Oversimplification & misleading information is rampant on both sides. As we all know this is typical during elections.
Sarah Palin has been taken to task for flip-flopping and taking the money anyway and using it for undisclosed other things. The implications suggest corruption and her being part of the problem. Saying she eventually nixed the project only after Congress removed the earmark paints a picture that it Palin's burning desire to see this bridge completed at all costs and only gave in due to beltway pressure.
The facts concerning the bridge to nowhere: Alaska's government officials for over 10 years had been telling their constituents that the bridge was neccessary. Due to the propaganda push, the majority of the people of Alaska, not just Palin, trusted that their representatives were correct. With so much pressure, as a govenitorial candidate, running against it would have been political suicide. In 2003, the price tag for the two bridges was $130 million. By early 2005 it had jumped to $230 million. By November 2005 Stevens was estimating $350 Million. One of the first things Palin did when she took office in 2006 was to set a commission to review the 2 bridges. Before the end of the same month, the commission reported back that to finish the projects would require well over $400 million. Meanwhile, with DOT resources being diverted towards this boondoggle, the rest of Alaska's road infrastructure was in sorry state. It was December 2006, during her first month of office, not 2007 that she notified Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks." and worked out a compromise where the funds would be used towards alternate solutions and towards fixing Alaskas roads. Investigations also uncovered illegal activity with the road project that resulted in indictments against several individuals. The earmark's strongest proponent Senator Stevens who was asked to resign for corruption. Even then, the bridge project and all investments to date are not being thrown away as a dead issue, Sarah merely informed Congress that enough was enough, Those bridges would no longer be considered for earmarks in her administration and if Alaska want's those two bridges built, Alaska will pay to build them.
By the way, "Helping to push through a bill" is NOT synonimous to actually doing the 'grunt work' and research needed to successfully "Author a bill." The point I take away is there is a difference between "establishing policy", something a president needs to know something about to run an effective administration, and "jumping onto a political bandwagon". Which any hack politician can do.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next Page »
GOP Convention Spin, Part II
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Her tax remarks still cry out for context. Obama proposes to cut taxes for most individuals (81.3 percent of all households would get a tax cut), while raising them only for a relative few at the top, which she did not mention. But she avoided the false claims that McCain continues to make, most recently in a TV ad that wrongly accuses Obama of planning "painful tax increases on working American families." Instead, Palin spoke of the effect of an overall tax increase on jobs and the economy.
It's quite true that Obama's plan would increase taxes overall, by a total of $627 billion over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Economists may debate how large or small an effect such an increase would have on jobs and businesses; it's certainly a topic open for discussion in a political campaign.
Riffing Wrongly
In attacking Obama, Palin reeled off a few statements that had a nice cadence, but were light on facts.
Palin: America needs more energy; our opponent is against producing it. Victory in Iraq is finally in sight, and he wants to forfeit. Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay; he wants to meet them without preconditions. Al Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights.
We have factual problems with three of these statements.
Obama's not against producing more energy. In fact, he's not even against drilling for oil any more, within limits. He has a $150 billion clean energy program and says that he wants to develop clean coal technology, advance the next generation of biofuels, prioritize construction of the Alaska gas pipeline (surely a measure Palin agrees with) and take a host of other steps to both conserve energy and produce it, in various forms.
If Obama's comments about meeting with "terrorist states" are worthy of ridicule, then perhaps so are those of the Bush administration and other Republicans. Obama made his first statement on this in an answer to a video question at a Democratic debate last year, when he said "I would" when asked whether he'd meet "separately, without precondition" in his first year with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Reagan, JFK and other presidents had spoken to the Soviet Union regularly, he noted.
In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in June, Obama elaborated, saying that he would take an aggressive diplomatic approach—carefully preparing for such meetings, setting a clear agenda, coordinating with U.S. allies, and not conducting the meetings at all unless they were clearly in the U.S. interest. He also stressed he would "do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
In recent months, the Bush Administration has been more open to beginning a dialogue with the same nations that it once referred to as the "axis of evil." In July, the president sent a high-level official to Geneva to sit in on nuclear talks with Iran and authorized Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to speak with North Korean diplomats about ending that country's nuclear weapons program. Reports in the Washington Post and the New York Times noted the stark contrast between the administration's current position about meeting with "foes" and its attitude several years ago.
Further, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in May that we should "sit down and talk" with Iran. So did former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in March. As did Sen. Dick Lugar, then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as far back as 2006.
Obama isn't worried, as Palin said, "that someone won't read them their rights" when it comes to suspected terrorists who are detained by the U.S. He does, however, support the right of detainees to challenge their imprisonment in federal court. That's the same position the Supreme Court took in June in a case called Boumediene v. Bush.
Cookin' with Gas
Palin talked about standing up to oil companies and oil lobbyists, citing her work on getting a gas pipeline built in Alaska:
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next Page »











Discuss