Huh?
Sarah Palin responded to Charles Gibson's question about the bridge to nowhere by stating that the t-shirt she was pictured holding up in front of here bore the zip code of the community that would be served by the bridge "and not everybody in that community supported the bridge."
What's she driving at? That she sided with those that didn't support the bridge? Then why is she holding up the t-shirt? I don't get the context we're supposed to put on the fact that not everyone supported the bridge even while she clearly did.
What's she driving at? That she sided with those that didn't support the bridge? Then why is she holding up the t-shirt? I don't get the context we're supposed to put on the fact that not everyone supported the bridge even while she clearly did.
Advertisement
ABC edited the interview, especially in portions that deal with foreign policy and as a result it created a misleading summary of Palin's positions.
There is a published transcript of the Sept 11 interview and differs significantly with what was on air.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview
When it comes to the Bridge, Palin said that she was campaigning to allow these people to have access to the airport. The Bridge was one way to do it. The Congress passed another law then, stating Palin was no longer required to spend this money specifically on the bridge but could spend it on other projects, which she did.
When it comes to earmarks, she makes a distinction between the earmarks that are attached to non-related legislation (all of the Obama's $1 billion earmarks) that makes them go virtually in secret, and the earmarks that are requested publicly and specifically in an open transparent, such as her DNA projects, etc.
But given the importance of the Palin witch-hunt, these minor details are not discussed.
September 13, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Palin witch hunt? Are you saying that people are unfairly going over her history and statements? Are you aware that she is as sequestered as Dubya himself? All we have to GO on is her past, and the multiple repeated statements she makes at campaign stops.
I love the way you put words in her mouth to explain things for her. It makes it easier to understand why you equate a search for truth as a witch hunt.
September 13, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has had less money in earmarks per annum than Palin. One reason we know so much about Obama's earmarks is that he's made a point of them not going "virtually in secret". Whether or not it was politically savvy, he's voluntarily made it clear from the beginning every detail about every earmark he's responsible for.
It was also interesting that Republicans seem to justify the earmarks she was bringing back because it was the best thing for her state, and she was Governor after all, without acknowledging that the same thing applies to every Senator and Representative, as well. Either the Governors, Senators, and Representatives should be putting their state first, or they should be putting their country first, but they're all elected by people from their state, so there's no difference in that regard. One can rationally argue either point (state vs. country), but let's at least be consistent.
September 13, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read it. She comes across throughout as confused and nervous and not at all poised. My question is, what is she trying to say when she says the t-shirt she held up had the zip code of the town, but that not everyone in the town supported the bridge? She seems to be trying to hitch her wagon to those that did not support the bridge even as the picture shows that she did support it. It looks to me like a rather pathetic attempt to weasel out of the repercussions of her flip on the bridge.
September 13, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink