So I’m checking my e-mail, and I get the following two breathless headlines from ABC News:
GOV. SARAH PALIN BLASTS CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING, INSISTS SHE OPPOSED
‘BRIDGE TO NOWHERE’ IN THIRD AND FINAL EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH ABC
NEWS ANCHOR CHARLIE GIBSON
GOV. SARAH PALIN TELLS ABC NEWS’ CHARLIE GIBSON THAT BARACK OBAMA MIGHT
REGRET NOT CHOOSING HILLARY CLINTON AS HIS VICE PRESIDENTIAL RUNNING
So, I followed the links with the first headline, and found the following:
GIBSON: But it’s now pretty clearly documented. You supported that
bridge before you opposed it. You were wearing a t-shirt in the 2006
campaign, showed your support for the bridge to nowhere.
PALIN: I was wearing a t-shirt with the zip code of the
community that was asking for that bridge. Not all the people in that
community even were asking for a $400 million or $300 million bridge.
But you turned against it after Congress had basically pulled the plug
on it; after it became apparent that the state was going to have to pay
for it, not the Congress; and after it became a national embarrassment
to the state of Alaska. So do you want to revise and extend your
PALIN: It has always been an embarrassment that abuse of the
ear form — earmark process has been accepted in Congress. And that’s
what John McCain has fought. And that’s what I joined him in fighting.
It’s been an embarrassment, not just Alaska’s projects. But McCain
gives example after example after example. I mean, every state has
GIBSON: But you were for it before you were against it. You were solidly for it for quite some period of time…
PALIN: I was…
GIBSON: … until Congress pulled the plug.
PALIN: I was for infrastructure being built in the state. And it’s not
inappropriate for a mayor or for a governor to request and to work with
their Congress and their congressmen, their congresswomen, to plug into
the federal budget along with every other state a share of the federal
budget for infrastructure.
PALIN: What I supported was the link between a community and its airport. And we have found that link now.
I guess the first question I have is, if she feels so bad about the money Congress is wasting, why doesn’t she give back the Bridge money. That would be the right thing to do, after all. The money was for an unnecessary bridge, they’re no longer going to build the bridge; that money belongs to the American people, not Alaska, or Governor Palin.
But read the above answer again.
I swear, folks; right wingers can rationalize anything other right
wingers do, no matter what. Basically, what she’s saying is, she really
hates earmarks, and hates the way the process in Washington works, but
they sure as hell need the money for infrastructure, so she supported
it, until such time as she figured out that it wasn’t politically
feasible to do so.
Let’s make a few things clear. She supported the "Bridge to
Nowhere," because it brought hundreds of millions of dollars to her
state. She is now against it, but I don’t see her sending the money
back to Washington. In other words, folks, this is the old neocon game
in all its glory. The ends justifies the means, as they see it, as long
as it was a means developed by other neocons.
None of us likes earmarks and pork. In fact, that was actually one
of the few positives that was supposed to come out of the Republican
takeover of Congress in 1994, wasn’t it? One of the few areas in which I agreed with the Republicans was, Democrats in Congress had abused the appropriations process to provide pork for their districts and their biggest supporters. Unfortunately, the process accelerated under Republican rule. And if John McCain fought the earmark process, he was pretty quiet about it, because it’s gotten far worse over the years. Is she saying John McCain, as a 26-year member of the US Senate, had zero power and influence?
John McCain didn’t vote against the "Bridge to Nowhere." And neither he nor Palin are promising to send any of the money back to the Treasury, because it was appropriated under false pretenses.
This is how it’ll be for the next seven weeks, folks.
Then, I checked on the second headline, and found the following:
"I think he’s regretting not picking her now, I do. What, what
determination, and grit, and even grace through some tough shots that
were fired her way — she handled those well," the Alaska governor told
Charles Gibson in her third and final exclusive interview with ABC
Wow. How can anyone answer that one? Does she honestly think Barack Obama would do better with a "whiner" on the ticket? I only ask because Palin herself has referred to Hillary Clinton with that term a couple of times.
There’s really nothing to say to that, except that Hillary on the Democratic ticket would have provided ready-made red meat that Biden does not.
Watch the rest of the interview tonight, folks; the excerpts I’ve seen, this is a classic right wing rationalization fest.