But come on. This is just a lie.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Yeah, I think most major news organizations have called them on this BS. The earmark stuff is pretty disingenuous as well.
And man, her accent is really friggin annoying.
Obligatory Orwell quote: "The most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome."
It's really galling that she keeps it up. It reminds me of Hillary and Tuzla. How long did Hillary keep telling that story, even after Sinbad was out denouncing it? Everyone is out there, pointing out that this is a baldfaced lie, and she keeps saying it. Is she baiting the press to go after her so that she can cry sexism/elitism?
I'm taking bets...she will keep repeating it up until the Gibson interview. Then she will claim to have never said it.
And she will be believed by more people than not.
Telling a woman politician that she can't lie is incredibly sexist. Who are you to tell a woman what she can and can't do?
Why the disclaimer? There's nothing wrong with pointing out bald-faced lies on the campaign trail, especially when they go to the very heart of the narrative a candidate is trying to tell about their record and qualifications for office. This needs to make the jump from the blogs, op-eds, and A-15s to the front page.
Just a quick question:
If Palin did not kill the Bridge to Nowhere, who did? Just asking...
Look, yeah she supported it, and then she opposed it. It's called changing your mind or; evaluating the options and making an informed decision (nuanced version). She was for it, and then she was against it. John Kerry Style. Only the choice she ultimately decided upon was the right one.
Also, let's play a game of who decided to vote FOR the BTNW:
Biden
Obama
They probably shouldn't be going after Palin on this one. They might get asked what they would do in the same position. Were they to say they would opposed, they'd be attacking Palin for something THEY AGREE WITH.
To make the narrative stick with journalists, we need to have some prominent Democrats use incendiary language. They need to start calling her a "pathological liar" and they need to keep repeating it every time they appear on TV.
You don't just describe her behavior. You use the behavior to describe her character.
Palin claiming she said "thanks, but no thanks" is a lie of omission and only the most partisan reading of the facts (i.e. a sub-conscious rejection of the inaccuracy as an inaccuracy) avoids calling it what it is.
Please allow me to reproduce, below, the narrative the McCain campaign is gunning for.
The Media of 2008 (a tragicomedy in one act):
Candidate: "I hereby declare X!"
Press Corps: "This is objectively false."
C: "I reiterate X! X, I say! X!"
P.C.: "This continues to be false."
C: "The liberal elite cosmopolitan whiny uppity media attack me for saying X! But I believe in X, my friends!"
Crowd: "X! X! X! Down with the communist terrorist media!"
P.C.: "We loathe being disliked. We will now shut up about X."
Candidate's Supporter: "Didn't you know? X will save the country!"
Reasonable Person: "But X is, in fact, false and, if believed, may very well lead our nation to ruin."
C.S.: "You're just brainwashed by the lying liberals! X! X! X!"
R.P.: (kills self)
PG writes: "Just a quick question:
If Palin did not kill the Bridge to Nowhere, who did? Just asking...
Look, yeah she supported it, and then she opposed it. It's called changing your mind or; evaluating the options and making an informed decision (nuanced version). She was for it, and then she was against it. John Kerry Style. Only the choice she ultimately decided upon was the right one."
Oh, please, you're as disingenuous as Palin herself is. She "killed it" once it had become obvious to one and all that it was dead in the water (or over the water, as the case may be).
She was an earmark-hungry Alaskan pimp and now she's running like a public-tit virgin? It's beyond bizarre.
She's a born liar and she needs to be called one loudly and often.
Right. The problem with Kerry (as the voters saw it) wasn't that he flip-flopped. It was that he was a flip-flopper.
The problem with Palin isn't that she tells lies. Its that she is a liar. Its what it says about her character.
Hey, if she was for it and then against it and didn't take the money, fine. But she said "thanks, but no thanks" and keep the cash. What kind of maverick is that???
C'mon, PG. (And apologies to all others if I'm responding to a troll.)
I'm willing to give Palin some credit where you have. She evaluated options and made an informed decision --- after she'd lost the earmark she was counting on.
When the earmark was coming, she said, "Thanks" --- not "No thanks."
Her public comments last year, after she'd "changed her mind," were fairly sensible.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/08/29/did-palin-really-fight-the-bridge-to-nowhere.aspx
But they aren't close in letter or spirit to what's she saying now.
And no, let's not play hypothetical games.
MoeLarryAndJesus,
I'm sorry, she "killed it once it had become obvious to one and all that it was dead in the water"? So you mean it was dead in the water after it was approved by the house and senate and funding was given to Alaska to go ahead with it? How exactly is that "dead in the water".
Her wording is unfortunate and she should drop the "thanks but no thanks" line because is dishonest. But at some point Obama and Biden, as a matter of politics, are going to have to drop this issue because THEY VOTED FOR THE GOD DAMN BILL!!!
At some point, and it will happen, some reporter is going to ask Obama what he would have done. At that point he'll have to say he would have built the bridge, which would be a really really stupid idea, or he'll have to say he would have killed it. He cannot honestly say he would never support it in the first place since he voted for it. So once he says he would have killed it, he will look ridiculous to attacking Palin for doing EXACTLY WHAT HE WOULD HAVE DONE.
As for your "earmark hungry alaskan pimp" line, sorry it just doesn't square with the facts. She went after earmarks, every mayor and governor in America does, it's how you get money from the fed for your state. But she reduced the earmarks from her predecessors dramatically. Again, how do you account for that?
So in summation:
Her line about BTNW? dishonest, but that doesn't take away from the fact the she killed the project.
How much can Obama use it against her? not that much.
How should the media use it? it's played out, time to move on, focusing on it any longer will only hurt Obama.
Your credibility? In tatters.
Here's a direct quote from Palin in regretfully announcing that the money for the bridge would be re-directed for other projects because Congress wouldn't give Alaska enough money:
"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," she said. "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."
http://www.dot.state.ak.us/comm/pressbox/arch_2007/PR_0921_GravinaAccessProjRed.pdf
PG,
The lie is not she stopped the bridge, but that she claims to have told congress "thanks, but no thanks." She did not tell Congress anything, she had no say in the matter.
She wants voters to think she took a principled stance against the bridge, she did not.
PG, take a break from your role as Obama's strategist. Re-read Ta-Nehisi's short note above the video, then your comment at 4:09 p.m.
The beef is with a candidate who continues to tell a bald-faced lie (make a "dishonest" statement, to use your word) despite the evidence to the contrary having been exposed.
PG,
The issue is not the bridge, it's the MONEY. She TOOK the MONEY. Yes, she didn't use it to build the bridge, great, but she didn't return the money. Some maverick. Some reformer.
As for the matter of the votes, you DO REALIZE that McCain didn't vote NO on the bill, right? He didn't vote at all. Further, he actually did vote for the bill containing the $3M bear DNA study.
Hypocrisy, much?
Only the choice she ultimately decided upon was the right one.
Right, that was the "go on, take the money and run" option.
Shorter PG - Palin can lie about the bridge because Obama and Biden voted for it (which when voted on was part of comprehensive transportation bill).
PG, here's how it looks to me: Palin wanted Federal money for her constituency. Period. If Stevens and Young had told her that they wanted to earmark funding for the Fairbanks Memorial 30' High Concrete Cube and could get Federal tax money for it, she would have supported that. She was interested in bringing home the bacon, and probably in the votes it would win her.
When the BTN was viable, she supported the BTN. When it fell apart in DC, she had no more interest in it, since it had nothing to do with getting more money from DC. Here's Palin's statement, after the project died, quoted on the Governor's official website (and quoted in the TNR blog linked above):
Is there even a shred of evidence that she ever thought the BTN was a boondoggle? Here she's just saying, "It's a fine project, but Washington won't fund it, so let's get their money for something else."
So: she campaigned for Governor in favor of the BTN, she fought for Federal money to fund the BTN, and she cooperated with rotten, corrupt Alaska political establishment to get the BTN built.
She didn't want to reform Alaska politics. She wanted her own place at the trough. She's a liar.
PG=Troll. Please stop feeding.
What Obama needs to do is take these exact quotes and splice them next to her statements from her campaign for governor that she supported the bridge.
or better yet, splice some mccain statements about how she was against the bridge--while she was campaigning as a reformer--but then that she actually sought to build it.
YOUTUBE CAN SAVE US--GET GOING PEOPLE!
Hang on -- Obama and Biden voted for the bridge to nowhere? Seriously?
The McCain-Palin campaign is being dishonest?
I'm shocked! Shocked, I say.
After seeing Hillary's story about bullets flying turn into a major negative, I am surprised they keep on keeping on with this lame story.
Going past the substance, I find the way she says "thanks, but no thanks" to be particularly grating to the ears.
The "Bridge to Nowhere" lie has been adequately debunked, including in today's WSJ of all places.
What I really love is the buried within that clip is the 1 billion in earmarks issue. Of course, I guess I shouldn't nit pick the $230 million rounding from $770 million up to a cool billion, even though that rounding error is worth about 1/2 of the cost of the Bridge to Nowhere earmark itself. Nor for lumping up all of Obama's years in the senate into one number, including this year's staggering request of $0. Nor that of the total request, Congress passed only $220 million of it (again less than the $398 million for the bridge). Nor that that works out to be about $25 per Illinois resident vs. the $298 that Alaska gets in earmarks.
