The indefatigable Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs has the news:
Alaska Democratic Party Deletes Page Crediting Sarah Palin with Killing 'Bridge to Nowhere'
A web site paid for by the Alaska Democratic Party says unequivocally that the state of Alaska officially abandoned the Bridge to Nowhere project, and credits Governor Sarah Palin.
Or ... it used to say that, before the page mysteriously vanished some time during the past few days
Indeed, the link goes to a now-empty page.
But Johnson notes that it has since been revived at another URL.
I should also note that it's conceivable that the story was merely moved, or that the remainder of the original URL ("/ted-earmarked-funds-for-bridge-that-goes-nowhere/") was simply dropped.
Nonetheless, enjoy what Alaska Dems are saying about the Bridge (oddly titled), especially Palin's role in it, because you won't see it acknowledged at traditional media outlets:
Ted Earmarked Funds for Bridge that Goes Nowhere
The proposed Gravina Island Bridge, also known as the “Bridge to Nowhere,” became a national symbol of wasteful congressional spending and driver of earmark reform. On Sept. 21, 2007, the State of Alaska officially abandoned the controversial project.
The Gravina Island Bridge initially received $223 million in 2005 via earmarks by Alaska Senators Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski. The bridge would have connected Ketchikan, Alaska with its local airport on nearby Gravina Island (population 50). Congress stripped the earmark after a national uproar about it but appropriated the money anyway for unspecified transportation uses. Former Gov. Frank Murkowski’s administration set aside about $113 million of the appropriation for the Ketchikan bridge. However, Gov. Sarah Palin said the $398 million bridge was $329 million short of full funding, and only $36 million in federal funds were set aside for it. She said it was clear Congress had little interest in spending any more money for it and that the state had higher priorities.
We can quibble about specifics. But the fact is that Palin was governor when the project was abandoned, and no amount of spinning can change that.
Crossposted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Sa-rah! Sa-rah!
September 9, 2008 - 15:01 ET by iveseenitallShe killed the bridge to nowhere. She did, and she proclaimed it to the world. No amount of left-wing attempts to re-write history will change the FACTS. By,by "liberal" liars.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Palin was correct
September 9, 2008 - 15:02 ET by Mica the MagnificentShe said it was clear Congress had little interest in spending any more money for it and that the state had higher priorities.
She said in her speech: And if we wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves.
Where's the lie?
The link to nowhere?
September 9, 2008 - 15:09 ET by Chris NormanThe link to nowhere? :)
McNotObama '08
Since we're talking bridges
September 9, 2008 - 15:11 ET by MrltavernI would like to mention that Palin actually did what Obama's been talking about doing all along. She supported it yes, but then she went against it, killed it and built roads with that money.
Building roads and infrastructure is part of Obama's campaign talking points. Except sassy Sarah actually DID it.
Since we're talking about bridges, when the minnesota bridge collapsed last summer Oklahoman Senator Tom Coburn (R) sponsored a bill to take the money that Minnesota was asking for to build bike trails and direct it to immeadiate bridge and safety maintenance. obama voted against that bill and voted for the bike trails.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it libs!
Mr.L
I get a little peeved at
September 9, 2008 - 15:39 ET by Clear thinkerI get a little peeved at the bike trails issue. We have this ongoing battle where I live. What bugs me is the fact that we motorists pay all sorts of taxes to pay for our roads, so why is it the bike people get their trails without having to pay for them?
Moron’s On Parade
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
We pay taxes too, you know
September 9, 2008 - 16:10 ET by CobraManI am a supporter of those bile trails as I use them quite frequently and I would like to point out that I also pay "all sorts of taxes" here in Minnesota. Your suggestion that the people who enjoy the bike and walking trail do not pay taxes is, in my opinion, a fallacy and an insult to people who enjoy the all of the accommodations our great state has to offer. Please be a little more considerate for those who support the decision to add more than just new roads for travel, especially in our public parks and natural sites like lakes, rivers, and streams where the majority of those trails are located.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Cobra...
September 9, 2008 - 16:20 ET by Clear thinkerOk, you got me. But it's my own fault for not being clear enough.
We have a large contingent of bike only commuters where I live. They proudly do not own autos or pay any road taxes. They then go to either the city or the county and get bike trails (bike paths) built for them without them having to pay for them. These are added on to the already existing roads. Does that make more sense?
Moron’s On Parade
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Road taxes?
