When her nomination was announced Aug. 29, Palin declared that she had "told Congress 'thanks, but no thanks' on that Bridge to Nowhere" -- a reference to the nearly $400 million appropriation for a bridge project to connect an island of 50 people to the mainland in Alaska, which became the focus of national ridicule and prompted a renewed congressional soul-searching about the propriety of earmarks. But, in fact, Palin supported the project as a candidate for governor and only turned against it after she took office, by which point it was no longer politically viable.
In addition, Palin sought millions of dollars worth of federal earmarks when she was mayor of Wasilla, and had that city of 7,000 hire a lobbyist to go after the federal funds, and as recently as this February requested almost $200 million worth of new funding for Alaska projects, according to The Washington Post.
Republican lawmakers asserted that Palin, like so many other Republicans in public office, had seen the flaws in the earmark process and come around to supporting a moratorium -- a policy change that several dubbed courageous.
"All of us here, I think, would consider ourselves recovering earmarkers," said Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the chief deputy GOP whip in the House.
The Republican lawmakers pointed out that the 2008 GOP platform, which delegates adopted Monday, called for "an immediate moratorium on the earmarking system" until the appropriations process could be reformed "through full transparency."
"In picking Gov. Palin, Sen. McCain has said he is going to take on the Washington establishment," said Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina. "He is going to fight the status quo whether it be in the Republican Party or in the Democratic Party."
But Democrats slammed Palin as a slick politician and questioned McCain's judgement in picking someone who had so short a public resume.
"You can praise her as someone who played the inside Washington game well, but you cannot present her as someone who is a reformer on earmarks," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the chairman of the party's House campaign operation, who's in St. Paul this week to offer the party's spin on the convention. "The facts just tell a different story . . . What we're seeing here is the consequences of a rush to judgement and a rash decision by John McCain. I think it tells you an awful lot about the way he makes decisions on the fly."
I have to wonder how does one go from supporting ridiculous earmarks for your state in February to being a 'pork barrelers nightmare' in August.
Asking for earmarks is one of the main ways in which small towns get funding. If she hadn't asked for earmarks when she was mayor, she wouldn't have been doing her job.
Now, she's in a position where her job description doesn't include asking for earmarks. It's perfectly normal to expect that her position on the issue would change.
A defense attorney might think a criminal is guilty as sin, but they're bound to provide them the best representation that they can, however they can. If that attorney later becomes a judge and cracks down on procedural maneuvering by defense attorneys that is designed to slow down the docket, is that person suddenly a hypocrite?
She said she opposed the bridge to nowhere BEFORE she became VP pick.
In other words it's okay for her to support earmarks and then oppose them.
English?
She said she opposed the bridge to nowhere BEFORE she became VP pick.
In other words it's okay for her to support earmarks and then oppose them.
English?
Lobbying for federal money that is wasted on so few people is not doing her Job
She took money that should have gone to other states, and now she should have to answer to those states.
If you want to be vice president of the U.S., enriching your town at the expense of the nation is unacceptable.
How do you define "wasted?"
What makes you the arbiter of where things should go?
Don't you think...Congress is in charge of that?
How do you determine what "should" have gone elsewhere?
I don't think she was planning on running for VP when she was the mayor of Wasilla. That's part of her appeal.
15 million dollars was spent to connect a town of 2000 to a town of 6700. Thats 1700 dollars per person. You would be better off buying used cars for every family in the town to drive and giving them money for gas.
This is a political debate forum. We debate our views on politics. My view is that this money should have gone to pay down the deficit, not wasted to build a nearly useless train.
They are, but they do a terrible job of managing money. Palin shouldn't have ask for the money and congress should not have authorized it. Both are at fault.
Paying the 15 million now towards the deficit means we don't have to pay the 15 million plus interest in the future. Thats a better use of the money than a train for a tiny number of people.
Thats nice, but her actions involved her hurting the nation. Thats bad for someone who might end up leading it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?