NYT
I'm with sgew except that I think the reasonable person's response will be more along the lines of "Pout, gnash teeth, comment on blogs about moving to Canada."
If everyone had voted against the bill (I believe a highway and infrastructure repair bill) that had the bridge to nowhere, it would have failed but we would also be lacking money for repairing bridges. (See Minnesota.) That's how earmarks work--you put a few million into a popular, must-pass bill, no one has a line item veto*, and the bill passes. McCain to his credit has opposed earmarks and asked for none; Obama to his credit has worked to make the earmark process more transparent and less subject to abuse.
Speaking of earmarks, McCain has been saying that Palin opposed earmarks (she asked for hundreds of millions in the last year) and when challenged insisted that he was telling the truth. They are maverick reformers who turned down earmarks and killed the bridge to nowhere, and they'll keep repeating that no matter how many times page 23E notes that they're baldly lying, again.
*Michigan at one point evidently had a parts-of-words item veto which the governor could use to randomly strike out parts of a long bit of popular legislation to send different amounts of money to completely different programs. So I'm less enamored of this idea than it sounds on the surface....politics is about compromise and agreeing to tolerate A if B is included is at the heart of earmarkless bills, as well.
Fred,
Since you apparently didn't read the rest of the thread: Bridges aren't individual bills. They're wrapped with 500 other such projects in massive transportation bills. Which specific projects make it into the (almost always passed) bill are determined by who the best lobbyists are. Namely, people in Alaska for one.
But at some point Obama and Biden, as a matter of politics, are going to have to drop this issue because THEY VOTED FOR THE GOD DAMN BILL!!!
You win the award for deliberate obtuseness today. Aside from the fact that what you are saying distorts the actual voting record, you are missing the point entirely. No one cares about the Bridge. The Bridge is not the point. The point, which ought to be obvious to all sentient beings, is that McCain/Palin are making an argument for their candidacy based upon a bald-faced lie about her record.
Look, I have no idea whether the bridge is a good idea and in my estimation, the whole issue of earmarks is an incredibly stupid red herring. In the larger context of the Federal budget, earmarks are a pittance and they go to fund many things that most people would consider worthy expenditures. McCain wants to shine us all on that he is a change agent because he has a hard on for cutting earmarks but the truth is that he has little intention of instituting any real change. This is a bad confidence game and his whole line about earmarks is a classic misdirection.
But even that is really only peripheral to the main point of this debate. The real issue is that when you explicitly make the argument that you are a reformer based upon your opposition to earmarks in general and this particular earmark in particular, the fact that that is demonstrably not true ought to count against you. Among people who actually care about honesty from public officials, it does. The relative merits of the Bridge and whether or not Obama voted for it are completely immaterial. He is not the one arguing that he is a reformer/change agent because he rejected earmarks. She is and she is doing so based upon a deliberate lie.
PG writes: "I'm sorry, she "killed it once it had become obvious to one and all that it was dead in the water"? So you mean it was dead in the water after it was approved by the house and senate and funding was given to Alaska to go ahead with it? How exactly is that "dead in the water".
Her wording is unfortunate and she should drop the "thanks but no thanks" line because is dishonest. But at some point Obama and Biden, as a matter of politics, are going to have to drop this issue because THEY VOTED FOR THE GOD DAMN BILL!!!"
They're not making the elimination of earmarks a centerpiece of their campaign, chuckles, but Palin and McCain ARE. I realize wingnuts can't see hypocrisy, but for Palin - a HUGE devotee of earmarks for Alaska even apart from the Bridge to Nowhere - to now pretend she was the COMPLETE OPPOSITE is a GOD DAMN LIE and a COMPLETE JOKE.
That you're swallowing her nonsense is beyond pathetic.
By the way, I regard the whole argument that all earmarks are bad as purely stupid. Some of them are, some of them aren't.
She lies so well. But you see the strategy here. Obama's been baited not only into a conversation about earmarks, but also baited into implying that they're a bad thing. Any time he says they're not telling the truth about her earmark record, it suggests (perhaps not in a rigorously logical sense) to the average voter that Obama thinks earmarks are bad, because after all, isn't he saying that Palin's record on the issue is worse than it actually is? And then the rejoinder is that if we go to the top of the ticket, which after all is what matters most, Obama's requested tons of earmarks and McCain's never requested any. Really, the wiser move would be to argue that earmarks aren't so bad. What's wrong with bridges, rec centers, museums, etc.? More importantly, it's absurd folly to act like cutting earmarks will make any real difference to our fiscal situation. But Obama's conceding the point to attack her honesty, and his concession of the point can only rebound disastrously on himself.
