Obama's Bridge to No where

[Navy1960]

Now that Alaska is front and center in the news again, it is a good time to catch up on a favorite story, The Bridge to Nowhere, using the Washington Post US Congress Votes Database.

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.

However, Sen. Biden and Sen. Obama voted for funding the Bridge, even when given a second chance by Sen. Tom Coburn, who proposed shifting earmark funds to Katrina relief.

Sen. McCain did not vote on the Coburn Amendment, though he is on record as opposing the Ketchikan bridge earmark.
*Chicago Observer*

Well here we go, Obama and Biden point the finger at Palin as well as the DNC for earmarks, and the "Bridge to Nowhere" and guess what? He never even opposed it all all, so I guess that makes him consistant?

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

So how much "hope and change" you gonna get from someone who talks a good game, but when he is in DC he's handing out money like the rest of them and even at the expense of Hurricane relief. Notice, John McCain was not there to vote and also is on record as not supporting the Bridge. So time to get off that moral high horse there Mr. Obama.

 

[Jeepers]

If true, I have no problem with that. Point is, your girl lied... then she said I told congress to keep that money. We would use our money to build what we need..

How many lies can one woman tell in a day.. Does being a maverick mean you have to lie and flip flop... turns out that she didnt even fire the cook like she says...

 

[Modbert]

Now that Alaska is front and center in the news again, it is a good time to catch up on a favorite story, The Bridge to Nowhere, using the Washington Post US Congress Votes Database.

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.

However, Sen. Biden and Sen. Obama voted for funding the Bridge, even when given a second chance by Sen. Tom Coburn, who proposed shifting earmark funds to Katrina relief.

Sen. McCain did not vote on the Coburn Amendment, though he is on record as opposing the Ketchikan bridge earmark.
*Chicago Observer*

Well here we go, Obama and Biden point the finger at Palin as well as the DNC for earmarks, and the "Bridge to Nowhere" and guess what? He never even opposed it all all, so I guess that makes him consistant?

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

So how much "hope and change" you gonna get from someone who talks a good game, but when he is in DC he's handing out money like the rest of them and even at the expense of Hurricane relief. Notice, John McCain was not there to vote and also is on record as not supporting the Bridge. So time to get off that moral high horse there Mr. Obama.

All I heard Barack Obama say on Palin and the bridge to nowhere is that she has lied in saying she was always against it.

Besides, don't even bring up Katrina and John McCain in the same sentence. He said he'd be on the ground helping the day Katrina hit landfall if he were President.

Gee, why didn't he tell his buddy George this? You know, when they were sharing cake near Air Force One the day after Katrina hit landfall?

MotherJones Blog: John McCain's Miserable Record on Hurricane Katrina

President George W. Bush joins Arizona Senator John McCain in a small celebration of McCain's 69th birthday Monday, Aug. 29, 2005, after the President's arrival at Luke Air Force Base near Phoenix. The President later spoke about Medicare to 400 gues

 

[Navy1960]

If true, I have no problem with that. Point is, your girl lied... then she said I told congress to keep that money. We would use our money to build what we need..

How many lies can one woman tell in a day.. Does being a maverick mean you have to lie and flip flop... turns out that she didnt even fire the cook like she says...

* I told congress no on that bridge to no where* Sarah Palin which she did, where's the lie?

 

[Modbert]

* I told congress no on that bridge to no where* Sarah Palin which she did, where's the lie?

Palin may have said “Thanks, but no thanks” on the Bridge to Nowhere, though not until Congress had pretty much killed it already. But that was a sharp turnaround from the position she took during her gubernatorial campaign, and the town where she was mayor received lots of earmarks during her tenure.

- Factcheck.org

FactCheck.org: GOP Convention Spin, Part II

A Bridge Too Far

Palin claimed to have stood up to Congress on the subject of the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere,” the Gravina Island bridge in Ketchikan, Alaska, about which we wrote last November.

Palin: I told the Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that bridge to nowhere.

This is not the first time Palin has cited her choice to kill the bridge in 2007 as an example of her anti-waste stance. It’s true that she did eventually nix the project. But the bridge was nearly dead already – Congress had removed the earmark, giving the requested money to the state but not marking it for any specific use. Palin unplugged its life support, declaring in 2007 that the funds would not be used for the Gravina bridge.

When she was running for governor, however, Palin expressed a different position. In 2006, the Ketchikan Daily News quoted her expressing optimism and support for the bridge at a Ketchikan campaign stop.

Palin, 2006: "People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose,” said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan area’s potential for expansion and growth. … Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge as part of a package deal and that she “would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge.”

Palin also answered "yes" to an Anchorage Daily News poll question about whether she would continue to support state funding for the Gravina Island bridge if elected governor. "The window is now," she wrote, "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." It was only after she won the governorship that Palin shifted her position. And even then, it’s inaccurate to say that she “told the Congress ‘thanks, but no thanks.’” Palin accepted non-earmarked money from Congress that could have been used for the bridge if she so desired. That she opted to use it for other state transportation purposes doesn’t qualify as standing up to Congress.

