Palin not responsible for Bridge to Nowhere, Democrats guilty, McCain smells of roses

by mr.zoltanblack | September 24, 2008 at 11:26 pm

393 views | 34 Recommendations | 10 comments

So, who exactly is responsible for now famous Bridge to Nowhere?

If you haven’t heard it from the Golden Goose herself, Sarah Palin told Congress thanks, but no thanks to that Bridge to Nowhere and if Factcheck.org hasn't had the opportunity to straighten you out on this misnomer, allow me.

Sarah Palin did in fact support the Bridge to Nowhere until the bitter end, when public opinion had swayed and Congress was no longer willing to fund the operation. Palin’s guilt here however is just surface guilt, Palin supported, campaigned and basically wined and dined the Bridge from the word go, without having championed it’s cause. Palin, intentionally or otherwise played a smart game of politics when it came to the Bridge. Palin supported the Bridge to propel her Campaign for Governorship of Alaska and only stepped aside as the Bridges bright faced spokesperson when Congress refused continued support for the project in September 2007. Otherwise the Bridge had become an uncanny weapon used by Alaska’s Governor to rally the homestead with State pride, civic duty and an us against the world mentality.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden on the other hand, well lets just say the blood or better yet the oil for this Bridge is allover their collective hands.

In July of 2005 both Senator’s Biden and Obama voted in favour of $286.4 million dollar highway bill that included amongst other things the infamous Gravina Bridge project (The Gravina Island Bridge, also know as the "Bridge to Nowhere", was a proposed bridge to replace the ferry that currently connects Ketchikan, Alaska, to the Gravina Island’s 50 residents, and the Ketchikan International Airport) Congress passed the bill voting 91-4 in favour, with five no votes.

In light of the events surrounding Hurricane Katrina and the devastation of New Orleans October of 05 present a opportunity for Nowhere Bridge redemption and somehow Senator’s Obama and Biden failed to answer the call of duty. The proposed amendment would have seen funds earmarked for the Gravina project redirect to support the rebuilding of the Twin Spans bridge which connects New Orleans to Slidell across Lake Pontchartrain. Obama and Biden both voted against the proposed amendment. The amendment was defeated 82-15, with three no votes.

The most curious and perhaps the most damning evidence of guilt regarding the Bridge to Nowhere, the Revised Appropriations Bill also came before Congress in October. Personally I find the Bridge and all it’s dirty stories typical of any bureaucracy and really not all that shocking. What I am shocked by however is the complete lack of any Bridge at all, the vote was made, the money doled out but the labour never completed. Well now, how could it be that hundred of millions of dollars had been acquired under the guises of building a bridge where no bridge was built? The answer; the Revised Appropriations Bill which relived Alaska of the earmarks tied to the bridge and turned the funds over to the Alaskan Department of Transportation, no strings attached. Quite simply put the Bill would see money which was hand over to the state of Alaska to build a bridge to nowhere turned over to the state transportation department, no strings attached and certainly no questions asked. Obama and Biden both voted in favour of the proposed bill, which foolishly passed 93-1 with six no votes.

I’ve attempted to justify Palin’s involvement with Bridge to Nowhere while the facts have vilified both Senator’s Obama and Biden, So then, What of John McCain? What’s the old boys stake in all this?

The answer again is really quite simple, John McCain voted against the initial highway bill the allocated funds to the Gravina project. McCain also gave a rousing speech on the Senate floor claiming the Bridge and a dozen other project were unnecessary.

(http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/record/2005/2005_S09399.pdf) McCain was not present for either the amendment vote or the revised appropriations bill however it is presumed that Senator McCain would have continued his staunch opposition to wasteful projects such as Gravina in spite of mass opposition from colleagues such as Obama and Biden.

So there you have it, Sarah Palin’s guilt is perhaps only surface guilt, Obama and Biden are more responsible for the Bridge to Nowhere then Sarah Palin ever could have been and John McCain comes out of this whole thing smelling like roses. And I thought that was Sarah Palin’s job.

Zoltan Black

Thanks to the folks at www.factcheck.org, a godsend during this the mud slinging season.

1 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

tikun

flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 00:22 on September 25th, 2008

mr.zoltanblack, I like this story. It's good stuff.

Sanjay Jha

flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 00:29 on September 25th, 2008

mr.zoltanblack, I like this story. It's good stuff.

René

flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 02:00 on September 25th, 2008

mr.zoltanblack, thanks for clearing this up. Noticed the obama crowd hasn't chimed in yet.

djermano

flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 03:22 on September 25th, 2008

mr.zoltanblack, I like this story. It's good stuff.

Well Ren'e let me Chime in...I have no idea what this bridge to nowhere is about, but I do know that it is a good idea.. Perhaps not what you were expecting to hear, but let me explain....The place where they wanted to build a bridge might not be a bad idea if the people who lived on the Island had the bucks to help finance it.

#2) My idea of a bridge project that seems to go to nowhere would actually connect the entire world via land transportation...via rail-system.....

