to Nowhere was a questionable idea, but it wasn’t entirely a “Bridge to Nowhere”. It was a bridge between Ketchikan’s airport and the mainland (currently served by ferry), and because of its location on the Narrows, required extensive engineering to be high enough to allow shipping to continue. Not many people realize that when you fly into Kethikan, you land, then have to get off and take a ferry to actually get to the mainland. Works fine in practice (albeit a bit frustrating if you’re tight on time), but it is a bit of a baffling concept to those of us used to a more urban structure of “drive and fly”. The bridge, hence, wasn’t a bad idea, it just turned into an incredibly expensive one because of the inordinate amount of engineering required.
The difference in the level of deception coming from the two campaigns is like the difference between somebody who drove home slightly buzzed, and a guy who did six shots, got in his car, and killed a family. The lies about The Bridge are actually the least of it, but their significance is amplified by the larger pattern they represent.
Earmarks are, in general, a terribly corrupting influence. They exist to protect incumbants, giving them an undue measure of security, and significantly degrading the impartiality of the legislaton they create. There’s a world of difference between engaging in the kind of quid pro quo that earmarks typically involve and taking deductions on the 1040.
The problem with Palin’s story is that she says she killed the bridge, when, in reality, she simply stopped lobbying when the project became shorthand for earmark abuse in general. However, she still took neraly $30,000,000 from the original earmark, for ‘other purposes’.
For someone running on an anti-earmark platform, this is totally unaccecptable. And she knows it, which is why she has to bob and weave and lie.
Sorry, bad code in the italics. Didn’t mean to sound like I was shouting.
AB, Does this mean that you will no longer take those deductions? Happy Face
I can’t disagree with your sense of right and wrong, but then theirs is the pragmatism of politics which I find distasteful but for the reality.
Why are you trying to change the subject? The issue is she was for it, for whatever reason, it doesn’t matter. Now the John Bush campaign is lying that somehow this moose killer is against earmarks. The issue is the lie. The blatant, unapologetic, bold-faced, we think you’re idiots lie. It offends me and it should offend you. I can agree to disagree about policy and positions, but at the very least I want my leaders to tell the truth. After 8 years of being lied to ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
@mark: When Obama lied about his parents marriage and his conception relative to Selma, when he lied about his connections to Tony Rezco and William Ayers, when he lied about how the Kennedy’s rescued his father, were you similarly outraged?
The depth of hypocrisy on both sides is sickening. Scream at the sky until you are hoarse. America isn’t listening to that. They are staring transfixed at the horizon at a huge wave coming ashore.
It may be useful to inquire what Alaska did with the earmark money.
If you think anyone can march into Washington and change it’s culture over night, change those practices entrenched in both parties, then there is a non-existent bridge in Ketchikan I have to sell you. The change we all say we want won’t be easy or fast and it is being asked for as an economic tsunami washes ashore.
It’s not a question of change any longer. Change is here. Go buy gas for your car this morning. Try to cash in your Lehman Brothers stock. It’s a matter of what we are going to do about it, and mostly, what will we willingly lose, not what we will gladly gain.
“When Obama lied about his parents marriage and his conception relative to Selma, when he lied about his connections to Tony Rezco and William Ayers, when he lied about how the Kennedy’s rescued his father, were you similarly outraged?”
I know I’m not the same Mark you were talking to, but please show me these ‘lies’ in a little more detail and how they’re relevant. Link it up, my friend.
I haven’t heard these Town Hall talking points before. Obama lied about his parents marriage? Specifics, please, as well as specifics for the rest of these “lies”.
Incidentally, John Bush’s “to do” list includes ending earmarks, which goes directly against Palin’s actions. So the one “plan” MsSame has includes ending the way Palin governs. Is the hypocrisy clear yet?
The Bridge to Nowhere – Gibson’s shameful Lies – the documents & facts to prove the Truth
Posted by: mcauleysworld on: September 13, 2008
In: 2008 Elections| ABC News| Attacks on Palin| Barack Obama| Bridge to Nowhere| Charles Gibson Interview| Joe Biden| John McCain| Media Bias| Palin Interview| Palin Rumors| Politics| Sara Palin| Sarah Palin No Comments
ABC’s Charles Gibson’s shameful lies & The bias of the Liberal Left Media – The truth about the Bridge to Nowhere and how it was funded.
ABC’s Charles Gibson falsely accused Governor Palin of “Being for the Bridge to Nowhere before you were against the Bridge to Nowhere”. With Gibson’s large staff of researchers one would have to assume Gibson knew his accusation to be false. http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594
Thanks to ABC’s editing, Palin’s actual, verbatim, responses to this false accusation may never be heard.
The following is a brief analysis of the facts, based on Congressional voting records and State Budget Documents.