The bridge reversal is not the only matter throwing doubt on Palin’s credentials as a government waste reformer. Watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense has reported that the small town of Wasilla, Alaska, which had not previously received significant federal funds, hauled in almost $27 million in earmarks while Palin was mayor. (McCain has explicitly criticized several of the Wasilla earmarks in recent years.) To help obtain these earmarks, Palin had hired Steven Silver, the former chief of staff for recently indicted Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, as Wasilla’s lobbyist.


And Palin continued to solicit federal funds as governor. A request form on Stevens’ Web site shows that she requested $160.5 million in earmarks for the state in 2008, and almost $198 million for 2009.

Really Navy, Need I say more?

 

[Caligirl]

Obama and McCain are running on different sorts of change.

Obama has a different economic plan than what we've had for the past eight years. McCain doesn't.

McCain wants to cut pork, I don't know that Obama has ever come out strongly against that. Obama wants to invest in future technologies, health care, education, and other areas that are of domestic and long term importance. McCain wants to run on the past strategies but cut pork.

Now, I admit that's a bit of a simplification, but in broad strokes it is mostly how I understand their campaings. My money is on the investment strategy.

I suppose if you think the economy stems from pork, then you vote for McCain's change. If you think the economy stems from Bush's economic ideology you vote for obama.

Palin's problem (one of many) is that she is not transparent at all, in fact some have gone so far to say that she tells untruths. So that's the problem with her bridge stance.

I think there was something else I wanted to add but I forget... age and all....

 

[Luissa]

If true, I have no problem with that. Point is, your girl lied... then she said I told congress to keep that money. We would use our money to build what we need..

How many lies can one woman tell in a day.. Does being a maverick mean you have to lie and flip flop... turns out that she didnt even fire the cook like she says...

SHe actually said thanks but no thanks and she never talkes about keeping the money does she. And why doesn't she use that large surplus she has to build that bridge. For one it is a stupid idea especially with the ferry, cruise ship, and freighter ship traffic in that channel. She used it as a platform to win on! The women used the abortion issue and other such issues to get elected mayor and what may I ask you does social issue's have to do with running for mayor!

 

[Caligirl]

* I told congress no on that bridge to no where* Sarah Palin which she did, where's the lie?

More a question of misleading the public. Is that better?

 

[busara]

Obama and McCain are running on different sorts of change.

Obama has a different economic plan than what we've had for the past eight years. McCain doesn't.

McCain wants to cut pork, I don't know that Obama has ever come out strongly against that. Obama wants to invest in future technologies, health care, education, and other areas that are of domestic and long term importance. McCain wants to run on the past strategies but cut pork.

Now, I admit that's a bit of a simplification, but in broad strokes it is mostly how I understand their campaings. My money is on the investment strategy.

I suppose if you think the economy stems from pork, then you vote for McCain's change. If you think the economy stems from Bush's economic ideology you vote for obama.

Palin's problem (one of many) is that she is not transparent at all, in fact some have gone so far to say that she tells untruths. So that's the problem with her bridge stance.

I think there was something else I wanted to add but I forget... age and all....

i never understood the mccain 'change' mantra. is he admitting that bush and his party effed up? or is it change for the sake of it? and that commercial where he talks about washington being broken, well, he's been there for years. he mustve had a hand in breaking it, just like all the politicians.

 

[Navy1960]

All I heard Barack Obama say on Palin and the bridge to nowhere is that she has lied in saying she was always against it.

Besides, don't even bring up Katrina and John McCain in the same sentence. He said he'd be on the ground helping the day Katrina hit landfall if he were President.

Gee, why didn't he tell his buddy George this? You know, when they were sharing cake near Air Force One the day after Katrina hit landfall?

MotherJones Blog: John McCain's Miserable Record on Hurricane Katrina

President George W. Bush joins Arizona Senator John McCain in a small celebration of McCain's 69th birthday Monday, Aug. 29, 2005, after the President's arrival at Luke Air Force Base near Phoenix. The President later spoke about Medicare to 400 gues

View attachment 5814

Robert,

The point is it's a little bit of a double standard to go about, saying *she lied about the bridge to nowhere* and prop yourself up as the man of *hope and change* when in fact your not any different than the people your pointing the finger at. I also think it's a little bit low to imply that because John McCain celebrated his birthday when Katrina hit he was somehow not sympathetic to what was going on there. Should he have called his mother and told her can I change the date of my birthday? (see what I mean). that picture may mean something to a few people but means nothing to me other than an attempt to imply that John McCain doesnt care about Katrina and thats simply not true.

 

[Modbert]

Robert,

The point is it's a little bit of a double standard to go about, saying *she lied about the bridge to nowhere* and prop yourself up as the man of *hope and change* when in fact your not any different than the people your pointing the finger at. I also think it's a little bit low to imply that because John McCain celebrated his birthday when Katrina hit he was somehow not sympathetic to what was going on there. Should he have called his mother and told her can I change the date of my birthday? (see what I mean). that picture may mean something to a few people but means nothing to me other than an attempt to imply that John McCain doesnt care about Katrina and thats simply not true.

