Palin's National Introduction Starts with a Lie
posted by jrolsen
Sarah Palin in her introduction to the country started with a lie. Why?
Sarah Palin in her introduction to the country started with a lie. Why?
Sarah Palin made sure to tout her reformist credentials in her speech in Dayton, making sure to mention her supposed opposition to Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere"
Yet the truth is she didn't really fight the project at all, in fact she was a proponent. And it is something that is easily found out. She told the Anchorage Daily News on October 22, 2006, during the race for the governor's seat (via Nexis):
Yet the truth is she didn't really fight the project at all, in fact she was a proponent. And it is something that is easily found out. She told the Anchorage Daily News on October 22, 2006, during the race for the governor's seat (via Nexis):
Q: Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?
Sarah Palin: Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.
Sarah Palin actually insisted that Alaska had to act quickly to get the earmark since the party of Ted Stevens and Don Young might soon lose its majority, after all. By that point, the project was endangered for reasons that had nothing to do with Palin—the bridge had become a national laughingstock, Congress had stripped away the offending earmark, shifting the money back to the state's general fund, and future federal support seemed unlikely. True, after Palin was sworn into office that fall, her first budget didn't allocate any money for the bridge. But when the Daily News asked on December 16, 2006, if she now opposed the project, Palin demurred and said she was just trying to figure out where the bridge fit on the state's list of transportation priorities, given the lack of support from Congress.
Palin lied when she said she was against the Bridge to Nowhere, the truth is she was fine with the bridge in principle, never had a problem with the earmarks, bristled at all the mockery, and only gave up on the project when it was clear that federal support wasn't forthcoming.
Sarah Palin actually insisted that Alaska had to act quickly to get the earmark since the party of Ted Stevens and Don Young might soon lose its majority, after all. By that point, the project was endangered for reasons that had nothing to do with Palin—the bridge had become a national laughingstock, Congress had stripped away the offending earmark, shifting the money back to the state's general fund, and future federal support seemed unlikely. True, after Palin was sworn into office that fall, her first budget didn't allocate any money for the bridge. But when the Daily News asked on December 16, 2006, if she now opposed the project, Palin demurred and said she was just trying to figure out where the bridge fit on the state's list of transportation priorities, given the lack of support from Congress.
Palin lied when she said she was against the Bridge to Nowhere, the truth is she was fine with the bridge in principle, never had a problem with the earmarks, bristled at all the mockery, and only gave up on the project when it was clear that federal support wasn't forthcoming.
As further proof Palin's special counsel, John Katz, wrote in March of this year for the Juneau Empire, assuring the Alaskan public that Palin was still very much in favor of earmarks, but sadly needed to scale back her requests somewhat (to "only" 31 earmarks this year—down from 54 last year) in response to "unwanted attention" from Congress and the press.
So why bring up the bridge? Why take the risk of being caught in a lie?
| < Palin opened the door to talk about McCain's death | Hillary Clinton could have been VP! > |
Palin's National Introduction Starts with a Lie | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden)
Palin's National Introduction Starts with a Lie | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden)
