Sarah Palin's "bridge to nowhere" claim comes under a microscope

Who could have foreseen that Alaska's infamous "bridge to nowhere" would become the presidential campaign's debating point du jour?

The surprise spotlight on the project speaks volumes about how the race has been transformed.

As many commentators have noted, Barack Obama and his aides have been less than sure-footed in calculating how -- and to what degree -- they should directly engage Sarah Palin. Initially, Obama and his staff sought to keep their focus on the top of the Republican ticket (that would be John McCain for those who may have forgotten)

But as Palin-mania has sustained itself, that strategy has appeared to ignore reality.

And today, perhaps in a sign of an altered response, the Obama camp and its allies came out firing on one front, hotly disputing the credit Palin takes for turning down federal funding for that proposed bridge in the Land of the Midnight Sun.

Since McCain tapped her as his running mate on Aug. 29 (hard to believe that was less than two weeks ago) Palin at every opportunity -- using virtually the same phrasing -- has told crowds that as governor of Alaska, "I told Congress, 'Thank but no thanks for that bridge to nowhere.' "

She re-ran the line again today at a rally in Lebanon, Ohio. But she did so in the face of a release from the Obama forces noting that a plethora of reporting shows her stance on the project -- which would have connected the small city of Ketchikan to the even smaller island of Gravina -- isn't so black-and-white.

The first story cited in the Obama release, tellingly, ran in the Wall Street Journal today. It's headline: "Record Contradicts Palin's 'Bridge' Claim."

The release also points out that the independent PolitiFact.com came to the same conclusion recently. (The group has an update on the bridge dispute.)

Joining the Obama effort to deconstruct Palin's position on the project is a posting on the ThinkProgress.org web site -- a sign that liberal advocacy groups are fully engaged on the issue.

[UPDATE: Conservative groups are having their say, as well. The anti-tax Club for Growth put out a release today scorning Obama for "hypocrisy" on the bridge issue. It notes that in 2005, he voted against a Senate amendment to thwart funding for the project.

We checked with the office of the amendment's sponsor, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, and learned that he proposed re-routing the money to help repair a bridge damaged by Hurricane Katrina. Obama was one of 82 senators to vote against the amendment (obscurely described in congressional records); only 15 supported it. Missing the vote: McCain.

-- Don Frederick

Photo credit: Associated Press

Comments

[DougH]

This is just shot 1. She is building a bigger target everyday. Read the WSJ article. The McBush campaign shot back with a bunch of insults but no substance. They know that this is a direct contradiction to their message of change.

Repugnicants have survived off of the ignorance of the American people. How else could they elect George W. Bush not once but twice. They offer the public the candy they need to get elected then bend over and grab your ankles.

Think of this? The Repub candidate is the change we need because he voted with Bush 90% of the time (as he bragged) He can fix the stuff that his party broke. That doesn't make sense. Of course, a pretty woman with tuff talk (true or not) fixes all of the obvious flaws with this argument.

We will find out how much the American people learned in the last 8 years. Right now it doesn't look like they've learned much at all.

[Naveen]

I wish the LA Times would actually do some real reporting rather than the "He said / She said" nonsense that passes for journalism these day.

Palin is lying. She supported the Bridge, she supported earmarks for her state, and yet the LA Times is afraid to point this out.

[Gaby C]

She has accomplished so much and is an outsider. The real problem the Left has with Sarah P is that she is not a liberal.

[Asa Hopkins]

I refer you to the following timeline, showing that Congress had ALREADY KILLED the earmark for the bridge (but left Alaska with the money anyway) before Sarah Palin even ran for Governor!

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/215092.php

[Dave In Colorado]

Just wondering when you guys in the big time press were planning to grow a spine and call a liar, a liar.

Afraid to lose your place at the next McCain BBQ?

[sandiegodan]

"The second plane, by the time the second plane appears, " he said, "we're all a little older and wiser." Falling Man by Don Delillo

By now, it's just the artists like Delillo, mostly, who return to the actual horror of that day. The rest of us have a tacit understanding that we saw, we were there, we knew someone. We knew someone who knew someone. But we don't return to that day much anymore. After all, it's been seven years. Children who weren't born yet are entering first grade. Others, in high school, are now out of college. But today, September 11, we'll remember.