Come on, this was simply a clerical error. She says "Thanks, but no thanks" yet what she means is that she said "Thanks, then no thanks"
Is anyone recording her speeches at rallies? It seems like she is saying the exact same thing, word for word every single time. Is this beyond crazy?
If the designation for the BTN funds was stripped from the bill by congress, then Biden's and Obama's votes for or against that bill say absolutely nothing about their approval or disapproval of that project. Congress killed the designation after a "national furor," the senate then voted on the bill, and then Palin had to accept the result and make do with getting all that pork (and more) for other projects. Not only did Obama and Biden not "vote for" any specific part of a massive bill, but the bill they voted on DIDN'T have that designation b/c congress stripped it.
Meanwhile, Palin's role in killing the project was technical and ceremonial. If you think she killed the project, then you probably also think that the helmsman of the U.S.S. Missouri defeated Japan in WWII.
Any time he says they're not telling the truth about her earmark record, it suggests (perhaps not in a rigorously logical sense) to the average voter that Obama thinks earmarks are bad, because after all, isn't he saying that Palin's record on the issue is worse than it actually is?
I don't see how voters makes that leap, "in a rigorously logical sense" or not but if it plays out that way, I am sure Obama can defend the worthiness of his earmarks. Palin cannot because she has already argued extensively and repeatedly that the earmarks she actually supported are not defensible.
Really, the wiser move would be to argue that earmarks aren't so bad. What's wrong with bridges, rec centers, museums, etc.?
Why would he bother arguing this? McCain is the one who wants to make this a debate about the value of earmarks not Obama. Why would Obama help him do that? More importantly, how does defending the value of earmarks work out to be a more effective argument than accusing your opponents of lying, especially when you have them dead to right?
If John McCain says he did, then I believe it. Sen. McCain, after all, was there and I was not.
Keep repeating the lie and people will start believing it.
What I don't understand is how they plan to "Reform" the earmark process from the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Earth to Palin: There is no Line-Item Veto in the Federal Government. McCain has had 26 years to reform earmarks, including GOP control of the Senate from 2000 to 2006 and was unable to do it. The GOP, in its current incarnation, has no intention of ending its profligate spending. Their intent is to push the federal budget towards crisis so that discretionary spending and eventually programs like Medicare and Social Security will face the chopping block in order to pay off the massive accumulation of interest on the debt.
Meanwhile, a Carlyle Group Executive gets his hands on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Brilliant.
Adam,
You have essentially said that the bridge to nowhere was an earmark on a larger bill. I was aware of that. My question was, did Biden and Obama seriously vote for the bill that contained that earmark? I suppose the answer is yes. In which case, they aren't in any position to criticize the earmark itself.
Maybe not, Fred, but they are certainly in a postition to point out when someone is lying. Especially if the media is not going to do it. Actually, though, they should definitely be having a surrogate pointing out every time Palin lies. Obama doesn't need to do it himself.
Fred writes: "I suppose the answer is yes. In which case, they aren't in any position to criticize the earmark itself. "
They don't have to, since it's not the issue here. The issue is that Palin lies as naturally and as easily as she salivates.
I suppose the answer is yes. In which case, they aren't in any position to criticize the earmark itself.
Whether or not they are in any position to do so is debatable but also not relevant. They haven't done so, so your point is moot.
Is anyone recording her speeches at rallies? It seems like she is saying the exact same thing, word for word every single time. Is this beyond crazy?
Actually it's pretty smart if she doesn't know much about national and international issues. Just stick to the script; ad-libbing only brings trouble. She's already 0-for-1 on off-the-cuff responses to big issues (Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae). If I were running the capaign, I'd also tell her to just read the teleprompter.
Ta-Nehisi,
I was kind of hoping that you would show how Palin's remark that Obama had requested $1 billion in earmarks over three years was a lie.
*sigh*
I have a feeling that come Spring, when Obama assumes the Presidency, my fiscal conservative sensibilities are going to have an acute case of buyer's remorse.
They are not in it to tell the the truth, rather they want to get these talking points out to the masses ( the low information individuals ) because they know that most of them will believe what they say and not follow up on the subjects. The media, in my opinion is playing to this very subject as a debatable issue and not what it really is, a big fat lie.
With the exception of MSNBC the rest of the networks are cowering to the McCain campaigns attempts to blame the media for their own lack of vetting and research into Palin past.
Something has got to give and I believe that the debates will begin to change the tide back towards Obama, but his campaign has got to get on top of this and act swiftly. They have already begun but their ads so far have been lacking the "red meat" that is necessary to draw blood from the republicans.
I'm so tired of the Republicans lying with impunity and getting away with it.
The differences between their words and their actions get a little wider each cycle and they continue to get away with it.
Now, suddenly, the GOP is the "agent of change" in word, but their deeds over the past 8 years show differently.
I'm sick of it.
Why would he bother arguing this? McCain is the one who wants to make this a debate about the value of earmarks not Obama. Why would Obama help him do that? More importantly, how does defending the value of earmarks work out to be a more effective argument than accusing your opponents of lying, especially when you have them dead to right?
So here's how I see it. McCain says that earmarks are bad and he'll stop them, whereas his opponent has requested many. He succeeds in negatively branding earmarks and in associating his opponent with earmarks. So he's winning the earmark argument, always has been, but not many voters are going to base their vote on earmarks. So it's a small win. Obama's response is to say that McCain's running mate has, in fact, requested a lot of earmarks and has lied about it. Now, voters aren't crazy about lies, but they tolerate them - look at Bill Clinton. And where does this put the earmark debate? McCain says, yes, my running mate requested lots of earmarks once, but she's learned better (a claim which can't be disproven), and I'm going to be the President in this administration; I'm the guy with veto power, so it really doesn't matter so much what she's done. My opponent, on the other hand, has burdened you, the taxpayer, with a billion dollars of wasteful spending. That clearly trumps what Palin's done. Now, he's gotten Obama to engage in this earmark debate, thereby making the issue a much bigger one than it previously was, and to tacitly admit that earmarks are a bad thing - otherwise, why would he be attacking his opponents for requesting them? Obama would be wiser to
1) say nothing about earmarks at all - that way the issue, one which he can't help but lose, isn't brought to the fore, or
2) attack the claim that earmarks are bad after all. Go campaign in front of hospitals that were earmarks. Accuse McCain's proposed spending cuts of callousness. Say McCain would deprive us of childrens' hospitals. Now McCain's on the defensive, and the whole debate is at best a wash for McCain.
Please keep it up! It's clear that Rick Davis and the McCain campaign are wholly uninterested in reality and will continue to spout these lies, or as Obama put it "recreations," ad nauseum. IT IS UP TO THE MEDIA TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT AND KEEP THEM IN CHECK. I know you guys at The Atlantic are doing great work, I just hope our colleagues at other publications and TV news outlets will step up to their responsibilities. TV news coverage of this election in particular has been mostly miserable and terribly lacking thus far.
There are at least 3 lies here:
1
She definitely lied about saying 'No Thanks'. 'No Thanks' means you don't take the money.
2
She keeps saying she stood up to the Old Boy Network. But, her support during the gubernatorial election for the bridge she stresses that the work of the congressional delegation, Stevens and Young, should not be opposed. Stevens and Young are the Old Boy Network in Alaska. She was afraid to oppose their efforts.
3
The people of Ketchikan feel like she just supported it to get their votes. She didn't even tell them that she was not going to put the bridge in the budget. Yet, she sent a press release about cutting the bridge the day before she went on Charlie Rose.
Normally I think accusing people of lying is a bad idea. But, in this case, its important because Sarah Palin is great at lying, telling people what they want to hear, and playing politics. She is worse than GWB. She is truly a tyrant. Her attitude is: regardless of the rules or the laws, if you don't do what I say, you're fired. I'll get someone who will do it and do whatever it takes to cover it up later. Look how she has used her Attorney General in Troopergate and the head of the Alaska National Guard.
TAKE NOTE: She is dangerous. She has no respect for the Constitution. NONE!
So it's a small win. Obama's response is to say that McCain's running mate has, in fact, requested a lot of earmarks and has lied about it.
Again, Obama is not arguing about earmarks or framing the argument in that way. Obama is not responding to McCain's argument that earmarks are bad. He is responding to McCain's counterfactual claims. He claims X when the reality is in fact not X.
Now you somehow believe that that will become an argument about earmarks but I see no reason to believe that at all. I am well aware that nuance doesn't play well in American politics but this is not an especially complex issue. McCain wants to claim the mantle as a reformer and as part of that claim he is relying on a particular egregious lie about the record of his running mate. The relative merits of earmarks are completely immaterial to that context and I honestly cannot see why it would be at all difficult to make that point to anyone a basic grasp of english.
Now, voters aren't crazy about lies, but they tolerate them - look at Bill Clinton.
