Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Stevens: No 'Bridge to Nowhere' Advocacy by Palin

By Paul Kane
Count Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) as a defender of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's position on the controversial "Bridge to Nowhere" project.

Stevens, who once threatened to resign his Senate seat in 2005 if $223 million for the bridge project was defeated, told reporters today that Palin was never a supporter of the project, which has quickly become a bone of contention in defining the GOP vice-presidential nominee's self proclaimed image as a maverick reformer who took on "the good ol' boys network" of Alaska Republicans.

"I don't remember her ever campaigning for it. As a matter of fact, she was very critical of it at the time. And she took the money and did not use it for the bridge, so you're wrong, as far as I'm concerned," Stevens said today.

Since Palin was named to the ticket Aug. 29, she and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) have repeatedly cited her 2007 decision to nix the bridge project as an example of her credentials -- while Democrats have tried to turn her 2006 campaign statements in support of the bridge against her current position. "You can't just recreate yourself. You can't just reinvent yourself. The American people aren't stupid," Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, said at a campaign stop today.

Stevens, 84, has good political reasons for steering close to Palin, 44, despite her rhetoric suggesting she has taken on the likes of the man known as "Uncle Ted." He faces a tough re-election battle this fall against Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, and Palin is incredibly popular in Alaska. Any under-cutting of the governor might be bad politics for the longest serving Republican in the history of the Senate. First, Stevens must get past a pending federal trial for charges of accepting more than $250,000 in unreported gifts from an energy services company. Prosecutors today filed documents alleging he also took gifts from other unnamed persons, including a $2,695 massage chair and $1,000 sled dog.

At issue for Palin is the bridge that would have connected the town of Ketchikan with the remote island of Gravina, which sits across a channel and has fewer than 100 residents. Gravina Island, however, is home to the Ketchikan airport. Rather than the current ferry service, the bridge would have made the airport easily accessible by car. Critics of the $223 million federal earmark for the bridge, including McCain, decried the project as a waste of taxpayer dollars. Eventually, Stevens lost a battle in the fall of 2005 and the earmark was stripped but the money was sent to the state anyway, where the government was free to decide what projects to spend the money on.

After defeating incumbent Gov. Frank Murkowski in the 2006 Republican primary, Palin appeared before the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce in September 2006 and indicated support for the bridge project. "This link is a commitment to help Ketchikan expand its access, to help this community prosper," she told the local chamber of commerce, according to an account in the Ketchikan Daily News.

By the time Palin became governor, cost estimates for the bridge soared to nearly $400 million. She had three options: pay for the bridge project with state funds, get more federal funding or kill the project. In her statement nixing the project, Palin cited the cost overruns.

"She was never really behind this," Stevens said today, reminding reporters of his impassioned defense of the project in 2005: "I defended it in the Senate. She did not support that. She did not support that."

By Web Politics Editor  |  September 8, 2008; 7:09 PM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , John McCain , Sarah Palin  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Response Ad: Palin is 'Lying' About her Record
Next: Obama to Palin: 'Don't Mock the Constitution'

Comments


I have done some research on lobbyist and earmark spending; since this has been the topic as of late and this what I have found.

The non partisan organization CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT WASTE published their 2008 CONGRESSIONAL PIG BOOK SUMMARY, which indicates the following.

Candidates who DID NOT request earmarks.

Gov. Palin
Sen. McCain

Candidates who D I D request earmarks

Sen. Biden
Sen. Obama


I am extremely disappointed that Sen. Obama would try to lie to us and lead us to believe that his team has done much better at avoiding lobbyist and earmarks, when this is clearly not true.

===================

I agree this just discredits Sen. Obama

Posted by: chulanow | September 15, 2008 2:53 AM | Report abuse

Enough is enough!

A Monkey in a Suit is still a Monkey!

NObama has no experience, has no brains and is only following the radical ideology of his pastor Jeremiah Wright who support a black supremacist ideology and of Hate For America.

A Monkey in a Suit is still a Monkey!

Farrack Hussein NObama made a grave mistake when he chose a Washington insider and he lost the promise of "change" and replaced with "more of the same".

The rejection of Hillary Clinton for the post of VP, fractured the democratic party and ignored the choice of 18 million democrats who are now considering to support the republican ticket!....Why?

For the reason to elect an experienced,and qualifien President who loves his country and risked his life for America, John McCain a patriot that loves his country, AND
To elect a woman to the White House to prove that a woman can be an equal partner in governance.

Former Hillary supporters are contemplating to vote for the re[publican ticket in November />

Country First!
McCain/Palin!

Posted by: Manolete | September 13, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

Obama and Biden both voted for the bridge. McCain didn't vote for it and Palin killed the project.

Why are Dems, along with Obama and Biden who did vote for the bridge, pushing this? Sounds like the Dem ticket are for hope... hoping their not caught lying yet again.

Posted by: smok3r | September 12, 2008 6:44 AM | Report abuse

Most people can see what has happened to this country in a very short seven years; with the only thing that matters to the republicans is absolute power. By pushing a hypocritical social agenda they have been able to mobilize voters that have a strong religious faith to get them into office. When one of their own is caught face down in the mattress with a crack pipe while somebody is cornholeing the daylights out of them the hypocrisy is ignored and things go on business as usual. It is a numbers game and the only way to defeat this human waist is to encourage people to vote. For ANY of you that are going at each other for who did what I suggest that you go to “factcheck.org”

Posted by: s-dav | September 11, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

THANKS BUT NO THANKS, SARAH!
.
We don't want the Bridge to Nowhere to lead to the White House all of a sudden.
_______________________________
*I am El Mugroso, and I approve this message*

Posted by: El Mugroso | September 10, 2008 2:51 AM | Report abuse

Interesting twist on this story- According to CNN's report on "The Situation Room" Tonight (9-9-08): when the bridge project was scrapped Congress voted whether or not to give the money to hurricane Katrina victims- Senators Obama and Biden voted against this proposal...Congress told Palin to keep the funds and put it to better use- THAT's straight from Wolf Blitzer- I'm sure Steve Schmidt is already working on the commercial...

Posted by: Scott | September 9, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

I guess the series of tubes leading to Ted Stevens' web browser were so clogged that he could view all the clips on YouTube of Palin saying she supported using the earmark for the Bridge to Nowhere.

Posted by: A Series of Tubes | September 9, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Luckily the United States will actually, really, truly say "thanks, but no thanks" to this changeling politician in November.
By 1948, Rooseveltean politics were poisonous. By 1952, they were radioactive. 1952-1932 = 20 years. Reaganistic politics have been propped up through aggressive media outreach far, far beyond their natural shelf life.
As Palin's Bridge lie comes crashing down, so does this flippant attitude toward taxes and spending that the Republican party has been able to get away with for so long. They promise to cut spending and never do.

Posted by: Maurizio | September 9, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

It seems the GOP has completely adopted Goebbels propaganda handbook:

Repeat a lie over and over again and good Germans will believe it. Republican voters are very Good Germans.

Posted by: Becca | September 9, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

NOW, Ted Stevens is the guy to listen to for the straight skinny on any subject.

NEXT, Dickie's little boy George, will be touting her veracity.

KEEP DANCING AMERICA, . . . THE PIPE CAN WAIT.

Posted by: buckheaddad | September 9, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

*Please* Email this to 5 women that you know:


From:
Head of State
http://tinyurl.com/65qxee

Sunday, September 07, 2008

10 Ways in Which Sarah Palin Is *Exactly* Like George W. Bush

1) Like Bush, she is completely against a woman's right to choose (in fact, she exceeds Bush in that she is against a woman's right to choose even in cases of rape or incest;

2) Like Bush, she opposes stem cell research to prevent fatal diseases in men, women and children;

3) Like Bush, supports the teaching of Creationism alongside Evolution in public schools;

4) Like Bush, does not believe that Global Warming is man made;

5) Like Bush, has supported abstinence-only sex education methods that have proven ineffective;

6) Like Bush, has virtually no foreign policy experience prior to running for national office--(in Palin's case, despite a 72-year old, chronically ill running mate)

7) Like Bush, has engaged in conduct that has resulted in current government investigation of her actions;

8) Like Bush, has made statements which indicate lack of knowledge of basic elements of the office they are running for (Palin, July 2008: "What exactly does the Vice President do everyday?");

9) Like Bush, has been sequestered to prevent her being asked questions that she has not yet been prepared to answer;

10) Like Bush, talks like a reformer--yet in her actions (i.e., relying on lobbying, supporting the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it) acts in the most typical, all-too-familiar fashion.

Posted by: Don | September 9, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

The bigger point is that, just as claims that Palin killed the bridge are nonsense, so is the campaign's whole image of her as a pork-busting reformer.

Sarah Palin loves earmarks when they're for her state or town!

"In her two years in office, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. And as mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BRIDGE_TO_NOWHERE_FACT_CHECK?SITE=TXHOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

National average for earmark spending this year: less than $50 per person.

Alaska earmarks: $500 per person this year.

Wasilla earmarks, 2002 (under Palin): almost $1,000 per person.

Congratulations, Mayor/Governor Palin! You win the nation's top porker award!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94266091

Posted by: PhilHart | September 9, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

How was she against the Bridge earmark when she kept the money anyways? And campaigned for the bridge before the money was received?
If she was truly a reformer on earmarks and wasteful spending, wouldn't she have returned the money?

Posted by: Miles | September 9, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

An indicted senator "NO!" has no credibility at all. Stevens is a disgrace to Alaskan people and he should be kicked out of the Senate once and forever...

Posted by: J.Moreno | September 9, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: She did not kill the project. She pulled the plug after the patient was already dead.

Look at her own words: "It's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island." What she really said, in effect, was: I'd still like to get this bridge built, but if we in Alaska have to pay for it ourselves, forget about it.

And then she kept the federal money that had been allocated for the bridge and spent it on other projects, rather than sending it back to Washington.

Where is the principled, waste-fighting, earmark-hating reformer in that? Uh, never mind; it's all a fiction.

Posted by: PhilHart | September 9, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Right, so Congress refused to give federal money and instead of making her state pay for the whole deal she then shut it down. Very noble. It was fine as long as the money wasn't coming from AK.

Solid pick, McCain. http://tinyurl.com/5zr47h

Posted by: Roger | September 9, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

HeavyJ:

I beg to disagree. Congress withdrew funding for the bridge, stopping it in its tracks, but Gov. Palin took the final, fatal shot by refusing to allocate $329 million to fully fund the bridge project. She, in effect, told Congress "Thanks, but no thanks. If we're going to build the bridge, we'll pay for it ourselves."

Posted by: JakeD | September 9, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

So now they are trying to appeal to the corrupt (R) voter? That is a large bloc but once they get federally charged and convicted, a losing vote getter.

Posted by: preAmerikkkan | September 9, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

"Yes or no -- did Gov. Palin kill the bridge project (regardless of whether she lobbied for it before or not)?"

Um, no. Congress killed it.

Palin one year ago:

"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. Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here."

Posted by: HeavyJ | September 9, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

"Palin appeared before the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce in September 2006 and indicated support for the bridge project. "This link is a commitment to help Ketchikan expand its access, to help this community prosper," she told the local chamber of commerce, according to an account in the Ketchikan Daily News.

Sounds to me like Palin supported the Bridge to Nowhere. Stevens is full of it. And the bottom line is that Palin, as Governmor of Alaska, STILL got those hundreds of millions of US taxpayer dollars, with even LESS assurance to the taxpayer that the money would be spent wisely than when it was designated for that bridge.

Posted by: Iconoblaster | September 9, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of what the accused felon "recalls," there happens to be video of Palin's bridge advocacy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieuA7nAOBXQ&eurl=http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

Posted by: HeavyJ | September 9, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Ted Stevens has a lot of credibility! I'd believe anything he says! Especially when there is rock solid, obvious evidence straight from the horse's (moose's?) mouth to the contrary! Go Ted! You're awesome!

Posted by: pablito | September 9, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Maybe The Bridge was, in fact, a good thing. After all, both Obama and Biden voted in favor of it. Twice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Earmarks by nature are slipped in as part of a large bill. You either vote for the whole bill or not.

Why McCain insists (and you people seem to believe him)he will stop all the pork barrel stuff is a mystery. He does not have the line item veto which he would have to have to surgically remove each ear mark from a large bill presented by Congress.

And to say "well he can just veto every bill" doesn't really make for smooth relations with the Congress.

It would be useful if every American were to learn how bills are written, formed and voted on in Congress. There are many votes on many sections and ammendments to bills. And its this process that invariable leads to the "first he voted for it, then he voted against it" campaign rhetoric.

Fact is after 6 years in the Senate all Senators could find exampples of bills they voted for and against.

But that is asking a lot to expect American voters to actually learn and understand what their own government does. Let alone investigate what each candidate really represents.

Posted by: Humpty Dumpty | September 9, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Ryan Churches:

Thank you for agreeing with me that Palin told Congress "Thanks", but "no thanks" (regardless of whether you think that was "the better career move" or not). In addition, you proved my point that she did NOT lie when she said "I put the plane on eBay" (I knew it didn't sell there ; )

Not sure why your mother taught you that telling the truth should be called plain old lying. What color did she tell you the sky is?

Posted by: JakeD | September 9, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

She did took the money that set she is not change ?she is nothing but just more of the same?same as Bush,cheney ,MCcain or no senator MCcain ,senator steven,senator Lieberman,senator Graham,senator gramm,senator thompson",governor Palins",Ms mayor" Palins" ,Mr mayor giuliani ,she did took the" money "she is against it but she did took the money ,the money .the moneyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?God Bless America and God Bless senator Obama and senator Biden.

Posted by: Ronald Roy | September 9, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

"We need to come to the defense of southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table, like the bridge, and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative." - Sarah Palin on the Bridge to Nowhere in August 2006

Hey, Paul? You might want to try to investigating these claims before you send them to print, especially when your source is a criminal.

Posted by: Katie | September 9, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

It is amazing that none of you media types thought of confronting Stevens with facts, perhaps Palin's statements in favor of the Bridge to no where. Pull a McCain, search teh google.

Posted by: Malcolm | September 9, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Why does anyone care what an indicted senile old man like Ted "series of Tubes" Stevenson has to say. He probably can't remember what he ate for breakfast, let alone what Sarah Palin did, and did not support. Good luck in jail old man!!

Posted by: Dave in ME | September 9, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Uncle Ted, like so many older politicians, really doesn't understand what YouTube is and why he should be more careful about his lies now that it exists.

Posted by: JimBob | September 9, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

LOOKING FOR A PARDON, ARE YOU TED?

Posted by: GTFOOH | September 9, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Maybe The Bridge was, in fact, a good thing. After all, both Obama and Biden voted in favor of it. Twice.

