The so-called "fact checkers" have generally corroborated the Obama attacks, which have accused Palin of flip-flopping and hypocrisy on the Bridge to Nowhere (a name to which, by the way, most Alaskans take exception), but the fact checkers have fundamentally failed to analyze the situation correctly.
Sarah Palin, by any objective analysis, is misleading the general public by her statement that essentially claims she told Congress, 'thanks, but no thanks' to the Bridge to Nowhere--that if Alaska wanted a bridge, Alaska would build it themselves.
There are truths in that statement, but it's misleading. It implies Congress offered to give her the money for the bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island, and she turned down the Congress. In fact, in the fall of 2005, a Congressional compromise axed the $233M for the bridge, but then gave the Alaskan government the same amount of money to use for the bridge--or other projects. Note this decision was made a year BEFORE Sarah Palin was elected governor. The Alaskan state legislature basically ran through the appropriations for other, more urgent (non-Gravina Island bridge) projects and did not allocate money in the capital budget for the controversial bridge project.
During her gubernatorial campaign, Sarah Palin paid lip service to the Gravina Island bridge project, characterizing it as vital to Ketchikan's economy, disagreeing with the characterization of the bridge by McCain and others, and not wanting to undermine the Alaskan congressional delegation's attempts to secure additional state earmarks. However, Sarah Palin also indicated before the election she would consider alternatives to the bridge (e.g., enhanced ferry service or a downsized bridge). After Palin was elected, she got more detailed cost projections, showing that the project shortfall was about $330M with little chance of getting money from Washington (the original 2003 estimate was $190M). She didn't push for new funding with the legislature; one of Alaska's largest newspapers urged her to scrub the project. After the Minnesota bridge collapsed, John McCain revisited his opposition to the Gravina Island bridge in August 2007, arguing that the federal money would have been better spent on inspecting bridges. Finally, Governor Palin formally killed the bridge project in September 2007. It is true she said that the state would have to rely on its own resources, but that had more to do with political reality.
The Democrats have also attacked Palin's use of earmarks as Wasilla mayor and as governor. In fact, McCain did take exception to some of the mayoral earmarks, but it is disingenuous and hypocritical for Democrats to criticize Palin's use of earmarks in the sense that a mayor or governor will look for funding sources, typically taxes: they're just doing their job. The Congress has to approve the earmark, and the President has to sign it; they bear the responsibility for the issue. If Sarah Palin had been in Congress and pushed through the earmarks, it would be a fair criticism. However, let's note for the record, Governor Murkowski requested 63 earmarks for $350M in fiscal 2007. Governor Palin requested 52 for $256M for fiscal 2008 and 31 for $197M for fiscal 2009--nearly a 50% reduction in two years as she sought to screen earmarks on a needs basis; in fact, it has caused friction with the Alaskan congressional delegation, which believed the smaller number of earmarks and decisions like killing the Gravina Island bridge were undercutting their credibility.
The sheer chutzpah of Obama and Biden by going after Palin on earmarks is staggering. First of all, both Obama and Biden voted FOR funding of the Gravina Island Bridge. When Tom Coburn (remember yesterday's post on whiteboxing recipients of federal money and Obama's co-sponsorship with Coburn and McCain?) suggested taking the Bridge to Nowhere money and using it for Katrina, both Obama and Biden, WHOM HAVE USED KATRINA AS A CAMPAIGN ISSUE, voted no. Why? It's part of the "you-scratch-my-back, I'll-scratch-yours" business as usual (more of the same). Citizens Against Government Waste rated McCain 100% in 2007; Obama got 10% and Biden got 0%. Club for Growth RePork for 2008 rated McCain 100%; Obama got 33% and Biden got 17%.
Talk about election eve conversions! When Obama and Clinton decided this past spring to join McCain on a freeze earmark pledge, people might forget Obama last year won about $100M in earmarks and Clinton about $300M. (McCain refuses to submit an earmark.)
In fact, Obama has requested nearly $1B in earmarks over his 3 years in the Senate and getting him to release his first two years of earmark requests was like pulling teeth. We now know why: among other things, the employer of Obama's wife Michelle got a $1M earmark for a new pavilion. (Around the same time, Michelle got a promotion and salary increase from about $120K to $300K.) As a state legislator and a US Senator, Obama has procured earmarks that have benefited Rezko (a convicted influence peddler), private law clients, firms with employees or board members whom have served as fund raisers, churches and organizations he's been involved with in the past, etc.
In fact, Obama has requested nearly $1B in earmarks over his 3 years in the Senate and getting him to release his first two years of earmark requests was like pulling teeth. We now know why: among other things, the employer of Obama's wife Michelle got a $1M earmark for a new pavilion. (Around the same time, Michelle got a promotion and salary increase from about $120K to $300K.) As a state legislator and a US Senator, Obama has procured earmarks that have benefited Rezko (a convicted influence peddler), private law clients, firms with employees or board members whom have served as fund raisers, churches and organizations he's been involved with in the past, etc.
Obama doesn't consider the advocates he deals with as lobbyists; his lobbyists are more equal than others. Likewise, he considers his earmarks more equal than other earmarks. He refuses to take public financing because he can outraise McCain but explains his pledge flip-flop by saying his donors are different from those intended by the law, i.e., my donors are more equal than McCain's donors. It's a form of political narcissism.
The sheer audacity to imply that McCain campaign is being run by Big Business lobbyists when McCain has routinely and tirelessly promoted political reforms!
But just using my own experience: I've worked as a consultant for companies with an affiliated accounting practice, and I had to painstakingly identify any stock holdings of any customer, if a spouse, sibling or parent had a working or other relationship, etc. Anything that could be considered a potential conflict of interest had, at minimum, to be reported or even liquidated--even if I really didn't have anything to do with the financial statements or the audit function. It's incredible to me there isn't a professional code of ethics for our politicians, but if there was, Obama has violated them.
Obama is not the post-partisan politician he has made himself out to be; he wasn't part of the Gang of 14, which defused partisan divisions over judicial nomination, and he voted for killer amendments to the 2007 immigration bill. We have seen someone whom claims to be a reformer, but changes his mind about public financing and requests hundreds of millions of earmarks. He worked with, not reformed the Chicago political machine. He worked with, not reformed the earmark process. He routinely makes politically expedience changes to pander to moderates and independents, e.g., claiming to have been pro-gun rights over all, criticizing (despite being against a death penalty) a Supreme Court decision putting aside death as a penalty for child sex abuse, changing his mind on protecting telecommunication firms cooperating with the government on calls from the US to known terrorists, etc.
But also: even if Sarah Palin's sound bites regarding the Bridge to Nowhere are not quite true, what we should focus on is her judgment on knowing when to pull the plug on a project, even if she was earlier for it, in order to save the state's taxpayers money and seek a less costly alternative. She also vetoed almost $270M in spending from the legislature.