If you really want to make the argument that voters care more about budget allocations than they do about being openly lied to than I hope you are advising the McCain campaign. Lying hurt Clinton badly in his personal favorability ratings and if he had been running for election at the time, it certainly would have been a disaster for him.
Context matters and the public does not respond well to the idea that a candidate running for office is a shameless liar - look at Al Gore or rather look at the way he was caricatured by the press.
My opponent, on the other hand, has burdened you, the taxpayer, with a billion dollars of wasteful spending. That clearly trumps what Palin's done.
This would, of course, be another lie. I realize that they have already been repeating this lie in their daily stump speeches hoping that they won't get called on it often enough to penetrate the public consciousness. (I know he has already been corrected on this complete fabrication at least once by the WSJ.) Well, we'll see but I feel confident that if it becomes a consistent part of the narrative that McCain is knowingly lying about Palin's record that is going to have a hell of a lot more legs than the various proprieties of budget allocations.
Then remind yourself that whereas Obama's proposals would boost the deficit by $3.5 trillion, McCain’s plans would increase the deficit by $5 trillion.
That should help your conservative sensibilities.
I have a feeling that come Spring, when Obama assumes the Presidency, my fiscal conservative sensibilities are going to have an acute case of buyer's remorse.
Well, did you really think that voting for Bush, Jr. would be fiscally conservative? Really?
Obama needs to frame the argument against Palin and McCain this way: they are exaggerators. If it beat Al Gore, why not use it against the Republicans this time?
People don't like exaggerators. Clearly Palin has lied about selling the plane on eBay, the Bridge to Nowhere and the being all anti-pork barrel spending. And McCain ain't no Maverick.
I once worked for an amazing CEO whose favorite saying was "If you say anything with consistency and conviction it will be so". This is very true and it is being played out in the MSM today.
The people now running the McCain camp get this big time. Truth matters very little it seems, a shame that.
Through the magic of the google: Obama's earmark requests for 3 years. I add it up to be about 500 million in requests, though not all of those are granted at all or in full: note the "requested 5 million and secured 3.5 million in funding for..." phrasing. This is everything he asked for, successful or not. An infrared astronomy project for 62 million, not granted, is the biggest piece.
Here's why we're getting tetchy:
Obama says: earmarks should be transparent
Obama does: passes legislation to make earmarks more transparent and has an exemplary list readily available so that someone asking "what sort of earmarks has Obama asked for for Defense, and were they granted?" can check in a few minutes.
McCain says: earmarks are bad
McCain does: doesn't ask for any earmarks
Admirable. Both men's actions are consistent with their stated principles. Now let's add Palin in.
Palin says: I reject earmarks, cause I'm a maverick reformer.
McCain says: Palin rejects earmarks. She killed the bridge to nowhere. She is a maverick reformer.
Palin does: The opposite, swooping up all available earmarks, including the portion of the bridge money congress had already allocated, even though no bridge was built.
McCain says: No no no, that's a lie. My gut says she kills earmarks like they're moose.
TNC and Ambinder say: I'm going to gnaw someone's ear off if this keeps up.
All about everybody's earmarks here. Obama doesn't even make the top 10, though Hillary and Durbin do.
Also I propose we burn in effigy the coiner of "Walmart moms," today's annoying McCain-blogger-10-point word. Who's with me?
In case you guys missed Pat Buchanan's essay today on Obama versus Palin, here's an excerpt:
She belongs to a mainstream Christian church.
Absurd. Her church speaks in tongues, "slays in the spirit", and probably handles snakes to boot. They promote fringe creationism in schools. They prepare for the end times. And, of course, they're bigoted homophobes.
Mainstream? If that's mainstream things are worse than I thought.
Remember: it's Pat Buchanan's idea of what "mainstream" is.
I'll agree that the churches cancel each other out.
The point here is that Palin is lying when she claims that she "told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that Bridge to Nowhere." She wanted federal funding to build the Bridge to Nowhere, and only turned against the bridge after Congress refused to fund it. She didn't refuse a thing.
She introduced herself to the American people with this lie, and she's repeated it again and again. She's holding this up as a hallmark achievement, and it's a lie. She is trying to use it as the basis of her image, as a maverick reformer, and it is a lie.
This should be devastating to her. We will see.
Jake writes: "She wanted federal funding to build the Bridge to Nowhere, and only turned against the bridge after Congress refused to fund it. She didn't refuse a thing."
And she KEPT THE MONEY.
This is the dumbest claim by a politician since Nixon's "I am not a crook." He was, and she craved the Bridge like a cat craves mice.
