rssPalin, Credit Where It’s Due
Friday, August 29, 2008 at 1:59 pm
- 10 Comments
Normally, I wouldn’t go out of my way to speak up for a candidate like Gov. Sarah Palin. But, setting aside her specific views on various policies like women’s health, the environment, gay rights, teaching creationism in public schools, etc., let me zero in on one point: Sen. Ted Stevens. Let me explain.
New to the national scene, there’s been some talk that she “stood up” to the Republican Party in her state. True, and impressive on its own, but lets get to the kicker. She faced off with Sen. Ted Stevens — the longest serving Republican senator in history, one of the most powerful men in Washington and a beloved figure in Alaska. He’s a man who, a few weeks after being indicted on corruption-related charges, wins his Senate primary! He’s known by his paternalistic nickname “Uncle Ted” all over the state. He’s called “the most famous Alaskan!” He wears a Hulk tie on the Senate floor to get himself fired up! (Don’t make him angry.)
So, let me give her some credit where it’s due. Palin looked at Stevens’ most infamous $400 million earmark for a “bridge to nowhere” that made the rest of the country pause and wonder what’s going on up north — and she said: NO! That’s right, the self-described hockey mom, with a short political history, having served as governor for only a little over a year swaggered up to the most influential man in her state and said no. Yeah!
I don’t know how she’ll do on the national stage. She could end up trounced by the national press, particularly after debating the seasoned Sen. Joe Biden. And perhaps we’ll hear stories that undermine this one, but until then, she’s got a special spot in my book.
Update: Mark Schmidt over at TAPPED says Sarah Palin did NOT oppose the bridge to nowhere, citing her limp quote: “Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here [...] But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.” From what I can tell she did. Congress let Alaska hang on to the dough, but they didn’t have to spend it on the bridge project. Here’s where Palin makes her mark. Rather than spending the money how Stevens wanted, she redirected the funds. Now, maybe that sounds like a no-brainer. The project was wildly unpopular nationally and really an embarrassment to the state. But let’s put in context. This is Alaska. They make decisions all the time seem that would seem like no brainers to the rest of us (ie: maybe we shouldn’t allow people to hunt wolves from helicopters– that’s a video game, not a sport people!) Palin could have stood with Stevens on this, but she didn’t. Credit for that. Now on to all of the points that probably matter more.
10 Comments
Comment posted August 29, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
While notable and requiring at least some courage, this act was sort of a no-brainer. The “bridge to nowhere” — in addition to being a nice slogan for the McCain-Palin ticket — was a national punchline at the time. Opposing it was sort of like opposing toxic waste or mean people. It was a risk in Alaska, but a fairly safe one. We can give her some credit here, but her “specific views on various policies” are far more pressing and vital to the national dialog, and they all signal extreme social conservatism, or, regression.
Comment posted August 29, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
You're ill-informed. May I recommend that you read Kevin Drum's post on this topic:
http://tinyurl.com/5apbj8
Comment posted August 29, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
Also, read this full post: http://tinyurl.com/6mhl2a
It begins:
Republicans have been touting Sarah Palin's reformist credentials pretty heavily, with her supposed opposition to Alaska's “Bridge to Nowhere” as Exhibit A. But how hard did she really fight against the project? Not very, it seems. Here's what she told the Anchorage Daily News on October 22, 2006, back when she was running for governor (via Nexis):
5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?
Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now–while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.
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 to Nowhere” had become a national punchline, Congress had stripped away the offending earmark, and future federal funds seemed unlikely. True, after Palin was sworn into office that fall, her first budget didn't contain any money for the bridge. But when the Daily News asked on December 16, 2006, if she now opposed the project, Palin demurred and said she was simply trying to figure out where the bridge fit on the state's list of priorities, given the lack of support from Congress. That is, she was quite gung-ho about squandering federal money, but state money was another matter entirely. Finally, on September 19, 2007, she decided to abandon the bridge altogether with this sorry-sounding statement: …
Comment posted August 29, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
Leisureguy — I stand by my point. I didn't argue that she killed the bridge to nowhere, but that she had the opportunity to stand with Stevens, but instead she didn't. I give her credit for that.
Comment posted August 29, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
TexRex96 — You'd be surprised how many times Alaska seems to take the wrong route on no-brainers. But, true, true, I take your point there are serious questions about Palin's beliefs that need to be discussed. More to come. I won't be so flippant next time.
Comment posted September 1, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
Wow, not sure how you could be so off-base on this story after so many stories refuting it.
First and foremost, Palin's national declaration — even according to your slightly erroneous reporting — that she said “Thanks, but no thanks” to Congress on the Bridge to Nowhere is patently false. A lie. All reality-based reporting has Congress cutting the specific bridge funding, but allowing the dollars to flow to Alaska for whatever purpose they determine. So it was Congress that said “Sorry, but no go!” to Alaska on the bridge earmarks.
It was only after federal funding for the bridge was pulled that Palin, having been elected with a “build the bridge” plank in her platform, then reversed her position when it became obvious that the state would have to provide the funding. (It's also been posited that Palin finally ended the bridge project as a ploy for national attention, dipping of her toes into the national political pool.)
Comment posted September 1, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
Related commentary at ThinkProgress…
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/31/mccain-brid…
Comment posted September 5, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
WAIT A MINUTE!
I THOUGHT SHE SAID SHE SENT THE MONEY BACK TO WASHINGTON? ! ?
Comment posted October 23, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
Wow, what a Maverick!!!
Instead she started her own indiscretions and ethics violations.
Comment posted October 24, 2008 @ 2:14 am
Wow, what a Maverick!!!
Instead she started her own indiscretions and ethics violations.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