It's an election year, and so we are reminded of how George Bush sat in that classroom, while we were under attack. The camera famously tracks his face for the longest minutes of our lives, while the planes slam, at unthinkable speed, into buildings. Photographer Richard Drew's indelible photograph of The Falling Man has begun to dim, having run once in some newspapers, and then never again. You're shocked to see that it's in color, for some reason. We never want to see that, again.

Americans know that our world changed forever that day. We also know that no matter how insistent those old voices are, we are a little older and wiser now, and aren't as likely to fall for the gambits that have worked so often - especially "strong on defense." Our President must be "strong on defense." It is the false trope the Republicans are desperately deploying now, having anointed their man eight years ago, the man who sat in that classroom, staring, for the long minutes.

The paradigm is not merely old, it is broken: "strong on defense" can no longer be construed to sit in an elementary school classroom while America is attacked, and rattle the sword to impress "the base". How many of us like being part of the Republican "base" anyway? So many notches on Karl Rove's spreadsheet, moved and adjusted and manipulated, like so many lemmings. Make no mistake: none of us will tolerate, ever again, an assault on any American’s patriotism. This horrific daily ratcheting of fear—always the fear--from Republicans must stop.

Americans have notoriously short memories. From “mission accomplished” to the now-documented approved torture at Abu Ghraib, from the deliberate outing of a CIA officer to the unarmored Humvees our brave troops endured, it will be important to recall the long list of Republican failures that brought us to this moment.

In Presidential elections of the past, Americans of goodwill could disagree, champion “their” candidate, and, maybe, feel that their Team could “win”. This year, this September 11, We The People cannot afford another Republican at-bat, for the stakes are the highest. For our children, all our children, we cannot afford another second plane, not another John McCain, and we most certainly cannot afford Sarah Palin.

###

[Keith]

An awful lot of words which can be distilled as follows: Governor Palin is lying on a daily basis about her opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere. By the time she became governor, Congress had already stripped the direct funding--so there was NOTHING to say no thank you to. Oh and she kept the money.

Even shorter: Governor Palin is lying about her opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere.

[former dem]

"All the pieces will fall into place right after the first debates. In the debates, McCain and Palin will not be reading a teleprompter with a nicely scripted, heavily rehearsed speech in front of an adoring convention crowd. They will not be able to take shots at their respective opponents without the fear of reprisal or retort. They will be required to deal with matters that actually matter to this country and it's people. They will both, most likely, be called upon to explain actions and events. "

Posted by: DVS | September 09, 2008 at 01:56 PM "

Sounds about right but I would replace McCain / Palin with Obama / Biden. Truly, have you seen or heard how bad Obama speaks when it's not scripted.

[Von Cracker]

Karpy has issues. Don't mind the blathering.

Palin is no more than a ruse; a light to distract you from what is John McCain and his bush-like policies.

Do not be fooled by the pig in lipstick.

[Eric Foss]

"But she did so in the face of a release from the Obama forces noting that a plethora of reporting shows her stance on the project -- which would have connected the small city of Ketchikan to the even smaller island of Gravina -- isn't so black-and-white."

"Isn't so black-and-white"? Governor Palin's position on the bridge to nowhere is completely black and white: She supported it. She said "thanks". Even after Congress told her "no thanks", she STILL supported it. And furthermore, she supported using federal funds to build a road to the bridge to nowhere. Finally, when she was told that she was absolutely not allowed to waste the money on this boondoggle, she said "thanks - I'll just keep the money then and use it for other things".

Now the LA Times doesn't have the spine to call a lie a lie, and instead pretends that the situation isn't black and white.

[Lies to Nowhere]

There's nothing wrong with changing your stance when you see you're wrong....that's growth and maturity in admitting that you're wrong, such as McCain with Immigration. IF Obama had that capacity, Hilary would be on his ticket, but he listened to bitter Michelle.