IS THE US REALLY THIS DESPARATE? We really cant blame anything but ourselves when the US economy and world influence slips even further over the next 4 years after we elect an at best state level qualified politician with no real experience or new ideas on the REAL IMPORTNAT ISSUES (national security, energy policy, US position in the world economy, credit crisis, housing crunch, and the general souring of the US economy) to a critical federal level position.
Come on Mr. McCain, this once possible supporter is wonderng what the F*$% you were thinking. I guess so long as gays cant get married, the church can keep making inroads into our poitical fabric and all life can be protected (even embyros that would further high level scientific research) who cares about our economic position or standing slipping further in the world.
Will a real Republican/Conservative please stand up (instead of these soft right wing vote panderers) so I can vote for someone who will really put "country first" instead of using it as a cheap dress up line.
Can I just go ahead and dare NYTimes, WaPo, LATimes, etc to have a big headline "McCain and Palin are lying. Over and over. Every time we call them on it they do it again! And so we're calling them out."? Cause right now the Rs are making it very clear they see no downside to flatout lying, and they may be right.
I think the best analysis of the R tactics to date was Sean at 538's Palin's a hockey agitator. With this week's flatout lying from both R candidates, and recent developments like "OMG if anyone mentions lipstick in any context it is a grave insult and we'd best avoid the cosmetics section of drug stores for the next 2 months lest we have the vapors" it applies to the whole McCain campaign.
Sample bit: She skates into the corner, throws up an elbow, and the Democrats cry: “Foul!” Hey! She said Obama has never passed a major bill – this is an objective lie! Hey! She ridiculed community organizing the day after Service was the theme! Technically people should punish her by not voting for her over this infraction!
Sarah Palin has "no real experience" with energy policy? You've got to be kidding. She has more hands-on experience with energy issues than any of the candidates. She was head of the oil & gas commission in are most energy-rich state where she rooted out corruption. She just successfully negotiated what will be one of the largest international infrastructure projects in North America, a huge pipeline to transport natural gas from Alaska to the lower 48.
@Fred,
With the caveat that I can't tell whom you're quoting, as this is about the Republicans bald-faced 23-times now lie regarding the bridge to nowhere, but maybe that's in a comment somewhere:
Maybe she was picked for her energy expertise, whatever it may be. (Praying for pipelines?) Two weeks ago I would have said so. If that was the case I'd expect her to be making it by doing many interviews in which she eats the Democrats' lunch on energy policy, and for surrogates to talk about little else as they promote the brilliance of her energy policies. Instead we have Meghan McCain handling interviews--seriously, they think Meghan less likely to embarrass the campaign--and surrogates touting "she is commander in chief of the national guard; also, Alaska is near Russia so she has foreign policy experience by osmosis."
If the McCain people think she has energy expertise they are hiding it very, very well. She's no Brian Schweitzer.
To Deborah:
My comment was in response to Tom's above. Schweitzer would have been an interesting VP choice for Obama. Too bad he lost his nerve and settled on the boring choice Biden, who is a gasbag, but knows little about gas or other energy issues.
Related to my last comment, and the VP selection decisions made by the respective candidates generally, check out Spengler's Column in the Asia Times. Snippets to start you off,
Knowing where to look....Tom says she doesn't have any real experience or new ideas on a host of policies, including energy. "Drill baby drill" does not count as a new idea on energy policy. If she has this deep expertise, let's see it. Right now it looks an awful lot like her foreign-policy-by-osmosis credentials--Alaska has a lot of oil money, she's Alaskan, obviously she knows all this energy stuff. (Poor Canada, proximity to which--and there are actual fishing issues with Canada, which is within the 3 mile limit for coastal disputes--doesn't get you any foreign policy cred.)
As for Spengler, boring talking points. Hillary is popular with a segment of the Democratic base, who voted for her, anathema to independents, and gotv anathema to Republicans. She would not have helped. Any chance of her being on the ticket was blown when "does he have to take Hillary" was allowed to start up, and the what-might-have-beens that filled the air since are attempts to keep the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuit riled. I like Biden, and he seems to help with seniors, blue-collar comfort levels, and gravitas--everyone could picture him taking over. He's qualified. A serious pick. Getting minimal vote in Delaware when he'd withdrawn from the campaign months earlier is....well, it's not what you call a compelling case for why his presence hurts the ticket. But for Republican talking points, Plus One!
Shorter: Palin is brilliant on energy policy? Let's see them take up that issue. Right now, "she is head of the Alaskan National Guard" is their level of confidence in her energy cred.
