Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan
|
"Supported" is a little far fetched. Voted for bills that had earmarks for the bridge is the correct way to phrase it. They were part of massive transportation bills. It's kind of
Besides, this issue isn't who supported it or didn't support it. The issue is who denies ever supporting it and claims she said 'thanks but no thanks'
If you are interested in the full story you can read about it
here.
Quote:
Biden and Obama vote for the $286.4 billion highway bill, with the Gravina bridge and the other projects included. McCain and only three others vote against it. The highway bill passes 91 - 4 with five not voting.
...
The amendment would strip the earmarked funds from the Gravina and Knik Arm bridges and commit them to the rebuilding of the Twin Spans bridge in Louisiana, which was damaged by Hurricane Katrina. Obama and Biden vote against the amendment. McCain is not present. The amendment fails 82 - 15 with three not voting.
|
Maybe an even more correct way to put it was that Biden, Obama and nearly every other Senator voted for the bill that had the bridge on it as an earmark.
Here is what Palin said when the project was finally killed (one year ago):
Quote:
|
Palin (Sept. 2007): 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.
|
The only reason why the project was killed was because Congress wouldn't give them enough money. Her own words clearly show she was for it till the end. Sounds a lot like "Thanks but no thanks" to me
The CNN story is ridiculous. So what if Biden and Obama voted for tranportation bills that included it. They haven't made a campaign about wasteful earmark spending and then went and picked up the governer from the state requesting his example of wasteful earmark spending.
What Palin should have done is admit that it was a bad project and that she shouldn't have supported it. Instead she lies and acts as if she never wanted the bridges. Everyone in the world says, wait a second, right here you actively supported it. She ignores it and repeats the lie a dozen times.
Whatever on the bridge. Palin has bigger problems. She got totally pwned by
Katie Couric:
Quote:
Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.
Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.
Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.
Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?
Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.
Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.
Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.
|
This shows exactly why they don't let he talk to the press. She really has trouble when a question doesn't fit the talking points. Honestly it isn't all her fault. She never should have been picked for the job. She is about as unqualified as you can get.