Complaining about The Bridge to Nowhere

[anderclayton]

This is a campanion thread to the actual Bridge to Nowhere thread which is located here: http://www.eaforums.com/forums/sympo...e-nowhere.html.

If you would like to complain about partisan stuff about the Bridge, post here and debate the issue.

[anderclayton]

In the other thread...

frazzledspice said

Palin may have (at the 11th hour--11:59 and ticking) opposed the "bridge to nowhere...."

But she was awfully busy building her "bridge to Washington," sending 30 paid lobbyists there to bring back lots of money for other projects in her state.

Hey, I think that would make a pretty good soundbite.

"Sarah Palin was too busy building her bridge to Washington to transfer pork back to Alaska to worry about the bridge to Nowhere."

OK. Don't most States have a bunch of lobbyists in Washington? Are you picking on Alaska here because it is small or...??? Was Palin's set of lobbyists unusual for Alaska or do they normally send a disproportionate amount of lobbyists to Washington?

Even if Alaska being small and all is part of the case, what that means is that they are less represented in Congress than most other States.

Ander

[magenta321]

For me, it doesn't matter if Palin was for the bridge to nowhere, or against the bridge to nowhere, or even if she changed her mind about it at some point.

I think the problem is that she has (repeatedly) said "I was against the bridge to nowhere" and making that a campaign issue. She's chosen to call attention to it. And a simple google search proves that it was a lie.

So, that's the bridge to nowhere issue, in my mind. It really wouldn't have mattered what she supported or did not support -- it was the fact that she can't tell the truth, and that she's purposely campaigning on lies that made her lose more credibility with me.

[anderclayton]

magenta321 said

I think the problem is that she has (repeatedly) said "I was against the bridge to nowhere" and making that a campaign issue. She's chosen to call attention to it. And a simple google search proves that it was a lie.

Find that quote. You've quoted it so now find where she said that. A simple Google search (the search terms: palin "I was against the bridge to nowhere" ) reveals it to be a liberal talking point (and several webpages put those quote tags around it like you do as if it were her exact words--there really aren't that many sites in the search though).

The real quote is "I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere". Sarah Palin's Speech | Sarah Palin's transcript of Speech (Original) - Sarah Palin - Zimbio

It is the literal truth but is a bad campaign point for her to make because she only told Congress "no thanks" after it became politically unfeasible for it to succeed. It looks like she has dropped mention from her campaign platform.

On the other hand, it does look like in her (Governor) campaign she was for reducing the cost of the design for the bridge. If you'd like to debate that (meaning the feasibility of bridge itself) we could move on back to the other bridge thread

Ander

[magenta321]

Ander, if I offer you a candy bar, and you say "Thanks, but no thanks!" does that mean you can keep the candy bar? Or does that mean the candy bar is still mine?

Does it mean you once wanted a candy bar, but not any more? Do you get to keep the candy bar?

Just curious how semantics of "thanks, but no thanks!" works to you.

[anderclayton]

magenta321 said

Ander, if I offer you a candy bar, and you say "Thanks, but no thanks!" does that mean you can keep the candy bar? Or does that mean the candy bar is still mine?

Does it mean you once wanted a candy bar, but not any more? Do you get to keep the candy bar?

Just curious how semantics of "thanks, but no thanks!" works to you.

If you offer me a candy bar, I accept it and then at a later date I give it back to you, saying "thanks, but no thanks" to you because I couldn't use it (ummmmm... Maybe I discover I'm allergic to peanuts It really isn't a good analogy)...

Like I said, it isn't a good issue for her but is the literal truth. It is not a lie, just an exageration with implications. The implication is that she immediately said "thanks, but no thanks" when that really isn't the case.

Ander

[drmomentum[$]]

The analogy would be, you asked for money for a candy bar, then said "no thanks" and kept the money.

The reason that this is an issue at all (certainly Palin tried to make it an issue) is that McCain/Palin are running from the issues, not on them. You shouldn't have to say you're a maverick if your policies are sufficiently different from your party's platform.

