McCain & Palin on the Bridge to Nowhere... in '07

November 20, 2007

Nearly 10 months before McCain’s announcment of Palin as running mate, FactCheck.org was already talking about his subterfuge about the Bridge to Nowhere. And thankfully linking to Palin's own words about the project.

In reading content from back then, they hardly seem like the tag-team they’ve recently become.

http://www.factcheck.org/outrageous_exaggerations.html

“… (McCain) never specifically went after the "bridge to nowhere," and he was absent for key votes on its funding.”

“The transportation bill did include a total of $223 million (not $233 million, as the ad says) earmarked for the Gravina bridge – $100 million for construction, plus $18.75 million a year for four years, and an additional $48 million to build an access road. McCain tried, unsuccessfully, to add a “sense of the Senate” amendment to the bill, stating a general objection to earmarks; in the end he voted against the legislation. Several months later, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) tried to divert the Gravina funds to a bridge in need of repair over Lake Pontchartrain near New Orleans. McCain was not present to vote on Coburn’s amendment proposing this change, which did not pass. Instead, Congress removed Gravina’s earmarks, tossing that money into Alaska’s general transportation pot to be used however the state chose. McCain wasn’t there for that vote, either.”

“In light of the furor over the “bridge to nowhere,” Alaska’s governor opted to use the money for other pursuits.”

But... I thought she said "thanks, but no thanks" to congress. That what she keeps telling us. Over, and over and over and over again.

You know what? It just occured to me... repetition... Where have I used that most effectively in my life? Hmm... yeah; teaching children and training animals. Interesting. Pretty sure it's a key component in brainwashing too... but I digress.


http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=623&type=1

This is the “opted” link from the above quote. It's not highlighted here, but it is on the FactCheck.org site. Link there if you'd like to double-check me. Shouldn't be too hard, it's the first link on this post.

As you can see from the address, this 2nd link takes you directly to the official website for the Alaska State Government. Specifically, it takes you to a press release from Governor Palin on September 21, 2007. Which states in part:

“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,” Governor Palin added. “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.”

It should be noted that the opening paragraph of the release states the bridge’s cost as $398 million. Knowing as we do that congress gave $223 million (the full amount earmarked for the bridge) to Alaska to use as they pleased - had they chosen to put it toward the bridge project, they would have actually been $175 million short. Not the $329 claimed in the release. Assuming of course that the $398 million claim is even accurate.

Even more important than that, though is the language Gov. Palin used in the quote I pulled from her press release. Does that sound like someone who is saying “Thanks, but no thanks.” on the bridge project?

Not to me.

To me it sounds like someone who is saying that after a valiant effort by Alaska to obtain funding for an important project, the powers that be snuffed it out. She even alludes to what seems to be a contention of the attitude of the “lower 48” toward Alaska’s infrastructure needs.

As always, I’ve included a link to my source. Feel free to check it out and let me know if you hear or see the anti-pork Maverick that she is now touting herself to be.

Keep in mind; “liberal media bias” can’t even be whispered on this one. These are Palin’s own words, from her own press release, on her own website.

Spin THAT.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/

This is another link from the FactCheck.org piece that I started this rant with, although it is one not included in anything I have yet quoted. Again, a glance at the address shows it to be from the CNN website, posted on September 22, 2007 and is about the Kethcikan-Gravina Bridge project.

Mostly it is quotes of the Alaska congressmen whining about their project being an international joke and all of the futile work they put into getting the funding. Probably well-deserved whining, too. I’m sure it was no walk in the park trying to get funds for a “$400 million bridge” to a town of 50 people. And to have it fall through probably felt like a slap in the face. However, as we already know - Alaska received the exact same amount of money that had been earmarked for the project. It just didn’t have any stipulation attached on how it was to be spent. Also, they didn’t have to wait for the $75 million that would have been doled out over 4 years in the original plan… they got the full $223 million in one lump sum.

So if they’d really wanted to, they still could have gone on with the project.

The real reason I pulled that link though, is that it includes some quotes from a certain Senator from Arizona:

“Just last month (August of 2007), presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said pet projects could have played a role in a Minnesota bridge collapse that killed 13 people earlier this year.”

"Maybe if we had done it right, maybe some of that money would have gone to inspect those bridges and other bridges around the country," McCain told a group of people in a town-hall style meeting in Ankeny, Iowa.”

"Maybe the 200,000 people who cross that bridge every day would have been safer than spending $233 million of your tax dollars on a bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it."

So at least we know he was consistently 10 million dollars above the actual earmarked amount.

More interesting to me though is the fact that he actually seems to be blaming the money sent to Alaska (and remember, it WAS sent to Alaska) for the failure of the bridge in Minnesota.

Interesting that back in the late summer of ‘07 there didn’t seem to be any Maverick-to-Maverick backslapping of Palin’s “strong stance” against earmarks. Quite the opposite from these 2 examples. Back then, Palin was blaming congressional/public prejudice against Alaska for the removal of stipulations. And McCain was blaming the money earmarked for (and sent to) Alaska for the collapse of another bridge, in a large (and therefore more important?) city that killed innocent Americans.

Forget for a moment that even those statements are friggin’ ridiculous in and of themselves.

Concentrate instead on the fact that if there was ever a time for these two so-called (by McCain) “soul mates” to bond and build each other up as the Mavericks they are selling themselves as today - this would have been it.

If McCain had truly recognized Palin then as a fellow “reformer” who wanted to fight earmarks and change American politics - as he now claims. Why did he instead essentially blame her for the Minnesota tragedy? And if she had truly said “Thanks, but no thanks” to congress on the “Bridge to Nowhere” - why did she tout the gallantry of her congressional delegation and scorn the public for their “misunderstanding” of Alaska’s infrastructure needs? And if state roads were really more important than the bridge - since that’s what they said they’d probably spend the money on - why weren’t their congressmen fighting for earmarks for roads, instead of a bridge?

I’ll try to put this in a way that Righties can better understand. I’ll use a phony Texas accent with shades of Maine peeking through:

“In ‘merica, we got a word for that kinda talk… we call it Boolsheet.”