Part Three: Still More Revelations About Sarah Palin’s Incredible Lightness of Being

I guess Shaun forgot to take his lithium today. In one post he complains about the politics of personal attacks and then makes another post that is nothing but personal attacks.

Maybe if Senator Obama was not trying to change the U.S. back into a 1970's model, the Democratic Party would have more to talk about.

The Repulbicans are incredibly weak on the issues, why not make some posts about the issues. Or has years of reporting on the one party state of Philly spoiled Shaun on the idea that issues matter and that all politics is personal.

Personal attacks or facts about Palin - do your research and you will see these are facts. Now watch little Johnnie hide behind Palin's skirt for the rest of the campaign.

Tsk, tsk. Shaun's back on the low road again.

Meanwhile, Biden continues to entertain us. Where's Shaun's degeneracy about this:

"Joe Biden said Wednesday that Hillary Clinton might have been a better choice for the Democratic ticket. ..."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/1157514,...

"... We'll never hear it in public, but some wonder if Obama's Windy City crowd might now have second thoughts about not picking a certain female senator from Gotham for No. 2, given the wide open door to Excitement[ ]Land that decision handed over to Republican John McCain.

The old guy, who was counted out a year ago, stepped up to the plate, swung his maverick....

...bat and surprisingly hit the sweet spot with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a 44-year-old working mom who likes fishing and hunting and tax-cutting and surplus-refunding and has the same kind of family challenges 'as any of you.' ..."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008...

There is a surreal, Roland Barthes-like, aspect to Shaun's postings about the Palin business.

It reads like nothing about nothing.

The Palindrome seems to be going at full tilt . . . with people reading her rather slim amount of text every way possible.

I note at the sidebar that -- out of 10 Recent Posts at TMV - 6 have titles on Palin!

There are none . . . NONE . . . on either Obama or McCain who are the ones supposedly running for president of the United States.

Am I the only one who finds this strange?

Marlow--- Palin is the GOP's new rock star--- responsible for reviving the sagging campaign of John McCain. She has brought straying conservatives back into the fold. That is why she is attracting so much attention.

This is a long post, but it is the most fair and accurate summary of the “Bridge to Nowhere” subject. Hat tip to Protein Wisdom. http://proteinwisdom.com/

If you can’t find any truth in Shaun’s articles, you should at least find it in the comments.

From UC-San Diego Professor of economics, Garey Ramey, via email:

Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin has been criticized for lying in connection with terminating Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere” project. This charge, however, reflects widespread misunderstanding as to the nature of the infrastructure budgeting process. While the U.S. Congress did reverse its 2005 decision that had earmarked $223 million for the bridge project, the project itself was not removed from the state’s capital budget. A total of $113 million was budgeted to the bridge when Governor Palin assumed office in 2007.

Among budgetary options, Palin could have drawn on Federal and State moneys to fund the project fully and move ahead with construction. Alternatively, Palin could have deferred the project to future years, possibly changing the funding allocation. In the end, she chose the radical option of removing the project from the capital budget, precluding any future funding allocations or construction. Her claim to have “stopped the bridge” is entirely truthful.

To justify her decision, she argued that the bridge project had become too expensive, and that the state should investigate more cost-effective alternatives. In political terms, her decision was viewed as a blow to the state’s Republican establishment, which had strongly championed the project. Without question, the episode buttresses Palin’s reputation as an executive who “stands up to her own party.”

Palin has offered a bit of misleading rhetoric, however, in discussing the bridge episode. She has stated that terminating the project amounted to telling Congress “thanks, but no thanks.” This suggests that Congress was attempting to force the project on Alaska, when in fact it had given the state discretion. Her decision should instead be viewed as conveying the message “thanks, but no thanks” to Alaska’s Republican Congressional delegation.

Palin’s rhetoric also gives the impression that terminating the project was tantamount to rejecting a Federal funding offer. The Federal contribution to the bridge budget actually amounted to only $36 million, or less than ten percent of the projected cost of the bridge. By terminating the project, Palin freed these funds for use in other projects, thereby reducing to some extent the need for future earmarks. In this limited sense the money was indeed returned to Washington.

It is important to note that Palin has worked to overhaul the earmark process, in parallel with Congressional efforts to limit the practice. Alaska’s earmark requests have fallen from 54 last year to 31 this year, with only four new requests. Total requested funding has dropped from $550 million to $200 million. Clearly, Governor Palin has made strong progress in reducing the use of earmarks in Alaska.

After reading the information above which includes facts and logic presented in a non-hysterical way, could we please have a few center-left members of the TMV community tell Shaun Mullen how thoroughly he is embarrassing himself?

It is time for an intervention.

jwest, you're kidding about that email setting the record straight, right?

jwest


Wow, now that's really delusional. If you want to vote for Palin- go ahead-- but don't pretend that you aren't rationalizing her flip-flopping and subsequent misrepresentation of her position on TBTN in order to win. It just insults the intelligence of all of those who come on here.

Ricorun/Kritt,

What information in the article is not accurate?

I guess Shaun needs to post on the personal attacks because when the Democrats discuss issues such as education is quickly becomes apparant that there is no change coming. Senator Obama fills his speeches and proposals with so many weasel words that anyone who is paying attention should quickly realize that no change will occur.

I guess Shaun has figured out that Senator Obama is no different that all of the black big city mayors who campaign of fixing the schools and cleaning up the streets when everyone knows they will do nothing of the sort.

From jwest:

What information in the article is not accurate?

This is the wrong question to ask, as Sarah Palin's initial wording on this subject was, "I told Congress thanks but no thanks on that Bridge to Nowhere." Her phrasing implies that she was the decision-maker on the federal funding on the bridge, when, in fact, that decision against funding had already been made without her input.

Now, I will grant you that the actions following that decision by Congress are good to know, and provide some more insight into the situation than is generally known... but, as it was originally phrased and introduced to the public, Sarah Palin was at the least lying via omission and crafty wording.

jwest, let's start here:
She has stated that terminating the project amounted to telling Congress “thanks, but no thanks.” This suggests that Congress was attempting to force the project on Alaska, when in fact it had given the state discretion. Her decision should instead be viewed as conveying the message “thanks, but no thanks” to Alaska’s Republican Congressional delegation.

First of all, it is well documented that she lobbied hard for the bridge (among other things). The person who backed the earmark was Ted Stevens, who quietly popped it in there in a backroom deal (which was often how things were done), so it's a little disingenuous to say congress was trying to "force" the project on Alaska. Once the earmark was revealed Stevens took a lot of flak for it, and he threw a hissy fit. Remember that? But, as the article indicates, the money was allocated anyway. Heaven knows why. And Palin didn't return money. She kept it. Now, imagine if she decided to build that bridge even though it was no longer earmaked. Alaska would have been the laughingstock of the nation.

The email claims: "To justify her decision, she argued that the bridge project had become too expensive, and that the state should investigate more cost-effective alternatives. In political terms, her decision was viewed as a blow to the state’s Republican establishment, which had strongly championed the project." As far as I can tell, that's just one man's interpretation. It's obvious to most other people that the bridge idea was dead. To be honest, I don't know if the "Republican establishment" was crazy enough to continue to push it after Steven's hissy fit, but the fact remains that until that time Palin was right there with them -- and Stevens.

It's certainly true that the number of earmarks going to Alaska is down the last couple of years. But that's true pretty much across the board. Moreover, as a result of the bridge to nowhere incident, Ted Stevens and Don Young were revealed as two of the most eggregious earmark kings in congress. Both of them also started having major legal problems. That left only Lisa Murkowski in Alaska's congressional delegation. And she's a rookie. She's also the daughter of the corrupt former governor who Palin beat in the gubernatorial primary. So I'd say it's pretty obvious why the number of earmarks dedicated to Alaska has decreased.

JW says: From UC-San Diego Professor of economics, Garey Ramey, via email:
,,,

The professor doesn't include any links to his assertions. Both Reason and AmCon call Palin out on lies and spin on the BTNW.

Ricorun,

So, what you are saying is that the article I posted presents the facts.

If you were to be judged on accuracy and rationality by an impartial jury, would you rather present the information in the article, or Shaun’s rantings?

Of course, you can take what was written and make your own interpretations as to what was said and implied, but isn’t it nice to know the basics of the situation without all the craziness?

It's not strange, Marlowecan. It's an unconscious admission of Palin's widespread appeal and admission that McCain made a choice that has benefited his quest for the Presidency. The negative reaction has strong feelings driving it. Angst! Bad karma! (and it gets much, much uglier from there)

"But, as the article indicates, the money was allocated anyway. Heaven knows why."

It was allocated because congress didn't have the spine to kill it:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109...

If it would have been killed, then we wouldn't have to "imagine if she decided to build that bridge even though it was no longer earmaked".

Addtionally, Marlowecan, Obama is lighter than Palin could ever honestly be said to be.

Addtionally, Marlowecan, Obama is lighter than Palin could ever honestly be said to be.

You people are jokers.

I think I'm gonna start talking about how McCain is a Manchurian candidate...

Shawn Mullen's Incredible Lightness of Being