Opposed the Bridge to Nowhere? Not so fast…
|
|
One of the oft-cited examples of Gov Palin’s good-govt bona fides was her opposition to Alaska senator Ted Steven’s “Bridge to Nowhere” earmark. According to Bradford Plumer over at The Plank, this may not be as clear as its been portrayed. Back during her election fight in 2006…
she was very much for the bridge and insisted that Alaska had to act quickly—the party of Ted Stevens and Don Young might soon lose its majority, after all. By that point, the project was endangered for reasons that had nothing to do with Palin—the bridge had become a national laughingstock (The Plank)
It appears her support only faded after the federal faucet dried up and it looked like funding would come out the state’s own kitty. Isn’t this kind of like a hunter posing for a photo with their foot on a dead bear they found in the woods?
on 
I say as a Governour, one is required to take back all the federal funds you can without spending state money. It’s not hypocritical at all. She, like Ron Paul, believes the federal money belongs in the states as a tax credit. It’s why Paul earmarks his bills with “pork”. It’s going to be spent somewhere so take what you can. As soon as Palin found out the federales wanted it to come from the state coffers, she rejected it.
One can support a project in concept and then balk at the cost.
Wow - it’s amazing how quick the justifications come…