Deborah,
Expanding domestic energy production is as "new" an idea as Obama's plan to throw an extra $15 billion per year at Al Gore and other alternative energy venture capitalists. The difference is, Palin's idea will reduce our trade and fiscal deficits while creating lots of high-paying blue collar jobs of the sort that her husband had on the North Slope. That said, McCain-Palin haven't opposed throwing money at currently-unfeasible alternative sources of energy; on the contrary, they have explicitly proposed an "all of the above" approach. For the foreseeable future though, fossil fuels and nuclear are going to have to do the heavy lifting when it comes to our energy needs.
As for her dealings with Canada being limited to fishing issues, how the heck do you think that natural gas pipeline is going to get from Alaska to the Lower 48? You are aware, I assume, that there is plenty of Canada in between.
Leave it to GOP mouthpiece Fred to give credit to Palin where none is due. For a more balanced take on the pipeline and Palin's miniscule role in it, take a look:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/09/03/a-look-at-palins-role-in-alaskas-big-natural-gas-pipeline-project.html
Fred,
I find it interesting that you picked only that one point on Energy Policy to counter her obvious lack of experience on issues that are important to the future of the United States. Im definitely willing to hear more.
I will admit you are correct in your statement that Palin has energy experience at face value. I therefore clarify and dig deeper by saying, as Deborah points out, that Palin has no experience or new ideas in energy policy that are truly relevant and applicable to solving the long term energy problems of the country. In Alaska all you have to worry about is how to get more oil and natural gas and revenues therefrom. More natural gas and even more drilling may be a small element of a comprehensive policy and the future action that solves our dependence problems (and the economic and security issues that obviously derive therefrom) but its only a very small piece and we dont need experience in old tired ideas like more gas and oil (we have been relying on oil and gas for years and we are heading backwards on energy independence). Now tell me how Palin tried to propose higher efficency standards in cars, used some of their oil and gas revenues to incentivize the development of alternative energy in Alaska, or anything that is not the obvious inadequate "gas and oil", then thats relevant and I would be glad to give her the credit for it.
So I'm curious: why do you guys think the Alaska democratic party said on their website that Palin killed the bridge? Why did they decide to be part of the evil BushHitlerRove lie machine?
Palin changed her mind. I would guess that the bridge becoming unpopular was the motivation. She sure has a record of getting as much $$ for alaska as she can.
Are you all claiming that any politician who changes position and then touts the later one is lying? "A lie of omission?" Do you want me to lay out all the places Obama has changed and doesn't talk about his old position? Is he a liar for that, or does your standard only apply to Republicans?
I know you guys are in a hysteria of hate here, but try to get some perspective on yourselves.
The point if you scratch past the surface is that she is campaigning heavily that she is a reformer and that she killed the bridge when in reality it was business as usual political motivation. Plus she may have killed the bridge but they kept the money.
So really its "thanks but no thanks to the bridge....and thanks and thanks again for the money that was to be used for the bridge."
You can change your mind all you want. You can even be a good representative of your state by wanting the bridge or keeping the money. But you cant keep the money and boldly proclaim across town that you are against earmarks after you keep it.
Well I guess you can .... but that would technically make you a hypocritical piece of crap.
And please send us your comprehensive list on similar Obama position changes as you seem to so readily have available. Im interested in hearing what they are.
John Richardson writes: "So I'm curious: why do you guys think the Alaska democratic party said on their website that Palin killed the bridge? Why did they decide to be part of the evil BushHitlerRove lie machine?
Palin changed her mind. I would guess that the bridge becoming unpopular was the motivation. She sure has a record of getting as much $$ for alaska as she can.
Are you all claiming that any politician who changes position and then touts the later one is lying? "A lie of omission?" Do you want me to lay out all the places Obama has changed and doesn't talk about his old position? Is he a liar for that, or does your standard only apply to Republicans? "
John, she's saying that she governed on a JUST SAY NO TO EARMARKS basis, which is a total lie. Remember, she KEPT THE BRIDGE TO NOWHERE money.
She wants to be applauded for this? It's like a prostitute going to court and saying, "Yeah, I took $10 from that Vice cop for a blowjob, but I was only gonna give him a handjob," and expecting to get acquitted.
And yes, I just compared Sarah Palin to a $10 prostitute, but I didn't say anything about lipstick, so that's okay.
Quick question for all the folk saying that Obama and Biden couldn't vote against the bridge because it was part of a 500 page omnibus transportation bill...
How do you defend their votes against Coburn's amemdment to said bill which would have transferred the funding for this bridge and another Alaskan bridge to the rebuilding of a bridge in New Orleans?
When they voted against that (which is to say, voted for the money to be kept building the bridge to nowhere rather than rebuilding the damaged bridge to somewhere in N.O.) were they not explicitly and precisely voting for the bridge to nowhere?
Or am I missing some nuance?