Posted by: Bricker | September 9, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Ted Stevens is being prosecuted on charges of corruption. For him to now be the authority on Palin is ridiculous. Palin's own words are documented that she supported the "Bridge to Nowhere" while campaigning to be governor. Once people in the federal government call it wasteful spending and cut off federal funding specifically for that project to the tune of $300 million, then Palin decided to kill the project due to lack of funding.

That's the simple truth. Nothing wrong with her actions technically, but THE McCain campaign shouldn't be HYPOCRITICAL about it!

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | September 9, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

She changed her opinion after learning the facts, that's a good thing.

Why is it when Obama changes his mind/opinion on a issue the liberal bias media calls it a flip-flop but when the republicans flip-flop they call it a lie?

Are these Obama Flip-Flops or Lies:

Rev Wright - I can no more disown him than I can the black community. Then a month later he disowned both Rev Wright and his church.

Illegal immigration - First he opposed cracking down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants, now he supports it.

Marijuana - First he supported the decriminalization of marijuana now he opposes it.

Cuba Embargo - First he said "to end the embargo with Cuba" now he wants to continue it.

Public Financing - Obama became the first candidate to reject public financing for the general election after earlier promises to accept it.

Gun Control - now favors an individual's right to own a gun.

Posted by: Brooker | September 9, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

See? Keep it up (please)

Gallup 9-9-08

September 9, 2008
McCain Now Winning Majority of IndependentsMajority of independents now prefer him over Obama, 52% to 37%USA Democrats Election 2008 Government and Politics Republicans Americas Northern America by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- John McCain's 6 percentage-point bounce in voter support spanning the Republican National Convention is largely explained by political independents shifting to him in fairly big numbers, from 40% pre-convention to 52% post-convention in Gallup Poll Daily tracking.

Posted by: Scott | September 9, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

1. Was the plane put up on Ebay?
Yes
2. Did anyone meet the reserve price?
No
3. Was it sold privately at a loss adding to the taxpayer burden?
Yes
4. Did she support the bridge to nowhere and then reject it when it came under the national political microscope?
Yes
5. Is she the most popular governor in the 47th largest state in the US?
Yes
6. Did she fire Alaska's Top Cop because he wouldn't fire her ex-brother in law?
Yes
7. Did she inquire about banning books at her local library as mayor of Wasilla?
Yes
8. Will she and McSame reverse Roe v. Wade and eliminate a woman's right to choose?
Yes
9. Will McSame and Headline Grabber continue the irresponsible Bush Tax Cuts in a Time of War policy and continue to balloon our national deficit?
You bet
10. Does McSame really get it, that people are losing their homes when he refers to the situation as people "losing their mortgage investments"?
Nope, no way

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 7:24 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin’s much-awaited speech at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday night may have shown she could play the role of attack dog, but it also showed her to be short on facts when it came to touting her own record and going after Obama’s.

We found Rudy Giuliani, who introduced her, to be as factually challenged as he sometimes was back when he was in the race. But Mike Huckabee may have laid the biggest egg of all.

* 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.

* Palin’s accusation that Obama hasn’t authored “a single major law or even a reform” in the U.S. Senate or the Illinois Senate is simply not a fair assessment. Obama has helped push through major ethics reforms in both bodies, for example.

* The Alaska governor avoided some of McCain’s false claims about Obama’s tax program – but her attacks still failed to give the whole story.

* Giuliani distorted the time line and substance of Obama’s statements about the conflict between Russia and Georgia. In fact, there was much less difference between his statements and those of McCain than Giuliani would have had us believe.

* Giuliani also said McCain had been a fighter pilot. Actually, McCain’s plane was the A-4 Skyhawk, a small bomber. It was the only plane he trained in or flew in combat, according to McCain’s own memoir.

* Finally, Huckabee told conventioneers and TV viewers that Palin got more votes when she ran for mayor of Wasilla than Biden did running for president. Not even close. The tally: Biden, 79,754, despite withdrawing from the race after the Iowa caucuses. Palin, 909 in her 1999 race, 651 in 1996.

Posted by: McAin't Gonna Happen | September 9, 2008 7:08 AM | Report abuse

Two Lawyers who became Senators running against a Veteran who became Senator and a PTA Mom who became Governor- Typical Legal argument-

1. Was the plane put up on Ebay?
Yes
2. Did anyone meet the reserve price?
No
3. Was it sold privately anyway in order to reduce the taxpayer burden?
Yes
4. Did she lose the chef and driver, driving herself to work and further reducing the taxpayer burden?
Yes
5. Did she support the bridge as a link and then reject it when it became a 400 million dollar pork program, still keeping the funds in the state but puttingthem to better use?
Yes
6. Is she the most popular governor in the United States?
Yes
7. Did she fight corruption in her own party?
Yes

8. Do you know that most told joke about how you know a lawyer is lying?
Yes

Posted by: Scott | September 9, 2008 6:40 AM | Report abuse

8. Did the Governor of Illinois (OR ANY OTHER GOVERNOR?)send back any of the $850 million dollars in earmarks Obama received during his Senate ternure- interesting he's not asking for any THIS year?
No
9. Does McCain ask for earmarks?
No

10. Are Independents sick of this partisan arguing ?
Yes

Posted by: Scott | September 9, 2008 6:39 AM | Report abuse

Two Lawyers running against a Veteran who became Senator and a PTA Mom who became Governor- Typical Legal argument-

1. Was the plane put up on Ebay?
Yes
2. Did anyone meet the reserve price?
No
3. Was it sold privately anyway in order to reduce the taxpayer burden?
Yes
4. Did she lose the chef and driver, driving herself to work and further reducing the taxpayer burden?
Yes
5. Did she support the bridge as a link and then reject it when it became a 400 million dollar pork program, still keeping the funds in the state but puttingthem to better use?
Yes
6. Is she the most popular governor in the United States?
Yes
7. Did she fight corruption in her own party?
Yes

8. Do you know that most told joke about how you know a lawyer is lying?
Yes

Posted by: Scott | September 9, 2008 6:17 AM | Report abuse

so basically, the Palin Bridge was a go when the $250,000,000 would come from federal tax money, but when she discovered it would cost the state the other $150M she decided against it. It certainly didn't stop her from spending the federal money anyway, on different projects.

Posted by: Ed Hudecek | September 9, 2008 4:45 AM | Report abuse

JakeD,

You could easily verify that for yourself in wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge

"Alaska Governor Sarah Palin [...] changed her view after national public opinion turned against the bridge for being wasteful spending."

So technically, she said "Thanks", and then later she said "no thanks" when it became the better career move.

Kinda how like she "Put the plane on eBay"... where it failed to sell, so she found a broker who took a cut and ... "then sold it for a profit" where profit = loss of $600,000.

Her clear implication is that the plane was sold on eBay for a profit. Both of those claims represent the opposite of truth.
In fact, in the folksy small town where I come from,our mamas taught us that's called plain old lying.

Posted by: Ryan Churches | September 9, 2008 4:35 AM | Report abuse

If Steven had hooked up to the series of tubes that is the internet, and taught McCain to use it, he would have been able to YouTube plenty of video of Palin campaigning for the bridge. Plenty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge
During her campaign for Governor, Sarah Palin visited Ketchikan in September of 2006 to address her support for the Gravina Island Bridge project. At a forum in Ketchikan, Palin was seen holding up a t-shirt designed by a Ketchikan artist, Mary Ida Henrikson with "Nowhere Alaska 99901" on it, referencing the buzzword of Bridge to 'Nowhere', and the primary zip code of Ketchikan, Alaska. At the same forum, she was quoted: "OK, you’ve got Valley trash standing here in the middle of nowhere,” Palin said. “I think we’re going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project."

Posted by: Ryan Churches | September 9, 2008 4:26 AM | Report abuse

"And she took the money and did not use it for the bridge, so you're wrong, as far as I'm concerned," Ted Stevens said today.
______________________
Well, Ted Stevens, the Alaskan senator, is now indicted for corruption as a public servant.
.
And Sarah Palin "took the money" from the crime?
.
Is that what she means by "I am not going to stand on the way of progress" when asked about pork money from Stevens?
_______________________________
*I am El Mugroso, and I approve this message*

Posted by: El Mugroso | September 9, 2008 4:20 AM | Report abuse

Another thing that I found a little comical is that Palin seemed so excited about telling a crowd that she put the State's checkbook on line, if she had just learned that this is what her office does--it is pretty much common that many of the State offices do this because it is time consuming to search these records individually (Been there). It is nothing new, perhaps new to her. I read where a spokesperson from her office said she "supported" it being done, not that she instigated it. It looks like she is taking the credit for other people's ideas, by spinning it to show that she did it. Just another politician. I wanted to give her the benefit of a doubt, but like some of the other comments I hear, I think McCain is using her to do his dirty work, while he rakes in campaign funds.

Posted by: SC | September 9, 2008 3:06 AM | Report abuse

Why do the politicians and the media think the people even care about pork-barrels when we don't even know what the heck pork-barrels even are? What the heck are pork-barrels, would someone please tell me? Why should I care about a pork-barrel?

Posted by: Socrates | September 9, 2008 2:52 AM | Report abuse

Stevens' word means nothing. The McCain camp and the GOP probably thought this would be definitive in ending the discussion. Like somehow, it would makes us all ignore the statements ON RECORD she's made supporting the Bridge to Nowhere. What a lame attempt.

Posted by: DogBitez | September 9, 2008 2:42 AM | Report abuse

Oh, and by the way, as Mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired Ted Stevens former staffer and went from zero earmarked federal money to $27 million in her short tenure there. All as a result of Stevens' and Don Young's intervention. So you really think Stevens is going to have a single bad thing to say about this pit bull in lipstick?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 2:27 AM | Report abuse

Talk about a buried lead ... it isn't until 2 paragraphs from the end that Sarah Palin's promise to Ketchikan to build the bridge ... while she was running for office. The story also fails to mention that even if she cut THAT pork, she didn't turn the money back to the rest of us, but instead used the money for other projects around Alaska including, and I am not making this up, the ROAD that lead to the former Bridge to Nowhere. She killed the bridge but used money to build a road to nowhere? And she's painting herself as a reformer? You know what, WaPo -- I'm Daffy Duck. Please print your obligatory headline and five paragraphs about my totally false claim before mentioning at the end that Daffy is a cartoon character. Right ... and the MSM is pro-Obama.

Posted by: Did I mention I'm a beauty queen? | September 9, 2008 2:23 AM | Report abuse

Palin's scandals have touched on the various parallels that Bush's have, including the abuse of power (Bush: Unitary Executive, US Attorney firings etc.; Palin: Troopergate, Loyalty firings), record of fiscal incompetence, the flair for the casual lie, the crazy Christianist angle, the disregard for facts and expertise, etc. But however terrible Bush was, there's no allegation that he's out there lining his own pockets. So here's a scary thought: is Palin a poor man's Dubya? Not only an incompetent, fact-avoiding extremist, but personally corrupt as well?

Posted by: America, if you vote for McCain you'll deserve what you get - More Bush and Cheney thuggery | September 9, 2008 2:22 AM | Report abuse

I want multiple VP debates and I want them Now!!!!

Ready to lead from Day 1. I thinks it like Day 9.

Sarah the barracuda is a fish out of water.

Posted by: VP debates | September 9, 2008 2:07 AM | Report abuse

If I hear anymore about this bridge to nowhere and plane she supposedly put on ebay, I am going to scream. The bridge is a mute point now, it didn't happen. And the plane, according to the Alaska's Governor's office, they have been selling things on Ebay since 2003,so she did not just do something new. Secondly, analyzing the amount they had to pay quarterly for the plane-around $60,000, and the plane did not sell until August 2007, what a waste of tax payers money to have a plane not in use, but using commercial airlines to travel at the tax payers expense. Palin charged the State of Alaska for "ceremonial and business" travel not only for her, but her entire family as well, while this plane was sitting, and the state still paying. I am sure if we add this up and see the loss to the State of Alaska, we won't be hearing another word about putting that plane on ebay.

Posted by: Cynthia | September 9, 2008 2:03 AM | Report abuse

I think some of these comments are incredibly nasty, and many of them are blatant advertisements for the candidates the poster supports. Don't you people have better things to do than name-calling and trying your best to cut down your candidate's opposition with malicious attacks?

Posted by: Bryan | September 9, 2008 1:43 AM | Report abuse

Anyone who votes Republican this year is more delusional than the candidates they support. In recent weeks, John McCain and the Republican party have blatantly and without any shame adopted the Democratic campaign theme of “change”. It should be evident to an objective observer that Bush 43 and now McCain and Pailin are mere puppets to the true Republican national party leaders who control their strings. Cheney is one of the few of that inner cabal that have been calling the shots since the Nixon administration. They are in fact a continuation of the Nixon and Ford presidencies with only a disruption during the Carter and Clinton years. Bush 41( Head of the RNC during Nixon,former head of the CIA,VP to Reagan, and president is probably the real leader of this political Cosa Nostra if not a equal partner of this power sharing musical chairs game. His right and left hands have been Dick Cheney(former Sec.of Defense of Bush 41, former White House Chief of staff for Ford) and the other is Donald Rumsfeld(former Sec. of Defense for Ford and Bush 43,former special envoy to the Middle East during Reagan). Another member of this group, more likely a captain if not a full blown boss himself is James Baker (former C.O.S of Reagan, former Under Sec. of Commerce for Ford, former C.O.S and Sec of State for Bush 41, former Sec. of Treasury for Reagan, former chief legal advisor to Bush 43). Another captain or free lance enforcer is Karl Rove a college drop out and campaign manager for both Bush 41 and 43, also for Phil Gram who is McCain’s economic advisor.
Lets look at McCain’s staff of change.
On July 2, 2008, Steve Schmidt was given "full operational control" of McCain's campaign. Steve Schmidt prior to this was a top aide to Dick Cheney and a protégé to Karl Rove. Another advisor is Charles R. Black worked for Ronald Reagan's two Presidential campaigns in 1976 and 1980 and he was a senior political adviser to the 1992 re-election campaign of George H.W. Bush. Another advisor is Randy Scheunemann. He was project director for the Project for the New American Century. A neo-conservative think tank founded by non other than Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Bill Kristol and others in 1996. Other signatories to this group reads like a who’s who of the last 8 years of the republican administration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century.
These people have never cared about small town america or “values” All they care about is war profiteering. Many of the signatories have never served in the military. Cheney and Rove both dodged the draft. Look at the statement of principles by the PNAC. Rumsfeld was a good friend of Saddam Huessin in the 80’s Cheney didn’t want Nelson Mandela free. These are the real puppet masters, they throw out the talking points about the left of being elitist and not caring about middle america and these same guys other than Rove have advanced degrees and are worth no less than 10 million dollars. People who support them need to extricate their heads out of Limbaugh and Hannity’s asses and see what is really happening to them. McCain is not his own man he confuses stories of his real life with a book he read “The Gulag Archipelago", in which a fellow prisoner - not a guard - silently drew a cross in the dirt with a stick.” An ironic twist to all this is Eliot A. Cohen, a signatory to the PNAC "Statement of Principles", responded in The Washington Post: "There is no evidence that generals as a class make wiser national security policymakers than civilians. George C. Marshall, our greatest soldier statesman after George Washington, opposed shipping arms to Britain in 1940. His boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nary a day in uniform, thought otherwise. Whose judgment looks better?"[
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2581086/John-McCain-accused-of-plagiarising-Wikipedia-for-speeches.html. Even if you don’t like Obama there is no-way a sane person can want this continued blatant fleecing of our Nation.

