• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Who would you rather have leading the country in hard times?

Tam

Well-known member
· Despite the Obama campaign's claims, Governor Palin consistently opposed the "Bridge to Nowhere" once she was in office and officially stopped it. In December 2006, Governor Palin proposed her first budget for Alaska which included no state funding for the "Bridge to Nowhere." As she said at the time, "We have a limited pot of money, of course, and we need to make wise, sensible choices." In a report prepared by her transition team, the "Bridge to Nowhere" was criticized "as a severe drain on resources." Furthermore, the report concluded that the State's transportation plan relied too heavily on federal earmarks. The final 2007 budget contained no state funding for the "Bridge to Nowhere." In 2007, Governor Palin killed the bridge project.

· The Democrats' claim that the project was only canceled after federal funding dried up is also wrong. The money was left with the state to decide whether to spend money on the "Bridge to Nowhere" or other projects. Governor Palin could have decided to spend money on the "Bridge to Nowhere" but instead canceled the project.

· Congressional Quarterly: "It Is Not Inaccurate For Palin To Say She 'Stopped The Bridge To Nowhere.'" "She ended up firmly against it. And while there may have been other contributing factors, it is not inaccurate for Palin to say she 'stopped the Bridge to Nowhere.'" (Jonathan Allen, "Four Things You Need To Know About The 'Bridge To Nowhere,'" CQ, 9/9/08)

· Non-Partisan PolitiFact.com: "It's True That On Sept. 21, 2007, Palin Officially Killed The Project." (St. Petersburg Times/CQ's PolitiFact.com, "On Support For The Bridge To Nowhere," Politifact.com)

· Even According To The Alaska Democrat Party, Governor Palin Killed The "Bridge to Nowhere." Before they switched their website, the Alaska Democrat Party said, "Gov. Palin recently cancelled the Gravina Island Bridge near Ketchikan that would have connected the Alaska mainland with Gravina Island (population: 50)."

· Of all the presidential candidates, Barack Obama has the longest track record of supporting the "Bridge to Nowhere" -- he supported it before Sarah Palin even ran for governor. In 2005, Barack Obama voted for the final Highway Reauthorization Bill that included $223 million for the "Bridge to Nowhere." Unlike John McCain who instantly highlighted the "Bridge to Nowhere" in a press release the day the bill was passed, Barack Obama did not have the political courage to stand up to wasteful earmarks and only did when he started to run for president. Barack Obama's most egregious support for the "Bridge to Nowhere" came in October 2005 when he voted against stripping $125 million in funding from the bridge to fund rebuilding a bridge in New Orleans. When Governor Palin was presented with a similar choice, she chose to kill the bridge. When Barack Obama had to choose, he voted to build the bridge.

· Governor Palin ordered her administration to cut down on the number of federal earmark requests. In December 2007, Governor Palin order her administration to seek fewer congressional earmarks. Governor Palin did this recognizing that the state needed to improve its credibility after several scandalous earmarks such as the "Bridge to Nowhere." As Governor Palin's budget director said, "We really want to skinny it down." Governor Palin directed that earmark requests be made only out of compelling need and if they have a strong national purpose. As the Anchorage Daily News wrote at the time, Governor Palin's order is "appropriate and realistic" and "prudent."

· Earmark reform has been a leading source of tension between Governor Palin and Alaska's Congressional Delegation. In March 2008, U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) -- known for his ability to bring back the pork -- said that Governor Palin's earmark efforts had led to questions about why the Alaska delegation was seeking "things that state doesn't want." As Senator Stevens said, "It is a difficult thing to get over right now, the feeling that we don't represent Alaska because Alaska doesn't want earmarks."
· Under Governor Palin, the number of earmarks requested by the Governor's Office has fallen by $150 million. From $350 million in earmarks requested by her predecessor, the total amount of earmarks requested by Governor Palin's office has fallen to $197 million. It is IMPORTANT to note that several news reports have confused earmark requests from Senator Ted Stevens and earmark requests that originated from the governor's office. Some news reports have attributed all of the earmark requests from Alaska and its congressional delegation to Governor Palin. This is wrong and purposely deceiving.