Posted by: jack | September 09, 2008 at 01:06 PM

I agree with you that changing you stance when you see something wrong is not necessarily a bad thing, but she is using this example to mislead the American people by saying it over and over again, and that's what I think most people are upset about. It's hard to trust someone when she is blatantly lying to everyone, even when her claims are already debunked.

Here's what some in Alaska has had to say about her claims to "The Bridge to Nowhere":

"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,"

-- Ketchikan Mayor, Bob Weinstein (D)

"You don't tell a group of Alaskans you support something and then go to someplace else and say you oppose it,"

-- Former State House Speaker, Gail Phillips (R)

Does this sounds like someone telling the truth to you? Judge for yourself!

For more on the link to this article: http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN3125537020080901?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10272

[ethel08]

This isn't about "changing a stance." That's what she did in 2007. She had campaigned for the bridge in 2006; in 2007, she no longer supported it once Congress stopped funding it. That was when she "changed her stance" to the Alaskan people.

In 2008 she told a LIE when she claimed that she said "thanks but no thanks" on the bridge. In fact, what she said was just "thanks." Alaska asked for the money, they got the money, they spent the money. There's no "no thanks" there.

To claim that you said something that you didn't say, to claim that you did something that you didn't do, is not "changing one's position." It is not "reflection" or "rethinking." It is just a plain old, your grandmother wouldn't allow it, lie.

[Jeremy]

Why is it so hard for the media to call a lie a lie? Why do you have to pussyfoot around the issue? Are you afraid of losing access to the lying politicians?

[Paul]

"It was reported last night that BOTH Obama and Biden voted FOR the bridge, even when another Senator gave them the option to redirect funds to a bridge affected by Hurricane Katrina, they declined. Do they really want to go down this road????"

The earmark should have never been in there in the first place.

Removing the earmark and distributing more money to Katrina would require delaying the much needed transportation appropriations bill even longer.

Had Obama/Biden voted against the transportation appropriations bill, it would have delayed getting individual states much needed transportation dollars. It would give Reps/Senators even more time to add more earmarks.

But, the main reason the media is reporting on Palin's support of the Bridge and not Obama/Biden's support of the bill is this: Palin has made her opposition to the "Bridge to Nowhere" a cornerstone of her campaign as a "maverick." That combined with the fact that she supported such a hefty earmark and then changed her support once the public learned of it through the media makes her flip-flop much more relevant.

[Nobody Special]

Lie Power!

The LA Times can't admit that she lied!

See you elsewhere!

[KilgoreTrout XL]

I don't see any other conclusion to make here- facts are facts, lies are lies.

Quite simply, McCain and Palin are, in this regard, lying.

And you need to report that. Your line, "appear to ignore reality", is somewhat on-point, but it seems to sugarcoat it, as if they're mistaken or confused about what actually happened. But they're not and you know they're not. They're lying and it's obvious. Tell the truth to your readers. Thanks.

[Sternberg]

It is amazing the amount of venom and bile that some of these Posters display here. Their facts and figures aren't always accurate, but their hatred is.
It also amazes me that that many of these people don't know the difference between an appropriaton and an earmark. That would be funny, if those who are displaying their ignorance, had a sense of humor that would allow them to laugh at their selves.

[dw]

Are conservatives really as dumb as they sound in these comments?

[SkippyFlipjack]

I love the idea that the fact that she was against the Bridge after funding had already been cut means that it's perfectly fine for her to go around saying that she killed it (not true) and that she was against it (not when it mattered). It's a head-scratcher; if she stops claiming this as an accomplishment in her speeches, the issue goes away. Why does she keep doing it?

[Phil]

Actually the Bridge to Nowhere was shotdown by the US Congress before she was even in office. She couldn't have said no because it was never offered to her.

"Actually, Congress put the kibosh on the Bridge to Nowhere back in November 2005. Since Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) was then head of the Senate Appropriations Committee he was able to force a compromise in which the earmark for the bridge was killed but Alaska got to hold on to the money -- some $442 million of federal tax dollars.

Fast forward to November 2006. That's when Sarah Palin was running as a staunch supporter of the Bridge to Nowhere -- that is, after the feds had themselves already said 'No Thanks.'

