Sarah Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere
Garey Ramey, an economist at UCSD, has provided some very helpful context concerning Sarah Palin’s role in the funding controversy over the so-called “Bridge to Nowhere.” I recommend that you check it out. To summarize,
(1) Congress reversed its decision to earmark funds for the Bridge, but funds were still allocated under Alaska’s state budget. Rather than seek federal and state funds for the bridge, Palin zeroed out the project over the objections of many powerful and influential Alaska Republicans.
(2) Federal funding represented only a small portion of the funding for the bridge — in truth, termination of funding for the bridge was first and foremost (gasp) a move that benefited Alaska’s own taxpayers, though it’s certainly true that the federal funds will now go to other, hopefully worthier projects.
(3) And Palin has worked to limit earmark requests for Alaska — total requested funding has fallen from $550 million to $200 million, which hardly seems trivial.
So will we stop hearing that Palin “lied” about the Bridge to Nowhere? I’m guessing we won’t.
Compare Ramey’s analysis to the facts selectively cited in this AP story, which, amusingly, cites the earmark requests made in Palin’s first year in office, before she had an opportunity to sharply reduce requested funding.
I like the idea of Republicans criticize President Obama on Day 12 of his Administration for the fact that U.S. forces are mired in military quagmires. Actually, I’m pretty sure some Republicans will be happy to do exactly that.
To be perfectly clear, (though obviously I don’t speak for all dems), Sarah Palin is lying when she says “I told congress thanks but no thanks” as she has several times. Congress reallocated the money in Nov 2005, Gov. Palin came into office in 2006. After the federal government was no longer going to specifically fund the project. She did not tell congress “no thanks” about anything because it was already out of Congress’s hands. Bob Somberly angrily, but in my humble opinion accurately, points out the details.
— Leigh Hartman · Sep 10, 09:47 PM · #
Ms. Hartman, that’s not lying, that’s selling. To sell herself to voters, a politician 1) takes a story she believes to be in her favor, 2) favorably whittles it down to an essence (note the indefinite article), 3) lobs this fake-but-accurate interpretation onto the public square, where citizens, journalists and partisans can turn it over and scrutinize it, should they be inclined to do so.
That’s the way the game’s played, ma’am. It’s called spin.
— JA · Sep 10, 10:27 PM · #
“And Palin has worked to limit earmark requests for Alaska — total requested funding has fallen from $550 million to $200 million, which hardly seems trivial.”
It’s also hardly trivial that Ted Stevens lost his chairmanship and his spot in the majority at exactly the moment that Palin took office. Any governor would have seen less money.
— Dan Miller · Sep 10, 10:28 PM · #
Dan, the figure is not money seen, it’s money requested. 54 earmark requests in 2006, 31 in 2007, 4 so far this year. At least, that’s what it looks like to me.
Also, this mad scramble to destroy Palin is starting to play out like that scene at the end of Indian Jones and the Last Crusade, when the antagonists were told to choose the chalice they thought was the grail, and drink.
— JA · Sep 10, 10:57 PM · #
Palin supported the bridge. There are videos and pictures of her supporting the bridge. THere is a video of her where she says she can read the writing on the wall about the bridge and that the political climate did not make accepting the money to build the bridge a wise move. She didn’t tell the congress anything about building or not building the bridge, but she kept the earmark money and Alaska built an approach road to where the bridge was going to be. So she supposedly said, “I don’t wnt your stinking money for the bridge, we’ll build it ourselves. Oh by the way, that only applies to the bridge, we’ll take your money to build the approach road.
She does seem to have scaled back on earmarks, but she was very very earmark friendly earlier in her administration and as mayor of Wasaillia. Again, all this is available in news reports and on video.
Reihan, you are the last person I thought would be engaging in partisan spin. I thought you wanted a new party.
“Also, this mad scramble to destroy Palin is starting to play out like that scene at the end of Indian Jones and the Last Crusade, when the antagonists were told to choose the chalice they thought was the grail, and drink.”
How do you feel about the “mad scramble” to destroy Obama?
This is ridiculous.