Thes are all verifiable facts and can be found just with a google search.

Other than the ultra affluent, how can anyone support the Republican party? When will small town America realize that they are being duped into supporting the ultra-affluent agenda. The talking points of the right are so hypocritical that it becomes laughable. The red meat of the right is the so called Main stream Media as if Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. are not part of it. They demean celebrity status, however they tout one of their greatest presidents(Reagan) was an actor. They say they are the party of patriotism, yet many of the upper echelon of the party have never served, i.e. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Baker, Reagan. They say that they care about "Main Street" USA but only bail out the Whales of Wall Street. Yet small town America eat this tripe every year. They don't care about relgion unless it can be used to stir up the base, nor science or technology unless there is a buck to be made. Small town America takes pride on its freedom but yet don't realize that over time we are becoming less free, ie wire tapping and other forms of domestic survelliance. They demean people of intelligence because they know many people of small town America don't have degrees and use it at a fake issue and call people who spent time in academia as elitist when many on the right serve on university boards and have part-time professorships. They say they are against affirmitive action but yet celebrate mediocrity, Bush43 and McCain graduating at the bottom of their classes. Who both came from already well established families and had all the opportunities and connections to excel. Why does small town America believes this is the party for them? Christian conservatives seem to the be the first ones who want to go to war and bomb someone before any diplomacy is tried. Why can't small town America and Christian conservatives realize they are being used as pawns just as much the Islamic fundamentalist are. Islamic fundamentalist come from small town Middle East and given the same kind of talking points as the evangalicals. They want prayer in school, no choice available to women, and believe to the core that their ideas about worship and country are the best. Wake up small town America you are being played.

Posted by: IronComments | September 9, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

Straight Talk McCain has proved that he is one of the most cynical of American politicians. The minute one of is numerous personas fails him, he invents another and slithers forward.

Posted by: Character Counts1 | September 9, 2008 12:46 AM | Report abuse

We need to find a copy of that check to Alaska for $234,000,000 and look at the signature and see if Sarah cashed it.

"Well I just don't know how my signature got on there. Isn't that strange? Do you think it was forged? Yes, that's it. I bet someone forged my signature. That has to be the answer."

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 12:39 AM | Report abuse

What's the difference between a Bridge To Nowhere and Pork Barrel?

Sarah's lipstick.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

He proved how dishonest and manipulative he is when he wigled his way out of the Keating 5 scandal


Give old McSurge a break. Do you honestly think he can remember that far back as to why he was involved in that scandal??

Even many oh his supporters today can't remember the scandal. Or don't want to know about.

He should have been run out of the senate for his involvement. The only reason he wasn't is America's hero Astronaut/Sen. John Glenn had dirtier hands than he did.

I guess time heals all wounds. And covers up all scandals.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 12:33 AM | Report abuse

The truth fell off a BRIDGE TO NOWHERE and landed in Obama's hands. He safely brought the truth to light.

By the way, Sarah Palin as mayor of Wasilla, charged women a minimum of $300 for their rape kits. Alaska has more men than women and a resultingly higher sexual assault rate. Gee, and mostly white too. So to kowtow to the oil and energy industries, Palin threw women under the bus.

http://www.americablog.com/2008/09/wasilla-charged-rape-victims-for-their.html

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Mac --- “Mr CharacterCounts1 it is NOT mud slinging to point out facts about Palins actions and statements.”

Mac, if you had read all of my posts you would realize that I don’t disagree with you. Think before you post.

Posted by: Character Counts1 | September 9, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

So, they nixed the bridge effort but Alaska still got a blank check for $200,000,000. If they came up with a nefarious plan to build a bridge to nowhere who thought it was a good idea to let them have the money without the bridge language? Seriously? I don't know about you, but I'd like to see a breakdown of what that money was actually spent on. C'mon investigative journalists-get crackin!

Posted by: Common Sense | September 9, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

If you want a government that lies to you, then vote Republican.

Posted by: Kd11 | September 9, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

Mr CharacterCounts1 it is NOT mud slinging to point out facts about Palins actions and statements.

That these make you unhappy just highlights the weakness of the Palin/McCain ticket. The fact is she supported the bridge and she sure has heck supported taking federal money to spend like crazy.

What is up with these Republicans who love to spend tax dollars on stupid things? McCain==Bush.

Vote for change, vote for Obama.

Posted by: Mac | September 9, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Anybody can be VP, Look at Palin. All you have to do is get a Presidential candidate to vote for you and then they'll write your speeches, and tell you what to say, when to say it, and how to say it. You don't have to even to interviews or have a press conference. The campaign like Mccains' can even set you up with easy interviews that make you look like you know what your talking about when you really don't. Now isn't that an easy way to be just a heart beat away from the presidency? Ask Palin, its her new role.

Posted by: Susan | September 9, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

Anybody can be VP, Look at Palin. All you have to do is get a Presidential candidate to vote for you and then they'll write your speeches, and tell you what to say, when to say it, and how to say it. You don't have to even to interviews or have a press conference. The campaign like Mccains' can even set you up with easy interviews that make you look like you know what your talking about when you really don't. Now isn't that an easy way to be just a heart beat away from the presidency? Ask Palin, its her new role.

Posted by: Susan | September 9, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

Campaign to No Where, Palin/Mccain.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 9, 2008 12:13 AM | Report abuse

Honestly, the bridge to nowhere fight isn't the real issue. The real issue is a Pentacostal believer who thinks she's on a mission form God to do what? Ban abortion, books, gay marriage, useful sex education? For heavens sake, if she were a "fundamentalist Muslim" instead of a fundamentalist Christian, the country would be up in arms. See her for what she is, a dangerously narrowminded hypocrite whose "family values' stop just short of putting her family before her ambition and who would like to legislate morality for the rest of the world to suit her narrow band of fundraisers. She is unqualified, ignorant and hypocritical. The bridge to nowhere is at best cement in the wall of overwhelming facts and at least just a diversion from the truth that she is no more qualified to be VP than any other "pitbull in lipstick" as she so crudely put it. Fact is, she'll be understudy for the top job on the planet, and WE CANNOT AFFORD THIS RISK!!!

Posted by: lhen | September 9, 2008 12:12 AM | Report abuse

Maverick McCain voted with Bush/Cheney 90% of the time. He’s some maverick.

Posted by: Character Counts1 | September 9, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Obama has new radical and criminal friends for more info
www.barackbook.com

Posted by: tommy | September 9, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Some character witness, Stevens is under indictment. Before that happened he was busy sending large shipments of pork to Alaska. Per capita Alaska is the largest recipient of federal money (pork) in the country. When Palin was mayor of Wasilla she hired a lobbyist to help generate more pork for Wasilla, Alaska. Wake up and smell the roses, before we elect another president who says one thing and then goes and does another.

Posted by: Character Counts1 | September 9, 2008 12:02 AM | Report abuse

Ted Stevens is now a trustworthy source? Huh?

Posted by: lhen | September 9, 2008 12:00 AM | Report abuse

Palin as possible commander in chief? This is the "Campaign To Nowhere' leading us to the "Presidency To Nowhere". This a joke, but nobody is laughing but our enemies.

Posted by: Cyrus Clarke | September 8, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

I see the mudslinging is in full swing. By the time this race is resolved, we’ll all need to take a long shower.

Posted by: Character Counts1 | September 8, 2008 11:51 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 11:48 PM | Report abuse

We need to reduce oil's share of the world energy market anyway we can because the US doesn't own enough of it. Energy is key to economic, political and military power. 'It's energy independence stupid'. Oil is our enemy. Currently oil controls roughly 37% of world power. Drilling for oil only increases our dependence. Consider any oil we don't drill as part of our potential strategic petroleum reserve. I'd rather pay more for domestic energy then to give our wealth away to Russia, Saudi Arabia etc.

Stop Big Oil from controlling and protecting their market share.

Reduce oil consumption - Tax all oil (domestic and foreign) then refund it to the consumers (revenue neutral). Let the consumer decide on how to spend it (free market). Outlaw all new oil burning furnaces (I can't believe my neighbor just bought a new oil furnace). Anything but oil is my creed.

Posted by: lol | September 8, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

Scott, you claimed Palin was a transparent governor. I questioned her transparency because she is stalling a legislative investigation. Since you brought up her fiscal transparency, I thought it fair to point out that she didn't balance the budget in her longest held executive office, regardless of the fact that you only want to talk about her as a governor.

But, really, if criminalizing abortions is one of your top two issues, which it sounds like it is, then I understand why you support McCain-Palin. There truly is no better choice in this election for you because there is a big difference in the two tickets here. But you don't need to bring up hairplugs, or plagiarism, or Rezko or any of that. You could just say: Making abortion illegal is very important to me and that is why I support McCain-Palin.

I will say that what is important to me is funding infrastructure and education, ending the war in Iraq, preserving a woman's right to choose (particularly in cases of rape and incest), helping parents once babies are born, reducing the deficit, and improving our international reputation. That is why I am voting for Obama-Biden.

There is a lot more to global warming than corn ethanol subsidies, which I agree are not a good idea. Since global warming is important to you, then you should ask Palin and McCain to say if, as a ticket, they believe global warming is the result of human action or not because the two have disagreed on this in the past. This is one issue on which McCain has broken with his party in the past, so it is interesting that he chose someone who doesn't agree with his position to be his VP. I'm not saying it's sinister; I'd sincerely like to hear about how they are reconciling this important issue.

Posted by: ethel08 | September 8, 2008 11:43 PM | Report abuse

What a timely revelation.

I guess I was all wrong about Palin after all.

...

Posted by: Yukari | September 8, 2008 11:43 PM | Report abuse

"Oh yeah, producing ethanol and biodiesel from waste products is going to be big. They're working on that big time at the University of California, Davis."

If we put a fraction of the money going into Iraq into science, we would be able to solve a lot of our problems

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of tongues, McCain, slurp slurp

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 11:31 PM | Report abuse

Oh yeah, producing ethanol and biodiesel from waste products is going to be big. They're working on that big time at the University of California, Davis.

Posted by: koijaicat | September 8, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

yep old man, and you should wish I were. my kids are not dying in Iraq for nothing. bless you, though i doubt that.

Posted by: justadad55+ | September 8, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse

1)Barack Obama is for biofuels this dosn't just mean corn ethanol. Some companies, such as Nova Biosource Fuels and Verenium Co are producing ethanol and biodiesel from waste products. This will not neccessarily increase food prices. Also, Natural gas reserves in the US are huge and most cars can be easily converted to run on NG.

2) Barack Obama supports veterans surviving Iraq attempts - McCain has consistiently voted against veteran rights. http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/

"There you are-

Here are 2 things McCain will do for this country that Barack Obama will blow-
1. Corn Ethanol raises food prices and uses 1 unit of Petroleum for every unit it replaces- it's 7x less efficient than sugar cane ethanol which McCain supports
2. McCain will protect infants surviving abortion attempts...Obama will allow them to perish- and he lied about his position on this vote in Illinois on the SAME legislation that became the federal bill!

You go Ethel.....YOUR side is bringing up Palin's alleged lies-wasting valuable time that could be used discussing issues- I am pointing out that you have no credibility to cast stones!"

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 11:24 PM | Report abuse

Ethel- Global warming isn't important? Basic human decency MUST NOT BE IMPORTANT TO YOU or PERHAPS YOU'RE AGAIN IGNORANT OF THE ISSUE AND ARE STILL RUNNING YOUR MOUTH ON IT LIKE YOUR POINT ABOUT PALIN AS MAYOR WHEN I SAID GOVERNOR AND BIDEN AS AN INSIDER WHEN I SAID LIER>>>> there's a disconnect here Ethel...a loose synapse in your cortex perhaps? That's why Rezko and Ayres don't concern you...sad. Goodnight Ethel.

Posted by: Scott | September 8, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

The GOP should re-name their party the Evangelical Party. However, who is using whom? The extremely wealthy Republican power brokers use the Evangelical lambs to get what they want. The myopic Evangelicals can't focus on anything but their narrow issues (i.e. abortion). By the way, abortion is a non-issue for the wealthy because they can always get one overseas. Ironically, the GOP will never ban abortion because the powerful need this issue to control the religious right, and thus retain their power. Warfare (politics) makes strange bedfellows.

Sadly, both parties are largely controlled by the folks with the most money. One strategy is to never vote for an incumbent unless they are doing an excellent job. Look at the record not the rhetoric and who is financing whom. Another good question to ask, what team will the candidate bring to office.

Posted by: lol | September 8, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Democrats, don't be so quick to judge. Sarah Palin is not completely close minded. Although she does not believe in the theory of evolution, she does indeed practice one theory that gives Republicans hope: The Big Bang.

Posted by: koijaicat | September 8, 2008 11:17 PM | Report abuse

There you are-

Here are 2 things McCain will do for this country that Barack Obama will blow-
1. Corn Ethanol raises food prices and uses 1 unit of Petroleum for every unit it replaces- it's 7x less efficient than sugar cane ethanol which McCain supports
2. McCain will protect infants surviving abortion attempts...Obama will allow them to perish- and he lied about his position on this vote in Illinois on the SAME legislation that became the federal bill!

You go Ethel.....YOUR side is bringing up Palin's alleged lies-wasting valuable time that could be used discussing issues- I am pointing out that you have no credibility to cast stones!

Posted by: Scott | September 8, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama might need to take off the Gloves and really go after Palin already. Before he loses his spotlight for good.


Has anyone else read this story about a possible Affair Sarah Palin had? That is just one of the Scandals listed at this site. http://www.hotpres.com

This site has background info on sarah Palin Bio, Pics, Videos, Alot of Polls like how many people actually think that she is attractive? http://www.theveep.com

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Scott, if you think corn ethanol and the infant protection act are the most important issues facing us, then you really should vote for McCain-Palin.

Posted by: ethel08 | September 8, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Oh Ethel- Aren't we going to discuss ISSUES? Are you there Ethel? Tim? Jews for Jesus? Anonymous(axelrod)?
Where are you guys?

Posted by: Scott | September 8, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Scott, the point remains: if you think McCain and Palin are so good for the country, why don't you talk about what they will do for it, instead of talking about Biden's hairplugs? Whatever side of the partisan divide you are on, aren't you just sick of all of this name calling? Where has it gotten us? Didn't Bush demonstrate that it is hard to govern when you divide the nation up with all of this name-calling? Don't you think we're facing a serious election here?