Now think of this....a railroad that is run by electric current dervived by the power of Geothermal Energy Development. The bridge would span across the Bering Strait connecting Alaska to Russia...From Russia it connects around the world, with railroad expansion in all directions into China, Europe, and Africa. The only place that would be isolated would be down-under in Australia. You only need look at a map and see that the Bering Strait at the top of the world is the actual key link to transportation connectedness around the world.

If you want to call that dumb I think you should reconsider how truly great that achievement would be... Goods could be transported without threat of contributing to Global Warming because of the Rails Geothermal power.....Also those speed trains would travel along side to promote tourism across the world.....I find that pretty awesome to say the least.

Now if Sarah Palin would support this idea of a bridge to get us somewhere in our transportation needs, economic stability in trade, and provide clean energy and reduce Global Warming Threats I would say we GOT a winner....But all you people argue about is stuff that is truly pitiful and a senseless waste of time and energy.

I say the Bridge Deal in Alaska is not a done deal...

Mike Wood

flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 04:23 on September 25th, 2008

mr.zoltanblack, I like this story. It's good stuff.

"Palin supported the Bridge to propel her Campaign for Governorship of Alaska" Well then, at least she’s not responsible.

This statement alone says a lot.

It would be nice for a change to see a politician do something for the people without first considering whether or not it will advance their career.

McCain smells of roses... It's like that saying, "Fall in a bucket of sh*t and come out smelling like a rose.

Interesting read.

mgmirkin

at 09:33 on September 25th, 2008

So many logical problems in this, I don't even know where to start...

You said:
"Sarah Palin did in fact support the Bridge to Nowhere until the bitter end"
"Palin supported, campaigned and basically wined and dined the Bridge from the word go"
"Palin, intentionally or otherwise played a smart game of politics when it came to the Bridge. Palin supported the Bridge to propel her Campaign for Governorship of Alaska and only stepped aside as the Bridges bright faced spokesperson when Congress refused continued support for the project in September 2007."

Then you hand-wavingly dismissed her guilt. Ridiculous! It's illogical and it makes no sense...

Sarah Palin "wined and dined the Bridge from the word 'go'," "supported the Bridge to Nowhere until the bitter end" "when Congress refused continued support for the project in September 2007."

How can anyone possibly perceive her as "not guilty" when the statements you've made are quite clear on the matter. The guilt is not "superficial," as you claim. "Palin, intentionally or otherwise played a smart game of politics when it came to the Bridge ... to propel her Campaign for Governorship of Alaska."

You then go on to illogically blame Obama & Biden for it. However, the statistics you quote DO NOT lend credence to your claim.

Your weak / specious arguments include:

"In July of 2005 both Senator’s Biden and Obama voted in favour of $286.4 million dollar highway bill" ... you then go on to say "Congress passed the bill voting 91-4 in favour, with five no votes." To me, that says "overwhelming majority." Apparently, just about everyone voting on the bill voted in favor of it. Certainly no clear-cut indictment of Obama nor Biden there. (Come to think of it, how can it be 91-4, if there were 5 no votes? Shoudln't that be 91-5?)

"Obama and Biden both voted against the proposed ['05] amendment." ... you then go on to say "The amendment was defeated 82-15, with three no votes." Again, a rather apparent overwhelming majority voted against the amendment. This is again not a clear-cut indictment of Obama / Biden.

Finally you go on to say "the Revised Appropriations Bill which relived Alaska of the earmarks tied to the bridge and turned the funds over to the Alaskan Department of Transportation, no strings attached ... Obama and Biden both voted in favour of the proposed bill" ... you then go on to say "[the bill] passed 93-1 with six no votes." Yet another overwhelming majority! Apparently there was only 1 no vote... Once again, not an indictment, unless you're indicting EVERYone (if that's the case, then you're "cherry picking" Obama / Biden out of the 93 others who also voted for the bill). Again, come to think of it, how can it be 93-1 if there were 6 no votes (I'd think it would be like 93-6, unless some no votes weren't counted; hanging chads perhaps? *kidding*)?

With regard to McCain, you wrote:

"John McCain voted against the initial highway bill the allocated funds to the Gravina project." Fine.

However, you then go on to assert "McCain was not present for either the amendment vote or the revised appropriations bill however it is presumed that Senator McCain would have continued his staunch opposition ..." let me cut you off right there. The fact is "he was not present!" He didn't vote on either of the two later propositions, so there is no record of such a vote, and your suppositions about what his state of mind would have been are irrelevant.

If McCain was so "staunchly opposed," then why didn't he show up to cast a vote in favor or in opposition to either of the two latter propositions? Apparently, he's not quite as "staunch" as you make him out to be, if he can't be bothered to put his vote on the line.

The simple fact of the matter is that all of the propositions passed by an overwhelming majority of those who took the time to vote. Everyone, Dem. and Rep. alike, bears equal responsibility for the outcome of the votes. Saying otherwise appears superficially (if not moreso) disingenuous. This appears to be a somewhat slanted piece intended to "tidy up" Palin & McCain's reputations. I fail to see merit in the argument, however. I'm sure that for those already on the McCain / Palin ticket, it's "preaching to the choir." To those not of that particular persuasion (Dems, independents, etc.), the argument fails to convince. Perhaps that's just my opinon.