— cw · Sep 11, 12:00 AM · #
As far as I can tell, the facts about Palin and earmarks are:
- Palin had no problem with earmarks when she was mayor.
- When running for governor, she spoke out in favor of the “bridge to nowhere”.
- She canceled the bridge project, but at no point did she say “thanks but no thanks” to Congress, since by the time she was governor, Congress had already rescinded the bridge earmark and instead just gave Alaska the cash.
- After being governor, she reduced requests for earmarks (see link below). It’s hard to say to what extent the reduction in requests was due to a principled opposition to earmarks or due to changes in Congress and bad publicity from the bridge funding mess.
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/516743.html
None of Palin’s pro-earmark actions while in Alaskan government seem out of line. She’s a politician who was (and is, since she’s still governor) representing her constituents and part of that is getting money.
But, that background doesn’t provide much of a case for casting her as a anti-earmark crusader. And, it certainly doesn’t provide reason to use her as a contrast to Obama’s obtaining earmarks as Senator, as the McCain campaign appears to be doing. He (Obama) was also a politician representing his constituents when requesting those earmaks.
Is it lying (or at least deliberately misleading) for Palin to say that she told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” for the bridge, given the actual circumstances? Perhaps, as someone else said, it’s all just spin, which provides pretty weak grounds for complaining about those who are calling her a liar.
— Ratufa · Sep 11, 12:34 AM · #
How do you feel about the “mad scramble” to destroy Obama?
Fine, I guess. As of right now, I’m voting for him.
— JA · Sep 11, 12:42 AM · #
Reihan,
The Ramey account omits the negative publicity about the bridge and (as others indicated above) her clear prior advocacy; taken together, these facts cast her subsequent actions on the issue in a more cynical light. The claim about her declining requests for earmarks appears valid. Changing earmarks, though, beyond the legitimate issue of ensuring transparency, is not the most significant issue around which to seek reform in government.
— jason · Sep 11, 01:18 AM · #
I don’t want to be the guy who destroys Christmas for some of you, but politicians stretch, mangle, pervert, distort, conceal and hump the truth all day long. They do this to get elected.
I’m not voting for Obama because I think he’s above all this; he’s not. He came out of Chicago (Chicago!), slid right through, with nary an enemy in sight (in a related vein, go here for a list of Obama’s earmark requests). He’s done his fair share of truth-humping and -concealing, as has Palin and McCain. I know this, and accept it as a sunk cost of voting in a 300 million person democracy hooked on teevee and instant messages.
And yet I’m voting for Obama (for now). Obama is my preferred lottery for the next four years; nothing more.
I say this for the following reason. My point about the Holy Grail scene is dead on accurate; Obama partisans are killing themselves with their decision to attack Palin. They grab these tempting arguments, hoping to submarine her, and take long, slurping swigs of the koolaid. Then they tear themselves to pieces when it backfires.
Most of the complaints about Palin either split hairs, are too wonky, or are outright foolish to harp on. Absent a real scandal, a big lie, or solid evidence that she has some deviant personality trait, everybody who wants Obama to win needs to shut up about her and get back to basics. Get rid of the tedium, the pedantry, and the overheated accusations. Stop calling a pitch a lie. Stop seeing the election in terms of angels and demons. Go back to hope, optimism, good cheer, graciousness. Sell calm. Sell elected. And sell enlightened.
That’s free advice.
— JA · Sep 11, 01:53 AM · #
JA,
Ah luv yew, man. An’ ah means it in a totally not-gay way.
— Sanjay · Sep 11, 02:04 AM · #
I’m quite sure that if it were a crisis pregnancy center, all we’d be hearing about is how Palin “slashed” a vital service.
— JohnMcG · Sep 11, 02:17 AM · #
JA—
I agree with what you are saying on the whole. But… (everyone has a but) 99% of the people who are complaining about Palin/McCain don’t count. Like me, for instance. I have no clout, no power, no suction. The most effect I, and all the other people like me, have on this issue is online pundits can point to my “anger” and get all het up. Most online pundits have no influence though. The only people that have influence are main stream big market journalists and the candidates and their entourages. And the press, lately, is turning against McCain, because of the crappy campaign he’s running. So guys like me and all the worst crazys can yammer about Palin all they want, but it has very little, if any effect on the outcome of the election. The only person your advice really applies to is the Obama himself, and I think it is probably excellent advice for him.