· As Alaska's chief executive, Governor Palin has vetoed nearly $500 million in wasteful spending. In 2007, Governor Palin vetoed $231 million in government projects in what the Anchorage Daily News said "may be the biggest single-year line-item veto total in state history." As she said at the time, "We need to live within our means. ... Even though we have a surplus, that doesn't warrant a spending spree on an unlimited credit card." In 2008, Governor Palin vetoed $268 million in government projects.·

While Governor Palin was cutting wasteful projects, Barack Obama was requesting nearly $1 billion. In just three years in office, Barack Obama requested nearly $1 billion in earmarks - over a million dollars per working day. Barack Obama's pork record has earned him the ire of Citizens Against Government Waste and the Club for Growth

Who would you rather have leading you in hard times, Palin: a person not scared to veto pork laden bills and HAS DONE IT so she can keep her state living within their means, or Obama: one that requested over a million dollars a day in ear marks during his short stay in Congress, and as President has a record of signing anything Pelosi and Reid tosses his way no matter what it cost even after promising US voters he would veto anything containing earmarks? AND HAS RUN THE US INTO DEBT FOR GENERATIONS!!!!!!

One more thing is this not one of the funniest statement you ever read?

Barack Obama did not have the political courage to stand up to wasteful earmarks and only did when he started to run for president
I guess he ran out of courage about the time he was sworn in. :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Steve

Well-known member
I think Obama is about the same as Bush when it comes to reigning in his party's spending...

and worse then Bush on agenda spending... but as we can all see some things never change.. (well, we could see if Obama was transparent in his actions) :roll: :roll: :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Steve said:
I think Obama is about the same as Bush when it comes to reigning in his party's spending...

and worse then Bush on agenda spending... but as we can all see some things never change.. (well, we could see if Obama was transparent in his actions) :roll: :roll: :wink:

Seems it did in Alaska where PALIN is from :wink:

And if you are looking for Obama to be transparent on anything well like Haymaker would say Good Luck :wink:
 

Liveoak

Well-known member
Palin did not consistently oppose the bridge to nowhere.

"While running for governor in 2006, though, Palin backed federal funding for the infamous bridge, which McCain helped make a symbol of pork barrel excess." http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm ,

PALIN: I told the Congress “thanks, but no thanks,” for that Bridge to Nowhere. [St. Paul, MN, 9/3/08]

This is demonstrably false. Campaigning for governor, Palin visited the town of Ketchikan to promise action on the bridge. She “said the bridge was essential for the town’s prosperity,” and that “she could feel the town’s pain at being derided as a ‘nowhere’ by prominent politicians.” She said the time to secure the funding was now, “while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/07/palin-bridge-fact-check/

At least Bush defended his country and he made no bones about that in his campaign. Obama's position before the actual election was to tuck tail and bring the troops home. Now he's finally seeing the light. Palin, I'm afraid, if faced with the same situation, would just give the voters that deer in the headlights look and go with whatever camera was pointed at her at the moment..
 

Tam

Well-known member
Liveoak said:
Palin did not consistently oppose the bridge to nowhere.

"While running for governor in 2006, though, Palin backed federal funding for the infamous bridge, which McCain helped make a symbol of pork barrel excess." http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm ,

PALIN: I told the Congress “thanks, but no thanks,” for that Bridge to Nowhere. [St. Paul, MN, 9/3/08]

This is demonstrably false. Campaigning for governor, Palin visited the town of Ketchikan to promise action on the bridge. She “said the bridge was essential for the town’s prosperity,” and that “she could feel the town’s pain at being derided as a ‘nowhere’ by prominent politicians.” She said the time to secure the funding was now, “while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/07/palin-bridge-fact-check/

At least Bush defended his country and he made no bones about that in his campaign. Obama's position before the actual election was to tuck tail and bring the troops home. Now he's finally seeing the light. Palin, I'm afraid, if faced with the same situation, would just give the voters that deer in the headlights look and go with whatever camera was pointed at her at the moment..

Did Sarah have all the figures to what the bridge was going to cost when she was campaigning or was she going on an estimated figure that proved to be much lower than what it was actually going to cost? :? Funny how things change when you know what is really at stake.

About the war, Did you forget that Sarah has a son in the war? She has far more to loose than Obama does unless he plans on sending his daughters over there. And she still supports the efforts to protect your hide from another terrorist attack. :roll:

BTW Obama had the tuck tail and run attitude because that is what it was going to take to get the far left vote. He was willing to say anything to get the vote OR did you forget his promised Change and Transparency to get votes. How are those promises working out? :wink:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Liveoak said:
Palin did not consistently oppose the bridge to nowhere.