September 9, 2008 - 16:33 ET by CobraManRoad taxes? What "road taxes" are you referring to? All highway funds come out of the General Fund; there are no specific road taxes in Minnesota. There are licensing fee and gas taxes, but that revenue is added into the general fund, just like all other tax and fee revenue. If the "commuters" you mention pay any taxes at all, then they too are paying those "road taxes," correct?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
WOW! A FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE REPUBLICAN!
September 9, 2008 - 15:17 ET by PSPCplI haven't been this excited about a national Republican candidate since President Reagan. It is too bad that the Republican Leadership won't enforce some discipline on its wayward members in both houses: but wait that would call for a backbone. To paraphrase the Joker "What this party needs is an enema."
Palin for President! Gingrich for RNC Chairman!
Keith Olbermann reports
September 9, 2008 - 15:20 ET by harqmanKeith Olbermann reports "They were against the page and pulled it, before they were again for the page and re posted it."
If this were the RNC doing this, this is how he would have lead off his circus this evening. It is only going to get worse.
Just amother failed attempt
September 9, 2008 - 15:34 ET by ConservativeRexJust amother failed attempt from the liberals. They're getting awful desperate. Good! The more the libs wail, the stronger McCain/Palin gets!
"We can quibble about specifics"
September 9, 2008 - 16:15 ET by nicholas nicklebyWhen you saw "specifics" do you mean, as Mrltavern pointed out, that she was for the bridge at a certain point?
I'm just curious since some of your readers might think that she was against the bridge from the beginning, whereas, according to FactCheck.org, she was for the bridge at the beginning.
Or do you disagree with FactCheck.org? That would be interesting since the three NB posts before this one all cite FactCheck.org.
Have you been to FactCheck.org recently? (I mean, they're being cited by Newsbusters staff, so you know it's a good site.) They're very good at debunking smears and exposing the truth.
I don't remember anyone
September 9, 2008 - 16:24 ET by Clear thinkerI don't remember anyone claiming that she wasn't for it to begin with. What's the problem?
Moron’s On Parade
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Omission vs. commission
September 9, 2008 - 16:58 ET by nicholas nicklebyThat's just the thing Clear thinker: you're right that nobody here is claiming that she wasn't for it to begin with--in fact, nobody here is talking at all about her support for the bridge, which doesn't give a full view of what actually happened.
(It's one of those "misleading by omission" issues which the NB staff rightly criticizes the MSM for when they fail to report the whole story.)
If you listen to her talk about it, it sounds like she stood up to Congress and Ted Stevens from the very beginning and said "Thanks, but no thanks." (In fact, isn't that the idea behind the title of this post--that she "killed" the bridge? I keep imagining it as a St. Georgette vs. the Dragon scene.) Whereas, in actuality, when the Anchorage Daily News asked her if she would continue to support the bridge as governor, she said yes. She only nixed the bridge after "Congress stripped the earmark," as they write in this article--less like she battled a dragon, and more like she unplugged it's life support.
(Which raises another question in my mind: what about when she told the Anchorage Daily that she would support it? I fully support people being able to change their minds when they learn new facts, but promising to support a bridge when she was campaigning for governor and then "killing" the bridge when governor seems... well, less than saintly.)
I did listen, did you?
September 9, 2008 - 17:14 ET by CobraManI did listen to her talk about it, did you? I heard her say that she killed the project (which she did) after she realized that wasn’t enough funding for it (which there wasn‘t) or support amongst the citizens of Alaska. You need to remember that the “earmark" wasn't for the full cost of that bridge, only about a third. The rest of the funds would have come from the General Fund, state tax payers money. She still supports that bridge, but I don't have a problem with that as she doesn’t make her own personal beliefs the deciding factor for issues like these , she defers to her fellow citizens for these types of decisions and she actually respects and encourages their involvement in government.
It's apparent that Sarah, unlike some politicians, actually listens to the citizens and she refuses to use accounting tricks in order to fund an unwanted project. This means she's actually in touch with her constituents (and fellow politicians!) and doesn't ignore them even when she personally disagrees with them. That's a huge plus for her, no matter how much you try to make it into a negative.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
"Thanks but no thanks"
September 9, 2008 - 20:20 ET by nicholas nicklebyHi Cobraman,
I've now listened to several Sarah Palin speeches--seven speeches--in which she says quite clearly that she said "Thanks but no thanks" to Congress, which is something that never happened. (As others have pointed out, she kept the money for other projects, like roads. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to make her actions seem negative--I think she did a fine job in this case (I like roads!)--but I'm questioning how she tells the story.)
Before I characterized NB's coverage of this issue as "misleading by omission" by saying that Sarah Palin "killed" the bridge without remarking on the fact that she supported the bridge at first.