Although on the other hand, I think McCain’s campaign tactics can maybe be made into an effective issue if confronted directly. We elect the person here in american, and McCain has made himself very vulnerable to personal regardign his honesty and expediency. But I’m not a campaign expert.
— cw · Sep 11, 02:36 AM · #
But, Reihan, Palin’s claim was that she told Congress “Thanks, but no thanks.” A claim she has been repeating in speeches all over the country. Name one action she took that reduced the odds of Congress spending that money.
I’m not saying her actions can’t be painted in a good light. Moving the money from the bridge project to infrastructure improvements was probably a good decision, and shows a willingness to stand up to her own party.
What you can’t claim is that she was opposed to receiving federal earmarked money, either for the bridge or in general. Because that’s a lie.
— DavidS · Sep 11, 02:13 PM · #
This Garey Ramey fellow does address the “taking on Congress” angle. It’s possible that by “Congress” she meant “Alaskan Congressmen,” but that isn’t much of a defense. It’s a pretty bad distortion.
That said, she did stop the bridge project and has been successfully weening the state budget from federal earmarks. This has been to the great outcry of her party’s establishment, many of whom are now rightfully fired, on trial, and/or under investigation. I don’t think this is the stake in the heart to Palin’s reformer reputation that her opponents wish it to be.
— Blar · Sep 11, 02:51 PM · #
CW — I think McCain’s campaign tactics can maybe be made into an effective issue if confronted directly.
Maybe, and I agree that the Republicans do some stupid things (e.g., the ad accusing Obama of pushing sex-ed for kindergartners, as if his dream was to have Andy Dick show up at naptime with an armful of carrots). It’s just that Democrats kill themselves when they make the election about “our noble campaign ethics” vs. “the Republican smear machine.” One reason: the fluid, independent middle — where all the action is — presumes both parties guilty of playing hard-ball, and they’re mainly right; another reason: it makes the Democrats look like whining sissies; another reason: it amplifies the original attack.
The best answer, maybe ever, to being attacked was Reagan’s tut-tut “there you go again.” In tone, it was the adult’s amused exasperation at the antics of a child. And he sold it perfectly.
@Sanjay, love ya too, man. And ah mean it, dammit.
— JA · Sep 11, 03:30 PM · #
Well, I intended my last comment (for which I offer no apology to be my swan song, but a couple quick points:
Blar, I agree that the bridge to nowhere flap in Alaska isn’t quite “the stake in the heart to Palin’s reformer reputation that her opponents wish it to be,” though it does damage it considerably (especially when linked to other issues such as troopergate, and her current attempt to quash the investigation). But, more to the point (and even you seem to acknowledge this, though you wouldn’t put it as strongly as I do), it shows her to be a liar.
JA,
There is a right way and a wrong way to react to the sort of slime coming from the Republican campaign. The Reagan response is one right way(and significantly, that is in large measure how Obama has been playing it), but in my opinion isn’t enough when the attacks are as vile and persistent as they have been from the McCain camp. Another is to counter attack – hard. And here we have a disconnect between what some of us may desire and what wins elections – some of the most distasteful tactics work very well. Mind you, while I think the Dems can’t let Palin’s lies go unanswered, and need to focus on problems with her record in Alaska, I think they probably shouldn’t make the attacks on her too personal. That should be reserved for McCain – and the tactic there is an all all assault on his perceived strength – his “honor.” Attacking an opponent on his strength is right our of the Republican play book – and can be brutally effective (see Kerry, circa 2004). Biden should be the conduit for these attacks, given their friendship and long association, it would be brutally effective coming from him.
Moreover, there is an irony her. What is the whole “lipstick on a pig” flap, other than a particularly dishonest example of acting like “whining sissies.” How will the public react to that? Hell if I know, but if you are right, maybe this will end up rebounding to the Dems advantage. Or maybe the lesson here is that if you are going to whine, you need to be be aggressively dishonest about it. I, for one, would not be happy to see such tactics vindicated.