About Palin. I guess it doesn't matter to you what she actually did in her longest-held "executive" office. I thought it was important because Republicans keep bringing up her "executive" experience.

"Ethel why did a woman, married to Tony Rezko, who had a salary of 35K a year buy a piece of land next to Obama's house and then sell a sliver of it back to Obama? Where did she get the money?"

It's not even clear to me what you are asking here. How did Rezko's wife get money? Are you serious?

If you want to bring up the connections between Rezko and Obama, they are well documented, particularly in the Chicago media. Even the Huffington Post wrote an incredibly in-depth story of Obama and Rezko that was deeply unflattering. But everyone who's been involved in Rezko's trial--and there have been lots of folks on both sides of the political parties--agree that Obama was not engaged in any illegal activity.

If you really want to keep parading these skeletons around, we can talk about Charles Keating. Like Obama's dealing with Rezko, McCain's relationship with Keating shows "poor judgment" (according to the Senate Ethics Committee) but no illegal activity.

But, again, is this the kind of stuff you really want to talk about in a presidential election when there are so many issues at stake? I'd rather talk about the candidates' policies, their records as politicians, and where we want our country to go. I'm so exhausted by all of the name-calling and conspiracy theories. Why aren't you?

Posted by: ethel08 | September 8, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

4. Ethel one more fallacy in your argument- I attacked Biden as a bald faced hair plugged plagiarist who slandered a dead man, as covered by the NY Times...not as a Washington Insider!

Posted by: Scott | September 8, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

"At the top of your ticket is the man whom Mitt Romney called ..."
Ethel08

1.Ethel you didn't get the memo- Romney was the guy on the shortlist NOT chosen by McCain- sorry about the miilion spent on Romney attack ads
2. I would LOVE to talk about the issues- Corn Ethanol and The Infant Protection Act first- Ready?
3. I never said she was Mayor when she posted the checkbook or that McCain was an outsider- Palin is the only outsider on either ticket- get YOUR ISSUES IN ORDER Ethel


Posted by: Scott | September 8, 2008 11:01 PM

Posted by: Scott | September 8, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

"At the top of your ticket is the man whom Mitt Romney called ..."

1.Ethel you didn't get the memo- Romney was the guy on the shrtlist NOT choen by McCain- sorry about the miilion spent on Romney attack ads
2. I would LOVE to talk about the issues- Corn Ethanol and The Infant Protection Act first- Ready?
3. I never said she was Mayor when she posted the checkbook or that McCain was an outsider- Palin is the only outsidetr on either ticket- get YOPUR ISSUES IN ORDER Ethel

Posted by: Scott | September 8, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Being not available for comment seems consistent anyway...

"Palin "bridge to nowhere" line angers many Alaskans"

"In the city Ketchikan, the planned site of the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere," political leaders of both parties said the claim was false and a betrayal of their community, because she had supported the bridge and the earmark for it secured by Alaska's Congressional delegation during her run for governor."

"When she was running for governor in 2006, Palin said she was insulted by the term "bridge to nowhere," according to Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein, a Democrat, and Mike Elerding, a Republican who was Palin's campaign coordinator in the southeast Alaska city.

"People are learning that she pandered to us by saying, I'm for this' ... and then when she found it was politically advantageous for her nationally, abruptly she starts using the very term that she said was insulting," Weinstein said.

Palin's spokeswoman in Alaska was not immediately available to comment."

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN3125537020080901

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

Yeah sure JakeD- 'True' Christians just like 'True' Muslims. All are willing to die for their faith... uh-huh. The only problem is that there is zero proof to any of it. None. Nada. Zippo. Jesus hasn't come back for over 2000 years now. In addition to that, he never said he was the Messiah. Not once. That was Paul. Yep, Paul. So if you think the Muslims are wacky for following Muhammad then look to yourselves and your deluded belief in a 'Paul.' But I don't care. That's your right to believe what you like but it is not your right to push it on and expect everyone else to believe it! That's why we have the First Amendment. It keeps us safe. If you can't live in today and for this reality, then I guess we're all doomed because you do everything you can to bring the world to its end since it hasn't happened. Jesus ain't coming back but if he does, I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong. I'm not concerned but Christians who believe this should be very worried because Rabbi Jesus was preaching all about how to be a better Jew and a better human. He never said, 'Start a new religion and hate others.' No-he did not. So if I really really believed that Jesus was the Messiah (something that would make him shudder) then I would do everything I could to be the person he wanted me to be. That includes being a very good, perfect Jew.

Again, I don't care what you or anyone else believes as long as they live within the law but I will always have a hard time understanding why people take their brains out, and believe that their faith is the 'absolute' and 'only' one. And how they cannot see that the people pushing this on them are motivated by greed and power... all the things that Jesus himself preached against. I'm not a Christian but doesn't Jesus say something like "if anyone says to you 'look, her is the Christ! or 'There' do not believe it. for false Christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs of wonders to deceive, if possible even the elect." Wow- that sounds like all of Christianity to me! I suspect that alot of the same rhetoric about Jesus, manifest destiny and end of days was probably used prior to the crusades? What do you think? And do you think that was a good idea? And what language was Jesus speaking? Oh-and in what language were the first Gospels written? Oh yeah, and who decided which Gospels would be canonized? And how man times were they translated? World of God to be taken as literal. I think not. My four year would not even accept such logic!

Again, go off and worship. Call when Jesus gets here but for now, let's take a lesson from history. This religious and Jesus crap hasn't worked out thus far. In fact, millions and millions have been killed for it! Let's just accept the possibility of a God, know that we can't prove it and keep the rest of it private and between ourselves and God. It has no place in Government and when it does, the Government fails. Stop destroying our lives and the earth because YOU ARE SCARED!

Besides, if you buy into all of it. I mean really study and not listen to some po-dunk pastor consumed by his own power then you'll see that Sarah Palin is far from Christian. Most Evangelicals are far from Christianity. If I believed it, I would say that all evangelicals are being taken straight to hell. But I don't. So it's not my problem. It's yours. Sarah Palin is, however, my problem because she is uneducated and deluded by her warped view of God and power.

This is a great country and since Jesus isn't here and so far, everyone who has predicted 'the end' has been wrong.. what do you say we work on making it a better and safer place for us and our children?

Do you really believe that GW did a good job? Really? Do you honestly believe that we're in a better place? GW thought he would be raptured up by now as well.... nope didn't happen. But he did a great job of screwing up the world for the rest of us!

Would you invest in a company that had NO, ZERO succession plan? Well, every time an evangelical is in office, it's like working for a company without succession management. It's not only scary. It's irresponsible.

I'm not an atheist. I'm not even a liberal. I'm someone who believes in this country and who understands that things will get far worse if this continues. Look at history! How many people have to die before you finally figure out that no one has come back! Jesus hasn't come back and no one else has! Stop staking a beautiful life now on something that may or may not exist! Were the crusades supposed to make the world a better place? Did it work? so you stand face to face with a Muslim extremist and you both scream, "I'm right!!" Until when? Until you both die? It's stupid. There's no right answer. There's only our First Amendment and History.

Obama '08 For freedom! For the Constitution! For the integrity and future of the United States!

Posted by: Smith | September 8, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse


A LIE is a LIE is a LIE. ENOUGH.

FACTS SUCK, don't they? But hey, what do I know? I'm just a POW.

Posted by: nobush3rd | September 8, 2008 10:49 PM


***********
Hey Hairless-
"...The New York Times reported the 2007 crowd at the University of Iowa grew silent as Biden gave his version of what happened that day.

"Let me tell you a little story," The newspaper quoted Biden as saying. "I got elected when I was 29, and I got elected November the 7th. And on Dec. 18 of that year, my wife and three kids were Christmas shopping for a Christmas tree. A tractor-trailer, a guy who allegedly -- and I never pursued it -- drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch, broadsided my family and killed my wife instantly, and killed my daughter instantly, and hospitalized my two sons, with what were thought to be at the time permanent, fundamental injuries....
"Even before Obama asked Biden to join his campaign, political observers said the senator's gaffes could be a liability in a contest where every word will be scrutinized. Biden's first presidential campaign 20 years ago was undone by charges he plagiarized parts of a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock....

"The rumor about alcohol being involved by either party, especially the truck driver, is incorrect," said Jerome O. Herlihy, a Delaware Superior Court judge who was chief deputy attorney general and worked with crash investigators in 1972.

By RACHEL KIPP • The News Journal • September 4, 2008

Didn't you get the memo Hairless- with Biden on the ticket, lying's off then table! And Yes, Joe found out in law school and on the '88 campaign trail that FACTS DO SUCK!


Posted by: Scott | September 8, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Oh, Scott, it's so funny when you Republicans attack Biden as being a Washington insider. I thought you all were insisting that what matters most is the person at the top of the ticket.

At the top of your ticket is the man whom Mitt Romney called "the quintessential Washington insider, a man who has been there 25 years, knows all the lobbyists, knows all the Democrats and all the Republicans, knows who owes who, has favors to repay and scores to settle." McCain is a six-term senator; he's lived in Washington most of his adult life. He's jovially referred to the media as his "base." He's been on Face the Nation more than any other Senator...ever (46 times and counting).

Even more ridiculous, this guy says that he is going to shake up Washington and refers to himself as a maverick. Huh?

If you support his policies, fine. Then talk about those. But please don't try to sell this man as some Washington outsider. That is ludicrous. Even your own party knows it.

Posted by: ethel08 | September 8, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

ethel08
A checkbook ethel is a ledger of all expenditures and she did put it on line AS GOVERNOR of the State of Alaska...did I say Mayor? No, I didn't -

Ethel why did a woman, married to Tony Rezko, who had a salary of 35K a year buy a piece of land next to Obama's house and then sell a sliver of it back to Obama? Where did she get the money? Transparency!!!

Lies, lies, lies- your side lives in the most fragile of glass houses and keeps casting those stones-

You know ethel...every time I look at Joe Biden I think-

Hairplugs belie the lie that lies beneath!

Posted by: Scott | September 8, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

and then there's that jet that DIDN'T sell for a profit.. sure, she put it on eBay, but when it didn't meet the minimum bid, she sold it through a broker for $500K less than cost.

And it wasn't HER jet... it was also used to ship felons down to jails in the lower 48. Apparently, they don't have enough up there in AK.

Oh, yeah... that chef she said she fired? Not so much... she just "redefined" her job title, but she's still cooking...

It isn't (to me) so much about the jet or cook or even the bridge... it's the LIEs she makes up to make herself look like the REFORMER McCain THOUGHT she was when he didn't vet her and ended up with a woman who had to attend 6 different colleges to even get a degree... got married at 17 (pregnant, yup, it runs in the family... those life lessons like abstinence...)

A LIE is a LIE is a LIE. ENOUGH.

FACTS SUCK, don't they? But hey, what do I know? I'm just a POW.

Posted by: nobush3rd | September 8, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

the second "1" should be a "2" -- woops. Peace.

Posted by: patmac | September 8, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Palin is, in fact, lying about being being a reformer (and as you can see below, Stevens is lying in his defense of her). Going well beyond what is noted in the article.

1) Palin, said in 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.' ” source: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html

1) Going beyond this instance of the Palin/McCain hypocrisy we cannot forget another crucial and relevant fact: Alaska never gave back money allowed for the bridge to nowhere. See and sign the following petition requesting that the money be returned to the U.S. Govt.

http://www.petitiononline.com/giveback/petition.html

3) Likewise, as mayor. "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. "

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html

Posted by: patmac | September 8, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Good Christian | September 8, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

"Hitler waited 90 days after taking office before banning...books. Mayor Sarah Palin waited 11" days after taking office before attempting to ban books.

Posted by: koijaicat | September 8, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

There is none so blind as those who cannot see and there is none as blnd as those who do not want to see. This is so true of the right wing zealots who are impressed with a pretty face but blind tto the lies and misrepresentation she has uttered since her first speech when Mccain introduced her.He proved how dishonest and manipulative he is when he wigled his way out of the Keating 5 scandal,and and now without any vision or sense of direction is trying to lay claim to Obama's Change initiative. Two liars in a pod Mccain and Palin is like two deceivers in the house Bush and Chaney,that no good can come from.

Posted by: samiael | September 8, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Since when did lying become a evangelical christian strength? Are those who stand behind liers and deceivers of Christ or that other guy in a red suit?

Did everyone know, that per her belief, that these evangelicals belief that if you are not baptized in the name of Jesus, filled with the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues, that you are going to hell? But they stand behind lies?

More reason to avoid church.

Posted by: Ward6ForNow | September 8, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

One gets the feeling that the people of Alaska had a much more noble idea of what should have been done with the bridge money.

""In response to this national humiliation, many in Alaska have vented their anger in the state’s newspapers, and the papers’ editors have also objected to the bridge on their editorial pages.

In the Anchorage Daily News, Diane Mucha of Eagle River wrote, “Of course, Alaska should and, hopefully, will volunteer to reject the money for the bridges to nowhere and Congress will apply the money for the hurricane relief efforts.”

David Raskin of Homer, Alaska, wrote, “Alaskans owe an apology to the people of New Orleans, to Alaska Native people and to the Nation for their selfish shortsightedness in sending these scoundrels to Washington and voting to keep them there.”

In the Ketchikan News, Dave Person wrote, “Thinking about the immense disaster in the Gulf States, it occurred to me that the most effective thing that the residents of Ketchikan could do to help would be to return the money earmarked for our Gravina Bridge.”

Back in Anchorage, Art Weiner wrote, “In a collective act of passion, the people of Alaska should request that the funds appropriated for our bridges be used for infrastructure reconstruction in the hurricane-affected area.”"

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm889.cfm

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Scott wrote: "...it was revealed today that Palin put the Alaska checkbook ON LINE so all the people could see how their money was spent- WOW...Did any Chicago politician you know ever act so transparently?"

Did she put the "checkbook" (whatever that means) online for when she was mayor of Wasilla and put the town in long-term debt of about $20 million (even though she had also hired a lobbyist who helped the town get tens of millions of dollars in Congressional earmarks)? That's Republicans balancing a budget for you!

Oh, yeah, and what about all of her transparency in this legislative investigation? You know, the one she said she would be happy to comply with until she started running for VP. Now she and her husband have hired separate lawyers, and she's claiming executive privilege. Yea for transparency.

Posted by: ethel08 | September 8, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

"What are the odds of Obama replacing Biden with Hillary Clinton?"

What are the odds of McCain acting like a Maverick?

Posted by: PlainMcSame08 | September 8, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

http://www.petitiononline.com/giveback/petition.html
--------------------------------

To: U.S. Congress and the President of the United States

Since the day that Senator John McCain brought Governor Sarah Palin (R) of the of Alaska onto his campaign ticket as his choice for Vice-President, Governor Palin has repeatedly stated that she said "Thanks, but no thanks" to earmark funding for the "Bridge to Nowhere" (Gravina Island bridge in Ketchikan, Alaska). The facts support otherwise.