In 2006, the Democrats took over both houses of Congress. So by the time Palin got into office it was clear that not only was the first Bridge earmark killed but that Congress was not going to be ponying up any more money. That meant that Alaska was going to have to pick up the tab all on its own. So since she couldn't pay for its with the federal pork barrel, in September 2007, Palin officially halted the project which was then a state project since Congress had said 'Thanks. But no thanks' two years earlier.

She couldn't say 'No Thanks' because Congress had already said 'Forget It'.

Still with me?

So the money Palin sent back to Washington? Well, she didn't. She kept the money for other bridges and roads in Alaska.

So, to boil it all down, Congress pulled the plug on the Bridge to Nowhere in 2005. Palin was still for it in 2006. And when she finally ended the project because Congress had cut off funding, instead of saying 'No Thanks' she actually said 'Thanks!' because instead of sending the money back to Washington she kept it all in Juneau."

-Josh Marshall

[John]

Are you guys claiming that you aren't competent enough as journalists to determine that Palin and McCain are simply lying?

Enough of this "one side, other side" stuff. How about some simple facts? Palin was utterly in favor of the bridge. Congress killed it. The only time she turned against the bridge was when Alaska would have had to pay for it. Then the state kept all the money.

"Thanks, but no thanks" IS A LIE. Pure and simple. She was never offered the bridge. She declined nothing from the federal government.

Every version that McCain has offered is a lie as well.

Is it possible for you to be more professionally incompetent than this?

[ethel08]

"Palin didn't kill it, she just performed the last rites.OK, but she still did finish this off. So she is not lying. So off to the next smear."

But she didn't just claim she killed it. She claims she told Congress "thanks but no thanks." How exactly is what you describe the equivalent of saying "Thanks but no thanks" to Congress? Where exactly do you see the "no thanks" here?

Why is it a "smear" to point out that someone is lying? A smear is what happened with the stories about her family, and those stories were unfair and wrong. But, are you really trying to equate those smears with the same thing as pointing out that she's been repeatedly lying in her speeches?

[Rk Wright]

Posted by: TruAmerican | September 09, 2008 at 01:43 PM

The funding for the Bridge was taken back in 2005 while Stevens was in charge of appropriations. The money was given to Alaska, but the Feds said it couldn't be used for the bridge. Palin did NOT run for governor until 2006 after the feds already said Alaska couldn't use those funds for the Bridge. Palin campaigned for Governor in support of the Bridge project. When it became a national story she suddenly was against it, and she kept the 223 million dollars for the state of Alaska and did not return the money to the federal government. If you don't believe it, then watch the clip or read the story from Anchorage's channel 11. They tell the story that the locals know all too well:

http://www.ktva.com/ci_10382945?source=most_viewed

And as for the jet she put on ebay, well, she did put it on ebay, but didn't sell it on ebay "for a profit" (as McCain keeps saying) but had to sell it through a private dealer who sold it at a LOSS.

And a little quote from the channel 11 news of Anchorage:

" analysts pointed out another discrepancy when Palin said she "suspended the state fuel tax and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress."

But under Gov. Palin, the state applied for nearly $200 million of earmarks for the fiscal year of 2009. And when Palin was mayor, she helped secure more than $11 million worth of earmarks for Wasilla."

Some reformer. If I were you I'd ask for my money back, the Kool-Aide you bought and drank was contaminated...

[Bye bye mainstream media]

Republican candidate: Says something objectively false.

Democratic candidate: Does the political media's job by pointing out the falsehood.

Reporter: Automatically places himself in the "middle," merely noting that the two sides disagree, even though the original statement was objectively false.

Readers: Well, the reporter obviously doesn't care about his readers.

[anonymous]

"Is it because the great Ted Kenndy would not like such an investigation. Might this bridge be similar to the incredible sums of money that the great Richard Byrd, longtime senator, and again, correct me should I err, onetime member of the KKK, has gotten for West Virginia in the many years he was a senator."

But, see, the difference is that these men aren't currently running for national office, proclaiming that they told Congress to shove it.

The point is not whether pork barrel spending is worth supporting. The point is that she is LYING by claiming that she said "thanks but no thanks."