Now, Sarah Palin's remarks, however, move over from "omission" to "commission"--she never said "no thanks" to Congress's money, right? So, the seven times in her speeches when she claims that, she's not being entirely truthful.
We can't argue the facts
September 9, 2008 - 16:25 ET by CobraManWe can't argue the facts, and the fact remains that the bridge was never built.
This reminds me of an argument I had with my wife about the outdoor grill we didn't buy last summer. She too tried to use the argument that I was "for" the grill that we never bought, BEFORE we never bought it. Even her father laughed at her for that one.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Specifics like
September 9, 2008 - 17:11 ET by Toom"I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere." This is the problem I have with her, I can't figure out a way to interpret this phrase as anything but a lie.
Congress removed the earmark for the bridge in November 2005, but gave Alaska the money anyway for "unspecified" transportation projects. Murkowski set money aside for the bridge, then she killed the project in 2007, saying "it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island". In other words, if they are not going to help us build it, then we aren't going to, which makes her statement "If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves." even more absurd.
You're absolutely right though, Palin was Governor when the project was abandoned, apparently that's all that matters. I guess George H.W. Bush deserves credit for the Berlin wall coming down because he was President at the time.
Bottom line is, Congress killed it in 2005, Murkowski and Palin tried to keep it alive, then when she saw the writing on the wall she abandoned it. Palin's brand of honesty... thanks but no thanks.
Get your facts straight
September 9, 2008 - 17:26 ET by CobraManGet your facts straight, Congress wouldn't have supplied enough money in that "earmark" to build the bridge no matter what the amount was, so they had very little to do with the project being killed or not. The majority of funds would have come out of the Alaskan General Fund and this needed approval by the state legislature and the citizens of Alaska.
Sarah originally supported the bridge, but realized that there wasn't enough support amongst the citizens of Alaska to use state funds to build it. Instead of unilaterally making the decision to build an unpopular bridge, she deferred that decision to the citizens and killed the project, just as they wanted. What can you find disturbing in that, the fact that she didn't ignore her own constituents and order the highway department to build the bridge anyways?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Toom:
September 10, 2008 - 11:43 ET by j. frank wilsonExcellent comment! Congress removed the spending restriction (money had to be used to build The Bridge to Nowhere) before Sarah Palin became governor.
Now she is spinning the story to make herself the big anti-government waste heroine. She was for the bridge before she was against it. And when she told Congress "No thanks" she didn't return the money - she spent it.
Maybe in Alaska that's considered change...
No amount of spinning
September 9, 2008 - 18:30 ET by j. frank wilsoncan change the fact that Gov. Palin is trying to position herself as an opponent of Federal government budget earmarks. Despite the fact she's been neck deep in the trough.
Gov. Palin supported The Bridge to Nowhere. She asked the Alaskan Congressional representative to work to secure that funding for the state. Gov. Palin told a national audience that she said no thanks to Congress. "If we want to build a bridge we'll pay for it ourselves."She killed the bridge because the Federal government wouldn't write a large enough check. She said "No thanks" to the Bridge but "Yes, thank you!" to the money, keeping it to spend on other projects in Alaska.Gov. Palin is spinning like a top on this one. The facts are out there. She just won't face up to them.Her official word on this debacle?
http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:RL3FJAhN1ksJ:gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=623&type=1+"Ketchikan+desires+a+better+way+to+reach+the+airport,+but+the+$398+million+bridge+is+not+the+answer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Frankie the only spinning
September 10, 2008 - 08:27 ET by Dan The Man 2Frankie the only spinning here is you, you are on a downward spiral. Anyone who wants to find out knows about this. But most understand she changed her stance when she became governor and learned the details. That and the fact the bridge would not help the economy much if any. So like all states do they reallocated the money to other projects.
I dont see any posts of yours trying to catch Obama in a change of opinion he made?
Bottom line boy, is you are running scaird still. See Frankie, see Frankie run .. run Frankie run. Come up with some good meat like Trig is really her daughters kid. LOL
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Hey Tom. Wonder how/why the web page disappeared?
September 9, 2008 - 19:40 ET by Gary HallHey Tom. Wonder how/why the web page disappeared?
Perhaps John Fund "on the trail" found the force behind it, today.
Find what's useful & destroy what is not. (;~> gary
Too bad for the Dems
September 9, 2008 - 19:51 ET by CobraManToo bad for the Dems that Fox News is WAY ahead of them. I watch On the Record last night with Gretta interviewing Sarah's fellow home town citizens and even include an interview with her and her husband that was made several months ago, before Sarah was even being considered for the VP slot. As always, it's too little, too late for the Dems.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade