Practically Speaking

Someone should check the party affiliation of the teleprompter technician.  Maybe he's the same party as the rioters outside on the streets of St. Paul.  Nice try.

Straight up--she lied.  She is a liar, plain and simple.  She lies for political effect.  She lied, and the convention cheered.

The "bridge to nowhere" earmark story is fascinating.  As a governor candidate, she told the people of this town that she supported the bridge.  As governor, she cancelled the bridge, but it wasn't "Thanks, but no thanks."  ALASKA STILL TOOK THE EARMARK DOLLARS--$223 Million! Today, they are using $38M federal dollars to build the approach road to the bridge she says she cancelled.

As a mayor of a town of 6000, she hired a lobbyist to get earmark dollars.  This is standard Alaska fare, and that state gets $500 per person in federal funds from this route, about 10 times the national average.  Her little town got almost $1000 per person while she was there.  As Wisconsin voters and taxpayers, we should remember that the midwest does fairly poorly in federal funding, sending more money out than we get back.  Where does that money go?  Alaska, among other places.

It is a lie to suggest she is reform-minded with respect to earmarks.

Are these small lies?  No way.  This is central to why she thinks she would be good for Washington.  She calls herself a reformer.  If wallowing in earmark dollars is reform, then we don't need it.  If she thinks that cancelling a project, taking the money anyway, and building the approach road is honestly represented by "Thanks but no thanks", then she must think that all of America is as gullible as the frenzied crowd in St. Paul.

This is indeed Sarah Palin's day.  In the days and weeks to follow, however, I think her statements and her actions give her enough rope to hang herself.

Kyle's reply: I had heard Alaska (she) took the money anyway too, but I don't know all the particulars. Guess John McCain will have to set her straight on earmarks? (By the way, my posting was about a faulty teleprompter.)

This may shed a little light on the subject...especially the underlined part.

CNN: Bridge to nowhere abandoned, Sept. 22, 2007 

The $398 million bridge would have connected Ketchikan, on one island in southeastern Alaska, to its airport on another nearby island.

Gov. Sarah Palin said Friday the project was $329 million short of full funding.

"We will continue to look for options for Ketchikan to allow better access to the island," the Republican governor said. "The concentration is not going to be on a $400 million bridge."

Palin directed state transportation officials to find the most "fiscally responsible" alternative for access to the airport. She said the best option would be to upgrade the ferry system.

Which is probably why the road to the bridge is being improved? 

Ketchikan is Alaska's entry port for northbound cruise ships that bring more than 1 million visitors yearly. Every flight into Gravina Island requires a 15-minute ferry ride to reach the more densely populated Revillagigedo Island.

The town -- seven blocks wide and eight miles long -- has little room to grow. Local officials have said access to Gravina Island, population 50, is needed for the town and its economy to grow.

...Under mounting political pressure over pork projects, Congress stripped the earmark -- or stipulation -- that the money be used for the airport, but still sent the money to the state for any use it deemed appropriate.

I think the problem with earmarks is that as a mayor, governor, senator, etc. you are trying to get the most for your constituents at another taxpayer's expense. To cite an example closer to home, it is rather like our school district trying to justify increasing 4K, 5K half day to full day, and non-resident students so their school district budgets will be increased by state aid. The district does not really care that that increase comes at other taxpayers' expense.

Even the Senator from Illinois has requested earmarks. 

"Senator Barack Obama on Thursday released a list of $740 million in earmarked spending requests that he had made over the last three years, and his campaign challenged Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to do the same."

$740 million divided by 3 years = $246 million/year.

I know your original post was about a teleprompter--seems that too may have been a lie (www.politico.com/.../The_teleprompter_did_not_break.html)

Still, you opened the whole topic about content with your final comment about the left being "Sarahfied".  I will not apologize for moving the discussion from form to substance.  On her major point of being an outside reformer, she lied.

If you come to my house for dinner and I offer pie for dessert, if you respond "Thanks, but no thanks" the common interpretation is that you took no pie.  If you sneak in by some back door and take pie, you are a cheat.  If you claim later that you never eat pie, you are a liar. That reflects the simple clear meaning of "Thanks, no thanks."  Palin intentionally misled a national audience, and it wasn't by some slip of the tongue or some memory lapse, but in a highly crafted, well honed, meticulously vetted speech.  She is a liar, and everyone who touched the speech knew better.

On earmarks, the argument is far simpler than you make it.  We don't need to debate whether earmarks are good or bad--John McCain says they are bad, and Palin pretended to agree, while conveniently forgetting that her record as mayor and governor is overrun with earmark excess. For a town of 6000 she hired the first Washington lobbyist ever, former chief of staff for the notorious Ted Stevens.  Still she pretend to be offended by earmarks. For this she is a hypocrite.

Remember, you heard it here first.  Sarah Palin will wilt under scutiny in many ways.  Today she is a plus for McCain, but that won't hold for long.

Kyle's reply: Whether the teleprompter was or was not malfunctioning, or " Perhaps there were moments where it scrolled slightly past her exact point in the speech"  she did a great job. I in no way inferred Thanks, but no thanks was a slip of the tongue or memory lapse!

As for the earmarks and the "Thanks, but no thanks" line, at this point, I would have to say, I don't know enough right now to say she lied. If she did lie, I am very disappointed. It would seem very odd to me, however, that her speech would be approved by the McCain campaign if it were as simple as you state. Since his whole campaign is about fighting earmarks, and this issue is well known, it seems odd that he would open his campaign up to such things. But then, Obama picking a running mate, who criticized Obama for his lack of experience, quipping that the Presidency was not suited to on the job training during the primary and whose son is a Washington lobbyist is a little odd too.

I have not been able to get a clear picture of the time line of events surrounding the Senator's bridge earmark request and the awarding of the monies and what role the governor plays in all of that. Is earmark gathering primarily the function of the Senator or is the Governor involved in selecting the project?

Is the process akin to our stimulus checks? With the legislature arranging the payment and we are to use that check, whether we thought it a good idea or not, to go buy something to stimulate the economy? Our family said in effect, thanks, but no thanks, to blowing it on a big screen TV and put it in the bank. The check was given to me, I hardly was going to refuse it--even though I did not like the idea of a stimulus check in the first place.

I think she mentioned on Friday that the ultimate price tag of the bridge turned out to be far more than the Federal portion supplied, so as governor, she said no to the bridge. Maybe the total bridge cost was not know during her campaign for governor. 

The CNN piece I posted earlier made it seem that the money was released to Alaska to be used as needed. I don't pretend to know how earmark monies are actually delivered.  

I think the media will pick this apart and then maybe we will know more. 

I would agree with Contrarian, it sure appears that her statement of 'Thanks, but no thanks' was a major cover up/lie. Maybe the reason you can't get an adequate timeline on the whole bridge to nowhere funding Kyle, and I know you are good at doing exactly that type of research, is because you are avoiding the truth of the matter. I wonder if there will be an admission of 'disappointment' and that she lied when the investigation leads one to the fact that she did lie and covered up about as well as the current administration has done on multiple issues. The bridge project was supported fully by Mrs. Palin early and often, and they received the full original funded amount from the federal government.  It was after the project went on and the cost projections started going well above the federal government alloted amount, did she finally say no thanks, and kept every cent that was paid for the incomplete project. Also, as a mayor in little Wasilla after her brief stint as sportscaster, she did flourish and brought in more money for that small town than many cities ten times the size from federal government earmarks. She was very busy playing With the big boys in Washington, not fighting them. It seems her tag should be 'Earmarks are us; until today'.

I think the over the top news coverage of her daughter's unwed premarital sex and pregnancy issues flew a bit of cover for her lack of experience in many ways. Her past sheds little light on her as the 'common folk' person she is being made to be the the party. She hopped through three different college/universities to finally receive a Bachelor's degree in journalism, then was Miss Wasilla, then a sportscaster for a short while, then mayor for two terms.  This seems like very very short experience in national/international politics as well as life. I am surprised this hasn't been brought up in the media, i guess there were too many other juices tidbits with the pregnancy, the links to a group that fights for Alaska to cede from the US, the possible inappropriate use of power in firing personnel. The McCain group complains that we should not talk about her past, and they properly 'vetted' her. I guess proper vetting involves seeing her picture as Ms. Wasilla and finding out she is pro-life and they hit their demographic for voters. John McCain Met her Once in person before the choice, and she was 'vetted' one day prior to the choice. I have chatted with some women who consider her choice as a slap in the face and demeaning in how obvious, that they could think the women's vote was so easy to tag. She does get the evangelical pro-life one issue voters, i have chatted with one serious evangelical person who is pretty offended by the choice also. That she was the most qualified GOP female when they needed one, is also pretty disturbing for the GOP.

I cannot wait for the Presidential and VP debates.  Barack Obama is so much more in touch with the middle class and has alot of great solutions and ideas while McCain is selling out the Big Oil more and more. People won't trust McCain and his bipartisan claims, Bush talked about working on both sides of the aisle before his first election, first day in office he built the largest wall right down that aisle, and McCain and the rest of the GOP (Guiliani, Palin, ROmney) all sounded like bitter sophomoric children in their latest speeches and their personal attacks.  Even to the point of literally Laughing at the public service that Barack Obama has done in his past, like public service and community involvement is something to be laughed at, well it is for the entire GOP present at those speeches, sadly astounding! All this while constantly crying about coverage of Palin and her past. Joe Biden is such an intelligent straight talker who knows alot about every issue debated in Washington, especially foreign policy, and he and Barack are both also very Family oriented fathers. Joe Biden will prove himself ready to be president and the other VP candidate will smile nice and say her prepared (by GOP personnel) practiced answer. I wonder how badly the GOP will fight to make sure there are no questions of real substance, and try to insist Fox news in in charge of that one since she is their only star now and will be one heartbeat from the presidency (i don't think I need to remind everyone that McCain would be the oldest president on his first day and does show his age).

Bring on the real issue debates, please!  Not that they change minds much since most everyone but the farthest right agreed the Kerry won on intelligence and statement of purpose in each and every debate over Bush. Anyone (the entire McCain group and GOP) who complains that the media is so based and should not talk about Mrs. Palin and her past and lack of vetting should be reminded of why they call such things "Swiftboating" and who really used lies and half truth  smearing as a strategy to win an election. Certainly not the first time such a thing occurred, but the term has stuck because the GOP and their surrogates perfected it! Correct me if I am wrong here, but I think someone at some point in history mentioned something about 'he/she who has not sinned may cast the first stone'.

Kyle's reply: I really cannot comment on all of this, you are hook, line, and sinker Democrat, and I am a Pro-life, Constitutional Conservative. Our differing world views color our perceptions.

I do take issue with your assumption, however, that the reason I cannot get a time line on the earmark money is because I don't want to. I am not a full time reporter. I am a wife and mother and have family obligations. For heaven sakes, she was only just named a week ago. I was in Cedarburg this morning until 1pm and then had to attend to a family matter. Tonight is another commitment.

As a governor, or mayor for a more local example, what would her constituents think of her if she turned down Federal highway money? What would Brookfield residents think if Mayor Speaker turned down Federal money for widening Greenfield or Calhoun? The taxpayers of Brookfield would be livid.

I would like to hear what really happened with the bridge--the whole scenario. It is just at this moment, I don't have time to look into it. I too look forward to the debates. As for the heartbeat away from the presidency argument, that also works for your side of the ticket. (A thought that terrifies conservatives is that Nancy Pelosi is 2 heartbeats away from the presidency at any moment in time!)

Now if you will excuse me, I have to go frost a birthday cake. :)

P.S. By the way, none of the Bridge to Nowhwere/earmark subject even related to the topic the original blog piece was about. I was just responding to Contrarian's rant.

Can we stay on topic?