When running for governor, 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 Sarah Palin shifted her position on the funds. And even then, it is 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 State of Alaska did not return the money. They still haven't. And today, Governor Sarah Palin is telling the American Public a lie about her stance on the funds.

Please read about this and other statements made by the Vice-Presidential candidate of the Republican party here:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html


On behalf of the American taxpaying public, we are asking Congress and the President of the United States to ask the Governor of the State of Alaska and the State of Alaska to return the $433,000,000.00 in funding they received, since clearly such funds were, according to Governor Palin in 2008, unwanted, unneeded and scorned.

The American public can find other uses for such scorned funds.

Posted by: Put OUR Money Where YOUR Mouth Is, Sarah | September 8, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

New Slogan:

Mavericks to Nowhere -
It’s More of the ‘Shame’

lol

Posted by: lol | September 8, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

T.D. Jakes today said that Palin should be subject to whatever questions that the American people have of her because nobody really knows who she is and she is vying to take into her hands the lives of every citizen of the United States.

He also said that you are in dangerous spiritual grounds when you bring God into man's wars.

Not a big Jakes fan either, but he seems to understand the reason for the separation for Church and State. He agrees that the American people have a right to understand if her religious beliefs will dictate her public policy. Or if it has in the past.

Even national preachers are calling the sheepish Moosehunter out of her cocoon. Whe is sharp with the tongue, but afraid to face the music of her past policy and wildly bizarre beliefs.

Posted by: Concernedaboutdc | September 8, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

My dear American friends. Why is it I can't being a senior visit all the wonderful people I met 8 years ago in your country with out feeling like a terrorist?. Is it religion, then shame. If it's because you believe that 911 had anything to do with Iraq, then shame you twice. If you fall for MCcain and his new VP mistress, Shame three times. Hillary would have made it but I feel her husband buggered everything. Please make a good choice. You have lost and suffered to much.
Just a old senior from Canada. May your god Bless you all.

Posted by: justada55+ | September 8, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Lies? You want Lies?
Can you name Joe Biden's 7 Glass Houses?

1. Insulted Indian American 7 Eleven cashiers (Hey Joe, pick on somebody your own size)
2. Called obama's hygeine, "Storybook man"
3. Law school scandal- Plagiarism
4. '88 campaign withdrawl over, yep, Plagiarism
5. Sold his vote to MBNA for a cool half mill for his lobbyist son
6. Claims to be for energy independence- voted against 1st transalaska pipeline- accounts for 17% of domestic oil supply....oops
7. Proudly stated that it would be "An honor to run WITH or against John mcCain".

It's Staggering that this is the "change agent" Obama chose to run with...."The Beltways Boys" are quite a ticket!...and dropping like a boulder in the polls. Look out below Ohio and Michigan.........More lies from Barack-Rezko-Ayres-Obama and Joe-Drunk Driving Truck Driver-Biden

Posted by: Scott | September 8, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

mross, I agree with you that federal money can be an important and necessary asset for local communities, especially remote locations that have trouble financing adequate improvement projects from their own tax bases. However, Republicans have ridiculed the notion of the public trust, and they seem to think that federal money can only be used for the military and for corporate subsidies. I'm really not being snarky. It's just that those on the right seem to think that if people can't pay for projects like bridges on "their own," then they shouldn't get them. This is utter nonsense, of course, but it's the kind of nonsense that has bankrupted our federal highway project fund.

It is the Palin and McCain campaign that have touted her rejection of this bridge "to nowhere." And they use that terminology, even though Palin herself ridiculed such language and made your very argument about earmarks when she was running for governor.

Posted by: ethel08 | September 8, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Spin this any way you want, Obambibots, the bottom line is... ONCE MORE, Obama's allegations of "She was for it, before she was against", has NO credibility!

-------------

How can you call this spin? In one corner, you have documented evidence of her support for it in the form of tapes, pictures, articles, etc. In the other corner, you have Ted Stevens saying 'I don't remember her supporting it.'

How is this spin? It's just a documented fact that she supported it during her run for governor. You can't go back and un-say something just because it doesn't suit your campaign needs.

Posted by: Joe | September 8, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

What are the odds of Obama replacing Biden with Hillary Clinton?

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

"We have the highest unemployment rate in the nation and the lowest graduation level."

and not to mention... meth capital of the world... the most alcoholics, too...

Posted by: nobush3rd | September 8, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

We know, for a fact, that Sarah Palin lied about being "against" the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. I don't mean that she flip-flopped. I don't mean she waffled, or equivocated, or mislead, or was disingenuous, or misspoke. I mean she lied outright. Period. She was, in fact, a supporter of the now-mocked symbol of pork and earmarks. She was a supporter during the entire process, up until the now-magical point when the entire thing had devolved into farce, and not even Republicans could attach themselves to such a boondoggle without paying a political price. Then, and only then, did she distance herself from it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/07/palin-in-06-i-wont-let-sp_n_124591.html
.

And by "distance herself", we mean "kept the money".

We know, for a fact, that Sarah Palin lied about being "against" earmarks. As mayor of her small Alaskan town, she hired a Team Abramoff lobbyist to squeeze Washington for generous funds, funds far in excess of what the average American small town could expect. The lobbyist delivered nearly $27 million worth of earmarks to the town of less than ten thousand people: a fine haul, indeed. She said so herself, in her own handwriting.

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/4328/more-on-palins-true-stand-on-earmarks
.

So she lied. Baldly and repeatedly. McCain is now on a multistate tour, repeating the very same lies -- and for Republicans, they are applause lines. Huzzah to the "anti-pork" governor whose state is more dependent on pork than any other state. Hooray for the "anti-earmarks" candidate who made a name for herself as a champion of the earmark.

The question is: what of it?

There is absolutely no penalty for lying, in politics. None. Zip. Nada. Sarah Palin could stand atop a stage and declare herself moon-goddess of Endor, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Yes, the papers would correct her. There would be a few cable stories on how there was no prior record of her being declared a moon-goddess. In the end, however, it would not matter, and it would not matter because Republicans have decided that it does not.


For Republicans, there is no longer any moral taboo whatsoever against lying outright. The only relevant question is whether the lie is effective -- not whether it should have been done in the first place. Karl Rove can rail against the inexperienced nature of one vice presidential candidate -- a Democrat -- and without the slightest bit of explanation (or shame), but happily pipe up with praise for an unequivocally, plainly less experienced Republican pick. It is not expected that he be self-consistent in the slightest. Everyone understands from the outset that his role is to say bad things about Democrats, and good things about Republicans, and if the two things conflict spectacularly it is not considered a symbol of his dishonesty or evidence of a histrionic maliciousness towards factual discourse. It is merely spin. He can make a farce of his own prior arguments -- what does it matter? If he is comfortable with it, and the people who look to him for guidance rally behind it, then we can Newspeak our way into and out of any argument as neat as you please.

So what of it, if offshore drilling will not reduce gas prices. It's fine to say it anyway -- it doesn't matter. So what if the President of the United States says "we do not torture", and then we discover that the White House itself authorized acts that are torture under any rational definition of the word. He's the President, he can lie about anything he likes, as long as it has nothing to do with sex. And honestly, even if it does.

So what of it, if Sarah Palin says crooked things with a straight face? Name me one Republican who will object. Name me one -- just ONE -- diehard conservative who will be angry at the lie, instead of praising her for it. To hell with facts, there is another election to be won.

This is why I consider the Republican Party to be, at this point, a wrecked party. There is no self-consistent philosophy other than the acquisition and protection of their own power: there are certainly no moral or ethical boundaries that the party will internally enforce. John Edwards, a Democrat, had his political career effectively terminated when news of an affair came to light; a Republican can visit a prostitute wearing a diaper, and find himself easily forgiven. You can lie, you can staff your government with morons and ideologues, you can give a speech saying one thing while doing the exact opposite (a Bush specialty, in his State of the Union speeches. We bemoan constantly the Democrats' failure to keep a unified front, in order to pass a more meaningful agenda -- but you would be hard pressed to find even a single, lone Republican in Washington willing to buck the moral collapse of their own party. Such people once existed: they were voted out of office. All that remain are "pseudo-mavericks" like McCain, figures who will countermand every previous belief in order to regain the support of his own Republican party.

Palin may be an unapologetic liar, but there isn't anything even slightly surprising about that because George Bush has been doing it for the last 8 years.

The question is, are Americans actually stupid enough to vote for McCain/Palin who represent the EXACT SAME DISASTEROUS POLICIES that we have had force fed to us the last eight years?

I hope not....

Posted by: McCain + Palin = Bush | September 8, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Hello to all you out of touch people.
She did campain for it, her own words.
Please come on.
Obama 08

Posted by: KEVIN | September 8, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nTX-oJUCaU
http://dailyhowler.com/dh090108.shtml

Isn't Ted Stevens part of that Corrupt Bast***s Club? The one that Palin/McCain have been "reforming" Washington from?

You can't have it both ways, morons.

But make Sarah put OUR money where HER mouth is... give it back! Sign the petition:


http://www.petitiononline.com/giveback/petition.html

Posted by: nobush3rd | September 8, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

one republican, two republicans, three repubs, four...

every time they open up, they all just lie some more- Hairless
***********
Hey Hairless-
"...The New York Times reported the 2007 crowd at the University of Iowa grew silent as Biden gave his version of what happened that day.

"Let me tell you a little story," The newspaper quoted Biden as saying. "I got elected when I was 29, and I got elected November the 7th. And on Dec. 18 of that year, my wife and three kids were Christmas shopping for a Christmas tree. A tractor-trailer, a guy who allegedly -- and I never pursued it -- drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch, broadsided my family and killed my wife instantly, and killed my daughter instantly, and hospitalized my two sons, with what were thought to be at the time permanent, fundamental injuries....
"Even before Obama asked Biden to join his campaign, political observers said the senator's gaffes could be a liability in a contest where every word will be scrutinized. Biden's first presidential campaign 20 years ago was undone by charges he plagiarized parts of a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock....

"The rumor about alcohol being involved by either party, especially the truck driver, is incorrect," said Jerome O. Herlihy, a Delaware Superior Court judge who was chief deputy attorney general and worked with crash investigators in 1972.

By RACHEL KIPP • The News Journal • September 4, 2008

Didn't you get the memo- with Biden on the ticket, lying's off then table!

Posted by: Scott | September 8, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Alaska under Palin took the most earmarks per capita of any of the states. It sounds like you need it.

"The Lower 48 takes our resources but has never helped us develop a sustainable, non-resource linked economy. Of course we need federal financing for such a project. We have the highest unemployment rate in the nation and the lowest graduation level.

Posted by: M Ross | September 8, 2008 10:24 PM"

Posted by: Jeff | September 8, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Stevens is a thieving corrupt liar therefore using the associative property of republicans the Ice Princess totally has her lipstick pitbull executive process into the BTN.

Posted by: davo77 | September 8, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

I say it to you Jeff, and your messiah

Posted by: BJ | September 8, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Tell that to McSame...

"YOU can fool ALL the people some of the time, or YOU may fool SOME of the people ALL of the time. BUT you CANNOT FOOL ALL the PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME!!!

Posted by: BJ | September 8, 2008 10:19 PM
"

Posted by: Jeff | September 8, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

http://dailyhowler.com/dh090108.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nTX-oJUCaU

but I THOUGHT MCCAIN SAID SHE WAS THE REFORMER? Isn't Ted a member of the corrupt bastards club? Isn't HE exactly what Palin and her b1tch McCain are reforming washington against?

Ya just don't get to have it both ways.

sign the petition. Make Palin put OUR money where HER mouth is...

http://www.petitiononline.com/giveback/petition.html

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

"I don't remember her ever campaigning for it."

Well, if Stevens say it, it must be true, right?

Except:
"Williams wrote on Oct. 29, 2006, that Palin was the only gubernatorial candidate that year who consistently supported the Gravina Island Bridge, the Knik Arm Bridge and improvements to the Parks Highway.

Two months earlier, while campaigning in Ketchikan, Palin made a positive reference to the bridge...promising, “I think we’re going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project.”
http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/aug/31/sarah-palin-supported-ketchikan-bridge-nowhere-dur/

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Obviously Stevens doesn't realize that the Alaska Governor is on tape giving glowing support for the initiative, which she called a "link". Stevens also fails to mention that even after the Congress tanked the deal, Palin still took the money and funded other Alaska projects.

Stevens is Palin sheep. He should be careful, the Moosehunter carries a mean shotgun.

Posted by: Ward6ForNow | September 8, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

When will the media clarify that the so-called "bridge to nowhere" would serve an airport whose 200,000 annual passengers currently have to rely on a wet, windswept ferry to get to the town this airport serves?

The Lower 48 takes our resources but has never helped us develop a sustainable, non-resource linked economy. Of course we need federal financing for such a project. We have the highest unemployment rate in the nation and the lowest graduation level.

Posted by: M Ross | September 8, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

one republican, two republicans, three repubs, four...

every time they open up, they all just lie some more.

who cares? Ted's a repub.

But if you want to tell Palin to put OUR money where HER mouth is, sign this petition to ask Congress and the President to request that the governor and the State of Alaska return the funds for that BRIDGE that they so obviously scorn.


http://www.petitiononline.com/giveback/petition.html

Posted by: nobush3rd | September 8, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

I'm a college graduate. I have a BS from University of Idaho in journalism. I'm mayor of Wasilla, population about 5,000. I'm governor of Alaska with less than two years of experience. I have never ordered the Alaska National Guard to do anything, but I did visit the base once or twice. I've travelled outside the U.S. to...I'm trying to remember.

Posted by: koijaicat | September 8, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Spin this any way you want, Obambibots, the bottom line is... ONCE MORE, Obama's allegations of "She was for it, before she was against", has NO credibility!

It is Obama who keeps lying and being hyprocritical. He is so running scared of Palin, he will keep digging as much dirt as he can fabricate.

Obama... YOU can fool ALL the people some of the time, or YOU may fool SOME of the people ALL of the time. BUT you CANNOT FOOL ALL the PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME!!!

Posted by: BJ | September 8, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Palin's religious extremist views on war-politics:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving do to what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for -- that there is a plan, and that plan is God's plan."

These are comments made by Palln during a speech in her church. Can our country afford another fundamentalist like GWB in the White House?

Posted by: Shane | September 8, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

What the heck are you talking about? Community members Obama worked with have been interviewed. They have appeared on a number of shows including "Obama revealed" which plays all the time on CNN after McCain revealed. Also some spoke at the DNC, although you had to turn to CSPAN to watch, they were not put on prime-time, the commentators apparetnly prefer to hear themselves talk.


"Palin is a great Rov republican no wonder she is so popular Rove can fool the best of em."
-Jeff
*************

Hey JEFF it was revealed today that Palin put the Alaska checkbook ON LINE so all the people could see how their money was spent- WOW...Did any Chicago politician you know ever act so transparently? Where, by the way, are the friends, community members organized, or colleagues who support Obama (quid pro quo politicians excluded)? McCain certainly had some impressive support from his fellow POWs. Curious isn't it?