"While running for governor in 2006, though, Palin backed federal funding for the infamous bridge, which McCain helped make a symbol of pork barrel excess." http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm ,

PALIN: I told the Congress “thanks, but no thanks,” for that Bridge to Nowhere. [St. Paul, MN, 9/3/08]

This is demonstrably false. Campaigning for governor, Palin visited the town of Ketchikan to promise action on the bridge. She “said the bridge was essential for the town’s prosperity,” and that “she could feel the town’s pain at being derided as a ‘nowhere’ by prominent politicians.” She said the time to secure the funding was now, “while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/07/palin-bridge-fact-check/

At least Bush defended his country and he made no bones about that in his campaign. Obama's position before the actual election was to tuck tail and bring the troops home. Now he's finally seeing the light. Palin, I'm afraid, if faced with the same situation, would just give the voters that deer in the headlights look and go with whatever camera was pointed at her at the moment..

if the media keeps repeating the same story long enough a few will always believe it.. (even after facts were presented that shows there was alot more to the story then the 30 second sound bite the media fed to a few)... :roll: :roll: :wink:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Steve said:
Check it out.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm

Steve: I believe that island has been described as "sparsely populated".

by only "listening" to the media you have only their version..

a bit of research would show how wrong they are..

first.. the town.. Ketchikan,.. "It is the most densely populated city in Alaska."
and it can't grow, as it is a thin strip of non buildable land caught between the narrows (water) and a mountain. it straddles a cliff.. some homes have fallen and most lean.. it is an interesting city to visit.. but I wouldn't want to have to find a home or try to build there.

for this reason the city had pinned it's hopes of growing by building on the nearby island..

second the island. it is large.. (especially compared to the cliff Ketchikan sits on ) and it is home to the airport.. a large sawmill, a proposed harbor and shipyard, a unused site for the University of Alaska (who would build if it had a crossing) .. a state hospital site, a power plant and much more.. up to a billion in projected projects on hold...

The state estimates up to 600 direct jobs. Those jobs boost not only Ketchikan and Saxman but also Metlakatla, Wrangell, Petersburg and Prince of Wales communities. Those jobs boost the state's entire economy and especially boost the area hurt by losing its timber industry.

the airport services a large area and brings hundreds of thousands of tourists through every year.. it was originally built in WW2,.. and expanded over the years as the area grew..

so basically you have a need for a connection between the city and the island.. served by a ferry.. most won't move to the island because of the limited ability to get to the city.. and of those who do most own their own boat.. a bridge would solve that... and few who understand the situation could argue against a bridge to the island and airport.. (except a media using it to attack Palin)

now the bridge... there were several locations for the bridge.. some of the more reasonable locations were blocked by lawsuits (environmentalists ect) and the most favorable and economical because a historical building ... a building which later fell,.. seems no one could come up with the money to stabilize it and it slid off the cliff..

the (original) proposed site. across Pennock Island. Pennock, a small island, lies between Ketchikan and Gravina so the bridge accesses usable private and borough land on both islands. A bridge approach could form a breakwater for another small boat harbor.would have cost $80 million in fiscal 2003 and the project is to be completed in five years.

once a location for it was chosen, the obstacles had to be overcome...
it had to be really high.. for ships to go under. and to accommodate the height, and cross the narrows it had to be long... (both costly) and their was other engineering issues, that drove up the cost mostly due to the unfavorable location. that environmentalists forced through lawsuits.. (make it so expensive it will never be built and the island will remain pristine policy) (The Forest Service proposes a timber sale served by 22 miles of road on Gravina island. That attracted 6,000 complaints from environmentalists in other states.)

given the "facts" even I would support the 80 million dollar bridge to improve so many lives in Alaska..
 

Steve

Well-known member
Did Sarah have all the figures to what the bridge was going to cost when she was campaigning or was she going on an estimated figure that proved to be much lower than what it was actually going to cost? Confused Funny how things change when you know what is really at stake.

when the bridge was proposed at the original location the cost was expected to be no more then $80 million.. and it would serve cross several islands and connect a half dozen towns...
 