All that said, the Dems do sometimes have a problem striking just the right tone – they often do come accross as overly defensive. Sadly, the problem mostly is that they don’t go far enough – complaining isn’t enough. Counter attack. Hard. On the sex ed stuff, for example, the effective response is not merely to defend against the charge and cry foul, but to spin McCain’s vote on the bill as a vote in favor of child molesters. Fair? Probably not. But then neither was the original ad. Effective? I’d wager that the answer would be yes.
— LarryM · Sep 11, 04:02 PM · #
I’m going to get all evolutionary biology on you all. Elections are struggles between would be alpha chimps. Who ever the voters think is most manly (chimply)—in all it’s connotations—usually wins. Manliness is demonstrated by exerting dominence over the opponant. This is a contest, just like a football game or a boxing match. The winner of a political election is the one that proves themselves most manly. Right now McCain is railing at Obama with an incredible barrage of BS. The BS doesn’t exert dominence—in fact it is weak because it is so ridiculous. What it does though, is put Obama to the test. He has to respond in a way that shows he is the superior man to McCain, that he es mas macho. He can either directly face down the BS or shrug it off as the flailings of a child. Either would probably work, as long as it conveys manliness: calm, in control of oneself, amused by the world (shows experience), sure of what is right, tough (direct, no equivication, no hesitation), humble, unafraid.
The thing that complicates this process though, is that the media, mediates. We only see the candidates through the lense of the media. So you have to have the media on your side. Look at what happened with Gore. But the right performance will can do it. They are as suceptible to evoloution as anyone, maybe more so.
— cw · Sep 11, 06:01 PM · #
I forgot one other manly quality: honesty. This is McCain weakness here. It is not manly to lie. It is not honerable, which is another quality of manliness that I missed.
— cw · Sep 11, 06:06 PM · #
So if I can get this straight, Palin is NOT allowed to say that she was against the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’, because she didn’t get an opportunity to squash it herself, BUT, and everyone has a but, Obama IS allowed to say that he opposed the Iraq War, even though he didn’t get an opportunity to squash it himself by voting against it. And accepting the money for the BTN even though against the bridge is not at all like voting to support the military action in Iraq even though against the war.
Double standard there, methinks.
— MG · Sep 11, 06:59 PM · #
If Reihan’s defense is valid, then it will be really great for politicians who want to take both sides of an issue—one side, the wrong side, when it helps them get elected locally, and the other side when the policy is exposed for the stupid idea that it is and becomes a public embarrassment. On top of all that they’ll get to paint themselves as a crusader for the right side who helped it prevail, when they did no such thing. Awesome!
I’m sure Sarah Palin has some accomplishments. Why doesn’t she talk about them, instead of talking about things that she was conspicuously weak on? When you lay out the whole tedious story, it does not, in all but the most strained readings, show that she’s actually telling the truth. But more importantly, it shows that she exhibted zero leadership on the issue. And yet that’s her big selling point.
— Colatina · Sep 11, 07:04 PM · #
Huh! Palin was against the bridge to Nowehre? This is rubbish. Facts are facts and Palin supporters don’t have the facts on their side…………….
— mj · Sep 11, 07:15 PM · #
MG – Obama has consistently been against the Iraq War. Sarah Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. People aren’t hitting her for having exaggerated her role, it’s for blatantly flip-flopping and then acting as if she never did.
— Howard · Sep 11, 07:19 PM · #
MG, that comparison doesn’t even come close to washing. Palin campaigned for the bridge and only changed her tune once the decision had been taken out of her hands; Obama NEVER spoke out in favor of the Iraq war.
— Doug · Sep 11, 07:19 PM · #
The main issue for voters isn’t Palin, it’s McCain.
It would be entirely legit for Palin to say she fought for her constituents in her previous jobs, but as a matter of national policy earmarks are overdone.
There are more serious issues – troopergate; the obstruction of the investigation of same; the hash she made of the mayor’s job; and the fact that she’s totally unprepared for the presidency, unlike the other three folks in the race.