You do have to say it (and repeat it often) if you're trying hard to convince people.

[anderclayton]

drmomentum said

The analogy would be, you asked for money for a candy bar, then said "no thanks" and kept the money.

Not really. Alaska receives a whole lot of funds from the government in unearmarked money every year. The bridge projects actually were cutting into that fundage. It would be a bit like my Dad giving me a candy bar instead of part of my allowance, me drooling over that candy bar for a bit and then giving it back and asking for my full allowance (thanks but no thanks Dad).

Which does get into the practical BtN (Bridge to Nowhere) side of things really (and again I'd be happy to jaunt back over to that to debate on whether Alaska should get that much funding in the first place).

drmomentum said

The reason that this is an issue at all (certainly Palin tried to make it an issue) is that McCain/Palin are running from the issues, not on them. You shouldn't have to say you're a maverick if your policies are sufficiently different from your party's platform.

You do have to say it (and repeat it often) if you're trying hard to convince people.

Hey now. You are in the "complaining about the Bridge to Nowhere" thread! Stop trying to change the issue

Ander

[anderclayton]

drmomentum said

The reason that this is an issue at all (certainly Palin tried to make it an issue) ...

Hmm... On the other hand, this is the partisan side of the issue. While the rest of the post went off topic, this part wasn't so much.

Are you *sure* that Palin was the first to mention the Bridge to Nowhere? Personally I heard talk about it on the news prior to her speech. The issue McCain would like to push is earmarks. The bridge thing is a way to spin things so that can be an issue.

[drmomentum[$]]

She did take the money. I actually think it's nice that she changed her mind about the bridge, although I'm sorry she hasn't been completely honest by focusing on an sanitized version of the story. Hopefully the money went to more appropriate projects.

The reason she's made it an issue is to bolster her claims of being a maverick. She turned against the project once people were against it, including folks in her own party. A maverick is someone who bucks a trend, not jumps on the bandwagon.

The bridge has been a feature of her speeches since right after she was chosen. I hear (but cannot confirm) that she dropped the bridge from recent speeches she's given, just as the backlash to her duplicitousness on the issue reached a crescendo. If true, this is becoming a familiar pattern.

[realtraveller]

I went to Alaska in June and essentially drove every paved road. I was very surprised at how many roads in Alaska are unpaved. There's a big one that crosses the interior of the state from the Denali area over to Paxson called the Denali Highway, a couple of hundred miles all unpaved. Not that far north of Fairbanks, the paving stops. Many of the side streets in the smaller towns are unpaved. How many states have a high percentage of unpaved roads. My impression is that Alaska still needs a lot of highway infrastructure and is still building it's way out of being a roadless frontier. Which could account for the need for the federal infrastructure money.

[anderclayton]

drmomentum said

Hopefully the money went to more appropriate projects.

The appropriateness of the bridge would be a personal opinion of which belongs over in the other thread (feel free to jump into that debate--if you feel like you can't debate it, please refrain from judgement calls on that).

She did take the money.

Which I didn't argue with. If you check out mj's website from the other thread, Alaska uses a lot of federal money. This was (in concept) from the 2006 appropriations bill: Gravina Island Bridge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. According to the pork website (mj's--the one I just mentioned), Alaska's pork for the year wasn't much more than the bridge budget: Citizens Against Government Waste:

If they counted the bridge for the year before and subtracted it from the pork stats cited (assuming that they are accurate), that year would have been the leanest for Alaska in the years that they cite (which, oddly enough, exclude 2007 but include 2000-2008).

The reason she's made it an issue is to bolster her claims of being a maverick.

The bridge would have been an issue prior to that whole maverick claim because one of McCain's personal issues is earmarks (which was his issue prior to his choosing Palin). Is it her issue? Personally I'm sure that she'd rather it go away as an issue but she was forced to defend it by the media.