Tam

Well-known member
Steve said:
Did Sarah have all the figures to what the bridge was going to cost when she was campaigning or was she going on an estimated figure that proved to be much lower than what it was actually going to cost? Confused Funny how things change when you know what is really at stake.

when the bridge was proposed at the original location the cost was expected to be no more then $80 million.. and it would serve cross several islands and connect a half dozen towns...

Can you enlighten us to what the deal was when Sarah pulled the plug? :?
 

Liveoak

Well-known member
Tam: The fact that she has a son posted in Iraq doesn't equate to what decision she might make if faced with the same situation Bush was faced with.

"Alaska Business Monthly: We've lost a lot of Alaska's military members to the war in Iraq. How do you feel about sending more troops into battle, as President Bush is suggesting?

Palin: I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq. I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place; I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops safe. Every life lost is such a tragedy. I am very, very proud of the troops we have in Alaska, those fighting overseas for our freedoms, and the families here who are making so many sacrifices."

Steve: Good information. Thanks! I understand the bridge would have been almost as long as the Golden Gate Bridge. Is that right? The ferries have apparently been running about 350,000 people a year. Have any idea what the Golden Gate Bridge carries? About 118,000 per day.
Still doesn't sound like good use of money to me. If anyone thinks that Palin lost the funds though, don't feel bad. The funds still went to the Alaskan Transportation Department. Wonder what they spent it on.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Steve: Good information. Thanks! I understand the bridge would have been almost as long as the Golden Gate Bridge. Is that right? The ferries have apparently been running about 350,000 people a year. Have any idea what the Golden Gate Bridge carries? About 118,000 per day.
Still doesn't sound like good use of money to me. If anyone thinks that Palin lost the funds though, don't feel bad. The funds still went to the Alaskan Transportation Department. Wonder what they spent it on.

the fact is they are currently spending almost double to retrofit the Golden gate bridge to withstand an earthquake then the original Alaska bridge was projected to cost..


WHAT WOULD IT COST TO BUILD THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE TODAY?
seismic engineers believe a $175 million retrofit is required to prevent a disaster. To design the retrofit supercomputers are being used to simulate an earthquake's effect on each part of the bridge. The retrofit will take approximately five years to complete and although its cost is significant, it represents only about one-tenth of the eventual $1.4 billion an estimated replacement cost of the Golden Gate Bridge.

The total price depends on a many factors including the extent of the environmental reviews and the cost of labor and materials.

but it is doubtful the golden gate bridge would ever be built today.

it's hard to compare an apple to a bushel of San Francisco fruit...
 

Steve

Well-known member
Tam said:
Steve said:
Did Sarah have all the figures to what the bridge was going to cost when she was campaigning or was she going on an estimated figure that proved to be much lower than what it was actually going to cost? Confused Funny how things change when you know what is really at stake.

when the bridge was proposed at the original location the cost was expected to be no more then $80 million.. and it would serve cross several islands and connect a half dozen towns...

Can you enlighten us to what the deal was when Sarah pulled the plug? :?

proposed $80 million.. plug pulled.. $398 million

another bridge.. a different media..
Before adjourning for its August recess early Sunday, Congress quickly passed a bill spending $250 million to repair the 1,907-foot I-35 bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, an expenditure of about $130,000 per foot. This is more than three times the cost-per-foot of Alaska’s infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.”

Under the bill, the federal government will bear the full cost of I-35 repairs. The quarter-billion-dollar spending measure raced through Congress in about two days.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Steve said:
Tam said:
Steve said:
when the bridge was proposed at the original location the cost was expected to be no more then $80 million.. and it would serve cross several islands and connect a half dozen towns...

Can you enlighten us to what the deal was when Sarah pulled the plug? :?

proposed $80 million.. plug pulled.. $398 million

another bridge.. a different media..
Before adjourning for its August recess early Sunday, Congress quickly passed a bill spending $250 million to repair the 1,907-foot I-35 bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, an expenditure of about $130,000 per foot. This is more than three times the cost-per-foot of Alaska’s infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.”

Under the bill, the federal government will bear the full cost of I-35 repairs. The quarter-billion-dollar spending measure raced through Congress in about two days.

Gee that is $318 million over the proposed cost and the ground wasn't even broke yet can you imagine what the true cost would have been? :wink:

When should she have pulled the plug, when the funds were gone the State in debt and the bridge was half built? :?
 
Top