But the fact that McCain made one of his most important decisions in such a cavalier, irresponsible way tells you all you need to know about his judgment.
— peter · Sep 11, 07:38 PM · #
All this post does is further obfuscate the truth. Sarah Palin clearly spoke out in favor of the bridge many times. Word gets out about this Bridge to Nowhere, creating a PR mess for both Alaska and Congress. Congress decides to reduce the appropriation and then release the money as an earmark for the bridge. Sarah Palin is left $329 million short for the bridge. Now that the decision is pretty much made for her, she cancels the project because she doesn’t want the state to pay the $329 shortfall. She wants American taxpayers to pay for all of it. And she ends up using the money for other pork projects. That sure doesn’t sound like a “Thanks, but no thanks” to me. AND…can Reihan explain to us why the road approaching the bridge was still built? There’s no bridge, but there’s a Road to Nowhere.
— Peter · Sep 11, 07:46 PM · #
Well, I figured this would happen. All the Republicans who act like they want to take a good, long look at their party and see where it went wrong all come back to the fold around election time. They get less and less interested in right and wrong and, in the end, they write a column or a post signaling that they’re done being honest. Consider this post like the pop-up timer on a Butterball turkey. Reihan’s done.
— nitpicker · Sep 11, 07:55 PM · #
Palin eight times in the past week has said in public speeches, “I told Congress thanks but no thanks for the Bridge to Nowhere.” Moreover, she has depicted the incident each time, with her matchless smugness, as an example of her frugality and honesty.
But the fact is that she supported the Bridge to Nowhere until Congress killed the majority of the funds for it. There are videos of her supporting the Bridge, during her run for Governor. There’s the photo of her holding up the teeshirt. And then, as governor, after Congress killed the Bridge part of the appropriation because of the public scandal, she still used millions of dollars of the funds Congress authorized for Alaska to build the Road to Nowhere (cost: $25 million)—the road to where the Bridge WOULD have been!
For Palin now to say to the public that “I told Congress thanks but no thanks for the Bridge to Nowhere”—that’s not “selling”, JA, and that’s not “spin”. That is LYING.
— art eckstein · Sep 11, 08:00 PM · #
I won’t vote for four more years of McBush/Palin.
If the Obama campaign would simply concentrate on McCains agreement with Bush, this slippery, creationist, secessionist, money grubbing Palin would become irrelevant. She’s not running for President, McCain is.
If you let these idiots (the greedy GOP) define the topic, you can’t have the discussion you want to have.
Get back to having two discussions: 1. Tax the rich 2. McCain = McBush 3. Measured withdrawal from Iraq 4. Wall Street oversight improvement. 5. Healthcare Keep it simple, people.— Stop Taking the Bait · Sep 11, 08:05 PM · #
What Leigh Hartman said in the first comment.
I find JA’s reply (the second comment) non-responsive. I see no interpretation of Palin’s “I told congress thanks but no thanks” comment, even a strained or technical one, that is truthful. I don’t see any way of boiling the reality down to “an essence” or even “an accident” such that that statement is accurate.
You can call Palin’s claim “selling” and “spinning” if you like, but if so it’s selling and spinning by <i>lying</i>. Lying that she’s doing over and over again.
— Crust · Sep 11, 08:39 PM · #
“So will we stop hearing that Palin “lied” about the Bridge to Nowhere?”
What’s odd about this line, Reihan, is that it follows 3 points, none of which refute the idea that Palin lied about the Bridge to Nowhere. Point (1) — that Congress reversed its earmark decision — is totally compatible with Palin’s support of the bridge. Point (2) — that only a small portion of the funding for the bridge was federal — is totally compatible with Palin’s support of the bridge. And Point (3) — that Palin has limited earmarks compared to her predecessor — is totally compatible with Palin’s support of the bridge.
You’d think if you were going to argue that Palin didn’t lie about the bridge you’d have to, you know, MAKE AN ACTUAL ARGUMENT. Instead you just changed the topic 3 times over. I’ve come to expect much more from you than this latest effort, which is frankly a little embarrassing.
— Brian · Sep 11, 08:52 PM · #
After Steven’s lost his chairmanship, it made no sense for Palin to go to all the work of submitting earmark requests she knew would not be granted.
So she focused realistically on the priority earmarks she wanted. No “budget-cutting reform effort” here, just the political reality of the Republicans’ loss of power in 2006.
— tom0063 · Sep 11, 08:54 PM · #
“Most of the complaints about Palin either split hairs, are too wonky, or are outright foolish to harp on. Absent a real scandal, a big lie, or solid evidence that she has some deviant personality trait, everybody who wants Obama to win needs to shut up about her and get back to basics.”
Personally, I think that anyone who hunts game from a helicopter does have a deviant personality trait.
— blaze · Sep 11, 08:57 PM · #
I think I’ve become a loiterer at this site, so this will be my last comment for a long while.
To be perfectly clear: the bridge to nowhere is not “it”, it is not the silver bullet. There are too many outs, too many ways to spin the facts in her favor, too many one- or two-sentence reductions that will sell to a pre-rational general public — 60% of whom adore her right now — and too many ways to make the lie-accusers look shrill and mean-spirited by comparison.
Those swing voters that Obama needs? Yeah, well, they want to believe in Palin right now. And you know what that means. It means they are primed to respond negatively to information that threatens the fulfillment of that desire; it means that, when faced with such contradictory input, they’ll reject it, reasoning backwards until they can rationalize away the dissonance and thereby give themselves a well-deserved release of happytime endorphins.
Thus, my point. When the people you need to win are primed to respond negatively to the counterfactuals you are offering up, you better have some big, undeniable reveal to break them out of their rationalization schedule. If you leave your targets too many outs, Palin wins and you lose. And turning up the volume and intensity of attack makes matters worse.
If all you needed was a preponderance of the evidence, Palin loses the Bridge-to-Nowhere kerfuffle. She brought it up. No one forced her to make this a central element in her message. She says she’s a reformer, but her testing-the-wind-and-tacking-right change of heart argues against it, etc. etc.
Those are arguments you make and win when the weather is calm. Right now, not so much.
— JA · Sep 11, 09:14 PM · #
Easy way for Palin/McCain to prove that she did not lie: produce the letter, the e-mail, the speech, the telephone record in which Palin “told Congress No Thanks. Her statement stands disproved by the context (Congress had already canceled the Bridge before She, the One who is a Reformer, became Governor. Her statement is a lie, it asserts she did something she has not proved she did.
Does make for cynical, shameless politics, or “politics as usual,” the politics that McCain is claiming to repudiate.
By the way, when McCain uses the pen to veto “pork” and “take names” and name, names, “will he put at the top of the list Palin and Alaska who received more percapita pork than anyother state in the nation?
— dan · Sep 11, 09:21 PM · #
Reihan, you’re full of baloney. Palin lobbied for the bridge. When it failed to pass, she kept the money for Alaska anyway. Yet she claims she told Congress “Thanks, but no thanks.”
Alaska took in more earmarks than Illinois last year — even though Illinois has 20 times the population of Alaska. Of course, that’s modest compared to the consumption of earmarks in Wasilla when Palin was mayor. Almost $1,400 per person per year. You know how many earmarks we’d have nationally if that pattern were repeated? Not the less than $20 billion that McCain complains about, but well over $400 billion. What do you suppose our national budget would look like if every town and city in America had a porkosaurus like Sarah Palin in charge?
— DBX · Sep 11, 09:21 PM · #
All you really need to know is that she built the Road To Nowhere. The Bridge To Nowhere was cancelled. If you want to say she cancelled it, I would disagree, but let’s leave that aside for now. Let’s talk about the Road instead.
If Palin’s opposition to the bridge was a principled stand against unnecessary federal spending, what could possibly be less necessary than a $24 million dollar road on Gravina Island (population 50 at the last census) providing access to the intended site of the cancelled bridge? And yet, Palin built the road, because her options were to build it or to return the money (unlike the money from the bridge earmark, which was made available for any project she liked). Anyone really seeking to reduce wasteful pork connected with the Gravina Bridge Project wouldn’t have spent $24 million in federal tax payer money on a road to a nonexisting bridge she had no plans to build.
Assuming Gravina Island population has increased 10-fold since the last census, which would be charitable to say the least, that’s about $50,000 per person for the Road To Nowhere. And in this case, unlike the Bridge for which “Nowhere” was poetic license, it really is a Road To Nowhere At All.
— Warren Terra · Sep 11, 09:23 PM · #
Nitpicker wins! Pop-up button on a Butterball — forget lipstick, just roast that pig!
— Mike E · Sep 11, 09:59 PM · #
We’ll stop calling you liars when you stop running candidates who lie.
How’s that?
— Captain USA · Sep 11, 10:12 PM · #
I don’t think it helps to call Palin a liar. It’s too harsh. But it’s ok to say she just can’t help telling “fish stories” (and spread your hands wider as the size of that fish that got away gets bigger and bigger). That’s what the Rs did to Gore (the “exaggerator”) and Kerry (the “flip-flopper”). They weren’t mean or harsh. They just diminished them. It’s important to diminish Palin and make her seem silly and inconsequential, not to destroy her (which just rallies her supporters to her defense). That’s also why Reagan’s “there you go again” was so devastating. It dumbfounds me how simple this is, but the Ds don’t seem to get it. (For example, an effective rebuttal for Kerry to “I voted for it before I voted against it” would have been “I voted to pay for the war in cash. Then I voted against charging the cost of the war on our grandchildren’s credit card.”) KEEP IT SIMPLE. The theme should be Ol’ “Fish Story” Palin. She just can’t help telling a good fish story.
— kk · Sep 11, 10:40 PM · #
I am against cancer.
So when and if it is ever cured, I expect to share in that Nobel.
Everyone remember, OK?
Thanks.
— Smapdi · Sep 11, 11:40 PM · #
JA,
I think you’re analysis of voter psychology is quite wrong. Setting that aside, the Dems certainly do have th goods on Palin, on this issue.
I think the simplest way to settle this is to talk about the difference between “spin” and “lies.” I think we can all agree that Palin’s earmark record is mixed. I think that she could certainly legitimately assert, based upon that mixed record, that she was anti-earmark crusader. That would be “spin.” The Dems could still legitimately argue, perhaps successfully, perhaps not, that her real record contradicted that claim, but they could not legitimately call her a “liar.”
But instead (or in addition, more accurately), Palin choose to make several specific factual claims about her record on earmarks, specifically with regard to the bridge to nowhere. Those specific factual claims, reasonable people can agree, are untrue. Assuming that words have meaning, and unless Palin no longer remembers the true facts (I don’t think the Repubs want to go there), such specific factual claims are “lies.”
The “defense,” such as it is, is that those untrue statements reflect a “underlying” truth. It’s a little surprising to see such a post-modern, relativistic argument from conservatives (well, no, it’s not really surprising), but it certainly … disappointing.
— LarryM · Sep 12, 01:13 AM · #
Mind you, it’s possible to concede that Palin is lying (as reasonable people must), and still argue that the lies are inconsequential or that the Dems are making a mistake by calling it for what it is. I think both arguments are wrong, but they are a matter of opinion. But whether Palin’s specific claims are lies – well, that really isn’t in SERIOUS dispute.
And it is hilarious to see people who (rightly) criticized Clinton for his hair-splitting attempts to justify his lies trying to argue that Palin isn’t a liar. I can hear her now: “well, it depends on what the meaning of ‘them’ is.”
— LarryM · Sep 12, 01:44 AM · #
PAlin is a arrogant, lying , bully, abuse of power, very scary and lack of foreign experience- she got her first passport last year-please give me a break, but she is ready plus preaches abstinence from sex which she did a good job at home with her own family but you are ready to take on the challenges of a VP with a OLD president candidate. Plus she follows a witch hunter of a preacher, see Wasilla church and Pastor Thomas Muthee. I am not a democrat but a woman. Palin is a insult to my intelligence! Alaska you must be a bunch of rednecks to have voted her in, or you all got jobs from her.
— mom · Sep 20, 03:32 AM · #