The bridge has been a feature of her speeches since right after she was chosen.

She gave an acceptance speech (relatively brief) and then gave her speech to the RNC. Yes she's made speeches since then but the speeches since the RNC have been fairly similar to the one at the RNC (McCain's sounded identical--I haven't heard Palin's. I suspect that has to do with McCain's comfort level at giving speeches.). So we are essentially talking about two speeches.

Could Palin have addressed McCain's issue of earmarks without mentioning the bridge project?

[anderclayton]

realtraveller said

I went to Alaska in June and essentially drove every paved road. I was very surprised at how many roads in Alaska are unpaved. There's a big one that crosses the interior of the state from the Denali area over to Paxson called the Denali Highway, a couple of hundred miles all unpaved. Not that far north of Fairbanks, the paving stops. Many of the side streets in the smaller towns are unpaved. How many states have a high percentage of unpaved roads. My impression is that Alaska still needs a lot of highway infrastructure and is still building it's way out of being a roadless frontier. Which could account for the need for the federal infrastructure money.

Which could easily go in the other thread... You could also mention the idea that winter climates are pretty hard on roads so upkeep would also be a factor. Contrasted against a State like Arizona and the difference is reasonably major.

Also note that McCain isn't campaigning against all appropriations for States but rather 'earmarks'. So unearmarking the cash would fit McCain's description.

On the other hand, it sure seems like bridges shouldn't necessarily be singled out as bad or not part of the highway system...

[drmomentum[$]]

anderclayton said

The appropriateness of the bridge would be a personal opinion of which belongs over in the other thread (feel free to jump into that debate--if you feel like you can't debate it, please refrain from judgement calls on that).

I'll thank you to keep your impertinent comments about me to yourself.

-JP

[anderclayton]

drmomentum said

I'll thank you to keep your impertinent comments about me to yourself.

-JP

Do you feel like you can't debate the appropriateness of the bridge? I've invited you over to that thread (even opened the thread for polite discussion of the issue). Instead you continue to snipe about the issue in other threads while refusing to expound on the comments. Is it "impertinent" to ask you to debate things in a debate forum? Should I just accept your judgements in a debate based on a blank 'JP said so therefore we can't debate the roots of issues'?

edited to include:
Essentially we could both leave off judgement calls on the bridge (because we aren't debating the issue of the bridge) or we can both keep inserting 'Bridge BAAAAD' and 'Bridge GOOOOD' into related topics. Personally I'd prefer to run through the issue in a polite manner and consider those little bridge bad/goods to be "impertinent" themselves. Kinda like giving a baseline statement of 'George Bush is a jerk but...' every time a topic is brought up. Or phrasing something like "Since George Bush is doing such a bad job..." If commentators do this, it gets old really fast. If debators do it, they are generally called on it. Or at least we see one side saying "I don't agree that GB is doing a bad job but..."

So should I be forced to start each sentence with an "I don't believe the bridge is bad but..." or we could debate that issue politely (happy to do it!) or perhaps just refrain from the judgement calls about the bridge entirely?

Edited again to note

Please do note that my own opinions on the bridge aren't necessarily the 'bridge bad', 'bridge good' variety. Like I mentioned in the other thread, I could debate the issue with myself. In the event of blanket statements of the 'bridge bad' variety though, that simply isn't something that would come out. Mixed feelings about the bridge personally. There are good reasons to support it and good reasons not to support it.

Ander

[drmomentum[$]]

anderclayton said

Do you feel like you can't debate the appropriateness of the bridge? I've invited you over to that thread

It is impertinent and presumptuous of you to comment on my ability or inability to debate anything. I'll take the invitation in the spirit it was given.

It is juvenile to react with aspersions (couched in conditionals) when someone doesn't post in the way you desire or expect.

I'll repeat my request, since you refused to honor it the first time: keep your presumptuous comments to yourself. If you honestly think you're being subtle, I'm disappointed.

-JP

[anderclayton]

drmomentum said

It is impertinent and presumptuous of you to comment on my ability or inability to debate anything. I'll take the invitation in the spirit it was given.

It is juvenile to react with aspersions (couched in conditionals) when someone doesn't post in the way you desire or expect.

I'll repeat my request, since you refused to honor it the first time: keep your presumptuous comments to yourself. If you honestly think you're being subtle, I'm disappointed.

-JP

Do I think I'm being subtle? Nope. Fairly direct. Let's debate the issue. I'm happy to do it.

I didn't honor your request to keep comments to myself. I thought that was my request for you. Seriously. You presume that the bridge is bad with your comments.

If you don't want to debate the basic bridge issue then don't bring the bridge issue up. It is pretty common to not want to debate the basic issue one way or the other. It is why we have politicians that carefully coach their words so they don't get caught in the next sound bite wave. Nobody wants to go into detailed discussion or debate about issues so therefore we get Sound Bite America and Palin gets to say that she said 'no way' to the bridge instead of giving a detailed explanation of why the bridge is a good and happy thing for her State.

Yes I did change your 'don't want to' or 'prefer not to' (feel free to say it) to a 'can't'. Was that particularly subtle either? Nope. And I didn't think it was. Perhaps *slightly* more subtle than inserting 'bridge bad' statements in the middle of my own side of the issue but not much more.

You yourself have complained about the sound bite thing but are instead engaging in that rather than engaging in debate.

Personally I'd rather have an atmosphere where people address issues directly (both here and in the campaign) and explore issues at length instead of coaching words, etc.

Did I actually mean to imply that you literally can't or lack the (debating) ability to debate the bridge issue? Nope. Why would I invite you over there if I thought you actually lack the ability to debate it? There are plenty of reasons why you might not be able to debate it. Utter disinterest in doing it would be one. Lack of time, energy, or inclination to research it would be another. Personally I'd like the debate. I don't like doing the 'bridge good' inserts. You're an intelligent guy and it seems like the debate would be fun and a relatively nonpartisan issue if the partisan stuff could be separated from it.

Could I have been less confrontational about it? Ohhhhhh gosh. I've been trying to be. Honestly I have. Perhaps I was too subtle with that though? Like I said, I didn't consider that particular post to be in *any* way subtle.

Ander

Edited to note
I don't actually think that opening threads on the issue was subtle either. Just direct. I mean how much more direct can you get with an issue? Where the heck do you that that I think I was subtle?

[drmomentum[$]]

Carly Fiorina (representing the McCain campaign) is on TV this morning claiming that Palin rejected the money for the bridge. On followup questioning by George Stephanopoulos on whether she took the money or not, Carly changed the subject.

No honor in this sort of dishonesty.

[rmthunter]

Just by way of background (and this could possibly go on the other thread as well), Alaska has a budget surplus because Palin levied a huge tax on the oil companies, so that added somewhat over $10 billion to the money Alaska gets from royalties and licenses.

And Alaska still gets $1.89 in federal money for every dollar Alaskans pay in federal taxes (and of course, they don't have any state taxes), by far the largest amount of any state.

It might be instructive to discuss earmarks from that standpoint.

[rmthunter]

It seems that as of yesterday, the Bridge to Nowhere mantra is back: From MSNBC's First Read:

Palin has come under fire in recent days for misleadingly saying she told Congress “thanks but no thanks,” refusing an earmark for a bridge to a sparsely inhabited island in her home state. Independent groups and media fact-checkers have said Palin advocated for the federal earmark before opposing it, only ended after Congress had essentially killed it, and kept the $223 million for the appropriation after the project was killed.

Palin had cut the refrain from her speech during her three-day visit to Alaska. But she came back to it today, citing it as an example of earmark reform she and McCain would push for in the White House.

“I told Congress thanks but no thanks to that Bridge to Nowhere -- that if our state wanted to build that bridge, we would build it ourselves," she said.