It's a matter of choice, John McCain could of said Bush that we need to get down there.

He didn't, and that's not the only thing he messed up with Katrina on if you read the link.

John McCain didn't need to have cake next to Air force one with Dubya, but he did.

Do please respond to my 2nd post though, where factcheck.org comes into play.

 

[Jeepers]

* I told congress no on that bridge to no where* Sarah Palin which she did, where's the lie?

Its the next few lines that you are missing... there Mr Blind and or disengenuous...

Listen and weep...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3aYYU7cew0&NR=1]YouTube - SARAH PALIN'S BRIDGE TO NOWHERE[/ame]

 

[busara]

Robert,

The point is it's a little bit of a double standard to go about, saying *she lied about the bridge to nowhere* and prop yourself up as the man of *hope and change* when in fact your not any different than the people your pointing the finger at. I also think it's a little bit low to imply that because John McCain celebrated his birthday when Katrina hit he was somehow not sympathetic to what was going on there. Should he have called his mother and told her can I change the date of my birthday? (see what I mean). that picture may mean something to a few people but means nothing to me other than an attempt to imply that John McCain doesnt care about Katrina and thats simply not true.

he couldnt celebrate his birthday on another day? ive done that when important things come up

 

[Caligirl]

i never understood the mccain 'change' mantra. is he admitting that bush and his party effed up? or is it change for the sake of it? and that commercial where he talks about washington being broken, well, he's been there for years. he mustve had a hand in breaking it, just like all the politicians.

It's the standard strategy to use when you are running on the side of the party in power, and the party in power is unpopular. It's the only tenable strategy in that scenario.

McCain worked with Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform, and he opposed ending the filibuster (which was a blessing for both sides of the aisle although the conservative base was pretty pissed at him at the time.)

On the other hand he has voted with Bush 90 - 95% of the time, compared to Obama's 40%. So, people need to ask themselves whether McCain change is just words, whether he really puts country first or if he puts winning first, and that sort of thing. I think he has some good qualities but has, ny and large, sold out. Look at illegal immigration for example, he used to support a path to citizenship but now takes the party line hook line and sinker. So whereas he used to take a stance that living in Arizona gave him a good idea of the issue, and he had what was a plan that played well across the aisle, he ended up surrounding the wagons with his party.

The only place he brings change at this point is with pork. But he's not a bad guy.

 

[Caligirl]

Robert,

The point is it's a little bit of a double standard to go about, saying *she lied about the bridge to nowhere* and prop yourself up as the man of *hope and change* when in fact your not any different than the people your pointing the finger at.

Would you agree that it is better for the public to be as well informed about both sides as possible? I assume yes.

 

[Care4all]

moot....if memory serves me...

ted stevens didn't put in the bridge to nowhere until the bill was in conference or in the middle of the night type thing.... that's why it became a scandal, no?

 

[Navy1960]

- Factcheck.org

FactCheck.org: GOP Convention Spin, Part II



Really Navy, Need I say more?

I've read that many times Robert, and can tell you her statment still does not imply a lie. "Thanks but no thanks on that Bridge to Nowhere" . Yes she was for the Bridge prior to that, yes she has accpeted earmarks. It would be a story if she has said. * I have never accepted earmarks on that Bridge to Nowhere and told congress no from the beginning" So I fail to see how she is telling a lie? If I had changed my mind on a project and decided not to accept it, I'd pretty much say the same thing. "thanks but no thanks"

 

[Navy1960]

More a question of misleading the public. Is that better?

Cali;

As I havve tried to point out to Robert, I personally don't see the statemnet as misleading and as a point what she is saying is factually correct.

 

[Modbert]

I've read that many times Robert, and can tell you her statment still does not imply a lie. "Thanks but no thanks on that Bridge to Nowhere" . Yes she was for the Bridge prior to that, yes she has accpeted earmarks. It would be a story if she has said. * I have never accepted earmarks on that Bridge to Nowhere and told congress no from the beginning" So I fail to see how she is telling a lie? If I had changed my mind on a project and decided not to accept it, I'd pretty much say the same thing. "thanks but no thanks"

Oh okay, so she twists her words to fit her current point of view and make it seem like she's always been against it. *Nods*

Okay, I get it now. It's the Republican spin game time.

View attachment $Republican Spin game.bmp

 

[Care4all]

I've read that many times Robert, and can tell you her statment still does not imply a lie. "Thanks but no thanks on that Bridge to Nowhere" . Yes she was for the Bridge prior to that, yes she has accpeted earmarks. It would be a story if she has said. * I have never accepted earmarks on that Bridge to Nowhere and told congress no from the beginning" So I fail to see how she is telling a lie? If I had changed my mind on a project and decided not to accept it, I'd pretty much say the same thing. "thanks but no thanks"

didn't she accept the pork money that was meant for it? yes. using the money on something ELSE NOW, but she still is sponsoring the bridge to nowhere saying it is alaskan's paying for it?

what a scam, if true...she just swapped out pork money...a slight of hand, moving an expense from one column to another...imo.