TheGamer wrote:Here's an article that claims Palin actually wanted Congressional funding for the so-called Bridge to Nowhere. On the surface it appears she is being less than forthright when she says she didn't want the funding, but I'll let you guys dissect the article for yourselves.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/30/pal ... e-bridges/
That is indeed what the article says, but I think a judicious reading of the original source material is not nearly as damning as the blog entry makes it out to be.
http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:RL3 ... =firefox-a
September 21, 2007, Juneau, Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin today directed the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to look for the most fiscally responsible alternative for access to the Ketchikan airport and Gravina Island instead of proceeding any further with the proposed $398 million bridge.
“Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer,” said Governor Palin. “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,” Governor Palin added. “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.”
Just as she claimed, she is the one who officially killed the project by instructing the DoT to find alternatives rather than pursuing further Federal funding. And this was done despite the fact that Stevens and his henchmen, as well as the local residents were trying to convince her to keep the project alive.
Moreover, her first budget did not allocate any funds for the project. Essentially she saw it as a dead end from the beginning of her administration.
Now her rhetoric at the time is far less strident than it is now, but that is understandably so. I suppose that she could have literally told Washington that she was glad that they hadn't made the appropriation. But realistically speaking no governor is going to stand up in front of her constitutents and say, "Huzzah! We're not getting a $300m bit of infrastructure. Suck it, Ketchican."
Pro-Obama (Probama?) blogs and columnists are also trying to criticize her for being hypocritical because Alaska received more pork $ than any other state. This is not a credible criticism. She greatly reformed the method for and the number of earmarks for her state, an action which very few governors have the political will or capital to do.
Here are some more articles that demonstrate the reality of the bridge situation as well as the Palin administration's position with respect to earmarks in general. I think the latter can legitimately be described as a reform position, particularly given the polical culture of AK:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/031 ... 3362.shtml
