Fred Martinez's Monitor

Bridge To Nowhere: Gov. Palin Killed Bridge, Obama Voted for Bridge

Palin Obama and Biden Voted for Bridge to Nowhere
By John Powers, Chicago Daily Observer
Posted in Our Columns on August 31, 2008 with 87 comments.
tags: Earmarks Finance
Now that Alaska is front and center in the news again, it is a good time to catch up on a favorite story, The Bridge to Nowhere, using the Washington Post US Congress Votes Database.

Though Gov. Palin originally supported the earmark spending on the Ketchikan bridge (“to nowhere), she eventually killed the project, chosing to spend Federal money on other infrasturcture programs.

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

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

Link to votes record below.

Read More of Obama and Biden Voted for Bridge to Nowhere off-site...
[http://www.cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/obama-and-biden-voted-for-bridge-to-nowhere,1628/]



Let’s not forget that actions speak louder than words. Palin may have supported the “bridge to nowhere” during her first campaign for Governor, but once becoming governor she not only opposed earmarks for that bridge but also vetoed a bevy of pork spending that added up to approximately $60 million in two consecutive state budgeting sessions.
[http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/did_palin_flip_flop_on_the_bridge_to_nowhere/]

Did Palin Flip-Flop On The Bridge To Nowhere?

By Rob on September 1, 2008 at 08:15 am
With the “she’s too inexperienced” thing hurting Obama worse than Palin the left is scrambling to find another way to discredit McCain’s new running mate. Now they think they’ve found it with the infamous Gravina Island “bridge to nowhere.”

One of Palin’s most memorable moves as Governor of Alaska was to come out against federal earmarks for her state. Not only did she oppose federal funding for the “bridge to nowhere,” she has come out against earmarks for her state in general saying that she’d prefer if Alaska funded its own projects.

But now the media is accusing her of having a John Kerry moment, essentially saying that she was for earmarks before she was against them:

While running for governor in 2006, though, Palin backed federal funding for the infamous bridge, which McCain helped make it a symbol of pork barrel excess.

Here’s the explanation from the campaign:

Asked why she supported the bridge, Palin’s communications director Bill McAlister said, “It was never at the top of her priority list, and in fact the project isn’t necessarily dead … there’s still the potential for improved ferry service or even a bridge of a less costly design.”

She changed her mind, he said, when “she saw that Alaska was being perceived as taking from the country and not giving, and that impression bothered her and she wants to change it. … I think that Sarah Palin is someone who has the courage to reevaluate situations as they developed.”

Given that, I think Palin’s change in position was more of an epiphany than a flip-flop. Unlike, say, Obama telling a Jewish audience that he supports an undivided Jerusalem and then telling another audience that Jerusalem must be divided, Palin’s change of heart seems to be based on a genuine “I saw the light” moment.

Frankly, the Gravina Island bridge debacle brought earmarks to the attention of the whole country. It opened the eyes of a lot of Americans who weren’t familiar with the issue previously, so perhaps it isn’t surprising that a candidate running for her first term as Governor would recognize the issue for the problem it was (and still is) and change her policy stances accordingly.

Let’s not forget that actions speak louder than words. Palin may have supported the “bridge to nowhere” during her first campaign for Governor, but once becoming governor she not only opposed earmarks for that bridge but also vetoed a bevy of pork spending that added up to approximately $60 million in two consecutive state budgeting sessions.

Let’s also not forget that not all earmarks are bad. Some, such as earmarks for certain kinds of research and infrastructure, are ok. That Palin wants to limit earmarks at all in her state puts her miles ahead of most politicians in this country.

In so far as this can even be considered a flip-flop, it’s at least the kind of flip-flop we can appreciate. One that has the politician getting on the right side of an issue and sticking to it.
[http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/did_palin_flip_flop_on_the_bridge_to_nowhere/]

posted by Fred Martinez @ 10:13 PM