TheAgitator.com
The Road to Nowhere
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008I missed this when it came out. From an Anchorage Daily News article on the “Bridge to Nowhere” flap:
Meanwhile, Weinstein noted, the state is continuing to build a road on Gravina Island to an empty beach where the bridge would have gone — because federal money for the access road, unlike the bridge money, would have otherwise been returned to the federal government.
So not only did Palin support the BtN before she opposed it, not only did she accept the money for it anyway then divert it to other projects, she also then went ahead and took federal funding for a road that was to connect the bridge, even though the bridge wouldn’t be built, rendering the road useless, because unlike the bridge she–ahem–courageously opposed, she couldn’t divert the road money to other projects.
Quite the profile in courage!
Don’t know why this comes as such a surprise; all politicians are hypocrites.
I hadn’t read about this, but a friend had suggested this weekend that someone look into federal highway funds associated with the BtN since those cannot be used for other projects. I guess he was spot-on. I just hope this gets out there so that people can see her for what he is and not what McSame claims she is.
Why are all the Alaska newspapers reporting Palin opposing the BTN?
But hey, I saw someone write this thing on Fox News Online that said he thought she may turn out all right in the end :)
What’s the speed limit on this road?
But let us never forget that Palin’s nomination wasn’t completely terribly for Libertarians…
The road to nowhere leads to me.
1.Palin requests about $300/resident of Alaska in earmarks every year, by far the most of any state.
2. In addition to not paying any income OR sales taxes, Alaska residents get a check from the government for $1,200 every year.
Can’t they just cut that down to $900 and pay for their own crap?
This is a point brought on by the phrase:
So not only did Palin support the BtN before she opposed it
Let me get this straight – if that’s at all fucking possible – apparently it’s OK for Republicans to be for something and then be against it? By their (the GOPs) definition, it’s not flip-flopping unless you’re a member of the opposite party. Remember the flack Kerry got last go around because he was for the war before he was against it? They railed and railed on his ass for that. Yet more hypocrisy.
Changing your mind, flip-flopping, whatever the hell you want to call it – it is what it is no matter which master you serve.(Note to self: that ain’t us, the general population, by any stretch, like it’s supposed to be) It’s decisiveness based on the next high bidder . . .
Just an observation. Thank you. Please continue on topic. ;)
Remember the flack Kerry got last go around because he was for the war before he was against it?
Contrast the statements:
-1- I voted for “Fenixes for Fozbars” before I voted against it.
-2- I supported “Zeemurs for Zanxes” before I discovered that it would cost $5 million for every zanx, and decided it wasn’t worth the money.
Imagine further that the person who made statement #1 did so in response to an accusation that he didn’t support FfF, while the person who made statement #2 did so in response to accusations that he supported the wastefully-expensive ZfZ.
Are the statements really analogous?
Palin has now been revealed as a weenie who can’t even face the media (unless she’s been properly coached and the interviewer is hand-picked for maximum inoffensiveness) and a hypocrite who makes herself out to be anti-gov’t when she’s just as pro-gov’t as the rest of the Republicrats (excepting Ron Paul, and, philosophically, he’s really a libertarian).
Feh.
you know whats the diference between a hockey mom and a pitbull?….
a dildo!
Thank goodness someone was able to get to the Alaska democrats so they could pull their web page where they gave credit for killing the btn to Gov Palin. Also for a bunch of people that complained about the absence of nuance for the last 8 years I congratulate the other commentators and Radley for dispensing with it on this topic. Decided shallow thinking was the way to go, huh?
#9 supercat
Point well taken – I wasn’t going as deep as that as you may have surmised – it was more of an on the surface, knee-jerk observation. Perhaps I should have. But it literally makes me nauseous to devote time to the folly that is politics on the order we have been seeing here in America in the past 20 years or so. One thing I have noticed in the little effort I have been spending in taking in the campaign from both sides (I can’t take much more than a few minutes a day, seriously) is how similar they are in tactics. If I didn’t know any better, I could almost think they were having a joke. But the sad truth is it’s not a joke but they are playing games as always . . . and it sucks ass as always.
Thanks for digging a little deeper and helping me see further into what I was talking about. It is most appreciated.
Radley, you don’t like Palin. Neither do I.
We get it.
Certainly, it’s your blog, and I love it and won’t stop reading it, but . . . c’mon.
I supported “Zeemurs for Zanxes” before I discovered that it would cost $5 million for every zanx, and decided it wasn’t worth the money.
Not bad, but needs a little work.
I supported “Zeemurs for Zanxes” until Congress pulled the specific earmark for it, then spent the $5 million per zanx on zanx accessories instead. Then I lied about ever having supported “Zeemurs for Zanxes” or spending the money, while taking credit for Congress removing the earmark in the first place.
Not quite as pithy, but also not as greasy with dishonest or stupid spin.
People have a problem with it being pointed out that Palin is pro-government even to the point of building a road that has absolutely no uses just because it was done with federal funding? I think that’s a perfectly reasonable thing to point out, seems like the GOP aren’t the only ones insisting on giving kid-gloves treatment to the “pit bull.”
In the context of wasteful Federal earmarks, it is silly to analyze a Governor as if she were a member of Congress. Americans saw fit to elect congressmen who in turn voted to spend a bunch of money in Alaska on something nobody actually wants. For that, we have American voters and congressmen to blame!
Presumably all that money helps Alaskans somehow or other, even if none of them ever drives on that road. As Governor, Palin’s responsibility was to Alaskans, and she did her job correctly.
Granted, this is a depressing story, and Palin’s part is sad in its own way. However, a good executive should be able to make a distasteful decision when the job demands it.