Posted by: Scott | September 8, 2008 10:10 PM "

Posted by: Jeff | September 8, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me, I meant to say that I did not write that about McCain must be wearing makeup bit. Getting too tired so fixing to sign off. Go get em all you Obama fans!

Posted by: Cindy | September 8, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin has executive experience: "She made the decision to abandon plans to build the nearly $400 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport...after the project had become an embarrassment to the state, after federal dollars for the project were pulled back and diverted to other uses in Alaska, and after she had appeared to support the bridge during her campaign for governor."

Posted by: koijaicat | September 8, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Somebody is using my name. I did write that about John McCain is pretending to be a white guy and wearing make up. I have to agree with Jake as far as find you a name and stick with it or don't post.

Posted by: Cindy | September 8, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

PALIN: PLEASE PLEASE INDICTED ALASKA SENATOR TED STEVENS, SAVE ME AGAIN....YOU GAVE ME A DIRECTOR JOB IN YOUR CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING ARM: "TED STEVENS EXCELLENCE IN PUBLIC SERVICE, INC." IT TAUGHT ME HOW TO KEEP LOBBYISTS BRINGING HOME THE BACON. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT TAUGHT ME HOW TO JUST DENY EVERYTHING I'VE DONE IN THE PAST AND REPUBLICAN VOTERS WILL STILL BELIEVE ME JUST LIKE THEY STILL BELIEVE YOU....PLEASE PLEASE STAY ALASKA'S SENATOR FOR ME BECAUSE IT IMPROVES MY ETHICS RATING WIOTH JOHN MCCAIN====Now you know why we support Obama/Biden '08---Let's get to work for a better America with Obama!!!

Posted by: BENIGHSE | September 8, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

"Palin is a great Rov republican no wonder she is so popular Rove can fool the best of em."
-Jeff
*************

Hey JEFF it was revealed today that Palin put the Alaska checkbook ON LINE so all the people could see how their money was spent- WOW...Did any Chicago politician you know ever act so transparently? Where, by the way, are the friends, community members organized, or colleagues who support Obama (quid pro quo politicians excluded)? McCain certainly had some impressive support from his fellow POWs. Curious isn't it?

Posted by: Scott | September 8, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

I think McCain is lying about being a white guy. It's just makeup.


"Jake I think your multi personality is losing track of each other. Let's see if you can keep the same Jake on here so we all don't get confused. You didn't question that Obama could be Muslim? Then what were you referring to when you asked,

Mike:

If Obama is LYING about not being a Muslim, you think that's acceptable?!


Posted by: Cindy | September 8, 2008 10:07 PM
"

Posted by: PlainMcSame08 | September 8, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Like Sarah Palin on the bridge to nowhere, don't lie, just imply.

Posted by: koijaicat | September 8, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Jake I think your multi personality is losing track of each other. Let's see if you can keep the same Jake on here so we all don't get confused. You didn't question that Obama could be Muslim? Then what were you referring to when you asked,

Mike:

If Obama is LYING about not being a Muslim, you think that's acceptable?!

Posted by: Cindy | September 8, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Palin is a great Rov republican no wonder she is so popular Rove can fool the best of em.

According to factcheck.org:

"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.
Palin’s accusation that Obama hasn’t authored “a single major law or even a reform” in the U.S. Senate or the Illinois Senate is simply not a fair assessment. Obama has helped push through major ethics reforms in both bodies, for example."

Posted by: Jeff | September 8, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Ted Stevens is not the man Palin wants defending her. He's under indictment for corruption charges and is a political pariah with no credibility. He's also Palin's political benefactor, who brought her into state politics, hooked her up with his lobbyists, and put her in charge of his 527.

If the McCain campaign has any sense at all they'll run from this as fast as they can--before the press starts to connect the numerous dots between Palin and Stevens.

Posted by: Justin in Chicago | September 8, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

That's what was, in effect, telling Congress: "Thanks, but no thanks" (she was giving them the BIRD, figuratively -- just so no one accuses me of LYING about no fowl was ever sent to Washington D.C. ;)
-------------

Great! So she's willing to spend OUR money, but not willing to spend HER money.

Yeah, that will really show congress! Keeping the money and spending it so that she could give away all of Alaska's money in the Alaska Permanent Fund (which gave out $1,654 last year under Palin, and had one of its largest one-year increases as well)!

Keeping and spending the money anyhow is a REALLY strong statement against wasteful spending, huh? When she uses our tax money to bribe her way to high approval ratings, the public will really take notice!

Posted by: JakeR | September 8, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Ok. Now McCain-Palin have indicted criminals defending them. That's what they need.

Posted by: Joel | September 8, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Smith:

You do realize that all TRUE Christians believe in "end times are coming" and the Rapture, right?

Joe:

Maybe.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

""We ought to do away with $24 billion worth, not just one bridge," said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/politics/17spend.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

A little out of sync with his now running mate, but at least McCain was consistent.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Scott:

Hopefully, the WaPo would break open such a story using IP addresses (oh, that's right, they only INVESTIGATE "real" stories and win Pulitzers when a Republican is being accused ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

There is zero difference between Sarah Palin, (a woman who believes the 'end of days' are coming and that 'she' will be raptured up to heave while the rest of us stay behind or go to hell) AND an Islamic extremist who believes that if he martyrs himself, he will go straight to paradise! They are the same! Both are extremists! Both are dangerous! Sarah Palin and bin Laden are in the same category!! Sarah Palin is not living for now but for her so-called paradise! That's extremely dangerous and frightening! We need a leader who is grounded in the reality of right now! The rest of it is conjecture! Shake your Bible in my face all day! I don't care. Jesus hasn't come back! He's not going to come back and how long have you been preaching that the end is near? You can believe it if you like but keep it out of government and stop destroying the world for the rest of us! Sarah Palin and the people who believe what she believes are misguided fools being lead by a very evil entity that has nothing to do with God or Christ.

I'm voting for the future. I'm voting for my children. I'm voting for stability. I'm voting for 'reason.' I'm voting with my brain. Obama '08

And by the way, you can spare me your Rev. Wright rhetoric. There is a big difference between a man who criticizes his government because he's angry and one who justifies the killing of jews as does Sarah Palin and her pastor! I didn't agree with Rev. Wright but I am terrified of Palin and her Pastor! They truly believe that they are on some mission from God just as the people who blew up the World Trace Center did. ALL of them are uneducated and deluded with power. If you follow, you are their victim. good luck


Posted by: Smith | September 8, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

But Palin did push for the bridge during her campaign. It's on tape and well documented. Besides, is Stevens really a source to trust?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | September 8, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

No problem, Joe -- I knew exactly what she was saying -- sorry you mistook what she was saying.

-----------

You realize of course that you're suggesting that she inserted a complete and highly misleading non-sequitur into the middle of a convention speech designed to introduce her and her philosophy to the entire nation, right?

Even if you're right and she simply chose to play clever word games with 40 million viewers (maybe she's planning a big ha-ha-gotcha moment on Meet the Press when they ask about this?) with one of the most important speeches of her career, she has still given most Americans a terribly misleading idea about her position on pork-barrel spending, an issue near and dear to McCain's heart and one he frequently (and earnestly, in apparent contrast to Palin) refers to when talking about how he's going to change and clean up Washington. That alone is enough to warrant a lot of the complaints people have been raising about her credibility.

Posted by: Joe | September 8, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Actually, that road to nowhere is a part of the money, 24 mill i beleive, and the remaining funds went into state treasury, or wherever , for "other" needed funding.She had nothing to do with ending the Bridge, wasnt even in office when it was figured to be a few Million short for the bridge anyway,so SHE HAS TOTALLY LIED about this.
The only part of the procedure she dealt with, was receiving the funds from the Government.Thats it.Hell, the "Road to Nowhere " was allready in progress when she won the Gube Race

Posted by: Bill | September 8, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Cindy:

1) do you think accusing somebody of something that you have no proof of is acceptable?

No.

2) Or calling somebody something that is false is acceptable?

No.

3) Do you have proof that Obama is Muslim?

No.

4) If not, I would advise you to quit breaking the ten commandments.

I never claimed that Obama is Muslim (please look up the definition of "hypothetical") and I am, therefore, not breaking any, or all, of the Ten Commandments. Try reading just the first Commandment ...

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Hey JakeD-

Anonymous is really that PR hack David Axelrod who lobbied for the University of Chicago Medical Center at inflated rates after being hired by...guess who?...Michelle Obama- (emmis)
That's why he's embarassed to share his name...Of course I would be too if I was supporting the #1 and #3 most liberal senators- in posession of NADA executive experience between them!

Posted by: Scott | September 8, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

If anyone out there doesn't know what their name is, or has only posted using my name or anonymously, try Mark Twain, Lewis Carroll, Richard Bachman, or even "Spartacus " ...

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Jake, do you think accusing somebody of something that you have no proof of is acceptable? Or calling somebody something that is false is acceptable? Do you have proof that Obama is Muslim? If not, I would advise you to quit breaking the ten commandments.

Posted by: Cindy | September 8, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

"Ignorance, guns and religion, and you are the type to perpetuate all of them."
-Steve
**************

Steve PLEASE keep up this argument till Nov 4th and please post in the Philadelphia Inquirer-It worked so well for your candidate in San Francisco!

Posted by: Scott | September 8, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Kathy and TJW:

No, she killed a bridge project by not spending the additional $329 million it would have taken, above and beyond what Congress allocated -- the project certainly had taken several (mortal?) blows prior to that -- there's no doubt she pulled the final trigger. That's what was, in effect, telling Congress: "Thanks, but no thanks" (she was giving them the BIRD, figuratively -- just so no one accuses me of LYING about no fowl was ever sent to Washington D.C. ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

"I will no longer be addressing any posts who cannot pick an actual name or at least pseudonym."

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 9:41 PM

Ouch, that really hurts.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, She killed something already dead, in other words, she had no choice. Please read below:


As The New Republic's Bradford Plumer shows, citing reports from the Anchorage Daily News and Palin's own official statement, Palin supported the bridge at every step, and dropped it from her list of priorities only when it became clear that federal funding wasn't going to be forthcoming. In her statement, she even criticizes congressional opponents of the bridge, including, by implication, McCain:

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. 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.

Posted by: Kathy | September 8, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

I saw a video report on cable news that Palin kept the money for the bridge and used it for A Road To Nowhere, literally. The video showed a road that ends right at the waterfront where the bridge is not. So, she kept the money, and wasted it on a road instead of a bridge....she still kept the money.

Posted by: TJW | September 8, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Well Mike, I can see your good side of your split personality is coming out. You seemed to actually agree with me. Either that, there is another Mike on here that actually has some sense.

Posted by: Cindy | September 8, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

No problem, Joe -- I knew exactly what she was saying -- sorry you mistook what she was saying.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

You see the problem? Which "Anonymous" posted at 9:37 PM -- the one who posted at 9:33 PM, 9:31 PM, 9:27 PM, 9:19 PM -- or none of the above? I will no longer be addressing any posts who cannot pick an actual name or at least pseudonym.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Skeptic21- Here's a more current and ongoing lie your VP candidate is DOCUMENTED to have told...get the thread?

"...The New York Times reported the 2007 crowd at the University of Iowa grew silent as Biden gave his version of what happened that day.

"Let me tell you a little story," The newspaper quoted Biden as saying. "I got elected when I was 29, and I got elected November the 7th. And on Dec. 18 of that year, my wife and three kids were Christmas shopping for a Christmas tree. A tractor-trailer, a guy who allegedly -- and I never pursued it -- drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch, broadsided my family and killed my wife instantly, and killed my daughter instantly, and hospitalized my two sons, with what were thought to be at the time permanent, fundamental injuries....
"Even before Obama asked Biden to join his campaign, political observers said the senator's gaffes could be a liability in a contest where every word will be scrutinized. Biden's first presidential campaign 20 years ago was undone by charges he plagiarized parts of a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock....

"The rumor about alcohol being involved by either party, especially the truck driver, is incorrect," said Jerome O. Herlihy, a Delaware Superior Court judge who was chief deputy attorney general and worked with crash investigators in 1972.

By RACHEL KIPP • The News Journal • September 4, 2008


HOW CAN WE BELIEVE anything THIS MAN SAYS?

Posted by: Scott | September 8, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Say you ask me for 300 apples, I tell you I can give you only 20 apples, then you take the 20 apples and keep them.

Now what would you say to me?

Posted by: ImNotJoe | September 8, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Jake, jake, jake...

Stoop with the "Hussein" stuff--rednecks like you that play the fear card may be fooled, but most rational humans won't be. Haven't you wondered why we are the laughingstock of the civilized world? Ignorance, guns and religion, and you are the type to perpetuate all of them.
The First Amendment was put in place to promote rational, intelligent discourse, not rumor-mongering, slander and muck-raking.
Get a clue, dude.

Having said that, I have a bad feeling about our electorate. The right is foisting yet another person on us that is highly un-qualified, and yet people are deciding how to place their vote on the person they would rather HANG OUT with rather than POLICIES. Why should it be any different than the last two elections?
What happened that the right is voting by emotion and the left by policy?

Posted by: steve | September 8, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Skeptic21- Biden is the Champion of all liers and Plagiarizers- It's just OLD news covered in hairplugs- I'm simply trying to answer your allegations about our VP candidate with Proven Facts about yours- Don't they give you courses on reading between the lines at Camp Obama?

Posted by: Scott | September 8, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

So JakeD are you saying the bridges were killed before Palin was even governor?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous (Joe?):

'If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves.' Again, I'm not sure why you think this is such a "rare" interpretation because it is COMPLETELY TRUE (especially, as you pointed out, that was the only way the bridge was going to get built after all the negative publicity in Congress ; )

------------

JakeD,

Sure, but the statement is only true *after* she tried to get the federal government to build the bridge for them first. Your interpretation of her statement takes any kind of meaning away from her words. The interpretation she was clearly after was that 'Sarah Palin does not take money from the federal government to spend on wasteful local projects.'

If we take her words to mean what you're suggesting, they equate to:

'After the federal government decided not to fund a bridge for us, we concluded that if a bridge was going to be built, we would be building it ourselves.'

That doesn't mean anything at all. Of course they would have to build it themselves once the option to have somebody else build it for them was off the table.

The information available now on her positions with regard to the bridge suggest that she is no better than any other politician when it comes to searching for federal dollars to fund pet projects. Her convention speech tried to convey a significantly different message.

(and yes, Joe.. sorry about that :) )

Posted by: Joe | September 8, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

She believes we are in a God sanctioned war. She is against abortion even in cases of incest and rape. She is against stem cell research. She is against sex ed. She inquired on how to ban books! And we are worried about the fact she lied about a bridge? Really?

Posted by: jwald1 | September 8, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Mike:

If Obama is LYING about not being a Muslim, you think that's acceptable?!

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

I did (c:

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous (seriously, I'm going to have to ask you to pick a name and stick with it):

Palin was not even Governor in 2005.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Even if what you said about Obama being Muslim were true, which you and I both know it isn't, I don't think I have seen on the 10 commandments, "Thy shall not elect a Muslim president". But then again I forgot, you have never read the ten commandments. You are a conservative that just pretends to be christian.

Posted by: Mike | September 8, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

I just wanted to clear up a couple of things. Some comments have suggested that Jimmy Carter should have had America drilling for oil back in the 1970s, and that the oil we would have found would have kept oil prices low. Actually if Carter's energy plan had not been canceled by Reagan, the US would probably be almost entirely energy self sufficient by now. I think many people are under the impression that America has some huge oil reserves that we refuse to utilize, this is simply not true. If we were willing to risk whatever environmental damage that might be caused by pumping out all the oil remaning under the USA, it would provide us with about 2 years worth of energy, starting in 10 years. In that same 10 years we could build enought solar, and other renewable energy sources, electric vehicles, etc. to last us a lifetime. Even moving to nuclear power is a relatively short term solution (but filled with danger from nuclear weapons proliferation). The US probably has enough fissionable materials to provide a hundred years of energy, but again at the cost of producing and shipping around America, huge quantitys of weapons grade nuclear material.

I graduated from Columbia SEAS in 1980 with a major in applied physics and nuclear engineering. I know a bit about energy and I am not against nuclear power, it's just that fossile and fission fuels are a dead end as an answer to Americas short or long term energy needs. We can get more energy from the sun than we could possibly even use, and there are minimal environmental and no terrorist issues to cntend with. Don't blame Carter for our present energy problems, he was the only President we ever had who had a workable energy strategy.

Posted by: captbilly | September 8, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Wow! Executive experience with the "Bridge." Scary.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

But according to her and Stevens they seem to be saying she didn't support it.
Was her goal to get the money and use it for something else? This dosn't seem to make sense. i agree sounds fishy.

"
Tom for president (hopefully not of anything important):

Congress specifically allowed Alaska to keep the monies already appropriated (something like $20 million, not the full projected cost of the bridge). Next question?

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 9:25 PM
"

Posted by: PlainMcSame08 | September 8, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Cindy You are trying to elect muslim president while talking about the ten commandments

Posted by: Mike | September 8, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

I don't see Palin mentioned as killing it, just that the governor gets the $442 million with no strings attached.

"Two 'Bridges to Nowhere' Tumble Down in Congress

*
E-Mail This
* Printer-Friendly
* Reprints
* Save Article

Article Tools Sponsored By
By CARL HULSE
Published: November 17, 2005

WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 - Congressional Republicans decided Wednesday to take a legislative wrecking ball to two Alaskan bridge projects that had demolished the party's reputation for fiscal austerity.

Straining to show new dedication to lower spending, House and Senate negotiators took the rare step of eliminating a requirement that $442 million be spent to build the two bridges, spans that became cemented in the national consciousness as "bridges to nowhere" because of the remote territory and small populations involved.

The change will not save the federal government any money. Instead, the $442 million will be turned over to the state with no strings attached, allowing lawmakers and the governor there to parcel it out for transportation projects as they see fit, including the bridges should they so choose."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/politics/17spend.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous (not Joe?):

Whether she killed the bridge only after it was failing miserably, with cost overruns, etc., she still told Congress "Thanks, but no thanks" (I believe Alaska only received $20 million so they were about $329 million short of full funding). Thanks for agreeing with me.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

She didn't tell congress "thanks, but no thanks",although she scrapped the project she still received the funds.

Actually, according to the article, she killed the bridge only after it was failing miserably, with cost overruns etc.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Mike, you are a typical conservative. Hyprocrite! Its not bad enough that the conservatives are already spreading enough lies on Obama but now you are are trying to make people think he is gay? You conservatives would do anything to win, including breaking one of the ten commandments to do it. Did you ever hear of "Thy shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor"? I doubt it, you people only pretend to be christians!

Posted by: Cindy | September 8, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Tom for president (hopefully not of anything important):

Congress specifically allowed Alaska to keep the monies already appropriated (something like $20 million, not the full projected cost of the bridge). Next question?

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous (Joe?):

'If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves.' Again, I'm not sure why you think this is such a "rare" interpretation because it is COMPLETELY TRUE (especially, as you pointed out, that was the only way the bridge was going to get built after all the negative publicity in Congress ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

How is taking the money and using it for something else not considered fraud? Only in America...

Posted by: Tom for president | September 8, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

JakeD wrote:

"What's next mortal vs. venial "political" sins?"
*************************
Sounds like you've been "jaked."

Posted by: Skeptic21 | September 8, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

You guys are now accusing the WaPo of "lies by omission"?! What's next mortal vs. venial "political" sins?

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

3) Is this completely incompatible with her convention floor assertion that 'I said thanks but no thanks' ...

No.

----------

I think you're fishing a little here. The message she conveyed to the audience from the convention floor speech was that she flatly refused to waste federal dollars on the bridge, and that this position was based on her principles as a governor. She said:

'If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves.'

In reality, she wanted the federal government to build the bridge, and was more than willing to allow them to foot the bill. She said in September of 2007 that:

“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."

Perhaps my mistake was that I phrased things in the form of a question. What I should have said is that 'this is clearly incompatible with her assertion'.

Perhaps if you look for rare literal interpretations of 'thanks but no thanks', you might find some technical definition allowing you to claim that she was not telling a bald faced lie to almost 40 million people. Outside of that narrow realm, it was clearly disingenuous and runs completely counter to the DC-outsider, honest politician image she was trying to foster in the minds of her audience.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Its not about democrat or republicans.Obama brake the law when he and the criminal Rezko bought that house in Chicago.All facts will be available soon.
Hopefully before the election.Do you need the criminal president?

Posted by: Mike | September 8, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Scott wrote:
"Can you name Joe Biden's 7 Glass Houses?"

And this has WHAT to do with the "Bridge to Nowhere"? (the topic of this thread).

Scott, try to focus!

Posted by: Skeptic21 | September 8, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

"she took the money and did not use it for the bridge" That's much better...

Posted by: Jeff | September 8, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Joe:

Did you see my answers to your questions?

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Can you name Joe Biden's 7 Glass Houses?

1. Insulted Indian American 7 Eleven cashiers (Hey Joe, pick on somebody your own size)
2. Called obama's hygeine, "Storybook man"
3. Law school scandal- Plagiarism
4. '88 campaign withdrawl over, yep, Plagiarism
5. Sold his vote to MBNA for a cool half mill for his lobbyist son
6. Claims to be for energy independence- voted against 1st transalask pipelin- accounts for 17% of domestic oil supply....oops
7. Proudly stated that it would be "An honor to run WITH or against John mcCain".

It's Staggering that this is the change agent Obama chose to run with...."The Beltways Boys" are quite a ticket!...and dropping like a boulder in the polls. Look out below Ohio and Michigan.........

Posted by: Scott | September 8, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

This is the guy who is under federal indictment for corruption. But even if it's technically true that she didn't personally lobby for it, she DID support it:

"We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge, and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative," Palin said in August 2006, according to the Ketchikan Daily News.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm

So:

A) She supported it in the press until it became politically costly. So she said "thanks" before she said "no thanks." Yes, she DID criticize it--LATER. But that was _AFTER_ she supported it.

Stevens says: "I don't remember her ever campaigning for it." But the newspapers do remember, even if he's going senile.

B) They _KEPT_ the money for it. Palin never returned that money, she spent it! All the dropped was the earmark that required them to spend it on a bridge. They KEPT money belonging to all non-Alaskans to pay for other things. The ONLY think Palin truly objected to was making Alaska pay for the bridge and the thought that she might get blamed for supporting it!

C) She personally helped up the Alaska Permanent Fund payment by about $500, to $1,654 in 2007. This is a Republican government give-away program in Alaska that pays EVERYONE to live there! So they use OUR tax money to buy stuff, then give it away to the public! And you wonder why she has 80% approval ratings (it's not THEIR money she's wasting)! Alaska takes in $1.87 for every dollar they pay in federal taxes. So it's almost like they not only don't pay taxes, but WE pay THEM!

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

I don't know why the Washington Post doesn't fact check these things. They're allowing someone to spread a set of facts that supports a story that isn't true.

This is a lie of omission.

The things they tell us may be true, but they leave out other facts in order to lead us to an incorrect conclusion. That is deceptive. But they're more interested in politics than the truth.

Posted by: Joe | September 8, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Thanks but no thanks????

So we she wasn't saying no thanks to the money?

What on earth in your fertile imaginative mids was she possible sayingh no thanks to???

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

She kept the money that was already allocated, so she took every bit that she could. "Won't be exercising your stock options" certainly wasn't true in this case either. Circular arguments only convince those trapped in the circle.

Posted by: PricklyAnt | September 8, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

"This is a fascinating comment, care to tell us what solution you think will affect everybody now? Try to remember, if we had drilled after 1973, we would be affecting everyone now, and it would be in a positive way."

If Gore was elected in 2000, we will be driving electric cars.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

The concept of fighting pork barrel projects is to stop the money flow. It's totally irrelevant (honest!) about what we name the project. It could be called a bridge, a museum to poker, a library for a church, the name of the project is irrelevant.

It's about the wasteful allocation of our taxpayers money.

It's ALL about stopping the money.

Palin said she would kill the bridge roject but gladly took the money to spend elsewhere.

You can put lipstick on a pork barrel project but its still a pork barrel project.

This is what is relevant. She took the money and now claims she is a maverick and opposed to "taking the money".

If you are going to parade around and tell everybody you are a maverick then it would only make sense to tell the truth about this issue of pork barrel money.

It just adds to your credibilty to tell the truth about where the money actually went.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Joe:

1) Now: did she support the project initially, even though it was a waste of federal money?

Yes.

2) Would she have been happy to spend the money if the state hadn't been stuck with the additional cost?

Yes.

3) Is this completely incompatible with her convention floor assertion that 'I said thanks but no thanks' ...

No.

4) and her claim to be the bastion of fiscal responsibility and reform?

No, because she never said that.

5) Doesn't that make the convention speech 'politics as usual', where you stand up tall and boldly mislead people with half-truths in order to gain their support?

No (see above).

6) It's yes all around, isn't it?

Again, no (see above).

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

"...The New York Times reported the 2007 crowd at the University of Iowa grew silent as Biden gave his version of what happened that day.

"Let me tell you a little story," The newspaper quoted Biden as saying. "I got elected when I was 29, and I got elected November the 7th. And on Dec. 18 of that year, my wife and three kids were Christmas shopping for a Christmas tree. A tractor-trailer, a guy who allegedly -- and I never pursued it -- drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch, broadsided my family and killed my wife instantly, and killed my daughter instantly, and hospitalized my two sons, with what were thought to be at the time permanent, fundamental injuries....
"Even before Obama asked Biden to join his campaign, political observers said the senator's gaffes could be a liability in a contest where every word will be scrutinized. Biden's first presidential campaign 20 years ago was undone by charges he plagiarized parts of a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock....

"The rumor about alcohol being involved by either party, especially the truck driver, is incorrect," said Jerome O. Herlihy, a Delaware Superior Court judge who was chief deputy attorney general and worked with crash investigators in 1972.

By RACHEL KIPP • The News Journal • September 4, 2008


HOW CAN WE BELIEVE anything THIS MAN SAYS?

Posted by: Scott | September 8, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

I would encourage people to access the State of Alaska's web site: http://gov.state.ak.us/print_news-32909.html, which is dated September 21, 2007, re-directing the federal funds for he Gravina bridge. No where in that administrative order does Palin state that she was against the $398 million earmark. Clearly, both Stevens and Palin are playing their best political hands by sidestepping on this issue. Stevens has been on McCain's "hit list" for earmarking (along with Alaska's other great earmarker, Don Young) for years. And Palin would have loved to have been able to get the bridge built - but read her own admin order:

Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer,” said Governor Palin. “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,”.

This is not a denial of the earmark, instead, its a reiteration of the realities of the situation in Congress. Palin's position now is completely diametric to her stated, on the record statement almost one year ago. Funny how politics changes things.

Jaime Hidalgo
Anchorage, Alaska

Posted by: Jaime Hidalgo | September 8, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Cyndy:

No, my real name is not "Track" but, yes, I do remember Jimmy Carter and thank God(s) for Ronald Reagan. To be honest, I think that Barack HUSSEIN Obama would be worse than Carter (gasoline was selling for a quarter a gallon long before 1976 ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

IT SURE IS COMFORTING TO HAVE INDICTED ALASKA SENATOR TED STEVENS COMING TO THE AID OF MCCAIN/PALIN ON THE BRIDGE TO NOWHERE.....MAKES YOU FEEL ALL WARM AND FUZZY INSIDE, DOESN'T IT???

Posted by: benighse | September 8, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse


Obama supporters:

Yes or no -- did Gov. Palin kill the bridge project (regardless of whether she campaigned for it before or not)?

----------

Sure she did, no question. Nobody can deny that she killed the project.

Now: did she support the project initially, even though it was a waste of federal money? Would she have been happy to spend the money if the state hadn't been stuck with the additional cost? Is this completely incompatible with her convention floor assertion that 'I said thanks but no thanks' and her claim to be the bastion of fiscal responsibility and reform? Doesn't that make the convention speech 'politics as usual', where you stand up tall and boldly mislead people with half-truths in order to gain their support?

It's yes all around, isn't it?

Posted by: Joe | September 8, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Not quite, PricklyAnt, it is like saying you won't be exercising your stock options after the Board of Directors has given you notice that your services are no longer required.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

God told Sarah to keep the bridge money. Just like he told her that it was his will that we attack Iraq. Just like he told her that the natural gas pipeline was his will. Whatever Sarah wants is God's will. If you don't believe it, listen to her say it on YouTube. Palin supporters are the most gullible people in the USA!!!

Posted by: Skeptic | September 8, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

I think that Sarah Palin dont need to take off the Gloves and really go after Obama. She beat him allready.Did anybody heard that Obama had several homosexual encounters while living with his wife?

Posted by: Mike | September 8, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Jake,
Is your real name Track? Because you are trying to be right "on track" with whatever spin is coming out of her mouth, and the Republicans. As I said before, the Republicans are great for spin, and directing everything elsewhere. Do you remember Jimmy Carter? That is who John McCain says Barak Obama is. But, gee, you read about him, and, he said back in the 70's that we were addicted to oil back then, and we had to change our ways. Back then, I read that gas was selling for a quarter a gallon. And, didn't the Republicans spin on Carter that he was "out of touch" with the American people? I mean, how dare he question us using gasoline that was benefiting the Republicans. Hey Jake, please tell me when the Republicans were ever for the middle class or poor people? They just don't seem to exist in the Republican minds. And, yet, the Republicans are trying to classify Obama as being an elitist. Gee, I sure don't see anyone going out to buy the suit that Cindy McCain wore on the Republican Convention night. With all of her accessories, it was only valued at $300,000.00 When Michele Obama was on the View, everybody wanted that dress. And, again, on that famous fist bump night--the Republicans spun that as being a terrorists bump--her lavender dress was again sought by many "common" folk. Just what exactly are your views Jake?

Posted by: Cyndy | September 8, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Justadad55+:

Are you REALLY not an American citizen?! THANK GOD(s)!!!!

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

And she took the money and did not use it for the bridge, so you're wrong, as far as I'm concerned," Stevens

So the Maverick took the money??

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Saying she "Killed" the project after it was canned at the national level is like saying you quit after you've been fired.

Posted by: PricklyAnt | September 8, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

"Freddie Mac! He's that vulgar comedian! I'm glad he's not on TV anymore"
--Sarah Palin, potential VP of the USA

Posted by: Bly | September 8, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

To add, my son will be a minister soon, but he knows darn well DAD believes in one but many gods, one being a female.
So, wake up and leave religion out, especially false religion.

Posted by: justadad55+ | September 8, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama might need to take off the Gloves and really go after Palin already. Before he loses his spotlight for good.


Has anyone else read this story about a possible Affair Sarah Palin had? That is just one of the Scandals listed at this site. http://www.hotpres.com

This site has background info on sarah Palin Bio, Pics, Videos, Alot of Polls like how many people actually think that she is attractive? http://www.theveep.com

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

So, how does it feel my brothers and sisters. An American women can be raped and forced to have a baby. Scares the hell out of me and I would punish the host accordingly. I have said before, American women are not stupid. Mind you, from Canada, I know your government knows who I am. Shame for I love America. I have not been out your way for many political issues. Bless you all but please don't be fooled by a very beautiful no one.

Posted by: Justadad55+ | September 8, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters:

Yes or no -- did Gov. Palin kill the bridge project (regardless of whether she campaigned for it before or not)?

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Team Obama is headed to 500,000. Bridge to no where? Come on Team McCain!

http;//www.boppoll.com

Posted by: acarponzo | September 8, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

I guess it depends on the definition of campaign. She even has the t-shirt to prove she was for it before she was against it.

http://www.andrewhalcro.com/the_bridge_to_somewhere

And just the t-shirt pic
http://www.andrewhalcro.com/files/FH000020.jpg

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Brandon Ma:

I am neither one of her five kids nor the lowest rung on the campaign team that was assigned to troll the Internets. Nonethless, I am retired with plenty of time to waste here.

Gov. Palin did NOT "lie" about the government plane sale -- she did, indeed, list the plane for sale on eBay, but that bid fell though and the plane was later sold to a private party -- if you have an ACTUAL "lie" I would be more than happy to not vote for her.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

So JakeD,

Let me get this straight. One can lie all they want, but as long as the last one is a statement of truth, you are at peace with this?

As well, while you are trolling these boards, how about your view regarding you mom's VP acceptance speach where she told the world she sold her plane on ebay?
that was a lie right?

Posted by: Brandon Ma | September 8, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Some how I get the feeling the JakeD is either :

1) one of palin's kids.

2) the lowest rung on the campaign team that was assigned to troll the internet.

Posted by: Brandon Ma | September 8, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

"Drill here and drill now for what? It has been proven that it won't affect us for 10 years, what we need is a solution that will affect everybody now."

This is a fascinating comment, care to tell us what solution you think will affect everybody now? Try to remember, if we had drilled after 1973, we would be affecting everyone now, and it would be in a positive way.

I suspect you want to wait so that in 10 years you can advance the same argument that "drilling now" won't help us today.

Maybe of more of your buddies actually had an idea of what WILL help us now, we'd be more impressed.

Posted by: JohnW | September 8, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Stan. Even if it took 10 years, at least we would be better off in ten years than we will be without the drilling ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Cyndy:

If the U.S. would start drilling FOR OIL (sorry I didn't make that obvious) everywhere, that would further reduce the prices run up by speculation, even if none of that entered the actual pipeline for 10 years.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Cyndi said: Drill here and drill now for what?

10 years? Yeah, keep drinking the Kool Aid.

It might take 6-8 years to come to full production for all future planned projects, but we could get an increase in supplies in as little as 6 months. There are already wells drilled in Alaska -- several that were capped. Just open and there you go...

I work in the industry. We would have a meaningful increase in supply in less than 2-3 years -- IF the environmental lobby doesn't sue -- THAT'S WHERE the 10 year number comes from, because the enviro groups sue (for everything) to slow it down.

We went to the moon in less than 10 years... without lawsuits that halt work, we can get a huge amount of supply in 2-3.

Plus... when will wind and solar take over? We've been working on that for 40+ years.

Solar and wind will take even longer, so WHY NOT BOTH????

Fine... keep sending your money to Saudi Arabia!

I want to put AMERICANS to work in AMERICA to get AMERICAN oil!

BY not drilling, we're SHIPPING JOBS to the Middle East! I thought Democrats were against that! If it's going to come from somewhere, why not here with the bext environmental laws -- and to provide Americans with these high-paying jobs. Hmm?

With your view, maybe we should shut down Ford, GM and Chrysler and ship those jobs overseas too? Why not?

I mean really... think about it. The oil will come from somewhere! Why not keep our $$ here and create hundreds of thousands of jobs here? Really! Why not?

Posted by: Stan | September 8, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Funny... we have Obama who is "friendly" (for 10+ years) with a terrorist... and people are worried about this?

Yes, she killed the project because it was wasteful, and used the $$ already coming to Alaska for other things.

Name ONE project that Obama ever cancelled because it was wasteful. Oh yeah... and how about all that money he got for ACORN?

Let's see... a terrorist sympathizer and no vetoes on earmark $$ compared to a governor that killed a wasteful project and used the 10% of the pricetag (that was already going to Alaska) for other highway projects that were actually needed.

Sorry... no freaking contest there!

Posted by: Ster | September 8, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

To Anonymous idiot that posting all this BS about sarah.If we are talkig about the rumors then I heard that Obama had several homosexual encounters while living with his wife.

Posted by: Mike | September 8, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Jake,
Drill here and drill now for what? It has been proven that it won't affect us for 10 years, what we need is a solution that will affect everybody now. The Republicans are good at spinning. Just look at what they do every 4 years. They "just happen" to slip abortion into the fray. Then, the Democrats "bite" on the bait, and, then they talk about how a woman should have a choice. The Republicans spun just like they wanted, and they court the Catholic and Evangelical vote. Roe vs. Wade has been around since 1973, and, yet, it is still a law. Bush promised, in 2000, that he would strike that law down when he was elected President. And, he didn't do it then, and he didn't do it in 2004. Why should they? It gets them votes every time. The Republicans are very shrewd and very good at spinning the American people. Look at the economy, look at the war that we never should have been in, look at the allies that we don't have, look at the big picture. And, people still want them to do the same all over again, because of their ability to spin. Look at all of the people who lost their jobs, their homes, their savings. I do believe when Bill Clinton was President, we had a thriving economy, and he gave Bush a $126 billion surplus. Bush thought of that as a credit card for him. And, yes, I do know that Clinton did stray---but, he didn't screw the people, the economy, our allies, or the b.s. that put us in a war we never should have been in. And, look it up, please, John McCain even said that Saddam had WMD's. And, he tried to tie him to 911. McCain is a war monger, look at him when he tried to look presidential during the Georgia conflict, and he "promoted" war. The president of Georgia responded with your words are nice, but we need action. If McCain had been president, we would have stretched our military again, to go there. McCain has this theory that the only way to win the war, with honor, is to "stay the course", and, then come home with honor. When does it happen that we just bring our military home because this was a WAR to NOWHERE? Everyday, you can read the paper, and see how many military have died in the war. It is not just a "number." These are children, mothers and fathers, uncles and aunts, and, they can never be replaced. John McCain keeps talking about the "surge", and how it worked. How about not needing the surge, and we never went to war for a senseless thing? Oh, excuse me, oil means alot to Bush and Cheney!

Posted by: Cyndy | September 8, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Ken:

Well, then, look it up!
This was a $200-$300 million project. The money that was kept -- around $20 million was coming to the state anyway - she pulled it out of the bridge money and used it where it was supposed to go!

Duh!

Posted by: Ster | September 8, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Some people always keep waiting for the next event for Mrs. Palin to fall LOL First it was her nomination speech, now it is wait until her interviews on TV, or the debates...I say wait until Nov. 4th LOL

You will have the pitbull with lipstick on your ass :)

McCain / Palin in November
Registered democrat fro McCain / Palin

Posted by: AsBee | September 8, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

She killed the project, but kept SOME (nowhere near all of the money) that was already allocated to use for other infrastructure projects. (Remember the bridge collapse in Minneapolis? - That type of stuff.)

Of the $200-$300 million that was asked for by Stevens, Alaska kept (I believe) about $20 million and was given permission to use it for other projects.

And no, Stevens didn't say this because he was a Republican... he said it cause it was the truth (look at the records). Stevens is no real friend of Palin. They've butted heads many times. Besides, she killed his biggest, pet project. He's definately not a fan of hers. Just read some of the past local (Alaska) papers here. They don't care for each other. She thinks he's an embarassment to the Repub party (he is), and she's come down against him on numerous issues.

So... to all the Dems out there... This all ya got? Sheesh!

Posted by: Ster | September 8, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

McCain needs to let her talk to the media so we can find out more about who she is.

Has anyone else read this story about a possible Affair Sarah Palin had? That is just one of the Scandals listed at this site. http://www.hotpres.com

This site has the inside scoop about the Palin Dui Secret, http://www.duihelpguide.com Why hasnt the news covered this?

This site has background info on sarah Palin Bio, Pics, Videos, Alot of Polls like how many people actually think that she is attractive? http://www.theveep.com

Despite all of this, and her lack of experiance she would probably make a much better president then McCain., Because like Obama she hasnt been corrupted by washington yet. We should probably reverse the ticket Palin/McCain.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Obama's best friend Kilpatrick from Detorit is going to jail..Omana is next...REZKO.

Posted by: Mike | September 8, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

r sampson:

She's going home alright (in January, her new "home" will be One Naval Observatory ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Any Palin attention--good or bad--is great for the Republican cause. Why? It steals time from Obama. Obama keeps telling people it's Obama v. McCain. Yet, the media keeps Palin in our face . . . which makes it Obama v. Palin.

Too bad for Obama . . . times wasting dude.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin- go home!
You're out of your league-

Posted by: r sampson | September 8, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

fake JakeD:

I get paid whether you or I post ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Ray:

Thank you for admitting she said "Thanks, but no thanks."

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

I love Sarah Palin, she gives me wood. Therefore, I will defend her.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

She was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. She said "yes please", and only said "no thanks" when it became a political embarrassment for her mentor, Ted Stevens. She is NOT the rugged outsider fighting entrenched corruption - she is part of the system. How hard is that to understand.

Posted by: Ray | September 8, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Cyndy:

"Drill here and drill now" is, whether you agree with it or not, a "policy position" ...

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Oh wait, one more thing about Palin. She is McCain's attack dog. Since her convention speech, they have not talked about policies, or what they will bring to the table. All they do is talk about Obama. Gee, they even stole his theme about change. But, anyway, I do believe that Palin can talk about her opponents, and knock them down, and then just sits back waiting for them to hit back. And, then, is this where the Republicans yell sexist? Excuse me, I don't believe that there is any gender in politics. You dish it out, and you should be able to take it. If you can't stand the heat, Palin, get out of the kitchen. Just because you are a female does not mean that you should be treated any differently than you are treating others. I can't wait for the debates!!!

Posted by: Cyndy | September 8, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Like I would believe anything Stevens said. What on earth did you expect he would say? He's a Republican!

Posted by: Cindy | September 8, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

JPS:

If you don't want to answer my question, that's fine.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

"the money was sent to the state anyway, where the government was free to decide what projects to spend the money on."
If the federal government is giving you $233 Million to spend on your state, why would you NOT take it?

Posted by: camsmom | September 8, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Even if Palin denounced the bridge from the get-go (which it appears she didn't), why is this such a big deal? Why does she earn so many brownie points for doing something any sane person would do?

After our last president, are we so impressed by mediocrity that the mere absence of evil is enough to make someone qualified?

Seems like lowered expectations to me...

It's pretty pathetic when this qualifies our VP's greatest claim to fame... simply that they are not absolutely corrupt.

Posted by: Brian | September 8, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

ken, et al:

I could care less when or how she was against it -- sign that stupid Online Petition to get the money back if you want -- as long as ske's not LYING.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

How does such a large scaled project like this Bridge to No Where get partially funded?? Seems to me the monies should be returned to the U.S Treasury or is this another slick Republican tactical trick that gets un accountable funds to this state....

Posted by: Dave | September 8, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Yeah she killed it, She did not want the STATE to pay for it!! But, she HAPPILY kept the federal funds and spent it....

Posted by: bob | September 8, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

OMG, OMG, OMG!!! My comment was acknowledged by THE JakeD! Dude, you are one of my favorite entertainers. Love your work...

Posted by: JPS | September 8, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

She supported the project while she was campaigning, therefore she never supported it. Thanks. I've even seen the photo of her smiling and holding up a T-shirt that says NOWHERE, Alaska 99910. Ted Stevens is an honest politician, so I'll go with what he says instead of my lying eyes.

Posted by: allen | September 8, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Soon to be criminal Stevens should be more worried about his future than the presidential election. He's another one who took earmarks for making additions to his home! Why should anyone believe you Stevens? If she didn't support it, why take the cash?? Hhhmm?

Posted by: Terri | September 8, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Let's see now, first she was for it; before she was against it. Doesn't that sound familiar? Didn't the Republicans used that theme against John Kerry back in 2004 about funding the Iraq war? And, didn't they make they make stick with him? Why should Palin be any different with her rhetoric? They have papers where she defended her choice, and, so, now, let's see, because she is now on the Republican ticket, she was never for it! Yeah, right. What a great spin machine the Republican Party is, huh? Wake up America, and smell the coffee before it burns up. I don't believe that we need a Trojan Horse headed for the White House!!!

Posted by: Cyndy | September 8, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Jake, it's not as simple as that.

YES, she killed the project, but only AFTER it was politically expedient to so so. She also kept the $27 million for the road leading up to the bridge. I'd like to know where this money went.

Posted by: ken | September 8, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

JPS:

Regardless, she is NOT lying about killing the project, in effect telling Congress "Thanks, but no thanks!"

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

She killed the project then kept the money! Nice one!

Posted by: JPS | September 8, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters:

Yes or no -- did Gov. Palin kill the bridge project (regardless of whether she lobbied for it before or not)?

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company