Wednesday, September 10, 2008


Paul Begala Joins the Ineffectual Anti-Palin Meltdown

Paul Begala, whose very presence finished off Crossfire on TV, whom Rush Limbaugh calls the Forehead (I usually use a different body part for synecdoche), had an article today where he calls Sarah Palin about the bridge to nowhere a liar. This is textbook projection.

The straight skinny is that any governor welcomes free money from the feds, but it is the Senators, and here a congressman, who actually shake the money tree that is DC for such funds. We now revile these spending add-ons, known as ear marks, or pork, short for pork barrel spending, but this sort of spending has had a very long tradition in Congress.

Now we know that Obama and Biden were both for the earmarked funds for the bridge to nowhere because they voted for it, and even when Senator Tom Colburn (R-OK) gave them a second chance and an out--a chance to put the money to helping rebuild New Orleans, they voted for it again. That's fact; that's historical record.

When bloggers and then the national media finally put the spotlight on some ear mark spending and particularly on the bridge to nowhere, the Congress no longer said the money had to be spent on the bridge near Ketchikan, but the money still went to Alaska with no real strings attached. At that point, Governor Sarah Palin, who certainly wanted to help out the Gravina Island residents (all 50 of them) with better transportation to the rest of Alaska, said no to the multi-hundred million dollar bridge. Again, that's fact; that's historical record.

Here is what Begala said:

In the face of demonstrable, provable, incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, McCain and Palin continue to assert that Gov. Palin opposed the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere."


I said the media was at fault for letting Palin and McCain get away with "flat out lies."
Not a lie. She was of the same mind as Obama and Biden, but after the big stink, when the money came without strings, she changed her mind and spent the money on different projects. The foul fiend. Apparently the Democratic logic is, if she was not against it from the very beginning, that is, when Obama and Biden were for it, she gets no credit for changing to being against it later and indeed, in the slightly warped mind of Paul Begala, she is lying to say she opposed and, in the end, killed the project, even though that's exactly what she did.

Here is more Begala smears:

...noting Palin's support for banning books, teaching creationism and doubting
global warming...

No book banning, nor any creationism in school; and she certainly believes it's getting warmer up there, she is merely skeptical about the anthropogenic claims (as any reasonably smart person with 20 hours of reading on the subject would be).

I have to admit that I'm enjoying the show of the anti-Palin smears and panic. I feel in my gut that it is counterproductive to the Obama campaign, so it's all good. There are a lot of people letting the mask over their haughty, elitist, sneering faces swing free. A lot of people on the left truly and honestly hate the bulk of their fellow Americans. The coverage of the panic makes the media look horrible too because, well, most of the TV talking heads are.
UPDATE: Good advice for the Democrats: She killed off the Bridge to Nowhere. Deal with it.


Nice try Roger.

The issue is that Palin's mantra has become: "I said thanks but no thanks."

She actually just said "thanks." When congress remoived the earmark status of the funds, but not the funds themselves, only then did Palin withdraw her support for the project.

The problem isn't the funds or the bridge. The problem is that Sarah Palin is misrepresenting the facts every time she gives her canned stump speech. You can't spin that.

And the difference between "saying no thanks" and "withdrawing her support for the project" is? The money went to Alaska, at first for a bridge and then for whatever. The bridge was not built. Sarah Palin was the chief executive when the decision not to build the bridge was made. Sarah Palin made the decision not to build the bridge. Have I spun anything yet or is it all straight truth? By your 'logic' every Democrat who voted for the war in Iraq who now opposes is a liar when they say I oppose the war in Iraq. It's a long list of Democrats too, T.

Just live w/ the truth. She supported the bridge until Congress pulled the earmark. When th ebridge became a political albatross, she changed her position. Nothing wrong there.

But now she iswalking around spouting a misrepresentation that amounts to a lie. That's the truth.

The facts that Democrats were stupid enough to entrust a JV president w/ th epower to invade Iraq is certainly not the high point of the party's existence.

The fact that the JV president either misled the country or ran an administration that was too stupid to obtain the facts is on the GOP.

If the economy had not gone south, tere would be no way the GOP could win this election.

One other thing. What is going to happen to the other 80% of the Sunni Sons of Iraq and other Sunni Awakening members who are not absorbed into Iraqi security forces?

Hosea 8:7

FWIW, you are both wrong. Congress deleted the earmark in 2005. When Palin ran for governor in 2006, she supported the project. Congress was out of the picture by the time she was elected.

Palin cancelled the bridge because Congress refused to give any more money and she didn't want the state to pay the difference. Which is exactly the opposite of "thanks, no thanks."

The only sense in which Palin stood up to Congress on the bridge is that Alaska's delegation, who stuck their necks out to get the money, were upset by what they perceived as Palin's ingratitude.
T, so it's a lie if someone, who voted for the war in Iraq to resume, says now: "I have opposed the war", even if that person has indeed opposed the war since early 2004. Come on. She changed her mind when the facts regarding the political impressions about the bridge changed. What do you do, sir? She killed the bridge near Ketchikan. Not a lie.
JV? Andover, Yale, Harvard Business School, twice governor of our second biggest state. What could possibly be the varsity then?
Good thoughts, Scott. The money Alaska obtained was above $200 mil and the price tag on the bridge was nearly $400 mil. But the time line does not change the fact that the decision not to build the bridge was hers and that no money originally ear marked for the bridge was spent on the bridge. "No thanks" may not be the words I would have used to summarize it succinctly, but it's not false. If you and the media's point is that a politician put his or her actions in the very most possible positive light, then I say, Oh no! Not that! How can we survive as a nation with politicians who will exagerate in a way that flatters them? Of course, you probably cannot fail to recognize my sarcasm here.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?