A Useful Timeline on Palin's Big Lie

I know that a lot has been posted on Palin's bridge to nowhere lie. But I still see many people here underestimating what a huge lie it is. It's also a lie that is resonating with independents. So here's my last attempt to provide something useful on the lie. For more details see my source: www.dailyhowler.com.

November, 2005: Having taken a lot of heat on the bridge to nowhere earmark, Congress votes to eliminate the earmark. Notice the date. This was 13 months before Palin took over as governor of Alaska. As reported by the New York Times on November 17, 2005:

CARL HULSE (11/17/05): "Straining to show new dedication to lower spending, House and Senate negotiators took the rare step of eliminating a requirement that $442 million be spent to build the two bridges, spans that became cemented in the national consciousness as ''bridges to nowhere'' because of the remote territory and small populations involved.
The change will not save the federal government any money. Instead, the $442 million will be turned over to the state with no strings attached, allowing lawmakers and the governor there to parcel it out for transportation projects as they see fit, including the bridges should they so choose."

December, 2006: Palin takes office as governor of Alaska, unable to say no thanks to the bridge to nowhere earmark, because that earmark hadn’t existed for over a year. Alaska spent the $442 million in transportation funds; so she didn’t say no thanks to that either.

September, 2007: Palin explains her decision to kill Alaska’s plan to build the bridge in a press release:

PALIN (9/21/07): "Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer. Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

Palin killed the plan because “it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on” it, she said. Notice what this means: Palin wasn’t telling the Congress “no thanks on that bridge.” Congress was telling her and her congressional delegation that it would not fund the bridge!

August and September, 2008: Palin pretends that she stood up to Congress and refused its offer to waste federal funds on a bridge to nowhere. Voters respond positively to her self-congratulatory B.S.

PALIN (8/29/08): "I've championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress thanks, but no thanks on that Bridge to Nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, I said, we'd build it ourselves."

of real duzies!

As you rightly pointed out in another post, focusing on unsubstantiated reports of racism (not to mention pregnant daughters) is counterproductive.

a rePiglican, so that's redundant.