In case you weren't bored yet, there was Sarah Palin with Charlie Gibson, going on about that stupid bridge again:
Palin doesn't contest Gibson's version of events: That she favored the bridge even when Congress pulled the plug on it and after it became apparent that the state would have to foot the bill for any new costs. The key moment comes where Palin, after getting pressed, seems to make a concession of sorts, saying she was "for infrastructure being built in the state."She lied. She's a liar. She's a repeated, shameless, unrepentant liar. But does it even matter? I really think that people have to eventually wake up and realize that she is a total fraud. But to do that, they have to bowing and scraping to her false image and start paying attention.Palin added that "it's not inappropriate for a mayor or for a governor" to try to get "a share of the federal budget for infrastructure."
Of course it isn't! As she says, of course a mayor or governor is going to want to tap the Federal budget for money for local infrastructure buildup, and of course members of Congress will try to get it done, too.
But that isn't the issue. It's very easy to get distracted here, but again, the rub is Palin's frequent claim that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to Federal help for the big local project. The problem is her and McCain's latter-day effort to portray her as having been some kind of Joan of Arc of pork-slayers.
Our country has been severely damaged by eight years of Republican lying. Now McCain and Palin are running a campaign where they try to pretend they aren't Republican, all while lying even worse than Bush did. People have to be able to see through this. Don't they?
3 comments:
The only thing that really matters to me is, in the end, she turned down the "Bridge to Nowhere." One of the roles of mayors and governors is to get as much federal funding as possible, and Governor Palin was acting appropriately for the citizens of Alaska. In the end, and for whatever reasons, the bridge was not built. Enough said.
Interestingly, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, an amendment was introduced in the US Senate. The purpose of the amendment was to reallocate the Bridge to Nowhere money from Alaska to Louisiana so that the money could be used to aid the recovery in New Orleans. The amendment was defeated. Among the senators voting against the amendment: Senators Obama and Biden.
So while Sara Palin eventually opposed the Bridge to Nowhere, Senators Obama and Biden apparently were still willing to build it, even if it meant less funding for the hurricane victims. Now that's Change.
"The only thing that really matters to me is, in the end, she turned down the "Bridge to Nowhere.""
The problem isn't that she turned it down. The problem is that she lied about *why* she turned it down.
She portrays herself as being a 'reformer' who refused a pork project when she actually ran on a platform of trying to get that pork. She only fought the project when it became untenable, and then she didn't even return the money.
"One of the roles of mayors and governors is to get as much federal funding as possible, and Governor Palin was acting appropriately for the citizens of Alaska."
Fine. Then she should just admit that she was for the bridge instead of lying about it on a daily basis.
"In the end, and for whatever reasons, the bridge was not built. Enough said."
No, NOT enough said. Because the "for whatever reasons" is that *Congress* killed the earmark, *not* Palin.
"The amendment was defeated. Among the senators voting against the amendment: Senators Obama and Biden."
The amendment was defeated 15-82, so obviously there was more to it than your propaganda presents. McCain didn't even bother to show up to vote (big surprise).
Nice distraction, but facts are facts: Sarah Palin did NOT tell Congress "thanks, but no thanks on that Bridge to Nowhere" (sorry that I can't reproduce the smarmy tone here). She wanted the bridge, she campaigned on the bridge, and then she kept the money.
"So while Sara Palin eventually opposed the Bridge to Nowhere, Senators Obama and Biden apparently were still willing to build it, even if it meant less funding for the hurricane victims."
Now you've overplayed your hand from mere propaganda to outright lying. Voting against that amendment for whatever reason doesn't mean they were 'willing to build it' -- the bridge was already dead by then.
Charles,
Thank you for your prompt rebuttal which really relieved my mind. I am an outsider with little real knowledge of American politics so I tend to be easily panicked when those on the inside attack 'my guys'. Keep up the good work in providing some analysis (away from CNN) for peoplelike me.
Post a Comment