I'm equally disgusted by the partisan politics in my own state of Oregon, between Gordon Smith and Jeff Merkley. Each side appears to be taking small facts or statements out of context, juxtaposing them with other unrelated facts (also out of context) and then claiming that it's some damning indictment of their opponent. It's all a ridiculous political game and I'm pretty sure everyone in our state recognizes that by now.

Anyway, I guess I'm just tired of the illogical "cherry-picking" arguments that I'm constantly bombarded by in this latest round of political jockeying (by that I don't mean this article, but the entirety of Election Season 2008).

Palin supported the Bridge "from the beginning," and "until the bitter end" in basically a "political game." There's really no way to absolve her of that. McCain only voted once in opposition, but according to you was missing from the later votes? We have no way to know how he would have voted on them (assumptions and suppositions aside). Those voting for the 3 propositions apparently voted in an overwhelming majority in all 3 cases. So, either indict everybody (Dem, Rep & no-show alike) or nobody. Ya' can't go claiming that it's "all the fault of" 1 or 2 people out of the 91, 82 or 93 people who voted favorably for the 3 propositions. It just doesn't work that way.

Just my 2c. For what it's worth. No offense intended to the author. I just don't "buy it." And, please, don't take this as an endorsement of Obama / Biden. Simply, in the words of Inigo Montoya to Vizzini in the Princess Bride: "I do not think it means what you think it means!"

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

mr.zoltanblack

at 11:23 on September 25th, 2008

Ok, Michael here you go

#1Then you hand-wavingly dismissed her guilt. Ridiculous! It's illogical and it makes no sense...

Look Michael it wasnt a dismissel, I admitted she used the bridge to her advantage but she was not responsible for the idea it self. Sure Palin may be guilty of "supporting" the bridge but other then clampping on to an issue that is popular among her constiuents.

You then go on to illogically blame Obama & Biden for it. However, the statistics you quote DO NOT lend credence to your claim.

Your weak / specious arguments include:

Again Michael you are starting to appear a little fanatical, the argument is not "weak" both Biden and Obama voted for the Bridge not on oncen not twice but three times. Clearly this make them more responsible than Palin? Who held no vote at all.

#3 Michael as far as John McCain goes...However, you then go on to assert "McCain was not present for either the amendment vote or the revised appropriations bill however it is presumed that Senator McCain would have continued his staunch opposition. This one is a real softball, if you question Mr.McCain opposition all I can say is perhaps you should take a look at the speech he made before Congress regarding the highway bill, he was quite clear about the kind of wastful spending the bill entailed. It may be true that The simple fact of the matter is that all of the propositions passed by an overwhelming majority of those who took the time to vote. Everyone, Dem. and Rep. alike, bears equal responsibility.

However John McCain did not join the crowd he voted against the highway bill and urged his fellow colleagues to do the same.

#4 We have no way to know how he would have voted on them (assumptions and suppositions aside)

Again if you have had a chance to read McCain's impassioned speech from the floor during the passing of the initial highway bill, there is clearly no doubt about how McCain would have vote.

#5Ya' can't go claiming that it's "all the fault of" 1 or 2 people out of the 91, 82 or 93 people who voted favorably for the 3 propositions. It just doesn't work that way.

I am sure that their are several Congressmen and women who are responsible for the passing these bills, however only 1 or 2 of them are running for the office of President.

Thank, Michael great feedback

Paschen

flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 09:58 on September 25th, 2008

mr.zoltanblack, I like this story. It's good stuff.

I think Michael and Moon got it pined down.

politisite

flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 10:41 on September 25th, 2008

mr.zoltanblack, I like this story. It's good stuff. Factcheck.org is the same group who related that Obama was not for tough gun control nor the ban of handguns

Barack Obama on Gun Control

Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns."

Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
Obama's campaign said, "Sen. Obama didn't fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn't reflect his views." Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate Apr 16, 2008

Factcheck.org is an appologist for Obama, nothing more. Factcheck.org fails to put McCain in a positive light most of the time. Would you call that non-partisan? I wouldn't put much weight on anything they say. Obama/Ayers bother are connected to Annenburg foundation which finances factcheck.org. Now what would one say if McCain was affiliated with nthis group and 95% of the information was in support of Him?

mr.zoltanblack

at 11:42 on September 25th, 2008

Thanks, politsite

I never though Factcheck.org to be even remotely non-partisan as it has become quite evident to me without any research that Obama's has been favoured by the .org

Factcheck.org must be marked on their "facts" and not neccessarily on their performance.

The Obama hand-gun thing was a bit of a mis-rep however as Obama himself said the info had been filled out by a staffer, the facts were there. Beside finding the questionnaire and identifying the answer I`m not really sure what more the folks at factcheck could have done to confirm this information? Calling the source, Mr Obama, does not seem like an objective answer, instead it would give the canadaite a chance to back away from a controversial belif or statement.

It`s clear factcheck is not perfect and perhaps even a little partisan, however as long as the delivery of the facts remians the only partisan slugs coming from the Factcheck offices we should be O.K.