The spending Proposal to fund the Bridge was submitted in 2005 to the US House, by US Rep Don Young, (R) from Alaska. The “Bridge” received funding that year, 2005, while Palin was serving as Mayor of Wasilla. This “fact” can been confirmed by Congressional documents and in fact, has been confirmed by the independent consumer group, “Citizen’s Against Government Waste.” http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594
The original “bill” funding the $223 Million “Bridge” (in fact 2 bridges were funded) was passed by the US House of Representatives, the US Senate and was signed by President Bush and became law in 2005. When the bill reached the US Senate, Senators Obama and Biden voted to fund the Bridge while Senator McCain did not. In 2005 Mayor Palin was not involved with any part of this process. In 2005 the Governor of Alaska was Frank Murkowski, the incumbent Republican Governor Mayor Palin later defeated. http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594
In October, 2005, Senator Tom Colburn, (R) Oklahoma, offered an amendment to transfer $75 million from the ’Bridge to Nowhere” to funding to rebuild New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. His amendment was defeated by a vote of 15-82. Senators Biden and Obama voted with the Majority and against the amendment which would have decreased funding for the Bridge to Nowhere; Sen. McCain was not present for the vote. http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594
With the completion of this vote in October 2005, formal Congressional opposition to the “Bridge to Nowhere” came to an end.
In November, 2005, Congress included language in the final version of the fiscal 2006 Transportation Appropriations Act that allowed the state of Alaska to either spend money on the two bridges or on other surface transportation projects. Frank Murkowski was still the Governor of Alaska. http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594
Congress was attempting to create “cover” for the Congresspeople and Senators who voted to fund the “Bridge to Nowhere” by changing this language. Politicians, when questioned, could claim they didn’t vote to fund the “Bridge”, that question was left for the State of Alaska to answer. Congress tossed this fully approved, fully funded, “hot potato” to the Alaska Governor.
In October, 2006, Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski included $91 million for the Bridge to Nowhere (actually known as the Gravina Island Bridge) in his State budget submission for fiscal year 2007. This money, $91 million, would be financed directly by Alaskan Taxpayers and would be added to the $223 Million of Federal funds to build the Bridge. http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594
As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin expressed a mixture of support and doubt about the bridge. Specifically, Candidate Palin questioned how the project would be funded. Candidate Palin supported the concept of a Bridge to Gravina Island and the improved transportation it would bring the residents of the Island, however, Candidate Palin also questioned whether the planned bridge was the “right answer” or “the right bridge”.
Candidate Palin questioned whether the Bridge was fiscally responsible.
Palin was elected Governor and took office in January 2007. Governor Palin submitted her first budget on January 17, 2007, two weeks into her Administration. The Governor’s budget contained no money for the Bridge.
On July 17, 2007, the Associated Press reported that “The state of Alaska on Friday officially abandoned the ‘bridge to nowhere’ project that became a nationwide symbol of federal pork-barrel spending.” Governor Palin said in a statement that “Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer.” http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594
According to the Committee for Citizen’s Against Government Waste, “Media reports that Congress killed the Bridge to Nowhere are not accurate,”. “The 2006 transportation appropriations bill allowed Alaska to decide whether or not to move forward.“ The decision on whether to spend the money on the Bridge to Nowhere was left up to the Governor of Alaska. The money, which had already been appropriated, could have been spent on the “pork barrel bridge project” or on “freeways and infrastructure” items that are not considered “pork barrel”. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, ”Governor Murkowski said yes; Governor Palin said no.”
ABC’s Charles Gibson and the spiteful Media claim that Governor Palin, “took no action on the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ until after Congress “killed the project’“, that claim is an outright lie. ABC’s Gibson and the Liberal Press are showing their bias when they make that false claim or falsely state that Governor Palin was, “for the Bridge before you were against it“. Gibson knows his accusation is a falsehood – the voting records are a matter of public record. Congress never killed “the Bridge to Nowhere“, it was given full and final approval by Congress and provided with funding. http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594
Congress presented Alaska with two choices “Build the Bridge” or “Kill the Bridge and use the money elsewhere”. The criticism of “The Bridge to Nowhere” by Congress had ended long before Governor Palin made her choice. The “Bridge” was fully funded at the time she made her choice.
Governor Palin said NO to the “Bridge to Nowhere”. Governor Palin said ”NO” two weeks into her Administration.
In a closing shot at Governor Palin, Gibson noted that Congress sent approximately $200 million in earmark funds to Alaska this year. Those funds were requested by Alaska’s Congressional delegation, not Governor Palin. Gibson failed to mention that the 2008 total, $200 million, was $445 Million less than the amount sent by the last Congress. ($645 Million). The amount of earmarked money being sent to Alaska has been reduced by nearly 70% in two years. A 70% reduction in just two years. In addition to that amount, Governor Palin has cut $500 million in wasteful spending from the Alaska State budget in just this past year. http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11594
Governor Palin has earned the right to call herself a Reformer and a Maverick.
This is what ABC News had to say about the “Bridge” in September 2007. The End of the Bridge to Nowhere
September 21, 2007 1:43 PM
ABC News’ John Cochran reports: The Bridge to Nowhere is gone. Not the victim of aging frames, bolts and joints. No, this bridge has collapsed, even before it was built, after an onslaught of angry editorials, furious anti-pork citizens groups, and caustic jokes on late night TV.
First, that name. It was not accurate. If built, the bridge would have gone somewhere. It would have replaced the ferry that takes residents of Ketchikan, Alaska (population 8,000) to the local airport on Gravina Island. In 2005, Congress approved $223 million for construction.
In Washington, groups such as Taxpayers for Common Sense and Citizens Against Government Waste, rallied their troops to try to block the money. They said the island was home to far more deer than people (50).
The bridge’s main sponsor in the Senate, Alaska Republican Ted Stevens, was outraged by any attempt to prevent his state from getting federal funds. In 2004, with the help of Stevens, his state got special projects worth $645 million. That was $984 for every Alaskan. By contrast, Congress handed out less than $3 to every Texan. And a Texan was, and still is, the President.
But the barrage of publicity was too much for his fellow Republicans. Senator John McCain, R.-Ariz., cited the Bridge to Nowhere as a perfect example of wasteful spending. Senator Tom Coburn R-Okla., a longtime foe of pork spending, tried to shift the money to rebuild an interstate highway damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
Senator Stevens grew even more outraged: “I don’t kid people. If the Senate decides to discriminate against our state…I will resign.” He did not resign.
An uneasy compromise was reached. Congress took away the money for the Gravina Island bridge and another Alaskan bridge which was almost as controversial. Instead, Congress gave the money to the state with the understanding that it was not required to use the funds specifically for bridges.
Friday, the state of Alaska officially sank the Bridge to Nowhere. Governor Sarah Palin, also a Republican, said “Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport.” “But,” she said, the bridge “is not the answer.” Palin has told state transportation officials to look for the most “fiscally responsible” alternative.
A spokesman for Senator Stevens was not immediately available for comment.
For those who want to check the so-called “facts” impugning Obama, please see these independent sites:
It is not nit-picking to suggest that Sarah Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere. As MSNBC reports — http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26486063/ — Palin actively recruited earmark funds for the Bridge to Nowhere, then dropped the project when it became unpopular — and kept the money for the earmark once the Bridge was dropped.
It is noteworthy that this “opponent to earmarks” governs a state that gets more earmarks-per-capita than any other.
@ P. Cross – I will take every deduction that’s legal, and I’ll continue to hire accountants to double check for any I may have missed.
I’ll certainly not give Congress any more money than they’re already have to misspend. Not when there are people like Palin out there, saying she’s ‘killing the bridge’ but keeping the change.
As an aside, I expect politicians to lie. It’s in their nature. With politics being what they are – and with necessity being what it is – I realize that this isn’t always a world-ending thing.
On one level, lies can actually confer a (limited) measure of respect. Here, they’re told because you don’t want people to think less of you, and because you still accept the general standards of decency, even if you’re not living up to them at that precise moment. And in making a concerted effort to not get caught, you indicate that you’re still capable of feeling shame.
This isn’t a justification for lying – far from it. It’s simply a realization that there are varieties of deception, and that, if you’re going to have to accept it on some level from elected officials, then the misdemeanor offenses are the preferable ones. Kind of like mosquito bites.
On the other hand, when the mendacity reaches the level it has with the McCain / Palin campaign, it becomes entirely unacceptable, as it confers open disrespect, and sends a clear signal that, really, you have no shame whatsoever. Moreover, it says you think your audience is composed of complete idiots, while you happen to be untouchable.
It’s like the difference between an employee who makes up some b.s. excuse about why they’re occasionally late, and one who doesn’t even bother to show up on time. Of course, I don’t really want either, but if I can only afford to fire one, the choice is clear.
Palin dropped the “thanks, but not thanks” anecdote this week while campaigning in Alaska, and then picked it up again when she hit Nevada. She knows the lie wouldn’t work on her home turf; it’s the rest of America she has no respect for.
Oh, hey, speaking of mendacity, here’s a fresh batch:
Now the McCain folks are lying about the sizes of the crowds showing up at their rallies, and saying that their numbers are coming from reliable sources like fire departments, and even the Secret Service.
When asked to comment, the fire officials and Secret Service folks in question stated that they never provided the campaign with any numbers whatsoever.
It just doesn’t stop with these guys.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.