Monday, September 1, 2008

Palin SUPPORTED "bridge to nowhere"

from the History News Network: Did Sarah Palin Shade the Truth? by Leonard Steinhorn

Today, in introducing herself to American voters as Senator John McCain's vice presidential pick, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin portrays herself as a reformer who pushed back against pork-barrel spending and the now notorious Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska. "I championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress -- I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge to nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, I said we'd build it ourselves."

Yet here's what she said when running for governor of Alaska -- when she bashed congressional critics of the Bridge to Nowhere and came out firmly on behalf of that project.

This is from the Ketchikan Daily News, October 2, 2006: "'I'm hearing from a lot of Southeast residents who believe that maybe they haven't been given their due respect,' she said. 'Part of my agenda is making sure that Southeast is heard. That your projects are important. That we go to bat for Southeast when we're up against federal influences that aren't in the best interest of Southeast.' She cited the widespread negative attention focused on the Gravina Island crossing project [Bridge to Nowhere]. '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."

And this from the Ketchikan Daily News, August 9, 2006: "Support from other Americans and Alaskans is needed also to move forward with the proposed bridge between Revillagigedo and Gravina islands, she said. '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.'"

Was she really an opponent of the bridge, as she claimed? Or is she puffing up her resume and shading the truth? I report, you decide.

No comments:


adamhollandblog [AT] gmail [DOT] com